Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 15, 2016

"Dictator" Or "Crucial Ally" - How Does Clinton Decide?

As one Michael Curry points out, Clinton's social messaging team is simply incompetent.

From a series of Clinton tweets attacking Trump over his assumed foreign policy:

Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton

4. If you were willing to work with Qaddafi—a known terrorist and dictator—is there anyone you aren't willing to make a deal with? Who?

9:32 AM - 14 Sep 2016


Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton

Hillary Clinton Retweeted Donald J. Trump

13. How can we know you won't (again) impulsively damage relationships with crucial allies to preserve your own ego? Hillary Clinton added,

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Dopey Prince @Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our U.S. politicians with daddy’s money. Can’t do it when I get elected. #Trump2016

7:53 PM - 11 Dec 2015

9:48 AM - 14 Sep 2016

Is such incompetence in messaging a reflection of Hillary Clinton own confusion? Or are the categories "terrorist and dictator" versus "crucial allies" solely depending on the size of payments to the Clinton Foundation?

Posted by b on September 15, 2016 at 18:03 UTC | Permalink


Again, B hits the nail on the head. Oh wait, could it be the koolaid by Putin the cause?

Posted by: originalone | Sep 15 2016 18:08 utc | 1

She is sliding to throwing mud ,. what ever will stick will do the trick I guess .This started after some polls showing the Donald ahead a few points .

Posted by: Terry | Sep 15 2016 18:21 utc | 2

I recognize election season is always crazy in the states, especially as an outside observer looking in, but this cycle seems so far beyond that norm compared even to 4 years ago it makes me quite uncomfortable. It reeks of a growing desperation by the elites to me. The 2012 campaigns of the two major parties were a circus by any measure, but they seem completely measured and intellectual by this year's standards.

I understand American culture dwells a lot on violence, but the new standards of political rhetoric disturb me greatly. It seems most of the country's population is either willfully ignorant of the destruction their country creates or cheers it on wildly and willingly. How anybody could advocate carpet bombing without irony or rebuttal is frightenening. That it could drum up support - well that's just depressing.

The two most important topics in this election, nuclear weapons and global warming, both candidates have been decidedly silent about. It scares me that neither party even attempts to appeal to the left anymore, except by manipulating them by fear and non existent 'security' issues. If it's all about PR and perception management anyways, I wonder why Clinton wears her right leaning nature and war mongering history on her sleeve? Maybe content and debate matters less than I assume it does to the average American voter. Maybe it's totally about spectacle and personality now and nothing else. Sad, sad days for those who live in the middle of the Empire but it's hard to be sympathetic sometimes. It seems the hot new consumer electronic device gets more of a thorough analysis and debate than does either major party candidates' platform (if you could even call it that).

Vote republican and catastrophic, irreversible climate change is almost guaranteed, with a hearty chance of more war and more regime change operations (despite attempts to paint the candidate as 'isolationist').

Vote democrat for more wars and regime change, with the status quo of environmental destruction happily maintained (despite the attempts to paint the candidate as an 'environmentalist').

Posted by: FecklessLeft | Sep 15 2016 18:52 utc | 3

this us election is much more pathetic then usual... witnessing the standing president refer to putin akin to saddam hussain is frankly insane, but shows how depraved the usa has gotten... and, besides that, since when did the average usa person even know where any place outside the usa was on a map, let alone having actually been their? oh - i guess it doesn't matter...

as @1 originalone says basically 'putin did it'...

Posted by: james | Sep 15 2016 18:54 utc | 4

As everyone knows, the US normalized relations with Qaddafi in 2004.

The Obama administration authorized CIA backing of the rebellion almost before it started. In all likelihood, it started several years before the revolt, and the authorization was to provide legal cover for activity that was already ongoing.

Posted by: Les | Sep 15 2016 18:57 utc | 5

@ FecklessLeft 3

Unfortunately, your observations are sharp, correct and to the point. All I can weakly offer is something Ralph Nader said. Ralph Nader once noted that the difference between the democrats and republicans is the difference between a car hitting a wall at 60 miles per hour versus 120 miles per hour. Not so anymore. Now both cars will hit the wall going as fast as they can. And the passengers will jump for joy at the speed.

Posted by: Erelis | Sep 15 2016 19:18 utc | 6

There is so many "but's" in this cycle and so much stuff to point to it makes me wonder if they will be able to have a election . Andrew P. Napolitano latest What’s the FBI Hiding?

says "Yet the FBI — which knew of the post-subpoena destruction of evidence and which acknowledged that Clinton failed to return thousands of her work-related emails as she had been ordered by a federal judge to do, notwithstanding at least three of her assertions to the contrary while under oath — chose to overlook the evidence of not only espionage but also obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, perjury and misleading Congress." and yet Hillary is running like a doped race horse for the finish .

Posted by: Terry | Sep 15 2016 19:29 utc | 7

A series of tweets? C'mon.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 15 2016 20:04 utc | 8

Any leader of any nation - dictator or otherwise - is permitted to freely dispense populist rhetoric. He crosses the line however if he attempts to actually institute any action which might potentially benefit common people.

If that happens, he is either corrected immediately or removed from office by any number of means including assassination.

These are the rules.

Posted by: fastfreddy | Sep 15 2016 20:12 utc | 9

Hillary Clinton is Evil Incarnate. Donald Trump is an asshole. Evil incarnate vs Asshole. You Americans are something else. I wish you the best of luck. Please don't arbitrarily kill my family using a Bluetooth drone. I'm innocent. Honest. Just bomb the Australians for a change. Or the Canadians. Anywhere but Africa or the ME where we are genuinely struggling.

Posted by: dan | Sep 15 2016 20:32 utc | 10

The short answer is the one You asked already:

...solely depending on the size of payments to the Clinton Foundation.

Thank You once again for pointing towards the Dinosaur in the living room.

Posted by: Stillnottheonly1 | Sep 15 2016 20:39 utc | 11

Unfortunately this crude propaganda works. We went to war against Serbia. Why? Because Milosevich was a dictator (of course, he won his position through an electoral process). This false claim is fully believed by a large majority of liberal Democrats to this day. We went to war against Libya. Again Khadaffi was a cruel dictator (he gained power by building an alliance with the many disparate tribes that made up Libya after the Europeans defined its borders). Again fully believed by liberal Democrats. Assad's power in Syria is based on a multi-denominational coalition though perhaps not an electoral majority but liberal democrats dismiss him as an evil dictator. Now Hussein of Iraq was certainly an evil dictator but he managed to hold his country together. The evil dictator line has convinced the American people to support wars against all of those countries.

So what is Hillary's main contribution to American politics for the last few months. Why it is that Putin is an evil dictator (again ignoring his popular and electoral support). This means if Hillary becomes president she will have overwhelming backing by liberal democrats and the rest of the American people to go to war against Russia. Now that is the scariest thing about this election. Give me clown Trump any day!

Posted by: ToivoS | Sep 15 2016 21:17 utc | 12

@12 TS

I agree that Trump is probably the lessor of two evils ... butcha never can tell, canya? I think the thing to do is to vote for an 'other', and then, having postulated a future, work to develop one. But you can vote for Trump or whomever you like. Just don't stay home on 8 November.

Noirette is forecasting a landslide for Trump. Do you believe it?

Posted by: jfl | Sep 15 2016 21:40 utc | 13

Assad’s Death Warrant

Posted by: ALAN | Sep 15 2016 21:48 utc | 14

@12 ToivoS,

Ironic, this bourgeois liberal "building an alliance with the many disparate tribes" -- of poster children -- "that made up" the Democratic Party, isn't it?

Posted by: Jonathan | Sep 15 2016 21:51 utc | 15

Until almost before the election of 1980, Jimmy Carter was ahead in the polls against Ronald Reagan. Even in the final polls, Reagan had only a narrow lead. Then he won in a landslide.

Posted by: lysias | Sep 15 2016 21:56 utc | 16

Mostly OT--Unknown to me until a moment ago is the fact that Politico has a separate .eu edition that has published a very important essay by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Why The Arabs Don't want Us In Syria, He provides a graphic history lesson and enough material for the Mike Whitney piece, Assad's Death Warrant, linked above by ALAN. I wonder what reason Politico's editors would provide for not publishing Kennedy's essay on its main USA site, although I'd bet whatever explanation provided would be a falsehood of some kind.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 15 2016 22:28 utc | 17

Clinton's social messaging team is simply incompetent.

Ideological inbreeding. When one is 'exceptional' one does not learn from one's mistakes because exceptional's never make a mistake.

The Circus is so delicious perhaps I will skip dinner.

Thanks b

Posted by: ALberto | Sep 15 2016 23:35 utc | 18

Oops, sorry, but I thought the Kennedy essay was rather recent; instead, it was published back at the end of February, nor is it without its own exceptionalistic flaws. I wonder if Whitney knows his material's dated?

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 16 2016 0:04 utc | 19

11 Thanks

Posted by: jo6pac | Sep 16 2016 0:19 utc | 20

I just drove from Durham, NC through Virginia and Pennsylvania. Those are three swing states. I bypassed WashDC. I saw exactly four Clinton signs (3) or bumper stickers (1) but the Trump signs were too numerous to count. Trump signs were often on farms, or small businesses or very tidy houses. Name-calling the very people you need seems not to be a wise strategy; these are the kind of people who trust their own experience, and their neighbors, and don't read the NYT. They know they aren't the cool kids. Trump is willing to say he is one-of-us. The crowds of serious, local people are making him into the leader they need him to be. He seems genuinely humbled by the support, as he gets out of the TV studio and into reality. He admits he is working harder than he ever has in his life.

Posted by: S.H.E. | Sep 16 2016 0:23 utc | 21

Regarding Mike Whitney, I suspect he knew exactly what he was doing and the date of the source.

Regarding "the new standards of political rhetoric disturb me greatly. It seems most of the country's population is either willfully ignorant of the destruction their country creates or cheers it on wildly and willingly" it is my opinion that it is some of both ... ignorance and complicity. There is a deep fear that things will get worse ... and so many people are grasping at Hillary as the continuity candidate. Odd, that, since Hillary is a new Bill on steroids ... all for herself and her owners. On the other hand those who support Trump may actually view him as taking the US back to the future ... a place that was dominant and could take whatever it wanted irrespective of the consequences.

It has always been a mistake to think of the US as anything short of an oligarchy. May I recommend a book: 'Founding Finance' [ a review at Powells: ]. It is a decent summary of the machinations of the so-called founding fathers. Short on footnotes, it is still fairly accurate. Thus, perhaps, giving one a sense of why the government always protects the debt.

Posted by: rg the lg | Sep 16 2016 1:57 utc | 22

I really don't like to post more than once to any thread. But, this article from Dissident Voice by Andre Vlitchek does put a different spin on things:

Clinton with PTSD? Well, it does make sense ... when I tilt at too many windmills my PTSD emerges. So it does make sense that guilt (what I feel about my role in Vietnam) can really weaken one. My role in not resisting the empire also affects my PTSD - a life is full of battles, and guilt. So maybe, just maybe, Andre is on to something here?

Posted by: rg the lg | Sep 16 2016 2:27 utc | 23

Far, FAR bigger news is that James Fucking woolsey joined Trump as senior adviser.

US cold war under Trump as POTUS against Russia, is now Certain. CIA, one of Russias and humanities greatest enemies, has now Trump onside.
Will Trump now get more criticism here ?

But lets block that out shall we.


How many pieces here about Turkish terrorist state invasion has been at MoA since it happened ? You can't distract forever b.

Posted by: tom | Sep 16 2016 2:52 utc | 24

Roberts uses the term "insouciant" to describe American citizenry and I think that is, in a way, an accurate descriptive. I live in a progressive town full of really good people, almost all of whom are basically unconcerned about the Democrats' horrendous record of warmongering, of trade deals that have created century-level income disparities, the growth of a police state surveillance society, etc., etc.. It's like we are all living in a horrible dream world, going about our daily affairs in a dream state.

As for those who support the Republicans, they seem content to blame everything bad on 'illegal immigrants', and other species of 'The Other'.

And yet, there are real signs of political unrest, of people wanting to see an alternative vision for America and for humanity. In America both 'major' parties were roiled by major rebel candidates this election cycle. There is an urge towards real change that is is international too. In England, Corbyn. In Greece, Syriza. Etc.. Such paroxysms of rebellion may ended in frustration, but they surely point to the real possibility of redemption via the vox populi.

So it's not all insouciance.

A lot depends on the Left. The fall of the Soviet Union seemed to suck the soul out of the Left globally - as if the Soviet Union really represented some kind of model leftist state!!! The Left must recover and help the people of America and the world articulate a redemptive alternative direction for humanity. Right now we seem to be either headed towards a global police state a la Orwell or a global nuclear war. That just looks like a choice between two different kinds of extinction for humanity.

Posted by: paul | Sep 16 2016 4:01 utc | 25

FecklessLeft @3 said "Vote republican and catastrophic, irreversible climate change is almost guaranteed, with a hearty chance of more war and more regime change operations (despite attempts to paint the candidate as 'isolationist').

"Vote democrat for more wars and regime change, with the status quo of environmental destruction happily maintained (despite the attempts to paint the candidate as an 'environmentalist')."

I can't let this observation go by without my weighing in. My sincerest apologies in advance if I offend anyone. So, here goes...

More than a decade of lobbying my state house, professionally, on environmental/conservation funding, working with every state agency that once upon a time dedicated their resources to implementing the Clean Water & Clean Air Acts, and working with every single environmental NGO (and some times for) in my state informed me long ago that the fear being built around climate change, global warming, global cooling is a bunch of bunk. Period. Fear being the key word. Scientists don't use PR agencies to sell their message...that should have been the big hint to any and all along time ago...but I digress. Planet earth has been warming and cooling and warming and cooling for millennia and will be warming and cooling and warming and cooling long after our millisecond of time here is gone.

And the more war candidate is the D who spent four years working her ass off to insure war not only in the Middle East but in Latin America too. These power plays by my country, your country, have wreaked incredible pain and suffering amongst the civilian populations who did nothing more than reside in their own country. There is no way any can pin the last 8 years of regime changes, drone strikes and the debacles in Honduras, Syria, Libya and Iraq on any other than the yahoos who voted to put the war monger in the WH in '08 which includes his entire cabinet and nutjobs serving on his 'growing' security council.

And there is no way you can get away with suggesting Donald Trump would continue our current diabolical national security doctrine. Hell, the guy is taking so much heat for simply suggesting he would/could work with Russia, the country NATO troops, wink wink, American lead forces, are currently encircling and playing their war games.

Bottom line, if you want war and the PNAC doctrine to be realized then vote D. If you are willing to take a risk on someone who is saying all of the right things but lacks a record to back it up then vote R. And if you want to build a third party so as to break up the two party rule vote GP or L.

But don't be projecting demise of planet earth on the R's b/c planet earth has been and will continue to do what a planet does long, long, long after we're gone. But war, that hegemon policy now fully belongs to the D's.

Posted by: h | Sep 16 2016 4:17 utc | 26

@26 h '... war, that hegemon policy now fully belongs to the D's'

And you're right, will remain in their hands if Hillary is elected, but will return to the R's if they manage to pull the wool over American eyes, again. You haven't forgotten the stolen election of 2000, 9/11, and the deliberate beginning of this chain of serial aggressions, have you? It seems like you have. The only thing worse than a D is an R ... and conversely, after Escher, the only thing worse than an R is a D. It's all relative. There is but one party in the menagerie, the war party, occupying two cages each holding a species very closely related to the other.

I'm sorry for your bad experiences with the NGOs but I'm afraid I cannot but disagree with your assessment of the Anthropocene as well.

But it's like 'arguing' about 9/11, with an unbeliever - a fruitless pursuit.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 16 2016 5:22 utc | 27

Re 3:
As bad as Hillary is, she has taken the issue of climate change pretty seriously:

Posted by: sigil | Sep 16 2016 5:22 utc | 28

@19 karlof

Well, Kennedy - any Kennedy - is a made man, a concoction of 'exceptionalist flaws'. I'm sure that Mike Whitney noticed those as well. There was some discussion of the Kennedy article here after it came out. I think that people took the good points and left the bad. That's what I did at any rate. The article is good for its 'shock' value. Mike realizes there's a difference between points made under his name and points made under a Kennedy's name. And all the points have been made before, under Mike's and others names, to no avail. Mike's selection and his exposition are correct, seems to me. Counterpunch ain't what it used to be, and Mike is addressing a different audience than in years gone by.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 16 2016 5:31 utc | 29

There's something quite transcendental about this topic. Bribed politicians, flaunting cranky right-wing agendas, have become oblivious to the not-so-subtle signs that their crankiness is alienating the very people that their detached idiocy is intended to seduce.

Malcolm Turnbull blundered into the last Federal Election in Oz with a campaign based entirely on telling voters how incompetent the Opposition would be if elected to Govt. His "cleverness" transformed a govt with a workable majority into a Hung Parliament + 1, the polar opposite of the promise to his (dwindling) supporters.

The problem with the "Money Talks" political philosophy is that the people most likely to embrace it are also the people least likely to listen to what The People are saying.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 16 2016 5:49 utc | 30

P@sigil | Sep 16, 2016 1:22:10 AM | 28

As bad as Hillary is, she has taken the issue of climate change pretty seriously:...


And you still believe a proven liar and criminal?

Posted by: Jack Smith | Sep 16 2016 6:55 utc | 31

Since this is likely the most important time in the history of this country, I would like to recommend a documentary of immense value. It describes minutely the origins of the so called 'Democratic Republic' and its machinations. I urge everybody to at least watch it and best to share and show widespread.
How does the notion go? "There will be a time when silence is betrayal."
That time is now.


Maybe enough people are able to wake up from their Snow white like American Dream and realize that this country was founded based on a rigged system to forever prevent that the masses have any say in it. D/R is a fraud - created to divide and conquer the lower class masses and history repeats itself as I type. Watch it please and don't hesitate to get back to me on that.

Posted by: Stillnottheonly1 | Sep 16 2016 10:40 utc | 32

Sigil @ 28: HRC would take the issue of climate change seriously if she thought she could gain some advantage from being seen supporting the topic, and if her support for it gained her something in return.

Posted by: Jen | Sep 16 2016 11:27 utc | 33

exactly! jen @33

as with everything else, follow the money... who benefits?

"climate change"(tm) is a fraud and another means of wealth transfer

when the peddled "solutions" involve politicians and our money you should know it's a scam

sorry jfl, i'm with h on this one... before i part with 1 cent, your case needs to be made beyond a shadow of doubt, which thus far has not been done, by anyone i respect intellectually, and i'm a tree-hugger by nature.

there's a myriad of things *WE* need to do before "climate change"... getting rid of the oligarchs, puppet politicians, endless/senseless wars, globalism, corporatism (for starters)... how's that for a weekend project?

Posted by: xLemming | Sep 16 2016 12:12 utc | 34

sigil @ 28

The legions of Dem weasels pandering their climate change credentials can promise everything, when they know that the Corporate Bill of Rights trilogy (TPP, T-TiP, & TISA) will financially eliminate all climate initiatives, treaties, and regulations.

Posted by: Enrico Malatesta | Sep 16 2016 13:04 utc | 35

Hillary is a pathetic old botoxed granny with a unpleasant voice, an artificial smile and a pointed finger that deserve only pity for the second failure she will soon face.

Posted by: virgile | Sep 16 2016 13:07 utc | 36

@h 26 @xLemming 34

OK, forget climate change/global warming. The fossil fuelers are still poisoning, destroying aquifers wherever they frack. Still removing mountain tops and poisoning surface waters wherever they unearth coal, or mine tar sands. The Fossil fuelers are still fueling all the trouble and strife in MENA ... and the tentacles of their supply lines reach through and through, fueling the wars for fossil fuels all over the planet.

And ... there's enough evidence to convince me of the ill effects of adding more CO2 ... and Methane ... to our earth's atmosphere.

I am amazed at the evaporation of concern for our destruction of our environment ... in so many ways, not 'just' the fossil fuel suicide. I shouldn't be, I know. People en masse have always accepted suicidal life styles with shocking sangfroid.

The Financiers, the Fusiliers, the Fossil Fuelers. They are the enemy, not one can be ignored. Not from my point of view, at any rate.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 16 2016 13:10 utc | 37

jfl @37 - oh how I yearn to discuss the myriad of toxins that pollute, now that's a quaint old fashioned word - pollute, our waters, air and lands. That's the conversation we should be having NOT the financial racket that enriched good ole Al beyond his wildest dreams that is never going to happen no matter how hard their sell is. (Side note: but I've often wondered how Tipper is doing these days. I know they divorced but I hope she's well.)

And, jfl, I am most aware of the under the table game the world's brilliant puppet masters have had in play for decades if not century's now. The duopoly isn't working and I dare say I'm none to impressed with the third party candidates. Both Stein and Johnson strike me as good and decent folk, but I don't see leadership in either one. I think about what kind of nutter either candidate would appoint as Sec'y of State or Dir of the CIA or as the DNI and well, that's enough to keep me out of their lanes and sadly keeps me stuck in the either/or good/bad system.

P.S. Take a look at the latest scandal unfolding from the lying sacks who make up the leadership of the Gaia movement -

Posted by: h | Sep 16 2016 13:53 utc | 38

@37 jfl... agreed, for the most part, the oligarchs are raping the planet without any concern for the environment or the indigenous people there. And when the need/time comes, we will be those people in their cross-hairs, if we happen to be sitting on or next to some valuable resource or unnecessary wind-farm location

If I may add, and I must give credit to the likes of pv4 and others... there's more to the ME conflicts than just oil - that's just layer 2 of the "onion" (layer 1 being the feigned concern for the local populations)

Layer 3 are other resources, namely water

Layer 4 is domination and control of neighboring regions, i.e. greater Israel project

Maybe there are other layers, I dunno... but like the onion, it is causing much senseless grief and tears

Posted by: xLemming | Sep 16 2016 13:57 utc | 39

3-6;How the f*ck will humans fight climate change?Talk about windmills.Shut down every car,plane,train,factory,mill,power plant etc etc?
An ephemeral event,and one we will adapt to if real,something I still am not sold on,as all the info is from the same class of screwups that have f*cked America.
Nuclear war;Well,the hell bitch is your go to on that.
Trump is the best breath of fresh air in decades for US,as when her stomps the HB in November,America will be in charge of America,not zion.

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 16 2016 14:06 utc | 40

@h 38 'Both Stein and Johnson strike me as good and decent folk, but I don't see leadership in either one. I think about what kind of nutter either candidate would appoint as Sec'y of State or Dir of the CIA or as the DNI and well, that's enough to keep me out of their lanes and sadly keeps me stuck in the either/or good/bad system.'

No problem with the SoS, DCIA, or DNI picks of Clinton/Trump though. You've gotta be kidding me. I don't think either Stein or Johnson have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected ... the point of the drill is to accustom ourselves to, to get us in the habit of, rejecting either of the latest GMOs from the menagerie and to develop our own. A moment's reflection will convince you that a revolution is more than the work of one November's morn. I hope.

Breitbart? give me a break.

@39 xL 'Layer 3 are other resources, namely water'

I certainly agree there, and water weaponized by Turkey. The underlying stress is from climate change ... I'll not argue its cause in order to spare your (dis)beliefs. It's happening, though, whatever its cause. See Christopher Parenti, Tropic of Chaos. If we licked the 3Fs we'd be able to take on the world of shit they've left to us. And not a moment too soon.

Yes there are layers, in Syria and elsewhere. Ry Cooder sings taxes on the farmer feeds us all, well, the receipts of the fossil fuelers are the ones that fuels them all.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 16 2016 14:24 utc | 41

Sorry for being off-topicc but this debate is too good to pass up.

Paraphrasing are the elites to blame forthe rise of Donald Trump.

Posted by: Morongobill | Sep 16 2016 14:32 utc | 42

HRC campaign speeches are the worst I have ever heard, and I’ve heard some. The best-worst was a woman (50s, not glam, but with a v. good speaking voice) candidate for mayor of a large-ish town, she stood up and gave a very long, detailed, and spirited outlay of a recipe lapin à la moutarde , including how the guests should be served, etc.

The audience, this being CH, laughed and clapped. What her point was exactly Idk, but the reference to rabbits (poser un lapin in F means to duck out, be a no show) and mustard well even in Eng. (mustard up your nose..). Maybe her point was simply, this election is stitched up, and I might as well use the time to actually inform about something I know about. She followed the no. 1 rule, Campaign for yourself, not against the other candidate(s). Ok amusing trivia dpt.

HRC is not fit to be a politician (independently of her med. probs, her lies, her ‘record’.) From my low standards of today - I would call Sanders, Trump, Stein, Johnson and e.g. Kasich, ‘fit’. HRC has occupied some positions of power thru marriage, but mostly via criminal-corrupt circuits where domination proceeds thru imposition of subservience to the ‘dominator’ who holds various levers, financial, legal, informational, even life-n-death if we believe some, (etc.) in a kind of web of personal relations, all between ‘top’ ppl./institutions.

A common delusion of ppl of that sort (I have known 2-3) is that if their cabal and the fantastic loyalty of hangers-on, and the *costly* endeavours and moves that control work on these upper orgs., they must work on everyone and will continue doing so.

It follows that the public body can’t be conceived as having any legit opinion/inclination/desires/demands, they are just peons outside the system and it is inconceivable that they would not fall into the same position as the lowly intern who trades sex and wide-eyed adulation of the top dogs for her job. (The small personal private circle is projected to include millions of ppl. Sure it is par for the course to pander to the ‘poor’ with fakey stuff.)

A rival (DT) can only be viewed as illegit, can only have used nefarious means to be more popular (projection), he/she is the only ‘threat’ on the horizon, he/she must be evil incarnate, and maintaining one’s position can only be achieved by attacking said rival. So HRC - who is a very stupid woman - falls smack into that trap, and it is obvious that ppl close to her / the DNC, have no leverage to affect that, she is the ultimate despot, the Madam Queen, they cannot act at all, and actually don’t care much (except for pay as long as continues..)

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 16 2016 15:15 utc | 43

jfl @37

Western civilization is a death cult. Wahhabism (including ISIS) is only one of its monster births. There really is a logic to history.

Posted by: Martin Finnucane | Sep 16 2016 15:34 utc | 44

yep, jfl, you got me. I failed to note that the pantheon of the permanent political class that owns DC is just as frightening if not more to me than the types of leaders the third parties would attract and appoint. My bad.

I'm sick of having no choices and holding my nose when I cast my vote. Maybe this year, is the year I finally join those who refuse to participate in the macabre political theater anymore.

Posted by: h | Sep 16 2016 16:33 utc | 45

"The problem with the "Money Talks" political philosophy is that the people most likely to embrace it are also the people least likely to listen to what The People are saying."

I love that, Hoarsewhisperer. Says it all.

Posted by: juliania | Sep 16 2016 16:38 utc | 46

@45 h

Why don't you just join us "other's"? Boost our percentage. From 1.6% we have nowhere to go but up. We are many and they are few, but we need to demonstrate our numbers, recognize our power before we can work with it. Staying home won't do it. It's not as though it costs you anything. We'll certainly get nowhere without good folks like yourself.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 16 2016 17:35 utc | 47

For those considering embracing the lessor of two evils ... he's just been endorsed by the Sturmabteilung.

Largest Police Union Endorses Donald Trump for President

According to Chuck Canterbury, the union's president, Trump “has seriously looked at the issues facing law enforcement today. He understands and supports our priorities and our members believe he will make America safe again.”

