By: Renee Nal | New Zeal
- Hillary Clinton “…repair[ed] relations around the world that had been completely trashed by the previous administration.” (NYT)
- Hillary Clinton “…will build on the achievements of Obama’s presidency.” (CPUSA)
- Hillary Clinton “…led the fight in ensuring that poor women get federal funds to pay for their abortions.” (NYT)
- Hillary Clinton will “defend the integrity of democratic structures, governance, and traditions [big government].” (CPUSA)
The very first sentence of the New York Times editorial endorsing Hillary Clinton trashes Republican presidential candidates as being the purveyors of “empty propaganda slogans.” While in comparison, Democratic primary voters who seek a “substantive debate over real issues,” the authors gush, “have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.”
As the ideological lines become increasingly blurred, perhaps an endorsement from Communist Party USA (CPUSA) is a positive step in the right direction for the progressively-indoctrinated youth vote. And clearly, the watchdogs are turning a blind eye.
Sam Webb, former national chairperson for CPUSA who currently serves as CPUSA’s public spokesperson says that although Hillary Clinton is not Bernie Sanders, she “will build on the achievements of Obama’s presidency. In other words, her White House will press for economic, social, and political reforms on a range of issues, including existentially necessary action on climate change.”
Webb, not the sharpest tool, warns ominously:
If the Republicans win the presidency, that firewall against far-right extremism that the Obama administration represented will disappear and the barbarians will be no longer at the gate, but likely in charge of the whole castle.
The NYT astonishingly praises Hillary Clinton’s efforts as Secretary of State, claiming that along with Obama and their shared vision, Clinton “allowed the United States to repair relations around the world that had been completely trashed by the previous administration.”
Hillary Clinton, according to the Old Grey Lady (who is most certainly not a lady) deals with the most “substantive” of issues like her support of gun control, regulating the “business establishment” and “the wage gap for women, especially for women of color.” Clinton also led the fight in ensuring that poor women get federal funds to pay for their abortions.
For his part, Sam Webb of CPUSA continues to say that Hillary,
“will fight for the full range of democratic rights – collective bargaining rights, wage rights, job rights, women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights, voting rights, immigrant rights, and, not least, health rights – as well as defend the integrity of democratic structures, governance, and traditions [code for big government].’
As an aside, the NYT also condescendingly trashes Republican candidates for having experience outside of Washington. One can almost feel the sneer:
“…it would be comical to watch any of the Republican candidates try to make that case [regulations for Wall Street and banks], given that they are all virtually tied to, or actually part of, the business establishment.”
On Clinton’s use of the military, the New York Times explains:
“…we have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton would use American military power effectively and with infinitely more care and wisdom than any of the leading Republican contenders.”
Webb laments that if a Republican wins the White House, he or she will “ramp up militarism, [engage in] climate change obstructionism, and the wholesale shrinkage of the public sector.”
To make matters worse, this concentration of state power in the hands of the extreme right at the federal level is matched and augmented by its control of thirty state governments, ubiquitous voice in the major media, network of well-funded think tanks, pastors in the pulpits, energetic grassroots constituency, and nearly bottomless war chest – thanks to the Koch brothers and other right wing billionaires.
Which brings me back to the slogan ‘Bernie or Bust.’ If too many interpret it to mean Bernie or no one, least of all Hillary, it becomes an action (or inaction) that could well cede the country to right wing extremists.
Explain to this author what the difference is between the Democrats, the socialists and the Communists again?
Neither of the articles mentioned the Constitution.