Sarah Silverman at the Democratic Convention

My affection for Sarah Silverman is no secret, but at least I don’t follow her (or anyone) on Twitter, as do Dan Dennett and Sam Harris! That said, I’ve always thought that this funny, dark, depressive secular Jew would be a perfect mate.

Sadly, La Silverman is not the marrying kind, so we must admire her from afar. Last night several people emailed me to tell me she was speaking at the Democratic National Convention, but I am so revulsed by these political rah-rah spectacles that I couldn’t even bestir myself to turn on the television.

But, of course, a video of her short speech was on YouTube this morning, and I present it below. There’s also an analysis in the New York Times, “Sarah Silverman tames the Bernie beast”. Sarah’s all glammed up, and, as a former supporter of Bernie Sanders, her brief was to convince her former compatriots (many resentful of their poor treatment by the Democratic National Committee) to give up their support for Bernie and throw it over to Hillary.

And of course that’s what most of us will do. The specter of a Trump presidency is so odious and repellent that one would be foolishly petulant to not vote at all simply because your hopes for Bernie were dashed. So I’ll be voting for Hillary.

But I have two things to add about this speech, which the Times lauded strongly (“After weeks of Sanders’s feeding his cult of personality despite conceding to Clinton and endorsing her [more or less], and a long, sweltering day of protests today by Sanders supporters, Silverman was the perfect breath of fresh air.”). Yes, Silverman did what she should have. But she, and all the people on my Facebook page who are telling us Sanders supporters to “Get over it,” don’t understand the depth of our feelings. Not only did we support a candidate who, despite his flaws, doesn’t have a history of duplicity, but we are now (reason 2) forced to support a candidate who I see as mendacious, hawkish, and in the pocket of Wall Street. From the very beginning, I think, she’s been all about herself, almost as if she were owed a turn at the Presidency after Bill’s tenure.

That’s why I can’t get enthused about Clinton, and why I find the paeans and and panegyrics of the Democratic Convention so dispiriting. I cannot manufacture enthusiasm for Clinton, nor will I actively campaign for her. I will vote for her—reluctantly. And from what I’ve heard of the speeches, they’re ginning up support for Clinton largely by pointing out the horrible alternative, or the need to continue Obama’s “legacy,” rather than emphasizing Clinton’s own accomplishments and character (which, I maintain, are not impressive).

So yes, Sarah, you did what you had to do, but don’t imply that we should get over it. Yes, the “Bernie or Bust” people are unrealistic, but seriously, how can you claim that Bernie’s views will have any influence on Clinton’s positions going forward? Her choice of a vice-presidential candidate has already made clear that they won’t. Yes, they’ve tweaked the Democratic platform a tad as a nod to Sanders, but we all know how much attention candidates pay to platforms after they’re elected.

132 Comments

  1. Randall Schenck
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    Actually, Michelle Obama gave the best speech at the convention last night but others can make up their own mind.

    Bernie fans will have to get over it and they should. What is the alternative? Much of the stuff that Bernie is still pushing just will not make it and we need to get realistic. Citizens United if reversed will not fix much of anything in the rotten U.S. politics. It was rotten with or without it. The republicans hold a commanding lead in the house of representatives so until things change there, you can forget much change. If you think it will, you have not been paying attention for about 7 years.

    The best you can say about Hilary is that at least the supreme court will be turned around. That is assuming the republicans will even allow a vote to take place.

    • Steve
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 9:41 am | Permalink

      Agree. Things don’t change just because a president presents an agenda. We live in a world of gridlock.
      There should be no reluctance on anyone’s part to vote for Hillary, when the alternative is a Republican platform that mirrors a 12th century manifesto delivered by the Vatican.

    • Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:19 am | Permalink

      I thought Elizabeth Warren’s speech was pretty damned good.

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

        You are correct. Probably the most important message for all democrats was the Warren speech because she went right to the heart of the republican method and especially the Trump method. Divide and conquer. He tells the white followers to look out for the Muslims, look out for the African Americans, the immigrants, the gays and on and on. That is the trick pony and they have used it for 50 years. Elizabeth Warren has the guts to call it out for what it is. It gets votes and it solves nothing. It is one big side show so the rich folks and wall street can do what they want and get more tax breaks. But absolutely nothing gets fixed. Listen to the Warren speech and learn.

  2. Ullrich Fischer
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    The old lesser evil shell game wins again. You vote for what you hate because the only available alternative is worse (far worse, in this case) and failing to vote for the hated choice is portrayed as voting for the worse choice. That’s how the batshit crazies wound up running the country. Apathy on the part of sane people combined with religious fanaticism on the batshit part of the electorate produced the current mess. As long as the entrance fee for having a shot at political power is in the $ billions, this will continue until there are enough truly desperate peasants to take up the pitchforks and torches.

    • GBJames
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 9:47 am | Permalink

      There is no other game. There never has been. All elections are contests between an imperfect candidate and an even more imperfect one.

      • Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:41 am | Permalink

        That’s purely an artifact of our first-past-the-post electoral system — which is demonstrably the mathematically worst possible way to choose a representative government.

        There’re many competing alternative voting schemes, each with its own problems…but the worst of those is leagues better than first-past-the-post.

        Indeed, European-style parliamentary systems even with first-past-the-post serve as a filter that mimics proportional voting methods. That’s full of problems, but again nowhere near as bad as what we’re stuck with.

        Cheers,

        b&

        • GBJames
          Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:03 am | Permalink

          Yes, it is an artifact of the system we’ve been using all along. It is the only game we have since we aren’t living in Europe.

          One can decide to not participate in the game but it is a mistake to think that cynicism is a substitute for making a contribution towards a better planet (or a less worse one, if you will).

          • Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:27 am | Permalink

            The answer is to focus on fixing the electoral system. Doesn’t even require a Constitutional change nor even national consensus.

            Indeed, a quick-and-simple fix would be for each Congressional District to elect its Electoral College representative with each state’s two remaining votes going to the winner of the state’s popular vote. It would still be deeply flawed, but far less flawed than the current system.

            And those individual Districts could themselves decide to pick their own electors with Instant Runoff or whatever proportional voting system they wanted…at which point the problem is effectively completely solved.

            Cheers,

            b&

            >

            • GBJames
              Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:37 am | Permalink

              Under the best of scenarios the options will always be between less-than-perfect humans. In any case, let me know when you’ve got it all sorted out.

              Meanwhile, there’s a real-world election about to happen that provides a less-than-ideal candidate against a catastrophic candidate. That’s the actual choice to be made.

              • Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:45 am | Permalink

                Meanwhile, the perfect winning streak of the lizards will continue unbroken.

                b&

                >

              • GBJames
                Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:46 am | Permalink

                We await only the implementation of your New Improved System™.

            • Historian
              Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:52 am | Permalink

              I would need more detail to determine if I would think that the congressional district system would be better or fairer than the current one. My first thought is that it could actually be far worse than the current system. This is because due to gerrymandering and the way voters are concentrated, i.e., minority voters are much more concentrated in certain congressional districts than whites, the Republicans would have a great advantage. The Republicans control the House of Representatives by a substantial majority, even though by the raw vote the difference between the parties was not nearly as great. Perhaps if each district could choose a system different than winner-take-all things would be better, but this is highly speculative.

              • frankschmidtmissouri
                Posted July 26, 2016 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

                Given that the congressional districts are gerrymandered to favor the Republicans, be careful what you wish for.

                Even in the “landslide year” of 2014, the Republicans got only 52% of the vote for the House of Representatives. They hold 57% of the seats. In 2012, Republicans got 49% of the vote and 54% of the seats. In the current situation, Democrats would need 55% of the popular vote to take control of the House.

              • Posted July 26, 2016 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

                Gerrymandering is an artifact of the first-past-the-post system. And the solution to gerrymandering is simple: require Congressional districts to align with existing borders, including cities and school districts and ZIP codes, plus a bit of math limiting the (fractal) dimensionality of districts.

                Cheers,

                b&

                >

              • Historian
                Posted July 26, 2016 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

                Again, as I alluded to earlier, fixing gerrymandering will probably not lead to much fairer elections in regard to using congressional districts as the basis for determining Electoral College votes. This is because of the way certain voters are concentrated throughout a state. This article explains.

                http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/its-the-geography-stupid.html?_r=0

              • Randall Schenck
                Posted July 26, 2016 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

                I believe the cause of gerrymandering is in the way states do their redistricting. It’s a – to the victor goes the spoils system. Most states allow whichever party wins to do the district drawing. A very flawed system. I believe Iowa is one of the few states that does not let the parties do this. They have an impartial group or panel that does all redistricting and actually keeps the politics out. Therefore there are no odd shaped districts as you see in most states. No funny business. They need to change to this system to stop the gerrymander. Good luck with that.

              • Posted July 26, 2016 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

                Given that we’ve never resolved the issue of states’ rights to govern vs. federal government, and that composition of electoral colleges is determined state by state, I don’t think we’ll fix this problem soon, unless we do as the Republicans have. The wealthy repugs have slowly but surely, over a period of 40 years or more, put their money into changing the way politics are actually done in this country by ensuring sympathetic elections and decisions at ALL levels of government.

            • eric
              Posted July 26, 2016 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

              I don’t mind if you focus your political efforts on fixing the polling system. But while you do that, please take one hour out of every two years of your busy social activism to vote.

              After all, its not like “working to change the system” and “voting in the system” are mutually exclusive choices.

              I would in fact encourage you to vote in more elections (publics, primaries, etc..), particularly if you lean liberal. Because you know all those superdelecgates that helped put Hilary over the top? Most of them are other elected officials. IOW, people like YOU, Ben, can decide who they are. Well, you can if you choose to vote.

        • colnago80
          Posted July 26, 2016 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

          Proportional representation works so well in Israel. Not.

        • eric
          Posted July 26, 2016 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

          Ah yes, the parliamentary system. Where instead of voting for an executive leader, you vote for a party and then let that party choose the leader.

          Do you really want that? Are you really saying you’d be happier with a system where your only choice is “D” or “R”, and then after that the Dem or GOP bigwigs (whichever wins) decide behind closed doors who gets to be President?

          I know I wouldn’t.

    • phoffman56
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:30 am | Permalink

      I’m also a Canuck. So it’s definitely less my business than most here. But who ‘has their finger on the U.S. nuke button’ is every living thing’s business.

      Being pretty old I can bring up personal experience of 1968. I lived in Hyde Park near U. Chicago from Sept. to Dec. that year just after the famous incident of Chicago cops bashing sort-of-democrat protesters on their heads etc. Those anti-Vietnam war protesters had more excuse than those of the really silly (dangerous?) Sanders’ supporters who claim they simply will not vote in November. But I’m sure that that attitude in 1968 helped put Nixon in the White House rather than Hubert Humphrey.

      So let’s hope the same doesn’t happen again! Mr. Drumpf is clearly much worse than Nixon was (though IMHO Cruz would likely have been even worse than that).

      • Ben
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

        Well said. Recall it vividly and agree totally.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:54 am | Permalink

      When it comes to ignorance and apathy … oh, hell, I don’t know and I don’t care.

      • Dave
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

        I’d agree with you but I can’t be bothered and I don’t know what you’re talking about.

  3. Ken Elliott
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    On Facebook, among my ‘Friends'(mostly family members from rural Texas), are large contingents of Trump supporters (and how!) as well as a contingent of Bernie supporters who are now faced with the burden of making a choice they’d rather not make. Many of them have begun weighing the chances of Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Independent candidate, and after reading his stances on a number of issues are becoming enthused about the possibility of him getting in on the debates. I understand Bernie throwing in with Hillary in terms of defeating Trump, but I wonder, if he had instead endorsed Johnson, could that have made a difference, could it have been enough of a difference that Johnson could actually win, or would it have instead simply taken too many votes from Trump or Hillary, leaving the other an easier path to victory? In that last case, who would suffer the most? My Trump supporter ‘Friends’ are fearful Johnson would hurt Trump, but I have to wonder if the opposite is true.

    • Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:01 am | Permalink

      “Many of them have begun weighing the chances of Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Independent candidate, and after reading his stances on a number of issues are becoming enthused about the possibility of him getting in on the debates.”

      Short memories, eh? The 2000 election.

      “could it have been enough of a difference that Johnson could actually win”

      No.

      Libertarians have typically come from the GOP — “we hate government”.

      • Filippo
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

        “Short memories, eh? The 2000 election.”

        Yep, an election where the loser had more popular votes than the winner, thanks to that omniscient concept, the Electoral College. Yep, as George W. Bush said, “That’s how the system works.”

        • Posted July 27, 2016 at 7:27 am | Permalink

          Nader. If he hadn’t run in FL, Gore wuuld have won.

  4. Posted July 26, 2016 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    I’ve have been reading posts and comments from Sander supporters for months and never once has anyone made the case as to why they thought he could win the general election. I will always believe that he was a losing bet to be elected president. After Republicans got through with Bernie a majority of Americans would have been convinced that he was a disciple of Lenin, Mao, and Stalin’s love child. Think of what they did to Kerry a decorated war veteran. This is something Republicans get and Democrats loss sight of; the point of an election is to be in power. Hillary has read “The Prince” many times (I hope) and that is a good thing; that is why she has a chance of winning.

    • W.Benson
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:49 am | Permalink

      The only reason Sanders should be the candidate rather than Hillary is because he consistently came out ahead of Clinton by ~5% in all the national polls that pitted each of them against Trump. Many would vote for Sanders simply because he, unlike the presumed candidates, has no history of cheating.
      Hillary, I believe, is going to do very badly in the upcoming debates. She will want to use logic while avoiding the facts. Trump is constrained by neither.

    • Posted July 26, 2016 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

      I’m sort of amazed that no one has yet mentioned the SCOTUS.

      To me, that is the #1 issue this fall.

      I want HRC to appoint the next 1 (or 2 or 3) Supremes, not Drumpf.

      • Posted July 26, 2016 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

        Sorry, that was intended as a stand-alone comment.

    • Posted July 26, 2016 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

      It’s a moot question just how badly Sanders would have been damaged by the GOP attack machine. But Clinton has already been damaged to the point of being the second least-liked candidate in decades – and in the current polling, she’s actually doing worse than the least-liked one.
      At least Sanders had the anti-establishment credibility, something that Hillary doesn’t have, and something that was one of the main reason Trump had won the primary is doing so well (sure, Trump isn’t exactly an anti-establishment rebel himself, having many political connections which he often leveraged in his dealings, but that’s the image he’s rather successfully selling). Not to say Sanders would have been a perfect general election candidate, he does have some baggage – but, on the other hand, he doesn’t have the Emailgate, or a perception of being in the pocket of Wall Street that Clinton carries.
      As for being called a disciple of Lenin and Marx, the last two presidential elections were won by a communist Muslim Kenyan immigrant fanboy of Saul Alinsky, so your worry about it may be overblown.

      • Posted July 27, 2016 at 7:36 am | Permalink

        As for being called a disciple of Lenin and Marx, the last two presidential elections were won by a communist Muslim Kenyan immigrant fanboy of Saul Alinsky, so your worry about it may be overblown.

        This clip

  5. Roger
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    Wait, the people in the crowd. They look like real actual people. What the hell happened. I mean other than the Jesse Jackson wax figure they had there. I kid. Only kidding folks. Relax it’s a comedian thread.

  6. Mike Cracraft
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    I certainly agree with your assessment of
    Sanders and Clinton. I saw Bernie’s speech
    last night and really thought he didn’t make
    the important point strongly enough to his followers: if Clinton doesn’t win we will
    have a semi-fascist Putin-like authoritarian
    in power who will wield his executive fist
    the first day in office. And he won’t bother with Congress to approve the mayhem.
    I keep thinking of the “enabling laws” that were passed in Germany after Hitler got into power. Bernie’s people better wake up and see the reality of what could happen. The latest polls are leaving me depressed.

    • Reginald Selkirk
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:37 am | Permalink

      have a semi-fascist Putin-like authoritarian

      How about “Putin-admiring”? Putin may lack a moral compass, but he has a level of competence Trump will never approach.

  7. Kevin
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    I would vote for Al and Sarah: they could be the first tag team PVP.

  8. KD33
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    Would like to hear why you think Clinton’s accomplishments are “not impressive.” Not picking a fight, I really want to know. This does not gibe with what I know, so what am I missing?

    Thanks,

    • KD33
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:25 am | Permalink

      One more question, following on yesterday’s post (but related to this one…)
      The post said that the hiring of Schultz by the Clinton campaign was a “screw you” to Bernie supporters. So, what is her hiring of a high-level Sanders campaign manager?

      Some choices:

      1) A statement of “I value what Bernie has brought to the conversation and I want help inside to see some of that through.”

      2) A cynical ploy to appeal to all sides since “I need all the votes I can get, but I don’t really intend to make use of the Sanders’ campaign expertise.”

      3) Something else?

      • Reginald Selkirk
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:39 am | Permalink

        Perhaps the person in question has some actual competence at doing the job for which he was hired.

        • KD33
          Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:56 am | Permalink

          She has tremendous competence – please see article referenced below. If you don’t agree, please state why. Comments like yours remind me of the facts-optional bubble that the right lives in. Are we growing our own?

          • KD33
            Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:58 am | Permalink

            Oops – please disregard my response. I misread your comment. My response was in defense of Clinton … apologies.

            I think Schultz was certainly competent at her job, but agree with all the concerns about her.

    • KD33
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:54 am | Permalink

      Sorry -f the chain comments … a nice summary can be found by Googling “Politico Hillary Accomplishment.” Though it does a spotty job covering her work as NT senator and prior to that.

      What other candidate has a list that comes close?

      • chris moffatt
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

        Well I’m canadian and can’t vote in this so I’m not partisan I just see that we have two candidates neither of whom should be able to get elected dog-catcher in a rational nation. I’m not going to attempt to answer all the points raised in the Politico article you reference but there is an incredible amount of spin being placed on this by the Clinton side. So here are a few points concerning what Politico has written:

        Crippling sanctions against Iran:

        To get them to negotiate and subsequently abandon a nuclear weapons program that no-one has ever proved that they even had.

        Clinton struck major and consequential diplomatic achievements:

        Such as initiating the overthrow of Moammar Qaddaffi and the reduction of a stable, if highly autocratic, country to a totally failed state ruled by warring factions, that is now becoming a haven for daesh/IS and a supplier of weapons to ME terrorists.
        Or the completely illegal war on a sovereign nation, Syria, that has led to innumerable civilian deaths, many of them children and a ME/Europe-wide refugee/migrant crisis.
        Or the illegal overthrow of the elected Yanukovich regime in Ukraine under the leadership of Clinton protege Victoria Nuland, which has led directly to annexation of Crimea by Russian Federation and the war in eastern Ukraine against the Luhansk and Donetzk Peoples Republics – again with much loss of civilian life.
        Or the constant reinforcement of NATO’s encirclement of Russia and the constant anti-Russia propaganda that has created the new cold war and looks set fair to trigger WW3. Yes indeed, great accomplishments

        New START treaty

        The B61-model 12 is an extensive upgrade to older US nuclear bombs. It is provided with steerable tail fins and can be guided to its target. This is a violation of the new START treaty in spirit if not in letter and is one more contributor to Russia’s increasing unease as NATO under US hegemony ratchets up the tension. The B61-12 is part of a $1Trillion revitalization and update of the US nuclear arsenal. This probably isn’t what most of us envisaged when we heard about the “new” START treaty back in 2010.

        SCHIP program:

        This child health insurance program was the work of Senators Ted Kennedy of MA and Orrin Hatch of UT. Senator Hatch is quoted as saying to the effect that Clinton may have done some lobbying behind the scenes at the White House but he was not aware of it if she ever had. In fact the Clinton administration lobbied against SCHIP.

        She was the point person … compelling the Chinese to commit to cutting carbon emissions:

        In fact the Chinese have not cut CO2 (not “carbon”) emissions. They have merely stated that they would like to do so at some time in the future. In the meantime they are relentlessly continuing to build coal-fired power stations to supply their economic and population power needs. Read the Paris agreement sometime; it has more holes than a block of Emmentaler.

        Now don’t get me started on Trump. I just think the whole world deserves a whole lot better than these two sorry E-listers. Americans need to realise that the damage they inflict is visited on all of us.

  9. strongforce
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    View story at Medium.com

    • W.Benson
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

      Good link, but a little out of date. It says Hillary is viewed unfavorably by 58% of Americans. A CNN/ORC poll I saw yesterday had 68% saying Hillary “was not honest and trustworthy”. The numbers are at the end of the CNN article (just like the DNC wanted?).

  10. eheffa
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    As a Canadian I can’t vote I this election but the results will affect everyone here too…

    Watching all this unfold is like watching a slow motion train wreck…

    Michael Moore has waded in too. I hope he’s wrong but I not sure it’s anything more than wishful thinking.

    See this article:
    http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

  11. Mark Russell
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    “From the very beginning, I think, she’s been all about herself, almost as if she were owed a turn at the Presidency after Bill’s tenure.”

    I really wonder why you and others feel this way? I wonder what qualities about her or how she’s run her campaign lead you to this belief.

  12. Ken Kukec
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    I cannot manufacture enthusiasm for Clinton, nor will I actively campaign for her.

    My views on this matter are largely congruent with your own, Jerry — right up until the above sentence. I will actively campaign for Hillary this Fall.

    My enthusiasm is manufactured by a loathing of everything Donald Trump stands for, and by a fear for the fate of the Republic if this buffoon — the most-dangerous, least-qualified major-party nominee in our nation’s 240-year history — were to be elected. I cannot face the prospect of waking up November 7th to hear the newly-coined collocation “President-elect Donald Trump.” And I certainly can’t face that prospect knowing there was anything I could have done to help forestall it.

    • Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:49 am | Permalink

      +1 I’m with you Ken.

    • Historian
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:08 am | Permalink

      Of course, you are right in your characterization of Trump. It saddens me that the Bernie ideologues do not understand what a threat to democracy Trump is. Purists cannot comprehend that compromise is the essence of a democratic political system. Of perhaps greater concern to me is that Trump has apparently extended his lead among non-college educated whites, a group highly susceptible to the rants of a demagogue. Ronald Brownstein in the Atlantic has just published an analysis of recent polling. This election may be too close for comfort. It may hinge on turnout. That is why all people who dread the thought of a Trump presidency must enthusiastically work for Hillary’s victory, even if their enthusiasm for Hillary as a person is restrained.

      http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/college-educated-white-voters-may-decide/492995/

      • mfdempsey1946
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:34 am | Permalink

        My overwhelming feeling is that if the Trump creature actually does become president, the United States will have, in effect, committed suicide.

        If this isn’t enough to motivate people to vote for Hillary Clinton, whatever her shortcomings (and there seem to be plenty of them), then perhaps this outcome — horrible as it is to contemplate — is precisely the fate that the United States deserves.

        • Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:46 am | Permalink

          Yes, the analogy I’ve made is having to see a disreputable female surgeon to address a potentially fatal gunshot wound. The surgeon may have a sketchy history with low success rates and compromised expertise operating out a dirty office space; but she is still a better option than being operated on by a loco gringo with no medical experience who was just released from the nearest insane asylum.

    • Filippo
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

      Donald Trump, the apotheosis of humility and self-reflection.

      • Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

        “…apotheosis of humility…”

        Nice turn of phrase. Lol.

  13. nickswearsky
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    Michelle was the star last night. I’m with Hillary.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:11 am | Permalink

      In addition to giving a sterling speech, FLOTUS looked fresher, younger, and more lovely than she did the day she and Barrack strode into the national spotlight at the 2004 Democratic convention.

      I wanna know what kind of demonic Dorian-Gray-like deal Michelle had to cut. I sure hope they never find the debauched, dissolute portrait she must have stashed somewhere in the catacombs beneath the White House.

      • Filippo
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

        POTUS is good to periodically reflect for public consumption that FLOTUS is good to remind him of whatever he needs to be reminded of. He’s quite good to give her credit and respectful consideration.

    • dabertini
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:36 am | Permalink

      And wouldn’t she make a fantastic president!!? And she is black!!! Brilliant!!

      • Posted July 27, 2016 at 7:49 am | Permalink

        I very much think she would (just thinking that on my way to work this morning). My guess is, however, that she’s had enough of the Whitehouse for a lifetime.

        Which amazes me about HRC. (That she’s ready for more, though she has had a 16 year holiday from it.)

  14. Dianne Leonard
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    I voted for Bernie in the California primary and I’m no spring chicken (I’m 63). Now, because I don’t live in a swing state, I’m able to vote for Jill Stein. For those that *do* live in swing states, get a clothespin and hold your nose before you vote. I have relatives in France who had to do the same so Marine Le Pen wouldn’t get elected. The French gov’t told them they couldn’t wear surgical masks & gloves going to the polls, so I’ve seen pics of lots of voters with clothespins on their noses. Too bad we have to do this here as well.

  15. Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    “The specter of a Trump presidency is so odious and repellent that one would be foolishly petulant to not vote at all simply because your hopes for Bernie were dashed. So I’ll be voting for Hillary.”

    Yep, you nailed it, sir.

  16. Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    each side would pitch a fit if their choice didn’t get the nomination. Sanders had some good ideas and was ignorant of many things that anyone in his position should have some clue about. that blindered attitude is why I did not vote for Sanders. No person is perfact and there are no perfect candidates. but to take ones balls and go home and intentionally let Trump win is ridiculous.

  17. Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    All I can say is that “I’m with her” and I feel the Bern.

    Student debt: Bernie!
    Climate change: Bernie!
    Overall fight for the poor: Bernie!

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

      I’m with her ↑

  18. Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    The gridlock dogmatism of this election is nothing more than a public exhibition of the nirvana fallacy. I suggest taking the Santiago approach and working with what we have. There’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin’s done.

  19. frankschmidtmissouri
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    1. It amazes me how Hillary Clinton descended from Most Admired while Secretary of State to a harridan of the first order when she announced that she was running for President. Can someone tell me how this transformation occurred? (“It’s a miracle” doesn’t cut it.)

    2. My first election, I voted for Dick Gregory. I got Richard Nixon, who was treasonously telling the South Vietnamese government to stall negotiations. My high school friend Phil died on his watch, as did thousands of others.

    3. In 2000, many people I respect felt the same way you do about Hillary except it they couldn’t stand Al Gore. So they voted for Nader. We got George W. Bush. There are 3000 people in New York who died on his watch, and over 4000 American troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraquis who died due to his criminal selling of a war.

    You can’t always get what you want. Sometimes you have to work for what you need.

    • jpchgo
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

      Amen, brother.

    • Filippo
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

      ” . . . they couldn’t stand Al Gore”

      He got more popular votes than Bush.

      Wonderful concept, that Electoral College.

      • Posted July 27, 2016 at 7:51 am | Permalink

        And if Nader hadn’t been on the ballot in FL, we would never have had W.

        • Posted July 27, 2016 at 10:15 am | Permalink

          Seriously? Why not go all the way — if those women in Germany had been dressed modestly, in full burqas, they wouldn’t have been assaulted en masse by those nice Muslim boys.

          Politicians are not entitled to votes; they’ve got to earn them. Gore was far to the right of Nader — to the point that Gore was much closer on the political spectrum to Nixon than to Nader. And Gore made a calculation that he could win more votes from Republicans by shifting even further to the authoritarian right than he could from Greens by shifting to the liberal left.

          Why not place the blame where it belongs, on Gore for running a campaign too far to the extreme authoritarian right for his party’s base to stomach? Hindsight should be more than ample to demonstrate how badly Gore zigged when he should have zagged instead.

          And, no — I’m not kidding about Nixon. Nixon would long since have been drummed out of the Republican party for being a socialist. Nixon put the teeth in the Civil Rights Act, gave us Title IX, managed to bumble his way towards an end of the Vietnam War, and even opened relations with Communist (!) China.

          When somebody like Nixon is closer to the left side of the Democratic party than to the middle, you know you’re royally screwed.

          Cheers,

          b&

          >

          • Posted July 29, 2016 at 8:28 am | Permalink

            “Nixon would long since have been drummed out of the Republican party for being a socialist.”

            Totally with you.

            My Mom still opines about how, “Nixon didn’t turn out to be as conservative as we thought he would be.” (She’s channeling my (late) father in that statement.)

            Reagan could never have been nominated by the GOP in 2016, for Hank’s sake.

            I think that if Nader hadn’t been on the FL ballot in 2000, Gore would have beaten W there and we would never (at least not during 2001-2005, a rather critical period) had a W President. Those Nader votes were much more likely to go to Gore than W (assuming they would have voted — not certain; but it would have taken very many in a few key, mainly urban (read: Liberal), locations.)

            You may disagree.

            People’s votes count. I think that anyone who sits out this fall’s Presidential election in disappointment over Bernie not being nominated or because HRC is not an ideal candidate will materially contribute to the likelihood of a (profoundly disastrous) Drumpf presidency.

            I think anyone, in a swing state, who votes for a third-party candidate (for Prez) in hopes of a more liberal political balance this fall is going to be very disappointed in the results.

            I see that as a terrible outcome. I think they would too, in retrospect.

            I think HRC will be aligned with my views the great majority of the time. Drumpf? Approximately never. Does any other candidate have any chance of beating either one of them? No. Voting, and voting for Hillary, is a no-brainer for me.

            • Posted July 29, 2016 at 8:31 am | Permalink

              “but it would not have taken very many in a few key”

              … obviously

            • Posted July 29, 2016 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

              The official count was:

              Bush 2,912,790
              Gore 2,912,253

              Delta = 537 votes (0.009% of all votes cast in FL)

              Nader 97,488

              537 / 97488 = 0.55% (975 votes were 1% of Nader’s votes)

              If less than 1% of Nader’s votes went to Gore, Gore would have won (other things being equal).

              • Posted July 29, 2016 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

                That’s a perfect way to lie with statistics.

                Because, you see, while 537 votes may well be 0.55% of what Nader got…Gore would only have had to have persuaded half of that many Bush voters to vote for him instead — which is less than 0.01%.

                To blame 537 Nader voters on Gore’s failure to capture 0.01% of Bush voters…have you no shame, really?

                Of course, the real problem lies in the Supremes accepting the case, when the Constitution clearly places Congress in charge of resolving disputes over a state’s electors. If there’s any clear dividing line for where the downfall of America began, it’d be either with Citizens United or with the Court agreeing to hear Bush v Gore.

                b&

                >

  20. ascanius
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    It’s the choice between getting shot in the foot or shot in the middle of your face.

    I’d be doing my best to make sure it’s the foot and not the face scenario.

    I wouldn’t be reluctantly sitting on the sidelines, virtue signalling.

  21. Billy Bl.
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    Boy, win a free trip to Philadelphia. Now there’s a platform, although free beer on Fridays would be better. It’s so refreshing, and encouraging, to see the seeds of an alternative to the standard me-me/f**k-you social policy.

  22. Posted July 26, 2016 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    I’m sort of amazed that no one has yet mentioned the SCOTUS.

    To me, that is the #1 issue this fall.

    I want HRC to appoint the next 1 (or 2 or 3) Supremes, not Drumpf.

    • jpchgo
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

      Yes. Either Trump or Clinton will appointing Supreme Court justices that will serve for decades.

      The Voting Rights Act will upheld or not. Roe v Wade will be gutted or not. The Affordable Care Act will stand or not.

      I don’t see 1-3 justices appointed by Clinton as anything like the lesser of two evils.

  23. Damien McLeod
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    Yay Sara!! Right On lady.

  24. Posted July 26, 2016 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    This is the problem with the elite of the Democratic party, I don’t owe you or anyone else my vote. You have to ask for my vote but telling me I have to support someone is not a good way to get into my graces. Her supporters are some of the worst winners I have ever seen. Its like they cant take yes for an answer and they keep telling me I have to vote for her.

  25. Posted July 26, 2016 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    Vote 2016

    Douche vs Turd Sandwich

  26. Posted July 26, 2016 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    ““The specter of a Trump presidency is so odious… So I’ll be voting for Hillary.”

    Is it truly that odious? Or is that just another Clinton campaign meme? Just how is he going to get anything done when 50% of the Republicans hate him and 100% of the Democrats feel the same? What can Trump do unilaterally that can not be tied up in court for four years?

    Meanwhile – HE is the face of the Republican Party. He is the perfect foil to finally bring down the Republican machine, and get most of the troglodytes out of office. Or, the perfect opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to actually work together against a common enemy.

    Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the Republican party of 1970. Why? Because too many people for too many years have let the party jettison its principles and held their nose and pulled the lever for the lesser evil.

    Now we have a Democratic machine that is unrecognizable to anyone with any institutional memory. It’s worse than that. We have now a Democratic Party that cheated, and lied, and conspired to eliminate the first truly progressive candidate we have seen in decades. A candidate who resonates strongly with the next generation – the future – of Democratic voters.

    I, for one, refuse to reward such a party once again with my vote. More important than keeping Trump out, in my opinion, is blowing up this ugly twisted simulacrum of the true Democratic Party, and from its ashes, forming the progressive future of our country.

    Trump will be a frustrated one-term failure if elected. If that is what it takes – and evidently it is – to bring the Democratic machine back to its senses, then so be it.

    • Posted July 26, 2016 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

      What can Trump do unilaterally that can not be tied up in court for four years?

      If Trump wins the Presidency, one of the very first things he’ll do is at least try to fire Congress.

      Yes, yes — instant Constitutional crisis, potential military coup, and so on. But why should Trump care about any of that? He’s the law AND ORDER! candidate, and firing people disloyal to him is what he’s most popular for.

      b&

      >

      • jpchgo
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

        What can Trump do unilaterally that can not be tied up in court for four years?

        He could say the US won’t react to attacks against NATO members unless they “pay up”, as he has already threatened. All kinds of military and economic threats can have consequences even if I can’t fully follow through on them

        • Posted July 26, 2016 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

          What can Trump do unilaterally that can not be tied up in court for four years?

          What makes you think Trump wouldn’t fire the Supreme Court at the same time he fired Congress? Or that he’d refrain from declaring martial law when both refused to be fired?

          Whether or not the military would take his orders at that point pretty much doesn’t matter, as the technical term for such a situation — whichever direction it goes — is, “military coup.” And whether or not you think Trump would come out on top again doesn’t matter when you consider all the chaos that would ensue.

          b&

          >

    • colnago80
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

      We have heard this dirge before, in 1968 and 2000. In 2000, the Ralphie Bros awarded us with Dubya, who lied us into a war in Iraq and who appointed Alito and Roberts to the SCOTUS. I would note that Nixon and Dubya won reelection so what makes you think that the Donald won’t be able to do the same.

      #19 has it right. A vote for anybody but Hillary is a vote to put the Donald in the White House and a cretin like Janice Rogers Brown on the SCOTUS.

      http://www.pfaw.org/issues/fair-and-just-courts/janice-rogers-brown

      • Filippo
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

        Feel free to acknowledge that Gore got the popular vote, but Bush won, due to the existence of that wonderful apotheosis of intellectual herd management achievement, the Electoral College.

        • Posted July 27, 2016 at 7:56 am | Permalink

          Which is simply a fact of life — and approximately zero percent chance of changing (constitutional amendment) at least in my or my kids’ lifetimes.

          It took 122 years to change the election of US Senators to popular vote.

    • Mark Russell
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

      I’m still amazed when I consider the amount of privilege one must possess to blithely hope for a Trump presidency. I assume you’re not Muslim or an immigrant or a woman or gay or a member of the working poor, et al.

      Yes, I get that you think the damage he can do will be minimal. It’s just too bad you have to bet other people’s dignity on that assertion.

    • ladyatheist
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

      Trump will get bored with the presidency within months, or else he’ll do something impeachable. Then we’ll have a Pence presidency. Study up on Pence and then tell us you prefer him to Clinton.

    • ascanius
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

      What can Trump do?

      He can stack SCOTUS with Scalias who will turn back minority rights for 30 years.

      Overturning Roe, Obergefell and voting rights is a pretty stiff price to pay so you can feel pure about your vote.

    • frankschmidtmissouri
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

      A lot of people said that about George W. Bush.

      • ladyatheist
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

        True – The Bernie-or-Bust movement is eerily similar to Nader’s candidacy, and we all learned the hard way that the two candidates were *not* cut from the same cloth.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

      What can Trump do unilaterally that can not be tied up in court for four years?

      You might want to start with Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution, which provides in relevant part: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States …”

      Now imagine if you will Donald Trump in the Oval Office when some Russian jet jockey has a little fun buzzing a US aircraft carrier, which our new president takes as a personal affront to his fragile virility. One thing leads to another and, quicker than you can say “Strangelove,” the Prez has the nuclear football tucked under his arm, like OJ heading around right-end on a Southern Cal sweep, dashing for the White House residence, there to lock himself in a room and begin punching in codes like he’s responding to a snarky Elizabeth Warren tweet.

      That possibility, along with the weighty concerns voiced here by other commenters, ought to keep any rational person from blithely denigrating the risks of a potential Trump presidency.

      • ladyatheist
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

        It wouldn’t be a Russian plane, since he & Putin are pals, but he would for sure have an itchy trigger finger.

        He can also implement crazy policies on deportation & immigration, pick terrible people to be ambassadors & the heads of government agencies, and nominate a Koch brother for SCOTUS.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted July 26, 2016 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

          Something tells me the Putin bromance would be short-lived.

          • infinitiemprobabilit
            Posted July 27, 2016 at 3:31 am | Permalink

            I was gonna say that. How long would it take the Trump and Putin to fall out over who’s the biggest dick?

            cr

            • infiniteimprobabilit
              Posted July 27, 2016 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

              (ack!)
              … over who’s *got* the biggest dick.

              cr

              … though, come to think of it, either version works.

      • Filippo
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

        ” . . . which our new president takes as a personal affront to his fragile virility.”

        Like Cornelius Vanderbilt in Nicaragua in 1854, whose delicate sensibilities were apparently so offended that he called on the U.S. Marines to come to his assistance.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted July 27, 2016 at 12:21 am | Permalink

          What was it Marx said about history repeating itself — the first go-round as tragedy, the second as farce?

    • Posted July 27, 2016 at 7:59 am | Permalink

      See the rehearsal for a Drumpf Presidency: Jesse Ventura’s governorship of the State of Minnesota (my home).

      It’s not pretty.

  27. ladyatheist
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    I don’t have to agree with a candidate on every point, nor do I have to be enthusiastic in order to vote for them. It’s a job interview, and we are the search committee. We can’t leave the job vacant for 4 years while we search for someone perfect. Every 4 years a lot of people are disappointed that their candidate wasn’t the nominee and even more who are disappointed that their candidate didn’t win the general election. That’s just how it is.

  28. Posted July 26, 2016 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    Trump’s selection of Pence makes it impossible for me to even consider voting for Trump. Pence is an even more radical religionist that the fascist Scalia. If he gets to chose a Justice and possibly even 2 or 3, think how individual rights will be crippled for decades. That alone makes it a no brainer that HC must be elected.

    I would also add that her stint as Sec of State was outstanding. After Bush destroyed the rest of the globe’s trust and confidence in the US, she restored much of it.

    I am not a huge fan of her, but there really is no option and despite her faults HC is an accomplished politician who brings a wealth of experience, including her husband who remains her most trusted advisor.

    • ladyatheist
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

      Indiana’s abortion laws are horrible – a woman has to have an ultrasound first, and then if she’s aware of the sex of the fetus or of a serious deformity, abortion is prohibited.

  29. Posted July 26, 2016 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    How many unsullied people have been elected president, or to any other governmental office? I’m pretty sure our “Historian” could enlighten us about the numerous character flaws and inappropriate actions of most, if not all, of our past presidents. How much of what HRC is being tarred with is common practice among a very large proportion of our politicians at all levels? We do not have the option of changing how all this is done in the middle of an election. It’s much too late for a write-in vote. I truly don’t think that a Revolution is the answer right now. We have a choice between two flawed human beings. If any other individuals had been nominated instead, we still would have had to choose between two flawed human beings. As usual, it’s a matter of selecting the better of the two. No other choice.

    • GBJames
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

      “We have a choice between two flawed human beings.”

      Not exactly. We have one flawed human being. Trump is way beyond “flawed”.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

        Jury’s still out on “human,” too.

        • Pali
          Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

          At least when it comes to the hair.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:36 pm | Permalink

            Re: The Trumpian Coiffure — I’ve encountered that shade of yellow in nature before just once, while peeing along an arroyo in the Arizona desert at dawn and a glint of sunrise shone through the stream.

    • ladyatheist
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

      Sanders is intransigent – which is not a good quality. All human beings have flaws.

      • Filippo
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

        “Sanders is intransigent . . . .”

        As compared to whom – some private corporate tyrant who views other flesh-and-blood human beings as merely and solely human “resources” and “capital”?

        In the end Sanders is supporting Clinton, is he not?

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted July 27, 2016 at 12:28 am | Permalink

          Bernie’s a pre-operative intransigent.

        • Posted July 27, 2016 at 8:13 am | Permalink

          “In the end Sanders is supporting Clinton, is he not?”

          Yes! Bernie has definitely done the right thing, and in an emphatic way. Good on him.

  30. infiniteimprobabilit
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

    I’d vote for her. Sarah, that is.

    (I’d vote for Michelle too, come to that…)

    cr

  31. eric
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    PCC:

    I see [Hilary] as mendacious, hawkish, and in the pocket of Wall Street. From the very beginning, I think, she’s been all about herself, almost as if she were owed a turn at the Presidency after Bill’s tenure.

    That’s why I can’t get enthused about Clinton

    I can get enthused about her probable SCOTUS choices. About her support for universal access to health care. About her support of women’s access to contraception and reproductive health services. About her hope (maybe not realistic) to make college more affordable and accessible to middle- and lower-class students. If she chooses to triangulate and steer a middle course on the rest, well, IMO that’s still a pretty good deal overall.

  32. Posted July 26, 2016 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    I’m straight and I’d also have to concur on La Silverman coming off like the perfect mate.

    Has anyone seen this?

    • Posted July 26, 2016 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

      It’s hard not to feel the Bern after watching it. I truly hope that Clinton integrates much of his thinking.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

      Too bad for you and Jerry, she’s shtupping Matt Damon.

      • Claudia Baker
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

        Haha – only Sarah could get away with this. OMG I love her.

      • Pali
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

        In case you haven’t seen it, Kimmel’s response video with Ben Affleck (and cameos from a host of celebs) was also fantastic.

  33. Filippo
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

    (“After weeks of Sanders’s feeding his cult of personality despite conceding to Clinton and endorsing her [more or less], and a long, sweltering day of protests today by Sanders supporters, Silverman was the perfect breath of fresh air.”).

    Really? Hillary (for whom I’ll vote) doesn’t need to occasionally submit to a bit of humility? (At the moment I’m watching on TV Madeleine “Indispensable Nation” Albright, at the Demo convention, who herself could stand a bit of occasional Primitive Baptist foot-washing ritual humility.) The self-regarding Times needs to tend to its own reporters’ (and editors’?) snarky, smarmy, look-down-ones-nose-at-the-“populists” attitude. Has the Times been going for the Guiness record for how many times one can condescendingly refer to “populists” record? Times editors and reporters need to go do some sweaty manual labor to clear their minds and instill a bit of humility.

  34. somer
    Posted July 27, 2016 at 1:36 am | Permalink

    Again not very inspiring. But only the real regressives decide to vote Trump, or else to argue for him over Hillary. The latest such apologist being John Pilger! Addressed to the University of Sydney

    https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/23/john-pilger-why-hillary-clinton-is-more-dangerous-than-donald-trump/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork
    I admired Pilgers film about East Timor but otherwise he’s a ranter.

  35. Jim Lombardi
    Posted July 27, 2016 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Response to Jerry Coyne

    Coyne says that Hillary Clinton has a history of “duplicity” and is “mendacious, hawkish and in the pocket of Wall Street”. He will vote for her but not campaign for her. It is hard for me to find in Coyne’s prolific blogs much if anything that I do not understand or about which I disagree. Except this, about which I am totally mystified. I invite this otherwise careful and fair-minded man to explain why what he says is no more than a “cartoon” promulgated by a multi-million (billion?) dollar hugely successful campaign to vilify her. Unless Coyne is so insulated in academia that he has been unexposed to the world of politics, his comments smack of uninformed naïveté. Coyne admires Ms. Silverman who says that Simon pure idealists are simply “ridiculous.” Sen. Saunders himself has welcomed his many supporters to the “real world.” As a former Simon pure idealist I was elected to state public office (Maryland) in the early ’70’s and was introduced to the real world of government. I learned that compromise was not duplicitous, that altering a position was not a sell-out and that a half-loaf is better than none. As to Wall Street we are not talking about Hillary Clinton as Gordon Greco or laissez faire capitalism. We should be talking about Wall Street controls that Ms Cinton and the free world supports and that promote regulated capitalism. As to hawkishness, that covers a multitude of sins from boots on the ground (e.g. McCain and Graham) to muscular diplomacy (e.g.Clinton and Wesley Clark). Finally. If there is anyone in active politics who is not secretive and defensive, I will show you a naive person in a Hobbesian world who has not yet learned to be distrustingly skeptical.
    Come on Professor, prove me wrong.


%d bloggers like this: