Dutton's nuclear vapourware

Everyone knows how it goes, as things get a bit older, they…

Ukraine, Continued Aid, and the Prevailing Logic of…

War always commands its own appeal. It has its own frazzled laurels,…

Illawarra offshore wind zone declaration good news for…

Friends of the Earth Australia Media Release Today the federal government officially declared…

Why bet on a loser? Australia’s dangerous gamble…

By Michael Williss A fresh warning that the US will lose a war…

The Potential Labor Landslide...

I once wrote that the Liberals would be releasing their policies closer…

"Hungary is our Israel”: Tony Abbott and Orbán’s…

It was announced in late in 2023 that Tony Abbott was to…

Mongrels

By Bert Hetebry We are the mongrels Underneath the table, Fighting for the leavings Tearing us…

Diamonds and Cold Dust: Slaughter at Nuseirat

The ashes had barely settled on a Rafah tent camp incinerated by…

«
»
Facebook

Give Clinton (and Gillard!) a break!

Image from heraldsun.com.au

Image from heraldsun.com.au

Next time I hear someone say ‘Clinton and Trump are both terrible candidates’, or some variation on this theme, I will scream. Part of the reason I find this statement so annoying, so unhelpful, and so unfair to Clinton, is because I still have post-traumatic stress after seeing the same thing happen to Gillard, when she was painted as falsely-equivalent to Abbott.

As a female leader or candidate, and as a progressive, there is a double layer of expectation. That expectation is that you are P-E-R-F-E-C-T in every way. So, for instance, if you, like Gillard, roll out over 300 pieces of perfectly legitimate, progressive and good-for-society policies and legislation, but there are one, two, maybe three things that you did which many progressives don’t agree with, you’re DEAD TO THEM.

For Gillard, it was one of her decisions about asylum seekers, a change to single-parent welfare and/or opposition to gay marriage which are the only policy decisions some progressives seem to talk about, remember, hold against her, and cause them to say Gillard is just as bad as Abbott. For Clinton, it’s her email scandal. Or her ties to Wall Street. Apparently there is no leeway to say ‘oh well, Clinton’s not the perfect progressive candidate’, or ‘Gillard’s not the perfect progressive Prime Minister’, but also to accept they are still a good progressive leader. And far preferable to their loony right-wing contender. For the ‘they’re dead to me’ crowd, there is no grey in the black-white judgement about whether either is a legitimate candidate or leader. No matter what policies Clinton puts forward, her quest to continue Obama’s legacy in most policy areas, and in some to improve them, is ignored. Her haters just focus on the areas where they don’t agree with her. It’s incredible how all the good policies, ideas, hard-work, commitment and leadership ability that Clinton and Gillard bring to the table, counts for nothing for some people.

There’s also the standard that ‘the woman did ok’ as long as she didn’t stuff up, such as many appraisals of Clinton’s debate performances. But for Trump, if he doesn’t stuff up, he’s the winner. The bar is just set lower for men.

Now, I’m not saying it’s all a female thing, but I am saying females have encountered this problem before. For example, the expectation that female news readers are immaculate, thin, covered in make-up and definitely should not have grey hair. But men? Anything goes really. And what about the fact that Australian women are increasingly working just as many hours as men, but are still, in most families, doing the vast bulk of child care and household chores? Is this just a woman’s lot? For our female politicians, is it just their lot to be judged to be perfect or terrible, with no continuum, no balanced perspective, nothing in between?

It’s impossible to ignore the gendered part of this equation. But there is also a ‘progressive versus conservative’ element. Put bluntly, most right-wing voters don’t give a crap about the policies right-wing candidates serve up, as long as they promise to reduce taxes. But for left-wingers, you’re not just expected to have a policy for every-occasion, pushing the boundaries of progress every second of the day, and also to know every detail of these thousands of policies, and how much they will cost, at a moment’s notice. When you try to explain policy details, you’re called ‘beige’ and ‘uninspiring’.

Progressive leaders are also meant to live up to the hugely unrealistic expectation that they’ll win elections without making friends with business interests, while competing against the war-chest of business interests funding the neoliberal candidate on the right. So, for instance, Clinton is evil because she’s had paid speaking gigs for Wall Street bankers. No matter that she’s vowed to close tax-loopholes which see billions lost in corporate tax-evasion. No matter that she’s made wealth inequality the centrepiece of her ‘stronger together’ narrative. Because a New York Senator low and behold has some rich Wall Street supporters backing her campaign, she’s DEAD to many progressives. Sad, isn’t it?

I adored Julia Gillard as Prime Minister, and still count her as my number one hero. I didn’t always agree with her, but I’m not naïve to think there will ever be a politician who I could possibly always agree with. It is so disappointing to now be watching Clinton, who, like Gillard, will never be perfect, but shouldn’t be expected to be, written off as ‘just as bad as Trump’. Comparing Gillard and Clinton to Abbott and Trump, for a progressive, is like comparing a slightly blemished apple with a rotten, maggot-filled orange. Those saying ‘Clinton and Trump are just as bad as each other’, apparently, would throw both pieces of fruit in the bin and go hungry in another act of counterproductive, Abbott-electing ridiculousness, rather than give Clinton, or Gillard, the credit they deserve.

I will be excited when Clinton is elected as the first female US President. I will be critical of her decisions when justified, and appreciative of her good work when justified. As it should be.

55 comments

Login here Register here
  1. Andreas Bimba

    Julia Gillard may deserve a break but not Hillary Clinton even if she is better than Trump. The U.S. is indeed faced with a choice between the lesser of two evils.

    If you want a continuation more or less of the Obama period then that is what Hillary Clinton will deliver, admittedly not nearly as bad as the appalling Republicans but still far away from where things should be. My main concern is with the millions in the U.S. that have lost jobs, and the hundreds of thousands that have lost homes and in many cases families due to free trade policy that Hillary will further entrench (she will sign TPP, TTIP, TISA and CETA despite the promises) and that her husband greatly accelerated with NAFTA.

    The corporate dictatorship and the dissolution of democracy will continue under Hillary and the concentration of wealth especially with Wall Street continues with Hillary. Bill Clinton repealed the Glass Steagall Act that let Wall Street create the conditions for the GFC that led to job losses and poverty for millions and tens of thousands of suicides. The Democratic Party remains far too close to the major corporations, to Wall Street, to a corrupt mass media and to all the lobbyists and vested interests. The corrupt Democrats and Hillary blocked the Bernie Sanders campaign even though he was the most popular and best presidential candidate of all, even better than Jill Stein.

  2. mark delmege

    I cant for the life of me understand why you would want to identify with this woman.

  3. olddavey

    Good stuff, Rollo.
    I must say I’m not a great fan of HC, but the alternative will be a disaster, not just for the US but probably for the whole world.
    It will be like having Duterte in charge of the red telephone!
    My main concern is that if Hilary’s polling gets too good that Democrat voters will assume she’s a shoo-in and not bother to vote.
    It really does say something good about our voting system – it’s very hard for a total f***wit to take control, although we did get close in 2013.

  4. olddavey

    @mark delmege
    I assume you identify with Trump.
    If so, I have a nice rock in my garden that you can live under, although it’s getting a bit crowded at the moment because of all the other RWNJs hanging around.

  5. bobrafto

    I’ve gone past looking at all the black holes inherent in Clinton and Trump and now I’m going with my feelings, and neither Clinton or Trump inspire me and I’m expecting the same crap of being governed by the corporations whoever wins.

  6. John L

    Gillard was very competent and didn’t deserve the crap dealt out to her by a viscious opposition. Clinton is a different kettle of fish. A warmonger of the first order with as much concern for the populace as a leech!

  7. nexusxyz

    Not a particularly insightful article. Ignoring Clinton’s well documented behaviour such as the destruction of Libya and the death of thousands to cite but one of her deeds is perversely myopic.

  8. Cliff

    Andreas Bimbo,

    I think that you should check your facts about Bill Clinton signing Bill to get rid of Glass Steagall act. At the time there was a Repub. Senate and Congress and although the President can normally veto a bill he cannot veto the bill if it passes in Congress and Senate with a veto proof majority which happened in this case.

  9. John Brame

    I was happy with Gillard and was disappointed the way she got a hammering from the media. Every time I had a look at the Australian (not often), she was being bashed. Clinton, no idea really, lesser of two weevils maybe. Bernie did turn around and endorse her, is that something positive ?

  10. Deanna Jones

    Whatever Clinton has done in the past the point I think Victoria is making still stands; that women in politics are judged more harshly no matter what they do. It’s also annoying that people keep referring to things her husband has done in order to discredit her.

  11. Jaq

    Sorry Victoria, but you are way off the mark. Gillard did not have the amount of blood on her hands that Clinton has. Add to that the unsavoury antics of her husband who cavorted with pedophiles and she still decideed to stick around, doesn’t do her any favours in my eyes.
    I am so sick of people backing Clinton because she is female, and if by chance you are female too and you don’t back her then you are letting the side down.Ar far as women being judged more harshly in politics, that might well be the case, as it is the case in every profession women take on, if it isn’t to do with “nurturing”. That’s just parr for the bloody course and needs to be addressed. However, when women politicians turn into someone like Margaret Thatcher- then being female hardly comes into it. Being a tyrant favours neither women or men.

  12. Arthur Tarry

    A fine article Victoria – it resonated with me all the way through. No nobody, certainly not a politician , is perfect but some are light years ahead of others.

  13. wam

    Great confession, Victoria. I too adored gillard whose strength of character was on show day after day for 3 years.
    Love you jaq,
    it is usual for men(fathers and husbands) and many of their women(daughters and wives) to bag women because of gender but you are sick of women and men who make a positive attribution to gender difference. Clinton is no michaelia cash or bishop or trump and America could do with a manless lady macbeth being king’.
    As for women turning into a Margaret Thatcher, I suppose you mean she was ‘manning up’? How demeaning she was absolutely thatcher from start to finish and so emphatically demonstrated how wrong the women and men, who believe women cannot be leaders, were.

    Gillard was every bit as powerful as Thatcher, but she had slimes like, rudd, fitzgibbon and the rabbott who got unbelievable media support to snipe, slash and burn.

    How significant would it be if the white world had theresa, angela and hillary?

  14. diannaart

    I also, have had a gutful of people placing Clinton on the same low bar as Trump. I also became very irritated when Bernie Saunders was placed as the “wacky” democrat outsider and also placed on the same bar as Trump.

    I have been critical of Gillard for the same reasons Victoria stated above, I would also posit that Gillard was a better PM than Clinton will be a president. However, the gulf of ability between Clinton and Trump has been in clear view throughout that interminable US election campaign. This should not be a difficult decision, Clinton with all her imperfections, is preferable to Trump. The toe fungus I had several years ago is preferable to Trump.

    The USA election of 2016 – not a difficult decision – but that would be boring for the MSM now wouldn’t it?

  15. stephentardrew

    Clinton is a real danger to the world.

    More of the same is not an option.

    We old unionists won’t fall for this crap.

    We know morality and decency as our fellow workers fall by the wayside as the doyens of war continue the destruction of the ecosphere and the lives of the low income, marginalised and poor.

    Capitalism and neoliberalism is a lie both left and right embrace. Capitalism has never paid for environmental externalities and look where we are today.

    It has nothing to do with gender.

    Get a life.

  16. Harquebus

    In my lifetime, there has not been a Prime Minister that I have not despised, Julia Gillard included. Of the rest, there are none that I feel are worthy of respect.
    Hillary Clinton, like her husband Bill, are criminals who abused their privileged positions to benefit themselves at others expense.

    “former Senate President Bernard Sansaricq, thinks it was the Clintons, not the Hiatian people, who benefitted most from the Foundation’s “charitable work” in Haiti.”
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-21/former-haitian-senate-president-says-clintons-are-common-thieves-who-should-be-jail

  17. OzHike

    To pull the gender card in defense of Clinton’s criminality does no service to equality. Trump is a buffoon to be sure. But to try and dismiss how corrupt Hillary is on the basis that it’s some sort of misogynist plot, shreds any sense of impartial journalism.
    P.S. I voted for Gillard. Not because she’s a woman. It was a merit based decision.

  18. Andrew McKenna

    Clinton’s record is proven. As a senator, she backed the bloodbath in Iraq. When she ran against Obama in 2008, she threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran. As Secretary of State, she colluded in the destruction of governments in Libya and Honduras and set in train the baiting of China.

    She has now pledged to support a No Fly Zone in Syria — a direct provocation for war with Russia.
    Without a shred of evidence, she has accused Russia of supporting Trump and hacking her emails. Released by WikiLeaks, these emails tell us that what Clinton says in private, in speeches to the rich and powerful, is the opposite of what she says in public.

  19. diannaart

    Stephentardrew, Harquebus, Ozhike, Andrew Mckenna et al…….

    Your misgivings about Clinton are duly noted.

    However, Hillary Clinton is the alternative to Trump, there is no other choice – I’m not sure this is getting through to you.

    Yes, Hillary Clinton IS imperfect, SHE married an imperfect man, SHE used a private email server (which EVERYONE else was doing at the time), SHE has made mistakes, but TRUMP IS TOE FUNGUS!

  20. Harquebus

    diannaart

    I hear you but, it’s either the buffoon or the war monger.

    “Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy is much scarier than Donald Trump’s, who does not want to go to war with Russia. #PeaceOffensive — Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) October 14, 2016”
    http://theantimedia.org/jill-stein-hillary-clintons-foreign-policy/

    “The conclusion from this second part of the second debate is that Hillary Clinton showed again her dangerous obsession against Russia and its allies, ignoring the fact that the US and their allies are responsible for the chaos in Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere.”
    http://failedevolution.blogspot.com.au/2016/10/stein-endless-war-led-to-failed-states.html

  21. Deanna Jones

    When the odd woman claws her way inside male-dominated power structures she still has to go along with the processes that have been set up by men, and that includes warmongering. There will be no radical changes while this is still the case and I’m surprised that people expect there to be.

  22. helvityni

    I wish Julia was still our PM, seeing Julie interviewed on Insiders, I pray that she never will be….

  23. Michael Taylor

    H’, you call Clinton a warmonger, but on almost every post on The AIMN you say that the planet needs to reduce its population. In that regards I would have thought you like the idea of wars. They are a sure way of reducing populations.

    But personally I don’t like them.

  24. John Brame

    Over $1000,000,000,000 a year is spent annually worldwide for military purposes. If we had leaders that would shift this money to humanitarian and environment purposes, we would go a big way to problems solved. Maybe we could bond together and confront the other big elephant, climate change.

  25. Harquebus

    Michael Taylor
    Population growth will lead to war. That is what I want to avoid.

    If we don’t depopulate voluntarily, war and/or famine will do it for us. (Re: Limits to Growth)
    There are also other things: Discouraging cigarette smoking and drinking alcohol, preventing car accidents and murder, modern medicine, sanitation etc. all contributing to human population growth the likes that our world has never seen before.

    Will Central Asia fight over water?
    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37755985

    Cheers.

  26. guest

    Harquebus,

    “it’s either the buffoon or the war monger”

    Trump’s attitude to others is appalling and I do not understand why anyone would support such a buffoon who has profited in a capitalist system which has created the disaffected and disenfranchised who now support him.

    If we see Hillary as a war-monger, let us also remember those US presidents who delivered war on Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria etc – and we in Oz followed them.

    As for Libya, remember Pan Am Flight 103 blown up over Lockerbie, 21 December 1988. Gaddafi denied involvement but paid compensation. One of his officials said Gaddafi gave the orders; Gaddafi denied it. The US took revenge, as it always does.

