There's a new book out, counting the ways in which Hillary Clinton failed to close the sale last year.  Upon reading it, Robert Parry, for Common Dreams, says the things Respectable People dared not say last year.  "An early insider account of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, entitled Shattered, reveals a paranoid presidential candidate who couldn’t articulate why she wanted to be President and who oversaw an overconfident and dysfunctional operation that failed to project a positive message or appeal to key voting groups."  Yes, if there was any Russian meddling, it happened years ago, at Wellesley, where the Dowager Empress first learned to think of normals as deplorables.

How bad is it?  Bad enough that Mr Parry is reduced to citing sources that Proper Virtue Signallers, last year, were writing off as Beneath Contempt. "Clinton – in some Nixonian fit of paranoia – violated the privacy of her senior advisers in her own mole hunt, a revelation that reflects on her own self-described “mistake” to funnel her emails as Secretary of State through a private server rather than a government one. As the [Wall Street] Journal’s review puts it: 'she didn’t want anyone reading her emails the way she was reading those of her 2008 staffers.'"  So perhaps the Donk establishment will pay closer attention to what the left wing has been saying.
A passive-aggressive campaign that neglected to act on warning flares sent up by Democratic operatives on the ground in crucial swing states, and that ignored the advice of the candidate’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, and other Democratic Party elders, who argued that the campaign needed to work harder to persuade undecided and ambivalent voters (like working-class whites and millennials), instead of focusing so insistently on turning out core supporters.”

So, perhaps this new book about how Hillary Clinton really lost Campaign 2016 will enable national Democrats to finally start charting a course correction before the party slams another Titanic-style campaign into another iceberg.
The challenge, though, is in appealing to the Wellesley-style millennials and older blue collar voters.  The elders, meanwhile, are interested in exiling Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard.
Neera Tanden, the head of the Center for American Progress, dashed off a tweet calling on voters in Hawaii to oust Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard for expressing skepticism about the Syrian government’s responsibility for the chemical attack that provoked the US military strikes. Former presidential candidate and former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean piled on, and tweeted that Gabbard’s comments were a “disgrace” and that she “should not be in the Congress.”
Representative Gabbard is an interesting case, a surfing Major in the Reserves, with reservations about committing forces to ill-defined military campaigns.  But Robert Borosage argues she's gone off the reservation the Donk Establishment runs.
 Gabbard earned Tanden and Dean’s enmity when she resigned as deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee in 2016 in order to endorse Bernie Sanders, warning that a Clinton victory would mean further futile interventions in the Middle East chaos. The attack on Gabbard from two ardent Clinton supporters should not surprise us.

Tanden and Dean walk in the footsteps of those who would have read Republican Senator Wayne Morse and Democratic Senator Ernest Gruening out of the Congress for providing the only votes against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, or censored William Fulbright for leading the indictment of the Johnson Administration’s Vietnam lies and myths. Would they banish the 21 Democratic Senators who got it right when they doubted the distorted intelligence that claimed to prove Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and voted against Bush’s catastrophic war of choice on that country?
That second sentence is speculative, and it may be another dying gasp of the Sixties leftovers attempting to win an argument they lost long ago with an appeal that the current crop of likely Democrat voters are so addled by contemporary miseducation that it falls flat.  Mr Borosage is likely correct, though, that there is a scrap for the future of the Democrats in progress.
Democrats are in the midst of a major struggle to decide what they stand for and who they represent. Part of that is the debate over a bipartisan interventionist foreign policy that has so abjectly failed. In her short time in Congress, Gabbard has established herself as a leading critic of that policy. The harsh attack on her is simply an attempt to enforce the boundaries of conventional wisdom. Gabbard deserves applause and support for questioning those boundaries in the cause of peace.
That's one fault line. Bill "Politically Incorrect" Maher has identified another.  "There's liberals like me and then there's the kale eaters, and the kale eaters, they're the ones who are dragging this party down."

It's giving Kurt Schlichter no end of entertainment.
You Democrats must ensure that every Democrat candidate everywhere embodies the passions and the prejudices of weenie San Francisco tech dorks!

Now, I’m telling you this as a friend, the same kind of a friend you are to working people, to our troops, to American patriots: I sincerely hope that you stick to your principles, that you never doubt yourselves, and that you never waver.

You’re perfect just the way you are.

Don’t you ever change.
I think he's sending a carload of kale to Democrat headquarters.

No comments: