When it comes to the oft-heard Republican propaganda line about the Uranium One deal, I seem to be the only one asking a key question: If it is so bloody awful for a Russian company to own any part of an American uranium mine (even though no uranium is exported), then why hasn't Donald Trump ordered a divestment?
He has had a year to do so. And he certainly has that authority.
On the Rachel Maddow show the other day, a guest -- I forget which one -- made a similar point. The Republicans have invented an alternative universe in which Putin supposedly helped Hillary, not Donald Trump. The "evidence" offered in favor of this proposition is ridiculous. Instead of going through those diseased arguments one more time, we should ask a couple of simple questions: Why is Trump refusing to enforce sanctions?
And why aren't the Republicans threatening impeachment over his refusal to enforce sanctions?
The moment you ask the obvious questions, the propaganda falls apart.
And with that, we proceed to the main topic of today's post...
Check out her latest
, in which her ostensible topic is Melania Trump. You want to know what I think of Melania? I don't care
about Melania, and I don't think she wants
me to care about her. Nothing more to say.
Dowd's real purpose is, once more, to slam Hillary Clinton:
Partly, it was the Democrats’ preference for lecturing and entitlement over winning and wooing. They passed over people who had better messages and more authentic personae who might have beaten Trump, like Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, and gave the nomination to Hillary Clinton, a flawed feminist icon who was stunted in her ability to criticize her rival for his retrogressive treatment of women since she had enabled her husband in his retrogressive treatment of women.
The Times reported Friday that Hillary protected a senior adviser on faith in her 2008 campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young female aide. Hillary ignored the advice of her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, to fire the man, Burns Strider, and simply docked him several weeks of pay and made him undergo counseling. The subordinate who complained was given a new job.
This is a complete misrepresentation of the situation: Strider was demoted, then he went to work for Brock, who eventually fired him.
Even though I personally find the allegations against Strider credible, allegation is not the same thing as proof. We should also note that many people find it hard to credit aspersions cast against religious figures, and are more likely to forgive their misdeeds. I'm not claiming that this bias is a good
thing; I simply note that it is common -- particularly for people of Hillary's generation, which isn't too distant from my own.
The moment Americans decide that allegation=proof
is the moment this country turns into The Crucible
. You want to know why I cannot and will never automatically
"Believe Women"? This.
through that kind of madness, back in the 1990s when I tried to write about the Satanic Ritual Abuse controversy.
(Before you say it: Of course I realize that automatically believing men
is equally wrongheaded.)
Hillary did little or nothing wrong in this instance. But even if we give her actions the worst possible interpretation (as this Buzzfeed piece
does), likening her to Sanders is inexcusable.
The Sanders campaign was run by the vile Tad Devine. As I detailed (with photos) in this previous post
, Devine -- along Paul Manafort -- worked to keep the corrupt Ukrainian politician Viktor Yanukovych (a Putin puppet) in power. Devine had no problem allying himself with a fiend, even though everyone in the world knew that Yanukovich had poisoned his rival, Viktor Yushchenko, who was the president of Ukraine between 2005 and 2010. The poison did not kill Yuschenko, but it left his face disfigured.
From my earlier piece:
Tad Devine was a key henchman to a killer. The preceding sentence would be actionable if untrue. But I can make that statement in public without the slightest fear of a libel suit, because my words are provable.
No one can argue that Devine did not know the truth about his client. And no one can argue that Sanders did not know the truth about Devine.
There is no counterargument. Screaming nonsense about emails and Benghazi does not constitute a counterargument. If you have any honesty at all in your heart, you will admit that if Hillary had hired That Dioxin Guy, you would have horsewhipped her.
In what universe is Tad Devine -- a Machiavelli empowering a murderer -- considered less evil than this Strider fellow?
Yet neither Dowd nor anyone else of her ilk will say that we must hold Sanders accountable for his association with Devine. Guilt-by-association is purely for the Clintons, and never mind whether the claimed association is strained or overblown.
By the way: Women on the Sanders campaign also say that they were harassed
. In the following, "Salisbury" refers to a woman named Zoey Jordan Salisbury.
Like Adams, Salsbury felt helpless to stop the harassment. There was no culture of accountability in the D.C. office of the Sanders campaign, she said, and she didn’t think people would listen to a young volunteer. It was “a culture that didn’t discuss office policies with volunteers or make it clear that harassment wasn’t tolerated,” said Salsbury.
