Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts

08 October, 2016

How I Would Vote

This blog...it still exists ?  Any road...

So, yeah, I don't have a vote in US elections. The whys & wherefores, the (in)justice in denying the vast majority of the global population a say in the governance of a country that acts as defacto ruler of the entire planet, never mind those within the US itself denied a vote, aside...

Who would I vote for in the US general election for President ?

I previously (aeons ago now) discussed having to choose between that theocratic loon Ted Cruz & fascist clown Donald Trump. And, despite some (I think, deserved) criticism of Bernie Sanders, anyone who's read what I've written here, or on Twitter, probably wouldn't be surprised to know that I was leaning towards Bernie Sanders. But...he didn't win.*

Gun to my head, Donald versus Hillary, was always going to be Hillary, Hillary the inevitable one, Hillary 'Her Time Has Come' Clinton, Hillary 'Guess it's time we elected a woman President, so why not her?' Clinton...Vomit !



I'd like to see more third-party options & support in the US generally (bring on AV voting & abolition of the electoral college), but given a) The US's ridiculously archaic first-past-the-post system, and b) what an utter incompetent maniac Trump is/would be, I'd go along with most Bernie-leaning pundits (Sam Seders of the world, say), and agree that any responsible liberal-leaning voter in a so-called 'swing state' has to vote for Hillary, painful & unpleasant as it may/would be. 'Has to' as in, it's what I would do, what I would advise, what I would expect from anyone with any concern for the continuation of the republic whatsoever; You want to just burn the whole system down to the ground, and gamble on starting over, well I get that too, but...I kinda think yer nuts...

I've only recently decided what I would do, if I were voting in a non-swing state, which is a far more common scenario in a country so politically polarised, and with such corrupt partisan dominance of statehouses (which control electoral boundaries) as the United States.  And...

I'd write in Bernie Sanders.

Why ?

Firstly, obviously, he came far closer to addressing the economic, and to a lesser degree, environmental concerns, that are way at the top of my list for what should be the priorities of this election.

No, I don't dismiss ISIS or Islamic Extremism generally, Yes, I have concerns about the rise & regional hegemony of the PRC, Yes, I even have some concerns about Russia under Putin, though I will maintain that that threat is far overstated, and has far more to do with the Russophobic attitude of Western politicians who grew up as children of the Cold War than anything else. But, after decades of Reaganomics, of Thatcherite hyper-capitalistic insanity, I consider wealth- & income-inequality far greater concerns**, never mind the fact that in our pursuit of infinite economic expansion, on a planet of very finite resources, we are destroying the ability of the planet to sustain human life !

Secondly, Yes it would be a protest-vote. Unfollow me or block me on Twitter if you must Hill-bots, but the way the DNC planned for an inevitable coronation of HRC far in advance of the primaries, and their obvious bias & manipulations against Bernie Sanders disgust me.

I obviously would consider (in any election) a third-party vote, but in this specific case, I feel that writing in Bernie's name would be the only option (for me), because it is the only unambiguous way to protest, the only way that cannot possibly be misinterpreted.

A vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, could just mean that you like the Libertarians, agree with the Greens, take seriously either of those (IMO) completely unserious candidates. A vote for Donald Trump could mean that you are protesting against a corrupt establishment, or equally, that you are one of the fringier alt-right contingent who identity with white nationalism, favouring swastika-themed avatars and Neo-Nazi numerical code (88, asf.) in social media, alongside jokes about gassing Jews... And, staying home, could just mean that you couldn't get time off work, or, and I'm sure this will be mentioned over and over again, that you're a lazy millennial, who just couldn't be arsed...

Writing in Bernie's name on the other hand says:


  • This is a vote you otherwise could have had
  • I reject utterly the DNC's handling of the primaries
  • I reject the establishment candidate you foisted upon the party (in a year of anti-establishment frustration/desperation) and upon the country (despite her huge national unpopularity)
  • I reject Bernie's endorsement of same (Yes, a middle finger, a direct FU to Bernie himself)
  • I want to send a message that, if you somehow lose to Donald Trump...(to Don-ald f'ing TRUMP...) it is 100% on you. You being the DNC. You being Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. You being that lifelong Goldwater girl, Hillary Rodham Clinton herself.


I won't get to make even that meagre protest, even that pathetic act of resistance against the elites that are strangling our middle classes, killing our poor, destroying our entire planet in the name of putting infinite growth and the profit of billionaires ahead of all other concerns, all other actual humans...All I can do is, for the record, speak my mind here, on Twitter, elsewhere on social media. It's almost certainly all for nowt, but I somehow feel an obligation to exercise my voice in place of that vote where it's otherwise denied.



* Voter-rolls purged, polling-places closed, debates scheduled on holidays, against major sporting-events, efforts to limit independents registering as Democrats, proclaiming Hillary's victory whilst the single largest state had yet to vote.....I'm not going to go here into all the ways one could argue against whether Hillary actually...or fairly won...

** Plutocracy and concentration of wealth, also being inherent corrupting factors in a democracy, inherent threats to the sustainability or integrity of Democracy itself.

28 January, 2016

Bernie, Bernie, Bernie

First off, to be quite clear, I don't like Hillary Clinton.  I don't trust Hillary Clinton, and never have.  I see Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton as well for that matter, as the very representation of the right-wing corporate takeover of the Democratic Party*.  I fear the very idea of Hillary Clinton as president, though not nearly so much so as the multitude of maniacs running for the Republican nomination.  I am not pro-Hillary or in any way inherently anti-Bernie.  And other, than that with his particular support amongst younger progressives, I may skew slightly older, I am generally exactly in line demographically with the majority of his supporters, and ideologically, if anything, perhaps a little to his left.  I like Bernie Sanders.  I support most of his economic proposals.  But....


