Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Day 73: White Supremacy and Race Hatred

Now, suddenly this week, it’s okay to talk about White Supremacy and Race Hatred as part of the presidential campaign.  America has been waiting for this moment since at least 1948, when Strom Thurmond led the Dixiecrats out of the Democratic National Convention to seek the presidency on an explicitly segregationist platform — which is what they called White Supremacy in the mid-20th century.

It might be called the Alt-Right now, but it’s the same viewpoint as then: white people are better than anyone.  Finally, Americans can talk about it as part of our presidential campaign, because one candidate (Hillary Clinton) finally had the courage to speak out about her opponent’s bigotry, race-baiting, and explicit, welcomed support among White Supremacists.  No candidate — not Richard Nixon in 1968, not George McGovern in 1972, not Jimmy Carter in 1980 — none has spoken as openly as Hillary Clinton has this week about an opponent’s campaign’s foundation in the race hatred that is America’s original sin.

Now, we can all talk about it.

We can speak openly, finally, about the Southern strategy, the Second Jim Crow Wave of voter suppression, the White Pride at the core of the Grand Old Party of the 21st century — and whether Black Lives Matter in America.  It’s okay for everyone to talk about it, because a candidate put the topic on the table for the very first time in 2016.

So — let’s all talk about it.

Let’s talk about White Supremacy.  Let’s talk about race hatred.  Let’s all discuss Racism in its many and varied institutional, societal, ingrained forms in American society.   Hillary Clinton, for the first time among presidential candidates, has given the American people permission to talk about it during a presidential campaign.

Let’s start.


What Voters Are Moved by Negroponte — or Kissinger?

Are any voters in this year’s presidential election saying, “Well if Honduran death-squad enabler John Negroponte endorsed Hillary Clinton, I’m-With-Her!”?    I somehow doubt it.

Is there even *one* undecided voter for whom a Hillary Clinton endorsement from unindicted war criminal and domestic-only traveler Henry Kissinger will tip the balance?  “I couldn’t decide between her and Donald Trump, but if Nobel Peace Prize winner and Nixon late-night prayer-pal Henry the K is for her, I’m-With-Her!”


Is there a single voter out there who ponders to her/himself, “Well, I was on the fence a bit, but now that those brutal amoral assholes Kissinger and Negroponte are on board, I trust that Clinton will support enough political violence to make me happy?” Well, I’m sure there are a few, but they all write for the Washington Post op-ed pages.

DC’s a complicated place and I get that strange alliances are formed, but those don’t require wearing your giant sized “Henry Approved!” button.

There’s some controversy abroad in pundit-land whether the Official Campaign pursues these ridiculous endorsements or whether Republicans-for-Clinton pursue them or whether the endorsers have pursued the campaign.

The idea behind the new push is to make Republican voters more comfortable supporting Clinton by showing them examples of leaders in many realms who have chosen to disavow GOP nominee Donald Trump and back Clinton instead.

“Many realms,” Washington Post?  Like that all-important War Crimes Voters realm?  Those voters looking for leadership from the war criminals who, inexplicably, still walk free among us?  Who are those voters?  Can you find and interview one, please?  Just one?  Some regular Jose or Juanita who will say to a reporter, on the record, “It’s John Negroponte’s death-squad enabling that makes his endorsement of Hillary Clinton matter to me when I choose for whom I’ll vote.”

We’re waiting.

Here’s Negroponte’s statement:

“I have personally known Hillary Clinton as First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State,” Negroponte said in a statement. “She will bring to the Presidency the skill, experience and wisdom that is needed in a President and Commander-in-Chief. Having myself served in numerous diplomatic and national security positions starting in 1960, I am convinced that Secretary Clinton has the leadership qualities that far and away qualify her best to be our next President.”

“Numerous diplomatic and national security positions”    !!!!

In the 1980s, he served as the U.S. ambassador to Honduras. In addition to (at best) covering for that country’s murderous autocrats, he also served the Reagan Administration by helping to turn Honduras into a staging area for American-trained death squads in places like El Salvador and Guatemala. (Remember, Eugene Hasenfus was flying out of a base in Honduras when he got shot down over Nicaragua, which is when the Iran-Contra criminal enterprise began to unravel.)

(There’s lots more at that link; Mr Pierce is rather a specialist in not letting this particular chapter of America overseas adventurism slip down the memory hole the GOP conveniently prepares for it quite regularly….)

Look, I understand a candidate can’t really help who might endorse.  Just ask Donald Trump if he’d really rather *not* have David Duke’s unqualified support — or better yet, ask Reince Priebus.  But bragging about an endorsement is something else entirely.  People will support a candidate for their own reasons.

But we don’t know what the hell Hillary was thinking by calling attention to this endorsement. Negroponte’s support isn’t going to bring over that many Republicans, but Clinton’s bragging about it it will piss off — with good reason — plenty of progressives. In terms of how it’ll affect the general election overall, we imagine it won’t have any effect: Most Americans won’t recognize the name “Negroponte” at all, those who do will at most remember he was some foreign policy guy, and a significant portion will simply say “Dur-hurr, he has negro in his name!” And for those who are familiar with Negroponte’s career, a lot of us will just have to drink a double scotch and repeat to ourselves that Hillary doesn’t have to be perfect for us to vote for her. Yes, we understand she wants a big tent. But this guy stinks up the place something awful, and it’s a big goddamn disappointment to see Clinton seeing his endorsement as a coup (another thing he was fine with under Reagan). Just don’t appoint the bastard to anything, OK?

It’s the candidate’s reasons for trumpeting that support that worry me.  And I’m not convinced there are *any* voters who were waiting for John Negroponte’s endorsement before making up their mind.

I’m even less convinced there’s a fence-sitting Kissinger bloc anticipating what he might do.  Let it go, Madame Secretary.  Just let this one go right by.

It won’t help — and it might hurt.  Don’t go looking for trouble, okay?

Day 96: Medal of Honor Recipient Slams Trump

Medal of Honor Marine veteran Dakota Meyer slammed Donald Trump on Twitter today for his criticism of the Gold Star parents of Captain Khan.  He tweeted that if Trump wants to be Commander-in-Chief he needs to start acting like one.

And that that begins with an apology to the Khans.


You’ll note above that Hillary Clinton re-tweeted Dakota Meyer’s statement.

Dakota Meyer is Sarah Palin’s son-in-law.

Yes, Sarah Palin: who couldn’t attend Donald Trump’s remarkably damaging Republican National Convention two weeks ago because, as Trump said, Alaska is “a long ways away.”


Day 99: An Endorsement Cascade?

Today, the Houston Chronicle — Hearst’s largest daily paper — endorsed Hillary Clinton: a paper that rarely endorses Democrats for President (Barack Obama was the first Democrat the paper endorsed since LBJ in 1964) and never endorses this early in the cycle.

The Chronicle editorial page does not typically endorse early in an election cycle; we prefer waiting for the campaign to play out and for issues to emerge and be addressed. We make an exception in the 2016 presidential race, because the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not merely political. It is something much more basic than party preference.

My question is this: how many editorial boards throughout the country will let Oilpatch’s Pennysaver have the jump on them?  Will this endorsement by Texas’s Number Two daily paper begin a groundswell of massive early endorsements from newspapers? Papers whose boards realize Our Liberal Media has abrogated their responsibility in 2016 by enabling Donald Trump to achieve his hostile takeover of the GOP?

(Also: Will the Houston Chronicle’s reporters be permitted to continue to cover the Trump campaign?)

Who’s gonna let the Houston Chronicle be out there, alone, for very long?  Will other Editorial Boards across the country recognize their imperative: step in, help Americans realize the stakes, highlight the difference this election means to America?  Who else will be responsible, right now?

Or will they continue to pretend to be spectators, acting as if they didn’t help this happen to our country?

We’ll see.