Tag Archives: Clinton

On running.

After years of speculation, Hillary Clinton has announced her candidacy for president. At this point it feels as though she has been running for three years or more. American election seasons have been way too long since the 1970s, particularly over the last few cycles. I personally think this has been accentuated by the emergence of the 24-hour news cycle and cable opinion/advocacy journalism, like FoxNews and MSNBC. I watch the latter more than most anything else, and I can tell you, they have been obsessing over 2016 since the day after the 2012 election, literally. It is permanent presidential electoral politics, restricted to horse-race coverage for the most part. (Chris Hayes, Melissa Harris-Perry and Rachel Maddow focus on policy more than their colleagues, to be fair.)

Hillary Rodham ClintonWhat about policy? It doesn’t look good, frankly, and it’s kind of depressing. Hillary Clinton is mouthing platitudes about inequality and being a “champion” for ordinary people, but that seems pretty clearly an effort to close off demand in her own party for a progressive alternative, like Elizabeth Warren. If she makes the right noises for a few months, it will be too late to mount any meaningful opposition. She is, of course, a mainstream interventionist on foreign policy, a supporter of the neoliberal order on economic policy, and generally a middle-of-the-road Democrat (or what was formerly known as a moderate Republican). Looking for a white knight – say, a Jim Webb? Don’t even. I just heard him obsessing over Iran this evening, like pretty much all of his fellow mainstream Dems. Warren and Sanders would have to abandon their political distinctiveness – i.e. their hostility towards bankers and lobbyists – to seriously compete in this money-heavy game, thereby abandoning any reason for supporting them.

Of course, the Republicans are the Republicans – all announced candidates reflecting their party’s modern identity as a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America. The ludicrous Ted Cruz tries so hard at parading his reactionary credentials that he seemingly unwittingly ties himself in knots, like announcing that he would both abolish the IRS and simplify our tax forms. (I think one definition of insanity is the ability to hold two mutually contradictory ideas in your mind at the same time without dissonance.) Their deeply unpopular political positions will be treated with the usual respect and awe. Rand Paul, purported libertarian, felt the need to announce his candidacy with a battleship in the background (like Romney’s announcement of his running mate). So much for libertarianism.

Two bad choices inevitably lead to bad outcomes. The only way things are going to change for the better is if we organize outside the context of presidential politics first, then carry some relatively responsive president and Congress in on our shoulders. Up to us, but we’d best get started soon, while there’s still a world left to save.

luv u,

jp

The golden beverage.

Panetta’s out hawking his book about how Obama isn’t enough of a hawk. Of course, he is likely acting as a surrogate for Hillary Clinton, who appears to be advocating a more knee-jerk approach to foreign intervention. She and John McCain  (and his various clones) really, really wanted that Syrian war, and now both seem to believe that the advent of ISIS is the result of our having failed to jump in ass first last year (essentially on ISIS’s side, it’s worth pointing out). Shades of Bush/Cheney – I guess it’s been long enough since the total disaster of the Iraq war for some people to yearn for the days of pre-emptive war, of “shock and awe”, of taking the gloves off. Included in that number is the putative front-runner of the Democratic field for President.

Clinton tool ... or just plain tool?So, after six years of being compelled to drink the fragrant golden beverage of Obama’s national security policy – drones, bombs, domestic spying, whistleblower-persecution and all – we are now to be treated to even more acrid delicacies offered up by Clinton, the next generation. I guess this is an indication of bipartisan consensus on foreign policy, though it remains to be seen how the GOP will outflank the Democrats on the crazytown side. This is truly a race to the bottom. That’s the power of this lesser of two evils electoral philosophy.

I suppose I needn’t remind anyone of the process I and people like me went through during the last couple of presidential elections. In 2008, I was voting to avoid McCain, who most certainly would have gotten us into several wars before the end of his first hundred days, to say nothing of the Hoover-like response to the financial crisis he was planning (remember the spending freeze?). That was a close brush with true catastrophe, I’m pretty sure. 2012 was less dramatic, but still … Mitt Romney was a disaster in the making. He would have brought in a gaggle of Bush II retreads who are now waiting for the impending Cruz or Perry administration. He would have rewarded his rich friends with more riches. Not a huge difference from Obama, you understand, but enough to be worth a vote.

After years of drinking rancid urine, however, I have had it. Obama’s policy regarding Syria, Iran, Iraq, Ukraine, Palestine, Yemen, and other nations is disgusting. Attacking him from the right is inexcusable.

luv u,

jp

Week that was (again).

I’m not going to focus hard on one topic this week, friends. At least I don’t think I will. I never know until I get down to the third paragraph, so we’ll see.

Snowden. Was asylum for Edward Snowden worth canceling a summit about? The administration says that is not the only reason, but there can be little doubt it was a (if not the) deciding factor. Our own senator in New York, Schumer, used some pretty incendiary language about Russia, saying they had “stabbed us in the back”, which is way over the top for him. This is not a place we want to go.

Our greatest creationBest remind ourselves that the Russia we have today is the one we worked toward building yesterday. Putin is the beneficiary of a strong presidency established by Yeltsin in the 90s with our enthusiastic support (back when we had them privatizing state assets for pennies on the dollar and creating what was then the most dramatic demographic self-implosion in many decades). Remember how he shot the Russian Parliament full of holes? Well, now we’re just staring our own blinkered foreign policy in its beady eyes. The authoritarianism, the anti-gay laws – it’s pretty disgusting. But then, have we broken with Saudi Arabia yet? Their laws are worse.

At the movies. Network biopics are almost invariably stupid and disposable, particularly about political figures. So the proposed NBC mini-series about Hillary Clinton seems like a dumb idea to me, and the right (including rare food disease Reince Priebus) is using this nebulous project as a talisman for all of their fantasies about the liberal bias of Hollywood, network television, etc. It’s always someone else’s fault when you lose, isn’t it, Reince? Last we heard from Republicans on biopics about Hillary was how overjoyed they were about the hatchet job served up by Citizen’s United, the litigation over which had such a happy outcome in the Supreme Court. Then there was the whining about a proposed miniseries about Reagan that wasn’t hagiographic enough for their tastes. Get a life, for chrissake.

Right. Not a lot to say, but I said it.

luv u,

jp