Hillary Clinton, Progressive.

By
Chris Trotter
-
65
2

unnamed-2

“WHAT WE HAVE TO DO every so often in America is save capitalism from itself.” Hillary Clinton’s take on capitalism is pretty much the same as Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s take on capitalism. If that doesn’t justify placing Clinton among America’s progressives, then the definition of “progressive” must have been changed when the world’s political scientists weren’t looking.

Only the most extreme denizens of the Far Right would dispute that Roosevelt’s “New Deal” rescued American capitalism from the looming political consequences of the Great Depression. Certainly, that remains the firm judgement of practically all American socialists. Indeed, the great tragedy of American socialism is that the progressive movement (almost always in the guise of the Democratic Party) has unfailingly stepped up to defuse those economic and social bombs which, left undefused, might so easily have exploded into revolution.

Clinton fits very comfortably into that Democratic tradition. Ideologically-speaking she rates as a fairly staunch American “liberal” (New Zealand political scientists would call her a social-democrat). United States experts locate her on the same section of the left political spectrum as President Barack Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren, and only marginally to the right of Senator Bernie Sanders who, in spite of calling himself a “democratic socialist”, has devoted his life to promoting a social and economic programme indistinguishable from Roosevelt’s New Deal.

So why is this woman, this feminist, this progressive, demonised as some sort of fanatical neoliberal war goddess? Why do even New Zealanders who identify as “left-wing” claim to see no meaningful difference between Clinton and her Republican rival, Donald Trump? How has the woman who campaigned for George McGovern – the most radical presidential candidate in recent American history – been so egregiously defamed?

The answer is simple. Hillary Clinton has been demonised by the most reactionary elements of the American Right ever since she and her husband looked set to claim the White House in the presidential election of 1992. For nearly quarter-of-a-century she has been the target of an unrelenting campaign of false accusations, scurrilous rumours and outright lies. Recall the disgraceful campaign to undermine the prime-ministership of New Zealand’s own Helen Clark, multiply it by 10, and you will have some idea of the magnitude of what Clinton quite correctly described as “a vast right-wing conspiracy” dedicated to her and her husband’s destruction.

Those who were not yet born in 1992 find it difficult to fathom the depths to which the American Right was (and is) willing to sink in order to neutralise any and all threats posed to the legacies of Reagan and Bush by the Democratic Party and its more electable leaders.

That Hillary Clinton, as the Junior Senator from New York, voted for the invasion of Iraq has been parlayed by Sanders’ millennial supporters into proof positive of her war-mongering instincts. That dozens of her fellow Democratic senators did the same, is simply ignored. So, too, is the historical fact that ever since the days of the red-baiter, Joseph McCarthy, the Democratic Party has felt obliged to out-perform the Republicans on issues of national security.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

The Millennial Left’s refusal to put the behaviour of politicians into some semblance of historical context is also evident in the their criticism of Clinton’s actions in regard to Libya. As US Secretary of State, Clinton was acutely aware of how much her country owed to its Nato partners for their unwavering support of the USA’s military commitment to Afghanistan. That was why she was willing to recommend to President Obama that he lend his support to British and French efforts in the UN Security Council to provide air support to Libyan rebels fighting Muamma Gaddafi. Clinton’s critics conveniently forget that it was the Security Council, not the US Secretary of State, who subsequently authorised the “humanitarian” bombing of Libya.

Unfortunately, this is not the sort of argument that sways Clinton’s younger critics in the slightest. Anyone who takes money from Goldman Sachs and their Wall Street partners-in-crime is obviously guilty beyond redemption. As is anyone who acknowledges the extraordinary electoral power of the Jewish Vote in US politics by making favourable references to Israel. (Did anyone hear Bernie condemn “Israel’s apartheid regime”?)

The “Bernie-or-Bust” die-hards who, unlike their mentor, refuse to recognise the brute realities of American presidential politics, have proved to be fast learners when it comes to orchestrating exactly the same phantasmagorical parade of falsehoods that, hitherto, Clinton only had to fend off from the Right.

Hillary has become “Killary”. Bumper-stickers scream “Liar, liar, pants-suit on fire!” Never mind that the US media’s fact-checkers have pronounced Clinton the most truthful of all the major primary contenders. Or that on her watch as Secretary of State the USA markedly improved its global conduct.

The only conclusion to be drawn from the above is that, in the minds of politicised Millennials, the meaning of “progressive” has changed. It now means: “Somebody who could not possibly be elected President of the United States.”

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

65 COMMENTS

  1. Definitely not one of Chris’ better efforts! The guy is incredibly naive about her.

    Hillary Clinton and corporate feminism: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/hillary-clinton-and-corporate-feminism/

    Hillary Clinton – the $US2.5 billion ‘people’s candidate’: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/hillary-clinton-the-us2-5-billion-peoples-candidate/

    Coke/Pepsi antics: Cindy Sheehan on the US presidential race:https://rdln.wordpress.com/2016/03/31/coke-pepsi-antics-cindy-sheehan-on-us-presidential-primaries/

    Voting for the right lizard – Trump, Clinton and the evil of lesser-evilism: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/voting-for-the-right-lizard-trump-clinton-and-the-evil-of-lesser-evilism/

    • “multiply it by 10, and you will have some idea of the magnitude of what Clinton quite correctly described as “a vast right-wing conspiracy” dedicated to her and her husband’s destruction.”
      Just because its on the internet does not mean its true. I would have preferred Saunders but Clinton is light years ahead of Trump. There is ample evidence to suggest that the Pope & Churches will be playing a role in economic & family day regulations.

    • http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/82669776/US-Presidential-election-As-Democratic-party-promotes-unity-divisions-over-TPPA-remain-strong

      US Presidential election: As Democratic party promotes unity, divisions over TPPA remain strong

      A CNN poll found that 68 per cent of Americans do not find Hillary Clinton honest or trustworthy – a mindset that the roll call of speakers at this week’s convention tried to stamp out.

      The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPPA) remains the major divisive issue among US Democrats as their party convention wrapped up last week in Philadelphia.

      “It is probably the most important issue that is preventing me from supporting Hillary Clinton at this time,” said Yamina Rowland, a Fresno, California, delegate for Bernie Sanders.

      New Zealand has signed up to the multinational trade agreement, which seeks to lower trade barriers to 12 countries including the US and Japan, however concern over costs for medicine and possible legal action against governments has seen opponents march in the streets.

      Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have publicly stated their opposition to the TPPA.

      Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have publicly stated their opposition to the TPPA.

      The Democratic National Convention began amid a divided climate, but made a transition toward party unity with rabble-rousing speeches by party leaders like US President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.

      For the TPPA to be passed by the Obama administration, it would need to pass a vote in congress by the time the …
      MIKE SEGAR/REUTERS

      For the TPPA to be passed by the Obama administration, it would need to pass a vote in congress by the time the president leaves office in January next year.

      While the Obama administration claims the TPPA would “eliminate over 18,000 taxes various countries put on Made-in-America products,” both Clinton and her Republican rival Donald Trump have publicly stated their opposition to the deal.

      However, many Democrats remain unconvinced of Clinton’s stance.

      “Hillary has flip-flopped too many times,” said Fay Herold, a 62-year-old retired nurse from Alaska, another delegate for Bernie Sanders. “I think given the opportunity she will re-endorse it.”

      While serving as Secretary of State, Clinton supported the deal.

      During the run-up to the political primary season she changed course, reserving judgment until details – which were decided in private negotiations between participating countries – were publicised.

      Clinton then officially broke with the Obama administration’s stance late last year, stating the deal did not “meet the high bar” she had set.
      It’s this perceived reversal of opinion that had some Democrats at this week’s convention in Philadelphia concerned, and what could prove detrimental to the Clinton campaign.

      This was compounded when Virginia governor and friend of the Clintons, Terry McAuliffe, told Politico on Tuesday he was confident Clinton would support an amended TPPA deal if elected. He later backtracked, saying she “is always gonna stay against TPP.”

      A CNN poll on Monday found that 68 per cent of Americans do not find Clinton honest or trustworthy – a mindset that the roll call of speakers at this week’s convention tried to stamp out.

      “I trust Hillary Clinton with our son’s life,” said Tim Kaine, Clinton’s vice-presidential pick, in his acceptance speech on Wednesday night.

      Amid the sea of blue “stronger together” signs on the floor, delegates who oppose the deal chanted and waved anti-TPPA signs.

      It’s a deal that divides both Democrats and Republicans; members from both sides of the aisle have expressed discontent with certain provisions in the current deal, including high-ranking Republicans who are needed for it to be brought for a vote.

      The official democratic platform opposes trade agreements – including the TPPA – that prevent governments “from putting in place rules that protect the environment, food safety, or the health of American citizens or others around the world.”

      However, while it uses strong language, the platform falls short of absolutely opposing the deal.

      Last year, Pew Research found that 49 per cent of Americans supported the TPPA.

      Barry Bosworth, a senior fellow in economic studies at Washington-based think-tank, the Brookings Institution, said the fact that both presidential candidates are opposed does not bode well for the future of the TPPA.

      “I think that the supporters have lost contact with the general public and cannot explain why it would be in their interest,” he said.

      “They will need to rebuild support for open trade because the extreme right and extreme left are opposed to further trade agreements.”

      Senator Chris Coons, a Delaware delegate and Hillary Clinton supporter, echoed this sentiment in Philadelphia.

      “I think that there’s a lot of people who equate the very negative impacts of globalisation that have lead to job loss with a negative view of trade agreements, and they’re not necessarily the same thing,” he said. “We’ve got a lot of work to do.”

      For the TPPA to be passed by the Obama administration, it would need to pass a vote in congress by the time the president leaves office in January next year – something Bosworth said is “extremely unlikely.”

      But that doesn’t mean the issue of trade will be sidelined until November, according to Peter Hakim, President Emeritus and Senior Fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based think-tank.

      “I think its one of the four issues that’s most prominent on the agenda, no question,” Hakim said. – Stuff

  2. Lament as you might, you continually waive the right not to be pegged as a comfortable, whinging boomer with these kinds of posts. The anti-Hilary sentiment is just from the ‘millennials’? Please.

    Please peruse these links. Older people than yourself (Stiglitz, Chomsky, Falk, Street) and some younger but still not millennial (Sawant) all have valid reasons not to see Clinton as progressive.

    http://tinyurl.com/zpyml3p

    For those without time to read links:
    War hawk
    Israel accolyte.
    Corporate donation-taker and paid Big Bank speechgiver (but won’t make public).
    TPP supporter – oh no, wait now she isn’t. Or something.
    Fracking supporter.

    She’s untrustworthy. Being left of Donald Trump doesn’t qualify as progressive, and you know it.

    • Hillary should have been a Republican, then she would have ‘No Trumped’ the current Republican nominee. Blurring Red-Blue politics in the US, is as alive and well as it is in the US.

      These trojan neolibs in left-leaning parties are a scourge on western democracy. It started with those ACT trojans Douglas, Prebble, Roger et al and their weaselly infiltration and sell-off of the very assets which underpin a functional socialist state.

      And before the “Right Bank” and “See-More” and “Trotter” jump in to defend the right of Nash and Shearer and Goff et al neolibs to co-exist in Labour, their presence and the acquiescence of the Labour hierarchy not to rescind their membership and expel them from the party will hold Labour back from being a true centrist workers’ party 2017 and into the future.

      I’m sick to the back teeth of Labour pussy-footing around Labour politicians who hang on in the left-wing Labour party and hold anti-worker and anti-socially responsible government policies. And no, it’s not an option these days to be a neoliberal AND in Labour.

      Let all the Labour neolibs resign (or be booted out), then form their own Labour-Liberal Party and contest the election as centrist neolibs. Sitting inside the Labour tent and holding treasonous, anti-worker, anti-social-safety-net sentiments and viewpoints is treason at best and hypocritical self-interest at worst.

      Bye bye Labour neolibs, don’t let the red door hit you all on the backside as you leave!

      If your neoliberal beliefs are as shit-hot as you think they are – put them to the acid-test and leave Labour! Have some guts in your beliefs, but I think that deep-down, you all know how you will be treated by the 2017 electorates. A distant last behind Colin Craig.

      • You are right, Wha’ Left. They would be punished by the electorate, just as a Far-Left-leaning faction would be annihilated if they left the tent (viz Mana). As with the agreement between Labour and the Greens to operate in a coordinated manner, the better plan will be for the pro and anti trade factions, the incrementalists and the applecart revolutionaries to find out what they can agree on then accept the compromises between their positions necessary to actually achieve progress (with a big or a little P).

        If the Labour-Greens can’t aspire to becoming a Big Tent party conurbation, there is literally no hope of game-change (short of the 2nd Amendment guys stepping in, and that might be the wrong kind of change, I’m guessing).

  4. “Only the most extreme denizens of the Far Right would dispute that Roosevelt’s “New Deal” rescued American capitalism from the looming political consequences of the Great Depression. Certainly, that remains the firm judgement of practically all American socialists. Indeed, the great tragedy of American socialism is that the progressive movement (almost always in the guise of the Democratic Party) has unfailingly stepped up to defuse those economic and social bombs which, left undefused, might so easily have exploded into revolution.”

    Clinton ‘democracy’ is akin to Blairite Labour; both are liberalism not labourism. They reject unions and celebrate individual rights over labour rights. They reject ‘society and cut back welfare rights. Both make their peace not only with capitalism, but with neo-liberalism.
    The ‘social democrat’ who plays a role today in defusing “economic and social bombs’ is Sanders, who while committed to capitalism wants to end neo-liberalism.
    But neo-liberalism is what capitalism looks like today, crisis ridden and warmongering.
    Those who reject Clinton liberalism and Trump populism are correct. They are two faces of US imperialism.
    Voting for Clinton or Trump means many millions will die in wars and climate collapse.
    There is no progressive choice other than that of capitalism vs socialism.
    In this situation the only way forward is for voters to become political activists and take the struggle to the workplaces, squares and streets for a political revolution that drives a social revolution for survival.

  5. Why oh why are you so desperate to ignore empire USA? Why are you happy to dismiss the role h.r.c has played in that empire? Do I need to remind you that the neo-liberalism and clinton are really hard to separate?

    trump is a fascist – for many that is a given – so no h.r.c is not in the same camp – but…

    Why do we have to accept the next worst thing? Why should we accept the same economics and politics which brought us to trump in the first place? Why should we support the same people representing the same economic and political interest which created this mess?

    Is it really about h.r.c or is she just the face of the rubbish we have had to suffer through? Is she just the person who gets to front this nightmare, of empire, economic and social oppression in a world warring with itself?

    I think Chris people want better, they want hope which is real, they want a better world. Not a person who represents all the ills of the past. Because at the end of the day, one thing you can never forget about politics is the power of perception – and h.r.c. is perceived to be more of the same crap…

  8. Needless to say, well said, Chris.
    I wonder if anyone is listening. It is so much easier and less risky to express impotent, unbridled gnostic rage that to chance the disapprobation or scorn of your brothers in voicing a cautious optimism.

  9. Her husband is a Rhodes Scholar , right?

    Are you aware of what ‘ other ‘ training Rhodes scholars get???

    If not…here’s a clue… they are globalists.

    You understand just what globalists are all about , Chris?

    I’m sure you do… more than anyone . Whether you say it out loud is another issue.

    That’s why Clinton and Trump are both equally as bad choices – but for very , very different reasons.

    And yes so was FDR among that number.

    Despite the ‘ NEW DEAL’ .

    Perhaps we should take this right back to when Woodrow Wilson signed an act to legitimize the so called Federal Reserve Bank … which was owned by none other than the English Rothchild’s banking group.

    And stop all this factional nonsense your continually writing about.

    Never thought I’d see the day when I had to say such a thing to Chris Trotter. But its wearing thin, now.

    • RIGHTON WILD K,ATIPO,

      ALL CLINTONS LIKE KEY’S LOT ATTEND BILDERBERG GROUP SECRET MEETINGS TO OVERTHROW THE WORKLD AND RULT WITH THE ONE WOLD GOVERNMENT, WHY DONT THEY NALL KNOW THIS ALREADY?
      OH THAT’S BECAUSE THEIR SHOULDER BUDDIES THERE OWN THE GLOBAL MEDIA!!!

      SO WE HAVE TO SEE MASSIVE MOB ROITS AT THESE TOXIC BILDERBERG MEETINGS .

  10. ‘How has the woman who campaigned for George McGovern – the most radical presidential candidate in recent American history – been so egregiously defamed?’

    Chris, your narrative would be Hilarious if the situation were not so serious. Hilary Clinton stands for lies, hypocrisy, and brutality.

    Here is a report of the physical assault on Ray McGovern at a Hilary Clinton event, and which Hilary Clinton sanctioned.

    http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php/home-mainmenu-289/6985-dont-turn-your-back-on-hillary-clinton-or-how-ray-mcgovern-evoked-hypocrisy-in-real-time

    And a video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkm-ynCxjLw

    As for the other stuff, well, Roosevelt allowed (facilitated) American workers to be exploited by profiteers -just examine the way workers and their families were treated during the construction of the Hoover Dam -hundreds dead or their health ruined whilst corporations made huge profits. The ‘New Deal’ was more propaganda than substance. It was war that ‘kick-started’ the US economy.

    Fast forward to Bill Clinton, under whose guidance the Glass-Steagall was repealed, facilitating all sorts of financial shenanigans by Wall Street crooks, and ultimately resulting in the worldwide financial mess we are in today: okay, we cannot attribute that to Hi-Liar as such, she and Bill do occupy the same bed, politically and literally. And don’t forget that under Bill the Iraqi populace suffered horribly, and around 500,000 Iraqi children died because of US sanctions, including medical aid and food, all because the US puppet and recipient of money and weapons would not play the US game any longer.

    I think we should also include in Bill Clinton’s war crimes the use of depleted uranium )which highly radioactive despite its name) in what had been Yugoslavia.

    As for Afghanistan, well anyone with a brain knows the reason the US had invade was because the Taliban would not agree to a US-backed pipeline through the country (not forgetting that the US had backed Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden 20 years before) and also the Taliban had decimated the opium trade that the CIA was so dependent on for money-laundering and keeping the US populace supplied. (Note that soon after US occupation poppy production reached new record highs.) Nothing to do with 9/11, of course.

    So when Hi-Liar gets installed into the position of Secretary of State we see her trip off the Myanmar and orchestrate the looting of that country by Chevron. We see Gaddafi murdered for daring to set up a [non-Rothschild] African bank and starting to lift Libyans out of poverty: that really was as unacceptable and Saddam Hussein trading oil in Eros instead of US dollars.

    The US attempt to destabilise Syria didn’t go according to plan, partly because Russia provided radar cover that prevented a sneaky air attack, so the faux Democrats began supplying money and weapons to ‘friendly terrorists’.

    Next comes the destabilisation of Ukraine via Clinton and Nuland: Biden’s family were very keen to get the drilling equipment set up and start fracking for a quick profit. Needless to say, Clinton-Nuland needed to get rid of any kind of democratic process and get their puppet -the ‘Chocolate King’- installed as virtual dictator. When the US-installed puppet declared that Russian-speaking people in the eastern regions were no longer permitted to speak Russian they revolted. The Chocolate King sent in the military to kill civilians and retake the coal mines and factories, but the people of the eastern Ukraine resisted and beat back the ‘Nazis’ (not forgetting that many Ukrainians in the western region fought alongside the Nazis in WW2).

    Meanwhile, the people of Crimea organised a ballot and decided to rejoin Russia. Wrong answer as far as the faux Democrats in the US were concerned, so the ‘champions of freedom and democracy’ declared the ballot invalid, declared that “Putin had invaded Crimea” and prepared a plan for a naval invasion of Crimea to retake it for the fascists.

    Putin was too smart for the idiotic Americans, of course, and, at the invitation of the people of Crimea, provided a missile defence screen so formidable the American ships did a quick U-turn and left the area as fast as possible.

    Not content with having broken the Reagan-Gorbachev deal of dissolution of the USSR on the basis of no movement of BATO eastwards, the neocon (fascist) Americans start installing missile systems right on Russia’s doorstep and send offensive military units into the Baltic States.

    At the same time the American maniacs proceed with their ‘pivot to Asia’ strategy and start sabre-rattling with respect to China.

    If the Americans (and here we are talking about the faux Democrats) think they are going to take on a revitalised Russia and a resurgent China militarily and win they are ‘f***ing nuts!

    However, there is plenty of evidence that Hi-Liar is f***ing nuts. And definitely a self-serving liar and war criminal.

    That’s why so many people cannot stand Hillary and are very fearful of her becoming POTUS.

    • afewknowthetruth: “….prepared a plan for a naval invasion of Crimea to retake it for the fascists.

      Putin was too smart for the idiotic Americans, of course, and, at the invitation of the people of Crimea, provided a missile defence screen so formidable the American ships did a quick U-turn and left the area as fast as possible.”

      That’s very interesting. Today I was discussing with a family member this part of your comment. Because we have family connections to the Ukraine, we followed events there very closely. Neither of us can recall any reportage of a proposed, or abortive, naval invasion of the Crimea by the US or NATO after the Crimea voted to rejoin Russia and annexation was complete.

      We are aware, however, that a series of subsequently abandoned construction projects in the Crimea made it abundantly clear that Washington did expect to be establishing a permanent base there in the very near future. The Crimeans themselves, though, had other ideas about that, and seized the opportunity to decamp from the Ukraine. Third attempt since independence in the early 90s: this time, they made sure that it happened.

      If you’ve got any links to the invasion story, we’d love to see them.

      • D’essterre; Russian Superior Military.

        From Voltairenet.org regarding Russia’s ability to block and shut down enemy communications and deployment of their weapon systems within a radius of 300km without
        affecting their own.

        This buzzing of US warship in Baltic sea is another similar op that happened in the Black sea after the
        annex of Crimea because US warship was steaming ahead to intimidate them.(try to)
        Ship fled to nearest safe port!!

