And Some Blame Goes to…

I blame a lot of people for making us have to deal with Trump in the White House.

  • I blame the Russians, for pushing anti-Hillary stories in the media and for quite possibly hacking the vote in some areas of the country.
  • I blame conservatives for putting aside their claims of moral superiority and “patriotism” and rallying behind Trump.
  • I blame those evangelical Christians and others who chose to overlook Christ’s teachings to vote for a dick for president who violates everything they claim to believe in.
  • I blame everyone who chose to look past his strongest constituency,  racists and white nationalists, to vote for him, even though they knew it was wrong, and vote for him anyway.
  • And make no mistake, I ALSO blame the far left idiots who constantly paraded through the media, calling Hillary “the lesser of two evils” and reinforcing the right wing meme, that Hillary Clinton was “dishonest” and a “hawk” and all sorts of other things, especially those brain-dead idiots who voted for Jill Stein.

Yeah, I’m talking to you, Susan Sarandon. I am also talking to those liberals, including friends or otherwise, who poisoned the well in the minds of a public that largely only hears about politics in a roundabout way. The actual culprit in this election, like many of the last 15-20 election cycles, was not that Trump was enormously popular, it was low turnout. And if you bother to listen to the people who didn’t show up to vote, you find a few very common themes. Some thought Hillary Clinton was such a shoo-in, they didn’t think their vote mattered. Some thought that there was no one worth voting for. Really. No choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? Where would they get that idea? Another reason was that they figured Hillary Clinton’s emails were a non-starter, and she was likely to be impeached by the GOP Congress early on, so what was the point?

Again, where would anyone get such ideas from? Well, I remember seeing Susan Sarandon on Chris Hayes’ MSNBC gabfest, days or weeks before the election, when she implied that Hillary was no more than the “lesser of two evils.” On social media, Bernie Sanders diehards were all over, telling everyone how horrible Hillary was and that, if the only thing to sell her was that she was better than Trump, they saw no reason to encourage anyone to vote for her. There was also the fact that unicorn progressives and professional lefties don’t seem able to promote their favorite candidate without tearing down the other one. This is not only really poor political strategy, but they also claim that two years of tearing down Hillary had no effect, which  is purely ignorant. I mean, if you don’t think your trashing of Hillary Clinton had an impact on her public perception, it should be really easy to shut up, right? .

And what was all the negativity based on? It certainly wasn’t based on reality. She was one of the greatest First Ladies of all time, setting a new standard for presidents’ wives in the future. As a Senator, she had a stellar record that most other Senators wished they could match, including Bernie Sanders. As Secretary of State, she was a key player when it came to bringing back the reputation of the United States from the Bush days and she put in more miles as anyone in State Department history, trying to bring peace around the world. When she left the State Department, she was praised as one of the greatest Secretaries of State of all time. Before she ran for president, she was routinely the most admired woman in the world, based on a global perspective. In fact, she was named that once again last year.

And no, she did not sell uranium. No, she did not advocate for war everywhere. She was responsible for security at Benghazi, but she was turned down by the GOP Congress and she was cleared by eight investigations, most of them conducted by Republicans. She has regretted her vote for the Iraq war for more than a decade. She did not pass on classified material to anyone who shouldn’t have it, based on several investigations. She admitted her decision to use a private server for email was a mistake, but if you know anything about the condition of the State Department servers in 2009, you can easily see it as a rational choice. Through 30 years of right wing smeans, she and her husband have been cleared on everything but a Bill’s consensual blowie from an intern. And all of the talk about “pay to play”? There was never any evidence of that. The Clinton Foundation’s records are 100% transparent. Anyone who wants to can see whatever they want and they will discover two things; they will note that none of the donations to the Foundations and meetings with the Secretary coincided at all and they will also note that no one in the family has ever taken a dime out of that Foundation.

And one more thing; all of the talk about Hillary taking money from Wall Street? That’s a lie, too. Donations from all financial services companies represented less than 5% of all donations and none was large enough to buy a favor from anyone in politics. See, here’s the thing; Hillary collected more than $1 billion in donations during the 2016 cycle, which means even a $1 million donation represents 1/1000th of her total haul. And if you look back at her career, there is zero evidence of “pay to play,” even when she could have presumably gotten away with it as Senator. All of the Clintons’ money comes from books and speeches and most of that goes into the Foundation. Capitalism is still legal.

And yet, to hear the professional left tell it, she was the second coming of Beelzebub, while Trump was the second coming of Satan. Only marginally better, according to these morons, which is why they refused to back Clinton with any force. Even when they said they planned to vote Clinton, there was always a qualifier, like “although she’s the lesser of two evils,” or “at least she’s a little more qualified” or “she’s better than Trump, although that’s not saying much.” At no point did the loudest voices in the progressive movement ever come out enthusiastically for Hillary Clinton, even though you could make a case that she is arguably the most qualified and accomplished candidate in US history. It’s easy to make a case, as both President Obama and former President Clinton did, that she was far more uplifted than either of them.

And please, stop telling me you didn’t think it would be this bad. Trump is doing exactly what he campaigned on. He’s doing exactly what the “Fuck You Caucus” that led the election to be close enough for the Russians to steal. Conceivably. 77,000 votes in three states made the difference. There is no way you #neverhillary people, or you Jill Stein or Gary Johnson voters or those who trashed Hillary in any way can escape all blame for what poor and minority people will have to endure for the next four years. You lied, it’s that simple. And while lies and negativity work for the right in their unending quest to depress turnout, doing the same works against us. If you can’t figure out how to be pro-Bernie or pro-Jill without being anti-Hillary, you need to grow the fuck up. It’s that simple.


And Some Blame Goes to… — 8 Comments

  1. Maybe this is only a little bit relevant, but one of the fallouts I’ve noticed from the Bernie Stans, etc., is that I don’t think we can keep ignoring the fact that not all fiscal leftists are also social liberals. Hillary Clinton had an amazing record in public service, and the Republicans ran an incredible smear campaign, but it still feels, to me, like she was crucified in ways no man would ever have been.
    It’s also interesting to me to see how alt-right creeps like Steve Bannon and Milo Yiannopoulos are called out for “racism” and “anti-Semitism” in the mainstream media, which they may have shown to some degree, but their blatant and completely obvious sexism and misogyny is utterly ignored and not even mentioned most of the time. I notice this in article after article after article.
    It’s somewhat terrifying to me that 15% of people who identify as very or somewhat liberal actually approve of Steve Bannon. What does that mean about the very far left?

    • I think it means that at some point the far left and far right are close enough to shake hands. I also agree that there is racism and sexism on the left, as well as on the right. Look at all the people who stopped supporting President Obama right after they voted for him; he was never good enough or progressive for them. Look at the way some, and Sanders supporters, swept away black concerns as less important or urgent than the economic concerns of whites.

      • Thank you. I agree. In addition to racism and sexism on the left, I think there’s an incredible lack of realism. The purist lefties want miracles. There was not a single idea proposed by Bernie Sanders that I was opposed to, but I still had an incredible amount of distrust for him, because he never outlined how he wanted to achieve his grandiose ideas. He wasn’t terribly different from Trump in that regard. I am a “progressive.” To me, that means we need to make gradual progress in the right direction. It doesn’t mean that we can magically transform overnight into something else entirely. Economies can crash and burn prettty quickly, but it takes slow, steady progress to move toward healthy, more mixed economies. Obama was hurt by both racism and the “instant gratification” society that we’ve become, in my opinion.

  2. I have one ‘friend’ on Facebook who was a Sanders supporter and who became more rabidly anti-Clinton as the race went on. She believes with all her heart that the primaries were rigged and that if Sanders had been the candidate he would have won and the only reason Trump won was because everyone hated Hillary so much. On election day she posted she had had a ‘moment of clarity’ and that she voted for Stein and her ‘hands were clean’ and her ‘heart was clear’. Since the election she has constantly revisited the theme of ‘if Sanders had won” and blames the people who voted for Clinton for Trump’s election. She has gone farther and farther away from reality and is at this point pretty similar to the far right. She is a middle class woman who works as a legal secretary or paralegal. She commented when she went to the Women’s March that she would try to conceal her scorn for the bourgeois women who would be marching (she works in a legal office. How much more bourgeois can you get). She posted the other day that Democrats had better not show up to protest for immigrants because they had started all the wars that caused all the trouble. While still believing the primaries were rigged, she pours scorn on the idea that Russia interfered in any way with the general election and believes Wikileaks and Assange are telling the truth out of the purest of motives. I think she is being forced farther and farther away from reality because underneath she KNOWS that her vote was wrong and that she and other Stein/Johnson voters helped cause this debacle and she just can’t face it. I think it is rampant guilt and a frantic effort to deny it that is causing this weirdness. It is sad and troubling, but it’s giving me insight into how people come to be so extreme in an effort to avoid having to admit they made a very damaging mistake. She lives in Michigan where the vote was so close, I think the Stein voters might have affected the results.

  3. Great piece. Thank you. I thought the extreme Left learned its lesson with Ralph Nader. Apparently not. According to so many comments from B.S. supporters I read during the primary and into the GE, you would think Hillary Clinton was entirely responsible for the Iraq war and G.W. was barely mentioned. I think the Left keeps getting played and manipulated by very clever Right Wing operatives. An example is H.A. Goodman. He was so prominently featured on Salon during the primary and early in the GE. He is still showing up with hit pieces on Huffpo. Why? Why would any Liberal website publish his work? He is an unhinged Clinton hater and hostile to the DNC and Democrats in general. The Republicans are hyper sensitive to any dissent or criticism and go nuts when real or perceived slights happen. Liberals destroy from within. I do not get it.

    • About the Naderites, a surprisingly large group in the leftie forums where I hang out has never come to terms with their share of the responsibility for weaseling Bush into the White House. Any attempt at having that discussion triggered immediate howls of outrage that drowned out rational thought and analysis.

      I claim no predictive powers, but with the benefit of hindsight it’s pretty clear that:

      Everyone pulled together, after that monster Bush, to keep the Republicans away from power

      After the election, the Left tacitly split into two blocks: the Radicals to maintain their opposition to what they considered right wing elements within the Democratic Coalition, and the Reformers to get on with the difficult business of running the country.

      As early as 2009 and the wrangling over the ACA, it was obvious that trouble was brewing. Remember Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake and her fling with Grover Norquist of the Americans for Tax Reform? Life got testy after 2010 and the Republican surge in the house – some people were quick to interpret the inability to get legislation through a hostile Congress as hard proof of a lack of interest in passing good legislation, which is a restatement of one of Milt’s recurring themes.

      Then the world blew up in 2013 over the Snowden Debacle. The gang warfare was incredible, bloody squabbles over trivial differences of opinion, and the tribal identities thus reformulated carried straight over into the Clinton and Sanders camps.

      So now we have alleged Leftists voting for Trump, and alleged Leftists voting for that Libertarian non-entity and alleged Leftists voting for a Science denying crackpot at the head of a Green Party that is in no sense leftist at all.

  4. Wpw!
    Much like my rant, but i give credit because you’ve done it better.
    I hope you’re good with me including points you’ve made that i’ve been missing?
    Keep it up, Milt.