A sin against democracy

Salon has published another explicitly pro-Trump piece. What garbage.

In the present election, Hillary Clinton represents precisely the same disembodiedness as Romney, for example because of her association with the Clinton Foundation. Where did the business of the state, while she was secretary of state, stop, and where did the business of global philanthropy (just another name for global business), begin, and who can possibly tell the difference? The maneuverings of the Clinton Foundation, in the popular imagination, are as arcane as the colossal daily transactions on the world’s financial exchanges.

There you have it: According to Salon, imagination is considered an acceptable substitute for reality. What's next -- is Salon going to review the next Avengers movie as though it were a documentary?

In the popular imagination, at least for a while, Saddam Hussein ordered the 9/11 attacks. Polls indicated that the majority of Americans believed this imaginary scenario.

Liberals said: "Polls be damned: This scenario is not true." At that point, a host on Fox News answered that the people believed it to be so -- therefore, it was so.

(I distinctly recall seeing that moment on Fox. You may have seen it as well.)

Salon has become something worse than Fox. Comparing the two, I'm reminded of Steve Martin's great line from Leap of Faith: "Manipulators are sneaky. I'm obvious!" Fox, at least, has the virtue of being obvious.

Here's the truth: The Clinton Foundation is a charity. Watchdog groups consider it transparent and honest. It does an enormous amount of good. Liars have painted a completely false picture of that Foundation, what it does and how it runs. (They've also seeded the internet with utterly bogus stories about how much money actually reaches the needy.)

The attacks on the Clintons Foundation mirror the infamous "swiftboat" attacks on John Kerry's war record. That, too, was a Republican smear campaign designed to target an opponent's strength.

If people like Rove, Stone, Atwater -- and the writers for Salon -- had been around in 1960, they would have found ways to make people believe that JFK had acted abominably in the PT109 affair. I'm not sure how they would have created that impression, but casuistry can achieve miracles.

Too often, propaganda is what ignites the "popular imagination."

I think I'm going to try to talk to Joan Walsh and David Talbot. I'd like their views on what has happened to Salon under the leadership of Betsy Hambrecht (of Goldman Sachs) and her father, hedge fund manager William Hambrecht -- the man who funds Salon and keeps it alive.

These scoundrels condemn Hillary for giving speeches to the financial industry, even though she earned money FOR CHARITY. No other politician has ever been condemned for speaking gigs; the double standard is appalling.

Hillary may have spoken to Wall Streeters, but the Hambrechts are Wall Streeters. I will no longer stand for their damnable lies.

Salon's outrageous hypocrisy is...sin.

I will not apologize for that word. It's the right word. No other word will do.

Salon's hypocrisy is sin.

The missing bit. A few hours after the publication of yesterdays' long post, 50 reasons why Sanders would lose all 50 states, I cut a few introductory paragraphs. I'm proud of the excised lines, so I've decided to preserve them here. The John Oliver segment embedded above has inspired an expansion.

*  *  *

Many left-wing writers have made the hilarious claim that the mainstream media dislikes Sanders. That's like claiming that Hollywood dislikes superhero movies. If you enjoy high surrealism, check out what Mahablog says about him:

He needed more time and public exposure to introduce himself to people before the primaries started. The Democratic establishment and mass media denied him that.

Ludicrous. Barney Frank gets us much closer to the truth:

As the intriguing challenger to Clinton, Sanders gets a pass in the current campaign. The media are very happy to have a race to cover where they feared — yes, feared — there would not be one. While Republican officeholders cannot be seen to be kind to a socialist, conservative commentators and media will be joining Kristol in touting Sanders’ heretofore unnoticed virtues. Meanwhile, Democrats — especially those who, like me, share most of Sanders’ policy views and do not have an allergic reaction to the word “socialism,” even if we disagree with it as an economic theory — are reluctant to be critical of someone who is an ally.

The left has been intimidated by the BernieBullies, who fall into paroxysms of hategasm every time someone offers even the subtlest critique of Dear Leader. The Bullies have hurled hate at Barbara Boxer, Paul Krugman, Barney Frank, Barack Obama, Politifact, CNN, Jonathan Capehart, Jamelle Bouie, George Takei, Anne Rice, Markos Moulitsas, Elizabeth Warren -- and even Rachel Maddow, who apparently committed the sin of not bowing deeply enough before Dear Leader.

(As a general rule, one should avoid any "progressive" movement that boos Krugman and Frank while applauding Maureen Dowd.)

The bullies have won through intimidation what they could not attain via either the ballot box or reasoned debate: All criticism of Dear Leader has been declared Thoughtcrime. Even Hillary has refused to criticize Sanders, because she doesn't want to alienate his followers. (A strategic mistake, this: The BernieBullies won't support the nominee, despite Bernie's deceptive behind-the-scenes assurances.)

In this climate of fear, no-one dares to point out even the most obvious contradictions. For example, MoveOn sent out a pro-Bernie petition bearing these words: “Democracy only works when the votes of the people—not the decision of a small number of elites—are what determines the outcome of elections.” At the same time, Bernie explicitly pinned his hopes on having the superdelegates overturn the results of the popular vote.

At what point does hypocrisy become an act of surrealist performance art?

I invite you to look carefully at the John Oliver segment embedded above. About two thirds of the way in, this video clip delves into what really happened in Nevada. Oliver's main purpose is to call for a new primary system, and I agree that such an overhaul is needed. But if you carefully follow Oliver's description of the complex process used to choose delegates in Nevada, one fact becomes clear:

Hillary Clinton was the choice of the people. She got the most votes from average citizens.

The followers of Bernie Sanders tried to game the system to insure that the delegates did not reflect the will of the voters. How dare Bernie Sanders or his minions speak of democracy?

The simple fact is that if each primary election were held properly -- direct democracy, no caucuses, no open primaries -- Hillary's massive lead would be unquestionable and unconquerable.

Actually, if primaries were held properly, Hillary would probably be president today. She won the popular primary vote in 2008.