Home | About | Donate

The Smart Con: Clinton vs. Trump


The Smart Con: Clinton vs. Trump

Peter Bloom

Even in the face of Bernie Sanders recent blowout victories, the pundits continue to proclaim that the 2016 presidential race is now firmly between Secretary Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The stakes of this contest supposedly go far beyond conventional partisanship.


Clinton focuses on her navel.
Trump focuses on his ego.
Cruz focuses on dominion over all.
Bernie focuses on US.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Author Peter Bloom is very accurate when he writes: "Even in the face of Bernie Sanders recent blowout victories, the pundits continue to proclaim that the 2016 presidential race is now firmly between Secretary Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump".
This AM on NPR the Monday talking-head hag, "Cokie" Roberts harped on the delegate count in Hillary's favor and mountain to be climbed by Bernie, with zero mention of huge blowouts over the weekend, enormous voter support, or Sanders' growing momentum! Roberts has been shilling for Clinton this entire primary "season", repeatedly denigrating Sanders and openly cheerleading for Clinton - I guess it's official, Roberts is just another for-sale pundit, not a journalist.
This has been both Roberts' and NPR's MO, a severe slant toward Hillary by NPR generally - unbiased, equal reporting absent, especially the NY affiliate, WNYC. Hopefully both Hillary stooges will eat humble crow in the near future!



Even the Real News and Popular Resistance offer stories that assume Clinton will be the nominee. This is her top talking point currently, and it plays into the meme mentioned in this article wherein filthy, morally reprehensible choices are cloaked as "hard-headed realism." And no, I totally don't buy her various changes of heart as being a matter of "evolving" or learning more about an issue--if I knew at the time that the Iraq war was based on lies and imperialism, that the TPP (and TTIP and TISA) are a corporate Bill of Rights that will eliminate the remaining rights us mere human persons enjoy, that the XL pipeline was an environmental disaster, why didn't she if she's so well-informed? This is NOT a matter of knowledge. Have you seen the clip of Elizabeth Warren talking about a policy proposed during the Clinton years that would have hurt women economically, and Clinton as First Lady asked for and received from EW an explanation of the convoluted economics of the proposal, learned very fast and understood well, went back to the White House and was surely the reason the Clinton team came out against it...but then as Senator she voted FOR the very same proposal?


Has the media checked the latest polls, Trump is losing to Cruz in Wisconsin and they are essentially tied in California. A brokered Republican convention seems like a real possibility. Who else would they pick but the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.


By comparison Trump is a lumbering loud, nasty grizzly bear, while Clinton is an invisible deadly pathogen.
While I fear both grizzly bears and deadly pathogens, I realize that my chances of being injured or killed by a deadly pathogen is tens of thousands of times greater than being injured or killed by a grizzly bear.


Clinton not only supported TPP and TTIP, she was involved in crafting them as Secretary of State.


It boils down to how badly the GOP establishment wants to win in November. They know that if Trump is not nominated in July he will run as an independent, splitting the right of center vote and handing the election to the Democrats.


Clinton sez: War without end, amen.

She never saw a war she didn't like.

And her praise for austerity economics portends cuts to Social Security.

As for her changing positions, that's a trick she picked up from her spouse:

"Triangulation is the term given to the act of a political candidate presenting their ideology as being above or between the left and right sides (or "wings") of a traditional (e.g. American or British) democratic political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political opponent. The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent's ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue." Wikipedia


Kudos to Bloom. The best characterization of the Clinton Campaign, (and her entire career), I've seen to date.


It is a very close contest between NPR, PBS and FOX for the most disappointing, purely propagandistic, and disgusting media outlet of the new century, and all three appear to be winning at any given moment. The NYT & WaPo are trying to catch them, and are both, depending upon the day one bothers to read them, sometimes making a show of it; thus far, they have remained schizophrenic between their pretensions to organizational seriousness and each writer simply taking him/herself too far along the assumption of being a member of the American Serious People club. At NPR, PBS, & FOX, they all are in the same club. They only have different brand labels running each respective club. As Ben Bagdikian long ago noticed, American editors, as a class, are a pack of cowards. Publishers are merely profits prostitutes, not entirely unlike the elites at the GOP & D parties.

They have all - yes, that entire society of knozits, like Obama, long since abandoned the ancient notion that there may be a notable distinction between integrity and popularity. We must quietly remember to ignore them though keep an occasional glance over the shoulder in case they are conspiring with the secrecy crowds to destroy our own neighborhoods they ways they have been experimenting upon the poor with their stupidly misguided SWAT Team destructions in the bizarre internecine inter-agency wars against each other called the war on drugs.

As for Peter Bloom's essay, it is a work of inspired genius. If we suppose that studied calculations are at the heart of what makes both Trump and HRC tick, then we see why. Trump is too much the lone operator to have encircled himself with the inspired, sometime even altruistic but widely varied niche-groups as have the Clintons, every one of which groups is merely another talent-recruiting ground for the Clintons. Everyone around them is disposable, today. As with Trump. Today's 'insiders' at HRC, Inc., are too busy to notice they don't work today with the same people they worked with yesterday, because each day's overlap is mostly the same as the day before. The whole operation is, fortunately, severely restrained by the spiritually dead core in each of the Clintons, so the drive for power is based entirely on calculations, each day's calculus adjusted to meet the suggestions implied by the various popularity polls of the day before.

Whether Bernie & his campaign will now satisfy themselves with winning the nomination, or shift the focus more decidedly upon building the movement is not for outside observers to see. This doesn't encourage a whole lot of talent to move into the center, because the center appears to be, unfortunately, reducing itself to a somewhat more attractive version of the HRC calculation circus.

