The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
If one of Obama's great achievements was simply to be a black man elected to the Presidency, then her achievement to be elected as a women will be similar. It forces all sorts of changed social attitudes simply by virtue of them having been elected.
The other great fallacy is to simply assume that her Presidency will simply be a continuation of Bill's and Barack's Presidencies. Both those Presidencies were considerably shaped by the political realities of their period in office. Far more important than any imputed ideological orientations in determining the course of her Presidency will be the degree to which Democrats, and Progressives within the Dem party, can take control of Congress and State houses to tackle such issues as gerrymandering, voter suppression, campaign finance, the make-up of SCOTUS, Wall Street regulation and infrastructural investment in sustainable energy, energy conservation, education, student loans, healthcare and prison reform etc.
I find the media - and many "progressives" focus on imputed or ascribed personalities, media performance, character, and personal presentation to the exclusion of all serious policy discussion or the structural factors and processes which can block or facilitate change utterly infantile, naive, lazy and dishonest.
And that is why we have Trump.
Index of Frank's Diaries
And I at least see little evidence that it is the right wing talking points driving this.
The main objections seem to be her warmongering and perceived closeness to the financial industry.
On this I actually agree: I think she has a mind of her own and is quite capable of deciding on something going against Bill's or Obama's legacy if she'd gain the power to do so. But, if she has already any long-term plans ready, she didn't offer any in the campaign, and that's a quite major problem for me.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
To the - probably very large - extent these policies are formed by an environment, that environment is not the political scene, but the security establishment that goes hand in hand with big money. I think these views are formed by the interests of the MIC, Big Oil and the US trade policy post 70ies that strives to write the rules to benefit the US corporations that deals in "rights", previously it was mostly intellectual rights, now there is also the right to profit itself.
And I don't see how that will change, or Hillary Clinton as a likely change agent there.
It's been a fruitful source of satire.
I don't think many "progressives" realise the degree their criticisms of Hillary - and especially their imputations as to her character and beliefs - have been manufactured for her by the conservative and corporate media which they seem to accept wholesale.
It is inherently repugnant to me and to other progressives to have to agree with some of the allegations against the Clintons from Fox and the rest of the RW Foam Machine. But, as my father once said: "Even the blind old boar will stumble onto an acorn ever so often." The RW might be a stopped clock, but they are still right about the time twice a day. Hell, until the last few years I even thought Clinton's surpluses were a good provision for the future which Bush proceeded to squander. And I remember wondering in a post on ET why Bill Clinton had to go along with the repeal of Glass Steagall until Bruce McF explained it to me. It is painful to be so naive at 65. And in Bill Clinton's defense, his response to Rubin's explanation of why he needed to 'keep the bond guys happy' showed how little he understood about finance and its impact on politics. And he was already POTUS.
I think most older Sander's supporters have a similar memory of having loved the Clintons back in their days and of having defended them against the RW Foam Machine. They WERE better than what went before in so many ways. But, eventually, at least for some of us, the scales fall from our eyes. And that does not mean that we now believe the RW was right all along. As Bertrand Russell said about a century, 'A correct belief held without reason or for the wrong reason is just one more lie masquerading in the words that utter a truth'.
"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 23 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 15 90 comments
by gmoke - Jan 7 13 comments
by Oui - Jan 2729 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26
by Cat - Jan 2523 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1839 comments
by Oui - Jan 1590 comments
by Oui - Jan 144 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1215 comments
by Oui - Jan 1120 comments
by Oui - Jan 1031 comments
by Oui - Jan 921 comments
by NBBooks - Jan 810 comments
by Oui - Jan 717 comments
by gmoke - Jan 713 comments
by Oui - Jan 68 comments