Slayings Under The Radar

On the morning of June 4, several hours after the deadly terrorist attack in London, Donald Trump- now a Bible-believing, evangelical Christian man of God- no doubt was preparing to attend Sunday worship.

Nevertheless, he did find time to issue several tweets about the incident, including the most despicable, when he twisted the words of Sadiq Khan, typing "at least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is 'no reason to be alarmed.'"

However, twelve minutes later, at 7:43 a,m., Trump issued a tweet which, while garnering far less attention, was nearly as reprehensible: "do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now?
That's because they used knives and a truck."

No, that's not why. It's because it simply is not permitted.

In news most people missed, Slate's Ben Mathis-Lilley informs us that one week before the London terrorist attack

eight people in the U.S. were killed by a single shooter who was angry at his estranged wife.

The details: On May 27, a sheriff's deputy in Bogue Chitto, Mississippi, responded to a home where 35-year-old Willie Cory Godbolt was arguing with his wife about custody of their two children. Godbolt then shot and killed the deputy and three of his wife's relatives. He would later shoot and kill four other individuals he was related to or acquainted with, including an 11-year-old boy, before being arrested. Godbolt had a long rap sheet that included serious domestic violence charges; it's not clear how he obtained the gun used in the killings. (Domestic violence homicides—and the deaths of individuals who are "corollary" to domestic disputes—are very common in the U.S.)

Then the same day terrorists struck in London, Mathis-Lilley continues,

there were three firearm homicides in Baltimore, three in St. Louis, two in South Carolina, and one each in California, Georgia, Las Vegas, Louisiana and Alabama. A toddler who'd found a gun under a bed also accidentally killed himself in Pennsylvania, making for 14 total known gun violence deaths in the country on that day. (That's actually an unusually low daily total.) On Monday morning, meanwhile, five people working at a business near Orlando, Florida, were killed by a former co-worker. 

Part of the reason Orlando- and Baltimore and St.Louis and South Carolina and Bogue Chitto- were largely ignored was because, as the Slate man noted, "reports say the incident was not 'terror-related.'"

Nonetheless- and inconveniently for the NRA and the gun huggers Trump was pandering to-

French police shot a man outside Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris on Tuesday after he tried to attack them with a hammer and shouted "This is for Syria" in a terror incident just two days after the London attacks.

French media said the man, who claimed to be an Algerian "student", was also in possession of two kitchen knives and other unsophisticated weapons. One policeman, aged 22, was lightly injured in the neck.

French media cited a source close to the inquiry as saying the injured assailant claimed to be a "soldier of the Caliphate", presumed to be a reference to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil)....

Lacking a gun

the unnamed attacker had swung his hammer at a police officer guarding the top tourist site, landing a blow. But before he could do any more damage, his colleague opened fire, hitting the assailant in the legs.

Journalist David Metreau, who said his office overlooks the square, tweeted that there were two "blasts" that sounded like shots, and posted a photo of a body lying seemingly inert on the ground.

Elite officers armed with automatic weapons and bullet-proof vests swiftly sealed off the main square to check for accomplices, but soon announced that the situation was "under control"....

England's interior minister evidently is notably relieved that police officers, armed with firearms, had an advantage the attacker didn't.  The report continues

Visiting the scene shortly afterwards, Mr Collomb said: "Three police officers were patrolling the site. A person came up behind the officers armed with a hammer and started hitting one of them." 

Keeping a cool head, his colleague stepped back and opened fire "ensuring the attacked officer didn't suffer any more serious harm."

Once again: the incident, featuring an assailant unable to kill anyone because he was armed with a hammer, appeared to be an Islamic terrorist because

He added that during the attack the man shouted: "This is for Syria."






Give the NRA credit.  It keeps its mouth shut after multiple firearm murders in the USA- and in France, a (apparent) terrorist attack in which the assailant fails because he doesn't have a gun. But then, it has Donald Trump and a "liberal media" to ignore the obvious lesson.






Share |

Leading The USA Astray

Soon after President Trump's ill-advised decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, the request from Daily Kos came in to "take action today and tell Congress: It's time to put America first and take the climate crisis seriously before it's too late." Two days later, I was implored by DK to "Sign the petition to your state & city government. Fight climate change by agreeing to join the Paris climate agreement."

Then we were informed that as supporters of  the agreement, the governors of California, New York, and Washington had rapidly formed the United States Climate Alliance, which is to be "a forum to sustain and strengthen existing climate programs, promote the sharing of information and best practices, and implement new programs to reduce carbon emissions from all sectors of the economy.”

This is a good thing, not unlike if the GOP congress were to propose raising the minimum wage to $7.50 per hour, no strings attached (fat chance, that).  Hopefully, it will prove to be only a start, even if it indirectly helps pull Donald Trump's fat out of the fire (on this one issue) and smacks a little of states' rights.






Though doing more good than harm, it's not the primary problem with Trump's move.  Michael Grunwald explains

Similarly, it’s important not to exaggerate the substantive impact of Trump’s decision to bail on Paris, which will officially remove the United States from the agreement in late 2020 at the earliest. It’s a signal that the U.S. government no longer cares about the climate, but that’s been abundantly clear ever since Trump won the election and appointed an energetic fossil-fuel advocate named Scott Pruitt to run the Environmental Protection Agency. Leaving Paris won’t reverse the rapid decline of coal or the boom of cleaner energy in America, because the economics of coal have fallen apart while the cost of wind and solar have plummeted, and it won’t stop that same trend in China, India and the rest of the world. By the same token, if Trump had announced he was staying in the Paris deal, that wouldn’t have meant that Trump was abandoning his efforts to gut Obama’s climate regulations (like the Clean Power Plan for the electricity sector) and other climate policies (like those fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks). Really, it would have been pretty weird for Trump to remain in the deal while trying to undermine everything the U.S. was doing to live up to its commitments.

Meanwhile, the earth is still warming, the polar ice caps are still melting, and the seas are still rising, heedless of the inspiring words committed to paper in Paris, and just as heedless of a noisy American politician’s decision to reject them. Trump may believe climate change is a hoax manufactured in China, and congressional Republicans may continue to oppose any action to address it, but that won’t make the physical realities of climate-driven droughts, floods, pandemics and refugee migrations any less brutal. It’s reminiscent of the old riddle: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have? Four, because a tail is not a leg. Trump can call global warming a hoax, but 2014 was nevertheless the hottest year on record, until it was displaced by 2015, which was overtaken by 2016. That tail is not a leg.

The major issue is one of leadership. Trump wants to lead his base, or maybe the United States, but not beyond.  A trio of  Washington Post reporters notes that while there will be relatively miminimal concrete impact of Trump's rejection of the climate pact

it matters more that he’s announcing to the nations of the world that he intends to ignore an issue they consider vital to the planet. He is creating an intentional leadership vacuum, dispensing with the long-standing notion of the United States as the indispensable nation—just as he did when he withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal in Asia, with his tepid commitments to NATO on his trip to Europe, and with his proposal for drastic budget cuts in foreign aid and international diplomacy. He is making it clear that America First means the problems of the world are not America’s problems. He’s opening the door for China and Europe to take over the role of global leaders on climate change, and maybe the world’s other major problems.

If he needed a nudge, though, one came from France over the weekend. Macron was quoted in a French journal talking about his white-knuckled handshake with Trump at their first meeting in Brussels, where the newly elected French president gripped Trump’s hand tightly and would not let go for six long seconds in a show of alpha-male fortitude.

“My handshake was not innocent,” Macron said. He likened Trump to a pair of authoritarian strongmen — Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan — and said that he was purposefully forceful because he believed his encounter with Trump was “a moment of truth.”

Hearing smack-talk from the Frenchman 31 years his junior irritated and bewildered Trump, aides said.

A few days later, Trump got his revenge. He proclaimed from the Rose Garden, “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.”

Embracing strongmen, talking the talk of Vladimir Putin, running down a mayor of the nation's biggest ally, giving the back of the hand to NATO in Brussels, and now boldly and unabashedly undermining U.S. military policy in the Mideast, President Trump has given whole new meaning to the word "weak."

In April, 1970 President Nixon (defending a policy which would end badly) declared that failing to take aggressive action against Cambodia would demonstrate "If, when the chips are down, the world's most powerful nation, the United States of America, acts like a pitiful, helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world."

Under the current President, the USA has become a pitiful giant while assisting the forces of totalitarianism, be they Russia, Saudi Arabia, or the Phillipines.   Donald Trump, Eugene Robinson observes, "is abdicating all moral power. The world has no choice but to move on."

Share |

Accountability Misplaced

On the winning and wrong side of the issue, the ACLU on March 4, 2014 explained

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today ruled that states and localities are not required to imprison people based on "detainer" requests from the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, ICE, recognizing that states and localities may share liability when they participate in wrongful immigration detentions. The ruling in Galarza v. Szalczyk, et al., stems from Lehigh County Prison’s wrongful detention of Ernesto Galarza, a U.S. citizen, who despite posting bail and telling his jailers that he was born in New Jersey was held in jail for three days because of an ICE detainer that stated only that ICE was investigating his immigration status. 

Mr. Galarza’s complaint alleges that the detainer was issued based on his race, without any valid basis to believe that he was a removable non-citizen. The Third Circuit’s decision recognized that because ICE detainers are non-binding requests, Lehigh County can be held legally responsible for imprisoning Mr. Galarza for three days on this basis.

The notion that detainers are mere requests and non-binding is ludicrous, whether applied to immigration or anything else. Putting the burden upon local jurisdictions for confirming the validity of warrants issued by the federal government- an outrageous concept- has understandably made local jursidictions skittish about providing any information to Immigration Customs Enforcement. The federal government should be held accountable.

The ruling has encouraged enactment by cities, states and counties of "sanctuary" status, which can take various forms.  In its most extreme (and unwise) form, the city of San Francisco "prohibits municipal employees from using 'any city funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate information regarding release status of individuals.'” Far more wisely, Sonoma County "merely maintains an unwritten rule that sheriffs’ deputies not go out of their way to inquire about, or act upon, immigration status."

Two of the three judges sitting in 2014 in federal court in Philadelphia struck a blow against cooperation among law enforcement authorities, and imposed unnecessary and potentially devastating liability against localities, making the latter responsible for errors made by the federal government.

It gave ICE a free pass and they mean to make the most of it. That appears at least to be the case in New Jersey, where

State lawmakers are convening a public hearing Monday on the practice of federal immigration officials arresting undocumented immigrants during routine appearances at New Jersey courthouses, a practice that has drawn scrutiny around the country. 

The state Assembly judiciary committee will take testimony from lawyers, civil liberties groups and advocates for immigrants and victims of domestic violence, according to Assemblyman John McKeon, the committee's chairman.

The hearing comes more than a month after the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, Stuart Rabner, wrote a letter to federal Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly objecting to the arrests of immigrants at courthouses in Passaic and Middlesex counties by officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

"When individuals fear that they will be arrested for a civil immigration violation if they set foot in a courthouse, serious consequences are likely to follow," Rabner wrote.

Surely, the federal government, her as pertaining to immigration control and enforcement, should accomodate the chief justice of a state's high court. Alas, not so, for

Federal officials have shown no signs of backing down, arguing courthouse arrests are necessary because ICE's targets often live in the shadows under aliases and without regular employment, making a courthouse the safest option for law enforcement to take them into custody. 

"The safest option for law enforcement to take" are the words of the reporter from NJ Advance Media, rather than of ICE. With security precautions such as metal detectors in place in county courthouses, the counties have done much of the work for the feds, allowing them to make arrests with relative ease.  Still, if the officers are armed, something other than their own safety should determine departmental strategy.  It's what law enforcement is about; if urban police officers focused their attention on pleasant, crime-free neighborhoods rather than the most dangeous areas of town, little impact can be made.

Six weeks ago, the governor of New Jersey- as can always be expected- came in on the wrong side as

Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican and staunch Trump ally, said it was inappropriate for Rabner to weigh in on the contentious issue. State Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto, himself a Cuban immigrant, said ICE's use of court appearances to make arrests "promotes fear and dissuades undocumented immigrants from coming forward to report crimes or to assist the criminal justice system."

Of course it does.  Victims will not come forward. Witnesses will not come forward. Defendants will less often come forward, resulting in issuance by the Judge of a warrant, jacking up costs for the county or state government. Both local law enforcement and the judicial system will suffer.

Courage is needed. That includes ICE, which should continue workplace raids and not courthouse raids. However, it includes also Chief Justice Rabner, whom the chairman of the Assembly committee says has refused to testify. (The unrelated video below is from December, 2015.)

That is not only wrong, but foolish. Sometimes a judge is inadvertently, and unavoidably, dragged into a political issue, and in this case the judge's viewpoint is not only necessary but judicious. Without a pushback, the federal government- as in Galarz v. Szalczyk- will never have to acknowlege that immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government with cooperation, not assistance, of other levels of government.











Share |

Cataclysmic Event

In a statement Saturday, Bill Maher wrote

Friday nights are always my worst night of sleep because I'm up reflecting on the things I should or shouldn't have said on my live show. Last night was a particularly long night as I regret the word I used in the banter of a live moment. The word was offensive and I regret saying it and am very sorry.

Prior to the apology, Reverend Al Sharpton had contended

The n-word has a long history of hate, murder, violence, oppression and terror associated with it. People forget that even in the not-so-distant past, it was used to delegitimize an entire group and deny them voting rights, fair housing, jobs, access to upward mobility and so much more. Today, it is still being used to target, harm and attack folks no matter how successful or famous they are. We cannot accept usage of this term even when it is in the context of a bad joke. A joke, I might add, that made reference to ‘working in the fields’. There is no misconstruing what the subject matter was here. Maher should be ashamed.

Maintaining "regret" at saying something "offensive" for which he is now "very sorry" is as complete an apology we'll get from any public figure for anything, a little short of self-flagellation.

And so it is now not time to defend Maher or to consider the list of rap performers who use the "n-word" with no criticism from Sharpton or most of Maher's critics. Nor is it necessary to criticize Sharpton for implying that Maher somehow is responsible for anything pertaining to voting rights, fair housing, jobs, or access to upward mobility.  If Al Sharpton remains credible in the eyes of a substantial number of people after his despicable record, no amount of reasoning will help. And- to be fair- he is not alone in his simplistic approach.







As the video above indicates, Maher did not use the actual "n-word" but rather "house nigg_ _ ," which associate professor of English and comparative literature John McWhorter maintains "is a word that developed from 'nigger,' but has a different pronunciation and also a different meaning." Addressing the controversy over Larry Wilmore's reference at the 2016 White House Correspondents' Dinner to President Obama as "my nigga," McWhorter argued

These days, many seem to think that the intent of the person using the N-word is less important than the offense taken by the hearer. But there are times when hearers might reconsider the offense they are taking, especially because language submits only reluctantly to policing.

Let's police the use of the N-word as a slur, but not a word that started from it but now means "friend," and not people only talking about, rather than using it. 

While linguistic pespective is provided by a live English professor, history perspective may be provided by a deceased activist.  At Michigan State University in 1963, Malcolm X explained

So you have two types of Negro. The old type and the new type. Most of you know the old type. When you read about him in history during slavery he was called "Uncle Tom." He was the house Negro. And during slavery you had two Negroes. You had the house Negro and the field Negro.
The house Negro usually lived close to his master. He dressed like his master. He wore his master's second-hand clothes. He ate food that his master left on the table. And he lived in his master's house--probably in the basement or the attic--but he still lived in the master's house.

So whenever that house Negro identified himself, he always identified himself in the same sense that his master identified himself. When his master said, "We have good food," the house Negro would say, "Yes, we have plenty of good food." "We" have plenty of good food. When the master said that "we have a fine home here," the house Negro said, "Yes, we have a fine home here." When the master would be sick, the house Negro identified himself so much with his master he'd say, "What's the matter boss, we sick?" His master's pain was his pain. And it hurt him more for his master to be sick than for him to be sick himself. When the house started burning down, that type of Negro would fight harder to put the master's house out than the master himself would.

But then you had another Negro out in the field. The house Negro was in the minority. The masses--the field Negroes were the masses. They were in the majority. When the master got sick, they prayed that he'd die. [Laughter] If his house caught on fire, they'd pray for a wind to come along and fan the breeze.

If someone came to the house Negro and said, "Let's go, let's separate," naturally that Uncle Tom would say, "Go where? What could I do without boss? Where would I live? How would I dress? Who would look out for me?" That's the house Negro. But if you went to the field Negro and said, "Let's go, let's separate," he wouldn't even ask you where or how. He'd say, "Yes, let's go." And that one ended right there.

Still, Bill Maher shouldn't have made his remark. If comments like that are not eradicated or at least universally condemned when uttered, we might one day vote in as President of the United States someone who believes he can own a black person.

Share |

From North America To Europe

With remarkable prescience, Josh Lederman of the Associated Press reported a mere three days after the inauguration of our nation's 45th president

“With the election of Donald Trump, the old world of the 20th century is finally over,” German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier wrote in the Bild newspaper, reflecting a broader European lament about confused international leadership and increased disorder.

Signs already abounded when at the recent meeting in Brussels, President Trump notably failed to affirm American commitment to Article 5, which emphasizes "an atack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies."  Refusing to acknowledge that the only time Article V has been invoked has been in support of the United States (after 9/11/01), the head of the world's leading economy moaned and groaned like a weak, bullied child, complaining about the size of the defense budgets of member nations.

European leaders were neither pleased nor amused. The de facto chief of NATO, Germany's Angela Merkel, received a standing ovation when a few days later she stated "This is what I experienced in the last few days. We Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands.”







Thus with no formal declaration, Mrs. Merkel was thrust into the role as leader of the Trans-Atlantic Alliance.  Responding in part to the expected announcement by Trump on June 2 of US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, on June 1

According to a statement being prepared before an EU-China summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, the new alliance will say they are determined to “lead the energy transition” toward a low-carbon economy.

The EU’s climate commissioner, Miguel Arias Cañete, told the Guardian: “The EU and China are joining forces to forge ahead on the implementation of the Paris agreement and accelerate the global transition to clean energy.”

Cañete continued: “No one should be left behind, but the EU and China have decided to move forward. Our successful cooperation on issues like emissions trading and clean technologies are bearing fruit. Now is the time to further strengthen these ties to keep the wheels turning for ambitious global climate action.”

This neatly, albeit disturbingly, fulfills Lederman's speculation on January 23 that

President Donald Trump’s pursuit of an “America first” foreign policy is raising questions about who, if anyone, will fill the void if the U.S. relinquishes its traditional global leadership role. China and Russia are among the aspirants for greater economic and military influence, while an ambivalent Germany could emerge as the West’s moral compass.

Given that mainland China and even Russia are typically not considered part of the "west," Germany has become much more than even a moral compass, an irony no one could even imagine 72 years ago.

It takes no imagination, however, to interpret the whine of Environmental Protection Administrator Scott Pruitt during the Administration's news conference of June 2 when he complained (at 1:40 of video)

The world applauded- the world applauded when we joined Paris. And you know why? I think they applauded because they knew it was going to put this country at an economic disadvantage. And the reason European leaders- going back to the question earlier- is I think they want us to stay in, is that they know it'll shackle our economy that we're leading the world in respect to our CO2 production.







Pruitt- who is said to be one of the two opponents of the pact in the Administration- clearly summarized a prime motive for Trump's action.  The President name-checked cities in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan (what- no Wisconsin?) but was also eager to give the middle finger to the rest of the world,  It was only more convenient that it was the Paris Agreement, and the French have a reputation among a lot of Trump voters for those things they find most offensive in the modern world.

Additionally, Pruitt expresses that sense of grievance that runs through so much of Trump's statements and tweets. Whether he and the President really are silly enough to believe that the world's nations joined the Agreement to harm the USA, to "put this country at an economic disadvantage," is less important than its reinforcement as a theme in this presidency.  Similarly, in Brussels, Trump moaned "this is not fair." Whatever he complains at any time of of being "not fair"  is less important than assuaging a sense of grievance..

President Trump, Michael Grunwald notes, is "creating an international leadership vacuum" and "opening the door for China and Europe to take over the role of global leaders on climate change, and maybe the world’s other major problems."

The cooperation between the EU and China on global warming may presage leadership of Beijing on other major problems. But the interests of the free world cannot be met by China,which is not a free country, and which recognizes only its own interests, a view of nation reflected in Trump's "America First" mantra.

The torch of leadership, once alleged to be passed to a new generation, now must pass to a group dedicated to common interests, and to its leader.  "We Europeans must really take our fate into our own hands," Angela Merkel maintains.  The two world wars of the last century notwithstanding, that torch now resides not in Washington, but in Berlin.






Share |

Running Scared

President Trump recently had Ted Nugent over to the White House, although (more likely, because) the one-hit wonder had before the 2012 presidential campaign had warned “We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their [the Obama administration’s] heads off in November.” Two years later he referred to the first black president as a "chimpanzee" and denounced "a Chicago communist raised communist educated communist nurtured subhuman mongrel like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama..."






Still, that was one guy, one time who was given the privilege of a visit very few Americans ever are offered.

Then Steve M. pointed out the statement of Ann Coulter, who once had maintained “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building;” then clarified "Of course I regret it. I should have added, 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters;'" then given a chance at retraction, added "I think the Timothy McVeigh line was merely prescient after The New York Times has leapt beyond — beyond nonsense straight into treason, last week.”

That same year, SM noted, Coulter wrote her second-right wing screed to hit #1 on The New York Times best-seller list for non-fiction, an honor second to being invited to the White House, but even more career-enhancing.

Still, old news of a sort, not worth blogging about now that Kathy Griffin, the latest celebrity to do something reprehensible, took down an image of Trump with a bloody, severed head.  Fulsomely apologizing on Instagram, she wrote "I went way too far. The image is too disturbing. I understand how it offends people. It wasn't funny. I get it.....I made a mistake and I was wrong."

CNN canceled its arrangement with Griffin to co-host New Years' Eve festivities with Anderson Cooper, as did Route 66 Casino in New Mexico the July appearance of the comedienne. CNN and Route 66 have business considerations, although the idea of someone failing to live up to the ethical standards upheld by a casino is absurd.

But no more absurd than the response from a couple of Democrats.  Minnesota Senator Al Franken, who already had panned Griffin's stunt as "inappropriate and not something that should be anywhere in our national discourse," canceled a July appearance he was to have held with her to promote his new book.  And freshman senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada announced she would give to charity a donation made to her by Ms. Griffin.

Ted Nugent gets invited to 16oo Pennsylvania Avenue, a fitting tribute from a man who recognized (and still does) that the American people are fed up with what they term "political correctness." Ignore Breitbart, Newsmax, and the other right-wing media outlets which want to bait Democrats into displaying what they and their followers consider weakness.  Republicans will not be satisfied with apologies or satiated by sincere remorse, and a demonstration of sensitivity by Democrats will remind many people of what they don't like about the Democratic Party.

"When people are insecure," Bill Clinton once said, "they’d rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who’s weak and right.”    Donald Trump knows that well. The opposition, burdened by conscience, does not.

Share |

Can't Keep Her Down

With a commencement speech at her alma mater and a string of interviews, Hillary Clinton continues her tour, one in which she refuses to fall on her sword. This has annoyed many folks on the right and the left,  but not Charlie Pierce, who remarks

Right now, as far as I can see, HRC is the only one completely free to hammer away at the extraordinary events that conspired to put Donald Trump in the White House. As the investigations continue to accelerate, the country needs somebody outside of the Congress and outside of Department of Justice to keep the country at large focused on the real cost of having abided by the Clinton Rules while an election was hijacked from afar. Might as well be her.

It might as well be her because no one else is in the enviable position of being both credible and free to speak truth to power, which- after eight years of Barack Obama- is in the hands of the Republican Party everywhere.

In an interview given on May 31, Clinton made several important points, including "The Republicans have to be constantly pushed to put country above party."  Digby links to a piece by syndicated conservative radio host Dennis Prager, who wrote

I have concluded that there are a few reasons that explain conservatives who were Never-Trumpers during the election, and who remain anti-Trump today. 

The first and, by far, the greatest reason is this: They do not believe that America is engaged in a civil war, with the survival of America as we know it at stake. While they strongly differ with the Left, they do not regard the left–right battle as an existential battle for preserving our nation. On the other hand, I, and other conservative Trump supporters, do. 

This is not someone who is placing country over party but who sees America as a failed nation, one which cannot be preserved unless a civil war is fought and won. Trump, as we observed throughout the campaign and even since he was elected, sees the nation as one beset by "carnage" and is no longer great, but must be made "great again."

Nevertheless, Clinton's most intriguing remark was "I inherit nothing from the Democratic party. It was bankrupt. It was on the verge of insolvency. I had to inject money into the [DNC] for it to keep going."







That's a damning indictment but whether the defendant (the Democratic National Committee) is guilty is unknown.  It's a charge which unfortunately has gone both largely unrebutted and unconfirmed, even as Barack Obama undermined party unity by successfully blocking the candidacy of Keith Ellison as Democratic National Committee chairperson. However, as Ezra Klein explained in January

By the end of the campaign, the public had enough information to make basic judgments about who Clinton and Trump were. Trump’s flaws weren’t hidden by Clinton’s mistakes — if she was good at anything, it was goading Trump into error and overreaction. Voters knew what he was when they voted for him.... And it's worth remembering that before Clinton ran against Trump, 16 other Republcans ran against him- a group that observers thought to be the most talented field the GOP had seen in decades. And every one of them was routed.

Democrats during Obama's tenure were routed in US Senate, US House, governor, and state house races. However, the losses were within historical norms for when a party controls the presidency for eight years. Nonetheless as noted by Five Thirty Eight

 “We didn’t do any of the grassroots work over the eight years that Barack Obama was president,” Dean said of the party under a leader who had once been a community organizer. Organizing For America (later Organizing for Action), the project intended to rally the president’s supporters primarily around health care and the Affordable Care Act, was, in Dean’s estimation, “a huge mistake.”

In bringing Obama to power, Democrats understood the importance of not just his proud progressivism but his distinct identity and the certain mythology that would come to surround him. He was a candidate who not only had the right message for the party, but who seemed anointed by the political gods.

There are plenty of suspects and many perpetrators in Clinton's loss, including the interference by both the Kremlin and the FBI in the election. The nominee herself bears some of the responsibility- but far less than the GOP and her opponents in the Democratic Party imagine.  Hillary Clinton has told some hard truths. It's particularly important for others to tell these, as Howard Dean has with the shortcomings of the DNC.  But if it takes Hillary Clinton to do it largely by herself, by herself it will have to be.

Share |