Should We Vote for Hillary Clinton? A Meditation

14 Apr



It seems now almost inevitable that Hillary Clinton will be the candidate for the Democratic Party in November. This inevitability came about by a combination of ‘a Southern strategy’ (where incidentally the Democrats have virtually no chance in the national elections), some close wins in large industrial states in the North, and above all by that peculiar twist in practical democracy known as ‘delegate logic’ (the party state by state rules as to how delegates are allocated among the candidates to reflect primary results, and for the Democratic Party, the pernicious add on of 719 superdelegates, 469 of whom are already announced as committed to support Hilary, while Bernie has garnered a measly 31). ‘Super’ in name only being members of Congress (11% approval rating) and party officials (often ‘hacks’).


This process of delegate selection is problematic from many angles and seems stacked against the guiding idea that purpose of the primaries is to determine as fairly as possible who people identifying with a particular party prefer to have as their candidate. As has been alleged by Bernie Sanders, and for the Republicans, by Donald Trump, the system is rigged: the outcome of the vote is shaped by rules that can be manipulated by a skilled ‘ground game’ to deliver a disproportionate number of delegates compared to what would be expected given relative popularity with those who voted in the primary election.


Aside from this disturbing delegate mystique there is the question of money. As has been obvious long before the outrage of Citizens United, big money acts as a formidable vehicle for special interests, exerting a pernicious influence on the entire governing process, deforming policy on a wide range of public issues including guns, coal, and pharmaceutical drug prices. In this regard, once again, Clinton’s far from innocent connections with Wall Street, with a superpac, and with all kinds of special interests from fracking to Israel, should be enough to alienate all but the most blindfolded of citizens.


An assortment of insiders defend party control over the primary process through the selection of delegates. They argue that it helps keep so-called ‘insurgent’ candidates from stealing a nomination from a candidate who has passed through the authenticating filters of party loyalty. Policy wonks point out that if the Republican Party had superdelegates, Trump would be out, and likely Cruz too, and thus it is claimed that the party credentials of the superdelegates provides a hedge against extremism or a triumphant maverick, whether from right or left, or even from Hollywood.


Tom Hayden, always clear and with a long record of progressive engagement in the American political process, comes down in favor of Clinton on the basis of several mutually reinforcing arguments: the need for unity among Democrats to assure the defeat of whoever the Republicans put forward, Bernie’s lack of a thought through and politically attainable agenda, and most of all, Hilary’s overwhelming support among African Americans and Latinos, including both the Cogressional Black Caucus and the Sacramento Latino Caucus. Hayden emphasizes that his links to these minorities are personal as well as ideological, through marriage and paternity, suggesting that his identity and private life creates an affinity that takes precedence over other considerations. Along the way, he affirms Sanders call for social justice in a number of particulars (student debt, universal health care, tax policy, minimum wage, trade policy), as well as his more moderate stand on foreign policy when compared to the interventionist past of Clinton. I wonder about this reasoning. Should we not ratify the Sanders movement that has excited the young across the nation as an urgent call for change? What we do know is that Clinton even if she delivers on some liberal reforms will not change the fundamentals of American political life, which urgently need changing: the plutocratic control over policy, the kneejerk deference to Pentagon budgetary greed, the unquestioning indulgence of the predatory ways of Wall Street, and the slavish acquiescence to Israel’s defiant militarism.


Of course, there is a serious liberal side to this debate that deserves to be considered. It is a matter of ensuring the victory of a Democrat in November coupled with the belief that Clinton is far better situated than Sanders to ensure such an outcome. Clinton is almost certain to appoint empathetic jurists to the US Supreme Court and other federal courts, she will uphold and advance the rights of women, and she will steer the ship of state with a steady and experienced hand.


