Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

The Day After....

by Glenn N. Holliman

The day after the American Presidential election has brought forth a slew of comments from friends and thoughtful leaders.  Thanks for sending these reflections. We have a new-normal and some of us must pause to collect our thoughts.  Many of us during the campaign decried the toxic words of the new President-Elect.  I note many of you have compared this election to the Brexit vote last June in the United Kingdom.

And it is disconcerting that for the second time in 16 years, the winner of the popular vote in a Presidential election is defeated by the peculiar American Electoral College system.   

Now for the sake of children and grandchildren, we all must wish the new President wisdom and the grace to govern this nation and to keep the world safe. - Glenn N. Holliman

November 10th - The Comments keep coming, so I list them below in which they come.  Thank you all.  


Dick from Central Pennsylvania emailed this autumn scene from his home.  The changing of the colors on a country road reminds us that seasons come and go. And that there is a season for everything under heaven. - GNH

Again from our Educator who spent his childhood and career in Alabama....

Alas, Glenn, my heart is heavy, as I cannot think of anyone but you, that I could send Terry's blog to that would understand or much less, believe it. For such is the life of life in medieval Alabama, which has actually taken a step BACK form the Age of Enlightenment!  I am truly a Poor, Wayfaring Stranger, traveling through a barren land.  Barren of reason, thought, and pursuit of knowledge for such a long time. 


From a Pennsylvania Art Teacher....

Hi, Glenn.  We are wasting way too much time wringing our hands over what the Europeans think of our election.  We have sustained them with our blood and treasure for a hundred years. They have made their choices and we have made ours.  The whining is becoming a bore.

From a Tennessee Clinical Psychologist....


Conservatives seek freedom, liberals justice, goals that are incompatible in their absolute forms. We liberals sought absolute justice in the early 70s and produced a terrorism aimed at power and privilege (now we would settle for a decent minimum wage).  

The right now seeks absolute freedom.  Since freedom is built on personal power, its excesses aim at license, and license leads to cynicism and nihilism, which is where we are.  Nihilism means there are no values but power, and words no longer engage and reveal what is real. Instead, language is a means to excite (usually toward anger) and need not have the first thing to do with whatever is real. 


The politics of nihilism has won a big victory and is not yet done. 

From a Pennsylvania Businessman....

Glenn, Thank you for sharing the comments of your many friends.  What now?  George Lyter
Again from Ontario, Canada....
The worst day in American history was 9/11.
The second was 11/9.
From Another Learned Correspondent in Australia....

Glenn, pardon me if this has already been said and I missed it. 

I wonder if this whole thing is a dreadful accident. It’s by no means unknown for voters to ‘send a message’ - in this case to The Establishment - to let them know they’re running out of patience, but without actually voting them out. But tinkering with the Collective Unconscious is a most imprecise instrument. Perhaps in this case resulting in an unintended consequence of Homeric proportions.





From Steph in Australia, Biographer and Playwright....


Hi Glenn

The photo of earth is uplifting, which we needed!

I read the blogs with interest, and it disturbs me to hear so many contributors lump all Trump voters with Brexiters (and I’m sure they would include Pauline Hanson here in Oz). The Brexiters, Trumpers and Hansonites are stereotyped as ‘racist’, ‘haters’, ‘red-necks’ etc, yet I know many people who voted for Britain to leave the EU, and have seen many Trump supporters interviewed, and spoken to many Hanson followers, and none of these people deserve any of those labels. 

They voted for radical change rather than the person. They want action. They are fed up with politically correct spin re. controversial problems such as border control, immigration of people who are perceived as either taking jobs or further burdening their welfare system, foreign ownership of land and industries, lack of protection of locally produced steel, immigration of a culture which is seen as threatening because it has values so opposed to modern western ones, the fighting of wars on foreign soils, etc etc. They wanted someone with the guts to say what many of them have thought for many years now and have been too afraid to say.  

So while I felt as sick as most of us when Trump trumped Hillary, and am terrified of the damage he might do to the international climate treaties and aims, and his encouragement of the gun lobbies, and of his unpredictable, reactive and erratic character, and his admiration of Putin, it really is very non-constructive and simplistic to lump ALL of these people as ‘deplorables’ or ‘morons’ or the names listed above. 

As you said Glenn,  now Trump must go to work, and he may find many of his own simplistic ‘slogans’ come back to bite him. If he doesn’t deliver, his former fans will eventually turn on him. If he does deliver on issues such as encouraging all Americans to bear arms, I fear greatly for America. If he delivers on some Democratic-type policy such as a workable and fair Health system,  I’ll be as thrilled as I’ll be surprised. 

Let’s obey Hillary’s magnanimous directive, and for now at least, keep an open mind. 


Steph Mc

From an Anglican Priest in Northeast Pennsylvania....


 I’m no poet and, as you might expect, Fran and I were literally astounded by the news that Trump had been selected via the Electoral College as America’s next President; regardless, here are some words that came to my mind in a feeble “poetic” manner:
    Trump, the master of con,
        felt the pulse of downtrodden others,
        thus gaining the majority votes of male and female whites.
    So now, those who supported the one who received a popular vote advantage
        fear the loss of their human and constitutional rights.
Peace to you and Barbara


From a Nurse and Election Volunteer in Texas....

I couldn't read paper or watch news. My son and his wife did not want to go to work. They have lots of gay friends. i keep hopingw ill wake up from nightmare. I never want to work election polls again, too many rude people. sad day.


My blood pressure was high at the foot doctor and she asked if I was stressed. I said after last night and she agreed without being to vocal. Guess they had been told to not comment. She said noticed your Hillary sticker on your iPad. She said the whole staff was sad.

Facebook groups recommend a boycott on January 20, 2917 (Inauguration day) economically and to not watch the ceremony. Knee jerk reaction but gives us something to control. Most of the women at my women's club tonight were trumpeters. They approached me and said they never thought he would win. Well, why did you vote for him? I They replied with let's see if he can live up to all us promises, oh he has the first 100 days planned and he is surrounded by good people. I walked away.

From a Distinguished Pennsylvania Judge....

I've observed the decision process play out in jury trials--hundreds of them. Whether I agreed with them was not important; only that I saw to the correctness of the process. The result was stated through our system of law, accepted, acted on in accordance with the decision and the body politic embodied in our constitutional legal system moved on and survived.

Such is our republic and it will continue to survive.

Take a break, look out the window and be thankful we live in a beautiful world.


From a Chemist in Buckinghamshire, England....

We are stunned and horrified too.
I got up at 5.30am expecting to see President Hillary announced and could not believe my eyes and ears.
As many of your other UK correspondents have said it feels like Brexit all over again and we simply cannot understand how it happened.

So we send you our sympathy but suggest that after a stiff drink or three it's time to shake ourselves down and plan for the future because in four short years America can elect someone far better from a huge wealth of talented people.

From an Ambassador of a European Nation in Europe....

What a surprise this result! I woke up at 4 am, checked the news in my cellphone and saw that the election results were heading towards something else than was predicted in the latest polls last night. By the way, I was last night at the election night event the American Embassy organized ...TV. The event was mainly for all the (local) politicians. The (American) Ambassador described in his opening speech that the event was mainly to celebrate the US election system and to celebrate that in the US that “a man in power gives up his post every four years”. And of course, I only stayed for the first couple of hours, so the results started coming in much later.

We don’t yet know what this new era will be. I’ll gladly continue reading your commentaries!

From a Physician in California....
Glen:

Comments below from my youngest daughter who is a vice principal of an elementary school in north Los Angeles area.
I'm still in shock but I have to believe that our America will unite out of this. It's how we come together and treat one another on a daily basis. Working in schools, I see my role now  more important than ever. 

Kindness trumps hate. Character trumps hate. Knowledge trumps hate. Culture trumps hate. 

I'm going to continue spending each day focusing on developing kind students who display character and who will use their knowledge to positively impact our world. I will continue to develop a culture of unity, and acceptance. A culture where we value diversity. 

It's what we do on a daily basis that will lift our country out of this sadness and continue to move us forward. 


From Business Tech in South Africa....
What implications does a Trump presidency hold for South Africa?
According to Professor André Heymans from the School of Economic and Business Sciences at the North-West University, the consequences may be dire.
“When the news broke, the rand lost approximately 3.7% of its worth, but since then it has stabilised a bit. Although Trump has mentioned speech that the USA want to do business with other countries, his focus will be on his country’s fledgling middle class by bringing jobs back to the US and keeping them there,” said Heymans.

“That means that the US will want to be more self-sustaining, resulting in less manufactured goods being imported to the US from other countries – including South Africa.  The main concern is that Trump will want to accomplish this by raising import costs as to make it cheaper for Americans to buy locally produced goods in comparisons to imported ones. The USA is one of South Africa’s single biggest export destinations and to implement such a hike in import costs will severely hurt South Africa’s economy,” he said.
here is, however, a flip-side to the coin should government decide to exploit it, said Professor Melville Saayman, director of the research unit TREES (Tourism Research in Economic Environs and Society). He said that the former reality television star’s abrasive attitude may hold a benefit for South Africa’s tourism sector.
“When one looks at what Trump has proposed during his campaign, then it seems that traveling to the United States will become a lot more difficult now that he is president. He is a proponent of stricter measures of control and in the past South Africa has been able to exploit such situations. I think with some creative marketing we will be able to do so again because we are still one of the best value for money destinations.
“I think that until he does some positive things over an extended period of time the country’s reputation and image will suffer. He will need to foster a sense of trust and confidence and that will be hard to do seeing that a lot of the mainstream media will focus on the more negative aspects of his speeches and his actions,” Saayman said.

From a United Methodist Minister in Tennessee....

Beautiful autumn pix!  Thanks.

Yes, we must listen to one another ... right now, I need a grief counselor!!

From a High School English Teacher in Tennessee....


I can not think about what happened....as you well know, this is how I deal with unpleasant things...I don't think about them!  I have not turned on the television at all today...usually it is on MSNBC all day, but I can not bear to look at that man's face, his family, his people, etc.  George and Abraham and William Henry and Thomas and Teddy and Franklin must all be turning over in their graves...how does he even rate the name "President"?  It is unbelievable to me that in 2016 someone of his intellect and moral depravity could be chosen...just shows you the stupidity of millions of people....I'm scared for our country and the world...


How could so many people...pundits, media, etc. get it so wrong....

From Engishman Terry Field who watched the campaign from Florida....

Hello Glen, Hello Barb.

This is a dreadful result.
I hope so much that the election does not badly affect your children, their healthcare, their place in society in any way. Let us remain hopeful.
As you are aware, for me, there is an overwhelming matter, one that dwarfs all others.
Climate catastrophe now looks likely to be unstoppable. All else pales to significance compared to that.

Universal suffrage is the real cause of this.
Think about it.Glenn,
I see Hillary gained 2 million more votes that him.
Clearly it is not only a universal suffrage matter, but also a matter of your constitutional structure.

God is not mocked.
Gore gained more votes, and we experienced war and failure in the Middle East
Now, the disaster will be environmental and climate, as well a social and medical.
God is not mocked.

Hillary was the answer. He is the problem. God help us now.


From a Legal Scholar in Pennsylvania....

Glenn, I was up this morning and noticed that the sun came up...Great new....and, as I predicted,  it was in the east.

I am not as pessimistic as many of my friends although last night's results were depressing, but remember...... in a republic all political victories are temporary as are all political defeats.  What I find depressing is that the public has no idea of what the winner's policies will be and those who voted for the winner were willing to ignore some personality traits of a very despicable individual.....Trump is certainly a long way from Honest Abe Lincoln or Dwight Eisenhower or Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush or John McCain or Mitt Romney.  Oh, well.

Dan S.  


From Scotland, a successful Business Family....

Glenn, Barb,

Awakened to this news, similar feelings to when we awoke to our departure from Europe news.

This of course is on a much bigger scale, so unexpected.

Will keep watching all forthcoming events intently, the world will be a very different place.

Margaret and Bill


From the Midlands of England, retired Educators....

The same dark, populist, anti-representative democracy movement which led to Brexit has triumphed again. On the bright side, the voters of the US will have a chance to think again in four years time; we in the UK, however are totally, irrevocably, stuffed.
We must hope that, during these four years, we avoid the Third World War and survive the world recession.
Keep drinking the vodka.
D&M

From a Banker in Toronto....

Glenn, I love the vodka line!

In trying to understand what happened yesterday, I found this story in the Guardian of interest. Its headline is: Donald Trump is moving to the White House, and liberals put him there. It was written by Thomas Frank. In particular, this line struck me:

"The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn’t all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn’t accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it’s time to consider whether there’s something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away."


It reminds me of the Brexit situation.. Elites out of touch with the common person. People fed up with being ignored by elites in media and politics. Perhaps it is time for politicians everywhere to climb down from their high horses and pay more attention to the average working stiff.

- David


From a Gay Business Woman in Florida....

She (Hillary) was talking to the baby boomers who are already living a very settled comfortable life. She's lost touch as well and that is a shame for ALL of us! Trump tapped into the fear of the uneducated and won the vote based on fear and ignorance! Hillary is so smart she missed that totally! Bad move on her part!

So Trump just scammed the working class uneducated sector as they are looking for any tiny ray of hope! Hillary missed the boat on this topic TOTALLY!

We can only hope there's enough people in GOP with different agendas than taking rights away!! Neither Hillary or Trump are even remotely able to understand the life of the average folks like us. People living check to check. Folks like you are NOT the norm! Then gen X and millennials work to pay bills... we do not have the extra income for retirements, and pensions are a thing of the past! So NEITHER of them are qualified to help the average American's plight of daily financial struggles. Because they have no clue what it's like to have to "put things back" at a grocery store just to be able to pay!!


From a Concerned Citizen in Greater London....

Hi Glenn
Deepest sympathy from us here.  I guess you will be needing to fortify yourself with something a bit stronger than coffee today.  So, you will have a President who is a misogynist, racist, ignorant, with no proper joined up policies – deep joy.   But it could only be for 4 years, if you are lucky.  His protectionist stance will not help the U K, which is stupidly about to commit an act of national suicide by cutting itself off from its largest market.    One of the things I heard on U K radio was that the gun lobby was a factor (surprise!)
I just hope that the depression that has gripped me since 24 June will not happen to you.  But it has lifted a lot with the High Court ruling.
Best wishes, Sue

From a Cat-Loving Woman in Pennsylvania....

My hope is that his narcissism will keep him under control.  It seems Kelly Anne (his campaign manager) was able to do it and helped him win.  I hope his statement on making health care better is true. But the GOP Senate and House will destroy women's rights health care and rights for gays. It is like 1930 again.

From Educators in Ontario, Canada....

Dear Barb and Glenn,
I am numb. This is beyond belief. It's as if we have entered an alternate universe, in which reason does not exist. I just want to crawl back into bed and pull the covers over my head.
It was a terrifying victory of fear and hatred.
God bless America, indeed.

From a Business Woman in High Wycombe, England....

I stayed up till 01.45 our time but couldn’t stay awake longer.  At that point Florida was still going back and forth with most pundits predicting a Democrat win.  How things can change in a few hours!  I can send details of properties for sale in the Cotswolds if you like!  đŸ˜Ÿ

From Helen Philpott's Texas Blog....

Dear Hillary - Dear Hillary,
We are so proud of you. Take some time off, dear. We’ll take it from here. 
Dear Readers of Margaret & Helen,
Our greatest work starts now. If you have a neighbor who has been targeted this election, hug them and remind them that this is still their America too. If you have a neighbor who voted for Trump, congratulate them on their win and then move on.
In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers prepared us for this. Call your local Democratic office today and ask them how you can get involved. Washington moves mercifully slow. We have two years to take Congress away from this man and four years to restore our dignity.
Our Democracy is stronger than one man and one election. This grand experiment we call the United States has not failed. It has just begun. 
Today we heal.
Tomorrow we act.
2018 we correct.
2020 we redeem.
We broke it and now we must fix it. The world is counting on us.  I mean it. Really.

From a Concert Organist in Florida....
I think many of us will be in a state of shock for quite a while!

Question for the day - "Why does God hate the United States?"

M

From Suffolk, England....
I hardly know what to say.

Without trying to sound too dramatic the world as we know it is coming to an end. With Brexit and Trump I simply do not understand what is happening any more. All I can say is  'be careful what you wish for'. 
From an Educator in Georgia, USA....

Evidently there are more Americans who HATE than I thought. On another note, I have closed the book with the organized Protestant religions of my upbringing. They are hardly what their founders wanted them to be, nor are they in line with who are what I am anymore. In my 72, and close to 73 years on this planet, I have never worried about the future of our country until today, November 9, 2016.
" Democracy...while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." (John Adams)

From an Englishman who Lives in Wales....

That's that then Glenn, therefore you Democrats must now endeavour to smoke the pipe of peace and unite with the Republicans and Independents, no matter how unpalatable that will be, in a common just cause for the future benefit and prosperity of your great nation both at home and abroad and put aside petty squabbles.
The pendulum has swung to the right, and Trump's proto-dynastic role as the next Commander-in-Chief has now superseded the inherited dynasties of the Bushes' and Clintons'.
Who next? For some of his children will now be groomed for later presidential office.
It's certainly been "The Greatest Crazy Show on Earth."
When David Cameron monotonously bombarded us almost every day with pompous rhetoric against Brexit, he got on people's nerves whom he took for granted; then he was shocked when we basically told him to get stuffed.
He just couldn't understand the common people as he lived in his fantasy world of an "untouchable" glass bubble of an ivory tower.
After the euphoria and dejection has dissipated, Glenn, things will hopefully settle down.

From our Writer in Australia....

Just finished watching HIS speech. Mmmm, how magnanimous he is in victory, how low would he have stooped in defeat. Makes us shudder to think. But we no longer have to watch Hillary being crucified, and he will try to curb foreign ownership and might put at least a filter on Muslim immigration, and also we won't have to witness him calling the election rigged and putting his people on the streets armed to the teeth. We'll see. He'll find out that words are easy. Action is difficult and needs care.

I'm off to get out the vomit bowl.  Love and condolences.

From David Lott in Normandy, France....

Dear Glenn and Barbara,

I woke this morning for the second time in 2016 to find that, the' underclass' as we are called here or the 'deplorables' as Trump voters are looked upon by the establishment in the USA, that we have won. For Kathy and I the predominant feeling is one of immense relief ,despite having felt he would win all along in the face of poor polling to the contrary and I remember I said so in one of my posts on your blog.

The parallels with Brexit are now obvious to one and all. One side had the broadcast media in its pocket and the other side did not. One side had enthusiastic passionate new voters and the other did not, along with doubtful polling loaded against the eventual winners. Each of the winners had a controversial charismatic person leading the charge.

Both results followed constitutional democratic process and both results are valid and reflect the will of the people. Both results must be accepted if peace is to reign. Here in the UK judges are trying to pick our success apart, I do hope the courts in the US do NOT follow suit as the potential for dreadful civil unrest will be very serious indeed.

In order to draw the electorate together in both countries you must give Trump and the Brexiteers led by Nigel Farage and his followers in the Tory Party a chance. Only by doing so can one preserve our democracies. After four years you can judge Trump upon his record which is exactly how it should be.

All those on the losing side really must make a real effort to understand the motives of the winning side electors. They are not evil in any way and you all should disabuse yourselves of such prejudice. They have not voted in this manner without good reason and I outlined in two earlier articles entitled Truth and Trust what is behind this successful movement. Please do not fight the result but endeavour to understand why it has come about even though you may not agree with the policies.

For your interest here is a take on the objectionable intervention of the High Court in frustrating the will of the people concerning the activation of Article 50 of the EU Lisbon Treaty. This Treaty Article merely starts the process of leaving the EU. At the end of the process Parliament will vote upon the Great Reform Act that will put all EU legislation into UK law in order for Parliament to deal with it at its leisure.

UKIP London MEP Gerard Batten who sits on the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee of the European Parliament said, “This judgement is a political decision by part of the establishment that wants to thwart the will of the British people in the Referendum.

“Part of the reasoning of the Court is that triggering Article 50 “will inevitably effect the changing of domestic law”. However, this is precisely the argument for why they cannot make this ruling.  Treaties are merely agreements between governments.  The courts cannot rule on them until they become part of domestic law by means of Acts of Parliament.

“All previous treaties have been entered into and signed by British governments using the Royal Prerogative without a vote in Parliament first. Only when parts are incorporated into law by Act of Parliament does Parliament become involved, and the courts have jurisdiction over their application.
“This argument is clearly set out in a judgement of the House of Lords in the case of Rayner v Department of Trade and Industry (1990) 2 AC 418.  This judgement.”clearly states that the Government may repudiate or terminate a Treaty". Triggering Article 50 may indeed inevitably affect domestic law but until it does the courts have no jurisdiction.
“The Supreme Court meets on 7th December to confirm or set aside this decision.  If they confirm it they will be setting themselves against the democratic will of the electorate and will precipitate a constitutional crisis.  The outcome of which cannot be foreseen

We also have worries concerning the inclinations of the Judges involved. A number have been involved in an EU funded examination of the compatibility of EU law (Corpus Juris, largely the Napoleonic code) with English Common Law. The latter is largely used in the USA and many Commonwealth countries and was developed over 1000 years. The EU has stated that Corpus Juris should apply throughout the EU. For this reason we do not trust the impartiality of many of the judges.

I am sure you will not mind if Kathy and I have a glass of champagne tonight.

Best wishes

From a Pennsylvanian who Describes Himself being from the Backwoods....


Thought you might get some "interesting" comments from your email.


Touchy subject.


And much to learn from the outcome of the election.


You, as an historian, might well reflect on the Great Depression and

how two themes emerged: creation of jobs via the New Deal

and the fantastic growth of isolationism.  Globalization was

certainly not part of the mind set.


Never mind that some historians feel that our isolationist posture

of the 1930s helped to lay the foundation for the emergence of WW II.


We just went through a Great Recession.  Some folk lost

over 40%  of their retirement income.  Yes, we have recovered

those loses but many are still looking for jobs, feeling left behind,

and wondering why the borders are so open to people who are "taking
their jobs away" from hard working American citizens.  That may be
perception rather than fact.
But isn't it amazing how we experience such similar cycles in our
corporate history!  We do seem to be back to where we were in

the mid to late 1930s; the need to create jobs and the growth of
isolationism!  Let's hope that we are not setting the stage for a major war?


Yes, I am not giving you a statement of my own political belief but my perception

of how others are viewing the situation and why they voted as they

did. 


A professor from F & M commented about what he was hearing

from his own polling.  He said, "Many feel that this is no longer their country.

Indeed, they feel as if they are strangers in their own country even

though they were born here, have been citizens all their life,

and have lived and worked here for fifty, sixty or seventy so years."






Pro or Con, my thanks to all for this civilized discussion. May we continue to listen and ponder the human condition together.   GNH

Additional Comments?





Thursday, September 15, 2016

Garrison Keillor Writes....


My college friend, Dave McIntyre, a retired United Methodist minister who lives in Tennessee, sent along this column from the September 14, 2016 Washington Post.  With kudos and credit to Mr. Keillor, a national radio personality and all around 'common man' intellectual, and Dave, one of the nicest guys in the world, here is the opinion piece.  Keiller is the closest thing 21st Century America has to Will Rogers, the 20th Century humor personality and sage on current affairs.

As usual, I repeat, one does not have to agree, and other observations welcome. We are all sorting through life. - Glenn N. Holliman

Hillary has the good habits of a serious Methodist

by Garrison Keillor, Special To The Washington Post
Sept. 14, 2016

I saw Hillary once working a rope line for more than an hour, a Secret Service man holding her firmly by the hips as she leaned over the rope and reached into the mass of arms and hands reaching out to her. She had learned the art of encountering the crowd and making it look personal. It was not glamorous work, more like picking fruit, and it took the sort of discipline your mother instills in you: Those people waited to see you so by gosh you can treat them right.

So it's no surprise she pushed herself to the point of collapse the other day. What's odd is the perspective, expressed in several stories, that her determination to keep going reveals a "lack of transparency" — that she should've announced she had pneumonia and gone home and crawled into bed.

I've never gone fishing with her, which is how you really get to know someone, but years ago I did sit next to her at dinner, one of those Washington black-tie occasions that are nobody's idea of a wild good time, the conversation tends to be stilted, everybody's beat, you worry about spilling soup down your shirtfront. She, being First Lady, led the way and she being a Wellesley girl, the way led upward. We talked about my infant daughter and schools and about Justice Harry Blackmun, and I said how inspiring it was to sit and watch the Court in session, and she laughed and said, "I don't think it'd be a good idea for me to show up in a courtroom where a member of my family might be a defendant." A succinct and witty retort. And she turned and bestowed her attention on Speaker Dennis Hastert, who was sitting to her right. She focused on him and even made him chuckle a few times. I was impressed by her smarts, even more by her discipline.

I don't have that discipline. Most people don't. Politics didn't appeal to me back in my youth, the rhetoric ("Ask not what your country can do for you") was so wooden compared to "so we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past," so I walked dark rainy streets imagining the great novel I wouldn't write and was still trying to be cool and indifferent well into my thirties, when other people were making a difference in the world.

Hillary didn't have a prolonged adolescence and fiction was not her ambition. She doesn't do dreaminess. What some people see as a relentless quest for power strikes me as the good habits of a serious Methodist. Be steady. Don't give up. It's not about you. Work for the night is coming.

The woman who does not conceal her own intelligence is a fine American tradition, going back to Anne Bradstreet and Harriet Beecher Stowe and my ancestor Prudence Crandall, but none has been subjected to the steady hectoring and jibber-jabber that Mrs. Clinton has. She is the first major-party nominee to be pictured in prison stripes by the opposition. She is the first Cabinet officer ever to be held personally responsible for her own email server, something ordinarily delegated to anonymous nerds in I.T. The fact that terrorists attacked an American compound in Libya under cover of darkness when Secretary Clinton presumably got some sleep has been held against her, as if she personally was in command of the defense of the compound, a walkie-talkie in her hand, calling in reinforcements.

Extremism has poked its head into the mainstream, aided by the Internet. Back in the day, you occasionally saw cranks on a street corner handing out mimeographed handbills arguing that FDR was responsible for Pearl Harbor, but you saw their bad haircuts, the bitterness in their eyes, and you turned away. Now they're in your computer, whispering that the economy is on the verge of collapse and for a few bucks they'll tell you how to protect your savings. But lacking clear evidence, we proceed forward. We don't operate on the basis of lurid conjecture.

Some day historians will get this right and look back at the steady pitter-pat of scandals that turned out to be nothing, nada, zero and ixnay and will conclude that, almost a century after women's suffrage, almost 50 years after Richard Nixon signed Title IX into law, a woman was required to run for office wearing concrete shoes. Check back fifty years from now and if I'm wrong, go ahead and dance on my grave.

Respectfully forwarded by:
Dave


Comments Welcome....

From a retired English professor at the University of Tennessee....


"For years, when a student asked how Hillary could possibly forgive Bill Clinton, I answered that she was actually a Methodist and didn't really have any other choice." 

From a Librarian in Virginia, a battleground state....

"Hadn't seen Keillor's article yet.  He absolutely nailed it.  Clinton is a work horse.  She doesn't do dreaminess.  She has that ingrained Protestant work ethic.  She's wooden on the stump, but I'm ok with that.  So long as she wins!"

Sunday, July 3, 2016

Hillary - Is it Because She is a Woman?

by Glenn N. Holliman
The national political parties conventions are upon us this month.  There are many people both on the left and right embedded into a view of both candidates.  Being an old guy, I have followed Hillary's career since she was First Lady of Arkansas.  She has been in the public eye well over 40 years and has a lot of Clinton baggage to tote around.  This popped on the Internet, and I believe it has merit.  During my over 40 years ago earning a Master's Degree in American history, I was taught to seek the facts as best as we can know them.  Cold, impartial facts.
Once a narrative gets embedded into the culture, it is the dickens to change that label.  Hillary has a label, and this article challenges the vilitity of the caritature of her political nature.  Your comments, ahem, civilized of course, are welcome. - GNH
The most thorough, profound and moving defense of Hillary Clinton I have ever seen. - http://www.dailykos.com/

Diary_Photo.jpg
First of all — this is not my writing.  It's a Facebook post by someone I don’t even know, a man named Michael Arnovitz in Portland OR.  But as a Facebook post it passes the fair use test and I’m quite certain he would not object that I share it here (he doesn’t).   The original Facebook post is here: www.facebook.com/…  So without further ado, it’s truly worth the read:
________________________________________________________________________
"In the course of a single conversation, I have been assured that Hillary is cunning and manipulative but also crass, clueless, and stunningly impolitic; that she is a hopelessly woolly-headed do-gooder and, at heart, a hardball litigator; that she is a base opportunist and a zealot convinced that God is on her side. What emerges is a cultural inventory of villainy rather than a plausible depiction of an actual person." —Henry Louis Gates The quote above comes from a fascinating article called “Hating Hillary”, written by Gates for the New Yorker in 1996. Even now, 20 years after it was first published, it’s a fascinating and impressive piece, and if you have a few spare moments I strongly recommend it to you. (www.newyorker.com/...)

And I’m reading pieces like this because now that Hillary has (essentially if not officially) won the Democratic Primary, I have become increasingly fascinated by the way so many people react to her. In truth, I sometimes think that I find that as interesting as Hillary herself. And I can’t help but notice that many of the reactions she receives seem to reflect what Gates referred to as “a cultural inventory of villainy” rather than any realistic assessment of who she really is and what she has really done.

To conservatives she is a radical left-wing insurgent who has on multiple occasions been compared to Mikhail Suslov, the Soviet Kremlin’s long-time Chief of Ideology. To many progressives (you know who you are), she is a Republican fox in Democratic sheep’s clothing, a shill for Wall Street who doesn’t give a damn about the working class. The fact that these views could not possibly apply to the same person does not seem to give either side pause. Hillary haters on the right and the left seem perfectly happy to maintain their mutually incompatible delusions about why she is awful. The only thing both teams seem to share is the insistence that Hillary is a Machiavellian conspirator and implacable liar, unworthy of society’s trust.

And this claim of unabated mendacity is particularly interesting, because while it is not the oldest defamation aimed at Hillary, it is the one that most effortlessly glides across partisan lines. Indeed, for a surprisingly large percentage of the electorate, the claim that Hillary is innately dishonest is simply accepted as a given. It is an accusation and conviction so ingrained in the conversation about her that any attempt to even question it is often met with shock. And yet here’s the thing: it’s not actually true. Politifact, the Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking project, determined for example that Hillary was actually the most truthful candidate (of either Party) in the 2016 election season. And in general Politifact has determined that Hillary is more honest than most (but not all) politicians they have tracked over the years.

Also instructive is Jill Abramson’s recent piece in the Guardian. Abramson, a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal as well as former Executive Editor of the New York Times, had this to say about Hillary’s honesty: “As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.”

Notice how Abramson uses the word “surprising”? She’s obviously doing that for our benefit, because she knows that many readers will be astonished at the very thought of Hillary being “fundamentally honest”. But why? In my opinion we need to go back to the time of Whitewater in order to answer that question.

In January of 1996, while Whitewater investigations were underway but unfinished, conservative writer William Safire wrote a scathing and now-famous essay about Hillary Clinton entitled, “Blizzard of Lies”. In the piece he called her a “congenital liar”, and accused her of forcing her friends and subordinates into a “web of deceit”. He insisted (without any apparent evidence) that she took bribes, evaded taxes, forced her own attorneys to perjure themselves, “bamboozled” bank regulators, and was actively involved in criminal enterprises that defrauded the government of millions of dollars. He ended the piece by stating that, “She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”

I am no political historian, but as far as I can tell this short essay was the birth of the “Hillary is a Liar” meme. Now to be clear, most conservatives already strongly disliked her. They had been upset with her for some time because she had refused to play the traditional First Lady role. And they were horrified by her attempt to champion Universal Health coverage. But if you look for the actual reasons people didn’t like her back at that time, you won’t see ongoing accusations of her being “crooked” or a “liar”. Instead, the most common opinion seemed to be that she was a self-righteous leftist who considered anyone with other views to be morally inferior. In short, the prevailing anti-Hillary accusation was not that she was unrelentingly dishonest, but that she was just intolerably smug.

After the Safire piece however, this all changed. Republicans, who learned from Nixon never to let a good propaganda opportunity pass if they could help it, repeated the accusations of mendacity non-stop to anyone who would broadcast or print them. And if you doubt the staying power of Safire’s piece, type the phrase “congenital liar” into a Google search along with “Hillary Clinton” and see what happens. To this day, that exact phrase is still proudly used by many on the right. This, even though Safire was eventually proven wrong about everything he had written. And despite the fact that he stated himself that he would have to “eat crow” if she were ever cleared, Safire never apologized or even acknowledged his many errors once that happened. Because as we all know, swift-boating means never having to say you’re sorry.

But while conservative propaganda and lies are a constant in “Hillaryland”, if we look at Hillary’s career, and the negative attacks so often aimed at her, it seems clear that more than just political machinations are at play. My current conviction is that the main fuel that powers the anti-Hillary crowd is sexism. And yes I’m serious. So go ahead and roll your eyes. Get it over with. But I think the evidence supports my view, and I’ve seen no other plausible explanation. And just to be clear, I don’t think it’s ONLY sexism. But I do think that this is the primary force that has generated and maintained most of the negative narratives about Hillary.

Of course accusations of sexism always bump up against several serious impediments:
1) Almost nobody will admit to it. Conservatives decided long ago that all such accusations (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc) are standard liberal bullshit whose only real intent is to shut down debate, and liberals tend to possess a sense of moral entitlement which leads them to consider themselves automatically exempt from all such accusations. (Side note: if you did roll your eyes above, there’s a good chance I’m describing you here. Sorry.)
2) Overt sexism is significantly more likely to be tolerated in our society than overt racism. It is a low-risk form of bigotry and discrimination that rarely damages professional or political careers. Because of this, far fewer people worry about crossing that line.
3) We have formed a sort of collective blindness to sexism that allows us to pretend that we are on top of the issue while simultaneously ignoring the many ways in which it actually permeates our society. (Side note 2: There’s a reason it’s called a “glass” ceiling.)
4) Unlike men, women who make demands are still often seen as unfeminine and inappropriately aggressive, bordering on deviant. And if the people most aggressively pushing against the glass ceiling are “broken” or “deviant”, it’s easier to justify dismissing both them and their concerns.

So I’ve made a claim. Let’s look at some numbers. Take a look at the image below. On the right side you’ll see a chart. This is a chart of Hillary’s popularity over time. It was put together by Nate Silver, who based it on over 500 high-quality phone surveys dating back to the early 90’s. If we take a look at the polling data, very obvious patterns emerge.

In the early 90’s her polling was great, which was typical for an incoming First Lady. But Hillary had no interest in being a typical First Lady, and soon took charge of one of the most important policy initiatives of the Clinton Presidency: Universal Health Care. If you look at the first large red arrow I have on the graphic, you’ll see that as soon as she did that her negatives skyrocketed. And yes this was before Whitewater. In fact during the ongoing Whitewater investigations her polling improved dramatically, so she actually became significantly MORE popular during that period, not less.

Now take a look at the second arrow. This is where she declared that she was going to run for the Senate. See what happened? She was at one of the most popular periods of her life, but as soon as she declared a run for the Senate her favorables plummeted while her unfavorables rose sharply. Then once she was elected, her scores stabilized and even improved. Now look at the third arrow. Nearly exactly at the same time she withdrew from the Presidential race her favorables took off again, rising to levels that many considered remarkable. (Or are we pretending not to remember that until very recently Hillary was one of the most popular politicians in the country?) In fact the image on the left of the graph is part of the “bad-ass Hillary” meme that started during this time. And her polling stayed high right up until she decided to run for President again. Her numbers since then are not on this particular graph, but I think we all know what happened to them.

So what do we see in this data? What I see is that the public view of Hillary Clinton does not seem to be correlated to “scandals” or issues of character or whether she murdered Vince Foster. No, the one thing that seems to most negatively and consistently affect public perception of Hillary is any attempt by her to seek power. Once she actually has that power her polls go up again. But whenever she asks for it her numbers drop like a manhole cover.

And in fact I started thinking more about this after reading an article that Sady Doyle wrote for Quartz back in February. The title of the piece was, “America loves women like Hillary Clinton - as long as they’re not asking for a promotion.” In the article Ms. Doyle asserted that, “The wild difference between the way we talk about Clinton when she campaigns and the way we talk about her when she’s in office can’t be explained as ordinary political mud-slinging. Rather, the predictable swings of public opinion reveal Americans’ continued prejudice against women caught in the act of asking for power…”

And yes this is the kind of statement that many people will find reflexively annoying. But that doesn’t make it any less true, and the data certainly seems to support it. Even NBC news, looking back over decades of their own polls, stated that, “she's struggled to stay popular when she's on the campaign trail.” If this has nothing to do with gender, then wouldn’t the same thing happen to men when they campaign? But it doesn’t. Why not?

So let’s look at the issues people are currently using to disparage Clinton. Let’s consider the issues of dishonesty, scandals, money and Wall Street.

1) Honesty — In terms of honesty, I’ve already addressed that. Hillary is a politician, and like all politicians she is no stranger to “massaging” and/or exaggerating the truth. And yes on occasion she will let loose a whopper. But is she worse than other politicians? As I’ve already discussed, the evidence suggests that she is no worse, and actually better, than most other politicians. Internet videos like the “13 minutes of Hillary lying” appear to be mostly examples of Hillary changing her position over several decades, combined with annoying but typical political behavior. But similar videos of Donald Trump exist showing him doing an even more extreme version of the same thing. Why is he not being accused of this type of mendacity? In fact there is very little dispute that Trump has been SIGNIFICANTLY less honest on the campaign trail than Hillary. According to Politifact he is in fact the least honest candidate they’ve ever analyzed! So if the issue of honesty is really that important, why are so many people (on the right and left) holding Hillary to such an obviously different standard than Trump?

2) Scandals — Webster’s dictionary defines a scandal as, “an occurrence in which people are shocked and upset because of behavior that is morally or legally wrong.” But here’s a question: Are scandals still scandals if nobody actually did anything wrong? And I think that’s a fair question, because Hillary’s political foes love to point out all the times she has been implicated (directly or indirectly) in scandals. Not surprisingly, however, they fail to point out that she has always been cleared of any wrongdoing.

So if she’s always innocent, why then does she find herself caught up in so many scandals? For that answer, perhaps we should look at the Wikipedia definition of scandal, which states, “A scandal can be broadly defined as an accusation or accusations that receive wide exposure. Generally there is a negative effect on the credibility of the person or organization involved.” Notice the important difference? Perhaps the “negative effect on credibility” is not so much the RESULT of these scandals as it is the INTENT of those who create them.

Did you know that Republicans once spent 10 days and 140 hours investigating the Clinton’s use of the White House Christmas Card list? Because that is a real thing that actually happened. As the Atlantic recently pointed out, “No other American politicians—even ones as corrupt as Richard Nixon, or as hated by partisans as George W. Bush—have fostered the creation of a permanent multimillion-dollar cottage industry devoted to attacking them.” (And for an impressive presentation of this issue I highly recommend Hanna Rosin’s piece “Among the Hillary Haters”, also in the Atlantic.)

Compare for example the treatment Hillary is getting due to her private email “scandal” to that of General David Petraeus. Hillary has been accused of hosting a personal email server that “might” have made classified documents less secure, even though the documents in question were not classified as secret at the time she received and/or sent them. (Side note: some government documents receive secret classifications “at birth”, while other can be retroactively classified as secret.) In order for Clinton to have committed a criminal act, she would have had to knowingly and willfully mishandle material that was classified at the time she did so. After months of investigation no one has accused her of doing that, and it doesn’t appear as if anyone will.

General Petraeus on the other hand, while he was Director of the CIA, knowingly gave a journalist, who was also his mistress, a series of black books which according to the Justice Department contained, “classified information regarding the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions quotes and deliberative discussions from high level National Security Council meetings and [Petraeus’] discussions with the president of the United States of America.” Petraeus followed that up by lying to numerous government officials, including FBI agents, about what he had done. And lets not forget that according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, adultery is itself a court-martial offense. And I remind you that none of this is in dispute. Petraeus admitted to all of it.

Petraeus’ violations were significantly more egregious than anything Clinton is even remotely accused of. And yet Republicans and other Hillary foes are howling about her issue, wearing “Hillary for Prison 2016” t-shirts while insisting that this disqualifies her from public office. Meanwhile even after pleading guilty to his crimes Petraeus continued to be the recipient of fawning sentiments from conservatives. Senator John McCain stated that, “All of us in life make mistakes and the situation now, I hope, can be put behind him…” Politico quoted a former military officer who worked with Petraeus as calling the entire situation “silly”. Prominent Republicans have already made it clear that they would call him back to work in the highest levels of government if they win the Presidency. And some are still attempting to convince him to seek the Presidency himself.

Why is Hillary Clinton being held to such an obviously different standard than Petraeus? Is it really only politics?

3) Money — OK let’s talk about her money. Hillary has a lot of it. And she has earned most of it through well-paid speaking fees. And the idea of getting paid $200,000 or more for a single speech seems so ludicrous to many people that they assume that it simply must be some form of bribery. But the truth is that there is a large, well-established and extremely lucrative industry for speaking and appearance fees. And within that industry many celebrities, sports stars, business leaders and former politicians get paid very well. At her most popular for example, Paris Hilton was being paid as much as $750,000 just to make an appearance. Kylie Jenner was once paid over $100,000 to go to her own birthday party, and to this day Vanilla Ice gets $15,000 simply to show up with his hat turned sideways.

And let’s talk about the more cerebral cousin of the appearance agreement, which is the speaking engagement. Is $200k really that unusual? In fact “All American Speakers”, the agency that represents Clinton, currently represents 135 people whose MINIMUM speaking fee is $200,000. Some of the luminaries that get paid this much include: Guy Fieri, Ang Lee, Carla Delevingne, Chelsea Handler, Elon Musk, Mehmet Oz, Michael Phelps, Nate Berkus, and “Larry the Cable Guy”. And no that last one is not a joke. And if you drop the speaking fee to $100k, the number of people they represent jumps to over 500. At $50,000 the number jumps to over 1,200. And All American Speakers are obviously not the only agency that represents speakers. So there are in fact thousands of people getting paid this kind of money to give a speech.

For millions of Americans struggling to pay their bills, the very idea that someone can make $100,000 or more for just giving a speech or hanging out at a Vegas nightclub is obscene. But as Richard Nixon used to say, “don’t hate the player, hate the game.” Hillary didn’t invent the speaking engagement industry, and she isn’t anywhere near the first person to make a lot of money from it. And while her fees are in the upper range of what speakers make, neither they nor the total amount of money she has made are unusual. It’s just unusual FOR A WOMAN.

And yes, I’m back on that, because I feel compelled to point out that before he ran for President in 2007, Rudy Giuliani was making about $700,000 a month in speaking fees with an average of $270k per speech. It’s estimated that in the 5 years before his run he earned as much as $40 million in speaking fees. Nobody cared, no accusations of impropriety were made, and there was almost no media interest. So why did Giuliani get a pass, while Hillary stands accused of inherent corruption for making less money doing the same thing?

And speaking of corruption, after leaving the Florida governor’s office Jeb Bush made millions of dollars in paid speeches. This includes large sums he collected from a South Korean metals company that reaped over a BILLION dollars in contracts from his brother’s presidential administration. Speaking to an Indian newspaper about this type of thing Bush said, “This is the life of being the brother of the president.” Do you remember reading all about that while Jeb was running for President? I didn’t think so. Jeb got a pass too.

So if this discussion is really about money in politics that’s fine. But I’m going to need someone to explain to me why we only seem to focus on it when the person making the money has a vagina.

4) Wall Street — First things first. No, the majority of the money Clinton has made from speaking fees did not come from Wall Street. In fact it’s not even close. She has given nearly 100 paid speeches since leaving the State Dept., and only 8 were to “Wall Street” banks. Nearly all of her speeches were to organizations like American Camping Association, Ebay, Cisco, Xerox, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, United Fresh Produce Association, International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association, California Medial Association, A&E Television Networks, Massachusetts Conference for Women, U.S. Green Building Council, National Association of Realtors, American Society of Travel Agents, Gap, National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, etc.

Corporations and Associations pay large fees for important speakers all of the time. And Hillary got booked fairly often because she is interesting and popular, and because there’s a great deal of status attached to having her speak at an event. Ignoring all of this however, a large contingent of anti-Hillary people continue to insist that all speaker’s fees from Wall Street banks were bribes, and that because of this they “own” her. But by that logic shouldn’t we all be asking what the blank is the American Camping Association up to?

Also, with the possible exception of one speech given to Deutsche Bank, all of Hillary’s 8 speeches to Wall Street were for a speaking fee of $225,000. That does not even break the top 20 of her highest paid speeches. For example she received over $275,000 each in three speeches she gave to The Vancouver Board of Trade, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, and Canada 2020. So apparently Canadians also “own” her. And I don’t know what those nefarious Canadians are up to, but it probably has something to do with poutine. Which would really piss me off except I just remembered that I kind of like poutine so never mind.

Listen, does Wall Street have influence with Hillary? Grow up, of course they do. Wall Street is one of the key engines of the American economy, and as such has enormous influence with everyone. EVERYONE. Don’t kid yourself on that point. And aside from anything else, she was a 2-term Senator of New York, and this made Wall Street an important corporate member of her constituency. The issue is not influence. The issue is whether or not paid speeches and campaign donations alone are proof of corruption. And they’re not. And the last time I checked there was an important difference between association and guilt, between proof and slander.

And again: why is Hillary being held to a standard that never appears to be applied to her male counterparts? Am I not supposed to notice that a media frenzy has been aimed at Hillary Clinton for accepting speaking fees of $225,000 while Donald Trump has been paid $1.5 MILLION on numerous occasions with hardly a word said about it? Am I supposed to not notice that we are now in an election season in which Donald Trump, a proud scam artist whose involvement in “Trump University” alone is being defined by the New York Attorney General as “straight-up fraud”, is regularly calling Hillary Clinton “Crooked Hillary” and getting away with it?

What the actual is going on here? What’s going on is what we all know, but mostly don’t want to admit: presidential campaigns favor men, and the men who campaign in them are rewarded for those traits perceived as being “manly” - physical size, charisma, forceful personality, assertiveness, boldness and volume. Women who evince those same traits however are usually punished rather than rewarded, and a lot of the negativity aimed at Hillary over the years, especially when she is seeking office, has been due to these underlying biases. There is simply no question that Hillary has for years been on the business end of an unrelenting double standard. And her battle with societal sexism isn’t going to stop because of her success anymore than Obama’s battle with racism stopped once he was elected. These are generational issues, and we are who we are.

And actually, this only makes her victory all the more amazing. And maybe it’s OK if we pause for a moment from the accusations and paranoia and just acknowledge her enormous accomplishments. In the entire history of our nation, only 6 Presidents have also served as Secretary of State. Only 3 have served both as Secretary of State and in Congress. By any objective measure Hillary Clinton is not just the most qualified candidate this season, she’s one of the most qualified people to ever seek the office. The New York Times in endorsing her stated that, “voters have the chance to choose one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in history.” Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg stated that, “she is probably the best qualified presidential candidate ever.” Even Marco Rubio, one-time choice of the GOP establishment (and tea-party love-child) stated in a Republican debate that, “If this is a resume contest, Hillary Clinton is going to be the new President of the United States.”

Hillary is nobody’s idea of perfect. Fine. But in my view if a man with her qualifications were running in the Democratic primary, Bernie would have been done before he even started. And if a man with her qualifications had been running for the Republicans, they’d be anointing him the next Reagan while trying to sneak his face onto Mount Rushmore.

Most of the people who hate Hillary when she’s running for office end up liking her just fine once she’s won. And I have every confidence that history will repeat itself again this November. As for myself, I have been watching Presidential elections since Nixon. And never in my life has there been an easier or more obvious choice than now. Trump is not merely a bad choice, he is (as many leading Republicans have already admitted) a catastrophic choice, unfit in every possible way for the office of the Presidency.

As such, I happily voted for Hillary in my primary. And I will proudly vote for her in November. Yes she will disappoint us all on occasion. Who doesn’t? But I think she’s also going to surprise a lot of people. She will fear neither consensus when possible nor ass-kicking when necessary. She will safeguard us from the damage a right-wing Supreme Court would inflict on the nation. She will stand for the rights of women, LGBT Americans, and minorities. She will maintain critical global relationships, and she will react to dangerous situations with the temperament of a seasoned and experienced professional. And in a nation that didn’t even allow women to vote until 1920, she will make history by shattering the very highest glass ceiling, and in doing so forever change the way a generation of young women view their place in our Republic.
She’s going to be a fine President.
I’m with her.