Tags

, , , ,

Someone asked if I was being just a bit mean to the presumptive Democratic nominee yesterday. After all, she was the clear victor in the Las Vegas debate last night. It showcased her warmth and humanity. Am I being too cynical? Or perhaps sexist?

First off, as I already confessed, I would vote for her in the general election if I lived in a battleground state. It would be about as pleasant of an experience as a root canal, but I would do it, if only because what her opponent will look like. And, whatever else I may think about Hillary, it would be a thrill to finally see a female commander in chief. I’m also the type of person who longs for a majority-female Congress and SCOTUS because matriarchy. So there’s that.

And, there is no question that Clinton benefited hugely from her chief opponent’s unwillingness to go after her. It’s just not in Sanders’ nature to attack members of his own side, not even in a primary debate. He even let her off the hook on the email servers in the biggest moment of the night, leading to the two smiling and hugging.

But all that says something about Sanders, not Clinton. He is not going to be the nominee and he knows it. This campaign is his swan song before he retires, the culmination of his career of economic liberalism, of speaking up for the little guy against the vested interests represented by people like, um, Hillary Clinton.

And the Republicans’ main Clinton Derangement Syndrome symptoms, the email servers and Benghazi, are the least relevant things about her. The Benghazi attacks are just moronic and in a saner world, would have been dismissed as such. (But the GOP clearly does not live in a sane world.) And the email servers do give us a hint about her Nixonian paranoia, yes; but on the other hand, as conservatives prove daily, her paranoia is at least partly justified. There really has been a witch hunt against the Clintons from 1993 on, despite the fact that Bill was the most conservative Democratic president since Grover Cleveland. Conservatives’ CDS dwarfs even their ODS, and that is saying a lot. Perhaps her bunker mentality is understandable.

But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem. Kick a dog around enough times, and it becomes vicious against everyone, and not just the abuser. Remember the time she corraled off the media like cattle? All of those reporters were her enemies, and not just the ones from FoxNews. How about when an average, random Iowan wants to meet her on the trail? He or she should prepare to be vetted more harshly than a Supreme Court nominee. Do you think it’s like that with Sanders? Would you rather be on his Secret Service detail, or hers?

And most importantly: would anyone care to disagree that she will make our endless wars worse, and not better? Tell me which presidential candidate from either side would be most likely to put boots on the ground in Syria. Tell me which candidate would most likely get us into a shooting war with Russia. Tell me which candidate would be most likely to occupy Iraq once again. She’s neck-and-neck on all these with the brother of the asshole who got us in this mess to begin with! And those will be our choices in November 2016!

So, I’m really not trying to sound like Sean Hannity around here with my tirades. And I really wish I were wrong about all this. But I don’t think I am. I fear we are in for a rather grim four years starting in 2017.

Advertisements