The Widdershins

Posts Tagged ‘Hillary 2016

Good Monday, all! If you read the headlines these days, the press seems to be behaving much better when it comes to Der Trumperer, actually finding, somewhere deep within their ADD-impaired noggins, the capability to focus on his overall awfulness instead of pounding on Hillary incessantly for not paying enough attention to them while dizzy and passing out from pneumonia. (Mommy issues, anyone?) See this “Many Scandals of Donald Trump” article in The Atlantic as an example. Well, see it if you want to experience a degree of boiling rage and nausea you haven’t experienced since you realized that yes, the Republicans were really, truly, f*cking srlsly going to let that mango-colored monkey run against Hillary Clinton. It turns out that Drumpf’s scandals are so numerous, The Atlantic complains it doesn’t have enough space on its pages to write all of them down. Poor babies! If I were a journalist and not a blogger, I might suggest that The Atlantic report on one scandal a day until November 7th. I guess that is just too much Hard Work(TM) for those with journamalism degrees!

In any case, the press is starting to focus its relentlessly negative eye where it belongs, on Dangerous, Despotic, Deplorable Donald. Does this mean they finally get the seriousness of this race? That they have understood the perils of their stunning lack of objectivity and “grading on a curve” when it comes to the pseudo-billionaire who has the overwhelming hubris to think he’s got what it takes to run for President?

Um, no.

If the press “corpse” is to revive itself, it needs to do something it hasn’t yet done, and hasn’t been able to do for the past 40 years: Report objectively on Hillary Clinton. Report on her qualifications, her policies and whether or not they would be good for America; report on what she would do if/when in office. Maybe even cover one of her speeches every once in a while. You know – exactly what they do with Drumpf.

They are showing a few signs of being able to do this. From the article linked above:

The investigation [into his charitable giving] is a new political headache for Trump. The Republican has sought to make hay out of accusations against the Clinton Foundation, but so far that group has no legal troubles. Trump’s charity, however, now finds itself in legal jeopardy.

A truthful and factual comparison! The Clinton Foundation hasn’t done anything illegal, whereas Trump’s Foundation is now under investigation. Could it be The Atlantic has re-discovered what the word “objective” actually means? Not so fast:

The 2016 presidential election could be the most scandal-plagued match-up since James Blaine’s allegedly corrupt business deals squared off against Grover Cleveland’s alleged illegitimate child in 1884. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is the nominee, bringing with her a train-car’s worth of baggage. But the Republican candidate is at least as saddled with controversy as Clinton is—and while many of the Clinton cases involve suspicion and shadowy links, many of Trump’s are fully documented in court cases and legal proceedings.


No, no, NO. Here’s what’s wrong with this allegedly “fair and balanced” paragraph:

  1. Hillary is not bringing baggage with her. Here’s how I’d write this sentence: “The media is dumping sh*t on her daily, and Hillary has been forced to carry it for the past 40 years.” That is not remotely the same thing. Her worst sin is that she hasn’t found a way to get the media to stop lying about her, for which they, of course, blame her as well. (More on that a bit later.)
  2. Saying “many of the Clinton cases involve suspicion and shadowy links” does not pass the smell test. In fact, ALL of the Clinton cases are nothing but innuendo. I’m going to say that again. ALL OF THE CLINTON CASES ARE NOTHING BUT INNUENDO. There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton has ever done anything wrong or illegal. Ever. So despite the media’s gleeful daily exercise of picking apart every single participle she’s ever dangled, searching for evil conspiracies, corruption, and most likely a vagina dentata, there’s “no there there.” And I don’t think there ever will be, frankly. Hillary’s just not that kind of girl.

To follow up on #1, here is my favorite thing the media does when it comes to HRC: continue to talk about a non-story that originated out of some malarial Republican’s nightmare every day, no matter whether there are “new developments” or not, and then say something like this: “Why is it that she can’t stop us from talking about this?” For example: the “d*mned emails” Bernie Sanders complained about. She has been tried and convicted in the press for being reckless and careless and not trustworthy with national security because…she had a private email server from which she sent a grand total of zero emails which were correctly marked as classified. How utterly absurd. Yet because she hasn’t said some kind of magic word, given enough press conferences, and/or apologized on bended knee to the press while self-flagellating for being an uppity wimminz, the press feels justified in yammering about this bullsh*t as if it’s real, and comparing it to actual Dangerous, Despotic and Deplorable things The Donald has said and done.

So until the media purges itself of its toxic, misogynistic hatred of Hillary Clinton, they’re still never going to get it. And this pathetic farce of an election will continue to be reported as though two equally despicable candidates are running, with equal negatives, instead of one amazing, inspiring public servant versus a putrid pustule of a human being.

This is an open thread.

Happy Monday, all. What with all the triumphalist rhetoric Fox News is spewing about how the Democrats are panicking and tanking, it can be very difficult to keep our heads on straight with regard to Hillary’s chances in 2016. OMG her poll numbers are slipping! OMG what if Biden runs?! OMG Jeb Bush is beating her!!! OMG Bernie’s going to win Iowa! These are all the memes I’m hearing.

I’d like us all to take a pause, though, and consider when the first primary vote will be cast.

Feb 1, 2016.

That’s right, folks – people are hyperventilating and freaking out over a contest that is still 6 months away from starting. I submit that there’s absolutely no reason to worry. Why? Because the Democratic Party is backing Hillary.

Hillary Clinton delivered a show of force on Friday meant to make one thing abundantly clear to Democratic leaders, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden: She is the boss.

Coming off two weeks of breathless speculation about the vice president’s ambitions, Clinton now looks like she’s nearly locked up the support of party elites, something she critically failed to accomplish in 2008.


In a leak coinciding neatly with Clinton’s appearance in Minneapolis, Brooklyn told Bloomberg it has already secured commitments from more than 60 percent of the party’s superdelegates — those officials and leaders whose support is not tied to primary or caucus tallies. The campaign also says it is briefing the unpledged delegates to firm up support.

It’s not a field-clearing advantage; superdelegates can change allegiances and Clinton was ahead in the delegate count early in the 2008 race too. But it’s significant if it holds.

I know we’re all shocked, shocked that the Democratic Party still works like this. (insert eyeroll) Didn’t we think Barack Obama was going to Change(TM) all that? Wait, that’s right…he was the one who benefited from it in 2008. Without the superdelegates, rigging the vote count and overweighting caucuses, he would never have been the candidate in the first place. Cheating was his MO. It’s the Chicago Way, after all.

As much as I would have loved the DNC to somehow automagically become more fair and less elitist, I didn’t expect it to do so. The Party bigwigs were rewarded for their skulduggery in 2008 with 8 years of a President who raised hundreds of millions of dollars to fill their coffers.  They’re going to want to keep the flow going, and if they look at the field of potential non-Clinton candidates, it’s not exactly impressive. For example, Biden. Here’s my take on ol’ Joe: He won’t run, because to the DNC, what is his advantage over Hillary? The Democratic Party already has an experienced white candidate who is seen as centrist enough to win the general election. Biden would be as superfluous as a hairpiece on Trump’s empty noggin.

There are some choice quotes from DNC delegates about Biden in the article, too:

And it’s not just a question of electoral math for some Democrats, who bristle at the idea that the vice president could reshape the race the second he chose to get in.

“[Biden] doesn’t reach out to me for seven f—ing years and then he wants me to help him out? I don’t think so,” said Florida committeeman and Clinton backer Jon M. Ausman, lamenting the vice president’s lack of party activity compared to Bill Clinton, who invited him to the Lincoln Bedroom as president. “I don’t really give a shit. I don’t care if he gets into the race or not.”

That’s not to mention that the second Joe started campaigning, his numbers would tank due to his chronic foot-in-mouth disease.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hillary too old

Oh they are afraid.  Indeed, they are very afraid.  They who, you ask and what of?  Why the Republicans are very much afraid that the former Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to decide to run for President in 2016.  They are so afraid that she’s going to run that they are now attacking her on her age.  “She’s too old.”  “She’s been around forever”.  The Republicans can’t attack her on her bona fides so they are going to have to attack her on something like her age.  Sure, Hillary Clinton is 65 years old now and would be 69 when the next Presidential election rolls around.  But so what?  It sure did not seem to bother Madam Secretary as she traveled over 900,000 miles as Secretary of State.  But that seems to be all the Republicans have right now.

Mitch “the turtle” McConnell talked about the possible 2016 candidate of Clinton and maybe Vice President Biden as “the golden girls”,  while Gov. Scott Walker,

…seizing on the Fleetwood Mac song that became a Clinton family anthem, quipped to an audience in Washington, “If you want to keep thinking about tomorrow, maybe it’s time to put somebody new in.”

Really Scottie?  Really?  Is that the best you got?  As Jonathan Martin said in a New York Times piece:

The 2016 election may be far off, but one theme is becoming clear: Republican strategists and presidential hopefuls, in ways subtle and overt, are eager to focus a spotlight on Mrs. Clinton’s age. The former secretary of state will be 69 by the next presidential election, a generation removed from most of the possible Republican candidates.

Karl Rove also had to throw in his two cents worth: (as if his  advice is so sanguine and he’s such a sage -see 2012 election)

“Perhaps in the Democratic primary and certainly in the general election, there’s going to be an argument that the time for a change of leadership has come,” said the Republican strategist Karl Rove. “The idea that we’re at the end of her generation and that it’s time for another to step forward is certainly going to be compelling.”

Karl, if there’s a Republican candidate out there who thinks about hiring you and Crossroads GPS, then they deserve what’s going to happen to them.

And Connor Simpson of The Atlantic Wire says this isn’t the first time the Repubs have tried the “old” crap with Hillary.

It’s not the first time Clinton has faced an attack over her age, either. She’s been called wrinkly and dowdy by the Republican press in the past. Her pantsuits — those precious pantsuits! — have been the target of Republican criticisms before. They’ve drawn attention to Clinton’s wrinkles and crevices, her needing a rest, while she was flying across the world, leaning in and having it all as Secretary of State.

Really?  Say what?  The pantsuits??? It’s not like that’s anything of substance, because they simply cannot attack her on that.  Now, the Republicans will say it’s all fair because Hillary’s husband did just that to Bush I and Bob Dole.

A yesterday-versus-tomorrow argument against a woman who could be the last major-party presidential nominee from the onset of the baby boom generation would be a historically rich turnabout. It was Mrs. Clinton’s husband, then a 46-year-old Arkansas governor, who in 1992 put a fellow young Southerner on the Democratic ticket and implicitly cast the first President George Bush as a cold war relic, ill equipped to address the challenges of a new day. Mr. Clinton then did much the same to Bob Dole, a former senator and World War II veteran, in 1996.

And there’s another problem with the Republicans trying to run and win on this issue of age:  that is the women and especially the older women out there in the country.  Pelosi threw in her two cents worth on that:

“They would go to that place at their own risk,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic minority leader and first female speaker, noting that “Age is like art — it’s a matter of interpretation.”

As Garance Franke-Ruta said in another piece about Hillary in The Atlantic:

What message do comments on age reinforce about the Republicans or their future nominee, except to send a tone-deaf signal to older women that the party thinks they are irrelevant?

Let’s not forget that The Golden Girls, mentioned by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell in his dig against Clinton, was a show about elderly female retirees in Florida, which is to say, a critical block of civic-minded voters in the tight-as-a-tick swing state. And if there’s one thing such older women do not cotton to, it’s any suggestion that they be put out to pasture instead of wooed by political figures. Be nice to grandmothers!

The word clueless comes to mind.

Old?  Pfffft!

Old? Pfffft!