        This information ( posted below ) has NOT been acknowledged by any MSM, including RT.
        This is why http://www.voltairenet.org is such an important site. Comes from France. Only a few postings/month.
        It posted months before the Syria ceasefire happened with its signing in Geneva.

        http://www.voltairenet.org/article189043.html

        The Black sea incident.
        http://www.voltairenet.org/article185860.html

        Now compare the coverage of this latest incident between Infowars and BBC.
        http://www.infowars.com/us-navy-ship-encounters-aggressive-russian-aircraft-in-baltic-sea/
        http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36039703 (no audio)
        Note ‘flying aggressively’ means in full attack mode even though they would see that the jets were
        not armed with missiles. (same as Black sea)
        Then to have a helicopter circle the ship 12 times means they are being taunted and laughed at.

        Note; Prime and TV3 news covered this but TV1 didn’t bother!!!

        Cheers.

  12. What a load of bollocks. It is not only the right wingers that don’t trust Hillary. I’m a lefty and can’t understand why anyone would trust her. She started out a long time ago with lofty ideals but her long track record shows she has sold out over time and is now ” totally damaged goods”. Are you on the Democrats payroll now Chris?

    • The New Deal was progressive by US standards. remember that this is a country where state funded health such as we have here would be viewed as hardcore communism. The Yanks would rather spend a trillion tax dollars on a hopeless war in the Middle East rather than on their own people. Military adventurism is considered more “American “than feeding their own people or providing lifesaving healthcare.

      So in that respect, the New Deal was progressive, for them.

  16. Thus far, the commenters are proving your point Chris. 🙂

    I liked the comparison with Helen Clark – albeit on a greater scale. Very apt. Strong, bold women who don’t suffer fools gladly and who know how to play the political game as skillfully as their male counterparts seem to engender the worst kind of misogynist- like hatred in some people.

    Hilary Clinton is not without her downside, but the intense vitriol heaped on her from all sides seems to have a measure of hysterical insanity about it sometimes.

    • “I liked the comparison with Helen Clark – albeit on a greater scale.’

      dunno what clark would think of that comparison – which does set a new benchmark in damming with faint praise..

  17. Thus far, the commenters are proving your point Chris. 🙂

    I liked the comparison with Helen Clark – albeit on a greater scale. Very apt. Strong, bold women who don’t suffer fools gladly and who know how to play the political game as skillfully as their male counterparts seem to engender the worst kind of misogynist-like hatred in some people.

    Hillary Clinton is not without her downside, but the intense vitriol heaped on her from all sides seems to have a measure of hysterical insanity about it sometimes.

  18. Sometimes I get this bizarre notion that someone’s actually kidnapped Chris and replaced him with Josie Pagani.

    • Josie Pagani and Chris Trotter had “intellectual intercourse”, and the result of it is this post, I presume. Make love and throw off your principles, seems to be the motto.

  21. bloody hell..!..that one was a toe-curler..

    a couple of questions: (it’s ok..!..i know you don’t answer them/criticism..they are more for the readers..)

    but first..such a laundering of clinton – you deserve a special persil-award…you really tried to get out those stubborn stains..didn’t you..?

    .and you defend the overthrowing of gaddaffi..?..

    (did you at the time..?..were you one of those local ‘lefties’ who swallowed the cia-kool-ade and wrung yr hands and said ‘something must be done!’ (about him/gaddaffi..?..was that you..?..going by your words here – i wd say that is/was the case..eh..?..and going by your words here you clearly haven’t done the rethink obama has done..)

    do you know that obama had a one-word answer to the question ‘any regrets?’..?..the answer was ‘libya’..

    (didn’t you get the memo..?..)

    and for your further education can i suggest you take a glance at an organisation called the clinton-foundation..?..(should be named the clinton laundromat..)

    and apart from so much more – you can wonder at the financial relationships between that foundation and those (supposed ‘liberal’) journalists who were the foot-soldiers in that relentless media-war of disinformation/attrition against sanders..

    ..and i guess your defence of the neoliberal bill clinton regime fits with yr relentless pimping of the clark neoliberal regime..eh..?

    ..all those years you said nothing in support of the poorest/sickest who clark demonised/fucked over..eh..?..

    (you and russell brown..another relentless apologist/acceptable-gatekeeper for clark and her works..)

    ..all those years you worked for that rightwing-rag..eh..?

    ..what is funny is that you self-regard as a ‘progressive’..eh..?

    ..yeah..nah..eh..?

    ..in your lifestyle (‘i hate vegetarians!’) and your long history of defending the (neoliberal) indefensible…right up to this piece..

    ..mark you out as a blairite-reactionary..

    ..the progressive caravan has long moved on..eh..?

    ..and those ‘millennials’ you seem so scared of/constantly attack/demonise are the true progressives..

    ..and that is as it should be..it is their futures..not yours..

    ..and your grumbles from the porch are just that..

    ..background noise..that means very little..

    ..and yes..i have argued that those saying clinton/trump ‘are the same’ are simplistic-fools…

    ..and however deeply corrupt clinton undoubtedly is – she is a lesser evil that the barking-mad orange-man..and so should be voted for for only that reason..(and for the policy-gains/reform bernie has won..)..but certainly not for her..

    ..but f.f.s..!..look at her thru realistic eyes..eh..?

    ..she is a deeply corrupt warmonger who is owned/bought by so many special-interests you can’t see her for brand-labels..

    ..and to call her ‘progressive’ is a sick joke…

    ..and seriously..!..what is it with you and ‘millennials’..?

    ..did one of them say something not very nice about you one time..?

    ..your constant harrumphing at them is nothing but a colonel-blimp impersonation..

    ..and does you no favours..

    (and funny historical-fact – during the years bill clinton was governor of arkansas..arkansas was the main entry-point for the cocaine brought into america…flown in small planes into private/rural/remote airfields…

    ..and all protected by the local powers-that-be…)

  22. Yawn. Take up gardening, Mr Trotter. It’s getting embarrassing. Of course there are differences between Clinton and Trump, but both could lead us to war. Clinton would do it deliberately and Trump would blunder into it.

