I've read this important post three times. And, frankly it sums up where I
personally stand. I will not actively work for Hilliary as I did Obama,
sadly in some respects. But, I will vote for her and urge associates,
friends, colleagues, etc. to do the same for all the reasons put forward
herein.
While, I've not posted on this being very busy I am deeply disturbed by not
only Clinton's known ties to Wall Street, but also to her "hawkish nature",
which Miriam has documented over and over again (to Miriam's great credit by
the way).
Still, this is an existential choice in my opinion.
I'm reminded of the campaign between "Fast Eddie" Edwards and David Duke of
the KKK for Governor of Louisiana in, I think 1992. Edwards was a known
"crook" and was ultimately convicted for being so later in the decade. He
was flamboyent though and rather popular. He could have been defeated though
by a sort of normal Republican. But, the people of the extreme right
nominated David Duke, a sort of so-called reformed KKKer. BTW he was much
more classy than Trump I say subjectively....Duke that is.....
It's a matter of degrees of rascism and madness mind you all.
Regardless, Duke was even unacceptable to the extreme right in a rather
racist state. So much so that the most famous of bumber stickers appeared.
They said simply, "Vote for the crook!"
Says it all.
Now, I think I might become ill.
But, this thing is clear to me.
I'm going to vote for the crook and live to fight another day.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2016 4:33 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Voting for Hillary With Eyes Wide-Open
Weissman writes: "Faced with two differently flawed major party candidates
for president, most of us have already made our choice, especially after
their first debate. What could anyone possibly say at this point to change
our minds? But since you have been long-time readers, here is how I plan to
vote and why."
Hillary Clinton. (photo: The New York Times)
Voting for Hillary With Eyes Wide-Open
By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
02 October 16
Faced with two differently flawed major party candidates for president,
most of us have already made our choice, especially after their first
debate. What could anyone possibly say at this point to change our minds?
But since you have been long-time readers, here is how I plan to vote and
why.
I will not endorse Hillary Clinton, as Bernie Sanders has done. But I will
reluctantly vote for her. I know of no other realistic way to defeat Trump
and his followers by the largest possible majority.
Like many of you, I see Trump and his followers as an existential danger to
Muslims, Latinos, and African-Americans, an insult to women, and a threat to
the creation of a progressive America. His hate-filled campaign empowers
white supremacists, who have never accepted the legitimacy of Barack Obama's
presidency. His demonization of Islam rallies religious conservatives who
think America should be a Christian nation. His authoritarianism and his
endless claim that "only I can solve your problems" raise the specter of "a
man on horseback," if not an orange-haired fascist Führer.
Why, then, don't I vote for the Green Party candidate Jill Stein?
Many friends and colleagues who vote in states where Clinton appears to have
a sizeable lead may well vote for Jill. But it's a risky gamble. During the
primaries, the polls - and even the legendary Nate Silver's probability
predictions - proved glaringly unreliable. How can we trust the numbers to
be any more accurate in this strange and extremely consequential election?
How can we risk a protest vote on a candidate who has almost no chance of
being seen or heard, and absolutely no chance of defeating Donald Trump?
Does voting for Clinton trap us forever into having to vote for a lesser
evil? That is up to us. Bernie is trying to meet this challenge both inside
and outside the Democratic Party. He has helped create groups like Our
Revolution and Brand New Congress, which are funding progressive candidates
for all levels of government.
Bernie himself has chosen to work within the Clinton campaign, stressing the
progressive nature of the Democratic Party platform to which Hillary agreed,
and promising to hold her feet to the fire once she's elected.
He has also agreed to work with Senator Elizabeth Warren to fight against
Hillary selecting any Wall Street figures to serve in her cabinet. I suspect
that Hillary will roll right over them, but the fight is worth the effort.
Make no mistake. I greatly admire Hillary Clinton for her intellect and
determination. Becoming the country's first female presidential candidate
from a major political party has been a huge success for her, her family,
and all of America, especially our young people, boys as well as girls. I
also agree with Bernie and Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, an
advisor to Hillary, that she is more progressive than Obama, though that is
not a very high standard.
She has publicly acknowledged the need to rein in Wall Street. If she does,
I think we should all support her efforts. But I am not optimistic. She
continues to peddle the discredited myth of mostly free-market, neo-liberal
economics.
She has said many times that the vast inequality of wealth in America
destroys our democracy. She has promised to fight this inequality. I hope
she does. But she limits what she can do by the close ties she continues to
maintain with Wall Street and major multinational corporations.
Under pressure from Bernie's supporters, she has promised to oppose the
Trans-Pacific Partnership. But every time she defends her husband's
energetic support for the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, as she did in
her first debate with Trump, she loses more support from former Democratic
voters who saw NAFTA send American factories to Mexico, kill well-paying
jobs, and destroy living and working communities, mostly in what we now call
the Rust Belt.
You can see why I'm so unhappy about having to vote for Clinton just to vote
against Trump. But the main reason I cannot endorse Hillary should be
obvious from all that I've written. Simply put, I cannot go along with her
interventionist, liberal imperialist foreign policy, whether in Syria or
Libya, and her eagerness to engage in a new Cold War with Russia.
