Wednesday, November 09, 2016
So, uh, we weren't with her? (Ava and C.I.)
The votes have been counted and, turns out, the country wasn't "with her."
Charges of racism (led by Van Jones) are already making the rounds because reality is hard for a number of people.
From his veal pen, Paul Krugman raged at Green Party candidate Jill Stein.
Cher went after Stein and Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson for the 'crime' of running for president.
They're on to something.
If Jill Stein, Gary Johnson and Donald Trump hadn't run and Hillary Clinton was the only name on the ballot, she might have won -- or almost won.
That's how the Democratic Party primary went.
Intimidation, don't lie, we know the truth, kept a lot of people from running. That's how you ended up with No Name Martin and I'll Push Her To The Left Bernie.
Remember John Edwards and Hillary griping about how too many people were on the stage at that debate?
Russ Feingold, Elizabeth Warren, any number of well liked people could have run.
Instead, we got divisive Hillary.
Hillary Clinton is divisive.
She always has been.
Is it who she is or is it what she stands for?
To quote Hillary: What difference, at this point, does it make?
She is divisive.
Forget that you should want to run a uniter, not a divider.
Set that aside.
The election depends upon votes.
A divisive person like Hillary will always struggle to get votes.
And this was known.
Nobody wanted to talk about it, but it was known.
It's why, in 2008, Barack Obama got the nomination and she didn't.
That's why Debbie Washerwoman Schultz, during her sordid time as DNC Chair, rigged things for Hillary -- including the number of debates and when they would take place.
As we stated repeatedly back in 2015, the more people see Hillary, the less they like her.
That's always been a given.
Even when she rode the sympathy from Bill cheating on her with Monica Lewinsky.
There was a lot more sympathy registered for her when she was off hiding.
When she returned to public life, the support lessened.
People seem to like the idea of Hillary better than they like the actual person.
Van Jones is crying racism defeated Hillary.
Strange, because the same electorate twice voted Barack Obama into the White House.
And strange because Hillary is, after all, White Anglo.
Some are crying sexism.
That makes us laugh.
We didn't vote for Hillary.
In 2008, in the Democratic Party primary, we voted for her in California.
So, apparently, in the last eight years, we became sexist?
We know Hillary and we know (and like) Bill.
In 2008, after Iowa, we backed Hillary (we were not backing anyone prior to Iowa).
We are opposed to the Iraq War -- obviously, we go around the country to this day speaking out against it.
But we know Hillary, we know she's never wrong in her mind.
So that she would offer her vote was "a mistake" seemed like she might be growing.
We also liked what her campaign stood for.
Contrast her "For anyone who's ever been counted out . . ." of 2008 with "I'm With Her" of this go round.
Were we trying to get into a club?
I'm with her?
In 2008, she was going to do something to help we the people, she was going to be a fighter for we the people.
Eight years later, I'm with her?
She ran her campaign as though the country owed her the presidency and all she had to do was show up for the coronation.
And she faced sexism . . . in 2008.
And we defended her from it -- when the sexist media itself was denying that it was even taking place.
Barack Obama was one of the worst offenders with "claws come out" "periodically" blah, blah, blah.
The same media that repeatedly ignored that in 2008 bent over backwards -- as did Hillary -- to charge that any criticism of her was sexism.
There was valid criticism of Hillary before she ever ran for president. (We worked some into a 2005 TV review of COMMANDER IN CHIEF.)
But in 2016, Bernie was a sexist and this person was a sexist and that person was a sexist and the . . .
It just never ended.
Possibly because the same 'creative class' that backed Barack (and tore apart Hillary) in 2008 now was backing Hillary.
We know why we turned against Hillary.
We were at the Congressional hearings on Iraq when she was Secretary of State.
We heard the frustrations of committee members -- Democrats and Republicans -- over Hillary's request for this amount or that amount of money and how the plan for the money would not be presented -- it would come later, supposedly (it never did), after the funds were authorized.
We listened to one State Dept hack after another try to spin when asked the most basic points about how State would be handling Iraq and then how State was handling Iraq. (In October of 2011, Barack Obama turned Iraq over to the State Dept -- it was now the lead on the country, no longer the Defense Dept.)
We had been at hearings where Condi Rice talked about Iraq when she was Secretary of State.
Hillary didn't appear for Iraq.
She sent flunkies.
Some, like Brooke Darby, we felt sorry for.
Brooke seems like a nice and responsive young woman.
So it was really sad to watch rightly frustrated members of Congress take those frustrations out on Brooke since Hillary herself wouldn't show up.
Millions were wasted in Iraq because Hillary didn't listen.
They didn't want trainers.
But she poured millions into training and no one was showing up.
Not to mention the millions it took to build the compound training was to have taken place at.
She sent Brooke to insist that part of the mission for Iraqi women would involve the US Embassy in Baghdad and consulates throughout the country.
And a dubious committee all but gasped.
In the end, these consulates never came to be.
It was never practical in terms of safety (Hillary would later carry the poor notion over to her plans with regards to Libya).
We know people in State.
We heard how bad things were morale wise in 2007 and 2008.
Hillary did improve morale.
And we gave her credit for that.
But the same group that praised her to us for that would also note how . . .
. . . well . . .
. . . it was like you couldn't question.
They were telling us that there was no real oversight of her.
So we rightly began publicly noting that there was no IG for the State Dept.
Hillary didn't want one.
(John Kerry, at his confirmation hearing, was asked about the IG issue and promised to have one before the end of the year if confirmed. Within eight or so months, he did just that.)
She didn't want oversight.
And she didn't want questions.
Morale began to wane.
(It has continued under John Kerry. Career diplomats are tired of having a Secretary of State who clearly wishes he were instead Secretary of Defense.)
These were serious problems.
Also a serious problem was the fact that Iraqi women were having to fight for their rights.
This included protests on the street. This included the daughter of one of the KRG's two powerful families having to speak out publicly on the fact that the cabinet Nouri al-Maliki put together in his second term had no women in it.
Where was Hillary?
Where was that friend of women and girls?
She voted for the Iraq War and supported it.
When she finally admits to a "mistake," she does nothing to fix her mistake.
All of that led up to her infamous public appearance where she uttered that "What difference, at this point, does it matter?"
We were there.
We covered it.
From the January 24, 2013 snapshot:
Hillary's performance in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing yesterday should have resulted in her being condemned -- both for how she presented herself and for what she said. We called her out in yesterday's snapshot. In addition, Wally covered it in "Facts matter, Hillary (Wally)," Ava covered it in "20 are still at risk says Hillary in an aside (Ava)," Ruth covered it in "Like watching Richard Nixon come back to life" and Kat covered it in "Can she not answer even one damn question?" Kat admits that she was so surprised and disgusted by Hillary's performance that she didn't attend the afternoon hearing with us because she couldn't take seeing Hillary like that again. Ava points out that Hillary acted out in every negative stereotypical was possible. Ruth compares her to Nixon when it comes to answering questions. They went into the hearing expecting Hillary to sail through it in a professional and adult manner. I did have doubts and by the time Hillary was screaming and waving her hands -- above the shoulders -- like a lunatic, I'm sorry. I supported her in 2008. I don't see supporting a presidential run again.
The press rushed to praise her.
This was an awful performance.
It's when we could no longer support her.
Granted, we were at the entire hearing, we heard about the 20 diplomatic posts that were at risk (according to her -- although she hadn't spent any time prior to that asking Congress for funds to protect these posts). We heard her avoid questions.
We heard the whole thing.
The press went into a sexual frenzy over it.
Apparently, they're all a bunch of masochists and saw, in her rude outbursts, a dominatrix whose heel they could happily live under.
Night was day as they foamed in their panties and briefs and panted on air in praise of Hillary.
There was your first warning of disconnect between the media and the public.
That moment became a defining moment for Hillary and began really hardening the divisions.
But the press missed it because to them it was just super duper awesome.
The press continued to act that way.
They fawned over her.
Donna Brazile working for CNN gave Hillary questions to debates.
When this was revealed, CNN's Jake Tapper stood alone in publicly declaring this was wrong.
Donna got to lie on TV -- FOX NEWS, where else? -- and say she was being persecuted and she didn't do it and she was a good Christian woman and . . .
Turns out she did do it and she did it repeatedly.
So did a lot of others, as WikiLeaks has revealed.
But even those who weren't getting the DNC to do their research for columns and interviews, the way John Harwood and Dana Milbank did, were rushing to rip apart fairness.
At one point, Jimmy Fallon (disclosure, we know and love Jimmy) was being ripped apart.
The guy who just wants to make everyone laugh.
One of the few people without a mean bone in his body.
He was ripped apart by the press.
For doing a nice interview with Donald Trump.
He was supposed to tear into Donald, apparently.
Jimmy hosts an entertainment program called THE TONIGHT SHOW.
COMEDY CENTRAL has confused a large number of people so maybe they're unaware that entertainment is not news.
Jimmy got ripped apart for being a good host.
By contrast, Seth Meyers (the 'liberal,' please remember, that blamed the housing foreclosures on minorities when he was at SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE) announced that Donald Trump would not be allowed on his show.
Seth forgot that he was an entertainer and also forgot that he wasn't winning late night.
The Jimmys are cute and lovable (Fallon and Kimmel). Seth looks like his head was squeezed too tight in the birthing canal as he entered the world.
Seth was either praised for his 'firm stand' (defending the First Entertainment Amendment at all costs!) or people ignored it.
He's a talk show host of an entertainment program.
There was no need to grand stand.
Paul Krugman called for reporters to drop objectivity. His paper soon followed with THE NEW YORK TIMES proudly announcing that they would call Donald a liar in print.
And they did.
The same 'courtesy' was not extended to Hillary despite her own well known record of lying.
The press went overtime to demonize Donald Trump.
They took the mildest utterances and ran with them in overheated commentary often passed off as news.
They deliberately misunderstood him -- Trump's statements always start backwards. Look for the last part, put it up front and you'll understand better what he's saying.
Everything that could be twisted was twisted.
There was no benefit of the doubt given Donald.
This is what the lusty conspiracy nut Paul Krugman claimed was happening to 'poor' Hillary.
The press was being unfair because they reported on some of her problems, he felt.
But the American people didn't feel that way.
From his veal pen, he raged at the American people last night and at how it wasn't his country, he didn't know this country.
Of course, you didn't.
We're out and about.
We go to every state except Alaska (no offense to Alaska, we just don't have that kind of travel time).
We speak with all kinds of people.
A lot don't agree with us.
The exchange makes us sharper and hopefully plants a seed with those who disagree.
Not a seed of: You will believe us.
But a seed of: People who disagree aren't the devil.
We have a friend who exploded on social media at someone else. We're being kind and not naming names. If you're a young person of color, you probably already know who we're talking about. So X explodes at Y because Y doesn't have the same political beliefs. If Y's your friend, what does it matter? Why do you call him out on social media? And if you believe in your beliefs, you believe that Y is a victim. Sometimes it's very hard for people -- especially men -- to admit that they are victimized. Maybe just roll your eyes and say, "You're crazy but you're my friend."
The campaign Hillary ran was one of division.
That was so disappointing after 2008 when she was able to piece together groups.
Donald ran a divisive campaign as well. But this was his first ever political run.
Hillary was the seasoned pro, remember?
The media fawned over her and we warned repeatedly about that.
America doesn't like favoritism.
We don't like injustice.
We like to believe in fairness.
Watching the media attacks on Trump probably helped Donald score many votes.
It certainly helped turn his supporters out.
The media has a lot to answer for in the campaign.
So does candidate Hillary.
Like the waves of celebrities.
That was a turn off.
One of us noted that a few years back in a race. A governor was turning out the celebrities and the state wasn't California. So one of us said to pull back on it. It's fine to have endorsements but if you're campaign looks like a variety show, it's hard to take you seriously.
By the time no bulge Marc Anthony was introducing Jennifer Lopez onstage for Hillary, the campaign had long ago been sunk by celebrities.
We hope they pay dearly.
No problem with voicing your opinion.
No problem with saying "I'm going to vote for ____."
But it went beyond this, it went to tearing down American people.
If you doubt it, check out some of the Twitter feeds of celebrities right now.
In fairness to them, they didn't start the overheated rhetoric -- well, Debra Messing did.
But most of the others didn't.
And, on that, we were appalled to listen to the remarks coming out of the mouth of a sitting president about a candidate.
There was always a chance Donald Trump would win.
Barack's comments crossed a line and then some.
And where were the press commentaries on that?
Never saw 'em, did we?
All of this firmed up support for Donald Trump.
You're not going to tell America who to vote for.
Be you the press or the entertainment field, you aren't going to tell the American people who to vote for.
They will not be bossed around or bullied.
Your failure to grasp that goes a long way towards explaining why last night was so shocking to you.
We called it for Trump in the September 16th edition of the gina & krista round-robin.
We didn't vote for Trump.
We were never going to vote for Trump.
We also weren't going to vote for Hillary.
Maybe that's why we could actually listen to the people we spoke with.
Around the country, people voiced opinions that the press either ignored or mocked.
The e-mail and server scandal?
As late as last night, Paul Krugman was still cursing about it and insisting that it was a non-issue.
It was the heart of the issue.
Hillary has forever had a trust issue problem.
That's why, in 2008, her Bosnia lie harmed her campaign so much.
She has a record of lying.
Her actions with the e-mails and the server go to the lack of scrutiny she will 'tolerate.'
This goes back to her attempt at health care in Bill's first term as president.
She is secretive, she will not be open to the public, she does not believe in transparency.
The e-mail scandal fed right into that.
And it was a real story and it is a real issue.
People have been put behind bars for doing much less with communications than Hillary did.
But the Krugmans are liars.
They lie to themselves constantly.
Step away from the name of the candidate.
You have a candidate under federal investigation (which you lie and claim isn't taking place, it's "a review" -- it was a criminal investigation) and that's who you had your party's nomination too?
In what world?
Bernie Sanders could have beaten Donald Trump easily.
Hillary had nothing but baggage.
Her money alone was a problem.
How does a public servant amass so much money?
The Wall Street speeches were always going to be a problem.
Her failure to release the transcripts went to how secretive she is.
After Bill Clinton's impeachment and Senate censure, the American people were exhausted.
And Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Bill of rape, didn't get the public hearing she should have, as a result.
But now Hillary was running to be president of the United States. She was now the Democratic Party nominee. Her husband is Bill Clinton.
And she thinks they don't have to answer the charge?
She and Bill have never publicly addressed the charge.
In 1992, whispers that Bill was sleeping with Gennifer Flowers led the two to sit down with 60 MINUTES.
But a charge of rape is left to stand for decades with neither of them ever addressing it?
WikiLeaks exposing her lies and the media help she received and possible corruption with The Clinton Foundation.
And Hillary's response is: Those e-mails were hacked by Russia.
Well, no, they weren't.
But even if they were, don't you have a responsibility to respond to these e-mails?
Don't the American people deserve that if you're asking for their vote?
She was an awful candidate.
And we'd write that and get attacked.
The WikiLeak e-mails about how damage she was doing to herself or how she wouldn't admit to a mistake, etc.?
Totally unsurprising for us because we were hearing from friends in her campaign.
Her own team knew she was a disaster.
They played it cool to the press but they knew.
She was a lousy candidate.
We're not trying to take anything away from his victory.
His supporters have every right to be happy now.
Hopefully, he'll work to unify the country.
Those who fear his ego should know it can come in handy. Republicans in Congress who attacked him in the campaign can congratulate him and Donald will move on.
Unless the presidency changes him, he's not the kind to keep an enemies list (mainly because his focus is always on himself, not on others).
President Donald Trump.
Congratulations to him.
Applause for democracy which allows the people to vote their preference.
(Now let's move towards doing away with the electoral college and establish rank choice voting nation wide.)
But if people are looking for reasons Hillary lost, they need to look at Hillary.
She was the candidate.
She failed repeatedly.
She moved ever more to the right (apparently forgetting that Donald Trump was already carrying that base).
She picked a hugely underwhelming vice president. (We're told she refused to Elizabeth Warren as a possibility because she didn't want to share credit for breaking the glass ceiling.)
She had male surrogates forever on TV from her campaign while claiming she was all about women and girls. (Does Robby Mook have a vagina? We didn't think so.)
She thought celebrities would carry her.
She thought her campaign being fed debate questions ahead of time didn't warrant a public response.
She acted as though she was owed the presidency.
America made that clear last night.
And, in the end, while the press hurt her by helping her, while her celebrities were way too much, she has no one to blame but herself.
I'm With Her?
In the end, not so much.
-- Ava and C.I.