Home | About | Donate

If You Mean It, Hillary Clinton, Say It Loud


#1

If You Mean It, Hillary Clinton, Say It Loud

Tom Gallagher

In an email released by WikiLeaks, one Hillary Clinton advisor claimed the campaign was so uninspired that he was “petrified that Hillary is almost totally dependent on Republicans nominating Trump.” Of course, they did nominate Trump. And it may well be that the man known to claim that he could get away with murder has finally brought himself down by being caught boasting that a guy like him can grab women whenever and wherever he wants.


#3

Of course, the reason she's not saying it loud (to the consternation of supporters like Pollitt, Budowsky, et al) is she DOESN'T mean it. DUH! Of that "most progressive platform, blah, blah, blah" - we'll get maybe one thing enacted in all of it. Maybe. And we'll have 10 horrible Neo-Liberal deals enacted during that same time that will more than cancel that one thing out.

Also Mr. Gallagher, when you say "Clinton and Obama ran against each other with similar agendas, the race mostly coming down to which individual you preferred to carry it out" - that's not really true. Obama's RHETORIC was much more progressive than hers and that's why he won. He just lied better than she did.


#6

Even if Hillary "Says it loud", it would be her public opinion, not her private opinion. You can't believe anything she says in public.


#7

Hillary is nothing more than a closeted Trump.


#10

Still hoping Hillary will be something she's not eh? Well she won't. She feels entitled to be president and all this is just a bother. Even the warnings offered to help her candidacy went unheeded. (per the emails)
The emails show Trump was picked and pumped by the media to be her opposite because they felt sure she could beat him. (per the emails)
I wonder if he knows he's been played by her and the DNC?
Batch 5 of the emails came out today. Her, you know what, is in the wind.
Stein 2016


#12

Perhaps "Sanders moved the whole party to the left, giving it the most progressive platform we have seen in our lifetime" may apply to folks born since the 1985 Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) formation if you are referring only to the platforms of the Democratic Party and GOP.

There have been no shortage of progressive platforms in US elections, just a shortage of voters supporting them.

The progressive planks in Clinton's platform are scheduled to be burned on November 9.


#13

Look, Tom, no doubt it works for some (though I'm not sure how many of them are CD's subscribers), but for many, Clinton is not about "the message" nor how loudly it is stated. The cows have left the barn and Clinton's chickens have come home to roost. For the many that such articles are meant to woo, Clinton's record is what matters. It's too late to change that, at least with campaign-time rhetoric, because she has this second problem: few really find her all that trustworthy, anyway. So really, what are any subsequent word or style changes worth? Whose minds are they going to change?

So we're back to what the Clinton campaign has been almost entirely about: persuading enough fence-sitters that Trump himself is too (u-pick-it, they all apply) nasty, ignorant, mean-spirited, narcissistic, emotionally immature / volatile, dangerously incompetent, unqualified; and therefore everyone must choose her.


#14

Dulles, a name that should (and maybe, one day will ) live in infamy.


#15

One bothersome thing about a Hillary win is, like with Obama, when she starts caving to Republicans and Conservative Democrats, she will lose the House and Senate for the Democrats again should they win it back. If it wasn't for his naming four or five more Scalias, I might hold my nose and vote for Trump if only because he is more certain to precipitate a progressive backlash and get more and better progressives elected.


#17

That's right - the only thing HRC has to offer is that she's not Trump.

Stein/Baraka 2016


#20

"her 0.1% benefactors are content with status quo"
Amen, on that, but no Alleluiah.


#21

Clintons supporters seem so content with news exclusively from the mainstream Propaganda Machine. So many ties between media and government, with so many top media dogs having close relations with family in gov jobs/positions. And then with Obama making it so the old anti-propaganda laws are gone now- just super easy for them to go crazy manipulating the facts. I know: ain't that some Nazi BS?
Like right now, big mainstream news about Trump going to court over claims he raped 13 yr. old, her attack arranged by convicted pedophile/rapist/sex slave master Jeffrey Epstein's home (and did he really organize the Clinton Foundation?), but nothing about how Bill Clinton- !while president!- flew on Epstein's plane dozens of times and visited Epstein's "orgy island", while both plane and island have reputation of locations for who knows how many child rapes.
We have such huge issues right now, abuses of children all over the globe, just horrendous, all of it- but voting for either Trump or Clinton is not going to fix any of it whatsoever, whether guilty of newly alledged abuses or not- we have enough to go on and have other options regarding our precious votes.


#22

Regarding the emails leaked by Wikileaks.
Notice how the people at Fox News were crying out for the death penalty for whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden in the past. When it come to leaks against Hillary, they can't wait for the next juicy batch of leaked emails, now Julian is a hero.


#23

So true, and yet, about the only mainstream media outlet where you can see any truth about Hillary's dirt.


#24

Stein also has my :green_heart:, and future vote. My conscience and vote = sooooo clee-e-e-e-an!


#25

Gallagher would like to find a reason to vote for Clinton and has not.

