That said, Glenn Greenwald's assessment of Hillary and her supporters is depressing. He quotes Politico...
While the finance industry does genuinely hate Warren, the big bankers love Clinton, and by and large they badly want her to be president. Many of the rich and powerful in the financial industry—among them, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman, Tom Nides, a powerful vice chairman at Morgan Stanley, and the heads of JPMorganChase and Bank of America—consider Clinton a pragmatic problem-solver not prone to populist rhetoric. To them, she’s someone who gets the idea that we all benefit if Wall Street and American business thrive. What about her forays into fiery rhetoric? They dismiss it quickly as political maneuvers. None of them think she really means her populism.They thought that about Obama, didn't they? And they were right.
Greenwald then quotes Foreign Policy on Hillary and Israel...
Both Bill and Hillary are so enamored with the idea of Israel and its unique history that they are prone to make certain allowances for the reality of Israel's behavior, such as the continuing construction of settlements.Here's an interesting bit that Greenwald should have quoted but didn't:
Much of this is political. As veteran pols they are pragmatists. Hillary opined in Hard Choices that she was uneasy with the president's call for a comprehensive settlement freeze because it would escalate a fight with Netanyahu that the United States probably couldn't win.It's impossible to read these words without asking "Who's in charge here? And how did they get to be in charge?"
Greenwald then quotes an NYT story to prove that Hillary has the support of the so-called liberal interventionists.
But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his “mainstream” view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes.Some of you may not know who Robert Kagan is. Key words: Project For a New American Century, Republican adviser, Iraq war promoter, Russia-hater, Mr. Victoria Nuland. One word summary: Asshole.
“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”The 2016 election is shaping up to be a contest between assholes. One butt will have blood, tapeworms and diarrhea dripping out of it. The other will simply be full of shit. Let us have the wisdom to choose wisely.
7 comments:
It isn't just the 2016 election that will be a choice between two assholes; every election seems to be that way. I think the reality is that there is a stable of vetted candidates who have been sufficiently vetted by the powers-that-be and are therefore treated as viable by the mainstream media. The Clintons and Bushes are obviously the two with the strongest brand names right now, but it's safe to assume that anyone who gets to the show - Obama included - is a known quantity.
The flip side is obviously candidates like Howard Dean and John Edwards who base their campaign platforms on this like economic justice or actually looking out for the little guy. Those types of candidates will always be discredited by the media, and failing that the machine would figure out another way to deal with them before ever letting them be the nominee for president.
Yeah, we get to choose our president to a certain extent (except, obviously, when we choose the wrong person and then we get 2000), but if anyone gets far enough to be in the running for the nomination for either party, chances are they're an asshole.
A choice between a Clinton or a Bush? Enough of this dynasty nonsense. I wonder if Julie Eisenhower would be interested in running for office?
Why wouldn't Jeb be worth a hard look? I haven't looked into his record, but I understand he's more liberal than his brother. As you've explained, Hillary has worked to bring ruin to an ancient civilization. Did Jeb destroy Florida? Was his record there that awful? With a name like Bush, he doesn't have to prove he's an asshole. Maybe he doesn't want to be hated like his brother. Also, Obama has proved there's more resistance when Republicans try to launch wars.
I'm voting Jeb Bush unless someone can point to anything he's done or advocated that's worse than Hillary's track record.
A1
Jeb Bush may be smarter and more liberal than his little brother, but he's still an active member of a crime family.
will please some one tally for me this horrible record of Hillary's. I don't recall ever that she was in position of power in the financial sector nor did she sponsor any bill to that effect. I don't like her unconditional support for Isreal, but tell me a bout a powerful politician who doesn't.
I think Bill Clinton gets it. People have to have more control LOCALLY over their own lives by finding ways to be more efficient, especially from an energy and food production point of view.
I don't think bankers mind that idea and it is very pro people.
My son was watching an rerun episode of Southpark one time. It was about a student council election at the school. A turd sandwich was running against a giant douche. Not being familiar with the show, I asked him what that was all about. He said that it must have been made during an election campaign. He checked the date and sure enough, it was 2004. Since then, I've come to appreciate Parker & Stone's genius.
Post a Comment