Even granting the above, there are some limits on this liberal position that should not be pushed aside. On foreign policy, there is no doubt that Clinton is experienced, informed, and reliable, more so than Sanders. At the same time her judgment and instincts seem as untrustworthy as those of Henry Kissinger, the foreign policy guru whom she has unfortunately singled out for praise. Kissinger has favored every failed intervention that the US has undertaken in the last half century, including even Vietnam and Iraq, encouraged the 1973 military coup in Chile against the democratically elected Allende government, and was positive about the genocidal approach taken by Indonesia toward the resistant and oppressed indigenous population in East Timor. With this in mind, I would greatly prefer Sanders’ qualities of judgment to Clinton’s record of experience.


Against this background, I am left with is a choice between ‘red lines’ and ‘the lesser of evils,’ or as most liberals prefer to put it, ‘the glass half full,’ regarding Hillary as the best choice among those available, and in many respects impressive in ability and achievement. Beyond this, she would be the first woman to become president, and if we are lucky, she might even fashion a memorable legacy around climate change, environmental policy, health, women’s rights, student debt, an enlightened judiciary, international trade regimes, and more.


What troubles me, even with a keen awareness of the dangers and antipathies associated with a Republican presidential hopeful, almost regardless of who it ends up being, is the belief that there are certain deficiencies of character or lapses of judgment that deserve to be treated red lines, which once crossed are decisive. Clinton has crossed some lines that are bright red in my eyes. I find it hard to overlook her Iraq War vote back in 2003, her continuing admiration for Kissinger, her lead role in producing the Libyan disaster, her push toward intervention in Syria, and her fawning AIPAC speech delivered during the present campaign. The latter is in some respects the most disturbing of all, being purely opportunistic while exhibiting zero sensitivity to the long ordeal of Palestinian captivity and abuse. Despite her nuanced mind, Clinton comes across as a crude opportunist. For me the thought of Clinton’s fingers close to the nuclear button is hardly reassuring, although less scary than the prospect of Trump or Cruz exercising such an absolute power over human destiny. 


Of course, we can try and convince ourselves that most of the bad stuff is behind her and that the really good stuff lies ahead. We can firm this hope up with an expectation that Sanders will use his considerable leverage effectively, nudging her left on economic policy and making her more cautious about intervention. But it is a gamble at best, and once in the White House, special interest and bureaucratic pressures will put the Sanders agenda on a distant back burner.


I recall that the Nader third party candidacy, which I at the time supported, seems to have cost Gore the presidency in 2000 due to the outcome in Florida, and if Gore rather than George W. Bush had become president there probably would have been no attack on Iraq in 2003. Initiating a regime-changing war against Iraq was a neocon priority, but never on the agenda of moderate Republicans, much less Democrats. Yet counterfactuals can be misleading. Without the failure of Iraq there might have been a far greater disposition to intervene elsewhere, maybe Ukraine or Syria. As Madeline Albright a stalwart Martian supporter of Clinton memorably reminded us some years ago, ‘what’s the use of this great military capability if we never use it.’

Thinking back to the 2000 makes me hesitate before voting for a third party candidate, although there is a case to be made. The election of Jill Stein, the admirable Green Party candidate, would likely lift our spirits, enhance human security, and make us safer by departing from the cliches of national security. It is sad when the person with the most relevant vision and impeccable character, with nary a blemish, should be marginalized because of the folk wisdom embodied in the saying ‘the best is the enemy of the good,’ or more accurately in this case, ‘the worst is the enemy of the mediocre.’

Despite these doubts, prudence suggests swallowing hard, and voting for Hillary Clinton with eyes wide open. I have not yet decided, although leaning, yet still pondering some questions. Isn’t it time to hold politicians accountable for past wrongdoing? Doesn’t Clinton seem like an unprincipled opportunist, tacking to the left in the primary campaign to take some votes away from Sanders, but probably ready to move right once he is safely out of the way so as to lure independent voters and disaffected Republicans, and later, to govern effectively?


Isn’t Sanders right to contend that the problems of America require ‘a social revolution,’ and shouldn’t citizens of conscience stop acting as if incrementalism will address the fundamental challenges facing the country? From such an outlook, it is tempting to withhold support and forego political participation until a national candidate arrives on the scene who gives real promise of seeking the changes we need, or at least enough of them to make it worthwhile. At this point, I am unable to resolve the dilemma posed by this clash of prudence and principle.


Maybe in the end Tom Hayden’s approach is the only humane way to cut the Gordian Knot of this presidential dilemma: vote for Hillary Clinton in solidarity with African Americans and Latinos as someone who has stood more in their corner than almost any active politician, and surely more than any present candidate, including Bernie Sanders. Solidarity with the racially and ethnically abused, reinforced by lesser of evils reasoning, may be the best we can do at this point, while hoping that Sanders surge is more than a flash in the pan and becomes the sort of transformative movement from below that alone can restore national confidence in a sustainable and humane future. Should feelings of solidarity and revolutionary patience outweigh a principled refusal to go along with militarist opportunism?


29 Responses to “Should We Vote for Hillary Clinton? A Meditation”

  1. Cesar Lardies April 14, 2016 at 9:35 am #

    Only if there is absolutely no other choice!

  2. Claudia Cords Damon April 14, 2016 at 9:41 am #

    Good meditation. Also worth reading…:

  3. Gene Schulman April 14, 2016 at 10:41 am #

    There is only one answer, repeated an infinite number of times, to your question: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, ad infinitum!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Richard Falk April 14, 2016 at 1:33 pm #

      Your spirit of certainty presupposes that Clinton is not the lesser of evils, given the likelihood of either Trump or Cruz as the Republican candidate.
      At least, this requires explaining..

      • Gene Schulman April 15, 2016 at 1:00 am #

        Not only is she not the lesser of evils, she is evil incarnate. From her earliest days in her husband’s administration in charge of health care, to her most recent crusade against Libya (‘We came, we conquered, he died’) she has left nothing but evil in her wake. For those who may have doubts about this, I can do no more than recommend Diana Johnstone’s excellent book, “Queen of Chaos”, as testimony.

        As for the others, we have lived with clownish and stupid presidents before and survived: Reagan, Bush, et al. Bernie is Hillary light, and will bow to the dictates of the same powers that control Hillary. Trump, should he accidentally win the seat, will be easily controllable by his handlers, as will Cruz, and kept from wreaking too much more damage than our country has already suffered. With them, we can keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. With Hillary, we are accepting a Faustian deal with another potential Hitler. Yes, she is that evil!

      • Richard Falk April 15, 2016 at 11:40 am #

        This seems like strongest possible indictment of HC, and a bit too hard on Sanders. I will read Diana Johnstone’s book.
        I have always respected her writings and agreed with her interpretations.

      • Gene Schulman April 15, 2016 at 1:06 am #

        My advice is to not vote, or at least show discontent by writing in a candidate of your choice.

      • Gene Schulman April 15, 2016 at 5:02 am #

        Diana Johnstone updates “Queen of Chaos” in today’s Counterpunch article. Talk about timing?

  4. No Vote for a Baby killer April 14, 2016 at 12:41 pm #

    No one should vote for this criminal, a traitor and a zionist, funded by George Soros and other criminal Zionists who have committed CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY at any cost, especially when we have her bloody history in front of us knowing she has killed millions of people including women, children and made millions more as refugees, in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Palestine, Ukraine, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and other countries, for the interest of ‘greater Israel’, and “WORLD GOVERNMENT”, a Zionist project, and to gain millions of dollars in the process for HERSELF.
    As James petras says: she is not only a mass murder but a PIMP as well.
    {No serious democrat or wage and salaried employee can ignore Madame Clinton’s role as Wall Street’s most shameless PIMP unless they ‘believe’ that a loud-mouth New York ‘fascist is worse than Wall Street’.}
    The policy of the criminal regimes of Killinton – Bush – Obama, have brought the world nothing but destruction, poverty and deaths, where made many pimps in the process to serve the interest of designers of “world government” , “A clean break” and “the strategy of Israel in the 1980s” where the criminal tribe and their servants are the primary beneficiaries.
    She has killed millions, millions, millions, millions of people to expand the influence of Wall Street and designers of “world government” around the globe by implementing Muslim HOLOCAUST and destabilization using their trained terrorists, Al Qaeda, PEJAK, ISIS and other terrorist Organizations to change the geopolitical map of the region, to partition the regional countries to establish “greater Israel” on millions of Muslim dead bodies.
    Only fools, neocons and phony progressives, Noam Chomsky, have pledged to vote for a criminal pussy to protect the interest of the racist Zionists and ‘greater Israel’ and help “the first woman president”, the project of criminal zionist, George Soros.
    As James Petras wrote:
    {The phony scaremongering about Trump’s “fascism” just serves to cover up Clinton’s most servile promotion of traitorous wars for the benefit of Israel.}
    The criminal tribe, George Soros, SELECTED and INSTALLED “the first black president’ a zionist puppet, and now he wants to install “the first woman’ who is a mass murder, at the WH to continue their project “world Government”.
    Killary Rotten Killinton is a mass murderer where along other war criminals in Tel Aviv, Washington, Britain should be put on trial and shot. Only dummies, zionist Jews pro Israel, phony ‘progressives’ will vote for this criminal AGAIN.

    As petras wrote:
    {To justify backing a serial war monger, a US Secretary of State who has served Israel’s interests, and a politician who has carnalized her ‘feminist principles’ with Wall Street billionaires, Hillary Clinton’s smarmy supporters have had to invent an opponent who is even worse: Creating and then denouncing “Trump the Fascist” serves as a backdoor justification for supporting a proven political psychopath!}

  5. rehmat1 April 15, 2016 at 8:06 pm #

    Dr. Falk – Last year when I read the following gospel at the Jewish Daily Forward – I knew Hillary Clinton had been chosen by America’s rulers in Tel Aviv.

    “From the man who married her grandmother to the man who married her daughter, from working room full of bar mitzvah guests on behalf of her husband’s political career to heading major pro-Israel events during her own, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s journey has never wandered far from Jews,” Ron Kampeas, The Jewish Daily Forward, June 24, 2015.

    I knew Kampeas was not kidding about Hillary Clinton. I bet you remember Hillary’s ‘evil sense of humor’ when she boasted: “We came, we saw, (Qaddafi) he died.”

    Why she was so happy? The answer came from the French Zionist ‘Philosopher’ Bernard-Henri Levy told a meeting of country’s powerful Jewish Lobby (CRIF) that he convinced French president Nicolas Sarkozy to invade Libya as Qaddafi had to be removed because he became a threat to Israel.

    “What I have done all these months, I did as a Jew. And like all the Jews of the world, I was worried. Despite legitimate anxiety is an uprising to be welcomed with favor, we were dealing with one of the worst enemy of Israel,” said Levy.

  6. Richard Falk April 15, 2016 at 9:22 pm #

    I block comments that are insulting to me or others. This website is reserved for those who wish
    to engage in respectful conversation. There are plenty of other websites that would be receptive
    to your views.

  7. Clif Brown April 15, 2016 at 11:51 pm #

    You mention Clinton’s support from African-Americans and Latinos. Though I have read about this support frequently, I’ve never seen anyone list the things that she or her husband have done to deserve it. If anyone knows of such a list, please link to it.

    On the issue of the choice we will be given, the most outrageous thing is not the way both of the parties try to control who will be anointed to carry their banner, but that the two parties have worked together to make it very difficult if not impossible for anyone to get on a ballot who does not earn a R or a D next to his/her name. This restriction against people who have no interest in running as a Republican or Democrat is both anti-democratic and, typically, arranged behind the scenes without we the people aware of the rigging. There should also be no ballot exclusion for those who decide after the two conventions that they want to stay in contention outside of either party.

  8. rehmat1 April 16, 2016 at 8:10 am #

    Dr. Falk – your favorite Bernie Sanders has fired his Jewish outreach coordinator Simone Zimmerman under pressure from Ronald Lauder and Abraham Foxman over her anti-Semitic statement on her Twitter account on March 3, 2015.

    “Bibi Netanyahu is an arrogant, deceptive, cynical, manipulative politician. His irresponsible, exploitative political theater is yet another demonstration of the ugliest demonstration of national hubris and tone-deafness toward the international community. Shame on you, Bibi, for daring to insist that you legitimately represent even a fraction of the Jews in this world, for your consistent fear-mongering, for pushing Israel, in word and deed, farther and farther away from the international community, and most importantly, and for trying to derail a potential historic diplomatic deal with Iran and thus trying to distract the world from the fact that you sanctioned the murder of over 2000 people this Summer in a war of choice, that a brutal military occupation of millions more continues under your watch, and that you’re spending time and money on ridiculous campaign opportunities like this instead of actually working to address the real needs of your own people.

    Netanyahu insulted our President but also much worse. He doesn’t speak for me as a Jew, an American and as a thinking person. #BibiDoesntSpeakForMe.”

    • Richard Falk April 16, 2016 at 11:24 am #

      It is unfortunate, but Sanders is our best hope, and in a presidential campaign staff have to maintain
      a certain discretion. Sanders has opened political space for supporting the Palestinian struggle as no
      other mainstream American politician has so far done. Of course, I feel sorry for Simone Zimmerman and
      do not regard her rant against Netanyahu as anti-Semitic in the slightest.

  9. Nora Lester Murad April 16, 2016 at 11:31 pm #

    Living in Palestine, I am always wary of pragmatism as an excuse for unprincipled action. The “lesser of two evils” argument is kind of like supporting the Oslo Accords because we can’t think of anything better.

    I cannot vote for HC because her record and affiliations ensure she will take actions I can’t condone, because she is not in any way accountable to me, and because she will perpetuate and strengthen the neoliberal, neocolonial system that drives so much suffering.

    When people ask if she is not better than Trump, I say no. HC has split the left (not Bernie) and she would continue to do so as president. Her positions, palatable to the right, will have no effective opposition. Meanwhile, she has pre-greased all the wheels and will hit the ground running. In contrast, Trump will unite the left in the US and the world. He won’t be able to get anything done. If HC goes against Trump, I’ll vote for Trump.

    Now, a HC-Cruz race is truly scary, but we can prevent that by getting Sanders nominated.

    • Kata Fisher April 17, 2016 at 5:48 am #

      A note: Oslo Accords is illiagal, utterly evil.

      • Richard Falk April 17, 2016 at 12:23 pm #

        It is important to know why you come to such a clear conclusion. From my understanding,
        more ‘evil’ in effects, and ill-considered, but not ‘illegal’ as apparently agreed upon
        by those representing both parties to the negotiations.

    • Richard Falk April 17, 2016 at 12:21 pm #

      I share the general spirit of your understanding..of the choices before us.

  10. US selection is a fraud April 18, 2016 at 4:53 am #

    Destroy the criminal tribe:

    In 2006, Israel’s largest news site Ynet published a courageous article by nationalist Israeli writer Sever Plocker who admitted that “some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish.”
    Like Yuri Slezkine, Plocker admits that the Stalin death machine was operated by Jews such as Genrikh Yagoda and Lazar Kaganovich. In 1934, at the peak of Stalin’s purge: “38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin.”

    In recent years we have learned that a quarter of the International Brigade that fought Franco in Spain was Jewish, and the Lingua Franca of the Brigade was Yiddish. I have lost a few Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist friends trying to discuss that topic and to grasp the role of the Yiddish speaking combatants in the destruction of Catholic Spain in that bloody war. Showing far more integrity than our ‘allies’ on the Left, Zionist Plocker writes: “I find it unacceptable that a person will be considered a member of the Jewish people when he does great things, but not considered part of our people when he does amazingly despicable things.”

    • Kata Fisher April 18, 2016 at 8:31 am #

      The Spain killed and prosecuted and exsecuted Jews because they were interfering with Catholic Faith. The sword of destruction came upon them – they were under a King. Could they accept anything else from the King – when going against Apostolic Faith of the King in His Land?

  11. rehmat1 April 18, 2016 at 7:17 am #

    Dr. Falk, the so-called “Oslo Accords” signed in 1993 between Israel and PLO, was a trap by the western godfathers of the Zionist entity to swallow the remaining 22% of Palestinian land.

    It was agreed upon between the colonialist-backed Zionist regime and the weakened and isolated PLO leadership not only in the Arab world controlled by Western poodle kings, sheikhs and military dictators – but also amongst a greatest majority of nine million Palestinians living in occupied Palestine and around the Globe.

    The great majority of Palestinians neither accepted the creation of Israel and have always considered it an illegal entity along with over 130 members of United Nations. Therefore, whatever agreed between Israel and PLO or Fatah, an US-Israel double agent, is illegal in the eyes of international law.

  12. Kata Fisher April 18, 2016 at 8:26 am #

    Professor Falk,

    A Note:

    According to Apostolic Teaching – the Church always accepted Gentile conversions to Hebrew Jews/Israel as valid and deserving of grace and goodness of God trough Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Nothing has changed even to this day.

    As you know, a good number of Arabs from Palestine are descendants of raped Jews and Christians who were under forced conversions by jihadist (of that time) in Holy Land.


    When Arab Saud’s were moved in evil and mainly British stole and thieved around ecclesiastical Land and did invent Arab province of Jordan and imposed Jordan state Landmark in Holy Land, they did great evil that sticks. It is guilt of blood between them and their descendants. They stripped millions of Jews, but also millions of Arabs of their Faith rights. Now all Arabs from Palestine are pulled into the same guilt of blood as lay people of Holy Land. They are spiritually excommunicated, killed, and dispersed among the nations – while they actually would have to stay in Holy Land.

    Then, after Holocaust all involved – they did another evil, initiating and allowed for a partial establishment of the state of Israel – just because the illegal landmark of Jordan already imposed and there was nothing else to do with ecclesiastical Land. Jews Lost their Faith rights because Arab Saud’s along with British were devil directed.

    Jews should have backed off from such satanic deal, and wait for another acceptable time to seek their Faith Rights in Holy Land – possibly legal migration and immigration. Now it is too late for reversal for all evil that Jews have done – which can also legitimately seen as collateral damage of the Arabs and their evils to the evil of Arabs and British (in the leadership of Westerns and Colonies). We ended up with Colonized Holy Land by Jews. Now what? Perhaps, even that is just and right for nations to see in Holy Land.

    Jordan can and shall return Land back as well as ecclesiastical peoples when they imposed evil landmark and stole the ecclesiastical Land – Jordan is Arab, and Saud’s Province and by no legitimate means is or can be part of ecclesiastical Israel.

    Jordan and its landmark is illusions and delusions of the wicked, illegal establishment and arengment of ecclesiastical Land and people in Holy Land.

    It is important to note that there are grave harm defects in International Law, work of satanic seals – just as landmark of Jordan is.

    • rehmat1 April 18, 2016 at 9:22 am #

      It’s always pleasure to Netanyahu Jr.

      “When Caliph Umar, one of Muhammad’s successors, conquered the Jerusalem of the Christian Byzantines in 638, he insisted that the three faiths of Abraham coexist. He refused to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher when he was escorted around the city by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch. Had he done so, he explained, the Muslims would have wanted to build a mosque there to commemorate the first Islamic prayer in Jerusalem. The Jews found their new Muslim rulers far more congenial than the Byzantines. The Christians had never allowed the Jews to reside permanently in the city, whereas Umar invited 70 Jewish families back. The Byzantines had left the Jewish Temple in ruins and had even begun to use the Temple Mount as a garbage dump. Umar, according to a variety of accounts, was horrified to see this desecration. He helped clear it with his own hands, reconsecrated the platform and built a simple wooden mosque on the southern end, site of al-Aqsa Mosque today. Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock, built by Caliph Abd al-Malik in 691, was the first great building to be constructed in the Islamic world. It symbolizes the ascent that all Muslims must make to God, whose perfection and eternity are represented by the circle of the great golden dome. Other Islamic shrines on the Temple Mount, which Muslims call al-Haram al-Sharif, the Most Noble Sanctuary, were devoted to David, Solomon and Jesus….” Professor Karen Armstrong, Time magazine, April 16, 2001.

      “When Pope blessed Christian terrorists, the Franks army entered Jerusalem, they butchered 70,000 Muslim, Jews and some Christian who took refuge in Church of Nativity,” Laura Wilder, American reporter and author.

      • Kata Fisher April 18, 2016 at 10:14 am #


        Self-determination of the Kings was in Papal blessing. Why would it not be?

        The Pope is the office on behave of the Priest, of the Prophet and the King. I see no confusion to it – unless, he was just a priest and would whine about everything and anything coming against him. The prophet would bring on the curse of destruction by warning, and the King (in essence) would execute and kill – if and when innocent blood is spilled.

        Don’t you know that? Innocent blood is spilled without consequence – it will be revisited upon offspring of the wicked.

        Perhaps, nations were given over to the devil and Franks army whipped out those who were responsible for the prosecution of the First Generations of the Church – Both Romans and Jews?

        But they also could have been on whores – or whores were all over them, and all were devil-directed.

        It could be anything.

        We just do not know anything. In general, we are just dumb finite humans.

  13. sermin özürküt April 18, 2016 at 8:36 am #

    The american society could vote for a mixed ethnical american as Obama and the ethnicity barrier in politics was eliminated. I hope that the democratic society of USA eliminates the gender barrier by voting for Hillary.

    • Kata Fisher April 19, 2016 at 10:38 am #

      Gender equality.

      There is no gender inequality in the US. To have women as a president or specific race/background person is totally irrelevant in 21 century. We not in stone age.

      American society considers and treats young adolescent women and real women as whores and harlots while they pamper their whores and harlots / prostitutes – and that is what they get: pampered whores. I know this is the harsh some truth, and accurate.

      American society really should reconsider their evil ways toward women and the Church, especially separation of the Church and the State.

      If you really need relevant guideline – what would be it?

      Anyone who uses and or has used others for their ill gain is the evil, psychotic and mentally incompetent person – and is also a killer, ready to kill at any relevant opportunity. In small term he/she is a hater, and huge terms a bloody killer.

      If you really need relevant guideline – that would be it.

      Separation of the Church and the State stole/ robbed from the American Republic – Nationality/peoples/public – and perhaps Mr. Sanders is competent to make sure that what is stolen is also returned in some measures by those who are responsible for the evil they have done.

      It seems to me that he is somewhat moved in that direction, but his self-determination can be overthrown by some special interest cults unless those can be regulated and removed from him. Unless he has to listen to the evil people that are in satanic seals – Devil directed.

      The American public is mainly dealing with special interest cults/sects which are just totally insane, evil. Have nothing to do a with it.

      That American public does not know that they are dealing with satanic seals, and devil-directed is almost hilarious and not funny in civil-ecclesiastical approach and perspective.

  14. Beau Oolayforos April 18, 2016 at 7:47 pm #

    Dear Professor Falk,
    On the issue of whose hand is close to the nuclear button, while the prospect of Cruz or Trump might be scary, Hillary is hardly less so. From her husband’s acquiescence to things like cruise missile attacks on Sudanese pharmaceutical plants, or upgrades to Plan Colombia; to the photo-op of her & Obama passively spectating the capture & killing of Bin Laden – all of it shows how submissive the Clintons have been and shall be to any scheme concocted at Langley or Arlington. Once again, Sanders offers the only, fading, hope of anything different.

  15. Kata Fisher April 21, 2016 at 10:13 am #

    John noted:

    Published on Apr 4, 2016
    Part of the way the U.S. Empire’s elections are rigged is the corporate media’s censorship of third-party candidates, despite their nationwide campaign efforts.
    The Green Party, running Dr. Jill Stein for President—on a platform more progressive than Bernie Sanders—has been totally ignored by the establishment.
    Abby Martin sits down with Dr. Stein to look at how her career in medicine helped her diagnose America’s “multi-organ failure,” and why her ideas pose such a threat to Empire.
    Category – News & Politics
    License – Standard YouTube License

    Is is possible to correct difficulties for third party candidates, and correct them as soon as possible by legitimate legislators? Unless, special interest cults and sect will not allow for the self-determination of legitimate candidates?

    Further, interrelated, but not directly relevant:

    Also, I have had concerns (that are more intuitive) then could be rational concerns (in essence) about Saudi’s excessive oil extraction. Any occurrence of shifted in atmospheric patterns and/or excessive rain-fall could also shift the grounds and cause rash ground movements/holes that are swallowing areas of unpredicted locations. I just happen to know that Saudis are exploring the science of rain-creation and fall. Perhaps, they are best of to be researching their grounds on which they are. Same for Israeli/Arabs their on/of shore drillings. I know that they have some oil-fealds in their prospect, as well.

    Also, I have been brainstorming about alternative crops for Afganistan area that can (or can not) not make the sustainable transition in their abolition of drugs producing fields, locally. It may be possible to switch it to the Saffron and Olive Tree/harvest cultivation.

    The Islamic Republic of Iran has record on improving their saffron quality/organic, and may be able to help with crops for Afganistan and be concerned with slightly transforming resolutions over the years.

  16. ray032 April 25, 2016 at 7:09 am #

    Observing the most insane election campaign I have seen in my 73 years from CanaDa, I always felt Clinton was as extreme a War Hawk as the most extreme Republican, cloaking her darker side using specious wording.

    I just got notice of this article Today. ‘NYT’ exposes Clinton as most hawkish candidate when it’s too late for readers to choose’

    “After Hillary Clinton has the nomination nearly sewn up, the New York Times decides to run a Sunday magazine piece titled “How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk,” by Mark Landler revealing conclusively that she has a greater “appetite for military engagement” than anyone else in the race, on either side. Here’s the nut graf:

    Clinton’s foreign-policy instincts are bred in the bone — grounded in cold realism about human nature and what one aide calls “a textbook view of American exceptionalism.” It set her apart from her rival-turned-boss, Barack Obama, who avoided military entanglements and tried to reconcile Americans to a world in which the United States was no longer the undisputed hegemon. And it will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets in the general election. For all their bluster about bombing the Islamic State into oblivion, neither Donald J. Trump nor Senator Ted Cruz of Texas have demonstrated anywhere near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has.

    The article details Clinton’s long commitment to the use of force, including incidents never revealed before; explains why Donald Trump is likely to be far less eager to go to war than she would be; and says that Clinton had to hide her hawkishness during the primaries so far:

    To thwart the progressive insurgency of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Clinton carefully calibrated her message during the Democratic primaries

    The piece is an ode to Clinton’s “pugnacity” and her “muscular brand of American foreign policy,” with a celebratory chorus line of Robert Gates, Jake Sullivan and various functionaries. And lest you had any doubt about the newspaper’s point of view, there’s this foolish bonbon at the end:

    It’s an open question how well Clinton’s hawkish instincts match the country’s mood. Americans are weary of war and remain suspicious of foreign entanglements. And yet, after the retrenchment of the Obama years, there is polling evidence that they are equally dissatisfied with a portrait of their country as a spent force

    It’s not an open question actually. As Stephanie Schriock of Emily’s List told J Street last week, the mood of the people is isolationist, they don’t want to be engaged in foreign wars.

    So why are we learning this now? Donald Johnson nails the journalistic and moral dereliction at the heart of this publication:…………………………………………………..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: