Democrats Choosing These Clintonites To Read Are Getting Stuff From These Writers’ Behinds

My Recent Posts

Poking around Medium today, I came across this noxious little item, "Democrats Choosing Sanders To Lead Are Leaving Too Much of Their Base Behind," by Sasha Stone and Ryan Adams. It's written by a pair of delusional Clintonites, still trying to relitigate the 2016 presidential campaign, when their candidate failed so miserably. Maybe it was because I've had a slow last two weeks. Maybe I'm still rolling my eyes at my recent encounter with Susan Bordo's absolutely brainless, anti-historical effort to deify Hillary Clinton. Whatever the reason, the article seems to have caught me at an odd time and really rubbed me the wrong way. I wrote a reply for its comments section, ran long and decided to turn the reply into an article itself, addressed to its authors:

 

"Hillary was and is incredibly popular."

 

That's the key line in your article, because it's emblematic of the kind of delusional garbage "thinking" that underpins the entire enterprise. "Hillary was and is incredibly popular"! Meanwhile, in the real world, Clinton is one of the most hated figures in national politics. Clinton’s favorability ratings have been in decline for years and are and were abysmal. Both RealClearPolitics and Huffpost Pollster track and aggregate this data  (there's a great deal of crossover between the polls they use but both use some that are different from the others, giving some variance). The Huffpost database, which goes back further, shows that Clinton’s approval rating had been dropping since 2010. RealClearPolitics, like Huffpost, lets us make our own charts like this one, starting in 2013 and running to the verge of the Iowa caucus, the first contest of the 2016 presidential season:

 

 

 By mid-March 2015, Clinton's approval had fallen below 50%, never to return (Huffpost has this happening even earlier--in July 2014). By mid-April--the same week Clinton officially entered the presidential race--it was underwater, with more people telling pollsters they disliked her than liked her.

 

You try to blame Bernie Sanders for hurting Clinton's chances in the general but all of this was before Sanders was even a factor. Clinton's polling had been in long-term decline. The campaign probably helped it along--any time Clinton is in the public eye, her approval begins to fall--but the trendline was already down, down, down. As the chart above illustrates, she was already dangerously unpopular before a single vote had been cast. And her ratings continued to drop as the campaign continued. It went as low as 31% in at least two sequential CBS News/New York Times polls.

 

Throughout the campaign, the polls were showing most of the public had an incredibly hostile view of Clinton--some of the data was just brutal. Clinton then ran one of the worst presidential campaigns since John McCain in 2008, running as the Anti-Enthusiasm, the candidate of Diminished Expectations, the "I'll be Obama's third term' candidate, which, contrary to the assertions of your article, is toxic to a candidate of the incumbent party in the shadow of a two-term president. Your efforts to claim the contrary then to use it to forgive Clinton's ownership by Wall Street is more disgusting than Clinton's own effort during the campaign to rationalize said ownership by invoking 9/11. Ultimately, she ended up as the "vote for me because Trump sucks worse" candidate. The second-most unpopular presidential candidate in the history of polling, and she lost to the most unpopular one. I’ve gone through all of this in some detail in an article I’ve written here. It’s a good starting-place for correcting dogshit like your own article. Whether Clintonites like it or not, Clinton was a weak, loser candidate and if the goal was to defeat a Republican challenger, it was always completely irresponsible to support her.

 

Your article continues Clinton’s own damnable practice of refusing to take any responsibility for anything, blaming everyone but Clinton for the loss[1] and failing to offer a single word toward any of Clinton's infinity of blunders. Statements like "much of Bernie’s rise was facilitated by the GOP and Putin," in particular, illustrates an intellectually empty contempt for the reality of what happened in 2016 that couldn't be more complete--a barren appeal to the worst sort of emotional Clintonite butt-hurt, like nearly everything else in your article. Sanders tapped into and helped create a grassroots movement. He ran an issues campaign and those issues, unlike Clinton, were incredibly popular. That’s why people--particularly young people, the future of your party--connected with it. On the campaign trail, Sanders was drawing larger crowds than anyone of either party. "Popular" Clinton, by contrast, routinely had trouble filling even high-school gymnasiums. Today, Sanders is the most popular politician in the U.S., nearly 60% of the public saying they hold a favorable view of him. While you’re shitting all over him and his movement and adding nothing of value to public discourse, he’s in D.C. trying to get things done on behalf of the public.

 

Sanders isn't, as your article falsely implies, some egomaniac--a disgusting bit of faux-psychoanalysis pulled from your own orifices--and he certainly isn't, as you would have it, the center of some cult of personality with a following who regard him as "a god-like leader" who "could walk on water."[2] After Sanders endorsed Clinton and began campaigning for her, those huge crowds he'd been drawing dried up to practically nothing. The movement wasn't about him and he couldn't command people to go against their conscience. Some "god-like leader."

 

Your account of Sanders' endorsement of Clinton reflects the rhetoric of peripheral Clintonites at the time but is no closer to the truth:

 

"Heading into the convention Bernie refused to concede, giving Fox News and Infowars anti-Clinton news for days. It took a stern talking to by President Obama, Joe Biden and Harry Reid to shake some sense into Sanders and he eventually conceded. By then, it was way way too late."

 

Sanders stayed in the race until the last primary contest on 7 June was over; he endorsed her five days later, all of this over a month before the Democratic convention, and while you wag your finger at him for this, you remain curiously silent on the fact that this is exactly the same thing your own champion Hillary Clinton did in 2008. And even after that, she kept causing trouble right into the convention, letting her supporters threaten a walkout if her name wasn't placed into nomination there.

 

Comments like this--"without Bernie, there would be no Wikileaks"--are just mind-boggling. Wikileaks damaged the Democrats by showing that the party had its thumb on the scale for Clinton. Without a corrupt Democratic party trying to rig the election in favor of one candidate over the other, there would be no Wikileaks problem. The spectacle of a primary/caucus system rigged in favor of Establishment candidates is a public relations disaster for the party--it goes to basic fairness. Your effort to race-bait and sexist-bait those who express any concern over it is as entirely unhelpful as it is despicable.

 

You dismiss analysts who

 

"will say that Hillary didn’t try hard enough to woo the white working class and that’s the reason we lost. Well, that task would have been a lot easier for Hillary to achieve if such a noisy faction of her own party had not constantly been protesting her very presence, chanting 'she’s a liar' at rallies, booing her while Bernie egged them on, insinuating she was a whore for her speaking fees and fundraising skills."

 

Yes, why didn't the Democrats just forget the primary process, ignore much of the party who wanted another option and just coronate Clinton? That's the implication that runs throughout your article, the same ugly sense of entitlement that emanated from the candidate herself (and even more so from her more enthusiastic followers) throughout the campaign. Clinton, of course, had it entirely within her power to foil that evil scheme by the Berniecrats to insinuate "she was a whore" by not prostituting her future administration to Big Money interests at every turn. But Clinton's never responsible for anything, is she?[3]

 

The Sanders movement is trying to put the party back in line with it's base, not, as you insanely suggest, to alienate it from same. The headline items of the Sanders agenda have the support of the overwhelming majority of the Democratic voting base and the overwhelming majority of the public itself, including, in many instances, a majority of even Republicans (something else I’ve recently covered at some length). You invoke those billionaires who lurk in the shadows, funding Republicans, but the “neoliberals” who currently dominate the Democratic Establishment--including Clinton--are just as much in the pay of those same elements as the Republicans and there’s no public support from any quarter for that bought-and-paid-for economic agenda. It’s all just bribery and corrupt donor service and is otherwise incredibly destructive (TPP is the most recent big example). For a few decades now, those same “neoliberal” elements have insisted they have to move further and further right to suck up to Big Money interests and get that long green in order to remain politically competitive. Sanders has just proven, beyond any doubt, that is a lie. Run a campaign about which the public is enthusiastic and they’ll finance it themselves. You can't wag your finger at the Sandersites about money in politics while backing trash like Clinton. Well, you can, but the sane who are well-informed will be unanimous in denouncing you for it.

 

A few weeks ago, I read an article with a similar theme and decided it was the worst I'd seen in my brief time on Medium. With this one, you've definitely taken that prize from that earlier dolt. Yours is a disgraceful waste of words in the service of a disgraceful--and false--premise. Refusing to assume so much as a hint of adult responsibility for the disaster you--Clintonites, not Sanders, Putin, Martians or Who D. Fuckever but you--have brought about, historical revisionism, lies, libels, buck-passing, vile race-baiting and sexist-baiting and sliming much of the Democratic base--this is all you have, and after offering it up, you write that Democrats "cannot afford to keep fighting among ourselves, but how can we ever unite under these circumstances?" Your kind is a political plague on the United States, as bad, in your own way, as Trump and his Trumpanzees. Stew in your poisonous bile while you can; the liberals will sweep you aside and politics will be no poorer for your passing.

 

--j.

 

---

 

[1] Then, without any sense of self-awareness, you trash Sanders’ supporters for not "accepting responsibility for the defeats of their failed candidates." This is particularly deplorable given that, only days ago, Berniecrat Jim Thompson nearly flipped a 2/3-red district in Kansas while your precious Democratic Establishment refused to provide him with any real help, preferring, instead, to spend enough for a Senate seat on a bullshit House race in Georgia's 6th District that just failed. A fraction of those dollars may have been able to put Thompson over the top but the Democratic Establishment thinks it’s better to have a Republican win than a liberal.

 

[2] And while the lack of self-awareness inherent in hardcore Clintonites offering that sort of "analysis" of the Sanders phenomenon in the midst of an article like this is admittedly delicious fodder for wit-crackers and meme-makers, it's also disturbing and a bit of a trend.

 

[3] Portraying this prostitution--in effect, whoring out a portion of America's future--as "fundraising skills" is reprehensible but it's in line with your complete refusal to acknowledge the existence of a problem of money in politics beyond its impact on the Republican party and its officials.

Comments

Jenifer Frost Added Apr 19, 2017 - 6:56pm
The neoliberal Clinton supporters poisoned the Democratic Party. They may rule at Medium and Democratic central but no where else. They are why we now have President Trump instead of President Sanders. Hillary was never a realistic opinion, which is good because we would probably already have launched a nuclear war with Russia had that corporatist warmonger been elected. As long as the neoliberals run the Democratic Party the party has no future as it is as out of touch with ordinary Americans as imaginable, existing only to serve Wall Street and corporate interests. Sanders doesn't take the party away from their base he returns the Democrats to their base. But neoliberals are habitual liars and hypocrites, reversing all truth and insisting we all live in their fantasy world. 
Dino Manalis Added Apr 19, 2017 - 7:24pm
Clintonites have to turn the Democratic Party once again, like they were with JFK and Bill Clinton.  Hillary failed to do that, because she felt she needed Obama and Sanders.  Americans need pro-growth policies, that's why they elected Trump.  We need conservative Democrats!
Jenifer Frost Added Apr 19, 2017 - 7:30pm
?????????????????????????? 
HUH, WTF? Yea that's it the Democrats lost because they weren't conservative enough, RIGHT! That's the ticket, the country needs two identical parties, basically just one political party, because that worked out so well for the USSR. NUTS! 
J. Riddle Added Apr 19, 2017 - 7:46pm
The Clintonites don't rule at Medium, so far as I can tell. That article has been severely raked over the coals since I started on it earlier today. Apparently, one of its authors is notorious for that sort of rubbish (or so her detractors say--I haven't looked into it yet).
Jenifer Frost Added Apr 19, 2017 - 9:35pm
J. Riddle writes "The Clintonites don't rule at Medium, so far as I can tell."
Maybe not, but I see pro Clinton and Clinton apologetics articles there far more than anywhere else I frequent. You can't have a Medium daily digest without Thinkprogress articles, and they are the biggest Clinton cheerleaders I've encountered other than Daily Kos and MSNBC. Not that the sane people don't respond in kind to those kinds of things, at least at Medium where it's allowed 
Jenifer Frost Added Apr 19, 2017 - 9:36pm
Oh and good article (yours not the one you were replying to obviously). 
Mark Hunter Added Apr 20, 2017 - 3:56am
I've never understood why anyone liked Clinton ... but then, I've never understood why anyone liked most people in Washington. And I have to admit, she's pretty good at putting on a false face.
John G Added Apr 20, 2017 - 4:27am
Dino Manalis Added Apr 19, 2017 - 7:24pm
 
Writerbeat's resident platitude generator seems to be in overdrive.
Ian Thorpe Added Apr 20, 2017 - 7:06am
Good article and one of the best critiques of the Democrat campaign I have seen. I'm not going to say much about candidates because I'm British and things look different from 3000 miles away, but once Wikileaks showed how the Democrat Party managers colluded with the Clinton campaign to cheat Bernie Sanders, it was all over for Clinton. Trump campaigned cleverly (credit where it's due) by going for states he needed to and could win rather than trying to pick up votes in New York and California where the electoral college delegated were already in the bag for the Democrats.
Cliff M. Added Apr 20, 2017 - 7:56am
Clinton was the rep of the failed democratic status quo.She ignored the base while catering to many of the fringe elements. Sanders was the one really representing the base issues that the majority and middle class have been beaten down on.More of the same was not an option.Do no harm after the harm was done had limited appeal.Sanders biggest problem was that he was branded as a socialist. The super delegate sham showed how crooked the establishment has become.
J. Riddle Added Apr 20, 2017 - 9:37am
"Good article and one of the best critiques of the Democrat campaign I have seen."
 
You should read the one I wrote about "exploding Clintonite myths," of which some of this article is a rehash. It's better.
 
"I'm not going to say much about candidates because I'm British and things look different from 3000 miles away, but once Wikileaks showed how the Democrat Party managers colluded with the Clinton campaign to cheat Bernie Sanders, it was all over for Clinton."
 
It was all over for her before a single vote was cast. If people had forgotten her and how unappealing she is or had forgotten her unconscionable 2008 campaign (which featured things like public murder-fantasies about her opponent), it was all in the polling data, mostly buried in items that got very little headline attention. I wrote about it throughout the entire campaign season; large numbers of people would say incredibly harsh things about her. The Democratic Establishment, which couldn't have been more out of touch, didn't care.
George N Romey Added Apr 20, 2017 - 11:15am
Clinton was the neoliberal trying to masquerade as a Progressive.  I'm sure that in 2020 a candidate just like her will be trotted out as another Progressive.  It would not shock me if its HRC herself again.  The question is will a real Progressive give up on the party and run as an Independent?
J. Riddle Added Apr 20, 2017 - 11:29am
The Clintonites are presently trying to set up Cory Booker as the next big thing. Fortunately, he publicly committed sepukku on that drug importation amendment. He's since had a come-to-Jesus moment but we'll have to see how that goes. He has a few years to try to put his insides back in himself.
 
There will, in any event, be one or several of those sorts of candidates in 2020. And there will be liberal ones too. If Trump is still in office by then, I expect a very crowded field.
Jeff Michka Added Apr 20, 2017 - 12:03pm
Dino exclaims:  We need conservative Democrats! - Yeah.  Dems and progs that don't believe a woman has a right to choose, want a "state religion," that racial minorities should be left "to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, deny climate science, proclaim a "Flat Earth," and those unemployed coal miners will flock to a D banner?  How does that work? 
John G Added Apr 20, 2017 - 2:32pm
The Clintonites are Republicans in the wrong party. Unfortunately the party machine agrees with them.
Billy Roper Added Apr 20, 2017 - 2:51pm
I thought you told Autumn that you were going to leave?
Ari Silverstein Added Apr 21, 2017 - 5:57am
While I’ll never understand why anyone would vote for Clinton, claiming you knew she would lose is nothing more than 20/20 hindsight.  She was favored to when by a large margin and for good reason.  From Trump’s pussy grabbing made public to the simple fact Clinton is woman, the election was a shock to all. 
 
Furthermore, Vegas had the odds of Trump winning at 4 to 1 on election night and as high as 25 to 1 in just months before the election.  Not to mention the fact every national poll had Clinton winning by a healthy margin. 
 
“I wrote about it throughout the entire campaign season; large numbers of people would say incredibly harsh things about her.”
 
All I can say to the quote above is “obviously.”  Such is the nature for running for public office, people will say incredibly harsh things about you.  If anything, because Clinton is a woman those harsh things are far more difficult to say as it serves to turn-off women voters.  I believe if the Democrats had run any of their other far weaker candidates, they would have lost by even bigger margins.  But no matter how good your hindsight is, we’ll never know the result of a hypothetical election. 
Opes Added Apr 21, 2017 - 8:13am
My suggestion for people who just can't handle to election outcome is as follows:
 
You and millions of other U.S. citizens are shocked.  I want to hope that the millions that voted for the winner can care about how you are feeling.  But it is difficult to find common ground.
 
Here are some points of reference to maybe help you find compassion & comfort through understanding human nature generally and individually.
- Every action has an equal, opposite reaction from which the drastic social changes in recent years has shown up in the election result.
- People imagine themselves to be fair, even when they occasionally realize their subjectivity has cheated someone.
- There is a vastness of people throughout the world who don't like other people for various reasons, and some of the reasons are crazy. Crazy people are dangerous.
Billy Roper Added Apr 21, 2017 - 10:57am
He's not responding. Maybe he's finally keeping his promise to Autumn to leave, since he wasn't appreciated here on WB.
J. Riddle Added Apr 21, 2017 - 9:21pm
"While I’ll never understand why anyone would vote for Clinton, claiming you knew she would lose is nothing more than 20/20 hindsight."
 
Peddle that one to someone who didn't predict Clinton would lose. That piece I wrote about "exploding Clintonite myths," or however I put it, came from what I'd been saying in real time all over the internet (and all I had to do to assemble it was call up my notes). Neither I nor anyone else who correctly called it was possessed of magical powers. It was in the data, for anyone who paid attention.
 
"She was favored to when by a large margin and for good reason."
 
She was not favored to win by a large margin.
 
"From Trump’s pussy grabbing made public to the simple fact Clinton is woman, the election was a shock to all."
 
I appropriated a graphic with her face and emblazoned upon it the word "LOSER" for use with my Facebook posts. I did this in October 2015.

"Not to mention the fact every national poll had Clinton winning by a healthy margin."
 
No national poll "had Clinton winning by a healthy margin." All of the final polls in the RCP database accurately called the election within 1% of the outcome.

"Such is the nature for running for public office, people will say incredibly harsh things about you."
 
Not like this. They were brutal. That's precisely why it stuck out--none of the other candidates were getting those results.
J. Riddle Added Apr 22, 2017 - 1:10pm
"Maybe not, but I see pro Clinton and Clinton apologetics articles there far more than anywhere else I frequent."
 
There's been an absolute explosion of Clintonite articles there over the last few days. While he's the most popular pol in the U.S., these pieces angrily denounce him (for no real reason beyond his being a better candidate than their awful preference) and demanding he be cut loose by the party.
Billy Roper Added Apr 22, 2017 - 1:49pm
Wow, "Riddle" is a liar who won't even leave WB, as he promised to. Who can trust anything else they say, after that?
John G Added Apr 22, 2017 - 4:16pm
There's been an absolute explosion of Clintonite articles there over the last few days.
Indeed. As there has been a sustained and coordinated attack on Tulsi Gabbard.
Jeff Michka Added Apr 22, 2017 - 7:16pm
J Riddle writes:  You try to blame Bernie Sanders for hurting Clinton's chances in the general but all of this was before Sanders was even a factor. - Post (Feb. 2016) this state's caucauses, I fell into disfavor with a husband and wife Clintonista team in this precinct, and got barraged with angry phonecalls from them until HRC was nominated, being blamed for every problem the Clinton campaign clearly had since I was a Sanders supporter, along with most of those attending caucus. Of course. the dynamic duo was politically sophisticated enough to get "elected" to attend county, state and national conventions, some of the Sanders supporters didn't even show to vote, let alone stay in the game.  The capper was day after election, being left a phone msg about how I was responsible for the orange blob getting elected because I'd not supported the "right candidate." I was supposed to have convinced other Ds supporting Sanders that Clinton was the only choice. Riiight.
Jeff Michka Added Apr 22, 2017 - 7:18pm
Billy the Nazi smears: Wow, "Riddle" is a liar who won't even leave WB, as he promised to. Who can trust anything else they say, after that?  - Coming from Autumncote's attempt at mainstreaming Nazism, you really ought to keep a lid on it, furher symp.
J. Riddle Added Apr 22, 2017 - 8:55pm
"I was supposed to have convinced other Ds supporting Sanders that Clinton was the only choice."
 
Clintonites tend to have an absolutely sickening sense of entitlement. They reject the notion that their candidate has to earn votes; she's entitled to them. It's even in their slogan. "I'm With Her." Whereas if I was a voter, I'd look at a political candidate and want to know if she's with me. They've always become incredibly hostile to anyone who wanted a better choice.
John G Added Apr 23, 2017 - 1:35am
This one will amuse you J Riddle.
https://medium.com/@valrendel_88615/fuck-bernie-fucking-sanders-fe49195c97cd
The Other Side Added Apr 23, 2017 - 4:04am
Put a fish hook in each corner of her mouth. Then drag them up into a smile. This has a name. It's a medical condition known as "Riktus".
J. Riddle Added Apr 23, 2017 - 6:57am
"This one will amuse you J Riddle."
 
Yes, I'm expressed my amusement with that one in several comments there since it appeared.
Billy Roper Added Apr 23, 2017 - 11:27am
Lily and Nick like my posts.
Jeff Michka Added Apr 23, 2017 - 1:31pm
Billy the Nazi Roper writes:  Lily and Nick like my posts. - I bet your dog likes you, too...well, maybe likes you.
Ari Silverstein Added Apr 23, 2017 - 10:49pm
If you knew for sure that Clinton would lose you should have bet your life savings on it as you would have increased your net worth by a multiple of 5-25, depending on when you placed your bet.  As to harsh rhetoric, Trump is regularly called a racist, anti-Semite and bigot by just about every main stream media outlet sans Fox News.  If anyone should be complaining about treatment it should be Trump. That whole pussy grabbing comment came out just months before the general election.  Coincidence the main stream media would unleash such a damning video at that late hour…I think not.   
J. Riddle Added Apr 23, 2017 - 11:05pm
"As to harsh rhetoric, Trump is regularly called a racist, anti-Semite and bigot by just about every main stream media outlet sans Fox News."
 
That's entirely false but Trump does play to racism and bigotry with depressing regularity--he's made it a central part of his appeal. If the press slammed him on this as was merited, he wouldn't be president.
 
"If anyone should be complaining about treatment it should be Trump."
 
And he does. And does. And does.
John G Added Apr 24, 2017 - 2:38am
Ari Silverstein
Hypocrite much Ari?
Islamophobes should be careful about flinging accusations of racism toward others. You are an avowed racist after all.
Utpal Patel Added Apr 24, 2017 - 10:10am
I think Clinton would have won the general election if not for the leaking of the emails proving that the Democratic Party colluded and cheated to make sure Bernie didn’t win the nomination.  However, I admit there is no way to prove I’m right.  Whether or not you knew she would lose or if my theory is right, to coin a phrase, “what difference does it make?”  The election is over and dwelling on the past is a pointless endeavor. 
 
Regarding the future, is it your opinion that Democrats shouldn’t respect the will of the delegates and super delegates in the nominating process?  After all, Hillary won the nomination fairly, so even if everyone knew she would lose, how would that have changed anything?  
J. Riddle Added Apr 24, 2017 - 10:47am
"Regarding the future, is it your opinion that Democrats shouldn’t respect the will of the delegates and super delegates in the nominating process?  After all, Hillary won the nomination fairly"
 
That "fairly" part is a bridge quite a bit too far. It isn't really a word that could be applied to that process, which was plagued by both existing problems, intended to support Establishment candidates at the expense of everyone who wasn't, and by specific problems introduced to stop Sanders.
J. Riddle Added Apr 24, 2017 - 10:49am
The problem with putting it all behind us, of course, is that the Clintonites, after leading their party to ruin (maybe the lowest point in its existence), made sure to keep their cushy jobs in the leadership in congress and the party. They're the past but they're still running things.
Jeff Michka Added Apr 24, 2017 - 5:25pm
All of this sounds too familiar to be coincidental.  I got phone beaten daily, insisting that Sanders would "leave the bulk of Ds" behind with his Communist (eh?) "ideals".  That would be too polarizing and Ds would lose the election.  What you relayed from the Clintonista article sounds all too familiar to be coincidence.  THANKS FOR PASSING THIS ALONG.