I was very hard on Hillary Clinton in the months leading up to the November 2016 election. Very hard. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the Oregon primary because I felt his message and track record were so much better than hers - not just more in line with mine, but better. I was enraged over Clinton's choice for Vice President. I was also furious over her comments lauding Nancy Reagan for her response to HIV and AIDS, and her ridiculous backtracking regarding those statements.
I also got angry that, when I criticized her track record, I was sometimes accused of being sexist, despite the fact that I never criticized her hair or her voice or her ambition, and staunchly defended her when anyone did go after her for those things - including Obama supporters back in 2012 (she wasn't running then, but a lot of his supporters, online, felt the need to refer to her in vile terms). In the end, even in my endorsement of her, I was tough on her. But as I said over and over, online and in conversations with others, I also believed - and still do - that Hillary Clinton was absolutely qualified for the job of President, that she would serve with honor in and respect for the office, that she would try to be President for all Americans, that she would be true to her pro-Choice beliefs, that she is incredibly smart, that her political ambition is a thing to be lauded, not to be derided, that she responds to political pressure from the Democratic Party base, and that I had similar reservations about Barack Obama in terms of lack of political courage and progressive credentials and, yet, he surprised me in quite a few areas - maybe she would too. I did not vote for the lesser of two evils; I voted for a highly qualified person for President, one that would, at the very least, serve with solid competence.
Hillary Clinton received more votes than any white man that has every run for President, including the man that is now President. She won by a margin of 2.10% of the popular vote - that’s more than Jimmy Carter won over Gerald Ford, more than Richard Nixon won over Hubert Humphrey, more than JFK won over Richard Nixon. It’s close to the 2.46% margin George Bush won over John Kerry, and it's far more than the margin Gore had when he won the popular vote over George Bush in 2000. Altogether, it should have been enough to make her President, but because of our archaic election laws, it didn't.
So, here we are, months after the election, and the hateful comments about Hillary Clinton seem to have actually increased. And I take it personally.
Many weeks ago, someone I considered a friend, someone who did not vote for Trump, talked about why he hadn't wanted to vote for Clinton, and not once did he talk about her policy stances or time as Secretary of State or Senator, as I had when I criticized her; he just kept saying things like "I don't like her tone" and "she just doesn't seem Presidential" and "she's a career politician" and "she gets so shrill" and "there's just something about her I don't like." And the more he talked, the more I realized almost everything he was saying could be said about me.
Hillary Clinton was all that stood between us and a reckless, unstable, ignorant, inane, infinitely vulgar, climate-change-denying white-nationalist misogynist with authoritarian ambitions and kleptocratic plans. A lot of people, particularly white men, could not bear her, and that is as good a reason as any for Trump’s victory. Over and over again, I heard men declare that she had failed to make them vote for her. They saw the loss as hers rather than ours, and they blamed her for it, as though election was a gift they withheld from her because she did not deserve it or did not attract them. They did not blame themselves or the electorate or the system for failing to stop Trump.
That's from an essay by Rebecca Solnit, a columnist at Harper’s and the author of many books, including Men Explain Things to Me: And Other Essays. And I burst into tears when I read it - and I read it after I had written most of the text for this blog up to that excerpt.
Below is more from that same essay:
---
Clinton was constantly berated for qualities rarely mentioned in male politicians, including ambition – something, it’s safe to assume, she has in common with everyone who ever ran for elected office. It’s possible, according to Psychology Today’s headline, that she is ‘pathologically ambitious’. She was criticised for having a voice. While Bernie Sanders railed and Trump screamed and snickered, the Fox commentator Brit Hume complained about Clinton’s ‘sharp, lecturing tone’, which, he said, was ‘not so attractive’, while MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell gave her public instructions on how to use a microphone, Bob Woodward bitched that she was ‘screaming’ and Bob Cusack, the editor of the political newspaper the Hill, said: ‘When Hillary Clinton raises her voice, she loses.’ One could get the impression that a woman should campaign in a sultry whisper, but of course if she did that she would not project power. But if she did project power she would fail as a woman, since power, in this framework, is a male prerogative, which is to say that the set-up was not intended to include women.
As Sady Doyle noted, ‘she can’t be sad or angry, but she also can’t be happy or amused, and she also can’t refrain from expressing any of those emotions. There is literally no way out of this one. Anything she does is wrong.’
---
I remember back in 2008, the first time Hillary Clinton ran for President. Then-Fox News contributor Dick Morris said "I believe that there could well come a time when there is such a serious threat to the United States that she breaks down like that," adding, "I don't think she ought to be president." New York Daily News' Stanley Crouch said Clinton seemed "hysterical." He claimed that while Clinton was charismatic in person, on television she seemed: "...by turns icy, contrived, hysterical, sentimental, bitter, manipulative and self-righteous. In short, dehumanized by the mysterious dictates of technology, she takes on qualities that most people hate. Perhaps because of the way camera lights hit the planes of her face and the tinny distortions of her voice imposed by television microphones, something apparently evil happens."
I, too, am "pathologically ambitious." I, too, have eschewed work in the private sector, choosing to concentrate on the nonprofit/mission-based sector instead. I, too, have been constantly interrupted by men when it's supposed to be my turn to speak, either in a meeting or even when I am presenting, as an expert, to an audience. I, too, have been criticized for my tone rather than what I'm proposing or defending. I, too, have been criticized for the clothes I've worn to work. I, too, have been called "sentimental, bitter, manipulative and self-righteous" - though usually not all those words are used at the same time. I, too, have been told at work, at incredibly inappropriate moments, that I need to smile more. I, too, have been criticized for either being or acting "too smart" with men. In other words, I'm a lot like Hillary Clinton. And that means that I, too, have been criticized for presentation, appearance and my gender rather than the quality of my work and character.
As I've seen and heard Hillary Clinton criticized for those things, I have slowly realized just how often people must have criticized me, either just in their head or to each other when I'm not in the room. I realize just how much I'm not liked by so many, many people, not because of lack of ability or for transgressions, but for image, and for daring to reach for assume roles usually reserved for men. Not because of my words or what's in my heart or my work or my character, but because of my tone, because of "something" about me.
Where is the place in the world for Hillary Clinton, or for me?
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
To those who voted for Donald Trump
To those who voted for and otherwise supported Donald Trump, some questions:
To my friend down the street who, next year, will lose the only health care insurance she’s been able to afford since her divorce - Obamacare - and who has no other affordable options for health care insurance, what do you say to her?
To the raped women, the women who discover their fetus is stillborn at 7 months (late term), and all the other women that need to abort their pregnancies - what do you say to those women?
To the gay people who will want to get married and have all the legal protections granted other married couples, as is the law now but won’t be at some point after Jan of next year - what do you say to those people?
To your son who proudly says, "I grabbed a girl at school by the pussy, just like our President elect!", what do you say to him? And what do you say to the girl he assaulted?
To your pre-teen daughter who sees photos of the first lady naked, with her finger stuck in her vulva, what do you say to her?
To those working in this country as an illegal immigrant, who know the soon-to-be first lady worked as an illegal immigrant in the USA for a few years, what do you say to them?
To Khizr and Ghazala Khan, what do you say to them?
To the child who was brought over illegally by a parent, and is now 25, has never been in trouble, has finished high school, is working and paying taxes, has never been to the country of her birth, and speaks only English, but in the next four years, will be deported: what do you say to her?
To those who make a living exporting goods to other countries, who will be financially decimated by the falling dollar and the retaliative protectionist measures other countries will take, who will have to close their businesses and lay off American workers, what do you say to them?
To journalists who are threatened with bodily harm for negative reporting against the government - not in Syria or Afghanistan or Russia but right here in the USA, as has been promised by your candidate, what do you say to them?
To my colleagues in Ukraine who suffer every day under military assaults by Putin, who must constantly battle his relentless online propaganda machine that drives business and money away from their country to the point that they are on the brink of financial collapse, what do you say to them?
To Syrian refugees, who have lost their homes and businesses - the doctors, the farmers, the nurses, the teachers, the government workers, the computer programmers, the food sellers, the janitors, the mechanical engineers, the biologists, the university instructors, and on and on - who have family and neighbors who have been murdered, who have been brutalized, who are desperate for help and safety - what do you say to those people?