"He's made a real commitment to America's law enforcement, and we're proud to make a commitment to him and his campaign by endorsing his candidacy today," Canterbury wrote in the endorsement letter.

"Police are the most mistreated people in this country," Trump said during a debate in January. "We have to give power back to the police because crime is rampant."

... and no-ow iii-it's spri-ingtime for The Donald and the USA.

Note the standing ovation at the end. Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the NAZI party!

It ain't no mystery, if it's politics or history, the thing ya gotta know is - everything is show biz!

He did it in Las Vegas and he can do it here!

Posted by: jfl | Sep 17 2016 1:59 utc | 48

Just say no to Clinton, not to Trump. Postulate a future. Bring it about.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 17 2016 2:01 utc | 49

Looks like Noirette @43 may well be right. Hillary is tanking?

Clinton campaign in crisis over plunging support among younger voters

Clinton is widely despised, especially by young people. According to the Quinnipiac University poll, Clinton has the support of just 31 percent of voters aged 18-34, with 29 percent for Libertarian Gary Johnson, 25 percent for Republican Donald Trump and 15 percent for Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

Another poll, published in Bloomberg News, found that Clinton leads Trump by only 36 to 33 percent among young voters in Ohio, with Johnson drawing the support of 22 percent, contributing heavily to her overall five-point deficit to Trump in the state.

The New York Times wrote, referring to younger voters, that they “recoil at Mr. Trump, her Republican opponent, but now favor the Libertarian nominee, Gary Johnson, or the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein.”

The Wall Street Journal reported, “Hillary Clinton’s once-commanding lead among young voters has nearly collapsed, several polls show, a factor making the presidential race much closer in recent weeks and prompting the Clinton campaign to move quickly to keep a core Democratic constituency in the fold.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 17 2016 6:24 utc | 50

MSM ;Trump accuses Clinton of birther origin.Well,over at Counterpunch,St.Clair notes;Sid Blumenthal sent email to someone in 08 saying Obama born in Kenya.There it is,straight from her close advisers fingers.
And his call of her dropping her bodyguards weaponry;Of course its true she loves guns,but only in the right hands,no deplorables allowed.

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 17 2016 13:46 utc | 51

Its the usual hypocrisy and double standards,

"America's Hypocrisy on Foreign 'Provocations'"

Posted by: Reppz | Sep 17 2016 15:13 utc | 52

Trump by a landslide. (I’m no shill for Trump not my biz, wouldn’t vote for him if I could, though I sympathise with the ‘lesser evil’ position.)

To my mind ‘Likes’ (maybe I’ll post more about FB likes) and ‘strong support’ etc. are vital, telling indicators, in contrast to ‘voting against the other candidate’ (++ high in 2016), considering the candidate trustworthy, or categories such as ‘Will vote for HRC / The Dem candidate’ and so on.

In the last four elections, the candidate who won was the one who was most strongly supported by the voters of his (D/R) party or ‘leanings.’

In 2004, Rs were very supportive of Bush, they really loved the guy (71% strong support.)

In 2008, when Obama popped up, the Dems raved and rallied behind him (58% strong support) while only 34% Rs strongly supported McCain.

In 2012, 60% Dems were strongly supportive of Obama, with only 38% Rs strongly supported Romney.

This is a kind of measure of ‘mood’ of the country or ‘enthusiasm’, and the nos. are just indicative, from one source only, as an ex.

Turn-out is affected imho (no numbers), ppl who strongly support, like, agree with X candidate, are committed to him/her are very or quite likely to vote, while all the others, bleh…not so much.

Turn-out in the US is not massive - 57% in 2012 Pres. election. Strong support drags ppl into the booth, they are determined, motivated; mild support, voting ‘aginst’, not being sure, indifference, and rejecting the whole shmear leads to 'low' turnout for them.

The latest figures (Pew) show 'strong support' at equality. 45% for DT and HRC. A close race, once again. But I don’t credit these numbers, as imho Trump supporters are more committed than HRC supporters.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 17 2016 15:14 utc | 53

The comments to this entry are closed.