A Worried Democrat Ponders

It all sounded so simple. The Dems would back Hillary Clinton
but they did not want her to run alone. They wanted a primary – a sort of pro
forma affair, just to keep her on her toes. She was the anointed but they did
not want her to appear to be the anointed. In fact it seemed as if they needed
Hillary because she was so experienced, but they didn’t really “feel” Hillary.
There was a last minute groundswell for Elizabeth Warren.
When Bernie Sanders entered the race, along with Martin O’Malley
and Jim Webb, none of these male candidates seemed strong enough to change the
course of the Democratic Party’s push to elect the first female President of
the United States. O’Malley and Webb were virtual unknowns, not hefty enough in
personality, experience, or cultural cachet to be any real force in the
primaries. Bernie Sanders was a Socialist, for heaven’s sakes. Americans
shudder at the faintest whiff of “socialism”.
The exigencies of the current state of our nation, are perceived
by shell-shocked Americans with great anxiety. Faced with an economy far less
favorable than projected, there is unexpected appeal in a senior citizen who,
philosophically, has remained in the 1960’s for decades, and who preaches a
revolutionary message that has finally found its powerful rebirth. This has
become a phenomenon that is changing everyone’s predictions about who will be
the Democratic candidate in 2016.
I have found such solidarity with fellow Democrats, all
resolved that we must not let a Republican win the Presidency in 2016. That
goal is even more important now with the Supreme Court suddenly in play. Bernie’s
success is splitting Democrats into the Hillary camp (seemingly growing smaller
by the day) and the Bernie camp (ostensibly growing larger). Most Hillary
people say they will support Bernie if he is the party’s candidate. The reverse
is not as likely to be true however. Some Bernie people say that they would rather
vote for a Republican than for Hillary Clinton. How is that even a thing? The
Republican’s agenda is in no way similar to that of the Democrats. Perhaps
there is a strong desire to be a firebrand, an extremist – any extreme will do.
It is as if there is no middle anymore.
It doesn’t help that Bernie gets such sweet media attention.
The media loves Bernie. The media also puts on a sour face for anyone who is
not an extremist. And Bernie has been nice. He has been the ever-well-received “happy
warrior”; probably stunned and pleased by his success, by a reawakening ‘60’s
vibe. There do not seem to be many bad things to say about Bernie Sanders. Some
say that he has been slogging away in government and yet has accomplished very
little and has not, until now, made much of a splash. But the people in his
state do seem to love him in spite of the fact that single payer health care
failed in Vermont. I have even been tempted by Bernie. I grew up in those same
energetic times when we dreamed of equality for everyone, an end to war for all
people and all times, and changing the “establishment” so that our government
would become truly Democratic, instead of a Democracy in name only.
Hillary, on the other hand, seems to be no one’s darling. The
media rarely has anything good to say about her. They pound away at her lack of
authenticity, they say that people don’t like her or trust her. They say it
almost every day. And some of these media folks are classified by the right as
left-leaning journalists and pundits who should be allies for Hillary. “With
friends like that who needs enemies?”
 
The fact is that Hillary has not led a quiet political life. Because of her
marriage to the high octane Bill Clinton she has been in the limelight for
decades. She was not just a helpmate either; she had her own career goals and
she got involved. She got her hands in the dirt, so to speak. She was not just
the great lady who told the gardener what to do, she helped plant the garden.
She legislated. She designed the precursor to Obama’s health care plan. She
travelled the world and met the world’s leaders.
Hillary is vulnerable to attack because she has been front and
center. She has not been timid, or held back, or bided her time. She has just
rolled up her sleeves and helped her nation solve its problems. She is
vulnerable in so many ways because she actually “did stuff” and is accused of
making many wrong decisions. The tough drug arrest policy of the 1990’s is the
newest albatross being hung around her neck. She didn’t pass that program
alone. Even Bernie voted for that one. We, perhaps, only see what a mistake
this policy was in hindsight.
Bernie Sanders is not looking quite so sweet these days. He is
no empty suit. He has become a powerful opponent, splitting the Democratic vote
and perhaps even getting some Republican votes. Independent voters find
themselves choosing between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. How is that even
possible? It boggles my mind. I see nothing in common between these two. In
spite of the fact that Bernie is now fighting to be President for real, he is
still not getting a lot of bad press. I am even reading mixed results when it
comes to vetting the plausibility of Bernie’s programs. Some authors think that
there is some economic viability, most have reservations.
Is Hillary Clinton as bad as the media paints her? Do the
people even know anything about Hillary except what the media has told us or
hinted at or insinuated. Is Bernie as spotless and pure as the media lets him
seem? I am guessing that Bernie is “as honest as the day is long”. He just does
not seem very materialistic or in possession of any strong personal ambition.
While these qualities may make him a trustworthy leader, will they make him a
powerful and a flexible leader? I don’t think Bernie Sanders is good at
compromising. I think that may be his Achilles heel. I saw the camera catch a
look on Bernie’s face the other day which did not look at all sweet, or
flexible either. Look up “Bernie faces” on Google Images. He is not always so
sunny these days.
What I am saying is that Bernie Sanders is creating a split
between me and other Democrats who I thought of as my allies against the
Republicans and that this split has me worried. I am also worried that it is
looking less and less like Hillary Clinton is the most viable Democratic
candidate among Democrats. We had better hope that if Bernie Sanders and the
fans of revolution get the nomination that they can actually carry the day.
Will the word “socialism” be used as a club to beat Bernie up and will the
majority of American voters come to his defense?
I refuse to give up on Hillary yet. We wait, we listen, we
watch, we express our thoughts – but we won’t know until we know.
By Nancy Brisson

After the 2016 Iowa Primary

This
election cycle started so early that it was almost a surprise when we finally
arrived at the first primary of the 2016 election in Iowa. In my opinion the
caucuses were a hot mess this year. Did Ted Cruz really announce to the people
of Iowa that Ben Carson had withdrawn from the race, a statement that was
patently untrue but might have netted him some of Carson’s ballots? Apparently
he did, although he apologized after the caucus was over. You gotta love his
timing.
Why did
Hillary say she had won when the Democratic caucuses were not finalized? Why
did her staff have her do that? Did some contests in the Democratic caucuses
end in tie votes that were actually decided by a coin toss? That seems to be a
true statement but there is more to this story, however it’s quite technical in
a way you probably don’t want to know about. If you do want an explanation it
can be googled.
Bernie
Sanders is thinking about asking for a recount. Since the way the Democrats
vote by just collecting in groups of like-minded people and then counting is
sort of akin to a flash mob how would you ask for a recount?
I have
decided to think of round one in the Democratic primaries as a toss-up, a tie.
People are obviously excited by Bernie Sanders’ “revolutionary” middle class
agenda. In fact we have given up fighting about Socialism, and we are now
fighting about who is more Progressive. Given the number of Republicans in
Congress and taking into account the analyses which suggest that those numbers
are unlikely to change very much because of things like gerrymandering and
voter suppression, it seems improbable to expect a far left agenda to make much
headway even if Bernie Sanders does win the Presidency.
I feel that
this is the time to elect a woman to the Presidency and we have a woman who is
well-prepared to occupy the oval office. Everyone is saying that Bernie Sanders
is FDR, but what if Hillary Clinton is FDR and Bernie is Eleanor Roosevelt. After
all, FDR was a reluctant Progressive. The real activist was Eleanor Roosevelt. I
want a ticket on the Democratic side that has Hillary for President and Bernie
for VP. I can’t picture Bernie Sanders being simply a rubber stamp Vice
President. He can hopefully prod Hillary to govern a bit more to the left.
By Nancy Brisson

Why I Pick Hillary in 2016

I am a girl. Hillary is a girl. I’m with Hillary. I would not
back Hillary just because she is a girl, but she is a girl who has an agenda
for America that is well-thought-out and based on plenty of experience. In
addition, I assume that she will be flexible enough to adopt a new approach to
a problem if she is convinced that it will be more effective. And I feel
certain that she will not turn into a Republican anytime soon.
I love Bernie Sanders, I do. His people make an ad for him
with Simon and Garfunkel’s “America” song from the Book Ends album. It warms my
hippie soul. If I didn’t think that it was time for a girl President, then that
little revolutionary in me would go for Bernie. But right now the only way I
will pick Bernie is (1) if he turns into a girl (highly unlikely) or (2) if he
wins the Democratic nomination.
Girls, ladies, women, females have always been asked to wait.
Wait for this, wait for that, and when we felt it was appropriate, which we
usually did because we are pragmatic and compassionate, we did wait. I don’t
think we have to wait in 2016. I think we are good to go. So I back Hillary
Clinton and all the other women who have worked so hard in the past eight years
to keep the rights that women have won – rights that never came easily. So I
also stand with Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood and I stand with Emily’s
List trying to get more women elected to office and a whole roster of active
women that I won’t list because then I’ll forget someone and I’ll feel badly
about it.
I sure would like to hear Hillary Clinton addressed as Madame
President and I know those other women will be there to help the first woman
President in America do a truly great job. Now that will be huge!
By Nancy Brisson

On Authenticity, Hillary Clinton, and Ben Carson

I do understand how people question Hillary’s authenticity.
Her answers do not sound like they come from a marriage of her heart and her
head. They sound like answers from her head only, her political head, which
weighs expediency and poll numbers and produces a well-rehearsed sound bite.
She is an authentic person who seems phony.
In order to appreciate Hillary you have to review what she has
tried to do, what she has done, and what she wants to do. She is a person whose
actions speak louder than her words. I saw how nervous she was when she went to
China to speak about women’s rights. She entered the jaws of the authoritarian
dragon, a society dominated by men for centuries and she spoke to Chinese
women. Everyone at that meeting must have felt that there could be
repercussions. She has met with women and girls on almost every continent
trying to raise awareness of antiquated misogynistic traditions that keep women
powerless. She has worked with groups offering micro loans to women who turn a
small business into progress, family by family.
If Hillary has done all of this without being President it is
fairly easy to believe that, whatever problems she has with sounding authentic,
she will faithfully strive to determine what the American people need, to
listen to what the American people want, and to make sure to accomplish as much
of her agenda, an agenda that while it is somewhat left of center is in no way
extreme, and which she believes is our agenda. She tells us that she would like
to win bipartisan support, but I am certain that if she cannot move the other
party, she will still work to make a strong America.
On the other hand, everyone talks about how authentic Ben
Carson sounds. He talks in a calm manner and argues persuasively, if
laconically, offering statements that seem both rational and heartfelt. Even
when he says outrageous things he quietly and pedantically accuses us of
misunderstanding him and of giving his words more drama then intended.
Sunday (10/25/15) on Meet
the Press
he was questioned about his statement that if the Jews had guns
then Hitler would not have been able to round them up and kill them. He,
without changing his laid back tone, blows off those who see this as
anti-Semitic and says there is no double meaning. (Somehow I cannot see Hillary
ever making such a comparison to begin with and I have difficulty seeing that
as a bad thing.)
Ben Carson also said that he sees those who fight abortion as
being brave activists like the abolitionists who fought slavery. Yet I cannot
agree to this analogy. Slaves were snatched from their families as adults and
turned into the property of a usually white owner. They were fully formed
people with lives and rituals and wives and children. Unborn babies begin as
clumps of cells. They have no foothold yet in the world. I believe that those
who defend the rights of women to control their own reproductive health are
much more similar to those who fought against slavery. And why does Ben Carson
go to these extreme analogies except to get attention and display his contempt
for our petty powers of reasoning.
The problem is that when Ben Carson tells what he wants to do
as President, the American people do not seem to enter into the equation
anywhere. He says that he believes all abortion is wrong. He will be the final
arbiter. He will overturn Roe v Wade. We could assume that he is a moral
authority but there is no proof of that. He does not speak of our government as
a democracy. He does not mention the wishes or the needs of the people. He may
sound authentic to some but to me he sounds arrogant, a leader for a much more
authoritarian nation than ours.
Perhaps Hillary has some areas where her own values will not
permit her to follow the majority but I am guessing that Hillary mostly wants
an America that offers all its people a comfortable life with opportunities for
individual growth and for our nation to prosper. So while she may strike some
as phony, her actions and her hopes make her anything but inauthentic.
I would say that exactly the opposite is true of Ben Carson,
who speaks softly but has a burning desire to teach the bad, bad American
people a lesson, which, one on one, might involve a switch from a willow and a
closed room. What good is it to be authentic, if you are authentically wrong?
By Nancy Brisson

Andrea Mitchell and Hillary Clinton

Andrea Mitchell is getting on my last nerve lately. Right wing
media tags her as partial to Hillary Clinton, but it sure doesn’t seem that
way. Andrea Mitchell has questioned Hillary again and again about her use of
that private server to get her emails while she was Secretary of State. She has
interviewed her several times, seeming to intimate that there is a terrible
secret reason for her choice of that private server. 
Ms. Mitchell, whose own career in the news business rose
steadily since she graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1967 with a
BA in English Lit., is either at the peak of her career or slightly past the
peak. On this issue she probes long after it seems that there is nothing much
left to probe.
Hillary has apologized. She cannot go back and undo her
choice. All Ms. Mitchell’s interrogation seems to suggest that she is with the
right wing on this issue and believes there is some sinister connection to the
events in Benghazi. Or perhaps she is trying to make the point that Hillary’s
poor choice (boo boo, lack of tech savvy, accident – see how the weight of
events changes with the adjective) makes Hillary unfit to be President and that
she needs to be hounded out of the race so that the Democratic Party can be
competitive in the 2016 election.
While it seems as if, for Andrea Mitchell, Hillary has already
failed her screening for  the Presidency yet Andrea Mitchell does not seem to feel
that the GOP slip which gave away the political nature of the Benghazi special
investigation should lead to the demise of this committee. Why not? Why are we powerless
to deal with these transparent and distasteful election ploys? Andrea Mitchell
clubs Hillary with polls that show her as untrustworthy and unlikable, but it
is hard to tell if people are just susceptible to what they hear on the news.
I am here in the cheap seats and I am not hearing a groundswell
or drum beat for Hillary Clinton to be President out here in the boonies of
NYS, far from Manhattan, but not a lot of people here are news junkies like I
am. They watch the evening news, they read what Facebook sends their way
(usually articles that feed their beliefs) and they like some drama with their
news (FOX News). It is still difficult to tell which came first, their stand on
the issues or what they hear on the news. They do not agree that this is not
their parent’s Republican Party which boggles my mind.
My ‘spidey’ sense, which can detect sedition, is not tingling
in relation to this email story, but I’m still listening. I am unable to
discern how choosing an ill-considered server could be an act of sedition, but
I have no trouble labeling a recurring desire to shut down the Federal
government at great cost to taxpayers as sedition. Although these Republican
disrupters may think they are patriots rebelling on behalf of Constitutional
government, I see them as puppets of the Koch brothers trying to dismantle government.
If Andrea Mitchell is acting as Hillary’s friend I would not
want to be her enemy. If she keeps pounding away at Hillary with this email
hammer it is very possible that Hillary will eventually have to withdraw from
the election. Ms. Mitchell seems to believe that Democrats cannot win in 2016
with Hillary, but what if we can’t win in 2016 without her?
By Nancy Brisson

Is Hillary a Traitor?

_atrk_opts = { atrk_acct:”F5LZl1a8FRh2WR”,
domain:”thebrissioniblog.blogspot.com”,dynamic: true};

(function() { var as = document.createElement(‘script’);
as.type = ‘text/javascript’; as.async = true; as.src =
“https://d31qbv1cthcecs.cloudfront.net/atrk.js”; var s =
document.getElementsByTagName(‘script’)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(as, s);
})();

 

I can’t believe we are falling for this Republican gambit
again. The GOP knows how to create a scandal and how to keep it center stage
for as long as it proves to be to their political advantage (which is about as
long as the half-life of U-235).

I can understand the argument made by a constituent at the
Iowa State Fair who felt that Hillary’s poor judgment in choosing to use a
private server seems to argue against those who tout her as being politically
savvy. And yet we learn from the media that a number of Cabinet members have
used private servers including Colin Powell. The problem is, however, one of
degree. Republicans have us thinking that she is practically a traitor. They
say that what she did is worse than what General Petraeus did – really – Petraeus
actually shared national secrets with his paramour. Hillary did not share
secrets with anyone as far as we know. Joe Scarborough is once again engaging
in waves of bombastic hyperbole on the subject any morning you choose to turn
in to Morning Joe, a habit I may have to give up because I don’t like to get
worked up quite so early in the morning.

It sounds like so far the FBI has retroactively classified 305
(2, 60, 301, expect the number to keep changing and expect the media to be
aghast as each new number is announced) out of 50,000+ emails as at least qualifying
for the label Confidential, although Hillary tells us that she did not receive,
on her private server, any emails that were marked as Classified when she
received them. Joe Scarborough, foaming at the mouth, may buy that Hillary
planned for future cover-ups when she decided to opt for her personal server,
but that would suggest that Hillary is a scheming woman who lies all the time
because she thinks lies will serve her better than the truth. This merely
points out how women are painted with a different brush than men because this
is obviously a skill we already contribute to almost every man who is a
politician, but we don’t call it scheming, we call it strategizing.

This is what Republicans do. They create scandals and they
kick back and watch as the media, which knows the people love a good scandal,
broadcasts the details over and over. If the meme starts to die out then the
scandal mysteriously escalates a bit. If the party doles out the rumors and
innuendoes carefully the story lives through can entire election cycle and
perhaps beyond (much like the way the press merely has to say a code word like
‘Whitewater’ to cast unproven aspersions on someone).

It is entirely possible that there is nothing sinister at all
in Hillary’s use of a private server as there was no rule against it at the
time and others at her level of government did the same. Considering the number
of hostile hacks against our government computers (IRS, etc.) in recent years
and the exposure of secure data, it could look like it was actually a prescient
move to use a private server. But Trey Gowdy, the media, and, apparently, the
FBI will make sure that no one else in America believes that because that
Benghazi drumbeat is still kept alive and damning in the back of our minds.

[When have we ever had a perfect person in public office, a
person we could trust 100%. Given the flawed nature of all humans we would be
deluded to put all our trust in any President. It is why a democracy is
supposed to be strong, because the people keep an eye on our leaders and call
them to account if necessary. If we have never had a male President who is
perfect (sorry Republicans, even Ronald Reagan) then how can it be that we
expect to find a female President with no flaws? This is why it is important to
concentrate on policies rather than appearance or personalities and make policy
considerations at least as important as more superficial attributes.]

This does not have to be a huge story on the news every day.
The data is in the hands of the FBI. The investigation is launched. We must
wait for the results. Get a grip!
By Nancy Brisson

Our Daenerys Targaryen

I love Bernie Sanders, but I’m a girl and I want us to have a
girl for President. We have to break this particular “glass ceiling” and we
need to do it now. Hillary is the woman who is most prepared to lead America at this particular moment in time. We are in a gender rut. Even women seem unable to accept that a woman could run America.

Bernie Sanders would make a great President but he is
definitely not female. If he wins, Hillary can’t and then how long will we haveto wait. Gender should not be an issue in electing the American President yet unless we break the male dominance now we may not break with tradition in mylifetime
Of course if Hillary is considered truly incompetent to lead
America then she should not get to be our President regardless of her gender. Fortunately, Hillary has a resume that suggests that she is more than qualified to be our President.
Our Presidents never govern alone anyway. As we have seen
clearly in recent years Congress can act as a check on a President. In fact we
have watched a Congress that interpreted checks and balances to mean blockades.
If President Obama overstepped his powers (which I do not believe he did)
Congress has definitely overstepped theirs. If both Parties had acted equally
to control the President’s executive powers that might read as appropriate, but to have one Party (the Party out of executive power), erect an ersatz wall
against the exercise of the executive and to, in fact, execute what appears to
be a plot against the executive power. This does not read as appropriate at
all.
If the Republicans don’t win, if Hillary wins, will obstruction continue for four more years at least? Will Hillary be able to buck the obstruction which has become the way Congress conducts itself.
Well, we already have the NRA getting their way through mad
intimidation tactics (in the sense of insane) and we have the climate deniers
using this same tactic to halt actions designed to counteract climate change.
We have Grover Norquist, large and in-charge, and the hot and stubborn tea
party and Republicans in Congress, all digging in and winning by turning into immoveable objects. This may not make you nervous, but it makes me very nervous. It smacks of anything but democracy.
Hillary seems mild and too light-hearted to handle these people, but I’m not sure Bernie Sanders is tough enough either. I’m not sure if any Democrat is. But Hillary is up. She’s the next metal marble in the chute of
the pinball machine that has become our government. She’s up next to beat back the right wing beasts or tame them from dragons into pussycats. Perhaps she is our Daenerys Targaryen.
Therefore it is Hillary for me even though I would normally be
torn between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Rodham Clinton. However, since Democrats need to win this one, and the outcome is anything but certain, and since so many people continue to “dis” Hillary, I will vote the way I have to in order to elect a Democrat as President when the time comes.
By Nancy Brisson

Hillary and the Media – and Bill…

The media seems to salivate every time the Clinton
finances are attacked. The most recent tidbit reveals how much money the
Clinton’s earned from speaking engagements between January and May (25 million
dollars). They act like Bill and Hillary are con artists forcing people to turn
out their pockets just to listen to charismatic charlatans for forty-five
minutes to an hour.
I would think that perhaps people are willing to pay
such large amounts as $250,000 per speech because they want to contribute to the
good work being done by The Clinton Foundation and The Clinton Global
Initiative. And there is the political celebrity status conferred on these two
by holding top posts in our government like President and First Lady and
Secretary of State.
Lots of politicians (mostly Republicans) and media
people are offering up a silent and not so silent delight that we will soon be
able to prove that the Clintons are guilty of that powerful leveler of
political careers, “corruption”. The rest of us “everyday” folks out here think
that it is almost impossible to participate in politics today without being
corrupt. We will only be impressed with corruption on a very grand scale. We
expect that our politicians will find ways to make public service pay. We don’t
love the idea, but we feel helpless to change this dynamic.
People understand that there could be a conflict of
interest here: it is possible that large donations given by foreign governments
and by media figures like George Stephanopoulos could lead the donors to believe
that favors might be forthcoming if we elect Hillary as our President in 2016.
However giving to a charity that tries to mitigate misery around the globe does
not seem like the usual road to a quid pro quo.
Hillary and the media have a sort of come here – go
away kind of relationship. The press likes to expose the soft underbelly of
candidates for public office, Hillary included. However, once you show emotion
(fear, resentment) some in the press “smell blood” and like to go in for the
kill. Hillary feels that she must exercise caution when reporters are present.
We also accept that since she is running for President she cannot avoid the
media. News people complain that she seems overly formal and gives off an edgy,
annoyed air when confronted with questions which seems accusatory.
While it is true that the press is intrusive and
operates without filters, we are all hoping that Hillary gets a bit more
comfortable around the media and that she is able to hide the defensiveness she
currently reveals. I do not mind if she avoids situations which inspire a
feeding frenzy in the media. And as for the press, they could stop being so thrilled
by the shots candidates lob at each other, especially when they are aware that
what they are repeating are rumors that have not been and never may be proven
to be facts.
We have never before had a Presidential candidate
with a partner who is an ex-President and who heads a charitable foundation.
Unless this charity is simply a way to bilk donors of their money so it can
fatten the personal bank accounts of the Clintons, it would seem that we need
to cut them a little slack here.

I believe there is evidence that this foundation
takes on real projects both at home and abroad to lift up people in need. I
also tend to doubt that there is any criminal activity here worthy of
Republican glee. All these allegations will do is force Bill Clinton to stop
doing good things out in the world if he wants his wife to win the Presidency.
And that will be a true loss for all who currently benefit from The Clinton Foundation
and its programs.
This is the view from the cheap seats.
By Nancy Brisson

Playa’ Haters

 
 
Hillary Clinton is Nixonian. That is the newest annoying
political meme on the right. This coded language draws an analogy between the
missing 18 minutes of audio tape that became a bone of contention during the
Watergate scandal and the allegedly missing emails that Hillary deleted from
her private server after she downloaded the emails she handed in as the
official record of her email correspondence during her time as our Secretary of
State.

But wasn’t Nixon a criminal? Didn’t he commit some
unacceptable activities when he covered up for his friends who got caught
breaking into Democratic Headquarters? Wasn’t he almost impeached? The answer
to each of these questions is “yes”.

While
historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage
operation before it happened, he took steps to cover it up afterwards, raising
“hush money” for the burglars, trying to stop the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) from investigating the crime, destroying evidence and firing
uncooperative staff members. In August 1974, after his role in the Watergate
conspiracy had finally come to light, the president resigned. His successor,
Gerald Ford, immediately pardoned Nixon for all the crimes he “committed or may
have committed” while in office.

Only in the mind
and in the presidential campaign propaganda of the Republicans does anything
that Hillary Clinton has done equate with the things Richard Nixon did. Nixon
was known to be prone to a deep paranoia and believed that everyone who criticized
America or Nixon in any way was an enemy of America. Just read about his
behavior towards John Lennon, who was an avowed pacifist, although highly
critical of American politics under Nixon. Nixon treated the presidency like he
and his cronies were holed up in the oval office under gunpoint and had to
strategize their way out. Except that was not true and it turned the
president’s role into that of a mafia don.

I know the
Republicans want us to never forget Benghazi even though at least one embassy
was also attacked on their watch (and we won’t forget because Americans died
there). They want Hillary to pay for Benghazi because they don’t want to see
Democrats in the White House any longer and they specifically do not want to
see Hillary Clinton in the White House, ever. But Hillary is no crook. She did
not plot with anyone against the Republicans no matter how hard they try to
make it look that way. Although she may not have plotted against them, she may
have had good reasons to distrust them. I don’t know why she chose to use a
private email server or to use her own personal email address for official
business. It may have been more secure but it looks unprofessional. Governments
change slowly and big governments change even more slowly, and email has not
been used in official circles for very long so protocol may not have been set
in concrete. It could make it look like Hillary is covering something up but I
don’t believe that she is. If she were she would probably just have deleted a
few emails and handed over the server. I think she decided not hand over her
server as a matter of precedent and principle, but I, of course, do not really
know.

Obviously Hillary
doesn’t need me to defend her nor does she even have any idea that I am
defending her, but when Republicans make these ridiculous analogies – Obama is
like Hitler; Hillary is like Nixon – I just have to say something. I can’t let
everyone think that I, or any Democrat, believe this kind of name-calling and
guilt by association constitutes actual campaigning, although it seems to make
Republicans quite happy. This is the kind of sniping we seem prone to these
days, but if one side gets to play the other side gets to expose them as
players. We get to be the playa’ haters. 
 
By Nancy Brisson 

 

Hillary Clinton versus the Bully Boys of the GOP

 
 
I completely understand the low key way that Hillary Clinton
has decided to enter the 2016 Presidential campaign. She is not looking at a
primary yet and arrayed against her are the boys of the GOP, the many, many
bully boys of the GOP. Every one of these good ole boys has a sheaf of critical
arrows to unleash at Hillary. Keeping a low profile sounds like a great idea.
Although I’m sure Hillary can handle them, it would require a lot of energy and
time that could be put to better use.

Only one of these guys will actually win at the GOP convention
and become the official candidate of the Republican Party. Why should Hillary
take them on now en masse when she
can just hold her council and wait until we know who gets the GOP nod? It
doesn’t look like the media will cut her any slack and focus on the multiple
Republican primary candidates at this time while giving the single Democratic
primary candidate time to stay under the line of fire until after the
Republican National Convention.

Will Hillary hold up well against all this testosterone and
fraternal crapery (all right I made up this word, it comes from crap)? Perhaps
she is unflappable and will hold up fine. It sure wouldn’t hurt to let her know
that we are with her through this stage of her campaign where she is so
outnumbered. It might be a good thing to have a couple of other candidates in
the race to draw away some of the fire. Emily’s List we’re counting on you and
on all the other girl power groups that everyone makes so much ado about to
make sure that Hillary is not caught up in some fatal flaw before we can vote
for her in November, 2016. You know that old warning that there is many a slip
between the cup and the lip. Right now the distance between the cup and the lip
is very big.
 
By Nancy Brisson