To the members of Daesh, which you mistakenly call ISIS or the Islamic State, who have recruited young Americans by feeding them a steady diet of messages that says the USA hates Muslims, that the USA wants to punish Muslims - do you compliment them on being right?
To my dear friend from Afghanistan, who helped me so much when I worked there, who I was going to see again for the first time in a decade because she was invited to come to speak at a conference in Sacramento in May, but will not be able to get into the USA because the visa situation will change next year regarding Muslims - what do you say to her?
What do you say to each of these people?
To my friend down the street who, next year, will lose the only health care insurance she’s been able to afford since her divorce - Obamacare - and who has no other affordable options for health care insurance, what do you say to her?
To the raped women, the women who discover their fetus is stillborn at 7 months (late term), and all the other women that need to abort their pregnancies - what do you say to those women?
To the gay people who will want to get married and have all the legal protections granted other married couples, as is the law now but won’t be at some point after Jan of next year - what do you say to those people?
To your son who proudly says, "I grabbed a girl at school by the pussy, just like our President elect!", what do you say to him? And what do you say to the girl he assaulted?
To your pre-teen daughter who sees photos of the first lady naked, with her finger stuck in her vulva, what do you say to her?
To those working in this country as an illegal immigrant, who know the soon-to-be first lady worked as an illegal immigrant in the USA for a few years, what do you say to them?
To Khizr and Ghazala Khan, what do you say to them?
To the child who was brought over illegally by a parent, and is now 25, has never been in trouble, has finished high school, is working and paying taxes, has never been to the country of her birth, and speaks only English, but in the next four years, will be deported: what do you say to her?
To those who make a living exporting goods to other countries, who will be financially decimated by the falling dollar and the retaliative protectionist measures other countries will take, who will have to close their businesses and lay off American workers, what do you say to them?
To journalists who are threatened with bodily harm for negative reporting against the government - not in Syria or Afghanistan or Russia but right here in the USA, as has been promised by your candidate, what do you say to them?
To my colleagues in Ukraine who suffer every day under military assaults by Putin, who must constantly battle his relentless online propaganda machine that drives business and money away from their country to the point that they are on the brink of financial collapse, what do you say to them?
To Syrian refugees, who have lost their homes and businesses - the doctors, the farmers, the nurses, the teachers, the government workers, the computer programmers, the food sellers, the janitors, the mechanical engineers, the biologists, the university instructors, and on and on - who have family and neighbors who have been murdered, who have been brutalized, who are desperate for help and safety - what do you say to those people?
To the members of Daesh, which you mistakenly call ISIS or the Islamic State, who have recruited young Americans by feeding them a steady diet of messages that says the USA hates Muslims, that the USA wants to punish Muslims - do you compliment them on being right?
To my dear friend from Afghanistan, who helped me so much when I worked there, who I was going to see again for the first time in a decade because she was invited to come to speak at a conference in Sacramento in May, but will not be able to get into the USA because the visa situation will change next year regarding Muslims - what do you say to her?
What do you say to each of these people?
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
Hillary as President
So, I'm back to saying, yes, I'm going to vote for Hillary Clinton. No, I don't feel enthusiastic about the vote. And, no, I am not going to stop criticizing her for her positions and actions that are counter to the progressive values and future of the Democratic Party - like her choice of Vice President. I'm not going to stop during the election, and if she's elected, I'm not going to stop while she's President. And don't you dare accuse me of picking on her because she's a woman. I judge people by actions far more than words, so quit sending me her campaign quotes - look at her record. The truth is always in actions.
And I stand by my belief that you do not HAVE to vote for her. You don't.
But I can't vote for any of the smaller party candidates: I'm not at all a Libertarian, Dr. Jill Stein's comments about vaccines are deeply disturbing, aand if the Socialist Party USA makes an unusable web site, they can hardly be expected to run a country.
I'm not going to say Hillary Clinton is the lesser of two evils and that's why I'm voting for her. Because it's not why I'm voting for her. I'm voting for her because, of every person running for office, including the smaller parties, she's by far the most-qualified and has the most in common with me in terms of political beliefs. She's pro-choice enough for me, I don't think she's going to flip flop on gay marriage or any LBGT issues again, and I don't think she's going to be fooled by Putin. I think she will appoint qualified people for most positions. I believe I'll agree with at least 70% of her environmental and economic policies. I believe she's got the credentials, the understanding, the temperament and the knowledge to be President. For the record, while I did NOT support him, I felt the same about Mitt Romney and the first George Bush. But not the second George Bush. And I do NOT feel this way about Donald Trump AT ALL.
But I say again: quit demanding people vote for her. If she wants people's vote, let her work for them. Respect and votes are something you earn. Emphasize the vision from the Democratic Party Convention, not just fear-mongering about Trump. LEAD.
And I stand by my belief that you do not HAVE to vote for her. You don't.
But I can't vote for any of the smaller party candidates: I'm not at all a Libertarian, Dr. Jill Stein's comments about vaccines are deeply disturbing, aand if the Socialist Party USA makes an unusable web site, they can hardly be expected to run a country.
I'm not going to say Hillary Clinton is the lesser of two evils and that's why I'm voting for her. Because it's not why I'm voting for her. I'm voting for her because, of every person running for office, including the smaller parties, she's by far the most-qualified and has the most in common with me in terms of political beliefs. She's pro-choice enough for me, I don't think she's going to flip flop on gay marriage or any LBGT issues again, and I don't think she's going to be fooled by Putin. I think she will appoint qualified people for most positions. I believe I'll agree with at least 70% of her environmental and economic policies. I believe she's got the credentials, the understanding, the temperament and the knowledge to be President. For the record, while I did NOT support him, I felt the same about Mitt Romney and the first George Bush. But not the second George Bush. And I do NOT feel this way about Donald Trump AT ALL.
But I say again: quit demanding people vote for her. If she wants people's vote, let her work for them. Respect and votes are something you earn. Emphasize the vision from the Democratic Party Convention, not just fear-mongering about Trump. LEAD.
Sunday, July 24, 2016
No argument: Hillary Clinton does not, will not listen to Sanders supporters
Hillary Clinton's pick for Vice President says to Bernie Sanders supporters and other progressives in the Democratic Party: I want your vote, but not your ideas.
The facts speak for themselves: Tim Kaine is not a progressive.
Just before being named her running mate, Kaine signed two letters on Monday urging federal regulators to go easy on banks ― one to help big banks dodge risk management rules, and another to help small banks avoid consumer protection standards. That alone is enough to make me outraged. But there's more.
As noted in Mother Jones, Kaine has supported offshore drilling in the Atlantic and supported a bill to fast-track the construction of natural gas terminals. Fossil fuel interests have taken a liking to him. "We're encouraged by the reasonable approach he's taken on oil and natural gas, that he hasn't been swayed by politics and ideology," Miles Morin, executive director of the Virginia Petroleum Council, told Politico. What is he swayed by regarding our environment?
A die-hard Catholic, he says his religion guides him in his governing, and that while he is personally opposed to abortion, he's Pro-Choice - yet, he supports abortion restrictions, like on third trimester abortions - something sought by only the most desperate of women - and legally requiring under age girls to get permission from a parent to terminate a pregnancy - but not to carry such to term. He has been all over the place regarding teen pregnancy, first saying he believes in fighting teen pregnancy “through abstinence-focused education”, which is the version of abstinence-only education where they DO mention birth control, but emphasize its failure rate, then, two years later, under a mountain of political pressure, he defunded abstinence-only education in the schools. What will he do as VP? We just don't know.
The young people of the Democrat Party - and many of us 50 and over - have said we want a new party, a progressive party. And the establishment has answered with a not-at-all progressive, very establishment, bank-loving, corporate-loving old-school Democrat.
But we're not supposed to complain! We're supposed to be good little Democrats and not question and just swallow all of our criticisms, however legitimate, and not say anything negative and vote for the Party's nominee. If we don't, we hate America and want the other party's pick to be President! Which, of course, is exactly what Trump is telling Republicans they have to do too. Remember, if you criticize Hillary Clinton, you are being sexist!
Will I vote for Hillary Clinton in the Fall? Now, at this moment, I'm not sure. I said previously I would, because I was convinced that she would appoint staunchly pro-choice people to the Supreme Court, and that the incredible success of the Bernie Sanders campaign in attracting massive numbers of supporters, far more than anyone ever dreamed, would wake her up to the progressive direction the party needs to go in. With this appointment, I am not convinced of that at all of any of that.
I had planned on getting involved with the Democratic Party in the county where I live, volunteering to help with get-out-the-vote efforts for November 2016. I'm not doing that now, even if I do end up voting for Hillary Clinton. I have absolutely nothing to say to someone to convince them to vote for Hillary Clinton, other than that she's not Donald Trump. And that's just not enough to motivate me to work for her.
But I'm not quitting the Democratic Party. Not yet. If I quit the party, I leave it to people who are determined to keep it the way people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz want it. No, I want to change the party - that's a hell of a lot easier than starting another one. We are the people that elected Barack Obama TWICE to the presidency, NOT the party establishment. It's time to use that energy again, this time to permanently change our party.
In January 2017, when the election is long over, I will start attending local Democratic Party meetings, and I hope my fellow progressives will too, all over the USA. I hope you will run to be one of your local party precinct captains. Bring your friends to join too and run for leadership positions - chair, secretary, treasurer, a committee chair, whatever. Read the web site for your local party chapter carefully, and think about what you want to do locally to start steering your party in the direction that is its future: on a progressive path. It can be surprisingly easy to do all this: in many communities, many leadership positions are empty due to lack of volunteers, and many people currently in positions are in their 60s, or older, and oh-so-ready to retire.
Look at your city's web site and look for all the citizen's committees, and find those that are interesting to you, that you want to be a part of, and volunteer for such if there is an opening. City's often have parks commissions, safety commissions, public engagement commissions (dealing with land issues), planning commissions, library commissions and more. Get on one. Get on two. Start making your progressive voice heard and your progressive vote count.
Write your elected representatives regularly - local, state and national - especially the Democrats, and let them know what you think of their voting record. Be polite but firm: you want progressive action, and you will call them out when they avoid such. You want votes for legislation that curbs the power of banks, that promotes paid family leave, that promotes a living wage and worker protections, that protects our environment, that protects women's reproductive choices and medical services, that protects LBGT people, and that restores tax levels on corporations to at least what they were under Ronald Reagan (the 1950s rates would be better, of course). Reward them with a donation, however small, when they do what's right. We're not asking for ideological purity, we're not asking for absolute uniformity in every belief, but we are asking for a foundation of progressive beliefs in every candidate. I'm a lot more forgiving of a policy or stand I don't at all agree with if the candidate espousing such has dozens more that I do agree with (such as Bernie Sanders' lackluster record regarding gun control versus his stands on most everything else).
Do all of that and think about running for office yourself!
Ignore the people who say that you aren't being a team player, that the party needs to "unify", that you are helping the opposition win, that you aren't willing to compromise, and on and on and on. They do not have the future of this party, nor of this country, at heart. They'll say yes in the future to the progressives as they take power, because they've shown they'll say yes to whatever the Democrats do.
And you vote for whomever YOU want to in November 2016. Please, please vote for someone - you aren't seen unless you vote. If you vote Green or Socialist or whatever, and Hillary loses, it's not because you didn't "get on board" - it's because she didn't.
If, come the Spring or Summer, Hillary Clinton proves me wrong by appointing staunchly pro-Choice Supreme Court justices and an ethnically-diverse, progressive cabinet and by not sending our troops to Syria and escalating other conflicts, then, hurrah, I'll issue a hearty mea culpa. And I hope I'm wrong. But nothing she's done in the last 10 years gives me any hope at all that I'm wrong.
The facts speak for themselves: Tim Kaine is not a progressive.
Just before being named her running mate, Kaine signed two letters on Monday urging federal regulators to go easy on banks ― one to help big banks dodge risk management rules, and another to help small banks avoid consumer protection standards. That alone is enough to make me outraged. But there's more.
As noted in Mother Jones, Kaine has supported offshore drilling in the Atlantic and supported a bill to fast-track the construction of natural gas terminals. Fossil fuel interests have taken a liking to him. "We're encouraged by the reasonable approach he's taken on oil and natural gas, that he hasn't been swayed by politics and ideology," Miles Morin, executive director of the Virginia Petroleum Council, told Politico. What is he swayed by regarding our environment?
A die-hard Catholic, he says his religion guides him in his governing, and that while he is personally opposed to abortion, he's Pro-Choice - yet, he supports abortion restrictions, like on third trimester abortions - something sought by only the most desperate of women - and legally requiring under age girls to get permission from a parent to terminate a pregnancy - but not to carry such to term. He has been all over the place regarding teen pregnancy, first saying he believes in fighting teen pregnancy “through abstinence-focused education”, which is the version of abstinence-only education where they DO mention birth control, but emphasize its failure rate, then, two years later, under a mountain of political pressure, he defunded abstinence-only education in the schools. What will he do as VP? We just don't know.
The young people of the Democrat Party - and many of us 50 and over - have said we want a new party, a progressive party. And the establishment has answered with a not-at-all progressive, very establishment, bank-loving, corporate-loving old-school Democrat.
But we're not supposed to complain! We're supposed to be good little Democrats and not question and just swallow all of our criticisms, however legitimate, and not say anything negative and vote for the Party's nominee. If we don't, we hate America and want the other party's pick to be President! Which, of course, is exactly what Trump is telling Republicans they have to do too. Remember, if you criticize Hillary Clinton, you are being sexist!
Will I vote for Hillary Clinton in the Fall? Now, at this moment, I'm not sure. I said previously I would, because I was convinced that she would appoint staunchly pro-choice people to the Supreme Court, and that the incredible success of the Bernie Sanders campaign in attracting massive numbers of supporters, far more than anyone ever dreamed, would wake her up to the progressive direction the party needs to go in. With this appointment, I am not convinced of that at all of any of that.
I had planned on getting involved with the Democratic Party in the county where I live, volunteering to help with get-out-the-vote efforts for November 2016. I'm not doing that now, even if I do end up voting for Hillary Clinton. I have absolutely nothing to say to someone to convince them to vote for Hillary Clinton, other than that she's not Donald Trump. And that's just not enough to motivate me to work for her.
But I'm not quitting the Democratic Party. Not yet. If I quit the party, I leave it to people who are determined to keep it the way people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz want it. No, I want to change the party - that's a hell of a lot easier than starting another one. We are the people that elected Barack Obama TWICE to the presidency, NOT the party establishment. It's time to use that energy again, this time to permanently change our party.
In January 2017, when the election is long over, I will start attending local Democratic Party meetings, and I hope my fellow progressives will too, all over the USA. I hope you will run to be one of your local party precinct captains. Bring your friends to join too and run for leadership positions - chair, secretary, treasurer, a committee chair, whatever. Read the web site for your local party chapter carefully, and think about what you want to do locally to start steering your party in the direction that is its future: on a progressive path. It can be surprisingly easy to do all this: in many communities, many leadership positions are empty due to lack of volunteers, and many people currently in positions are in their 60s, or older, and oh-so-ready to retire.
Look at your city's web site and look for all the citizen's committees, and find those that are interesting to you, that you want to be a part of, and volunteer for such if there is an opening. City's often have parks commissions, safety commissions, public engagement commissions (dealing with land issues), planning commissions, library commissions and more. Get on one. Get on two. Start making your progressive voice heard and your progressive vote count.
Write your elected representatives regularly - local, state and national - especially the Democrats, and let them know what you think of their voting record. Be polite but firm: you want progressive action, and you will call them out when they avoid such. You want votes for legislation that curbs the power of banks, that promotes paid family leave, that promotes a living wage and worker protections, that protects our environment, that protects women's reproductive choices and medical services, that protects LBGT people, and that restores tax levels on corporations to at least what they were under Ronald Reagan (the 1950s rates would be better, of course). Reward them with a donation, however small, when they do what's right. We're not asking for ideological purity, we're not asking for absolute uniformity in every belief, but we are asking for a foundation of progressive beliefs in every candidate. I'm a lot more forgiving of a policy or stand I don't at all agree with if the candidate espousing such has dozens more that I do agree with (such as Bernie Sanders' lackluster record regarding gun control versus his stands on most everything else).
Do all of that and think about running for office yourself!
Ignore the people who say that you aren't being a team player, that the party needs to "unify", that you are helping the opposition win, that you aren't willing to compromise, and on and on and on. They do not have the future of this party, nor of this country, at heart. They'll say yes in the future to the progressives as they take power, because they've shown they'll say yes to whatever the Democrats do.
And you vote for whomever YOU want to in November 2016. Please, please vote for someone - you aren't seen unless you vote. If you vote Green or Socialist or whatever, and Hillary loses, it's not because you didn't "get on board" - it's because she didn't.
If, come the Spring or Summer, Hillary Clinton proves me wrong by appointing staunchly pro-Choice Supreme Court justices and an ethnically-diverse, progressive cabinet and by not sending our troops to Syria and escalating other conflicts, then, hurrah, I'll issue a hearty mea culpa. And I hope I'm wrong. But nothing she's done in the last 10 years gives me any hope at all that I'm wrong.
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Clothes, Clinton & Campaigns
As I said in an early blog, I will vote for Hillary Clinton in November, but I am NOT going to stop criticizing her for her positions and actions that are counter to the progressive values of the Democratic Party - or, at least, what those values should be (I'm sure she wouldn't like the first eight items in my suggestions to the Democratic Party).
I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary - and for Howard Dean 12 years ago - because of what I strongly believe the Democratic Party, and the US government, should focus on, and haven't been. I haven't abandoned my strongly held values, and I won't be by voting for Hillary Clinton. I will, rather, be helping to prevent a frightening man, leading a frightening movement, from taking over the USA and driving our country into full fascism.
But many of my friends that are Clinton supporters have a very big problem with this point of view. They don't think it's fair that I'm criticizing Clinton, that I'm not espousing "party unity." One even strongly suggested I'm sexist because I have criticized candidate Clinton for wearing a jacket worth $12,495 during a speech that focused on the struggles of working people.
I've made it clear that I think it's ridiculous that people criticize candidate Clinton for her hair, her voice, and her style of clothes (the length, the color, the cut, etc.). But this person challenged me to find a male politician criticized for what he wore, in those terms. So, I did - a slew of stupid stories from August 2012 about Paul Ryan:
A Look at Paul Ryan's Fashion Sense - The New York Times
Why the speakership suits Paul Ryan just fine, for now - CSMonitor.com
Everyone Agrees: Paul Ryan's Style Is Awkward -- The Cut
Paul Ryan's Suit: The Baggier, the Better? - The Daily Beast
Ditch the baggy suit, fashion experts advise Ryan | Reuters
Why it matters that Republican hopeful Paul Ryan dresses so badly ...
And more recently, this stupid style forum discussion, "What's up with Marco Rubio's suits."
I hate Paul Ryan. I hate Marco Rubio. But it's not for their clothes. I don't want to discuss whether a suit is too big or too much water was drunk in a speech at awkward moments. I want to discuss policies and actions.
I also noted that Donald Trump has been criticized for his skin color and hair and facial expressions and that I think that's ridiculous and won't do it. If it's wrong to criticize Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama for those things (and it is), I'm not going to do it with any male politician either. And for the record, I didn't do it with Sarah Palin - I talked about her idiot comments, not her hairstyles or her voice. Who in the hell cares?! I judge politicians regarding the content of character. Oh, how I judge...
Then my Clinton-supporting friend said, "I am waiting for an example of a man's speech being discredited because of what he was wearing when he made it." So I noted that every time Candidate Trump has gone on and on about how China has stolen USA jobs, how he'd put strict trade sanctions against Chinese-made products, he's been selling, and wearing, Trump clothes, including ties, made in China. And, yeah, he's been criticized for it. BY ME, among others.
Then she changed the rules again and said, "I would like an example of a woman getting a pass on anything a man takes for granted." And I gave up. Because it was obvious the bar was just going to keep getting moved, the terms of the argument would keep getting changed, so that there wouldn't be any way to debate with facts anymore.
I see Clinton's Versace jacket the same way I see Mitt Romney's car elevator: as representative of someone who cannot understand the challenges that working class people are facing. But unlike Romney, Clinton put her incredibly wealth right out in the people's faces, even as she talked about how Americans having recovered from the Great Recession, how they lost jobs and homes and savings, how we need to reduce income inequality.
Don't start accusing me of imposing a values purity test. If there was a Democratic values purity test, Bernie Sanders wouldn't have passed it, per his defense of guns, among other things. I wouldn't pass it. I'm not looking for perfection.
What we're talking about regarding Hillary Clinton is a long pattern of eschewing progressive values and, instead, catering to corporate America, to the people that almost brought down the USA economy, and surrounding herself with people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, big buddy of predatory lenders. We're talking about Clinton's tendency to ignore legitimate criticism of her elitism by engaging, even flouting, her elitism. Like when she came to Portland last year a few days after Bernie visited: anyone could see him, at his massive rally, for free, provided they got in before the fire marshall said the massive stadium was full; to see her, one had to pay $2,700-per-ticket in the exclusive Dunthorpe neighborhood. See also appointing a completely unqualified person / major Clinton Foundation donor to a highly-sensitive government intelligence advisory board. When you are being accused of something distasteful to voters, over and over and over, you should have the soundness of judgment not to egg it on with such a public misstep, like having an affair with young volunteer intern when, during your candidacy, you were repeatedly accused of not only extramarital affairs, but of being predatory.
This is about hypocrisy at worst and being profoundly out of touch with criticism of your actions at best. U2 does it when they say governments should do more about poverty even as they themselves avoid paying taxes. Thought leaders and celebrities do it in Davos, lecturing us about carbon emissions and global climate change while their conference leads to about 1,700 private flights in and out of Zurich and other airports for the meetings, held at an oh-so-luxurious hotel.
I still listen to U2 music, and enjoy it, by the way.
Ultimately, what this is about the Clinton campaign still not understanding what the Sanders movement was all about. Her campaign - and Clinton - just don't get Bernie Sanders supporters and their values. It shows just how much they are still out of touch with millions of Americans, not just Sanders supporters. And it reinforces the idea held by many that it's only through something really radical and profoundly painful, like losing an election that should be a given, that the oh-so-entrenched Democratic leadership will move aside.
I'm still voting for Hillary in November. But I'm not going to stop criticizing her when I see something I strongly get rid of it.
I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary - and for Howard Dean 12 years ago - because of what I strongly believe the Democratic Party, and the US government, should focus on, and haven't been. I haven't abandoned my strongly held values, and I won't be by voting for Hillary Clinton. I will, rather, be helping to prevent a frightening man, leading a frightening movement, from taking over the USA and driving our country into full fascism.
But many of my friends that are Clinton supporters have a very big problem with this point of view. They don't think it's fair that I'm criticizing Clinton, that I'm not espousing "party unity." One even strongly suggested I'm sexist because I have criticized candidate Clinton for wearing a jacket worth $12,495 during a speech that focused on the struggles of working people.
I've made it clear that I think it's ridiculous that people criticize candidate Clinton for her hair, her voice, and her style of clothes (the length, the color, the cut, etc.). But this person challenged me to find a male politician criticized for what he wore, in those terms. So, I did - a slew of stupid stories from August 2012 about Paul Ryan:
A Look at Paul Ryan's Fashion Sense - The New York Times
Why the speakership suits Paul Ryan just fine, for now - CSMonitor.com
Everyone Agrees: Paul Ryan's Style Is Awkward -- The Cut
Paul Ryan's Suit: The Baggier, the Better? - The Daily Beast
Ditch the baggy suit, fashion experts advise Ryan | Reuters
Why it matters that Republican hopeful Paul Ryan dresses so badly ...
And more recently, this stupid style forum discussion, "What's up with Marco Rubio's suits."
I hate Paul Ryan. I hate Marco Rubio. But it's not for their clothes. I don't want to discuss whether a suit is too big or too much water was drunk in a speech at awkward moments. I want to discuss policies and actions.
I also noted that Donald Trump has been criticized for his skin color and hair and facial expressions and that I think that's ridiculous and won't do it. If it's wrong to criticize Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama for those things (and it is), I'm not going to do it with any male politician either. And for the record, I didn't do it with Sarah Palin - I talked about her idiot comments, not her hairstyles or her voice. Who in the hell cares?! I judge politicians regarding the content of character. Oh, how I judge...
