Home | About | Donate

The Threat of Evangelical Clintons


The Threat of Evangelical Clintons

Peter Bloom

After being proclaimed close to politically dead, Bernie Sanders resurrected his campaign with an upset victory over Hillary Clinton. Despite this win – many in the mainstream continue to portray Sanders and his allies as bordering on delusional. “Sanders declares war on reality” blared the headline of at least one major newspaper.


Committed readers of CD and other Progressive News sites understand that drones kill THOUSANDS of innocent people; but that doesn't change the fact that the MSM constantly pushes the "surgical drone" narrative which says something altogether different.

It's the same with Hillary. These days she tries to sound like Sanders as if she cares about human rights, the minimum wage, or health care.

The public doesn't hear the TRUE story:

"She was the leading hawkish voice in the Obama administration – the chief architect of the disastrous military intervention in Libya and a proponent of a greater armed presence in Syria. She was the primary force for legitimizing the military coup in Honduras in support of the country’s economic oligarchy. And she pushed for the global expansion of fracking – for the benefit of US energy companies – across the developing world."

Amy Goodman is a national treasure. Her work is very admirable, and in trying to be fair and balanced, she will often interview a Sanders' supporter along with a Hillary Clinton supporter. I am always amazed at all of the facts and factors the Clinton supporter either doesn't acknowledge or doesn't know. Instead, they insist that Clinton is a great supporter of women's rights with equal implications made as per the Black community.

On a global scale, Hillary's eager advocacy for wars has been anything but sensational (in any positive sense) for women or people of color.

I place blame on the captured media. Nor is it necessarily a coincidence that Bill Clinton worked to deregulate it... which has brought it to its current status where lies go unchallenged, and lies are the general currency of the MSM. These lies became the cognitive fuel that started and still maintains wars, and it completely misrepresents those individuals who call themselves leaders.

Somewhere in Scripture it's explained that evil's foremost tool is Deception. Therefore, when an entire national media works to traffic in deception, how can anything but disaster result? Of course, that outcome does the shock doctrine advocates just fine... and Hillary is of course one of them. Like all neo-cons, she's made a FORTUNE on others' disasters but pretends to be the force working to mend and heal.


Did you know that the term "who's" means who is.

The possessive is whose.

Your post is a classic blame citizens for a system that's rigged by special interests and/or elites.

Given the fact that elites BLOCK news of Sanders' wins; and the MSM constantly repeats the Mantra that Sander's can't win; and certain states allow for open primaries (where Sanders does exceptionally well), while other states do not (and Hillary comes out ahead due to a mechanism that's cheating by any other name); and in some instances polling places aren't open or people are prohibited from voting and so forth... you take all of these tricks into account, and the following quote is your conclusion?

"If the current system allows for Donald J. Trump to be elected President of the United States of America, it will have only itself to blame."

How is it that the system, which is controlled by elite interests and based on trickery and cheating should then become the fault of the citizens trapped by it?

Your logic is about as good as your spelling.


Yesterdays liberals are now called progressives so in that sense she is a progressive. However, if you divide liberals and progressives into two different groups then I would say she would be a liberal and not a progressive. So this is really largely an argument about semantics. If one thinks that true progressives are represented by the Green Party then clearly she is not a progressive. But if Barack Obama can call himself a progressive then Clinton also could call herself a progressive. Her voting record in the Senate wasn't that different from Sanders. She is pragmatic in the sense that she knows if the Republicans control the Senate and House it will be difficult to pass anything resembling a progressive agenda.


It's a shame that so many white males are so inured to the experience and suffering of others that they can so casually dismiss a pompous racist, sexist, rich pig like Trump.

That someone with your "intellect" can condescend to me and tell me what I should do or think or how I should vote is so typical of the arrogance that seems to be a GENETIC defect of too many white males!

You have zero empathy and that's why you don't understand the threat posed by Trump.

Furthermore, genius, many people who think profoundly are not stuck in boxes that allow for only A or B responses.

I am not voting for Clinton or Trump. Got that?

Hillary is part of the machinery that's been in place since the Deep State got fully rooted.

Trump would try to direct every cabinet post and it wouldn't be long before he got to understand that the President is a figurehead. He or she does NOT make the real decisions.

How long would Trump last if the Deep State directed the Joint Chiefs of Staff to act in the interest of Empire and he opposed that?

They know how to administer drugs that have no trace and can easily bring on a heart attack or even Cancer.

I can picture the headlines...

Trump would go out with a heart attack after a good round in the "hay" with his wife once he resided in the White House.

Most would believe it. He's no spring chicken and he loves to posture as Mr. Macho.


Speaking of figureheads:

Has anyone but me thought of the possibility of Trump being little more than a strongman for Hillary Clinton to knock down? As a Trojan horse, as it were, with the sole intent to fracture the Republican party beyond repair? An article that described this basically said that in another life, Donald Trump used to be a Democrat, and used to donate to the Clintons. So the possibility that he could be trying to giftwrap Hillary the White House is not farfetched.


Well if the base fears Trump, and Hillary alienates the Dem base enough, that could potentially open the door for Sanders (Dog willing) to run as an Independent. Disaffected voters will turn out to him in droves, along with the Independents, Bernie-Bros (lol, white males for Bernie), and the black youth, etc.


Dead. It'll seal the deal that the people have no say in this oppressive oligarch state. To have to choose between an incompetent idiot and a corporate warhawk is not a pleasing proposition to be sure.

And Sanders has every reason to run Indie. From the voter suppression tactics (AZ, IL, NY, et al), to the Internet f**kery, to the establishment media blacking him out - and telling him to drop out of the race at the same time so that Hillary can start her rightward pivot -, it's clear now that Hillary Clinton has been 'selected' as the Democratic nominee. So he can buck the party and go Indie, and in the process take his progressive movement to November and beyond. Hillary and the party basically blew him off and as a result he has zero reason to endorse her should she be the nominee.


SR, every time you try to correct someone's grammatical errors you undermine whatever other response you make to what they've posted.

We all make spelling and grammar mistakes. Sometimes we catch them before we post, sometimes we don't.

We don't judge posts like High School English papers.

You shouldn't either.


You keep pushing the "Clinton and Sanders are the same" meme.

We're on to you.


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


I personally think the more accurate title would be:

"The Cult of Hillary Clinton" instead of:

"The Threat of Evangelical Clintons".

The chief proponents of the Hillary Clinton cult are the forces of organized money and all their agents for hire.

Just as there are many devout Muslims who are appalled by the activities of US trained, equipped, and supported Muslim extremists, and many devout Jews who find Bibi Netanyahu and the loony bin of extremists from which his coalitions have been formed a contemptible political execration, so too there are many devout evangelicals who find Hillary as disgusting as any progressive who ever posted on CD.


I've noticed that many people who are interviewed by the various forms of media on who they back for the Presidency seem to view this question as they would an essay question on a school test that they haven't studied for. They generally regurgitate the one or two sound bites or factoids that have stuck in their minds and don't seem to have a solid grasp of the subject that they are commenting on.
I even heard Dolores Huerta (who, of all people, who should realize that only Bernie has her back) explain why she was supporting Hillary and she gave only the usual surface, boilerplate reasons i.e. "She's very qualified", "She can get things done". I have heard many others respond in the same fashion and I'm always reminded of Robert Klein's description of how he would approach an essay question in High School : "Shovel, please!"


My first thought about the Trump candidacy was the same.
I noticed that he was purposefully given center stage at every Republican debate (center position among an odd number of debaters, so as to be the focal point) until the Republicans seemed to sense that Trump was not working out to the their advantage, sort of like an invasive parasite.
After that point the number of televised debaters was always an even number so as to deny him the valuable center position. There are probably other manifestations of their attempts to manipulate the imagery and discourse but that is the one that sticks out in my mind.


"There is every possibility that young people and progressives may choose to stay home and that independents will either do the same or flock to Trump."
So Mr. Bloom, why aren't writers like yourself doing everything possible to educate young people, progressives and Independents about Dr. Jill Stein and the Green Party? Dr. Stein and Senator Sanders are very close on many of their political beliefs, plus Dr. Stein is less hawkish than Senator Sanders, having said in the past that she would favor cutting off the 3 billion dollars of aid that we give annually to Israel. Dr. Stein, made a statement to a reporter while running for the presidency in 2012 that secured for her the vote of my entire family and several of our friends when she said that should she be elected president, her first act as president would be to send President W. Bush, VP Cheney and President Obama on a one way plane ride in chains to the International Criminal Court to be tried for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. Now, that's my kind of President!!!


There is something cosmically wrong with telling someone that you only know from written public posts "You have zero empathy..."


In no sense is Hillary a progressive. She is at best a moderate democrat who leans right. More accurately she is a moderate Republican. If she ends up the Democratic nominee there will essentially be a choice between two Republicans. One totally psychotic and the other less so.