And so it begins, or should I say continues, the demonization of Hillary Clinton and her husband, the ex-president Bill. Character assassination that in some quarters might be compared to gang rape in its viciousness and virulency.
It has transformed the nascent 2016 presidential selection process into a contest of Dems vs. Dems—Democrats vs. Demonizers.
The most recent attacks on her character center on financial gain at the alleged expense of independent and objective stewardship of the affairs of state while she was U.S. secretary of state. Outside of the Washington Beltway, I suspect these attacks are fodder for the 40% of the public who watch Fox News and despise her from the get-go while being balderdash to the 40% who view MSNBC and would support her even if she were a confirmed witch being burned at the stake.
My take on all this in my increasingly cynical mode is that all politicians play loose with the financial benefits that come across their desks when they are in or recently out of office. Of course they are trading on their influence. They have few other assets to market.
I’m not condoning influence peddling. But I am more concerned with policy. Where do candidates stand on issues.
Do they favor a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy? Or do they support onerous rules that make a decision difficult to reach and execute?
Do they favor extending the right to vote to as many qualified citizens as possible, or do they support rules that would place undue burdens on the young, the elderly, or the disadvantaged in the alleged interest of thwarting voter fraud when no such fraud has historically been proven?
Do they favor a higher minimum wage or do they believe in tricky down economics (that should be “trickle” down economics but Apple Pages self-corrected it to tricky down, which I thought was a nicely comical transposition)?
Do they accept the science of global warming and our need to slow its advance, or are they blind and deaf to the realities of climate change?
Do they accept evolution, or are they bound by Scripture in a belief the world is less than 6,000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs?
Do they believe government can be an instrument for good, or is it all evil, particularly agencies that help the poor, regulate drugs and food, civil rights and education?
I am in no way suggesting Hillary Clinton is a perfect candidate. But I trust her to appoint federal judges who would be progressive, not regressive. Based on the fact that during Bill’s and Barack’s presidencies the economy has been more robust than during Republican administrations, I trust her to oversee greater economic growth. Given the repressive actions in states controlled by GOP governors and state houses, I fear the direction this country would take if a Republican, even a moderate Republican, if there still is such a person, would be elected president.
Yes, there might be gridlock in Washington. Republicans might even try to impeach a Clinton, again. They’ll have more select committees investigating “wrongs” than standing committees. But the alternative is much more dire.
If I sound pessimistic let me seek comfort by identifying with Jon Stewart, the soon to be departing host of The Daily Show. Wednesday night, in conversation with Dana Perino, former press secretary to George W. Bush and currently a co-host of Fox News’ The Five, Stewart identified himself as an “optimistic idealist.”
As for his outbursts against politicians, he said, “This is anguish, not pessimism.”
I will be saddened when he leaves The Daily Show anchor seat August 6. But I think his decision is a good one. Of late, I’ve been seeing too much of Howard Beale in him. Beale, you might recall, was a news anchor in the 1976 film Network who encouraged his viewers to shout out of their windows, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”
Stewart hasn’t gone that far (yet), but he seems to be more liberated in his diatribes recently now that his tenure is finite.