    So also, the US attacked Quaida in Afghanistan, even though the perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudis.

    Now here in Oz we are arming ourselves to the teeth with weapons which, by the time we receive them, will be redundant. Big Toys for Big Boys. Billions of dollars wasted, which could have retired debt and been spent on important matters of benefit to all citizens.

    I remember seeing Gillard being questioned on Q&A for an hour and answering the questions with utmost clarity and direct relevance. She was also questioned for hours in the TURC and no one laid a glove on her. Yet the presiding judge made irrelevant disparaging remarks about her in his biased report. I have seen Abbott questioned for 5 minutes and it was full of “death cults” and ignorance of essential technology. I have seen Turnbull questioned and he gave a lecture on “jobs and growth” and “agile innovation”. All I remember is the leather jacket.

    Let us not get too carried away with terms such as “buffoon” or “war monger”. They are terms used to stifle real discussion and are used whichever side of politics one supports. The devil is in the details.

  27. Mark Needham

    For Gods sake, it is now off topic, to say that both candidates are on the nose, and to identify as both being the same, just Bad.

    If the cap fits…..!
    Mark Needham
    PS. Just about the exact same position we are in, here in Australia. I mean, Nick Xenophon is starting to show as a “Better Leader” than Bill or Malcolm.

  28. diannaart

    Damn right, guest.

    I would prefer Hillary Clinton over any other Republican. Think about that – I was going to say ‘guys’, but it is just a coincidence the most vitriolic of the anti-HRC crowd are men, isn’t it? I am sure there are plenty of women who loath HRC as much as they do Trump – they’re just quiet is all…

    @Harquebus

    The links you posted are opinion pieces – they are not written in stone. They are good warnings about possible actions HRC may take, in no way do they prove Trump as preferred leader – if that is what you are doing. Is that what you want? A Trump Prez???

  29. Harquebus

    guest and diannaart
    I don’t want to see a major war which, I think Hillary Clinton will bring us. Anything else I think I can handle.
    Cheers.

  30. helvityni

    Yes guest, we are not shy about joining other peoples’ wars, I remember Abbot eagerly waiting for an invitation to join in one of them…Syria, Iraq…?
    We help to create refugees, but we are not so happy to let them in to this country.
    Waiting for Syrians, is taking longer than waiting for Godot; are they still coming?

    Mr Modern Man in a tight leather jacket has not been very innovative so far (a year), and Mr/Ms Jobson Growth has not been most agile either, where are the promised jobs?

  31. guest

    Mark Needham,

    It is not “off topic” to say both candidates in the US are “on the nose”. The question is: Why is one a buffoon and the other is a war monger?

    We need to look at the details, not speak in generalisations. So my short spiel, for example, tried to look at who might be a “buffoon” and who a “war monger”. And to support some comments made about the strength of Julia Gillard compared with Abbott and Turnbull as I see it. You might disagree, but at least look.

    As for Nick Zenophon, he is a conservative opportunist. He does not have to lead a large political party. Perhaps you might also think Pauline Hanson is a better political “leader” than Bill or Malcolm.

    My money is with Bill because, despite all the hoo-ha about how Malcolm was to be the saviour of the Coalition and all the propaganda of the conservative press and all the criticism of some of the Labor supporters and the machinations of the TURC – all of that – Bill lost the election by a whisker.

  32. diannaart

    Trump may well lose – and I hope he does, but we have more to fear and I don’t mean HRC, I mean Trumpism.

    The people who support Trump aren’t going away. They remain (quite understandably) aggrieved at the loss of manufacturing, off shore jobs, pathetic minimum wage and the feeling of impotence being felt by many people in the OECD countries.

    I fear the civil unrest that may add to the USA’s woes. Of course, Trump won’t be held to account – he won’t be president. The blame will fall on Hillary Rodham Clinton.

  33. Harquebus

    “The CIA wants him beaten. The Pentagon wants him beaten. The media wants him beaten. Even his own party wants him beaten. He is a threat to the rulers of the world – unlike Clinton who has left no doubt she is prepared to go to war with nuclear-armed Russia and China.”
    “If the winner is Clinton, a Greek chorus of witless commentators will celebrate her coronation as a great step forward for women. None will mention Clinton’s victims: the women of Syria, the women of Iraq, the women of Libya.”

    Inside The Invisible Government: John Pilger On War, Propaganda, Clinton And Trump

  34. Jexpat

    What I’ve learned this election cycle is that the Clinton camp- their surrogates and supporters will say or do anything, they will brazenly lie, make sh!t up out of thin air, gratuitously insult the progressive Democratic base, amp up McCarthyism and Red Scares, conceal information about their intentions on a wide range of public policy matters, from the massive corporate tax cuts they’ve been scheming about to gutting what meagre financial regulations are in place to their support for privitising public education.

    All of which they believe to be justified by “Look over there at that a$$hhole Donald Trump.”

    Who, btw., hasn’t had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning 270 electoral votes for well over a month- if ever.

  35. John

    “Hillary Clinton is the alternative to Trump, there is no other choice”

    Nonsense! Jill Stein stands head and shoulders above the alternatives.

  36. guest

    Harquebus,

    Pilger is always looking for the angle to flog. In this case, war and women. But as we know, no one has thought about women and war very much in the last century at least.

    Think of the women involved in WW1 and the ones left behind. Think of the civilians killed in every war from WW2 on. Think how long it took for “comfort” women to be recognised. Think how about how women have been treated in the armed forces. Think about women who have drowned on the way to Oz in leaky boats, or those on Manus and Nauru because they dared.

    So why pick on Clinton? I reject the cherry-picking assumed by commentators looking for controversial copy.

    To change the precise topic, see what Chris Kenny says about Nauru in the WE Australian.He has been to Nauru. Everything is fine. These critics, he claims, are racist for criticising Nauruans. This despite the criticism frpm UNHCR, Amnesty International, leaked reports and an ABC documentary. Oh, he says, they are all racist!

    Of course, he cannot say the same about Manus because even the PNG government says Manus is illegal and unconstitutional. Kenny and the Murdoch press cannot abide criticism.

    So we have Hillary threatening to “shirt-front” Putin (to coin a phrase) and there are those who jump up and down in Hillary’s case despite the experience of the Cold War, the downing of a plane in the UKraine and Russia’s interference in Syria. Why are the critics so surprised? What do they expect Clinton or Trump to say about defence, military or economic?

    And then the fear of China. We have that in our own Oz.. And of radical Islam, etc etc.

    Surely neither Clinton nor Trump will be the only people running the country.

  37. diannaart

    @John

    You may well be correct. If I was eligible I would certainly be voting for Jill Stein knowing full well a Greens candidate winning is as likely …. as Donald Trump having a sex change.

  38. Jexpat

    diannaart:

    I’m inclined to agree with Noam Chomsky’s ethics analysis here.

    In summary: vote for Stein if you live in a “safe” state because it sends a message to the Republican wing of th Democratic party that progressive issues shouldn’t be taken for granted- or more likely with the Clinton’s, spurned outright.. But if you live in a swing state, the balance of evils requires a vote for Clinton.

  39. Victoria Rollison

    I love it when the comments on my posts so accurately provide examples of just the type of useless ‘Hillary is just as bad’ garbage that I’m talking about. Most often from men too. Funny that.

  40. Michael Taylor

    I’ve noticed it too, Vic. But the same culprits have been saying the same thing on any post about American politics. The post could be about Trump, but they’re still quick to rush in with anything bad they can say about Hillary.

  41. Michael Taylor

    Hillary’s going to win in a landslide. That’ll give ’em something to whinge about. 🙂

  42. Jaq

    It shouldn’t make an iota of difference if the presidential candidate is male or female- having a black president certainly didn’t make a difference to black people in America. They are there to govern for the good of all, but for my money I agree with Harquebus. Clinton will be the push to war. What a shame we can on longer rely on journalists to give us the FACTS. We have truth as lies and lies as truth.And then just opinions based on those options. How wonderful
    Dam
    And by the way DAM I lived through the Thatcher years in England. Everyone then thought how wonderful to have a PM who was a woman- a woman who went to war in the Falklands because her family had financial interests there, who covered up the pedophile activities of her ministers and who brought miners to their knees. People are people. We need to leave the gender issue out of it.We may not have people who are perfect, but for God’s sake some transparency would be just peachy. Bernie was my pick. What a shame they did a number on him.If you think Clinton is going to be a better president just because she’s female then that is just pathetic. Wait and see how much she does for women’s rights if she gets in. A big fat ZERO.

  43. diannaart

    The politics of Margaret Thatcher were execrable, indeed she only got to be PM because she would not challenge the patriarchy.

    However.

    If I had to choose between Trump and Thatcher, I would choose Thatcher – far right conservative that she is, Thatcher is more evolved than toe fungus Trump.

  44. mark delmege

    Given the media coverage of this war – eh um election – I’m beginning to think Trump has a real chance.

    Its rare that the media pump a story so one sided and so hard and for so long – that I’m beginning to think the beltway aligned commentariat have got it wrong again.

    All we seem to get is Saddam has weapons – Syria is killing its own people – Gaddafi has to be stopped to prevent a bloodbath – Putin is the new Hitler – you get the picture – er um Trump – is so terrible that he has to be defeated.

    On and on it goes as if saying something will make it true.

    But nary a whisper of the real crimes committed by the Clinton – the destruction of Libya and Syria, the arming of terrorists and the flood of refugees into Europe (etc) – nothing zilch nada– its as if it never happened.

    But it did.

    It did Michael and Victoria and the consequences are catastrophic – but you don’t seem to have a problem with this. I don’t get that.

  45. Jexpat

    mark:

    The data shows otherwise:

    Here are three of the better known analysts, using various forms of poll aggregating:

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

    Sabato’s Crystal Ball

    Home

    Barring some extreme or extraordinary event, the presidential race is all but over.

    The problem lies with what are known in the US as “down ballot races.” Unlike Australians, Americans vote separately on the president at large- but at the same time, vote for state governors, federal and state senators and house or reps members, local politicians and what are called “ballot measures” (a form of direct democracy).

    Generally, in a presidential election there will be what are known at “coattails,” meaning that a popular presidential candidate will “sweep into office” many of the members of their own party down ballot, and we usually also see some percentage swing toward ballot measures favored by most members of one party or another.

    Strikingly, we aren’t seeing much of that- little in the way of coattails throughout the states, which is at least partially due to the fact that Clinton (and her surrogates and supporters) are viewed negatively- with very poor marks on measures of honesty and trustworthiness, by close to 2 out of 3 Americans- better than Trump, but still worse than any other presidential candidate since such records have been kept.

    Worse still, The Clinonites have had nearly nothing positive to say since the Democratic convention: the coverage has been dominated by Trump’s shellshockers -followed by attacks on Trump and also attacks on the progressive wing of the Democratic party. To the exckusion of most anything else.

    This doesn’t portend well for the overall outcomes in this election- nor the next one in 2018.

  46. John Brame

    If I was an american I would vote Jill Stein, give the buffoon and warmonger a wide berth.

  47. Mark Needham

    “My accomplishments as Secretary of State? Well, I’m glad you asked! My proudest accomplishment in which I take the most pride, mostly because of the opposition it faced early on, you know. the remnants of prior situations and mind-sets that were too narrowly focused in a manner whereby they may have overlooked the bigger picture, and we didn’t do that, and I’m proud of that. Very proud. I would say that’s A major accomplishment.”
    Gets my vote everytime, Hey!
    Mark Needham

