Supplemental: "What fools we mortals be," Shakespeare said!

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2016

He didn't say we conservative mortals:
This time next year, will President Trump be in charge?

We'd have to say it's entirely possible. With a nod to Shakespeare—details below—let's consider how it could happen.

Candidate Clinton could still win the Democratic nomination. So could Candidate Sanders, of course. At this point, we wouldn't want to bet either way.

Let's suppose that Candidate Clinton ends up getting the nod. Consider the way we liberals are trashing her reputation, largely by reciting decades-old right-wing narratives, cons and canards.

How are we setting her up for the kill? For starters, consider today's piece by the new Salon's Jack Mirkinson.

Mirkinson—Yale 2009!—is much brighter than the norm at the pitiful new Salon. But good God! Midway through his new piece, he authors the highlighted claim, offering a link:
MIRKINSON (2/10/16): Clinton’s biggest hurdle—beyond the specific hurdle that comes with being a woman and carrying around 25 years of toxic political baggage—is that the very world she occupies is suddenly a deep liability for her. The Clinton who casually took reams of money to shower Goldman Sachs with praise was a woman who likely never assumed that any candidate or voter would hold that against her so vehemently.
As it turns out, it was very dumb for the future Candidate Clinton to take money from Goldman Sachs.

That said, did she "casually take reams of money to shower Goldman Sachs with praise?" Did she "shower Goldman Sachs with praise" at all?

Mirkinson says she did. As evidence, he links to this horrific piece by Politico's Ben White. Despite an early reference to multiple sources, White quotes exactly one (anonymous) person who says Clinton "was pretty glowing about us" in one of her three Goldman speeches.

That one (anonymous) source actually does make it sound like Clinton "showered Goldman Sachs with praise." But given the "25 years of toxic political" war conducted against both Clintons and Gore, it would take an absolute fool to credit the claim of that one (anonymous, unsubstantiated) source.

You'd really have to be off your gourd to credit that one anonymous source. In fact, the piece by White is a classic example of the way Politico has managed to take our journalistic standards even lower than they already were.

But so what? At the new Salon, Mirkinson rushed to credit the piece. Liberal readers are exposed to the latest trashing of Clinton.

White's Politico piece is a joke; Mirkinson's piece should be an embarrassment. That said, we liberals have spent 25 toxic years refusing to understand the nature of the right-wing wars against both Clintons and Gore. A new generation is now hungrily gulping the cons.

Mirkinson, class of 2009, is the latest high-IQ kid to swallow the bullshit whole. To understand where this sort of thing leads, consider the horrific news in a new Daily Beast piece by Betsy Woodruff, a 25-year-old (former) movement conservative who now appears on the Chris Hayes show in the guise of whatever we're supposed to take her to be at this point.

Woodruff—Hillsdale College, class of 2012!—was reporting from a Sanders event. She quoted some of the true believers who won't vote for Clinton if she gets the nod because they believe all the talk they've been hearing from Sanders:
WOODRUFF (2/9/16): Numerous Sanders supporters flatly stated that they would under no circumstances back Clinton, citing the criticisms of her that Sanders brings up on the stump every day.

Ashley Bays of Quincy, Massachusetts, who came to New Hampshire to volunteer for Sanders, said she would “absolutely not” back Clinton, ever.

“It would be completely against my ideals,” she said.

“Hillary is obviously not thinking about the best interests of the people,” she continued. “She’s thinking about the corporations that fund her, Goldman Sachs.”

Peggie Greenough, a New Hampshire voter who came to the party along with her husband and three sons, said she wouldn’t vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee.

“I don’t trust her,” she said. “I don’t trust her at all.”

Marilyn DeLuca, of Londonderry, New Hampshire also said Sanders is “the only candidate out there” with integrity.
And she wasn’t exactly enthralled by Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem’s goofy arguments that women are obligated to back Clinton.

“They’re irrelevant,” DeLuca said. “Their time has come and gone.”
Thank God for the deadly "ideals" of those who are easily conned! Aside from the drumbeat from Sanders, they keep reading pieces by the Mirkinsons, who tell them, absent any actual evidence, that Clinton "casually took reams of money to shower Goldman Sachs with praise."

He read it at Politico! That's how he knows it's true!

A few weeks back, the New York Times' Amy Chozick got involved in the endless con again. She wrote a lengthy report about the way young women are turning against Clinton because they keep hearing that, back in the 1990s, she "discredited women who said they had had sexual encounters with or been sexually assaulted by former President Bill Clinton."

Thanks to overt hustlers like Chozick, those young women aren't being told about the groaning credibility problems involved with some of those ancient accusers. When it comes to credibility, Gennifer Flowers is a world-class train wreck. Then again, we still owe you the depressing backstory on Kathleen Willey.

Making a horrible story short, remember how Ken Starr's successor, Robert Ray, formally reported that he had considered indicting Willey for perjury? You can bet you aspic that Chozick's young women don't!

Even more horrifically, remember how Willey went on Hardball in early 1999 and, at the urging of Chris Matthews, accused journalist Cody Shearer of killing her pet dog in service to the vile and murderous Clintons?

Luckily, Shearer was able to prove that he'd been three thousand miles away at the time of the alleged crime. In the meantime, though, an armed man had been arrested at Shearer's home, thanks to the grossly irresponsible conduct of the horrific Willey and her horrific cable news boy friend, who was a massively overpaid Jack Welch thug at the time.

Is there anything Matthews hasn't done over these many long years? At any rate, thanks to overt hustlers like Chozick, the young women to whom she referred aren't being exposed to the disappeared facts about the craziness and credibility of some of the famous accusers who Hillary Clinton may have dared to disbelieve.

"What fools we mortals be," Shakespeare thoughtfully said. Please note that he didn't say we conservative mortals.

How foolish do we the liberal mortals tend to be? Just read this new post by Kevin Drum to learn how Candidate Trump may reach the White House if Clinton gets nominated.

(Drum's post concerns another liberal who is too morally pure to vote for a person like Clinton. Plus, she's sure that Trump could never win. As Drum asks, a bit more politely, how do we liberals manage to get this arrogant and this dumb?)

Four cycles ago, we mortals followed the lead of the hopeless Frank Rich and gave our votes to Candidate Nader. (Rich had insisted, again and again, that Bush and Gore were just alike, two phony peas in a pod.)

People are dead all over the world because we decided to do that. But so what? We the liberals seem to be ineducable. This time around, things are likely to turn out much worse if we, with our high moral standards and our attraction to cons, kick the door to the White House open for the ludicrous Candidate Trump.

Final point:

Come November, we'll be voting for Candidate Sanders or for Candidate Clinton, whichever one gets the nod. That said, we'd have to say that Candidate Trump may have a pretty good shot at the White House, thanks to the way we liberals tend to pamper our exquisite morals.

What fools we mortals turn out to be! We swallowed the crap about Candidate Gore, can't wait to do it again.

38 comments:

  1. http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

    Bob, please quit defending the indefensible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That article is more an emotional diatribe than a cogent piece discussing issues in a rational manner. For example, her discussion of the 1994 Crime Bill is very distorted. It would seem that she believes the bill came about in order to imprison African Americans, rather than as a response to Ruby Ridge, Waco, and other violent crime.
      The article describes the author as a "legal scholar." Based on what I read there is no scholarship there.

      Delete
  2. At first it seemed like progressives were going to be respectful toward Clinton. Maybe this was because she worked for Obama. As the primary heats up though, we are getting comments that echo 2008 and I am worried that we will, as Bob points out, let Trump win.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking only as a single Sanders supporter, I consider neoliberals like Obama and Hillary to be essentially REPUBs who have captured the DEM Party.
      So devastating attacks are in order, but based on truth, not personality. Some Clinton supporters think exposing something negative in her record is out of line. A lot of Sanders supporters seem to be independents, they owe the DC DEMs nothing. I'm not alone in saying I won't be buying the "lesser of two evils" argument gain after 8 years of Wall St Obama.

      Delete
    2. Were you cheering after the 8 years of G. W. Bush's "leadership" brought the country economically to its knees?

      ('Cause you know, Bush and Gore were just the same as Obama, HRC, McCain and Romney).

      But to your point: Bringing things out about Hill is not out line.

      But trashing her by implying she'd be the same president as Trump (your "I won't be buying the 'lesser of two evils'" non-comparison) is being idiotic.

      Delete
    3. Lodger serves to remind us that the left also has a loony tunes element, albeit far smaller.

      Delete
  3. Too pure to vote for Clinton? So they claim.

    Too stupid to vote against the Republican? Apparently so.

    That said (!) people will make their choices how they like, including the choice of whether to participate or not.

    Bob Somerby, of all people, should know the blame for 2000's electoral outcome rests far more squarely upon the shoulders of the media than upon Ralph Nader or those who voted for him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby should also know the difference between a handfull of selected quotes from a handful of selected people early in the primary season and the true feelings of the vast majority of Sanders supporters.

      Delete
    2. Bob Somerby finally let a little daylight shine on his meme. Nader may have influenced the outcome in 2000? Ya think?

      If Nader didn't, what the hell was he doing running for Pete's sake.

      Delete
    3. How can anyone forgive Nader for choosing Joe Lieberman as Gore's Veep?

      Delete
    4. The relentless and unfair effort of the press to make Gore pay for Clinton's overstated minor dalliance with a young woman who was almost in her late twenties led Gore to create and initiative leading to the selection of Lieberman for the ticket.

      Delete
  4. There is no evidence whatsoever that the people Somersby quotes read the articles he cites.
    Bob Gardner
    Randolph, MA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no evidence whatsoever that Somerby fans read the linked articles he purports to cover in his posts.

      Delete
    2. Some do and some don't.

      Delete
    3. Many can but most won't.

      Delete
  5. I'm reminded of all the women PUMAs who would never vote for Obama after he defeated Hillary.

    They sure did swing that election to President McCain, didn't they? Especially after he wooed them with Vice President Palin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ugliest part of Bernie's movement is the leftover Obama supporters who still hate Hillary and are still attacking her like it was 2008. Those Bernie Bros are not just teenage misogynists. You can mock the Pumas but they were true to their principles in the same way Bernie claims to be. I didn't vote for Obama in either election and I will never vote for Sanders, no matter who the Republicans nominate. I may move to Mexico though. You think the Pumas are funny -- imagine how it feels to have your dream of a woman president stomped on so repeatedly while others talk about their historic moments. You people make me sick.

      Delete
    2. The PUMA's weren't funny. They were pathetic.
      And based on your comment, some still are.

      Delete
  6. Actually, Drum's post has this line:

    "If Republicans nominate a Donald Trump or a Ted Cruz, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot."

    And Drum's post is not about "another liberal who is too morally pure to vote for a person like Clinton" so much as it is a warning to Democrats not to consider the election already in the bag.

    At the same time he says that nominating Trump or Cruz would be a shot in the foot.

    Here's the thing, Bob. Mitt got beat when he only got 27 percent of the Latino vote. Bush barely got re-elected when he got 44 percent of the Latino vote.

    The GOP has been having a mad race to see who hates Mexicans more.

    So yeah, don't be complacent. But at the same time, don't get too nervous about Democratic prospects this fall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you expect Bernie to win without the votes of Hillary supporters?

      Delete
    2. Hillary supporters will drag themselves out to the polls and vote for Sander if he should, God forbid, win the nomination, even if we do so in despair at what awaits the country if he should be elected because not a single one of us is willing to even contemplate the consequence of one of those GOP crazies getting into the White House. We did that overwhelmingly in 2008, and we will do it again.

      Delete
  7. Hey, no worries, Hillary will get more delegates from New Hampshire than Bernie, despite losing by 20+ points. That's why they call it the "Democratic" Party!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yawn. I just assume that when Banksters pay money to hear someone, it's something they want to hear. Like when I pay to go to a concert. If Hillary got paid to be critical, release the f***ing transcripts!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yawn. I just assume that when Banksters pay money to hear someone, it's something they want to hear. Like when I pay to go to a concert. If Hillary got paid to be critical, release the f***ing transcripts!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What? Hillary won't release a transcipt of her Reams O'Money talk to the Squidford Bunch? What? Bob didn't mention that when trashing a reporter who relied on at least one source?

      Bob doesn't disappear relevant facts. He exposes journalists who do.

      Delete
    2. What did Bob Somerby leave out of Ben White's article? You know, the one linked to by "Yale 2009!"

      "Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon dismissed the recollections (of her sppech to the bankers) as “pure trolling,” while the Clinton campaign declined to comment further on calls that she release the transcripts of the three paid speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs, for which she earned a total of $675,000."

      http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969#ixzz3zrsVWAA8

      Delete
    3. @9:05 -- What does that add to what Somerby said? I don't see how it changes his portrayal at all.

      Delete
    4. Of course you don't. Obama's birth certificate didn't change Trumpo's portrayal either.

      Delete
  10. These people pretending to be Bernie supporters or Dems for Trump are conservative trolls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some are, some aren't, but they might as well all be.

      Delete
    2. I would not go the extra mile and say these comments need moderation, but I think all commenters should disclose their age and college affiliation like Bob does for us with select reporters.

      Delete
  11. What Hillary said to the Wall Street types doesn't matter. I assume she said something they wanted to hear. The important point is that they paid her a fortune. Not because she's the most entertaining speaker alive. But, because they were buying influence with the potentially next President.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Companies hire important people to speak to their employees because it makes them feel important themselves. It is the same reason they hire motivational speakers and sports figures to speak to them. Further, Clinton could have a great deal to say about the world business climate and changes in circumstances around the world affecting any business, based on her experience as Secretary of State. Why do you assume she can have nothing to say except flattery and that there was no value received from her expertise except future influence? That denigrates her performance as Secretary of State and is demeaning to her.

      Delete
    2. We expect you to call for the release of the transcipts soon @ 9:24.

      Delete
    3. Dave the Guitar PlayerFebruary 11, 2016 at 1:07 PM

      I think you should pay more attention to what someone does, rather than what someone says. If you don't like what Hillary is doing, it doesn't matter what she says. She can flatter Wall Street all she wants as long as she treats them with only the respect that they deserve.

      Delete
  12. Gerçek Türk porno arşiv inin bulunduğu her zaman güncel ve hızlı Türk porno arşiv sitemizi hızlı oynayan videolarla stabill bir porno video sitesi yapmakta ciddi emek sarf ediyoruz. Her zaman en güncel yerli porno videolarının yayınlandığı sitemizde farklı hd kalitede gerçek türk porno videoları ve farklı bir çok amatör porno videoları yayınlanmaktadır. Daima güncel olmayı vizyon edinmiş editörlerimizce titizlikle seçilen türk ev hanımı pornoları ayrı kategoride yayınlanmaktadır. Dilediğiniz gerçek porno videolarını kolaylıkla bulabileceğiniz sitemizde keyifli zamanlar geçirmeniz dileğiyle. Sağlıcakla Kalın..

    en yeni Türk pornoları

    Yerli Pornosu

    gerçek Türk Pornosu

    amatör pornosu

    gizli çekim porno

    Türk liseli pornoları

    ev hanımı sikiş

    Türk türbanlı pornosu

    ReplyDelete
  13. Marilyn DeLuca of Londonderry, NH here. Let me correct you since it appears you were not at the Sanders event and did not speak to me. You just took it upon yourself to sum up an article in which you think I won't vote for Hillary Clinton because I am "easily conned!" and "Aside from the drumbeat from Sanders, they keep reading pieces by the Mirkinsons, who tell them, absent any actual evidence, that Clinton "casually took reams of money to shower Goldman Sachs with praise."
    Let me set the record straight I won't vote for Hillary because I am probably slightly younger than you, have been around for while, didn't vote for her husband and would never vote for her ever because of her entire past history and not because of anything Sanders says or her Goldman Sachs ties. I had made my decision to not ever vote for her many years ago before I ever hear of Bernie Sanders. I'm pretty sure the other women quoted in he article were also around my age so we are not young and naive and nor are we easily conned. Leave it to all the media to make sweeping generalizations and get it wrong yet again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "....would never vote for her ever because of her entire past history..."

      Yes, you've been conned. It's always hardest to convince the person being conned that they have been taken. It's too embarrassing to admit to yourself.

      Delete