The Clinton Double Standard?

    Branko Marcetic has a strong piece at the Jacobin called the Clinton Double Standard. He argues that liberals have given the Clintons a pass for harassing behavior that is not dissimilar to what Harvey Weinstein, Bill O'Reilly, and other are alleged to have done. What makes the article especially trenchant is that Marcetic provides an out for pro-Clinton liberals. Namely, the former first family has in fact been subject to many scurrilous charges by political opponents on the right - many of whom are even more reprobate than Bill and Hillary. Marcetic, nevertheless, concludes: "[I]f we want the crime of sexual assault to be taken seriously, it has to be seen as something more than a political football."


    What would taking it more seriously than political football look like?

    It would mean that Bill Clinton would not be invited to speak at Democratic nominating conventions. It would mean that Clinton primary supporters could not successfully deflect questions about whether Hillary Clinton enabled Bill to harass and abuse women, including engaging in an affair with a 21-year old subordinate, by pointing to newspaper articles that Bernie Sanders wrote over 40 years ago. It would mean that people like Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright would not smear women who support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. That's what taking the allegations against Bill Clinton seriously would mean.

    That sure sounds like political football. Or more like political demolition derby.
    I suspect Marcetic is disingenuous in his call for a higher ground but if one takes him at his word, it presumably involves an element of common ground being found between the Left and the Right. I am having trouble getting an image of what that looks.

    In any case, maybe Marcetic is simply incorrect. Maybe all the political expressions on the issue are a part of taking the issue seriously. That element of the workplace is changing and has been.

    If the Clintons are drummed out of the democratic party and tarred and feathered for every allegation no matter how spurious. If Sanders is given a free pass for everything he's done that might be controversial especially those weird articles explaining his deviant sexual views. If all national figures, especially women, are censored when they speak positively about Hillary or if they critique Sanders in any way at all.

    Then the democratic party will have done what the Hal fringe thinks is required to take the allegations against Bill Clinton seriously. If all this is accomplished the Hal fringe of the democratic party might consider unifying with the democratic party.

    That would mean Cornel West would be a Democrat?

    H-E double hockey sticks No!

    Democrats can only ask so much of me. (Smiley face here- my iPad refuses to do it)

    No don't worry. The Cornel West fringe would require a bit more. The Cornel West fringe would also need a public apology from Obama for slighting Cornel West to unify with the democratic party.

    Untainted by the Clintons, the Democratic Party would sweep in hordes of new white working class members from the Old South, from the rivers of Alabama to the hollows of Arkansas and Kentucky, people who might vote for a government OF Wall Street tycoons, plutocrats and billionaires, but never for a Party with Clintons, so often accused of being soiled by money...!!! (snark...of course)

    Tiki torches, confederate symbols and swastikas, fears of immigrants or gun confiscations, would be forgotten or abandoned. All would patiently await their place in line for the government given windfall of money promised as a mighty tax guillotine is taken to Wall Street to redirect the flow of its rich denizens, to the carnage lands of the "forgotten Americans".

    All joking aside, I agree with you. When you see polling on Trump supporters, there is very little to suggest that they are open minded when it comes to immigration or voter suppression.When you watch them on TV, they admit that they are angry. They love what Trump is doing and feel that the problem is Democrats and Congress. I point out these observations and I’m told that I’m stereotyping Trump supporters. I have yet to see polls and actions that go against the so-called stereotype. These are the folks who are forcing the Republicans to be a cult. 

    Entirely dissimilar. Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers were consenting adults, not harrassed, threatened victims. Paula Jones had her day and $10 million or so of investigator costs to prove her claim in court - never could. The prosecutor wanted to charge Kathleen Willie with perjury, her claims were so bad.

    Meanwhile Weinstein has dozens of accusors with believable stories, many with corroboration, and Weinstein has as somewhat confessed, and we even have recordings taped of Weinstein.

    It reflects very poorly on one's intellect to be trading in this crappy tabloid spin. A new low.

    Yes Weinstein was much worse than Bill (if you choose to disbelieve Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, and Katherine Willey).  Does that excuse Clinton?

    Paula Jones and Kathleen [sic] Willey had their day(s) in court. They lost.

    Willey was heavily suspected of perjury but the prosecutor chose not to indict.

    Do you not believe in rule of law and evidence?

    Paula Jones did lose in court on a motion to dismiss because the judge felt that her allegations did not include any damages to her. Ultimately, however, she accepted a large settlement from Clinton apparently because he was afraid Jones might win the right to proceed on appeal. Of all of Clinton's accusers, Willey has the least credibility. 

    Per Politifact,

    Long-time Washington journalist Carl Bernstein wrote in his biography of Hillary Clinton A Woman in Charge that in the 1992 campaign Hillary Clinton directed a special "defense team" to deal with allegations about "Bill’s history with the Selective Service System, women claiming to have had affairs with him, and other personal aspects of the Clintons’ lives."

    One aide was sent to Little Rock, Ark., to dig for facts about the most worrying revelation from Gennifer Flowers, a woman who claimed to have had a long affair with Bill Clinton. The campaign hired a detective to look into the backgrounds of any women who had come forward.

    The Trump campaign pointed to a New York Times article that described the work of that detective. The newspaper reported that in a memo, the detective said he would impugn Flowers’ "character and veracity until she is destroyed beyond all recognition."

    Importantly, however, while Flowers claimed she had an affair with Bill Clinton, she did not claim she was abused.

    In a 1992 interview, Clinton herself called Flowers "some failed cabaret singer who doesn’t even have much of resume to fall back on." And on another occasion, she said if she had the chance to cross-examine Flowers, she "would crucify her."

    As a woman, I am offended by your tarring Hillary for staying married to her husband.  Is every woman who stays in a marriage after an affair (or more than one affair) simply an enabler?  Do you, like right-wingers, believe anything as long as it is negative about her?  Do you, like them, have to reduce such an intelligent, competent, and complicated woman, to a simple-minded "enabler," because that is the worst word you can think of?  Why do you feel the need to blame a wife for her husband's bad behavior?

    i can tell you from personal experience that these words: 

    ...Some failed cabaret singer who doesn't have much of a resumé to fall back on...

    ...are mild compared to what she, and most other wives, say and think about the woman who had an affair with their husband.  It is actually ironic, because it was the husband who broke his promise to his wife. 

    But you blame Hillary for this and everything else.  Your Hillary obsession is just as strange as your inability to be objective about Bernie.  

    You're damn straight. Only the woman who has been cheated on has the right to decide if she stays in the marriage or leaves. Initially, she wanted to believe her husband wasn't the lying, cheating snake he was accused of being. When it turned out to be true, she had a decision to make. She did not make the decision lightly. And she made it while the whole sordid mess played out on the world stage. The women who slept with her husband are alive. I consider that to be showing restraint. No words or threats against them could possibly be bad enough.

    To my knowledge, in spite of gazzillions of $$$ spent, no one could prove he ever raped anyone. Did he? I don't know. But barring proof, I'm not going to believe it. Did he behave badly? He cheated on his wife, so of course he did. Did he use his position of authority to coerce women into having sex with him? I'm not sure he did. There are boatloads of women out there who love having sex with powerful men. It's hard to know if he coerced them or they threw themselves at him. Either way, I don't condone his behavior. He put his sexual gratification above his family's well-being. But it's over and done. He has done a LOT of good in the world since then, and I'm going to celebrate that.

    Hillary gave him another chance, perhaps more than one, when it seems as though the easier path would have been to dump him. Politically, she would have have been a very sympathetic person. I don't buy the notion she stayed with him for political gain. But, that is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. She is happy with her decision, their family is intact, and the "family values" crowd should be applauding her for that. But no, she's Hillary Clinton, and she's responsible for every single terrible thing the right can't pin on Obama.

    Thanks for responding to my comment, Stilli.  I wondered if Hal would, since i specifically said that his characterization of Hillary's decision was offensive.  Your comments are excellent. 

    At no time or place do I blame Hillary for either Bill's philandering (proven), sexual harassment (alleged), or staying with him (purely personal decision). I blame her only for directing "a special 'defense team' to deal with allegations about 'Bill’s history with the Selective Service System, women claiming to have had affairs with him, and other personal aspects of the Clintons’ lives.'"

    OK! HAl.  I won't bother to cut & paste your comments to the contrary.

    I have gone back over my comments and I agree that my response to your criticism here was too flip. You make a legitimate point. I do not blame Hillary Clinton for staying with Bill and I do not believe I ever wrote or suggested that she should have left him. That was and remains her choice. To the extent, however, that I suggested that Hillary Clinton is responsible for Bill's relationship with Monica Lewinsky or other extramarital affairs, I was wrong to have done so. I remain troubled by Hillary's willingness to criticize publicly and to lead what amounted to a smear campaign against Ms. Flowers.

    Ms Flowers made $500k and a career off a 1-time shag 15 years before. Considering how people bitch about how much Hillary got paid for speeches, this was a single performance by an unknown to an audience of 1 - good work if you can get it.

    PS - "some failed cabaret singer who doesn’t even have much of resume to fall back on" - what exactly is the problem with that summation?

    The women who slept with her husband are alive. I consider that to be showing restraint.

    Ha!  There ya go ...  ;-)


    Hal, you have said you believe NAFTA was behind the "PTSD" which you feel caused the gunman to execute the Vegas massacre.

    Do you believe Bill Clinton was an accessory to the crime?

    Starr spent $40 million investigating, in a tainted style quite opposite to Robert Muehler, and ultimately the judge decided:

    In her decision, Wright said if Clinton did what Jones claimed, it was "offensive and boorish," but it was not sexual assault. And there was no evidence Jones suffered on the job because of the alleged incident, the judge ruled.

    As for the attempt by Jones' lawyers to bring in Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and others, Wright wrote, "Whether other women may have been subjected to workplace harassment and whether such evidence has allegedly been suppressed does not change the fact that the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury."

    The judge also ruled there was no conspiracy between then-Gov. Clinton and Arkansas State Trooper Danny Ferguson to violate Jones' civil rights, concluding, "Reduced to its essence, the record taken as a whole, could not lead a rational jury of fact to find for a non-moving party and the court therefore finds that there are no genuine issues for trial in this case," the judge continued.

    "apparently because he was afraid Jones might win the right to proceed on appeal"? welll fuck me running, Hal - you are one clever dude. Yes, the Paula Jones accusations took up 3-4 years of the presidency, and $850K for her to go the fuck away was money well spent, don't you think?  That so much time and energy was wasted on a non-subordinate, supposed verbal come-on (as well as a reported exposure of his penis that was proven false - remember the "no distinguishing characteristics" flap? This wasn't "he said, she said" - she lied in her affidavit.

    Okay, I"m finished here - this is such a fucking joke.

    This is pathetic. Trump got elected by the deplorables and the Evangelicals despite grabbing female parts. Trump said that he would sue his female accusers but never did. Bill O’Reilly was invited back to Fox by Sean Hannity. You fall for the but....but....the Clintons crap every time. It still won’t get Sanders elected. This story won’t, and shouldn’t make Liberals feel guilty.


    Yes Trump really really sucks. Is there any dispute about that? Do you want to defeat him in the future? If so, don't you think it makes sense to rally behind candidates who haven't 1) been charged on multiple occasions with harassment or 2) smeared those who (a) allege harassment by or (b) had affairs with her husband?

    Hal, who are the candidates for 2018 and 2020? Do any fit your conditions above?

    We have a racist in the White House who is destroying programs put in place by Barack Obama. The things being destroyed include healthcare and the Iran deal. If someone sees this and responds by saying that they won’t vote because they are upset that Obama got money for speaking engagements, they are stupid. You can’t fix stupid.

    Bill Clinton is not running for office in 2018 or 2020.

    While I like to consider each case on it's own merits I agree that the more conventional and mainstream the candidate the better their chances. If we're going to make general "rules" there's a few more that are obvious.

    Don't you think it makes sense to rally behind candidates who haven't 1) claimed it was a good thing for children to run around naked and touch each others genitals 2)  said that reading articles about a 12 year old girl getting raped by 14 men appealed to him  3) thinks women having sex fantasize about being raped by 3 men  4)  thinks it's a good thing if teen girls have sex because it's less likely they'll get breast cancer.

    These are ideas that are seriously out of the mainstream and much of the electorate would find them offensive. If we want to defeat Trump we probably shouldn't support a candidate that wrote all these things in published articles. I really think this is something all democrats can agree on, don't you?


    You're very seriously misrepresenting the content of Bernie's articles written in the late 60s and early 70s. I've already gone through these claims in detail. While a few of them are problematic in spots, the allegations that you set forth have been mostly debunked. How do you feel about Hillary Clinton leading the charge to discredit women with whom Bill had sex or who claimed he harassed or even raped them?

    Hal, this is a totally Fox News / Alex Jones framing full of made-up bullshit. Why are you doing this?

    Hey Peracles...

    Apparently, when Hal is not busy with his Facebook call-in show he uses Dag as his Petri dish because he gets more reads (looks) and people here to knee-jerk to his kind of spurious crap than he gets at his blog at  at WordPress. But at least Hal's other site at Facebook provides a dumping ground for our old buddy Wattree.

    Busy busy busy... wink



    Shhhhh, let sleeping dogs lie. Just when I'm feeling sorry for the state of affairs, you remind me it could be (and was) much much worse.

    I don't think I'm misrepresenting the content at all. Sanders clearly stated that he thinks teen girls having sex would be good because he thinks it reduces the chance of breast cancer. He even quoted some bogus studies to back up his theories. What next, is he going to support anti-vaccination laws and cite some study by Wakefield? When Sanders was encouraging teen girls to have sex do you think he wanted them to have sex with teen boys or older men? Should we eliminate statutory rape laws?

    He clearly believes that children running around naked and touching each other's genitals is a good thing. He thinks it will lessen the attraction of pornography. I'm open minded. I've been to clothing optional beaches with my girlfriend's kids. But we didn't let the kids feel each other up. How do you think supporting kids playing with each other's genitals will play with the general public?

    I'm not sure why you're obsessed with Hillary when she's not running again. But people are still pushing for a sex pervert to run in the next election. If we're talking about who can defeat Trump in the next election I think supporting a pervert is a mistake. Don't you agree?

    I don't recall you ever addressing these issues here. In fact I remember you avoiding discussion of these issues. Can you provide a link?



    The article to which you refer is full of pseudo-science and mumbo-jumbo as I noted earlier it and some of the others cited are the immature scribblings of a young man. Nowhere in them, however, does Bernie suggest that teenage girls should have sex with old men. Below is the relevant paragraph, others will obviously judge for themselves: 

    How much guilt, nervousness have you imbued in your daughter with regard ot sex? If she is 16, e years beyond puberty and the time which nature set forth for child-bearing and spent a night out with her boyfriend, what is your reaction? Do you take her to a psychiatrist because she is "maladjusted," or a "prostitute," or are you happy that she has found someone with whom she can share love? Are you concerned about HER happines, or about your "reputation" in the community."

    Emphasis retained.

    Regarding my previous response to the previous post on this topic, it was written in response to NCD actually, not you and is here. It starts with my frank acknowledgement that there are troubling aspects to some of the essays. But I also point out that "[t]he 'naked infants touching genitals' line is obviously written ironically. Bernie is mocking the idea that allowing toddlers to run around naked will lead to a parade of horribles."

    Sanders article promoting children running around naked and touching each other's genitals was not meant to be ironic. His mocking of the horrible outcomes was a defense of the idea that children should be touching each other. It's very clear that Sanders believes that children should be allowed to go around naked, see each other's sex organs, and touch each other. As I said I've been to clothing optional beaches but I and my partner drew a line at the kids feeling each other up. I think even Sanders advocacy of allowing children to run around naked would be problematic with a large portion of the electorate. What do you think? Do you think society and parents should let their prepubescent children stroke each other's genitals? Do you think the electorate is ready to embrace this type of sexual libertarianism for prepubescent children?

    It's not just Sanders belief that we should allow kids to play with each others genitals as a cure for sexual repressions. Nor his idea that encouraging teen girls to have sex would reduce breast cancer. There's his bizarre belief that when women have sex they fantasize about being raped by three men. Or that it appeals to him to read articles about a 12 year old girl being raped by 14 men.

    Perhaps this type of sexual deviancy means nothing to you but I don't think it will be embraced by the general public. If we want to defeat Trump don't you think we should support candidates that haven't paraded weird sexual theories before the voting public?


    In general I'd like to sweep the table of anything anyone said or did over 25 years before unless truly outrageous or admirable. Even now, if I openly theorize about sex or whatever, there's a good chance I might say something stupid as I fine-tune any beliefs. Fortunately nowadays we have Teh Google, so I can start blogging and run into problems and look something up that's completely the other way around and keep going, so I look 2-3x as smart as I actually am. Motivations? Psychology? hard to say.

    Gandhi married at 13 - to a a14-year-old, and worried about his "lustful feelings" towards his wife. He was later apparaently abhorrent to one of his son. Perhaps if we were hypercritical, we could comb through everything that happened in his life to make him a leper or a saint.

    Additionally, with an axe to grind or a hagiography to write, I can blow up everything out of proportion, whether Obama's time in Indonesia or Hillary's time campaigning for Goldwater, and if that doesn't work, I'll just make up stuff about when they were 2 or 3 or their parents or .... None of it matters, and it's almost always just grist for the nasty/miracle-worker rumor mill.

    I didn't realize until now part of Sanders' thing was based on Wilhelm Reich's orgone accumulator. Well, anyone who got into Burroughs & Gysin knows about Reich's fringe work in psychology, and the court's burning his books (ironic for a wellknown repressed German Jewish psychoanalyst whose books were also burned by the Nazis) and his dying in jail for writing the too bizarre. Of course Nikola Tesla had strange scientific ideas too, including ones that became the basis for computer/telephone switching theory, the 4 types of A/C motors that made Westinghouse rich & inspired Edison to smear him with the electric chair, had wireless boat control in the Hudson River in the 1890's, and was able to transmit electricity for miles somehow through air that we haven't figured out yet. And he had some weird sexual thing about pigeons though probably not consummated. Reality is frequently stranger than fiction.

    A large portion of America cheered us going into Iraq under false pretenses (vs. the inspection regime or doing nothing). A large portion cheered on the people who brought us the 2008 meltdown. As Digby has documented through the years, these have remained "the adults in the room", the neocons still invited on TV to spout out wrong theories, while those who basically got it right (for more reasons than the stopped watch twice a day) are considered the dirty fucking hippies and used as political punching bags. John McCain's probably said more stupid or mean-hearted things over the years than Bernie Sanders, but because of our support the troops mania, he will always be some kind of hero whether what he says is admirable or spiteful & vindictive. The news media's very good at pulling out some "superpredator" comment and obsessing over it even if the other guys' oppo research misses it. I don't particularly want to scruitiniize Sanders or anyone else over a few heartfelt speculations on something complex or playing devil's advocate or in some other way indulging in the beauty of free speech and the necessity for us to be wrong many times to come to a more impressive getting it right, versus the lazy or careful ones who never venture out of the safe zone and frequently never contribute much of value.

    Generally I'd agree with you but Hal feels differently. I'd be inclined to let it go but he's pushed me time and time again to discuss why I think Sanders would have lost the election and disparaged me when I avoided the discussion. I wouldn't quite call it harassment but it definitely was stalking. Hal will now get the discussion he so fervently demanded.

    It's one thing to speculate in a comment here as opposed to submitting an article for publication. I'm sure Sanders knew that at the time and fine tuned his articles sufficiently that they reflected the clearest picture he was able to make of his beliefs. I don't think it's unreasonable to challenge those articles just as I don't think it's unreasonable to challenge what people write here. It's those differing standards that causes me to blog so rarely. Even a blog here demands a higher quality of writing than a comment and I don't feel I have the time to fine tune to that degree.

    For some immature liberal men Reich plays a similar role that Ayn Rand plays for immature conservative men. For immature conservative men Rand provides a psuedo-intellectual rationalization for their belief that they are so fucking great but no one recognizes it. They're poor geniuses that are put upon by their lessors like their heroes Taggart and Rearden. Even most conservatives are smart enough to grow out of it long before they're 28. For immature liberal men Reich provides a psuedo-intellectual rationalization to mask their feelings that they aren't getting as  much sex as they want. It's all about the sexual repression in society, especially sexually repressed women, when deep down what they're saying is -I want more sex-. Most immature liberals grow up, get laid, and drift away from Reich's rantings. It's amazing that Sanders was still attached to Reich at 28.

    Reich wasn't jailed for advocating pre-teen and teen sex though he was expelled from several countries for that and other reasons. He was jailed for practicing medicine without a license. He was conning people in the most desperate straits with his snake oil cancer cure orgone boxes. It's possible that by that time he was so far off into the deep end he actually believed it. He's not the first to take advantage of desperately sick people nor was he the last. For example the same pattern was seen with the so called Laetrile cancer cure.

    Idunno, Reich was one of the 2nd generation psychology all-stars - had more to lose from his experimentation than gain. I've followed the careers of a lot of conmen, but I think he believed in what he was doing. There might have been some childhood molestation driving him, but I'm not so sure it's crazy or "immature" to search for the well and physical immanation of our sexual energy. I had 1 pretty intense experience with Kundalini that seemed far from the focus of typical health sciences and physiological exploration.

    After review of the ensuing discussion, there doesn't seem to be much support here for Marcetic 's call to move the issue beyond political fooball.

    Cue the music:



    Corrections for Marcetic. First, Weinstein is accused of both sexual assault and sexual harassment in a work context. They are not one and the same thing. Dare I say it: many more men have always taken sexual assault of women "seriously", even right wing ones, because they don't like the idea of one man taking another man's property!

    The problem that he is trying to get at, but not very well, is a very specific political tactic as regards using sexual harasssment cases. It has a very clear and specific trajectory. Anita Hill testified in the hearings for Clarence Thomas' appointment to the Supreme Court that he sexual harassed her. This caused a huge consciousness raising in popular culture about sexual harassment,.which caused so much buzz and attention to the hearings that Thomas ending up throwing out the claim of a "high tech lynching". Right wing social conservatives who couldn't fathom a conservative like Thomas sexually harassing someone soothed the cognitive dissonance by assuming Anita Hill was a left wing conspiracy to bring down Thomas.  Southern right wing political operatives who despised "slick Willie", governor of Arkansas, specifically those employed by Richard Mellon Scaife, took serious note of how this worked, and finding out about Paula Jones' claims about Clinton, decided to take advantage and execute an actual conspiracy.

    David Brock, part of that conspiracy, confessed and turned sides:

    Brock began his career as a right-wing investigative reporter during the 1990s[3] who wrote the book The Real Anita Hill and the Troopergate story, which led to Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton. In the late 1990s, he switched sides, aligning himself with the Democratic Party, and in particular with Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    Hillary Clinton, as a very savvy political operative herself, could see the conspiracy, but had a hard time expressing it because at the same time her husband was being wrongly accused of being a sexual harasser, he was also being revealed as a serial consensual adulterer. 

    That's all there is.

    These right wingers again are again being conspiracy minded by thinking lefties in Hollywood were giving Weinstein a pass because he was a big donor to liberal politics.

    Doh, he is right that that has nothing to do with sexual harassment and it certainly does not have anything to do with sexual assault. But all sides don't politicize this! As a matter of fact, aside from a few right wingers, hardly anyone does.

    Further, there is a small faction of right wingers that just can't get their heads around that being libertine does not necessarily signify support for sexual harassment much less sexual assault. Nor even liberal political leanings! There can be conservative libertines. There can be liberal sexual harassers and sexual assaulters. DOH! I see them as hopeless, they are like dealing with the Taliban on these issues.

    A visitor to dagblog said that, on his website, Hal said he actually voted for Bernie, while telling us that he voted for Hillary. I asked the visitor for proof. I didn't think that Hal was a liar. Seeing how unhinged he has become with his hatred of Hillary, I now wonder if I was wrong. From what I have seen Hal post, it becomes more unlikely that he actually voted for Hillary.

    Well fine, whatever. He doesn't owe us an explanation. I only care whether his posts here make sense or not, or invoke rightwing memes to beat a long dead & debunked horse. That part we can see, not the inside of a voting booth, and frankly I think much of these elections are rigged by Fox propaganda and disenfranchisement and what not before people get close to voting, if you're even in a swing state, so that the act itself becomes a much tinier detail vs. your public statements and bearing.

    If he voted for Hillary fine. If he voted for Bernie fine. I worry that I dismissed a person who was telling the truth.

    Hal owes us the truth, which I hope we all owe to one another here.  I don't know what to believe about him, but I can't imagine him voting for Hillary based on this and his many other screeds against her.

    A February exchange on Hal’s website may suggest that he did not vote for Hillary. While he did not say who got his vote, he spends most of his time bashing Hillary.

    I probably owe that visitor an apology.

    Hal: "The war for the party’s soul will continue to the great benefit of Republicans"......(and Hal's mission in life is to keep the war going)....."The worldviews of the pro-Clinton and pro-Sanders supporters are simply incompatible".....(so give up working for unity, the message of a holier than thou authoritarian ideologue). From RMs link.

    Hal doesn't want to unite those in opposition to the GOP.  It's Hal's way or the highway.

    It's why he never attacks Republicans, just Democrats.

    Knowingly or not, Hal is relentlessly doing the work of fragmenting the left, claiming unity is impossible, and providing aid and support to the plutocrats who own the Republican Party.

    There is nothing to discuss with him, he is an ideological obsessive, a close minded person with no tolerance for diversity in the Party.

    I think most of us are united on voting out every Republican that we can. For most of us any Democratic candidate is better than the Republican alternative. A Republican Senate will never impeach Trump no matter what happens. Trump disrespect ed another Gold Star family and then lied about what he said when a  congresswoman called him out. The slain soldier’s mother heard the callous comment, confirming what the congresswoman said, she also noted that Trump didn’t remember her son’s name. None of this will matter to Trump’s supporters or Republicans in the White House and in Congress.

    Some of us have major disagreements about the value of trying to get votes from the Trump supporters who I label deplorables. Despite these disagreements, most of us will still be working to kick every possible Republican out of the House and Senate. Hal wants to put restrictions on the types of Democrats that are acceptable. The more rumblings I hear in the black community is that at least the older, more reliable voter base is gearing up for [email protected] because they hate Republicans. As Ta-Nehisi Coates points out, Trump is a slap in the face. Obama had to be twice as good to be President. Trump is seen as white people’s response that a white man doesn’t have to be any good to get elected. (See also Roy Moore in Alabama). Black voters are more angry about Trump then they are about the lack of outreach from the Democrats. ( Note the comments about the state of the vote is my opinion, not based on polling)

    Edit to add:

    We don’t need Trump voters, but we do need to vigorously energize the Democratic base


    Excellent points. In my view, from the evidence I stated above, and in many other comments, Hal and divisive venom spewing lefty purity angels, with their unending attacks on the opposition Party,  primarily serve the GOP plutocrats in their mission to hold power by any means, in order to strip every last shred of wealth from the 99%.

    As Ta-Nehisi Coates points out, Trump is a slap in the face.

    There are some who think that Coates is slapping a few black faces. Not for me to say. There is a video page called bloggingheads where two black scholars disscuss his latest book. They are not happy with the book. They seem to think that blacks have some responsibiliy to change their situation. Lots of support in comment section.

      Somewhere in the comments here that I have been reading you say that we must face reality. Why would we need to start doing that?  Drugs and bullshit work for most people. Me? I am trying to get past the bullshit. Don't worry, be happy. 

    Could you provide a link?

    Sorry, no, will not work but google can. Bloggingheads tv. The comment section has sevral other links to same subject. 

    Presumably you mean this one?

    Thanks PP.  Loury (Brown Univ) and McWhorter had a similar negative review of “Between the World and Me”. They find  Oates too pessimistic. Conservatives love this analysis Blacks need t be optimistic. Loury’s pep-talk is that no one is coming to save you. When Coates tells blacks that they are on their own, he is a pessimisti. When Loury, tells blacks they are on their own, he is being honest. This is modern Conservative thought.

    Conservatives love to use the meritocracy argument. People are successful because they work hard. Racism is a thing of the past. They ignore the fact that GW Bush could be an alcoholic until his forties and still get elected President. That don’t want to discuss Trump’s bankruptcies and abuse of women. The guy had to settle a lawsuit for fraud soon after the election. Sarah Palin was able to be a Vice Presidential candidate. Conservatives themselves put less than mediocre people in charge. Meritocracy is a myth.

    The Truth?

    All I wanted was some toast.


    Latest Comments