If you have "no place to go," come here!

Lemming-Votes: Hillary as Next Back-Stabbing Superstar Prez?

A doting Hillary and Bill Clinton gave their big baby girl Chelsea a $3 million wedding in 2010. Chelsea Clinton wore a strapless Vera Wang gown with a beaded waistline. Vera, of course, attended the wedding.

Petty of me to lead with this? I don’t know. Seems like the amount of $3 million for the Chelsea wedding was a rare, accurate disclosure from our mainstream corporate media. Something it was willing to divulge to us low-information but celebrity-worshipping Americans.

To me it is tip of the iceberg evidence of the Clintons having readily sold out the citizens of America for profit and power. Their legacies are angering and heartbreaking enough, but apparently Clintonian betrayal will have an even longer shelf life.

The mainstream corporate media and the faux-progressive lemming citizenry of America are getting ready to provide Hillary Clinton with a “coronation” in 2016.

The mainstream corporate media provides rush to judgment unofficial guilt-condemnation “trials” for us, why not pre-announced election results?

What else is new, I’m thinking, though, sadly there used to be more of us “liberals” who cared or even noticed.

A few weeks ago, according to David Corn in "Hillary Clinton's Goldman Sachs problem" Hillary Clinton gave one of her estimated $200,000 a pop speeches at the New America Foundation in Washington. The speech apparently left Elizabeth Warren in the dust in terms of its eloquent righteousness and passion for the principles of populism. Hillary declared our present economic struggles as a "throwback to the Gilded Age of the robber barons."

David Corn writes:

Here was Hillary, test-driving a theme for a possible 2016 presidential campaign, sticking up for the little guy and trash-talking the economic elites. She decried the "shadow banking system that operated without accountability" and caused the financial crisis that wiped out millions of jobs and the nest eggs, retirement funds, and college savings of families across the land.

Yet at the end of this week, when all three Clintons hold a daylong confab with donors to their foundation, the site for this gathering will be the Manhattan headquarters of Goldman Sachs.

Goldman was a key participant in that "shadow banking system" that precipitated the housing market collapse and the consequent financial debacle that slammed America's middle class. (A system that was unleashed in part due to deregulation supported by the Clinton administration in the 1990s.) ...


This investment house might even be considered one of the robber barons of Wall Street. In its 2011 report, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a congressionally created panel set up to investigate the economic meltdown, approvingly cited a financial expert who concluded that Goldman practices had "multiplied the effects of the collapse in [the] subprime" mortgage market that set off the wider financial implosion that nearly threw the nation into a depression.

Corn points out that Goldman Sachs has donated between $250,000 to $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

Corn asks the question:

“Can the former secretary of state cultivate populist cred while hobnobbing with Goldman and pocketing money from it and other Wall Street firms?”

She is willing to try and it seems with great success. I mean, look at how well it worked out for Barack Obama and his staunch and deluded army of apologists! Big corporate media and all its seductive talking heads don’t care, why should we? Even the NewsHour seems fully pimped out by the oligarchs and their frontmen and frontwomen such as superstars Barack and Hillary and before them Bill Clinton.


Clinton's relationship with Goldman Sachs is not unique. Bill and Hillary Clinton have always nurtured cozy ties with Wall Street—in terms of policies and funds-chasing (for their campaigns and the foundation). The chief economic guru of the Clinton administration was Robert Rubin, a former Goldman Sachs chairman, and the financial deregulation and free-trade pacts of the Clinton years have long ticked off their party's populists.

Of course, Goldman money (I’m thinking we can call it blood money -- and only some comparatively modest portion of it) is going toward Clintonian philanthropy. Just ignore the vast carnage of human beings -- domestic and global -- behind the curtain thanks to both the pimped out (sorry, but that phrase keeps coming to mind) Dem and Republican political establishment and their evil and faux-lesser-evil governance. Let’s enthusiastically applaud the talking points of philanthropy and selective humanitarianism of our betraying, superstar, clay-footed statespeople/salespeople.

Who else have we got, huh?

Anyway, it is so easy to point out the rabid and ruthless stab you in the front Republican maniacs. Why not opt for a smooth and pr-distracted-from but surgically placed knife in the back accompanied by a smile from the front with that cognitive dissonant snake-charming “this is all about humanitarianism and democracy and for your own good, or at least we are shooting for that” damn Dem rhetoric?

Wave that flag of “lesser evilism.” In fact, lose the flag of “lesser evilism” entirely. It will be a whole new game of Lucy and the football with Hillary soon -- but not until after Obama finishes up his craven last rounds of the game.

Hillary has earned her right at the patriarchal table! Her mafia bones, shall we say! Even more than “why on earth don’t the neocons love me more?” Obama. She is respected by BOTH the Dem and Republican establishments as being tough (i.e., heartless) with US foreign policy. Will Obama happily pass the next-stop WWIII baton over to Hillary in 2016 or to a Republican? Does it make a difference in outcome, seriously?

Chalk up one for woman-kind? (Excuse me while I get the vomit bucket.)

Hillary spent 4 years as Secretary of State under Barack Obama. Four years of photo-op pictures of her presumably “helping” the “underclass” of the global family of humankind. Right. You don’t begin to think this is what makes her popular with the murderous neocons and equally murderous corporate profiteering neoliberals, do you, who are happily using their propaganda tool of corporate media to begin to hawk her for the presidency?

Hillary helped increase the deadly militarization of the State Department for the American “Hitlerian” imperialist agenda.

This is what Ralph Nader has to say in “Generalissima Clinton Expanding the Empire”:

A militarized State Department is more than a repudiation of the Department’s basic charter of 1789, for the then-named Department of Foreign Affairs, which envisioned diplomacy as its mission.

Secretary Clinton reveled in tough, belligerent talk and action on her many trips to more than a hundred countries.

She would warn or threaten “consequences” on a regular basis. She supported soldiers in Afghanistan, the use of secret Special Forces in other places and “force projection” in East Asia to contain China. She aggressively supported or attacked resistance movements in dictatorships, depending on whether a regime played to Washington’s tune.

Because Defense Secretary Robert Gates was openly cool to the drum beats for war on Libya, Clinton took over and choreographed the NATO ouster of the dictator, Muammar al-Gaddafi, long after he had given up his mass destruction weaponry and was working to re-kindle relations with the U.S. government and global energy corporations. Libya is now in a disastrous warlord state-of-chaos. Many fleeing fighters have moved into Mali, making that vast country into another battlefield drawing U.S. involvement. Blowback!

Time and again, Hillary Clinton’s belligerence exceeded that of Obama’s Secretaries of Defense. From her seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee to her tenure at the State Department, Hillary Clinton sought to prove that she could be just as tough as the militaristic civilian men whose circle she entered. Throughout her four years it was Generalissima Clinton, expanding the American Empire at large.

Eric Zuesse in “Hillary Clinton’s Record of Failure as Secretary of State” has an interesting perspective on the attacks on Hillary from the right over Benghazi.

Republicans are obsessed with the Benghazi failure, because it reflects negatively upon her but not on themselves. However, Hillary’s real and important failures reflect negatively upon Republicans also, because these failures culminated actually Republican foreign-policy objectives, and dashed Democratic (and democratic) policy-objectives.

Nader and Zuesse are taking hard looks at Hillary’s supposed professional “hard choices” which have caused military mayhem and death to so many. (But again, this is not high interest to celebrity-obsessed, corporate-media captured America.)

Nader marvels at how another ivy league law school graduate, Hillary Clinton, this time from Yale, could have such a “shocking disregard for the law and separation of powers be it the Constitution, federal statues [sic] or international treaties.” Declares Nader Hillary is very much on board with the Obama administration and its “push-button deaths and injuries of internal resisters and civilian bystanders in Pakistan, Afghanistan, yemen and elsewhere who presented no threat to the US”.

The war on Libya, which Clinton spearheaded for Obama, was conducted without a Congressional Declaration of War, without even a War Resolution or a Congressional authorization or appropriation. She and her boss outdid Cheney and Bush on that score.


Although touting “diplomacy” as a priority, Clinton made little attempt to bring the United States into the community of nations by signing or ratifying international treaties already having as signatories over a hundred nations. As a former senator with bi-partisan support, Clinton didn’t use much of her capital on climate change agreements.


Human Rights Watch reports that chief among the unratified treaties are “international conventions relating to children, women, persons with disabilities, torture, enforced disappearance, and the use of anti-personal landmines and cluster munitions.” The last two treaties are designed to save thousands of lives and limbs of the children and their parents who are major victims of these concealed, atrocious weapons. Clinton has not gone to bat against the advocates for those “blowback” explosives that the Pentagon still uses.


Possibly the most revealing of Clinton’s character was ordering U.S. officials to spy on top UN diplomats, including those from our ally, the United Kingdom. Shockingly, she even ordered her emissaries to obtain DNA data, iris scans (known as biometric data) and fingerprints along with credit card and frequent flier numbers.
The disclosure of secret State Department cables proved this to be a clear violation of the 1946 UN convention.


Secretary Clinton had problems heralding accurate whistleblowers. A 24-year-Foreign Service Officer, Peter Van Buren spent a year in Iraq running two State Department Reconstruction Teams. He exposed State Department waste and mismanagement along with the Pentagon’s “reconstruction” efforts using corporate contractors. Unlistened to, Van Buren, true to his civil service oath of office, went public. Clinton fired him.


The State Department has hired thousands of private security contractors for armed details and transportation of personnel. Simply guarding the huge U.S. embassy in Iraq and its personnel costs more than $650 million a year – larger than the entire budget of the Occupational Health and Safety Agency (OSHA), which is responsible for reducing the yearly loss of about 58,000 lives in workplace-related traumas and sickness.


Another State Department undertaking is to improve the training and capability of Iraq’s police and armed forces. Countless active and retired Foreign Service officers believe expanded militarization of the State Department both sidelines them, their experience and knowledge, in favor of contractors and military people, and endangers them overseas.

Blurring the distinction between the Pentagon and the State Department in words and deeds seriously compromises Americans engaged in development and diplomatic endeavors. When people in the developing countries see Americans working to advance public health or clean drinking water systems within their countries, they now wonder if these are front activities for spying or undercover penetrations. Violent actions, fueled by this suspicion, are already jeopardizing public health efforts on the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan.


All that Team Dem and its lemming faux-progressive ranks care about is that Hillary’s time at State Department bat enhanced her patriarchal-culture “machismo cred”!

Hillary is so not about a shift to a humanist paradigm of communication, partnership and cooperation from a patriarchal one of competition, militarism, power and control and greed! But I can see her doing a damn good job pretending she is. Talking the talk is what the gamesmanship is all about.

And for God’s sake, Ralph, get over yourself. This is Post-Morality America as David Brooks claims! And HE should know!

Danny Haiphong in “The More Effective Evil Curtain Call and the Prospect of Hilary 2016” considers Hillary as being as up for the job of “neutralizing” -- super-neutralizing, in fact -- liberalism in America as Barack Obama was and still is.

It will soon become Hillary Clinton’s turn to neutralize Blacks and white liberals in pursuit of the imperial agenda. Her presidency would “further expose the collaboration between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to economic and foreign policy endeavors.”


The corporate media has been preparing the Obama Administration’s curtain call for the 2016 election cycle. Obama’s diligent service for corporate empire stabilized the political rule of imperialism at a high cost for oppressed people everywhere. Now, with the Obama Administration’s popularity at an all time low from the US to South Africa to the Asia Pacific, corporate media syndicates have set their sights on Hilary Clinton’s possible 2016 candidacy.
During her tenure as Obama’s first Secretary of State (2009-2013), Hillary performed the role of top lapdog for the Obama Administration’s imperialist ventures.

Haiphong mourns the ferocious longevity of Obama-mania in this country. In six years Obama has managed to militarize Africa, expand the “prison state” and the police state, slash entitlements, wage NATO-led wars all over Eurasia, generously and regularly drop annihilating drones even on American citizens, erode civil liberties and continue to bail out Wall Street.

This is deemed “lesser evilism”?

God give us strength!


The end of the Obama era and the prospect of Hillary present an interesting challenge to grassroots left forces in the years to come. The Obama presidency’s affect on the consciousness of exploited and oppressed people allowed the ruling circle to institutionalize police-state laws like the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and imperialist projects such as “humanitarian intervention” with little organized resistance. Race to the Top and the Affordable Care Act institutionalized privatization at the national level.

Thus, state repression, capitalist austerity, and imperialist intervention will find strong consensus within both parties of the US establishment come 2016.
Starting from this point, the left will need to carry out an offensive against materialized fascism or decide, as it has for the last six years, to continue attaching itself to the interests of the corporate ruling class. Hillary Clinton appears ready to carry on what Obama has wrought. Her prospects for success are bright if the US left decides to deem her the “lesser-evil” like it did with Obama.

Haiphong cites Hillary’s “capitalist-imperialist treachery” involving the extrajudicial murder of Muammar Gaddafi by “US-NATO bandits”. Clinton’s chillingly glib pronouncement “We came, we saw, he died.” entertained the amoral corporate media mightily. Machismo cred, Exhibit A. All the while the Obama administration with Hillary was bullshitting about humanitarian intervention hundreds of thousands of Libyans were dying or being displaced.