He has gone past asking the candidate to mean what she says, and has moved to asking that she say what we would like her to mean. Maybe it is not directly important that he does not seem to be embarrassed to do so, but it cannot be a good indication.

Does he imagine that he levers her in this direction in some way by asking the question in public? People do this, but it hardly seems like a practical idea with a candidate who has more or less ignored the electorate altogether, saying as little as she possibly can about anything while Trump pushes her voters.

Really, the only news of any note out of the Clinton camp is leaked. Surely I am not the only person who waits for the reports from Guccifer and Wikileaks to see how the American election is going. The Republican and Democratic camps have ceased to be primary sources of even their own campaign information, and the commercial media has been bought and sold in public. Voters will choose whether they like genital-grabbing of the stars or Clinton laughing at Ghaddafi being sodomized by a bayonet. But the power blocs have already voted, and we have already seen that they will not leave the election to popular choice.

Maybe it is not the most important point here that Gallagher's actions and hopes are so obviously useless, so out of touch with the actual circumstance.

But it frightens me because it seems that in general the professional punditry and the organizers and the members of various apparats are all acting as though this were all just a burp or a glitch in democratic process. It's not so, sadly. If there is no uncounted lurching out there among the Greens or Libertarians, there is no one left within the boat who can right it. We know that the Clinton camp funded the Trump candidacy, as though the other Republican also-rans were not softball opposition enough. We know that the DNC, the president, and the Clinton campaign colluded to defraud Sanders and his supporters, but also that Sanders himself readily caved into the fold.

Neither Sanders himself nor Gallagher nor a good many Democrats seem bothered that the democratic process has aborted here. What we have left is no longer a "more liberal" or "more progressive" of two business parties. We have a single business party that appoints its candidates within the apparat and hires its opposition as part of public relations.

Maybe part of the problem is that so many of these people are Americans, and so insular about so much of the history of CIA ballot-messing. What is evolving or has evolved here is analogous to the situation of the PRI in Mexico over many years. There is some nod to democratic institutions. The population knows better, but is afraid of the violence that might transpire if they question authority. The rulers resent the pollyanna act that they have to go through, as one can easily read in Clinton's emails, but recognize that pretence pulls the population into line more cheaply than an increase in arms.

It's worth a day to stroll down to the ballot box and vote Green and certainly for local initiatives, but I am going to feel bad if all of this is only for old time's sake.

We ought to be talking about what to do about having stepped or fallen outside of electoral politics, and it seems to me that we ought to discuss it sooner rather than later.


#26

Hate to say it, but I have been watching a lot of Fox News lately, sometimes half of their shows are about the leaked emails.


#27

There is no Hillary campaign. Her whole "campaign" is just an act of pretend. She is the actor and the 1% pulls the strings. Their slogan should be renamed to "I'm with the 1%”.

Their campaign has NOTHING to do with beliefs, ideology, or anything that is remotely connected to improving American lives. Their campaign is carefully crafted to fit into whatever the public opinion is at any given time. It's ONLY about winning, and she says whatever it takes to accomplish that. Everything speech she holds, every interview she does, every debate she does, is scripted by communication professionals: Her team secretly gets the questions in advance so they can craft the answers that she then parrots in front of the camera. It is ALL an act; what Hillary says has nothing to do with what she believes, means, or wants.

She is the brain-less physical body of the 1%, nothing more and nothing less. Hillary as president will most likely have very little say in anything, she will be a "dummy" that will be used for public appearances and signing bills, every decision and policy-making is taken care of by the 1%. She will take plutocracy to another level.

What Hillary and the DNC apparently doesn’t care about is that their corruption is doing severe damage to the liberal “brand”, making a void that can easily be exploited by a future Trump 2.0. So if you think this will all be over after the election, think again. What Hillary and the DNC have done will probably set liberals and progressives back decades.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump 2.0 in 4 years. Hillary has become the symbol of corruption and will make it impossible for a Democrat or progressive to win next election. A Trump-win, believe it or not, might actually help liberals down the road: 1) Democratic party realize they f-cked up, 2) A Trump disaster will send the GOP and conservative movement to the grave leaving a path for (real) liberals.


#28

the one thing they didn't count on was wikileaks destroying hrc as trump fell.
plus there is lots of time left.

i feel foolish hoping, but how much more will start the herd moving in different direction?

it must be difficult to cover eyes and ears while typing, Mr.. Gallagher.

vote green, and then see what we've got, imo.

it's Stein time.


#29

Good lord - that same kind of wishful thinking i saw expressed about O as it became more and more clear that he wasn't exactly what they had him projected as being - in other words, quite simply denial ...

All this hanging on weasel words like "not inclined" - openly not running on significant planks in the DP platform, and of course, the excuse ,as always, "well she can't say that stuff or she will turn off - who? Apparently Rep voters that apparently she feels she needs more than progs, who apparently she feels, if Sanders has done his PR job, she can count on no matter what she says or does .. taking us for granted, again, so she can continue her move to the right - More 12 dimensional chess, eh? Remember that one?

What I wonder would Clinton have to do, that she wouldn't be excused for, that would finally turn progs off to her ?