Count me as one who thinks that Hillary Clinton should never run for President again. I say that acknowledging that she is, beyond doubt, the most thoroughly tested and vetted candidate for the office in history, a courageous woman who stood against an unprecedented, decades long attack by the Republican-fascist party, billionaire-fascists, the presstitutes who comprise the politically effective American media and such upholders of corporate power as the New York Times, and who managed, despite their best efforts to destroy her, to win a majority of the vote. She even managed to do that while under attack by the federal police, the FBI director James Comey and thugs working for him as police agents, breaking the law openly and with impunity. If, in any other country, someone who won the popular vote by as much as she did were not allowed to assume the office, it would be called an anti-democratic travesty and the one who was allowed to steal the presidency would be condemned as an illegitimate despot. Only that's not done when it's the United States which is amassing quite the record of the worst kind of election rigging, voter suppression and intimidation to empower the Republican-fascist party.
I hope that Hillary Clinton does what she wants to do, freed from the burden of having to run for president. I would love to see her do what John Quincy Adams did and run for the House or, if a seat is open, the Senate. Adams had more of an impact in the House of Representatives than he had as president. I'm unaware of them ever making a movie about his administration. But if she wants to enjoy life as a private citizen she certainly deserves it.
Who do I want to run in 2020? No one like Barack Obama or Bill Clinton. Both of them have done their part to destroy the Democratic Party even as they were given its presidency. Barack Obama's recent declarations as to how he and people like Eric Holder are going to "rebuild" the Democratic Party is beyond absurd, it is nauseating. Barack Obama is the greatest example of a man who was given the strongest hand a Democrat has been given since 1933 and he immediately and continually gave in to his opponents and refused to use that power to get a strong, Democratic legislative program into law. His Attorney Generals, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch failed to prosecute the platinum level criminals who stole billions and billions of dollars, something which would have been extremely just, extremely useful and extremely popular. Instead, especially Holder went after petty criminals for things like marijuana.
Obama also appointed one of the most malignant Democrats in the country as his first Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel and a host of other really terrible people to staff his administration. I went through how he caved in without a fight to people like the repulsive Joe Lieberman others like Kent Conrad and courted the phony "moderate" Republicans of my state, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.
Barack Obama is about the last person who has any credibility to restore what he had such a huge hand in destroying. I've talked to state and local Democratic politicians who were nearly universal in criticizing the Obama administration and political operation for their lack of support for those running down-ticket and in off-years. Despite his platform performances, which are very popular, he is one of the worst Democratic presidents who have ever been entrusted with the office. He should retire from politics as Bill Clinton should have.
Bill Clinton did one of the stupidest things during the entire campaign when he met with Loretta Lynch, though her agreeing to meet with him was, if anything, even stupider. It gave Republicans the opening they needed to put the absurd investigation of the non-issue of Hillary Clinton's e-mails into the hands of James Comey, a figure so hypocritical and corrupt that even Barack Obama has admitted he was his worst appointment. Frankly, for all of the problems Bill Clinton and his activities caused while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and during her campaign, not to mention during his own administration, I'd have divorced him a long time ago. If there was any doubt about it in the 1990s, this past election proves he has far too little respect for her. She's too good for him. While in office as opposed to the show-biz of campaigning, the man has some of the worst judgement I've ever seen in a Democratic Politician. He shares that with Barack Obama It's as if he purposely tried to see how much he could get away with when he had already been caught over and over again.
The first requirement I'd have for a Democratic candidate would be that they don't have that kind of baggage and a husband or wife who generates it . More so they have to have a record of being a hard fighter who is under no illusions about the Republican-fascist party or the billionaire-sociopath class.
The dependence on Republican running really bad candidates, something which benefited both Clinton and Obama isn't something we can depend on working. This year is proof of the unwisdom of that strategy. When it doesn't work the results are horrific. If we ever get the kind of chance that Obama blew in 2009 we're going to have to use it to crush the fascists and their billionaire class owners. Domestic and foreign.
One thing I'd do is get rid of the Iowa- New Hampshire strangle hold on the earliest contests. They are unrepresentative of the country as a whole and have entirely too much influence in who gets the nomination. I'd get rid of caucuses, altogether. At the earliest opportunity the Democratic Party should tell states that use caucuses that they have to adopt a primary system or their delegations will not be seated. I can imagine that voters in most states which have caucuses would be enthusiastic about that change. The buffalo butts in state and local parties and governments can't be allowed to have a veto on democracy on the measly excuse of tradition, anymore. I see no evidence that state parties are stronger in states that have caucuses, one of the excuses I've heard for retaining them. They are as likely to turn into a beauty contest as a primary.
Update: I wonder why the national Democratic Party or state Democratic Parties couldn't institute a vote of registered Democrats by mail as they did in the far more participated in Washington state primary which, though it had many times more participants than the official caucus, didn't choose that states delegates to the convention.
If a state legislature wants to improperly insert its will into what is not a governmental entity, forcing an undemocratic caucus, the national party could say that delegates that represented the winner of such a primary by mail, financed and carried out by the Democratic Party, would be seated at the convention and get to have their votes counted for the nomination.
I suspect that such a system would be far more democratic and likely less expensive than a traditional primary vote. If the means of counting the ballot was in the hands of the Democratic Party meddling by outside forces could be eliminated. Such a system would also get rid of the possibility of Republicans or others trying to ratfuck the nomination by temporarily switching their party declaration or by open voting. That is something I saw done this year by people who declared they would not vote for the nominee of the party. The Democratic Party only owes non-Democrats the best Democratic candidate it can produce, they don't owe them the opportunity to choose a bad one for the Republican-fascists to run against.
I can't imagine Barack Obama supporting such a radical - only not - change in the rules. He's a dutiful and scrupulous rule follower, not a rule maker or bold reformer.
Get rid of the stinking, antiquated, anti-democratic caucuses.
Update 2: The National Democratic Party could also override the states like Iowa and New Hampshire which hijack the schedule in their own favor over the good of the entire country. Such a ballot by mail could be on the schedule set by the Party instead of by state legislatures and state secretaries of state. I can't imagine it would give us weaker candidates if the larger states had more of a say in who gets a voice in choosing who is the front runner. I'd favor a long period for sending in ballots with a deadline in April or May for all states. That would remove the local and regional bias built into the system that has plagued American government since the rise of the primaries.
Update 3: NO! NO! NO! FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, HAVEN'T WE LEARNED THAT DOING ANYTHING POLITICAL ON THE INTERNET IS AN INVITATION FOR HIJACKING FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC! KEEP IT IN THE U.S. MAIL AND CONDUCTED OFF-LINE. KEEP THE WHOLE THING OFF LINE, FROM PLANNING TO IMPLEMENTATION TO VOTE COUNTING TO VOTE REPORTING.
The problem with "Wall Street" prosecutions was that the damage/danger was systemic. Prosecuting high profile individuals would have proved: a) fruitless. Damned near impossible to get criminal convictions at that level, as those convictions require personal responsibility, and they can always blame an underling, usually well enough to avoid proof against them "beyond a reasonable doubt."
ReplyDeleteSo, b), prosecutions undermine confidence in the system, rather than assert it.
c) they really are "too big to fail." Take out the leadership, morale crumbles, and really, who you have to replace are all the lieutenants, etc. There aren't enough federal employees available to do that, much less enough such employees competent to take over those firms and maintain stability in the financial markets. Unless you want the Great Depression all over again, and the only way we really got over that was WWII.
Replace all the "guilty" with government employees who are 'good,' and it will take them months to figure out how everything works. In the meantime? I mean, it sounds good at first, but it doesn't even work on paper.
Which is not to justify "Wall Street." The solution is to disassemble these giant financial institutions. That, too, will roil financial markets, but not the way taking out all the "guilty" personnel would, and replacing them with honest people who don't know where the bathroom is or how to work the phones.
Much less what's in the files and how to do business.
If they got several well-chosen criminals convicted, it would have an effect. If it would have been futile is an issue.
DeleteLooking at how big the biggest banks and institutions have gotten under the "reforms" during the Obama administration, I doubt he or his team ever intended to really reform anything.
I certainly don't want a Great Depression - for one thing it's too likely to strengthen fascists - but I suspect they aren't going to do anything but produce something on that scale or larger.
I made the mistake of listening to Obama's recent media appearances this morning. I can't remember when I heard a Democrat who made me as angry as I am with him. It didn't make me as angry as listening to Kellyanne with Rachel Maddow but it was probably worse in real life effect. Barack Obama is the most irresponsible Democratic president since the worst ones of the 19th century. And he didn't need to be.