Then my Clinton-supporting friend said, "I am waiting for an example of a man's speech being discredited because of what he was wearing when he made it." So I noted that every time Candidate Trump has gone on and on about how China has stolen USA jobs, how he'd put strict trade sanctions against Chinese-made products, he's been selling, and wearing, Trump clothes, including ties, made in China. And, yeah, he's been criticized for it. BY ME, among others.
Then she changed the rules again and said, "I would like an example of a woman getting a pass on anything a man takes for granted." And I gave up. Because it was obvious the bar was just going to keep getting moved, the terms of the argument would keep getting changed, so that there wouldn't be any way to debate with facts anymore.
I see Clinton's Versace jacket the same way I see Mitt Romney's car elevator: as representative of someone who cannot understand the challenges that working class people are facing. But unlike Romney, Clinton put her incredibly wealth right out in the people's faces, even as she talked about how Americans having recovered from the Great Recession, how they lost jobs and homes and savings, how we need to reduce income inequality.
Don't start accusing me of imposing a values purity test. If there was a Democratic values purity test, Bernie Sanders wouldn't have passed it, per his defense of guns, among other things. I wouldn't pass it. I'm not looking for perfection.
What we're talking about regarding Hillary Clinton is a long pattern of eschewing progressive values and, instead, catering to corporate America, to the people that almost brought down the USA economy, and surrounding herself with people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, big buddy of predatory lenders. We're talking about Clinton's tendency to ignore legitimate criticism of her elitism by engaging, even flouting, her elitism. Like when she came to Portland last year a few days after Bernie visited: anyone could see him, at his massive rally, for free, provided they got in before the fire marshall said the massive stadium was full; to see her, one had to pay $2,700-per-ticket in the exclusive Dunthorpe neighborhood. See also appointing a completely unqualified person / major Clinton Foundation donor to a highly-sensitive government intelligence advisory board. When you are being accused of something distasteful to voters, over and over and over, you should have the soundness of judgment not to egg it on with such a public misstep, like having an affair with young volunteer intern when, during your candidacy, you were repeatedly accused of not only extramarital affairs, but of being predatory.
This is about hypocrisy at worst and being profoundly out of touch with criticism of your actions at best. U2 does it when they say governments should do more about poverty even as they themselves avoid paying taxes. Thought leaders and celebrities do it in Davos, lecturing us about carbon emissions and global climate change while their conference leads to about 1,700 private flights in and out of Zurich and other airports for the meetings, held at an oh-so-luxurious hotel.
I still listen to U2 music, and enjoy it, by the way.
Ultimately, what this is about the Clinton campaign still not understanding what the Sanders movement was all about. Her campaign - and Clinton - just don't get Bernie Sanders supporters and their values. It shows just how much they are still out of touch with millions of Americans, not just Sanders supporters. And it reinforces the idea held by many that it's only through something really radical and profoundly painful, like losing an election that should be a given, that the oh-so-entrenched Democratic leadership will move aside.
I'm still voting for Hillary in November. But I'm not going to stop criticizing her when I see something I strongly get rid of it.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
For Bernie supporters, from a Bernie supporter
No, Bernie supporters, you do not have to vote for Hillary in November.
No one responds well to “You HAVE to vote for so-and-so.” As I mentioned on Facebook, when I caucused for Howard Dean in 2004, I had Kerry delegates smugly tell me how we Dean and Kucinich supporters would HAVE to vote for Kerry, how we were wasting our votes and wasting the time of the Democratic Party and giving a gift to the GOP by daring to not vote for the presumptive nominee. I was so angry at hearing it again and again that, when Dean dropped out, I toyed with not voting AT ALL - why would I vote for a man whose supporters think so little of me and MY values? I saw Clinton supporters doing the same as those Kerry supporters, especially in the last month, and it’s a shame, because all it does is drive potential supporters - VOTERS - away. I did vote for John Kerry that November, but many Dean and Kucinich did not, because Kerry spent his entire campaign trying to run down Bush and trying to deflect criticism of his own record; Kerry made no effort to appeal to those disenfranchised Dems, and the consequence was that he LOST to a wildly unpopular President. In 2008, many Hillary supporters talked repeatedly to the press about how they would NOT support Obama, so candidate Obama went out of his way to address the concerns of Hillary voters - and the result was that they voted for him in droves. It was NOT because Hillary said, "Vote Obama", it was because Obama worked to earn those votes. Hillary supporters - and Clinton herself - should take heed of this.
When Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but was robbed of the presidency by Florida and Ohio shenanigans, I blamed the GOP… and all those who voted for Ralph Nader. I wasn’t crazy at all about Al, for all the same reasons I’m not crazy about Hillary - but there was no question he was better than the Shrub, and the Supreme Court has always been enough of a reason for me to vote Democrat, so I was really bitter about Nader voters for not helping to stop George Bush. Plus, I don't think Nadar is qualified to run the country. But I changed my mind about Nader supporters a few months into 2001, as I read more and more about voter turnout and their points of view. Nader supporters voted their values and wanted to send a strong message to the Democratic Party - and I respect that, because that's what my country is about: voting your beliefs. If Al Gore, the Democratic Party candidate, didn’t appeal to them, that’s the candidate’s problem - no one else to blame. It’s up to the primary winner to work to unite the party - that’s part of his or her job. If she can’t do that, then how will she work with a divided Congress, like she keeps assuring us she can?
I am going to vote for Hillary Clinton in November, even though I’m frightened of what her foreign policy will be and have no idea where she stands on so many issues - she went from pro-Palestinian to staunchly pro-Israel, she was for the China trade deal before she was against it (though I’m hearing hints that she’s for it again), she never championed raising the minimum wage but now, ta da, is talking about it (though in TINY increments), she was so pro Gun the first time she ran for President that candidate Obama said she sounded like “Annie Oakley” (look it up!), she pushed HARD for fracking in Europe while secretary of state (much to the anger of Europeans, who do NOT want it) but now claims environmentalist credentials, she was staunchly against gay marriage and then, after every other Dem was for it, changed her mind at last - but denied she ever changed her mind - and on and on. Her comments regarding Nancy Reagan and AIDS were horrific and shameful, and her reasons offered as to why she did so were nonsensical. Looking at her record as Senator and Sec of State, she’s hawkish and pro-corporation and pro-banks, even those that almost bankrupted our country, and she has given workers rights and consumer rights only ocassional lip service - she has no strong track record on their behalf. Pressure from Sanders supporters compelled her to change her healthcare stance and suggest an early buy-in for Medicare, but once elected, I suspect she’ll abandon that stance. I fear for those of you with family members in the military while she’s President - we're invading somewhere (Syria? Libya? Somewhere new?). And I greatly fear for our economy, as she has made it clear she’s a staunch friend of the banks and institutions that almost brought down our economy a few years ago - and feels their support is more important than championing the working class. Gads, Clinton wore a jacket worth $12,495 during a speech on income inequality! Her actions and words show her incredibly out-of-touch with most people in the USA. It's heart-breaking.
I used to feel very differently about Hillary Clinton. When I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, my vote was as much for her as for him. She then had a long track record for action and for speaking out about children’s rights, and was lauded for her legal work regarding children’s law. When Bill was President, conservatives said her work usurped traditional parental authority - and she just scoffed at them. I remember her going off script during a 1998 talk with Israeli and Palestinian teens meeting as part of the organization Seeds of Peace. I remember the controversy when she referred to “Palestine”. She was asked by someone at the meeting why she referred to a country that doesn’t exist, and she said: “I think that it will be in the long-term interest of the Middle East for Palestine to be a state, to be a state that is responsible for its citizens’ well-being, a state that has responsibility for providing education and health care and economic opportunity to its citizens.” The next year, she attended a speech at which Suha Arafat, the wife of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and afterward, Clinton kissed Suha on the cheek, as is customary in the region - and Republicans lost their minds. Oh, yeah, THAT Hillary Clinton was *awesome*. She was her own person. I wanted to vote for THAT Hillary Clinton when she ran for President someday. But, unfortunately, that Hillary Clinton went away the moment she started running for the Senate, and I haven’t seen her since.
But I will vote for her in November, because I do know she will very likely appoint pro-choice candidates to the Supreme Court. An anti-choice candidate on the Supreme Court will be disastrous beyond measure. It will affect women you love in your life, women you work with - oh so many women in your life. The misery will be horrific. That’s why I’ll vote for Hillary Clinton in November. I just cannot sit by and let more anti-choice judges get appointed. I care about your daughters too much, folks.
Despite my problems with her track record and lack of action on so many critical issues, I also believe she is qualified to be President, that she has the capability to do the job.
I also know that Hillary Clinton will respond to the results of the mid-term elections - so that’s on us, Bernie supporters, to make sure those go Democrat - and our kind of Democrat, the one that is focused on our core party principles, on what’s best for the majority of people, not just the top 1%. We Sanders supporters have drastically affected Hillary Clinton's campaign for President. Let’s keep that pressure on and drastically affect her time as President, for the better. She will work to represent us only if we continue the pressure on her to do so.
I’ve said I will vote for Hillary Clinton in November, and why - but my reason is not enough for millions of other Sanders supporters. If Hillary Clinton wants to win, she needs to unite the Democrats - that’s her job, not Bernie’s. She needs to detail her capabilities and her VALUES and her GOALS. You were Secretary of State, but what did you accomplish as such? You were great defending yourself regarding those Benghazi allegations - but what did you do that brought the USA big benefits, that made USAID more effective, that made the world a better place? Bernie energized the party with plans to make attending public universities affordable again, to stop the unreasonable burdens of student debt, to make health care truly universal, to help working families, to make the 1 percent pay their fair of taxes - heck, to return us to the higher tax rates of the Reagan era! - so what are you going to offer those Democrats so they know you represent all tax brackets and classes? Show us your values, in practice, because many of us just do NOT know what they are - there’s just so many, many contradictions in your actions and words since you left the White House as First Lady. Talk explicitly about how you will be different as President than your husband. Which policies of the Bill Clinton administration does Hillary Clinton still endorse, and which does she NOT? I’d rather hear how you are going to be like OBAMA than like Bill! We do NOT want Bill Clinton II! And be honest about how you’ve changed your positions - because you HAVE — and why. I can respect a candidate that disagrees with me - I disagreed with Bernie on guns, among other issues. I can respect a candidate that changes, that evolves. But I can’t respect denial - so drop that immediately, Candidate Clinton. Own your actions.
I have just criticized Hillary, in detail, for her job and candidacy performance. Not her makeup, not her hair, not her voice, not her physical shape, not her gender. And I have been JUST as hard on past Secretaries of State, male and female. So any of you that accuse me of not being a “real” feminist for my lukewarm support Hillary Clinton: bite my ass and unfriend me. I'm so tired of seeing people accused of sexism because they criticized Clinton's job performance or supported Bernie instead.
It will be nice to have a woman President in the USA, of course, and I'll celebrate that. I would have said something quite similar if Colin Powell had become the first black USA President, even though he's a Republican and I wouldn't have voted for him. I loathed Condoleezza Rice, but still found huge delight in watching a black American woman treated with such deference by deeply sexist, racist regimes. A female presidency is a cultural breakthrough, one that's long overdue, and it's worth celebrating by everyone.
Fellow Sanders supporters, we also have something more to celebrate: WE are the future of the Democratic Party. Look at the ages of Bernie supporters, look at the demographic trends of all voters. Despite the work of the Democratic leadership to stop it, despite the media coverage being mostly mocking and dismissive, Sanders did far, far better, with far, far less money than Clinton, than anyone every dreamed. His message resonated - even with Republicans. If the Dem party leadership continues to ignore us, the Dems are doomed, and Clinton will be their last Presidency for a long while. If Clinton supporters continue to say things like "Bern extinguished!", then the Democratic Party is dead - I'll bring the shovel.
Bernie supporters, if you don’t vote for Hillary, I hope you will vote for *someone* - but not Trump. There's candidates from the Green Party, the Socialist Party - probably even Prohibition (there usually is). Every state is different in terms of it is allowing on its ballot in November. By voting for someone - not Trump, please - your vote will be seen. If you don’t vote, you aren’t seen, and you are written off as not caring and not worth reaching - if you have doubt of that, look at the Kentucky Governor’s race from 2015, when a fraction of the population chose the government, and only a bit more voted at all. If everyone who is disappointed in the GOP and Dem candidates for President would vote for someone - but not Trump - as a protest vote, it would have a huge impact on how the two big parties respond - because they would know you exist and want your vote and work for it. There are many millions of Sanders supporters - don't disappear at the polls! Secondly, get on the mailing list for the local Democratic Party and go to meetings a few times a year, let your voice be heard, maybe even become a delegate or a precinct captain yourself (I intend to do the latter). That’s the only way to vote OUT people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Alison Lundergan Grimes that are currently in Democratic Party leadership positions - they are COUNTING on your apathy or anger to keep you from participating, and to keep them in those positions, so they can keep the Democratic Party the way it is. They need to GO. There’s a mid-term election in two years - let’s dominate it.
I hope Hillary Clinton, as nominee and, eventually, as President, surprises me, as President Obama has surprised me. I wasn’t at all googly eyed when he was elected, and I found his aloofness for his first four years disturbing - and I believe it contributed to the loss of the House to the GOP, and a closer race in 2012 than should have been. But his accomplishments over eight years are jaw-dropping, and now I’m a blathering idiot fan. Make me a blathering idiot fan, Hillary. At least make me respect you as much as I respect Angela Merkel, whom I loathed in the years before she became Chancellor of Germany - she's surprised me so much with her daring decisions that have put human rights first.
I keep hearing Clinton supporters say, "It's time to get behind our nominee!" Right now, the most you will get from me is my vote and this blog saying why I'll be voting for her. If you want more, you'll have to earn it.
Hillary Clinton, you’ve got a lot of work to do to win over several million Democrats. And I'm open to your overtures. But such support is up to you - not Bernie Sanders. And I mean it in all sincerity that I hope you do it. We'll be watching and listening. And if you work to address our very serious, real concerns, you'll earn a lot more votes than by trying to appeal to disaffected Republicans.
Update many hours after I wrote this: Is there an echo in here, New York Times? Hillary Clinton’s Triumph, and Burden: "Unless she makes a substantial effort to win them over, they might stay home, and low turnout historically helps Republicans."
No one responds well to “You HAVE to vote for so-and-so.” As I mentioned on Facebook, when I caucused for Howard Dean in 2004, I had Kerry delegates smugly tell me how we Dean and Kucinich supporters would HAVE to vote for Kerry, how we were wasting our votes and wasting the time of the Democratic Party and giving a gift to the GOP by daring to not vote for the presumptive nominee. I was so angry at hearing it again and again that, when Dean dropped out, I toyed with not voting AT ALL - why would I vote for a man whose supporters think so little of me and MY values? I saw Clinton supporters doing the same as those Kerry supporters, especially in the last month, and it’s a shame, because all it does is drive potential supporters - VOTERS - away. I did vote for John Kerry that November, but many Dean and Kucinich did not, because Kerry spent his entire campaign trying to run down Bush and trying to deflect criticism of his own record; Kerry made no effort to appeal to those disenfranchised Dems, and the consequence was that he LOST to a wildly unpopular President. In 2008, many Hillary supporters talked repeatedly to the press about how they would NOT support Obama, so candidate Obama went out of his way to address the concerns of Hillary voters - and the result was that they voted for him in droves. It was NOT because Hillary said, "Vote Obama", it was because Obama worked to earn those votes. Hillary supporters - and Clinton herself - should take heed of this.
When Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but was robbed of the presidency by Florida and Ohio shenanigans, I blamed the GOP… and all those who voted for Ralph Nader. I wasn’t crazy at all about Al, for all the same reasons I’m not crazy about Hillary - but there was no question he was better than the Shrub, and the Supreme Court has always been enough of a reason for me to vote Democrat, so I was really bitter about Nader voters for not helping to stop George Bush. Plus, I don't think Nadar is qualified to run the country. But I changed my mind about Nader supporters a few months into 2001, as I read more and more about voter turnout and their points of view. Nader supporters voted their values and wanted to send a strong message to the Democratic Party - and I respect that, because that's what my country is about: voting your beliefs. If Al Gore, the Democratic Party candidate, didn’t appeal to them, that’s the candidate’s problem - no one else to blame. It’s up to the primary winner to work to unite the party - that’s part of his or her job. If she can’t do that, then how will she work with a divided Congress, like she keeps assuring us she can?
I am going to vote for Hillary Clinton in November, even though I’m frightened of what her foreign policy will be and have no idea where she stands on so many issues - she went from pro-Palestinian to staunchly pro-Israel, she was for the China trade deal before she was against it (though I’m hearing hints that she’s for it again), she never championed raising the minimum wage but now, ta da, is talking about it (though in TINY increments), she was so pro Gun the first time she ran for President that candidate Obama said she sounded like “Annie Oakley” (look it up!), she pushed HARD for fracking in Europe while secretary of state (much to the anger of Europeans, who do NOT want it) but now claims environmentalist credentials, she was staunchly against gay marriage and then, after every other Dem was for it, changed her mind at last - but denied she ever changed her mind - and on and on. Her comments regarding Nancy Reagan and AIDS were horrific and shameful, and her reasons offered as to why she did so were nonsensical. Looking at her record as Senator and Sec of State, she’s hawkish and pro-corporation and pro-banks, even those that almost bankrupted our country, and she has given workers rights and consumer rights only ocassional lip service - she has no strong track record on their behalf. Pressure from Sanders supporters compelled her to change her healthcare stance and suggest an early buy-in for Medicare, but once elected, I suspect she’ll abandon that stance. I fear for those of you with family members in the military while she’s President - we're invading somewhere (Syria? Libya? Somewhere new?). And I greatly fear for our economy, as she has made it clear she’s a staunch friend of the banks and institutions that almost brought down our economy a few years ago - and feels their support is more important than championing the working class. Gads, Clinton wore a jacket worth $12,495 during a speech on income inequality! Her actions and words show her incredibly out-of-touch with most people in the USA. It's heart-breaking.
I used to feel very differently about Hillary Clinton. When I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, my vote was as much for her as for him. She then had a long track record for action and for speaking out about children’s rights, and was lauded for her legal work regarding children’s law. When Bill was President, conservatives said her work usurped traditional parental authority - and she just scoffed at them. I remember her going off script during a 1998 talk with Israeli and Palestinian teens meeting as part of the organization Seeds of Peace. I remember the controversy when she referred to “Palestine”. She was asked by someone at the meeting why she referred to a country that doesn’t exist, and she said: “I think that it will be in the long-term interest of the Middle East for Palestine to be a state, to be a state that is responsible for its citizens’ well-being, a state that has responsibility for providing education and health care and economic opportunity to its citizens.” The next year, she attended a speech at which Suha Arafat, the wife of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and afterward, Clinton kissed Suha on the cheek, as is customary in the region - and Republicans lost their minds. Oh, yeah, THAT Hillary Clinton was *awesome*. She was her own person. I wanted to vote for THAT Hillary Clinton when she ran for President someday. But, unfortunately, that Hillary Clinton went away the moment she started running for the Senate, and I haven’t seen her since.
But I will vote for her in November, because I do know she will very likely appoint pro-choice candidates to the Supreme Court. An anti-choice candidate on the Supreme Court will be disastrous beyond measure. It will affect women you love in your life, women you work with - oh so many women in your life. The misery will be horrific. That’s why I’ll vote for Hillary Clinton in November. I just cannot sit by and let more anti-choice judges get appointed. I care about your daughters too much, folks.
Despite my problems with her track record and lack of action on so many critical issues, I also believe she is qualified to be President, that she has the capability to do the job.
I also know that Hillary Clinton will respond to the results of the mid-term elections - so that’s on us, Bernie supporters, to make sure those go Democrat - and our kind of Democrat, the one that is focused on our core party principles, on what’s best for the majority of people, not just the top 1%. We Sanders supporters have drastically affected Hillary Clinton's campaign for President. Let’s keep that pressure on and drastically affect her time as President, for the better. She will work to represent us only if we continue the pressure on her to do so.
I’ve said I will vote for Hillary Clinton in November, and why - but my reason is not enough for millions of other Sanders supporters. If Hillary Clinton wants to win, she needs to unite the Democrats - that’s her job, not Bernie’s. She needs to detail her capabilities and her VALUES and her GOALS. You were Secretary of State, but what did you accomplish as such? You were great defending yourself regarding those Benghazi allegations - but what did you do that brought the USA big benefits, that made USAID more effective, that made the world a better place? Bernie energized the party with plans to make attending public universities affordable again, to stop the unreasonable burdens of student debt, to make health care truly universal, to help working families, to make the 1 percent pay their fair of taxes - heck, to return us to the higher tax rates of the Reagan era! - so what are you going to offer those Democrats so they know you represent all tax brackets and classes? Show us your values, in practice, because many of us just do NOT know what they are - there’s just so many, many contradictions in your actions and words since you left the White House as First Lady. Talk explicitly about how you will be different as President than your husband. Which policies of the Bill Clinton administration does Hillary Clinton still endorse, and which does she NOT? I’d rather hear how you are going to be like OBAMA than like Bill! We do NOT want Bill Clinton II! And be honest about how you’ve changed your positions - because you HAVE — and why. I can respect a candidate that disagrees with me - I disagreed with Bernie on guns, among other issues. I can respect a candidate that changes, that evolves. But I can’t respect denial - so drop that immediately, Candidate Clinton. Own your actions.
I have just criticized Hillary, in detail, for her job and candidacy performance. Not her makeup, not her hair, not her voice, not her physical shape, not her gender. And I have been JUST as hard on past Secretaries of State, male and female. So any of you that accuse me of not being a “real” feminist for my lukewarm support Hillary Clinton: bite my ass and unfriend me. I'm so tired of seeing people accused of sexism because they criticized Clinton's job performance or supported Bernie instead.
It will be nice to have a woman President in the USA, of course, and I'll celebrate that. I would have said something quite similar if Colin Powell had become the first black USA President, even though he's a Republican and I wouldn't have voted for him. I loathed Condoleezza Rice, but still found huge delight in watching a black American woman treated with such deference by deeply sexist, racist regimes. A female presidency is a cultural breakthrough, one that's long overdue, and it's worth celebrating by everyone.
Bernie supporters, if you don’t vote for Hillary, I hope you will vote for *someone* - but not Trump. There's candidates from the Green Party, the Socialist Party - probably even Prohibition (there usually is). Every state is different in terms of it is allowing on its ballot in November. By voting for someone - not Trump, please - your vote will be seen. If you don’t vote, you aren’t seen, and you are written off as not caring and not worth reaching - if you have doubt of that, look at the Kentucky Governor’s race from 2015, when a fraction of the population chose the government, and only a bit more voted at all. If everyone who is disappointed in the GOP and Dem candidates for President would vote for someone - but not Trump - as a protest vote, it would have a huge impact on how the two big parties respond - because they would know you exist and want your vote and work for it. There are many millions of Sanders supporters - don't disappear at the polls! Secondly, get on the mailing list for the local Democratic Party and go to meetings a few times a year, let your voice be heard, maybe even become a delegate or a precinct captain yourself (I intend to do the latter). That’s the only way to vote OUT people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Alison Lundergan Grimes that are currently in Democratic Party leadership positions - they are COUNTING on your apathy or anger to keep you from participating, and to keep them in those positions, so they can keep the Democratic Party the way it is. They need to GO. There’s a mid-term election in two years - let’s dominate it.
I hope Hillary Clinton, as nominee and, eventually, as President, surprises me, as President Obama has surprised me. I wasn’t at all googly eyed when he was elected, and I found his aloofness for his first four years disturbing - and I believe it contributed to the loss of the House to the GOP, and a closer race in 2012 than should have been. But his accomplishments over eight years are jaw-dropping, and now I’m a blathering idiot fan. Make me a blathering idiot fan, Hillary. At least make me respect you as much as I respect Angela Merkel, whom I loathed in the years before she became Chancellor of Germany - she's surprised me so much with her daring decisions that have put human rights first.
I keep hearing Clinton supporters say, "It's time to get behind our nominee!" Right now, the most you will get from me is my vote and this blog saying why I'll be voting for her. If you want more, you'll have to earn it.