All of this isn’t to say Hillary wouldn’t have a difficult time running for or winning the Presidency.  Franke-Ruta points out that Hillary, while having a treasure-trove of contacts in the political consulting world, “…  lacks a cadre of loyalists with fresh outside-the-Beltway experience and ideas who are eager to innovate the latest campaign techniques.”.  And then there is the matter of having held the White House for two cycles since 2008 and then trying to go for a third one in 2016, albeit absent Barack Obama or not.  No, I don’t see age as any type of hindrance for Hillary.  Nor have I heard of any health issues she’s had other than the fall and concussion, but those are minor things.  No biggies there.

Let the Republicans go with their “age” issue and let’s see them run some of their young Turks against Hillary.  Can you imagine seeing HRC against, say, Rand Paul, or Marco Rubio or even Chris Christie?  Paul Begala said:

“I would remind my Republican friends that Reagan got 59 percent of the youth vote when I was in college, and he was the oldest guy to ever run for president,” said Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist who advised Mr. Clinton.

And while it’s possible that Hillary may have “99 problems” as that song went, being old ain’t one.

This is an open thread.


My opinion of most Congresscritters is unprintable (this is a family blog…er, kinda). In fact, although I’m voting Democratic downticket for the most part in 2012, I’m doing so out of nothing more than a desire to swing the Congress back towards some degree of sanity. The Michele Bachmanns and Rand Pauls of the world need to be thrown out on their ignorant, hateful butts, and people who are at least somewhat reasonable, and educated enough to know where Paul Revere rode, need to be put in their place.

Of course, I would prefer it if most of them were women, and apparently, Kirsten Gillibrand feels the same way. K. Gill (as I hope no one else calls her), really puts her activism where her PR is.

For those who are unfamiliar with one of my favorite Congresswomen, Senator Gillibrand is currently the junior Senator from New York – the one who was selected by Hillary herself to take her seat when Our Girl ran for President. You may remember all the drama with her selection – no less than Caroline Kennedy and Carolyn Maloney were passed over in favor of Gillibrand. I was one of the people who completely supported this decision.

I have no doubt that Kirsten Gillibrand, who is already a two-term Congresswoman, will be a great choice for the next New York Senator. And may I say, thanks SO MUCH to all the New York PUMAs who joined me in my efforts to convince the Governor to do the right thing, especially TPT/NY! You go, sister girl!

Meantime, for those keeping score in the new Obama administration: Hillary 1, Obama 0.

Gillibrand has won two special elections since 2008, and has been a lot busier than many of her male do-nothing counterparts, including Senator Chuck “Fageddaboudit, You Know I’m Senator For Life” Schumer. Not only has she been outspoken on behalf of same-sex marriage; not only has she pushed and pushed for the victims of 9/11 to get the health care they deserve; but she has been fighting, in many ways, for women to achieve gender equity in politics. It is clear that she has much in common with her mentor on that topic.

….Gillibrand told her donors that she wants more women in the House and Senate, because “if we had 50 percent of women in Congress, we would not be debating contraception. We would be debating the economy, small business, jobs, national security — everything but.”

With that, the room of mostly middle-aged and older women cheered, and some even pounded the conference table in approval.

Read the rest of this entry »

Keep Up

Atrocities Documented:

What the F*ck Just Happened?!

Victories Won:

Your Victories Against Drumpf!

Wanna Be A Widdershin?

Send us a sample post at:

widdershinssubmissions at gmail dot com

Our Frontpagers


I’m ready. Are you?

Blog Archive

March 2019
« Feb    

Kellyanne Conway’s new job

Take the kids to work? NO!

That moment when *your* pussy gets grabbed

You go gurl! h/t Adam Joseph

“The” Book

Nice picture of our gal

Time till the Grifter in Chief is Gone

Hopefully soonerJanuary 21st, 2021
22 months to go.

Mueller Time!

Wise Words from Paul Ryan


Only the *best* politicans bought by the NRA

Marching for their lives

Perfect Picture

Rudy: oh shit the pee tape IS real!

Need Reminders?

Never too early to shop for Christmas

“Look this way”

Manafort’s Jail Photo

Indeed who?

Trump spam

IOW Dumb = Happy?

Simply Put


Awrite! Here’s your damned wall

Dems are coming for ya