Fortunately for all of us, the Bernie campaign has at least shown those of us in the distant provinces that the D Party monolith's long-evolving activist faction (remember that toxic-mouthed Rahm E's oft-repeated mantra "F&%$ the left!" that has been Obama's guiding mantra until last month when he decided to focus on his 'legacy'!) has now become the party's only semi-respectable energy & inspiration. Thank heavens the still-dominant (if only with office) Wall Street faction insists upon defending its own brain-dead leadership.


"Clinton stands out for her “hardheaded realism” and erudition. Even if one disagrees with her positions, it is seemingly impossible to argue with the idea that they are unsubstantiated or not based on evidence."

You mean like EVIDENCE fixed FOR war? Or "evidence" that NAFTA improves job scenarios for residents of the U.S.? Or evidence that Monsanto's products are perfectly safe?

What KIND of evidence is being propped up in a pro-establishment comment like the one quoted above?

Here's another slippery form of flattery that is meant to go unchallenged:

"There are far worse political sins, of course, then exaggerating your strengths. And it is not mutually exclusive to conclude that Clinton is both extremely informed and driven by an overriding desire to win elections."

How is she informed? If that information compels her to support foreign acts of aggression (WAR of aggression), and an agenda that's ALWAYS deferential to Big Banks and Big Money?

And this may be C.D's mistake, but it should be corrected:

"Yet there is a worrying and far to common to be mere coincidental trend that these adaptations adhere to whatever is politically popular at the moment rather than informed principle."

It should read far TOO common. The term "to" is a preposition that indicates moving from one thing to another. In contrast, the term "too" means extra or in addition to. The difference totally shifts the meaning (and understanding) of the statement.

On the following... the term INDEED applies!

"Her opponent Bernie Sanders has directly questioned her judgment, noting that despite having the same information as lawmakers she was as disastrously wrong about Iraq as he was presciently correct."


"It goes to the heart of Clinton’s case to be President – if she is really the most experienced and informed candidate than why has she shown such consistently poor judgment when it mattered? Indeed, what is the benefit of her deep well of knowledge if it does not translate into wisdom?"

It does translate into being a pragmatic "water carrier" for the MIC and its myriad weapons' developers, contractors, suppliers, and sales personnel.


I have really been disappointed by NPR. According to Jane Mayer of the New Yorker, David Koch has donated upwards of $23 million to public television. And when you donate $23 million dollars to public television, you get more than just a tote bag or a coffee mug – you get to dictate the on-air programming. The Koch Brothers would much rather have Hillary in the White House than Bernie.


I hope many Clinton supporters read this piece. Of late I have read several comments from them complaining about having to take a critical look at their candidate.

Bernie supporters would be wise to do the same with him. I don't have the dillusion that Bernie is perfect. I'd like to see him better embrace racial inequality as well as economic inequality as a serious issue and more enlightened foreign policy that contrasts more with tbe neocon narrative.

But clearly for the change that is necessary to happen due to current circumstances, Bernie is by far the best equipped to handle the challenges to the system needed.


Hillary's motto should be "Aim low and then settle".


These two insights by Peter Bloom are right on the mark. They also convey why it's so important that the 4th estate NOT be owned by a handful of corporate masters intent upon spreading Disaster Capitalism through war and other means:

"In both Iraq and Libya, the fantasy of neo-conservatism was legitimated by the mass respect for Clinton’s intelligence and her unparalleled “smart power”."

"It represents the worrying effort of making otherwise irrational and unacceptable policies seem reasonable and sane."

Regarding the following paragraph, once again, the range of "choices" presented as valid includes a hard and soft version of the same basic imperial policies. And since Sanders chips away at them, he is largely left without a pulpit or the type of air time so generously bequeathed to Trump and to a lesser extent, Queen Hillary:

"To this end, Trump is rightfully criticized for playing to a crowd that feeds off of the crudest forms of scapegoating and fear mongering. Yet Clinton offers her supporters a different but potentially just as threatening political fantasy. In her persistent appeal to her own knowledge she makes the racism, inequality and imperialism of the status quo seem well considered and moderate."

The system that is itself propped up BY war is not going to feature any candidate who challenges the hegemonic controls of the MIC.

Like many others, I am firmly convinced that 911 was an Inside Job. Well-planned, its goals were numerous but chief among them was creating a pretext for cracking down on human rights and civil liberties (part of that protocol was based on instituting the ubiquitous Stasi surveillance networks) across the world.

Why? To "make the world safe for absolute corporate plunder." Evidence of that agenda is seen in the powers arrogated to corporations by the TIPP and TPP.

Having gamed the fiscal system to the max--by treating the global economy like casino betting tables in Montecarlo--now, with oil and commodities prices dropping, the payments on exorbitant loans cannot be made and that threatens this whole house of cards.

Elites always use war when they run out of other options for controlling citizens AND the money supply/financial system.


Good one!


Koch Brothers typically fund and support Republicans.


From the article:

The idea that Clinton is the most informed candidate has been repeated so much and with such conviction that it is now almost unconsciously accepted
without question. She is seen as not only having vast experience but
also a deep understanding of the country’s problems along with a well
thought out set of policy solutions ready to address them.

Well, since Clinton created most of the problems in the world as our bomb-happy secretary of state spending all our money on war, I'm sure she has great understanding of those problems!

So did Curtis Lemay "understand our problems" who firedbombed everyone in Japan and advocated a First Nuke Strike against the USSR, but we weren't stupid enough to make him President!