So...Bernie Sanders.  I mentioned him a few times last year, including my praise of a speech he gave at Liberty University, in which I mentioned again his continuing failure to break out of his largely white support-base, a subject I had discussed in one of my earlier mentions of his candidacy also.  When I wrote the latter, I certainly never expected Sanders to still be running so strongly in the race by now, days away from the Iowa Caucus, let alone seemingly with a shot at winning the early primaries, if not the nomination for the Democratic Party for the presidency.

A lot of time has passed since then, there's been a lot of discussion amongst the pundit-classes about Sanders, there have been a few** debates and townhalls between the five, then three*** candidates on the Democratic side, and Bernie even found time to give a major speech on so-called 'Democratic Socialism' (in which he continued his apparent complete confusion between mainstream Social Democratic policy, and the attainment of a purely Socialist society, with public ownership of the means of production by democratic methods).  So much time, and perhaps the reason I haven't felt compelled to add anything here is that...my opinion of Sanders hasn't changed a jot.

I'm a little bit more optimistic with the polls coming out that some element of Sanders' Occupy Wall Street-style rhetoric and progressive economic policies could have a long-term impact on policy and direction for the Democratic party, but I still think Clinton will win the nomination, and I still can't see Sanders becoming president, even if he were to clinch the nomination, despite Clinton's monetary advantage, establishment-connections, and early lead in super-delegates.  And that's despite what is happening with the Republican nomination, currently being contested primarily between a far-right bomb-throwing theocratic ideologue, and an apparent out-and-out fascist.

I've watched Sanders give the same speech, the same talking points over and over and over again.  Wall Street, corruption, the one percent, only developed nation without universal healthcare, free college, the middle class, hard working Americans, economic inequality, fairness, too much money in politics, political revolution...  I've heard the breathless praise from his supporters, be they on Twitter or in independent media.  I've watched the fucking debates, I've seen the man's style, I've seen the large (mostly white) crowds he attracts, and I've heard over and over again how I should 'feel the Bern.'

Except I don't.  Never liked the slogan, never felt it six months to a year back, when his candidacy seemed a harmless irrelevancy, and still not feeling it now.  I still see an angry old white guy shouting platitudes at the audience, an aged social warrior whose lifelong-rhetoric happens to now, in his mid-seventies, match the popular zeitgeist of the post-Great Recession era.  I don't see a great leader, I don't see a future president, I don't see any evidence of this political revolution he wants, no matter how much enthusiasm he may inspire amongst college-students.  I don't see, perhaps more importantly, any evolution, even having gone through the protests and conflicts with Black Lives Matter protesters, of Bernie Sanders from a walking OWS-parody into a serious general-election candidate for the presidency.

It's almost as if he still doesn't quite take it seriously, close as he's getting, as if like Carly Fiorina on the Republican side, he were really running for a VP slot, or like Ben Carson or Mike Huckabee, just wanting to sell a book.  Almost, but not quite.  I think he must genuinely believe there's going to a mass uprising of Americans any time now in support of this great progressive revolution he keeps going on about.  Any time now.  As if almost half the country's electorate weren't in thrall to the right-wing radicalism of Tea Party Republicans.  As if in denial about his continuing inability to make inroads in support amongst blacks, and other peoples of colour.  As if forgetting the fact that older voters tend to have famously high turnout, and younger college-age voters notoriously low turnout.

We had a presidential candidate running on a quite progressive series of promises (some of which he has managed to keep, some not) back in 2008, with the slogan of 'Hope and Change'.  An extraordinarily well-spoken and charismatic candidate, who united white progressives, members of the Democratic establishment, blacks and Hispanics, rich and poor, the LGBT community, the young & the older.  If Barack Obama hadn't been able to assemble the broad coalition of support he did, hadn't especially been able to achieve the historically high turnout amongst black voters, what are the chances he would have got near the presidency ?  Sanders isn't remotely the charismatic unifying figure Obama managed to be back in 2008, and a coalition of young college-age progressives and white progressives simply isn't going to cut it, whatever the pollsters may say.

The right in American politics is far more motivated, far angrier, historically more likely to turn out, and likely to represent a very solid potent political bloc, unless Donald Trump manages to somehow split the party.  The growing numbers who increasingly call themselves Independents (which would include myself as it happens) are harder to gauge, but I suspect that the majority of that growth is actually amongst Tea Partiers who eschew the label 'Republican', but would never ever ever vote for a Democrat.  As for the polling again, Donald Trump especially polls badly amongst self-identified Independents, but...people lie.  People lie about their politics all the times, especially to pollsters, and especially when it comes to matters such as race, which has become the most contentious element in the current Republican fearmongering rhetoric regarding various 'Others', such as Muslims, blacks, immigrants...

I want to believe that a President Donald Trump or Ted Cruz is a fantasy, but the longer I spend in the company of American politics, and the more I know of the American people, the less surprised, the less shocked I am when there is such amazing support for extreme right-wing demagogues.****  I really wouldn't rule out a maniac like Trump or Cruz getting elected, and, especially with a Republican Congress, and the likelihood to cement right-wing control of the Supreme Court for decades to come, the result of such a presidency would be utterly disastrous for the United States, and ultimately, the whole planet.  This upcoming election frankly scares the crap out of me, even as I want to believe that Sanders' policies, if not his actual candidacy have some chance in the future of the Democratic party.  Which I desperately do.

We're still for now in primary season, but Sanders needs to be defining himself more clearly on the likes of foreign policy.  As of this moment, after all this time, I haven't a clue what kind of president Sanders would be outside of economic justice, because it's...all...he...ever...fucking...talks about.  No matter what the question, what the context, always, always, always he pivots back to his comfort zone of talking about the 99% percent versus the 1%, as if incapable of talking about anything else.*****  I get it Bernie.  I agree.  You're talking to the converted here.  But Iran, Russia, Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Turkey, China ?  The migrants ?  ISIS ?  And I'm not going to get started on Black Lives Matter and racial justice.  'Not my wheelhouse' as they say.******  The latter, not even a matter for pivoting in the near future, as GE nears, but a pivot he needed to have made months ago, given Hillary's lead amongst black and minority ethnic voters.

If Sanders is serious, truly truly serious about running for President, I'd love to see him show it.  You need black voters, Bernie, you need older voters, you need to be addressing people's concerns about foreign policy, including terrorism, need to counter Hillary's claims of superior experience with something more than 'judgement' of voting against the War in Iraq.  And you need to understand, in the United States at least, with generations of right-wing corporatist brainwashing, that saying you are going to raise peoples' taxes, but blah...blah...blah...better off in the long term isn't enough, that accusations of being a 'socialist' isn't something you can shrug off, especially as you don't seem to understand (or perhaps care) what the term even fucking means...You need to explain again and again and again, even as you try to build a case for yourself as something more than a one-trick pony, something more than a one-issue candidate.  You signed up for this shit, you brought this on yourself, and your work is cut out for you now.  This if fucking serious, and the consequences, if as the Democratic candidate, you fuck up, utterly dire for the whole world.  I was familiar with 'Occupy' Bernie's rhetoric a year ago, but you need to evolve to face the full scope of the challenges ahead of you and truly 'bring it' if you're serious about this.  I want to be convinced.  By all means, make me feel the Bern...*******



* I'm inclined to think that as for Hillary herself, she never ceased to be a Goldwater Republican (which would admittedly put her still to the left of the GOP today, so far rightwards has it slid, as Goldwater himself predicted), and merely pretended a political conversion for the sake of her marriage and her husband's political career.

** Thanks Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.  Not trying to rig the electoral process in favour of your bud. and presumptive front-runner...at...all...

*** Who are we kidding, this is a two-person race, and long has been.  Not fair, and largely a result of media-bias, but what can one do ?  Now, if only we could combine Clinton's tenacity and political acumen, with Bernie's principles, and O'Malley's personality and good looks...Damn, that would be a fearsome candidate indeed...

**** Yes, I could and would say much the same of many European countries.

***** Oh, and climate change.  We should deffo. do something about that.  Millions & millions of green jobs sprouting magically out of the ground.  A Yuuuge economic opportunity...

****** Fucking hate the expression, but seems to be the phrase du jour, at least in US culture.

******* All this said, who would I be supporting, if I were in the Iowa caucuses or New Hampshire primaries ?  Absolutely, it would be Bernie.  But I'm not the one that really needs convincing.  My support or lack thereof doesn't matter a whit.  As I said earlier, a coalition of young college-age progressives and white progressives simply isn't going to cut it.  A focus on economic inequality isn't going to do it either.  The brief half-hearted reaction to Black Lives Matter is the only time I've seen any willingness on behalf of Sanders' campaign to even try to expand beyond his core economic message.  It he wants to go all the way, it just isn't enough.




Update: Hoped to post this earlier, and almost seems inappropriate now (morning of 2-2-2016) when the result in Iowa is neck-and-neck with Hillary, but the video in question wasn't available when I checked previously.  There's much to praise about Sanders' perfomance in this interview for MSNBC, but Sanders' response to Hayes' question at 4'32 on foreign policy is a perfect example of what I was talking about.  Hayes provides Sanders an opportunity to answer the sceptics on his foreign policy credentials, and even hands him on a platter a specific topical subject: the current Saudi assault on Yemen.

Here, Sanders could have gone into detail on his opinion regarding, and proposals for dealing with that particular conflict, or any other that took his fancy.  Hell, all he really had to do was show an awareness of the situation, and he could have given us just about any generic politician-speak (oh, it's a terrible tragedy what's currently happening in Yemen...blah blah blah...complicated situation...blah blah blah diplomacy...blah blah talk with our enemies...blah blah maintaining relations with allies...blah blah).  Instead, he segues from telling us how serious an understanding of foreign policy is for any would-be president ('life and death stuff') to retreating yet again behind the defence of his 'judgement' compared to Hillary Clinton's on the vote to go to war in Iraq.

Chris Hayes is about as friendly an interviewer as could be imagined for Bernie here, and he handed Bernie a perfect opportunity to prove himself on foreign policy.  I'm sick of hearing about the Iraq War vote already.  What about Yemen ?  What about the South China Sea ?  What about Boko Haram, say ?  Pick one, not 'the many many crises that exist all over the world', dammit.

I want to believe in ya Bernie, but I've been burned before, and I'm no political naïf.  Your answer here wasn't Donald Trump-level bad, but it was similarly insubstantive.  At this stage of the campaign, your supporters, and your country deserve better.

08 October, 2015

QOTD*: Hillary Clinton on Trade Deals

Updated the last post to reflect Hillary's belated opposition to the TPP deal, but I think this quote from her interview with Judy Woodruff merits highlighting.
...We've learned a lot about trade agreements in the past years.  Sometimes they look great on paper.  I know when President Obama came into office, he inherited a trade-agreement with South Korea.  I, along with other members of the cabinet, pushed hard to get a better agreement -- We think we made improvements -- Now, looking back on it, it doesn't have the results we thought it would have, in terms of access to the markets, more exports, et cetera.


And here I thought, listening to her at first, that she was just referring to the insane trade-deals her husband pushed through as president, but no, she's indicting her own competence & record as well.

She then goes on with some nonsense about how 'in order for us to have a competitive economy in the global marketplace', the US needs to 'raise wages' 'at home' (which the Republican meanies have blocked).  So, in other words, she doesn't get the fundamental complaint ordinary workers in the West have against these deals, nor why they are so favoured by the corporate elites, at all.  I sure am filled with confidence in Hill' as the Dem's candidate right now.


* Should really be QOYD for 'Quote of Yesterday', but I suppose that's not 'a thing.'**

** More and more, I feel like commas should be placed outside of quotation-marks, but it just doesn't feel right for the full stop/period.  I'm 'evolving' on the issue.

07 October, 2015

Link Dump (Blue Pill/Red Pill Edition)

Snowden tells us how GCHQ (and no doubt the NSA et al, also) can hack our smartphones at will, tracking us, even if the phone is switched off, taking pictures of us, etc.  And they named the various tools for spying on us after...made-up Smurf characters.  Hey, 'Dreamy Smurf' sounds kinda cute.  'Paranoid Smurf' not so much.

'Free-market' capitalism' rocks !  Bloomberg: Amazon to Ban Sale of Apple, Google Video-Streaming Devices.

The 'futurologist' telling schools they should prepare children to have to work (at shitty part-time jobs in the 'sharing economy') till they are one-hundred-years-old.  In part, supposedly because of the automation and robots taking so many existing jobs.  Well, that makes sense...Not.  Or we could accept that our existing economic model, didn't make much sense in the past, makes no sense now, and is utterly batshit-insane with the future we currently face, and seek some kind of fucking alternative...

Alex Salmond's super-secret undercover identity busted after he's blocked from boarding a British Airways flight as 'James T. Kirk'.

Telegraph: How your GP is paid to stop you going to hospital.  Oh, did we mention that these are largely cancer-patients doctors are paid not to refer to hospital ?

Reason Magazine on the evils of recycling.  Need moar landfills !

BBC with the funnies: UK end-of-life care 'best in world'.  Never heard of the Liverpool Care Pathway, then, have we Beeb ?

Finally a male contraceptive, via a protein-blocker for sperm ?

Grauniad: 'Militant leftwing' councils to be blocked from boycotting products.  By which, they mean boycotts on dealing with British arms-manufacturers, and especially BDS against Israel.

Fox Sports: Eight of Iran’s women’s football team ‘are men’.  No, never !


Former Labour-govt. official admits that they 'made a mistake' fucked up royally in promoting diesel as a supposedly eco-friendly alternative to petrol.  Whoops, sorry all those who suffered and/or died as a result of the extra pollution.  Better late than never ?

Who knew ?  Telegraph: Antarctic scientists face breathalyser tests due to alcohol-fuelled fighting and 'indecent exposure'.  Guess the Antarctic might be slightly boring...

RT: UN human rights fail: Saudi Arabia to ‘investigate themselves’ over Yemen war crimes.

A breastmilk-fortifier for prematurely born babies.

Reason on the twelve-year-old suspended from school for...staring at a girl.

Taking speed-traps to a whole new level...BBC: Speed cameras hidden in tractors criticised.

Via Balko, Jerry Brown, Libertarian crusader against excessive legislation ?


Speaking of Libertarians, the candidate for the LP in Florida in trouble for admitting to sacrificing a goat, and drinking its blood.  Er, whatever dude.  Who cares ?  Now tell us how your policies won't further enrich the wealthy and fuck over the poor.

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson's special debate-strategy: Imagine the other candidates as cute babies.  Man must have a hell of an imagination.  Then again, he is a highly-educated neurosurgeon who believes the Earth to be six-thousand years old...

Oh yeah, here's the same Ben Carson joking about his encounters with police in his youth 'back in the days before they would shoot you.'  Hee Hee.

And Ben Carson here & here advocating arming kindergarten-teachers.  That'll work out well no doubt.

Bullshit !  PR Newswire: New Survey Uncovers, Men Who Tuck Are Happier, More Successful, And Generally More Optimistic.  Their shirts that is.  And oh yeah, the poll was paid for by Fruit of the Loom...

Al.com: Voter ID and driver's license office closures black-out Alabama's Black Belt.  So, the Republicans in Alabama instituted bullshit Voter-ID Laws, then just happened to close the DMV-offices in poorer, largely black (and thus Democratic-voting) counties.  Whadda coinky-dink !

Mirror: Jeremy Hunt wants poor Brits to work like the Chinese in new insult piled on tax credit cuts.  Well, Somalia is more like the ultimate goal.  Obscene wealth for the 1%, lowest common denominator for ev'ryone else.

War is Boring on how Russia may be using their activities in Syria to spy on the US' F-22.

Rhetorical question from the New Statesman: Why is the government giving £45m to Roman Abramovich while letting a British steelworks go to the wall?

Oh yeah, and the evil TPP deal was finally agreed (look it up).  The details may or may not be available to the public a few decades from now...when the damage is already done.  Happy hump-day !




Update: Oh lookee, Hillary-come-lately finally voiced her bold opposition to the trade-deal she previously praised & helped promote whilst in office, now that the deal has been inked by all the nations involved, and Obama has the 'Fast Track' power to ram it through Congress without the possibility of debate or amendment.

What courage from the would-be future leader of the free world, she who so vehemently opposed the war in Iraq that she voted for its authorisation, and she who hemmed and hawed for months on the Keystone XL pipeline-deal she previously supported whilst in the administration, till prolonged low oil-prices made it politically and economically unviable !  Bold bold Hillary !

'Don't need a weatherman' do ya ?

08 September, 2015

Tone Deaf: The Hillary Loyalty Pledge


Ugh.  The optics of this are just terrible, however much Hillary's campaign may assert that this was in fact a voluntary pledge.

Most likely, this was just an attempt at harvesting the attendees' details, to add to a database of potential supporters*, and someone thought it would be cute to reference the GOP's recent loyalty-pledge in the process.  That's not the way it will be reported however.  A stupid unforced error.

Via Mediaite.


* Not that that's an entirely benign activity itself.

21 August, 2015

Wuerker on the Zombie Hillary E-mail 'Scandal'


Personally, I still think this e-mail-crap is all bullshit, but then, I think Mister Trump is at best a stand-in stooge competitor for the presidency, so what do I know ?

04 August, 2015

Slate/New Scientist on Obama's 'Bold' Climate Plan

Obama wants you to think his climate plan will be bold. It’s not
US president Barack Obama's much-heralded attempt to curb carbon emissions from coal-fired power stations is nowhere near enough
Later today, US President Barack Obama will unveil the final version of the centrepiece of his climate legacy: the Clean Power Plan.
It is designed to speed up the retirement of coal-fired power plants – the most carbon-intensive way of generating electricity – and could more than double the rate of their closures by 2040.
In a video preview, Obama called the Clean Power Plan “the biggest, most important step we’ve ever taken to combat climate change”. While that may be true, it’s not saying a whole heck of a lot.
As I wrote last year when the details were initially announced, many states are already well on their way to achieving the required reductions, thanks in part to a recent boom in cheap natural gas and the Obama administration’s choice of 2005 as the basis year for cuts, which was close to America’s all-time peak in carbon emissions. Obama’s plan is significant, but it’s not bold.
A previous version of the targets, announced last year, would have required states to begin implementing changes to their power-producing mix in 2020. The final version, to be announced today, gives states and utilities an extra two years. The targets will vary by state, depending on their current energy mix, and states will have flexible ways of achieving emissions reductions, including an option to join an interstate cap-and-trade scheme.
All this will be a heavy lift for some coal-intensive states, like Wyoming, but it’s being heralded as largely “business as usual” for some states, like Minnesota, that have already made significant efforts to shift their energy mix.
...
It has been calculated that the plan would shave just 6 per cent from US carbon emissions by 2030. Climate science and international equity demand the US cut emissions 80 per cent by then. We’re nowhere near that pace.
Still, this plan is not nothing. In its coverage, The New York Times includes this hopeful gem: “But experts say that if the rules are combined with similar action from the world’s other major economies, as well as additional action by the next American president, emissions could level off enough to prevent the worst effects of climate change.”
That’s a lot of hedging on which to base a climate legacy.
In fact, when compared with the climate plans of his would-be successors on the left – Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley – Obama’s ranks last in terms of ambition.
Clinton, who has frequently aligned herself with the president on climate, announced a preview of her own climate plan last week. It’s fractionally more ambitious than Obama’s, but it essentially just kicks the can forward another few years.
...
Last week, former NASA climate scientist James Hansen, fresh off a dire new warning about global sea levels, had harsh words for the slow, incremental progress that’s formed essentially the entirety of American’s climate ambition to date. “We have two political parties, neither one of which is willing to face reality,” Hansen told the Guardian. “Conservatives pretend it’s all a hoax, and liberals propose solutions that are non-solutions.”
“It’s just plain silly,” said Hansen, speaking specifically of Clinton’s planned renewable energy push. “No, you cannot solve the problem without a fundamental change, and that means you have to make the price of fossil fuels honest.”
In the end, our climate won’t care about how we fix this problem. But it’s clear that time is running out. If Obama truly wants to go all-in on climate change, he should meet Republicans where they are – as painful as that might be – and negotiate a way to pass a carbon tax.
...
If Obama really wants to make a lasting impact on global warming, he can work across the US political divide or across the Pacific in Beijing, to work toward implementing a meaningful, economy-wide carbon tax as quickly as possible. Just because such a breakthrough feels impossible doesn’t mean it isn’t necessary. 

Nice change from the coverage in most outlets, including, sadly, the BBC, which seems to have framed the discussion of Obama's plan solely in terms of his Republican opponents' view (ie, 'Radical Enviro-Nazi Obama and his War On Coal; Let's debate the two sides...'), whilst ignoring those who would argue Obama's legacy-burnishing proposals are at the very least too little, and quite likely, too late.

<Rant below the fold:>

28 July, 2015

Speaking of our Future Semi-Benevolent Dictator

Here's Hillary's super-duper Reality-driven plan for dealing with climate-change: More solar panels** and wind-turbines to power US homes.

That's it apparently.*  No mention of the need for more nuclear in the short term at least.  No mention of industry.  No mention of our destructive economic system that is inherently dependent on infinite growth in a world of finite resources.  No mention of globalisation & trade.  No mention of population-growth.  No mention of China, Russia, Canada, Brasil, Australia, etc., and that fact that nothing the US does will make a damn bit of difference without some sort of global agreement on action.


Just put a solar panel on your house, drive a Prius, and bye-bye climate-change.  And everybody gets a magical pony to boot.


This folksy aw-shucks shit made me want to vomit:
I'm just a grandmother with two eyes and a brain.
Uh, you're a Yale-educated lawyer, a millionaire, a former board-member of Walmart, the highly influential wife of a two-term president of the United States (who amongst other things did much to undermine existing efforts on climate change by outsourcing much of US industry to the far east and México), a former Senator of the United States, and a former Secretary of State.  This lil' ole' Gran'ma me shit is starting to grate.


* There is a line in the video that hints at a coming 'comprehensive agenda', but hey, I'm not the one who released this publicly as 'Hillary's plan to curb climate change'.  And if you seriously believe Hillary will take any bolder action than this, then I've got a bridge for sale.

** Just thought, hang on a minute, where are all these solar panels coming from, given that the PRC-subsidised manufacturers in China already put most US manufacturers out of business ?  On a heavily polluting container-ship over the Pacific Ocean ?

25 July, 2015

Wuerker: On Hillary's Delayed Coronation


I'd feel guilty re-publishing everything Ted/Bors/Tomorrow et al. came out with, and the stuff from the British papers is probably a tad parochial, so...

...here's Matt Wuerker !  I guess he must be on some sort of retainer at Politico ?  Actually, the guy's not bad at all, just not quite in the same league as some of his more risk-taking colleagues.  Which, in this shitty risk-adverse media-environment is understandable.

09 July, 2015

Where are all the Conspiracy-Theorists When You Need Them ?

Photographer: Maring Photography/Getty Images/Contour by Getty Images
Newlyweds Donald Trump Sr. and Melania Trump with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton at their reception held at The Mar-a-Lago Club in January 22, 2005 in Palm Beach, Florida.

Not gonna dwell on this, but given all the other ridiculous shit that gets thrown around...

We have in the Republican primaries one individual currently that is sucking all the attention away from the other candidates, who will deny at least one 'serious' candidate a place in the first debates on Fox News, and who is an absolute dream-candidate for the Democrats, speaking as he does to the Republican base's more angry paranoid bigoted id, and attracting all kinds of negative attention to the GOP from the media.

And that candidate, who as he himself repeatedly brings up, is (according to him) fabulously wealthy, and can afford to run, even if it costs him multiple business-deals, in the name of 'making American Great Again.'

And said candidate just so happens to be a long-time friend of, past proponent of, and past contributor to, one Hillary Clinton, a corporatist shill for Wall Street, who happens to be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.  And who happens to benefit enormously from the Donald's presence in the race.

Crazier things, and all that...

07 July, 2015

So How Will Auntie Hill Come Down on that Trade Deal ?

I can't believe* that stupid non-troversy about Hillary Clinton and the rope between her and the media in some parade is still getting such attention in the US media.  It's utterly absurd, and of no interest to the average American at all.  Any more than for that matter BENGHAZI!!!! & E-mail-gate.

But, that said, she hasn't given many, if any, interviews since declaring her run for the presidency, and as such, until she does give her first major interview, she'll inevitably be judged by whatever does come out, via her, her people, her husband...
The former president described how Vietnam has going from being a country where people made barely a dollar a day twenty years ago, when we normalized relations with them, has seen explosive economic growth and how its children are now among the highest in the world in basic math, science and literature.
Finally, he spoke of how President Obama is trying to add to this record of economic cooperation with the TPP negotiations. He said he hoped “more than anything else that there will be as much bipartisan support for it as there was 20 years ago for the normalization of relations between the U.S. and Vietnam.” He said if our country can get good labor, human rights and environmental standards, the TPP will command the support of a broad swath of the American people.
'Good labor, human rights, and environmental standards'... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


* Who the fuck am I kidding ?  Of course, I can.



Update: Yeah, that CNN thing was a total softball puffpiece.  No hard questioning, no mention of TPP or trade generally.  And in so far as there was any approach at discussing anything remotely controversial, they just rehashed the same stupid nontroversies with which the US media is perpetually obsessed.  Basic takeaway: The Republicans are mean, nothing is Hillary's fault, and Hillary has a super-duper economic plan, but she can't tell you anything about it yet.

And since Hillary won't speak to TPP, I will on her behalf: She's for it.  Every bit of it.  Even the bits she may have criticised in the past.  Even the bit whereby the rightful constitutional authority of the government of the United States is made secondary to unaccountable tribunals run by multinational corporations.  Because she wants more wealth and power than she currently has, and the best way to ensure that happens is to suck up to and shill for her even-more powerful and wealthy friends on Wall Street.  But until the General Election at least, you get to enjoy folksy faux-populist Hillary.  As I hinted at in passing before, the woman knows how to act.

03 July, 2015

A Brief Note on that Bernie Sanders Blip

Bernie Sanders is arguably a man of conscience.  And other than his rape-fantasies from the 'seventies, I've not seen much about the man to question his intentions, his good will.

The thing about Bernie is, attract massive crowds (of mostly older white folk it should be noted) as he  currently may, the vast majority of people in the US (Democratic Party-affiliated or otherwise), know nothing about his record.  Bernie right now is a purely symbolic representation of two things, both of which overlap:

a) Wishful-thinking for Elizabeth Warren as candidate for President

b) A half-hearted protest against the (not altogether inaccurately perceived): corporatism, cronyism, vested interests in established politics of Hillary Clinton.

Self-described Socialist Sanders may well have been speaking of issues that relate now in the twenty-first century for decades, but that's no guarantee that he can concoct a message that resonates across boundaries of race, class, gender, age.  He only has a place (as a protest against Hillary) in the primaries because Warren declined to run, and he hasn't really been tested politically in the past.  The more progressive elements of my makeup want to root for Bernie at least a little, but the fact is, he hasn't a chance.

Democrats are rallying around Sanders, in lieu of Warren, because they don't want to accept Hillary as a fait accompli, and because they hope (perhaps vainly) that his candidacy could draw her slightly to the left  (as if that would guarantee anything after the elections).

Meanwhile, something similar is going on with the Republican party with Donald Trump, the ultimate manifestation of right-wing Tea Party corporatist id, taking second place in leading polls, draining the oxygen from the campaign from more serious candidates who might lose their place in key debates due to Trump's presence, and his inevitable celebrity dominance in the attentions of the media.

The whole thing's a fucking circus.  Ultimately, Americans will be given the choice between a slightly less and slightly more-right-wing asshole Capitalistic Corporatist
scumbag to be President.  And those who choose to endorse the one or the other will see (as intended) their opposite fellows as radical anti-American extremists.  By design.


* Slightly less brief than I started out intending...

23 June, 2015

AlterNet Revisits the Legacy of Bill Clinton

15 Ways Bill Clinton’s White House Failed America and the World 
Bill Clinton remains one of America’s most popular presidents. A national poll last March by NBC and the Wall Street Journal found 56 percent of Americans had a clearly favorable view of Clinton.
...for more than a year before Hillary Clinton launched her latest presidential campaign, Bill Clinton has been selectively telling media outlets that he made some mistakes as president and might have acted otherwise. He's even tried to recast actual events and been taken to task by fact-checkers who recall his leading role in what became major crises, such as the 2008 global financial implosion.
What follows are 15 ways Bill Clinton’s presidency did not serve America or the world, and in many ways deepened and perpetuated the problems we face today. This article was prepared by AlterNet staff members Janet Allon, Michael Arria, Jan Frel, Tana Ganeva, Kali Holloway, Zaid Jilani, Adam Johnson, Steven Rosenfeld, Phillip Smith, Terrell Jermaine Starr and Carrie Weissman.
1. Prison-loving president. In May, on the heels of the unrest in Baltimore sparked by Freddie Gray’s death in police custody, Clinton apologized for locking too many people up. Thanks, Bill.
The 2.4 million people in prison and the 160,000 Americans serving life in prison largely because of his policies might be excused for not accepting Clinton's apology. Tag-teaming with ex-President Ronald Reagan, Clinton is the president most responsible for the mass incarceration of Americans on an epic scale. The gung-ho crime fighter-in-chief passed the single most damaging law with his omnibus federal crime bill in 1994, which included the infamous “three strikes” law (three felony convictions means a life sentence) and ensured that mandatory minimum sentences imprisoned even low-level, non-violent offenders for a long, long time.
...
And the list carries on, all the way from 'Welfare-reform' to war: Always useful to revisit history, given that some in the electorate are too young to remember it, and given how selective and unreliable our memories tend to be.  Clinton may have run as a liberal*, but he certainly didn't govern as one as this piece reminds us.



Although yes, to be fair**, we should really judge Hillary on the basis of her own accomplishments, since she started a political career by parachuting into a safe Senate-seat in New York.  Unfortunately, I can't think of any.


* See ?  Selective Memory-Syndrome strikes again.

** Because that whole 'co-president' thing never happened, and it's not as if nostalgia for the 'nineties is the primary appeal of Hillary's bid for the presidency.

12 June, 2015

Auntie Hill Gets Burned By Ted

Someone...really, really hates Hillary.  Not complaining, but ouch...http://rall.com/comic/hillary-instagram.  Tell us what you really think, Ted ?...

05 June, 2015

That US Presidential Candidate Tracker Thing

No, I haven't been updating it.  I hesitated as new candidates entered the race, as to whether I should add Carly Fiorina & Bernie Sanders despite both not having a cat in hell's chance of winning their respective nominations, and since then the field has just continued to balloon ridiculously.  To have a usable web-graphic, I think something like an image of a cartoony train-carriage, looping around the page would be necessary, and I'm not sure I'm up to it.  At this point, the whole thing is a farce, as is the continuing use of the word 'democracy' to describe the elections.

I mean, yes, many countries have mock-candidates.  John Oliver did a bit on the joke-candidacies as a result of mandatory voting in Brasil, and the Monster Raving Loony Party is a bona fide staple of British elections, but...these people are going to make millions and millions of dollars out of pretending to run for president.  While in the background, the country's multi-billionaires decide amongst themselves the actual winner...


I mean, shit, I can just about identify 2/3 of these assholes, but I'm guessing the average American would struggle to get above low single digits.

That fascist in the far-lower right-hand corner is maybe worth paying attention, as is, solely due to his name, his opposite in the far-upper left-hand corner.  And third from right in the top row, well, that motherfucker's a terrifying prospect given his record and the American public's gullibility.  As for Mister second from the far-left top corner, well...

Dramas involving bridges or not...are you really going to elect...this guy ?*


Let's just chug a quart or two of bleach in honour of Auntie Hill becoming the US' next semi-benevolent dictator...


* Although honestly, Chris Christie is far and away actually one of the better candidates from the GOP.

26 April, 2015

That Clinton Economic Legacy


For all the progressives & Hillary-fans out there talking up the economic legacy of Bill Clinton, a president who inherited an economic recovery from his predecessor, George Herbert Walker Bush, and whose presidency happened to coincide with the tech. bubble, how about a reminder of some of Bill's economic accomplishments while in office ?*  I've divided them into two groups, one subjectively 'good', one subjectively 'bad'.  Your guess which is which.

NAFTA (North American Free Tree Agreement)
'Welfare-Reform'
The DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act)
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Permanent Most Favoured Nation status for the People's Republic of China
GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade)
Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (i.e. partial reform of Glass-Steagall)

Balanced the budget (Repubs. would probably dispute credit for this one)*
FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993)
Increased the Minimum Wage
Expanded EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit)
Expansion of Head-Start programme
Attempted (and failed miserably) to bring about universal healthcare-reform.

So, a record on balance to celebrate ?  Consider for one, what was/is the impact of these changes, short-term...and long...


*I am talking here about things Clinton actually did while in office, or was significantly involved in getting through Congress.  One of the things at least on my list (the one starred) is very debatable, and things like employment-figures and stock-market numbers are impossible to separate out between the multitudinous number of potential causal factors, most of which are probably outside of the control of any sitting president.

** Although I provided Wiki links for most of this stuff, I'm assuming a certain level of familiarity with this history and the politics thereof, which Wikipedia alone probably won't provide.

24 April, 2015

Press-release on TPP Fast-track Deal

Via Gaius Publius, more information on the fast-track deal for TPP (and other trade-deals ?) currently being rushed through Congress, from individuals far better informed and less sweary than myself: https://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-fast-track-introduced-april-2015.pdf.

I skimmed it myself, but it does amongst other things seems to indicate that this abdication of responsibility by the US Congress on trade-deals could continue at least through the next presidency if not into the one after that, as indicated on her show recently by Rachel Maddow.  Hillary still seems oddly quiet on the whole thing, huh ?

22 April, 2015

Yes, I Clicked on Stupid Fucking Clickbait from Politico...


I don't even like Hillary, but WTF is this ?  Is it her fault that her party (well, the one she ended up with, via Bill) is so complacent and flaccid ?  That they haven't the imagination to come up with an alternative to the last election's choice between Barry & Hill ? That they have failed so utterly in encouraging young talent to rise up through the ranks and become established in the media and in the public imagination ?  That they, like the Republicans with McCain & Romney, are so willing to accept the idea that a name-brand politician should be somehow entitled to the nomination, because it's 'their turn' ?

What exactly should Hillary do, instead of 'un-running' for President ?  (I'm assuming here I guess that not running at all, and contributing to society in a way more fitting her talents is not an option...)  And as for 'the press must now cover the Clinton 2016 slow lane the best they can', well fuck them.  The press doesn't have to do shit.  How about having their anchor (if such a position still exists) going on camera during prime-time (again, if such a thing truly still exists), and reminding the public that it is still more than eighteen fucking months till the election, and trying to find actual meaningful non-horserace news to cover in the interval ?  What other country runs or covers elections this way ?  But then, what would the likes of Politico do ?  How would they survive ?

And fuck whatever editor chose the picture of Hillary above.  a) For the bleeding fucking obvious, and b) for the criminal waste of blank space.

16 April, 2015

A Message From Harry & Louise


Imagine an alternate universe in which the Clintons went into acting.  Yes this is via the Chris Hayes' bit, via Digby.

13 April, 2015

In Defence of Dumbfuckery

Er, Digby...just why exactly would you assume the young lady in question is confusing  her 'pseudo-scandals' ?  And wait, is Watergate a 'pseudo-scandal' now or 'the greatest political scandal in American history' ?

Really, there's three questions to ask here:
  1. Was Hillary involved in the Watergate hearings ?
  2. Did Hillary lie at the Watergate hearings ?
  3. Is a self-confessed fan of Ted Cruz likely to care about the actual facts regarding 1 or 2 if they support a current right-wing meme ?
We could answer our first question with a quick trip to Wikipedia, but hey, 'anyone can edit Wikipedia' right ?  (Well, sorta...)  So how about a reference to oh, I don't know...The William J. Clinton Presidential Library say ?
After graduating from Wellesley College in 1969, Hillary entered Yale Law School where she met Bill Clinton. In 1974, at the height of the Watergate scandal, Hillary worked on the staff assisting the House Judiciary Committee with its investigation of the Nixon administration.
So, yeah.

Hillary Rodham (center), a lawyer for the Rodino Committee and John Doar (left), chief counsel for the committee, bring impeachment charges against President Richard Nixon in the Judiciary Committee hearing room at the U.S. Capitol in 1974 in Washington.

Short answer to our second question is that no-one knows for sure except perhaps Hillary.  But it does seem to be quite the right-wing meme that Hillary was fired from the Watergate hearings by Jerry Zeifman for lying, based on an article by one Dan Calabrese.  Snopes calls it False, and says that in fact Mister Zeifman had no authority to fire her (...but would if he could...), but it does sound like his recollections on the subject over the years have been changeable.
And again in 1998, Zeifman was undeniably quoted in a Scripps Howard News Service article as confirming that not only did he not "fire" Hillary, but that it was not even within his power to do so:
Jerome Zeifman, chief Democratic counsel on the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 ... does not have flattering memories of Rodham's work on the committee. "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her," he said.

So, she wasn't actually fired, and we certainly can't prove she lied, but that's not really important, because one guy said she's a liar...and...we get to link Hillary's name in a negative way to another famous political scandal.  Which leads us to...

Pregunta número tres.  Well, who are you going to believe ?  Snopes ?  'The Liberal Media' ?
Or Daily Kos...sorry, Fox News, Hot Air, Breitbart, and Rush Limbaugh ?

I think you already know the answer to that.  And you know what, Amber *Liberty Girl* is free to believe what she wants, even if that's that Vince Foster was murdered to prevent him talking about a secret deal with the UN to take away everyone's guns and/or a secret lesbian tryst between Hillary and Janet Reno.  And she's young, so she may yet one day evolve out of the right-wing media bubble.

Give her a chance maybe ?  After all, I'm making an awful lot of assumptions about her political background (as is Digby) based on a quick perusal of her Twitter feed.  It may be that she just genuinely doesn't trust Auntie Hill.  I don't blame her for that if that's the score.  I don't either.