It's Trump v. Clinton. Plus: What would happen if we judged Bernie Sanders by "Clinton rules"?

I know that many of you hate her. If you want to express your hate, there are plenty of other websites to service your needs. I will not publish your comments. (Unless you are clever and unpredictable. I love cleverness and hate predictability. I'll even let you insult me directly if you can do so in a truly novel fashion.)

Hillary Clinton, for good or for ill, now has the nomination wrapped up. Massachusetts was the tipping point, the retroactive must-win for Bernie. He didn't succeed. He fought well, and now it is over.

It seems likely that, yesterday, many Dems thought as I think: Sanders is a good man who espouses many honorable positions, but Hillary Clinton is the only one who can win in November. A self-described socialist cannot become president in today's America. That is a law of politics. This law is hard, obdurate, made of titanium. You cannot chip away at it, no matter what chisel you hold.

Perhaps a later generation will have a different attitude toward the S-word; if so, good. But now is now, and reality is reality.

Besides, once you veer away from the area of foreign policy -- and readers know how I feel about the neocon stranglehold on both parties -- Hillary and Sanders have staked out many of the same positions. She too speaks of ending the "too big to fail" attitude toward the banks, she too opposes TPP (although we constantly hear from folks who insist that she supports it), she has said all the right words about police harassment of African Americans, and she favors a substantial increase in the minimum wage.

Naturally, many of you will presume that Hillary Clinton must be lying about all of that. It's 2008 all over again, when Obama the Lightbringer was held to be incapable of fibbing and Hillary was presumed to be incapable of telling the truth.

Well, how did that presumption work out for you? Was he incapable of fibbing?

I have one message for all of the people who told me not to vote for Gore in 2000 because "both parties are the same" -- for all of the people who told me not to vote for Kerry in 2004 because "both parties are the same" -- for all of the people who told me not to support Hillary in 2008 because Obama meant true change -- and for all of the people who insisted that the better part of Democratic valor was to let Romney win in 2012. That message is a simple one: FUCK YOU.

I learned my lesson back in 1980, when I stupidly went third party because so many lefties were bleating that Jimmy Carter was infinitely worse than Reagan. Mine was the mistake of the young. My hair is grey now.

If the best that Hillary Clinton can manage is a reprise of her husband's record of peace and prosperity, good enough. The people have rejected the false history of the Bill Clinton years that the liberal websites have proffered.

African American voters laughed at the idea -- heard in such venues as Salon and The Nation -- that the Clintons were somehow scheming to reduce the black vote in southern states. Why on earth would the Clintons do such a thing? If not for black voters, Bill Clinton would never have been president. If not for black voters, Hillary would not have won in South Carolina. If not for black voters, she would not have done so spectacularly well on Super Tuesday.

The "Clinton wants to suppress the black vote" allegation was always an absurd smear.

Many voters, I suspect, have reached the same conclusion that I reached: If there is a concerted effort to smear a candidate, that person must pose the real threat to the Establishment.

Oh, Bernie -- how could you? On the Rachel Maddow show, I heard Tulsi Gabbard talk about why she stepped down from her important position in order to support Bernie Sanders. This should be a teaching moment, I thought: Tulsi Gabbard can use Maddow's show to denounce the neoconservative mentality which controls both parties. Gabbard can talk about Syria and Yemen in ways that our mainstream media usually refuses to allow. She can tell the truth about neocon sponsorship of the coup in Ukraine.

Moreover, she can use this opportunity to commit Sanders to an anti-neocon position -- something that Sanders himself has been loathe to do.

No such luck. Gabbard gave us none of that.

Instead, Gabbard's sole argument against Hillary came down to -- you guessed it -- the 2003 Iraq vote.

Tulsi Gabbard knows full well that nearly every Democrat voted for the authorization of military force, but only Hillary Clinton is pilloried constantly for going along with what was, at the time, the popular will. If any of those other Dems were running for President now, Tulsi Gabbard would say nothing about that 2003 vote. 

Lefties of the sort described above -- the ones who keep telling us both parties are the same, so let the Republican win -- talk as though Hillary bears sole responsibility for the Iraq war. "She MADE Dubya do it...!"

Here's a lovely bit of irony: The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill is another measure that was once extremely popular but is now being held against Hillary Clinton. Guess what? Bernie Sanders voted for it. Hillary had no political office then.

What's good for the gander is good for the Sanders. Let's see what happens if we judge Bernie Sanders the way we would judge a Clinton.

Let's see what happens if we apply "Clinton rules" to Bernie Sanders.

(Ahem. Excuse me for a few seconds while I try to work up the appropriate rage. Imagine the following words shouted by a man with beet-red cheeks.)

Bernie is totally responsible for everything you dislike about that 1994 crime bill. You say that you don't like the disproportionate incarceration of blacks? Blame Bernie!

Why did he concoct this scheme to keep the black vote down? Because the ruthlessly ambitious Bernie Sanders foresaw that he would one day run for national office, and he understood that he would need to suppress the black vote in southern primaries. Yes, Sanders really thinks THAT far ahead.

It's just another Sanders conspiracy, one of oh-so-many.

Bernie Sanders must be judged -- forever -- by that one vote. Ignore everything else that this man has said and done. That one vote is ALL.

Notice that he has never apologized for his 1994 vote. Instead, he offered a lame justification for his decision, claiming that the legislation contained an assault weapons ban. Actually, the version on which he voted did not have that provision: It was added later.

In other words, SANDERS IS LYING -- AGAIN.

He lies and lies and LIES! He schemes and schemes and SCHEMES!

The real reason Bernie Sanders voted for that bill is obvious. BERNIE SANDERS HATES BLACK PEOPLE!!! He longs to hunt them for sport! He wants to cook and eat them!

(Hey, this kind of absurdity is fun. Now I understand why so many people get off on demonizing the Clintons. It must be nice to have a target for all of your pent-up anger.)

ADDED NOTE: At least five readers have wasted their time, writing comments that never stood a chance of being published. I have no sympathy for you. Was the opening paragraph unclear?