Endless, no-win wars in Muslim countries will only encourage more terrorist
attacks, spurring on the racial and religious hatred that Donald Trump and
his followers are now preaching. A cold war with Russia raises the risk of
nuclear confrontation that we could all lose. And all the military spending,
planning, and plotting will only take time, focus, and resources away from
building a truly progressive America.
Some wishful thinkers have argued that Hillary has good reasons to turn away
from her war-like ways and focus on her progressive aspirations. If she
does, let us all applaud. If she does not, I will continue to oppose her. I
expect most of you will do the same.
________________________________________
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly
Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a
magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France,
where he is researching a new book, Big Money and the Corporate State: How
Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently
Break Their Hold.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Hillary Clinton. (photo: The New York Times)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
Voting for Hillary With Eyes Wide-Open
By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
02 October 16
aced with two differently flawed major party candidates for president, most
of us have already made our choice, especially after their first debate.
What could anyone possibly say at this point to change our minds? But since
you have been long-time readers, here is how I plan to vote and why.
I will not endorse Hillary Clinton, as Bernie Sanders has done. But I will
reluctantly vote for her. I know of no other realistic way to defeat Trump
and his followers by the largest possible majority.
Like many of you, I see Trump and his followers as an existential danger to
Muslims, Latinos, and African-Americans, an insult to women, and a threat to
the creation of a progressive America. His hate-filled campaign empowers
white supremacists, who have never accepted the legitimacy of Barack Obama's
presidency. His demonization of Islam rallies religious conservatives who
think America should be a Christian nation. His authoritarianism and his
endless claim that "only I can solve your problems" raise the specter of "a
man on horseback," if not an orange-haired fascist Führer.
Why, then, don't I vote for the Green Party candidate Jill Stein?
Many friends and colleagues who vote in states where Clinton appears to have
a sizeable lead may well vote for Jill. But it's a risky gamble. During the
primaries, the polls - and even the legendary Nate Silver's probability
predictions - proved glaringly unreliable. How can we trust the numbers to
be any more accurate in this strange and extremely consequential election?
How can we risk a protest vote on a candidate who has almost no chance of
being seen or heard, and absolutely no chance of defeating Donald Trump?
Does voting for Clinton trap us forever into having to vote for a lesser
evil? That is up to us. Bernie is trying to meet this challenge both inside
and outside the Democratic Party. He has helped create groups like Our
Revolution and Brand New Congress, which are funding progressive candidates
for all levels of government.
Bernie himself has chosen to work within the Clinton campaign, stressing the
progressive nature of the Democratic Party platform to which Hillary agreed,
and promising to hold her feet to the fire once she's elected.
He has also agreed to work with Senator Elizabeth Warren to fight against
Hillary selecting any Wall Street figures to serve in her cabinet. I suspect
that Hillary will roll right over them, but the fight is worth the effort.
Make no mistake. I greatly admire Hillary Clinton for her intellect and
determination. Becoming the country's first female presidential candidate
from a major political party has been a huge success for her, her family,
and all of America, especially our young people, boys as well as girls. I
also agree with Bernie and Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, an
advisor to Hillary, that she is more progressive than Obama, though that is
not a very high standard.
She has publicly acknowledged the need to rein in Wall Street. If she does,
I think we should all support her efforts. But I am not optimistic. She
continues to peddle the discredited myth of mostly free-market, neo-liberal
economics.
She has said many times that the vast inequality of wealth in America
destroys our democracy. She has promised to fight this inequality. I hope
she does. But she limits what she can do by the close ties she continues to
maintain with Wall Street and major multinational corporations.
Under pressure from Bernie's supporters, she has promised to oppose the
Trans-Pacific Partnership. But every time she defends her husband's
energetic support for the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, as she did in
her first debate with Trump, she loses more support from former Democratic
voters who saw NAFTA send American factories to Mexico, kill well-paying
jobs, and destroy living and working communities, mostly in what we now call
the Rust Belt.
You can see why I'm so unhappy about having to vote for Clinton just to vote
against Trump. But the main reason I cannot endorse Hillary should be
obvious from all that I've written. Simply put, I cannot go along with her
interventionist, liberal imperialist foreign policy, whether in Syria or
Libya, and her eagerness to engage in a new Cold War with Russia.
Endless, no-win wars in Muslim countries will only encourage more terrorist
attacks, spurring on the racial and religious hatred that Donald Trump and
his followers are now preaching. A cold war with Russia raises the risk of
nuclear confrontation that we could all lose. And all the military spending,
planning, and plotting will only take time, focus, and resources away from
building a truly progressive America.
Some wishful thinkers have argued that Hillary has good reasons to turn away
from her war-like ways and focus on her progressive aspirations. If she
does, let us all applaud. If she does not, I will continue to oppose her. I
expect most of you will do the same.
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly
Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a
magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France,
where he is researching a new book, Big Money and the Corporate State: How
Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently
Break Their Hold.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
