As Labor Day approaches, the serious presidential campaign heats up. This cycle presents a truly clear and definitive choice. Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of the crony establishment. Donald Trump is the antithesis of the status quo and business as usual. Forget all the distractions.
It is the final grudge match: Globalism One World Order vs. America First Populism and National Sovereignty. BREAKING ALL THE RULES would like to dare any staunch admirer of Hillary Clinton to present their case why she deserves to become POTUS.
BATR will post any serious and well reasoned argument that offers positive factors why she deserves to be President. Identify the policies she would advocate and explain why such programs or administrative initiates will improve government and protect our constitutional republic.
Avoid any comparisons to Donald Trump and restrain from attacking his candidacy. The purpose of this challenge is to define and defend why a Hillary Clinton Presidency would be good for the country.
Demonstrate an analysis based upon facts and her history of being in government for over thirty years. Avert emotional appeals and concentrate on rational specifics that illustrate your best grounds to support your contention.
Now for all those infatuated Hillary groupies who emerged from their government school programming, put your enormous skills on paper to vindicate your favorite heroine. A respectful, yet accurate refutation of sophomoric thoughts will be provided in scholarly manner using critical evidence and historic examples.
The flood of takers will certainly rush in to justify their fantasy queen of collectivist utopia. Or is it more likely that none will dare the test of wits.
BATR relies upon the pursuit of intellectual inquiry, based upon empirical evidence, factual behavior, founded upon indisputable logic and common sense.
How refreshing it would be to find some honest Clintonistas to take up this assessment. However, locating an honorable advocate for her qualification may just be an insurmountable task. Douglas Williams offers up this review to a defender of the self proclaimed consort of the “People” in the account, The Progressive Case For Hillary Clinton Isn’t Much of a Case At All.
“In a recent issue of In These Times, Sady Doyle made “A Progressive Case for Hillary Clinton.”
Doyle mentions a curious figure in her analysis: She states that the voting records of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders matched up 93 percent of the time. Such a statistic must certainly prove that these two candidates are very similar, right?
Is Hillary Clinton every bit a progressive as the career-long member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who is supported by organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America and Socialist Alternative?
According to the DW-NOMINATE scores, tabulated by political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, for every Congress since the beginning of the Republic, the average ideological median of the United States Senate for the time that Hillary Clinton served was -0.362 (a -1 is extreme left, while a score of 1 is extreme right).
Clinton’s own score was -0.381, which puts her slightly to the left of the median. Bernie Sanders’s score was -0.523, which earns him the most left score in the Senate for the entire time that he has served.
But Doyle’s inclusion of the roll call analysis does serve a purpose: It seeks to remake Hillary Clinton’s record into one that is as progressive as that uber-lefty Sanders. And if this is the case, it would support the notion that the opposition to Clinton is not based on her record, but on Clinton herself.
It is an argument, for sure; it is just one that is not borne out by Clinton’s actual record.
Perhaps the most glaring omission from Doyle’s piece is any substantive analysis of Clinton’s record on domestic issues. It is understandable; after all, this is supposed to be a progressive defense of Hillary Clinton, and when it comes to Clinton’s progressive domestic policy record, in the words of Gertrude Stein, “there is no there there.”
Who among the devoted “social warriors” are willing to counter such a critique?
Even the Daily Kos acknowledges the importance of a twenty year old column that nails the witch to the broom in The most thorough, profound and moving defense of Hillary Clinton I have ever seen.
“In January of 1996, while Whitewater investigations were underway but unfinished, conservative writer William Safire wrote a scathing and now-famous essay about Hillary Clinton entitled, “Blizzard of Lies”. In the piece he called her a “congenital liar”, and accused her of forcing her friends and subordinates into a “web of deceit”. He insisted (without any apparent evidence) that she took bribes, evaded taxes, forced her own attorneys to perjure themselves, “bamboozled” bank regulators, and was actively involved in criminal enterprises that defrauded the government of millions of dollars. He ended the piece by stating that, “She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”
Now for the delusional defense, better take a swig of the vine from the forbidden fruit on this one.
“But while conservative propaganda and lies are a constant in “Hillaryland”, if we look at Hillary’s career, and the negative attacks so often aimed at her, it seems clear that more than just political machinations are at play. My current conviction is that the main fuel that powers the anti-Hillary crowd is sexism. And yes I’m serious. So go ahead and roll your eyes. Get it over with. But I think the evidence supports my view, and I’ve seen no other plausible explanation. And just to be clear, I don’t think it’s ONLY sexism. But I do think that this is the primary force that has generated and maintained most of the negative narratives about Hillary.”
Is this the best that can be said about vindicating the “dowager of sleaze”?
Come on you irate Hillary followers, where is your crazed outrage?
BATR wants you to take your best shot to set the record straight in the world of neurotic hero worship.
You know when an archetypal Democrat dandy like Bill Moyers publishes Clinton’s Defense of Big Money Won’t Cut It, by Robert Borosage, the summary for the defense falters.
“Hillary Clinton’s heated defense of the money she has raised from Wall Street and other interests won’t cut it. Her protests contradict the basic case that virtually all Democrats and reformers have made for getting big money out of politics. It is vital that voters not be misled by them.”
Oh that ugly money trail keeps following the Empress of “Pay to Play”.
Yet, the Hillary Supporter Challenge entries await the opportunity to debunk all the criminal indictment instances and anoint her with a crown of glory for all her eternal achievements.
Come on, it has to be easy to defend your superstar when denial of all the disqualifying circumstances become a ritual of faith for the fate of a systemic deceiver.
Build the case for all her “real world” achievements and compile a list of all the reasons she would be a successful President. Explain what the public can expect and give a peak into how she will improve the economy, fix the debt crisis, protect the peace and get the nation back on track.
Since her stewardship at the State Department has so many failures, just what is going to make her change her pattern of behavior and how will the country be better with her as President?
A candid evaluation of her potential administration would conclude that, at best, she would keep the status quo intact and keep the establishment running like a well oiled machine. Global corporatist would be thrilled to have a proven and serial crook that operates on bribes and skilled in deceit.
Please do not overlook that her “Murder Inc.” culture of intimidation and payback will be back in force. Renting out the Lincoln bedroom would be chump change for Killery Klinton. A second go around wants the prize of a legacy that would rival the most infamous dictators in history.
Extracting a few billion more or even a trillion or two would be negligible when starting World War III. This will give her a much bigger bang for her mausoleum of shame.
Anticipation that rabid Hildabeast fans will prove us wrong is so high that it would not be a surprise that extending a summer vacation would be in order.
The essential issue is that a concise and plausible case that Hillary Clinton should be supported to sit behind the Resolute desk is a stretch for even the most deranged mind. Try if you dare. Give your best effort, even if you are likely to embarrass yourself.
Talking points will not help, only a clear head and earnest convictions can persuade intelligent voters. Obviously, Hillary endorsers are at a significant disadvantage. That’s why career criminals love a rigged election.
SARTRE