HOME



Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405



Facebook: Digby Parton

Twitter:
@digby56
@Gaius_Publius
@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)
@spockosbrain



emails:
Digby:
thedigbyblog at gmail
Dennis:
satniteflix at gmail
Gaius:
publius.gaius at gmail
Tom:
tpostsully at gmail
Spocko:
Spockosbrain at gmail
tristero:
Richardein at me.com








Infomania

Salon
Buzzflash
Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Slate
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic


Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Hullabaloo


Sunday, September 04, 2016

 

Stealing Trump's thunder

by Tom Sullivan

An Allen Clifton post from a couple of weeks ago set in relief how nuts the anti-Clinton fever of the last quarter century has been. Problem is, the propaganda campaign has largely worked. Relentless repetition has a way of creating its own reality. It may not have worked for Bush II's minions, but it has worked against the Clintons. After soaking in decades of propaganda, I don't even trust what I think I think about them. Except to be convinced so much of it is bullshit.

Clifton writes at Forward Progressives:

To believe anti-Clinton critics, you would think Bill and Hillary Clinton were more powerful, evil and diabolical than even the most over-the-top villain in your stereotypical spy movie. The Clintons have been accused of:
  • Being serial killers. (No, seriously, there are individuals out there who think they’ve killed well over 90 people.)
  • Money laundering and racketeering.
  • Covering up multiple rapes.
  • Raising Chelsea Clinton as their daughter — when she’s not really their daughter.
  • Running a drug-smuggling ring while Bill was governor of Arkansas.
  • Ordering Chelsea to get pregnant before Hillary ran for president to make her seem more likable.
  • Fixing a primary election via voter fraud, and also forcing minority voters to overwhelmingly support Hillary Clinton.
  • Rigging an FBI investigation with a director of the FBI who’s not only a Republican, but worked for the Bush administration.
There are many more, of course, as Clifton notes. But as to the controversy du jour over their charity, the Clinton Foundation, Clifton marvels:
Then, even though the Clintons obviously knew that anyone who wanted to see the donation records of the foundation could do so, they went ahead and decided to use the foundation with their name on it to supposedly launder money from foreign countries and other shady characters who donated money expecting to “get something” from them in return.

Now, maybe I’m just a little “nuts,” but if I were someone capable of covering up multiple murders; rigging FBI investigations; fixing primary elections; and the whole host of other horrific things the Clintons have been accused of, I think I would find something a little more “subtle” to set up a “pay-for-play” scheme centered around international crime that could potentially be linked all the way to the White House. You know, at least slightly more subtle than a foundation with my last name on it!

But that’s just me.
Yet coverage of the Democratic candidate for president hovers — when it hovers at all — around these serial conspiracy theories and the distrust the public has been carefully taught. Meanwhile, the payaso running on the Republican ticket puts on such a colorful daily show for the press that he consumes all the press attention not devoted to whatever faux scandal GOP smear merchants are peddling about Clinton.

I know, it's a helluva way to select a national leader, and not a situation Hillary Clinton should simply try to ride out because polls look so favorable. David Horsey of the Los Angeles Times wonders the same thing:
Clinton needs something close to a landslide if she hopes to have any kind of mandate and if she hopes to bring a more friendly Congress into office with her. To get such a large margin of victory, she must do more than let Trump beat himself. She needs to steal the attention from him and get more people enthused about the idea of having her as president.

Right now, in his erratic way, Trump is doing a good job of reinforcing the pervasive right-wing caricature of Hillary as dishonest, corrupt and even criminal. As preposterous as his rhetoric may be, it is being heard day after day while Clinton’s voice is largely absent. The upcoming presidential debates offer a vitally important opportunity to project an appealing image of competence and command of issues, but, given that Clinton will face a very unpredictable opponent on the debate stage, she cannot be certain those three battles of wits will work in her favor.

If Clinton wants to grab the spotlight, she must confront very directly and very effectively the bad image that so many people have lodged in their brains — a tough task that carries with it plenty of risk. The temptation will be to play it safe and coast on current momentum to a slim victory. But barely beating the most absurd candidate Republicans have ever nominated will not give Clinton the clout she will need in the toxic political battles certain to come once the votes are counted and the hard work of governing begins.
A frightening article on coastal flooding in this morning's New York Times makes clear just how much political capital will be needed for any progress to take place during the next administration. Robert Frank makes a plea at the New York Times for Clinton to work harder and to spend more money to take back the U.S. House from the T-party climate denialists now in charge and more vulnerable than ever:
But because a campaign’s budget is not a fixed sum, the trade-off may be more apparent than real. As economists have long stressed, the amount that people are willing to pay for something depends on what they expect to get in return. Democratic donors understand that their biggest concerns can’t be addressed until Republicans lose their congressional majorities. They also understand that if the House doesn’t flip this year, there will be virtually no chance of it flipping in the 2018 midterm elections. And until Democrats win enough seats in state legislatures to undo Republican gerrymandering — which could take decades — a wave election is the only near-term hope.

The candidacy of Donald Trump offers a unique opportunity. If Mrs. Clinton made the case clearly in these terms, many donors would step up. Democrats could compete for every vulnerable Republican seat without diverting a single dollar from the Electoral College battle.
But first she has to get their attention. That will be a tall order and take Hillary Clinton well out of her comfort zone. For all our sakes, let's hope she is up to it.