    • http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=201811871

      five minutes into this audio from Radio NZ today Hillary Clinton is repeated her statement at her Economic speech yesterday that she will reject TPPA and put a new Trade watchdog in place to stop these “rosy deal that falsely state they are good for our country.”

      Worth listening to also please you architects of TPPA SS Joyce & shonkey?

  23. Ovicula: “Yawn”

    Ha! Couldn’t agree more.

    “…both could lead us to war. Clinton would do it deliberately and Trump would blunder into it.”

    I agree about Clinton, but not about Trump. You wouldn’t know it from hysterical US media reporting, but his approach to Russia and China is much more nuanced. Of course, there’s always the risk that, were he POTUS, his foreign policy advisors might turn out to be neocon hawks like Clinton.

  24. Maybe Chris should read the book by Dinesh D’sousa, “Hillary’s America”
    Hillary is obsessed by money and she dosnt care how she gets it. Bernie Saunders is reputed to be quite stretched for money before his bid for election, now he is buying his 3rd house for US $600,000. his origional intention was good but the Clinton machine waved him away ,he gained but his followers were betrayed,Clinton dosnt only make money but enemies as well.
    Chris maybe likes to be contrary to get attention,even Frank Macasy has’nt put his agreement in as he usually does.

    • sorry to spoil yr anti-sanders fairy-tale/bullshit..

      ..but the ‘3rd house’ (the other two are in his home-town and in washington..what decadence..!..eh..?..)

      ..that ‘3rd house’ is a modest holiday-home to be used by his extended-family in a modest lakeside holiday community..in a region of 200 lakes..

      ..and was paid for by his wife selling another holiday-home she inherited from her mother…

      see what i mean elle..?…complete and utter bullshit from you..eh..?

      • Oh dear a Sanders supporter who got let down ,heh Mr Ure.
        He let his supporters down ,and walked away, I dont think he left empty handed . He endorsed Hillary Clinton WHY!
        According to reports he is now quite wealthy.Sanders is hiding out,
        he did a great job on the campaign trail only to cave in because Democrats rigged the vote against him. Only an opportunist would endorse the one who cheated him.

  25. Comparatively Chris you are right.
    But that depends on what you are comparing her with.

    The Killary pre Sanders challenge, and the Faux changes in Killary lies since, yet if you were to believe them, some acknowledgement could be attributed.
    That is if you accept the whole fiasco of big money controlling. Sanders is a product of that system so his strongest platform is still only tinkering, with changes proposed having a temporary life expectancy in that toxic environment.

    Chris don’t fold to become mare accepted by the nasty Ayn Randite power holders.

    Killary is a criminal who by USA standards in many states, should have had a death sentence 100000……. times over.

  26. Wow! It looks universal. Mud certainly sticks!

    I guess we will find out who is right because, despite the cacophony of self-righteous outrage expressed above (and probably below), Hillary Clinton is going to win the US Presidential election. So we will see what sort of a president she will make. I certainly hope you all eventually have the grace to concede that she isn’t some puppet of the Tripartite Commission, should that prove to be the case. If she tries to sell the world to the Klingons I will gladly admit that my optimism was misplaced.

    But actually what is likely to happen in reality, is that the Right, with moral or even active support from people just like you, will do everything in their power to derail and defame whatever initiative may be taken by a new administration. You all know this to be true. As a result, the polarized,debilitating grid-lock that has Washington by the throat will continue. Many of you will say “amen to that” (or the secular version), but who profits from this atrophy – those who need government intervention, or vested financial interests of established advantage -? Talk about Hillary being a pawn of Wall Street and the corporate sector. How does it feel?

  27. “Unfortunately, this is not the sort of argument that sways Clinton’s younger critics in the slightest. Anyone who takes money from Goldman Sachs and their Wall Street partners-in-crime is obviously guilty beyond redemption.”

    This is my view, and the attempts by Mr Trotter to make Hillary more palatable to us, are in my view a bit mischievous.

    You cannot have a bit of corruption and say you do not mean to support corruption.

    When it comes to capitalism, there must at least be very firm, basic rules to keep a control on matters, i.e. chain it to principles, or it will simply rise and devour you. Ideally the neoliberal capitalist system must be overcome, as it does not solve the challenges and issues we face, which are threatening to destroy humanity or what is left of it for good, and the whole environment with it.

    Sadly in our largely urbanised developed world, most are not honestly in touch with nature and the basic this world is built on, so they increasingly fall for political, social, environmental and economic window dressing, it all being a bit more of the “politically correct” game that is played now.

    We introduce some rules for instance to stop investment in coal, but still use petroleum and gas to run cars, stuff like that. Or we show with putting stuff in a re-used plastic bag, but it is still made of plastic and all the goods we put in it are wrapped in plastic and other one way materials.

    We put a green sticker on an appliance and say, it uses a bit less of energy, so it is “environmentally friendly”. Maybe so, but that is just not going to be enough.

    Hillary Clinton stands for the capitalism with some social and environmental tweaks, but no fundamental change in the system, and that is why she is not principled enough. But she is not alone, most politicians, progressive or not, are made of the same. They all come and go along and change the rules, as they go along, and they often become turn coats.

    Her support for the war in Iraq is another thing I cannot forgive, as that was strongly supposed even by loyal allies of the US, who had a better understanding of the Middle East, e.g. some countries in Europe, who are at the doorstep to the region and have more experience with dealing with people in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and so forth.

    The US is a power that poses a threat, as it is a nation built on a part of the American continent, the northern part, and US Americans, including their leaders, tend to view the world from their continental large island, a bit like the Brits view Europe and the rest of the world from their island nation(s).

    That means they become somewhat arrogant, are detached and insular minded, and lack understanding of the rest of the world. This shows again and again in decisions made by US governments, full of mistakes, of errors, miscalculations and lacking sensitivity.

    Obama made mistakes, has offered little solutions to the crisis in the Middle East and also just maintains a status quo. He did not close Guantanamo, did not bring peace to Palestine and Israel, did not abolish poverty and diseases in poor countries, and has become another one, who promised stuff but kept little or none.

    Hillary will be the same, and the election choices in the US are one between the plague and cholera, that is Trump or Clinton. The money and business lobbies dominate the scene and will determine who has a chance to become president, and who will president, with the complicit corporate media there.

    An outsider has a shit show, so why do we bother discussing all this nonsense about Clinton, Trump and so, it will only marginally affect us here Down Under, and in that case not in a much beneficial way.

    No way can I settle for Hillary and consider her a progressive that will bring positive, essentially constructive, radical change, as it is Wall Street, the Pentagon, the CIA, Homeland Security and the elite business sector, that will run the show under her, basta!

    • Mike in Auckland: ” why do we bother discussing all this nonsense about Clinton, Trump and so, it will only marginally affect us here Down Under, and in that case not in a much beneficial way.”

      Those of us who want peace in the western Pacific and in eastern Europe better hope she isn’t elected. She’s been ramping up the cold war rhetoric to a disturbing degree; any move to a hot war will affect us all, one way or another.

    • FFS, these typos keep happening!

      The paragraph above, covering this, should read:
      “Her support for the war in Iraq is another thing I cannot forgive, as that was strongly OPPOSED even by loyal allies of the US, who had a better understanding of the Middle East, e.g. some countries in Europe, who are at the doorstep to the region and have more experience with dealing with people in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and so forth.”

      My browser causes some typos, due to wrongly applied “auto correct”, I suppose, sorry for the flawed text first posted, sorry for some other minor typos.

    • Fortunately, Mike, it matters not whether you think of her as progressive or not. What matters is what she does in office.

      American is huge and powerful and their interests only coincide with ours by coincidence or by exceptional and exceedingly rare internationalist vision on the part of those who administer that nation. And that is true whoever is in power.

      Anyone who opines in the belief that a “good” president (from the “Occupy” point of view) will one day come to power and save us all are in some sort of La-La world, where a first coming of this sort is mixed up with another kind of Second Coming.

      So Hillary is a politician, hopes to achieve high office and doesn’t want to blow it on some Quixotic gesture and consequentially makes some calls that are somewhat calculating, given that she isn’t in that fortunate position. Well whoopdidoo! Good spot.

      She promised to tax the rich more. As good as her word, she has already started by extracting large sums from them to hear her speak. That sounds like a win to me. A bit of voluntary confiscation.

      Once in power, should she have the Senate, there are attainable reforms that might be enacted, if she has a progressive agenda. So watch out for them and be happy when they come. There are few enough wins. Think legalization for undocumented immigrants; liberal appointments to the Supreme Court and thus some rationality to the 2nd Amendment regulations; maybe a re-think of foreign policy. These things are all good and worthwhile, especially to Americans, but perhaps not so much to zealous armchair “socialists” in our midst. But why let small gains get in the way of inflamed passions.

      Beyond that there are two obvious observations.

      First: if Hillary is such a patsy for the Neo-Libs, why has the fiscal and social Right moved Heaven and Earth to promote an endless series of largely bogus scandals to attempt to destroy her credibility (with some success as we all can attest from this endless series of me-tooist postings here).

      Second: if Bernie had come to power, or some other national socialist,(don’t worry, I didn’t capitalize the title, I just meant non-globalist, build-it-at-homers), keen to pull back behind the national borders, how would that look for Kiwi job prospects? When the world gives up on international trade (except a race to the bottom on commodity prices) who do you think is going to suffer the worst?

      You better hope that Hillary is more in favour of some form of international trade than she tells her electorate or we may have to look forward to a future as apron-string suppliers to a China with wants but little concept of responsibility.

      • Nick: “….if Hillary is such a patsy for the Neo-Libs, why has the fiscal and social Right moved Heaven and Earth to promote an endless series of largely bogus scandals to attempt to destroy her credibility….”

        She’s not a neolib, she’s a neocon and a hawk. Critique of her has come from across the political spectrum. The scandals aren’t bogus; investigative journalists doing their job have uncovered them. This does the voters a service: at least they know the measure of the person who wants their vote.

      • Fortunately for who, Nick? By actual definition, *and* in American politics she is not (and has *never* been,) a ‘progressive’. Progressives look more like Green Party candidates in America, – same as here actually. Hillary is defined as a ‘Neo-Conservative’ or a ‘Liberal’ by Democrats and Republicans. Progressives call her ‘a Republican in Democrat’s clothing.’

        SO, if the American Greens ever managed to get into power their interests would never coincide with ours? You’re barking up the wrong tree there completely, – the ones whose interests don’t coincide with ours are Hillary’s corporate donors, not the entire political body.
        To be fair, I don’t believe the majority of Democrats or Republicans interests follow ours either, but they are also firmly controlled by the same (or similar,) corporate donors, and while they dominate American politics through a broken two-party system, they by no means represent the entirety of the American political spectrum. You are immensely foolish to say so.

        As for the next few paragraphs, there are a lot of ‘ifs’ involved in your ‘policy promises’ narrative, about a woman I wouldn’t trust even if my life depended on it. (And guess what? It very well could someday.) Even Obama didn’t deliver on most of his. (How is that No New Nuclear weapons policy promise working out, hm?) And I’m sorry, but ‘good as her word?’, ‘extracting large sums from the rich?’ What the hell is wrong with you? The Clinton’s ARE 1%er’s One of the few things that would vastly help to fix fiscal inequality between rich and poor in America, would be to re-instate the ‘Glass-Steagall Act. Which Clinton absolutely refuses to do, seeing as she views it as a success of her husband’s tenure in the White House.

        As for your observations
        1) You do realize fiscal and social Republicans are also funding, voting and advocating for her, do you not? The Bushes, the Koch brothers – does any of this ring a bell?

        2) Actually, no-one can fully estimate in this with our own elections just around the corner, but I honestly can’t see how it’d make things *worse* for us than Clinton’s leadership would, – seeing as the very reforms he was proposing are so close to our own current structure. I daresay it would have improved our trade – and if it did not, would that not lay at the feet of our own Govt. for not navigating properly advantageous trade deals, without the ludicrous corporate strings involved in ‘trade deals’ (re; Foreign corporate restriction and regulation of governments) like the TPPA? (Which incidentally, Sander’s was completely against from the start. Hillary however, had to be heavily pressured by her voters to change her mind on this issue.)

        I seriously question your comments and views here, Nick…

        • Oh god! I hope your questioning of my views is just hyperbole. I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if you don’t agree with me, Tara.

          Sorry about the Neo-con vs Neo lib thing. My bad. And the Progressive vs Liberal thing just makes it worse! My terrible.

          What matters is that the Greens have about as much chance of winning an election in the States – or here, for that matter – as who – you? And I have no doubt that should they be lucky , and I use the word advisedly, enough to win, I have my doubts if the world would be turned into some sort of paradise. People in general have a cantankerous tendency to to go their own way and are notoriously hard to herd.

          Whatever the appropriate terminology, my point was: back here in the real world, “scandals” like Benghazi, Private Email-gate, Speeches-to-Wealth-Audiences-gate, Pay-For-Play-gate, Vote for the Iraq Intervention (WMD-gate) etc are largely bullshit scandals.

          My second point is that social advances (failure examples notably include the Russian Revolution or the Great Leap Forward) are almost always achieved incrementally and by consensus, which take both time and intelligence. To advance the needle you have to have someone actually in power who is disposed to introduce changes. Hillary may or may not be such a President.

          I choose to believe she will prove to be such a one. You may disagree. We shall see. But to militate against her because she is moderate by comparison with your good self is – forgive me – an insufficient argument to convince me.

  29. “Why do even New Zealanders who identify as “left-wing” claim to see no meaningful difference between Clinton and her Republican rival, Donald Trump?”

    Really? Who are these people? This sounds like a straw man argument.

    Just because people don’t see Clinton as “progressive” doesn’t mean they see her as the same as Trump. For starters Trump doesn’t fit in the usual US political spectrum. It is better to compare Clinton with Obama and George W. Bush. For many on the left they found the actuality of President Obama as being considerably to the right of Obama the campaigning candidate and remarkably similar to President G. W. Bush (though better at public speaking). They see Clinton as being very similar to President Obama and possibly fractionally keener on war and cosier with big money. Some of the disappointment the left had in Obama is being visited on Clinton.

    “For nearly quarter-of-a-century she has been the target of an unrelenting campaign of false accusations, scurrilous rumours and outright lies.” While this is correct (and you can say the same about the anti-EU campaign in the UK over the last 40 odd years), it doesn’t mean she is any more “progressive” than Obama. On the other hand there is a much greater gap between Clinton and Sanders in terms of policy, and I’m sure we will see that now Sanders has dropped out, any idea that she will adopt any of Sander’s policies will also disappear — time will tell.

    I think the left in America has changed. 30-40 years ago the “left” in America was similar to the right in NZ. The Democrats were like our National Party, with the Republicans a bit to right of that. Since 2008 some Americans have rediscovered socialism, something that has been absent in America since the early 1920s. But the Democratic Party is not part of that rediscovery and neither is Clinton. The common description of Democrats and Republicans as Tweedledum and Tweedledee is not an accident.

    The idea that the “new left” / “progressives” Americans are all Millennials doesn’t bare close analysis and probably meant as slur. The most vocal ones I know are parents of Millennials.

    I think you will find that the Security Council authorised a no-fly zone in Libya and not bombing. Russia in particular was very angry that the SC vote was re-intrepreted as a vote to bomb. Hence they have prevented a similar vote for Syria.

  30. Chris Trotter may I ask you a simple question?

    Should neoliberals be told to leave the Labour Party to peddle their misery as independents, or in their own party?

      • That’s a bit below the belt asking these sorts of questions!!

        People have every right to keep certain things private and confidential. I wouldn’t go around telling people my net worth, or my inside leg measurement. You expect too much in the name of freedom of speech.

        I think these questions are a form of bullying and this whole string of questioning of Mr Trotter’s political views about the current state of neoliberalism within the 2016 Labour Party is obscene.

        We are not allowed to show ourselves voting on Election Day, or tweeting or Facebooking about voting, so why should Mr Trotter divulge views about Labour?

  31. I dont know what Chris Trotter has been drinking but I am beginning to think that he belongs on some other Blog site. Whale Oil, perhaps?

  32. This is Hillary’s challenge, and despite of the MSM misinformation, she is not having an easy run at all:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibuwnh1IZe4

    Watch towards the second half and end of the video, ignore the idiots talking first, and see the rest by Trump, he is a serious challenge, talking about America First.

    • That is left of ISIS, but there is more to it, it shows the brutality of the warring factions we are dealing with and prepare for WW3, all others that disagree, you live in damned lala land, we are screwed, for sure.

Comments are closed.