  48. Gangey1959

    Victoria. Interesting read.
    Don’t compare Julia and Hilarity. They are chalk and cheese as national leaders, and their situations are totally different.
    Julia Gillard was one of Australia’s best Prime Ministers. She was elected on her own merits in 2010, and was decimated by the press before the 2013 election which led to an election loss to the alp. Enough said.
    Clinton is in another ballpark. She is trying to become america’s first woman president, and NO ONE knows if americans are ready for this, so she has to go out and WIN. So far, she has failed miserably. She has trotted out the same crap that the democrats trot out each 4 years when candidate X has to convince enough concerned voters that they are worth a try this time/again.
    Has she done so ? Who knows? If turniphead wasn’t the alternative, who gives a crap?
    Hilarity’s problem isn’t that she’s bent, or a clinton, or a spy, or whatever. Hillary’s problem is that SHE has to give the americans a good reason for voting for a woman, because they are americans and they are stupid, and she hasn’t been able to do that.
    Meanwhile donald turniphead, who is just another stupid american, with a brain the size of a pea and an ego the size of Mars, keeps coming up with enough stuff to keep the cameras on him, and enough not-quite-complete-garbage coming out of his mouth to keep lord voldemurdoch printing what he says up until november 8.
    Blend all of that together with the fact that septics don’t HAVE to vote, and if hilarity loses she can only blame herself, because I wouldn’t vote for turniphead if he had me at gunpoint, but SHE doesn’t have my vote either.

  49. diannaart

    She is trying to become america’s first woman president, and NO ONE knows if americans are ready for this, so she has to go out and WIN.

    HRC has a nerve doesn’t she? Trying to be first female president. How dare she! HRC should wait until everyone is ready for a female president. Woman does not know her place!

  50. Andreas Bimba

    Never forget it was Hillary Clinton and the corporate power centres that control the Democratic Party that blocked Bernie Sander’s presidential nomination.

    Women just as much as men should be very angry with this. The last forty years have seen the largest and most rapid wealth shift to the top 1% in human history and most do not even realise this although most of us sense something is wrong.

    Australia, the ‘little me’ of the United States is much the same with our Labor Party being a virtual clone of the U.S. Democratic Party and also offering us fraudulent neoliberal and monetarist economic policy but with better social policy than the truly appalling conservatives.

    I can understand why many in the U.S. will vote for Green Party candidate Jill Stein as she is the best by a long margin even though the system is stacked against third parties and I can also understand why many will vote for the human molotov cocktail because they have had enough of more of the same.

    FU establishment. FU corporate dictatorship via the duopoly.

    What could have been with Bernie Sanders:

  51. Andreas Bimba

    Cliffo in regard to Bill Clinton repealing the Glass Steagal Act, you are right that both the Senate and House passed legislation that repealed the act with such large majorities that Bill Clinton could not have prevented this.

    He could however have have refused to sign the appropriate bill as a protest but chose not too.

    What is most important however is why so many Democrats voted for this bill giving the necessary majority to enable bypassing the President’s authorisation and did he campaign against the bill within his own party? No he didn’t, he instead campaigned for it.

    FU Democratic Party and Republican Party.

    http://www.davemanuel.com/fact-check-did-bill-clinton-repeal-the-glass-steagall-act-120/

  52. mark delmege

    Its not hard to understand why labor liberals are so in luv with Clinton – given how Gillard gave her dodgy ‘foundation’ hundreds of millions. And most likely Clinton will be the next President – though how long she will last is anyones guess. Mind you given the rampant corruption and warmongering of that crime (Clinton) ‘family’ I kind hope Trump wins. Not because he would be a good or better President – but because he would shake thing things up and bring many of the contradictions of Empire to the fore. More of the same or worse under Clinton is not a good idea no matter how bad the alternative.

    The insider deep throat who has been supplying Wikileaks with emails has done us a favour. We get to see how these shady characters operate – not that the MSM are particularly forthcoming on the details – actually about all you will get from them are veiled hints and weasel words but those of us who look beyond that pile of muck get the picture.

    Once upon a time ABC 4Corners – we might have been hoped to shed some light on the ways of the world but that was rare and generally aimed at far softer targets – with punches pulled – as befitting a state broadcaster. But there are people out there telling it like it is. I’ll offer up one 23 minute video example.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page