Hillary was on board with starvation sanctions and military threats against Iran. With US-NATO involvement in Syria (the real Benghazi scandal was about Hillary, Obama et al. running weapons to jihadist terrorists in Syria against Assad via Turkey). Now, with the fascist-Nazi coup in Ukraine, Hillary has done her part by demonizing Putin as “Hitler” as Obama and his administration collude with Nazis and fascist oligarchs. Anyone else not see the Orwellian irony of this Putin as Hitler but US with the Nazis reframing?


Since being relieved of her duties as Secretary of State, Hillary has been setting her still unofficial campaign trail ablaze with foreign policy positions that veer to the right of Obama. Last March, the Wall Street Journal covered Hilary’s [sic] speech at the American Jewish Congress in New York.


... she stated bluntly that a military option was “on the table” for Iran if the nation didn’t capitulate to US demands of halting uranium development.
Earlier in the same month, Hillary spoke to a crowd in California comparing Russian President Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler for his responses to the US engineered illegal coup in Ukraine that put US-NATO supported fascists in power. As the Wall Street Journal article reports, Hilary’s imperialist policy positions represent a further move to the right for the Democratic Party in its attempt to escape accountability for the disasters of Libya, Syria, and now Ukraine.

For these positions, Hillary is guaranteed plenty of support from the Zionist Israeli settler state and imperialists all over if and when she announces Presidential candidacy.

Eric Zuesse, aforementioned, reminds us that the Bill Clinton legacy should not be reframed as seriously progressive and used to support a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Many people in the US were shocked when the Obama Administration abandoned each and every progressive campaign promise made in 2008.

In denial, the white liberal and Black misleadership opportunists cried out Republican “obstructionism” and “lesser evil” dogmas to avoid the fact that the Obama Administration was a natural outgrowth of US imperialism. It should not be forgotten that the last Democratic Party President and Hilary’s husband, Bill Clinton, worked hard to collaborate with the much-vaunted right-wing of imperialism.

Clinton eliminated welfare, passed the “three strikes” Omnibus Crime Bill that greatly expanded the prison-state, bombed a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, instituted NAFTA’s job killing proposals, and provided financial and logistical support for the Rwanda and Congolese genocides.

Zuesse also goes after Hillary’s nearly forgotten -- if ever known by most -- support for fascism in Honduras. Honduras would still be a democratic republic in Central America if not for the weaseldom of both Hillary and Barack. On January 28, 2009 progressive president Manuel Zelaya was flown into exile (humiliatingly in his pajamas, no less) from a military coup that was not acknowledged as a coup by the Obama administration (shades of Ukraine!). In fact it was enabled not only by the neocons on the hard right, but a cowardly and amoral Obama and Hillary with one of Hillary’s BFsF, Lanny Davis, playing chief lobbyist for the Honduran aristocracy.

The Honduran coup government thereafter perpetrated murders on political activists, shut down TV and radio stations, detained and intimidated journalists and arrested hundreds of people. (Again, certainly sounds like Urakine situation). Zeusse adds that it was also like 1976 in Argentina when the generals rounded up and “disappeared” leaders who threatened the aristocracy.

The McClatchy newspaper in the US was the only mainstream media outlet willing to call out the betrayal to human rights of the Obama administration by not acknowledging the brutal coup reality in Honduras


Without Obama, Honduras’s fascists would have been defeated. Obama’s refusal to employ either his banking power or his bully pulpit, and Hillary’s outright support of the fascist junta, sealed the deaths of many thousands of Hondurans. The U.S. thus, single-handedly among all nations, kept Honduras’s newly-installed fascist regime in power.

The McClatchy newspaper also did an important though ignored story in 2009 on a despicable scenario in which the Department of Homeland Security and Hillary’s State Department were working with other agencies to routinely refuse to let local Afghan and Iraq people employed by the US in their countries move to the US. These people, Zuesse declares, had “overwhelming reason to fear retaliation from anti-Americans in their home countries after we left.” HILLARY’S STATE DEPARTMENT DID NOTHING for these people asserts Zeusse.

WP journalist Kevin Sieff from Kabul reported on February 2, 2013 how the State Department was willfully ignoring 6,000 Afghan translators who had risked their lives to help the United States attempting to get US visas. Congress, the media, et al. had raised the ever-useful “specter of terrorism” rationalization and, well, US immigration as we all know is a heart of darkness.

Zuesse asks:

What kind of lesson is this teaching to interpreters and other local employees of the U.S. missions in unstable foreign countries?

Helping the U.S. could be terminally dangerous.

Trusting Obama and Hillary Clinton. Also terminally dangerous no matter where you live.

I’m thinking me and my blog have jumped the shark at this point. (Or probably my blog title alone repelled?)

Too much information? Foreign people utilized and betrayed and now imperiled? Who cares in Post-Morality America?

Ignorance is bliss regarding both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and maybe best to keep it that way?

Here is a link to Chelsea in her beautiful bridal gown on the arm of her beloved and celebrated father, Bill Clinton, back in 2010. Enjoy.

Just don’t ever claim, re the rest of it, you weren’t warned.

[cross-posted on open salon]

No votes yet


hyperpolarizer's picture
Submitted by hyperpolarizer on

I don't really buy Nader as a commentator-- or anything else, as far as that goes. People evolve. The G. H. W. Bush of 1980 would have been a better person and a better president (when he finally arrived there in 1988) had he not been Ray-gun's VP. Likewise, had Hillary won in 2008, she'd have been better than she will likely be in 2016. Riverdaughter has amply detailed how the Obots teamed with the Establishment Borg to steal the nomination from her in 2008. There was a simple reason for that: the Borg was afraid of Hillary, because she was not a sociopath, and might do something (however small) to actually help the common people. They got Obama, who *is* a certified sociopath-- mission accomplished. We see where that has led.

Then Hillary's years as SOS have cemented her establishment credentials. I'm not saying she wasn't establishmentarian in 2008, but that there was some room within her heart and soul for some modicum of positive achievement.

Maybe there is still a little now-- but certainly less than in 2008.

As for Nader-- he lost credibility with me in 2000. No matter how you slice, and in despite of all his weaknesses and errors, Gore would have been better than Shrub. The key thing for the rethugs in the post-election battle was to avoid the appearance of any possible victory narrative for Gore. The closeness of the existing vote-count insured that (thanks Ralph.)

When all the votes were finally counted according to Florida's state-sanctioned rules, it turned out Gore had actually won. By that time (it was well into 2002, if memory serves) 9-11 was already history, and no one, but no one, was going to revisit November-December of 2000.

Submitted by lambert on

Now she owns everything Obama's done, including drones and surveillance and whacking US citizens without due process. Now it's too late to go back.

It will be amusing to watch the Obots fall in line behind her if she runs and she's the nominee, but that's basically all I'm looking forward to, sadly.

BruceMcF's picture
Submitted by BruceMcF on

Though I've not yet seen real reason to doubt that she owned those in the deeper sense of being a part of the architecture and supporter of the execution of the policy to retain the anti-constitutional power grabs of the Bush years while inventing pretenses of greater legality under the Constitution.

There's rarely any reason for a progressive populist to invest much time and effort or, for those progressive populists with some spare cash, campaign contributions at the Presidential level. Even if an honest populist was elected President, a substantial amount of the President's authority does not come from their Constitutional office, but from the trappings of the Imperial Presidency which derives a substantial amount of its clout from the Military-Political-Industrial Complex. So an honest populist would be faced with a devil's bargain choice between pursuing the weakening of the Imperial Presidency that is an entrenched establishment force to be used against progressive populism and, at the same time, weakening their own hand in pursuing the policy they wish to achieve ... or alternatively, pursuing the power a President needs to achieve populist reform, at the expense of further entrenching the power that will be used to gut those reforms as soon as he or she is replaced by a corporate stooge.

Even if playing an inside-outside political strategy, the Democratic wing of the Democratic party rarely wins the nomination, when it does, rarely wins the election, and if it should, would not be allowed by the Corporate wing of the Democratic party to govern without making enough compromises to undermine the purpose of electing them in the first place.

So I've been thinking for a while now that it may be wisest to treat the Presidential race as a sideshow to decide which Corporate wing is going to be our opponent occupying the White House and focus on the local commission & council, state legislature and Congressional races.

V. Arnold's picture
Submitted by V. Arnold on

...indeed! Right on! How anyone can vote as a democrat just boggles the mind...
Americans are truly insane; do the same thing over and over and expect different results????
Alai wah? (Thai for "what the fuck?") ;o)

V. Arnold's picture
Submitted by V. Arnold on

...more difficult to name those not operating thus, than those who do...