Hillary Clinton, you’ve got a lot of work to do to win over several million Democrats. And I'm open to your overtures. But such support is up to you - not Bernie Sanders. And I mean it in all sincerity that I hope you do it. We'll be watching and listening. And if you work to address our very serious, real concerns, you'll earn a lot more votes than by trying to appeal to disaffected Republicans.
Update many hours after I wrote this: Is there an echo in here, New York Times? Hillary Clinton’s Triumph, and Burden: "Unless she makes a substantial effort to win them over, they might stay home, and low turnout historically helps Republicans."
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Remember when Clinton supporters were outraged, swore they'd vote for McCain rather than Obama?
I'm seeing a lot of posts in my Facebook newsfeed from friends lamenting the anger of Bernie Sanders supporters, decrying thrown chairs in Nevada (though there are NO videos or photos of such an action), and whining that Sanders supporters are being sore losers and need to think about "party unity."
It all brings back memories of eight years ago, when loyal Clinton supporters refused to accept Hillary Clinton's defeat in the 2008 Democratic primary. They often responded: “Party unity, my ass!”, hence the nickname PUMAs. And they were ANGRY. And loud. And sometimes, downright mean:
And the pot calls the kettle black. Or, as Shakespeare said in Troilus and Cressida in 1603 or so: "The raven chides blackness."
(no, it's not a racist term - here's more about the origin).
It all brings back memories of eight years ago, when loyal Clinton supporters refused to accept Hillary Clinton's defeat in the 2008 Democratic primary. They often responded: “Party unity, my ass!”, hence the nickname PUMAs. And they were ANGRY. And loud. And sometimes, downright mean:
- Angry Clinton supporters toast McCain, roast Obama: "I'm a registered Republican for the first time in my voting life. No Obama for me. I'm voting for John McCain."
- Hillary Supporters Split "I feel that I’m going against her wishes, but I’m still waiting for Barack Obama to sell me, to give me a reason to want him in the presidency. We’re still not convinced.”
And the pot calls the kettle black. Or, as Shakespeare said in Troilus and Cressida in 1603 or so: "The raven chides blackness."
(no, it's not a racist term - here's more about the origin).
Friday, March 11, 2016
What Hillary should say regarding her Reagan & HIV/AIDS misstep
For fun, I like to think about how I would handle various PR disasters. Yes, for fun, I do that. I love to write the response that some political or corporate executive or offending celebrity SHOULD give to try to recover from a major screw up, rather than saying “I apologize if anyone was offended” or “I apologize for misspeaking,” two statements that just make the disaster worse.
At the funeral of Nancy Reagan - not sure if it was before or after the ceremony - in an interview with MSNBC, Hillary Clinton said:
“It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s,” Clinton said. “And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan, in particular Mrs. Reagan, we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it. Nobody wanted to do anything about it. And, you know, that too is something that I really appreciate with her very effective low-key advocacy, but it penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, hey, we have to do something about this too.”
This is not a misstatement. Hillary Clinton did not misspeak. These were very thoughtful statements. And these statements are either a profound misunderstanding of history, or a deliberate attempt to rewrite it in order to woo Reagan Democrats. There is absolutely no other reason for these statements. She has to own one of those reasons if she’s going to survive the fiasco. So here’s what Hillary Clinton needs to say, ASAP. You can thank me later, HC:
It’s hard to put into words the devastation that HIV and AIDS has caused, and continues to cause, worldwide. Science has made incredible strides regarding treatment for those with HIV and AIDS, and humanity has made incredible strides regarding how it treats people with HIV and AIDS, but there is still so much to do.
In an interview regarding Former First Lady Nancy Reagan, someone for whom I have the deepest respect and admiration, I did not accurately state how she and President Reagan publicly responded to the AIDS crisis that began in the 1980s. In the moment of that interview, I believed those statements to be true. The outcry that has followed has me not only revisiting my statements, but revisiting my understanding of the history of HIV and AIDS and how our country has, and has not, responded.
There are so many issues, many of them controversial, that I have been proud to be a strong advocate for, like children’s rights, women’s reproductive freedom, and affordable, accessible healthcare for all Americans. But even a very passionate advocate for human rights can have areas where he or she needs to improve her understanding. And, obviously, I am not as up-to-speed on the complete history regarding the government’s response to HIV and AIDS as I should be. I remember well when the crisis began in the 1980s. Like so many Americans, the first people I knew that died from AIDS were celebrities, like Rock Hudson and Freddie Mercury. I mourned those deaths, but, like so many other Americans, AIDS still felt somewhat remote from me and my life. When the disease began to affect people I knew, personally, as well as family members of friends, it was at about the same time when the Reagan’s began talking about the disease. That is how I remembered their response to the disease. But the reality is far different. The silence of the government in the 1980s regarding HIV and AIDS, despite thousands of people dying, inspired the “Silence = Death” campaign and the organization Act UP. I should have known that, and I didn’t. And I apologize for that.
I own my mistakes. This was a mistake. But let me be clear: I am fully aware that HIV and AIDS continues to affect millions of people worldwide. It’s something I have been regularly reminded of as First Lady, as a US Senator, as a Secretary of State, and especially, as a friend. There are things we need to be doing globally and there are things we need to be doing right here in the USA both to prevent its spread and to get people affected by the disease the treatment, care and respect they absolutely deserve. I will consider it a priority in my administration to continue to address the realities of HIV and AIDS.
You're welcome, Hillary.
At the funeral of Nancy Reagan - not sure if it was before or after the ceremony - in an interview with MSNBC, Hillary Clinton said:
“It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s,” Clinton said. “And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan, in particular Mrs. Reagan, we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it. Nobody wanted to do anything about it. And, you know, that too is something that I really appreciate with her very effective low-key advocacy, but it penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, hey, we have to do something about this too.”
This is not a misstatement. Hillary Clinton did not misspeak. These were very thoughtful statements. And these statements are either a profound misunderstanding of history, or a deliberate attempt to rewrite it in order to woo Reagan Democrats. There is absolutely no other reason for these statements. She has to own one of those reasons if she’s going to survive the fiasco. So here’s what Hillary Clinton needs to say, ASAP. You can thank me later, HC:
It’s hard to put into words the devastation that HIV and AIDS has caused, and continues to cause, worldwide. Science has made incredible strides regarding treatment for those with HIV and AIDS, and humanity has made incredible strides regarding how it treats people with HIV and AIDS, but there is still so much to do.
In an interview regarding Former First Lady Nancy Reagan, someone for whom I have the deepest respect and admiration, I did not accurately state how she and President Reagan publicly responded to the AIDS crisis that began in the 1980s. In the moment of that interview, I believed those statements to be true. The outcry that has followed has me not only revisiting my statements, but revisiting my understanding of the history of HIV and AIDS and how our country has, and has not, responded.
There are so many issues, many of them controversial, that I have been proud to be a strong advocate for, like children’s rights, women’s reproductive freedom, and affordable, accessible healthcare for all Americans. But even a very passionate advocate for human rights can have areas where he or she needs to improve her understanding. And, obviously, I am not as up-to-speed on the complete history regarding the government’s response to HIV and AIDS as I should be. I remember well when the crisis began in the 1980s. Like so many Americans, the first people I knew that died from AIDS were celebrities, like Rock Hudson and Freddie Mercury. I mourned those deaths, but, like so many other Americans, AIDS still felt somewhat remote from me and my life. When the disease began to affect people I knew, personally, as well as family members of friends, it was at about the same time when the Reagan’s began talking about the disease. That is how I remembered their response to the disease. But the reality is far different. The silence of the government in the 1980s regarding HIV and AIDS, despite thousands of people dying, inspired the “Silence = Death” campaign and the organization Act UP. I should have known that, and I didn’t. And I apologize for that.
I own my mistakes. This was a mistake. But let me be clear: I am fully aware that HIV and AIDS continues to affect millions of people worldwide. It’s something I have been regularly reminded of as First Lady, as a US Senator, as a Secretary of State, and especially, as a friend. There are things we need to be doing globally and there are things we need to be doing right here in the USA both to prevent its spread and to get people affected by the disease the treatment, care and respect they absolutely deserve. I will consider it a priority in my administration to continue to address the realities of HIV and AIDS.
You're welcome, Hillary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)