Salsbury did hear from the Sanders campaign after she posted about the incident this month on social media. A former digital media manager reached out to her this past weekend, she said, and on Monday, a Seattle-based lawyer named Bernice Johnson Blessing called her on behalf of the campaign. “It firmly felt like the kind of call you make when you’re trying to feel out if someone has the interest and/or standing to bring a lawsuit,” said Salsbury.
The conversation with the lawyer made her uncomfortable. “It felt like I was being blamed,” she said. She suspects that Sanders plans to run for president again in 2020 and “they’re afraid of me being a roadblock to that.” Blessing did not return a request for comment.
The article goes on to discuss other problems in California and Nevada. In the Hillary campaign, Strider was demoted and ultimately terminated. You may say that Hillary's actions did not suffice. But at least she did something. Bernie Sanders did nothing -- absolutely nothing
-- to squelch the "boy's club" atmosphere which marked his campaign.
We all recall what happened in 2016: The Sanders campaign became a bubbling cauldron of misogyny and Bernie let the situation get worse and worse. Sure, he might utter the occasional tsk tsk
, but only when absolutely forced to do so by bad press. He refused to do
anything about the problem.
Even a pro-Bernie writer for the New Republic
had to admit what happened:
It’s probably costing Sanders votes. Even if it isn’t, it’s best he admonish the cultish behavior of his supporters when it manifests as trolling, misogyny, and “hipster racism.”
Also see here
Her critics, some of the loudest of them progressive men, are struggling to communicate the intensity of their distaste for her and for her supporters. But in their efforts, a few are reaching for the communicative weapons usually wielded by their ideological foes — those who diminish, demean, and infantalize women. These lefty guys are reminding their feminist peers that misogyny and bitter gender resentments are not — as they have never been — the sole province of the American right. As Michelle Goldberg points out in her piece about these tensions, “as long as feminism has existed, left-wing men have dismissed it as a bourgeois triviality. Now we know how little things have changed.”
Those words came from Rebecca Traister, who has never hid her disdain for Hillary.
From Goldberg's piece
One needn’t have sympathy for Clinton herself to notice this. The writer Kathy Geier, a Sanders supporter who is contributing to a forthcoming anti-Hillary anthology, tells me that the “sanctimonious, lecturing, hectoring tone” some of her ideological allies take when discussing Clinton and feminism is driving her nuts. “They’re trying to delegitimize any critique of sexist Hillary coverage,” she says. “It’s really hard for me, because my politics are with that side, but this ancient left-wing misogyny has risen its ugly head.”
I guess this shouldn’t come as a surprise; as long as feminism has existed, left-wing men have dismissed it as a bourgeois triviality. Now we know how little things have changed. For that, at least, we can thank these men for educating us.
The anti-Hillary left continues to be a tar-pit of unabashed misogyny
, as is proven by the behavior of two socialist "boys clubs," Chapo Trap House and the euphoniously-named Cum Town.
Those lefty "boys clubs" keep getting mulligans, yet a few people call me
a sexist. Why? Because I have dared to aver that some
(not all) abuse allegations may be dubious, because I believe that each case must be considered individually, because I believe that both accused and accuser deserve a hearing, because I believe that the presumption of innocence applies even to people we despise, and because I believe that the Me Too movement has been manipulated by the right.
(This became very clear during the witch hunt against Al Franken, who -- in a fair world -- would be starting a run for president right about now. Did you notice that the allegations came to a sudden stop? If Franken got back into politics, another dozen women would suddenly "remember" more he-dared-to-touch-my-waist
horrors. The GOP has a limitless budget for that sort of thing.)
For people like Dowd, it's never fair to attack Bernie, and it's never fair to attack the Chapo assholes. But it's always
fair to attack the Clintons.
In her recent piece, Modo blames Clinton for Trump's victory. I blame "liberals" like Maureen Dowd, who made Clinton Derangement Syndrome seem hip and progressive. Before that smear campaign started, Hillary Clinton was the most popular woman in America. She was far more popular than Obama.
Clinton is now seen by the public as the stronger leader. A CNN/ORC poll carried out this month offered a direct comparison of the characteristics of both politicians, and in every category, Clinton beats Obama. By double-digit leads, Clinton is seen by more people as a decisive leader and able to manage government effectively. More people also believe Clinton “generally agrees with you on issues you care about,” cares about “people like you,” as well as “sharing your values.” Although it’s not a direct comparison, the same poll puts Clinton on a 59 percent job approval rating from her time as secretary of state. Obama has a 41 percent approval rating.
Never absolve Dowd and the BernieBros for their roles in reversing that perception. Never let the Dowd-ies blind you to the truth told by this graph: