The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    The children's crusade. Again

    By Flavius on Sat, 11/12/2016 - 10:57pm |

    We did nothing wrong. Except  failing to persuade 600 Floridians that it was  not a great  idea to

    vote Nader in 2000. ( When will we ever learn? ). But because of that we got:

    -W

    -A continuation of Alan Greenspan's loopy version of Ayn Rand economics

    -The completely avoidable sub prime bubble

    -Followed by the then unavoidable 2008

    -Followed by Paulson kneeling before Nancy Polosi pleading for her to do the right

        thing, and save the country from disaster about to be created by his own party.

       Which we naturally did since she  was a grown up. Thank God

    -Followed ,thank God, by the wonderful Barack Obama

    -And a miraculous 90 days during which he saved (for better or worse)Capitalism

        and possibly the chance of retaining a reasonably civil society in the "Western World".

    - And the miraculous Obamacare which has by now  saved any number of lives

      -  Followed by 2010 when Obama lost his House majority  and we lost too many State Houses 

           just before redistricting because , understandably, Joe Once- Lunchpail couldn't forgive Obama for only            getting unemployment  down to 10% 

    - Followed by the end of Obama's planned infrastructure program which McConnell ,

           Cantor& Co couldn't abide because it would have gotten unemployment

           down fast enough to re-elect Obama

    - Followed by his re election anyway with unemployment steadily but too slowly declining.  And

          by stupid headlines about the Obamacare "fiasco". Which wasn't. It's called a "start

         up" guys. It's called  "Do it. Fix it." You ought to try doing one yourself. ( Hint, I have).It's actually harder            than writing a headline,which I have also actually done.

    -  Followed by 4 years of no new military initiatives and unemployment back to 4.9%

    - And Hillary's  announcing her candidacy.

    -Followed,sadly  by Bernie's feeling the Bern supported by  too many here. When will  we ever learn?

    - Followed by his losing . And behaving well, but the horse had left the barn.

    -Followed  as always happens after a "hard fought" primary ( you can look it up)

        by too many of Bernie's disappointed supporters staying home last Tuesday

        in part because they had been egged on  by too many of us here,  to  join them in wasting a vote  on a third     or   fourth  party because, as  they explained  over and  over and......,  it made sense to  risk

        the  election  of the most unsuitable candidate since Aaron Burr because Hillary wasn't perfect.

     

    What should we do next? For starters , later for the "Children's Crusades"  Never again !Pick  the candidate with the best chance of winning. Then try to improve her after she's elected.

    Next question

     

     

     

     

    Comments

    It wasn't that Hillary wasn't "perfect" - it's that she was "evil", "criminal", "corrupt", part of the "oligarchy", the "dynasty", "racist", "sexist", guilty of "holocaust", a "warmonger" who'll start a nuclear war with Russia, personally responsible for all effects of Iraq-Libya-Syria and the 1994 Crime Bill and NAFTA and 2008 via Glass-Steagall, a "neoliberal sellout", a "congenital liar",  "untrustworthy", "will do anything to win", wants women to "vote their vaginas", "in bed with Wall Street", "destroying the earth", "destroyed Haiti", "took money from Arabs who brutalize women", "is getting rich off her foundation", "attacking Bill's victims", "elitist and only supporting the rich", "Nixon in a pants suit", "Goldwater girl", "pandering to blacks", "shrill/cackling", "insincere", "fake", "uninspiring", "terminally ill", and on and on.

    That's from our friends, our fellow Democrats and like-minded Independents. Trump mostly just added "nasty woman" and "lock her up", triple-downed on the criminality of emails, and expanded on the Parkinsons Disease.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 11/13/2016 - 5:08am

    Eleanor Roosevelt got some of the same treatment ( and I suspect didn't care) but Hillary had the infuriating

    quality of being attractive.  Unforgivable.


    by Flavius on Sun, 11/13/2016 - 11:48am

    Agreed.

    I personally bristled every time someone said that I "hated women" because I wasn't fawning over HRC, nor did I intend to vote for her.

    Women are not sheep.  I had no obligation to vote for Clinton just because I am a woman and she is a woman.  I didn't vote for her because (in my opinion) she is untrustworthy, manipulative, and lacks the ethics needed to be my candidate of choice.  (BTW:  Trump didn't deserve my vote, either.)

    How about we groom and promote one of the (fabulous) women who were newly-elected to the Senate? No more loose cannons like Sarah Palin.  But a sensible, open-minded woman of quality.  Maybe even a man of the same caliber.

    CFS


    by CFSatACK (not verified) on Sun, 11/13/2016 - 11:45am

    Why didnt you groom someone ten years ago then? I dont have time for your slowpoke schedule and picky standards. Yeah, in 100 years it'll be paradise, maybe a woman even elected (though careful, not this, that or the other). maybe decent health care finally, maybe even racism and voter obstruction ended. get a move on - this time *I'm* going to sit on my ass and wait for some new brilliance someone comes up with, someone of "caliber" as you say. LMAO.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 11/13/2016 - 12:38pm

    Agreed.

    I personally bristled every time someone said that I "hated women" because I wasn't fawning over HRC, nor did I intend to vote for her.

    Women are not sheep.  I had no obligation to vote for Clinton just because I am a woman and she is a woman.  I didn't vote for her because (in my opinion) she is untrustworthy, manipulative, and lacks the ethics needed to be my candidate of choice.  (BTW:  Trump didn't deserve my vote, either.)

    How about we groom and promote one of the (fabulous) women who were newly-elected to the Senate? No more loose cannons like Sarah Palin.  But a sensible, open-minded woman of quality.  Maybe even a man of the same caliber.

    CFS


    by CFSatACK (not verified) on Sun, 11/13/2016 - 11:47am

    Of course you had no obligation to vote for Clinton because you are a woman as is she.

    You did have an obligation to be sure that your opinion was  correct ,that her degree of untrustworthiness and manipulativety was more than that of  many of us, perhaps even you. (Certainly can be found in me)

     

    (I've "saving" this- and will continue by using "editing"- because 3 previous attempts somehow disappeared.)

     

    I think your obligation might even extend to wondering whether her years with the Children's Defense

    Fund somewhat contradict your view that she is lacking in ethics. 

    And perhaps whether the way you one could see her on CSPAN during her senate service chatting

    with Republicans was somewhat at odds with the descriptions of her by her enemies.

    And though it's ancient history perhaps one should reread the Wall St, Journal's editorials

    about Vince Foster and compare it with what he was writing in his diary. It was published

    in the New Yorker.

    Finally  since we  are all subjected  every day to misinformation cleverly packaged by either political

    party  may I say that we also have duties as citizens to really try hard to prevent it from causing us to

    draw unjust conclusions.  We will anyway, but we should work against it.

    No doubt she had flaws. Everyone (except me) does . But I felt she was a "good enough" human being

    understandably lied about by her opponents. 

    Anyway you made an effort to form a correct judgement. I think you failed but I admire you for making the effort.

     


    by Flavius on Sun, 11/13/2016 - 4:26pm

    Did people really tell you that you "hated women?" How often? I saw no one say that here. I read dagblog pretty thoroughly and I don't recall any of the many women posters even suggesting women who don't support Hillary hate women.  I didn't see it in the news articles I read. I'd have to see a lot more evidence before I believe that was a common occurrence.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 11/13/2016 - 4:44pm