Category Archives: Hillary Clinton

Don’t Let Feminism Stop You from Voting for Hillary


I was a young women the last time that feminism became a hot topic and on that occasion the movement was already on the agenda because of the book The Feminine Mystique by Betty Freidan, but the birth control pill gave women a true sense of relief and empowerment and gave the movement true impetus. If you could plan your pregnancies then you could be in control of a high-powered career, have children, and “have it all” as we said. Single women could experience some of the freedom men did while expressing their sexuality without, it seemed, an unwanted pregnancy which, even now, has the power to put a women’s life on an entirely new path, perhaps ruining their pursuit of a talent that would have made a key contribution to her culture.

I also remember the pressure from feminist leaders to make all women sign some sort of unwritten pledge that we would behave, from this time forward, in certain ways that they felt would further the women’s movement. Many of us were not quite ready, however, to give up our new freedom from male domination only to be dominated by an agenda set by women. We did experience a certain sense of sisterhood and there was a considerable high to be enjoyed by expressing the strength it gave us when we operated as a political and cultural bloc.

So I understand as well as possible what young women are saying about feminism in the 21st century being perhaps not quite the same as 20th century feminism and of not wanting to be disenfranchised by feminism in the way that women were once disenfranchised by men. But I also cannot help but remind myself that women are always being asked to wait for something else to happen before they take center stage. There is always an issue more pressing or a person whose needs are greater and so women, perhaps reluctantly but obligingly, agree to wait a while longer. Now we feel like we must wait for the revolution to happen. Why can’t we have a woman in the White House and a revolution at the same time? Hillary gets what we want and need as Americans. Why do we require, once again, a man to do the job? I do admire the steadfastness of Bernie Sanders and if he becomes the Democratic candidate I will support him. But for now I will hang with the sisters.

I don’t think Hillary asked Madeleine Albright to say what she did, although she probably expected it because she has heard it before. Once it had been said I am guessing that Hillary would just smile respectfully because Albright is the elder stateswoman to Hillary. Hillary says that even if young women don’t vote for her she will fight for them if she wins the day. I do not think that Hillary is running as a feminist. I do believe she is clear about the various needs of all Americans. I do not support her just because she is a woman, but she is the only really qualified woman we have produced so far who also has the desire to do this job. I hope that people, including young women, will not reject Hillary just because the fact that she is a woman seems to require that they vote for her. But I do hope they will think carefully about the positive reverberations that will echo into their own futures if Hillary breaks up that boy’s club now once and for all.

By Nancy Brisson

On Authenticity, Hillary Clinton, and Ben Carson

I do understand how people question Hillary’s authenticity. Her answers do not sound like they come from a marriage of her heart and her head. They sound like answers from her head only, her political head, which weighs expediency and poll numbers and produces a well-rehearsed sound bite. She is an authentic person who seems phony.

In order to appreciate Hillary you have to review what she has tried to do, what she has done, and what she wants to do. She is a person whose actions speak louder than her words. I saw how nervous she was when she went to China to speak about women’s rights. She entered the jaws of the authoritarian dragon, a society dominated by men for centuries and she spoke to Chinese women. Everyone at that meeting must have felt that there could be repercussions. She has met with women and girls on almost every continent trying to raise awareness of antiquated misogynistic traditions that keep women powerless. She has worked with groups offering micro loans to women who turn a small business into progress, family by family.

If Hillary has done all of this without being President it is fairly easy to believe that, whatever problems she has with sounding authentic, she will faithfully strive to determine what the American people need, to listen to what the American people want, and to make sure to accomplish as much of her agenda, an agenda that while it is somewhat left of center is in no way extreme, and which she believes is our agenda. She tells us that she would like to win bipartisan support, but I am certain that if she cannot move the other party, she will still work to make a strong America.

On the other hand, everyone talks about how authentic Ben Carson sounds. He talks in a calm manner and argues persuasively, if laconically, offering statements that seem both rational and heartfelt. Even when he says outrageous things he quietly and pedantically accuses us of misunderstanding him and of giving his words more drama then intended.

Sunday (10/25/15) on Meet the Press he was questioned about his statement that if the Jews had guns then Hitler would not have been able to round them up and kill them. He, without changing his laid back tone, blows off those who see this as anti-Semitic and says there is no double meaning. (Somehow I cannot see Hillary ever making such a comparison to begin with and I have difficulty seeing that as a bad thing.)

Ben Carson also said that he sees those who fight abortion as being brave activists like the abolitionists who fought slavery. Yet I cannot agree to this analogy. Slaves were snatched from their families as adults and turned into the property of a usually white owner. They were fully formed people with lives and rituals and wives and children. Unborn babies begin as clumps of cells. They have no foothold yet in the world. I believe that those who defend the rights of women to control their own reproductive health are much more similar to those who fought against slavery. And why does Ben Carson go to these extreme analogies except to get attention and display his contempt for our petty powers of reasoning.

The problem is that when Ben Carson tells what he wants to do as President, the American people do not seem to enter into the equation anywhere. He says that he believes all abortion is wrong. He will be the final arbiter. He will overturn Roe v Wade. We could assume that he is a moral authority but there is no proof of that. He does not speak of our government as a democracy. He does not mention the wishes or the needs of the people. He may sound authentic to some but to me he sounds arrogant, a leader for a much more authoritarian nation than ours.

Perhaps Hillary has some areas where her own values will not permit her to follow the majority but I am guessing that Hillary mostly wants an America that offers all its people a comfortable life with opportunities for individual growth and for our nation to prosper. So while she may strike some as phony, her actions and her hopes make her anything but inauthentic.

I would say that exactly the opposite is true of Ben Carson, who speaks softly but has a burning desire to teach the bad, bad American people a lesson, which, one on one, might involve a switch from a willow and a closed room. What good is it to be authentic, if you are authentically wrong?

By Nancy Brisson

Andrea Mitchell and Hillary Clinton

Andrea Mitchell is getting on my last nerve lately. Right wing media tags her as partial to Hillary Clinton, but it sure doesn’t seem that way. Andrea Mitchell has questioned Hillary again and again about her use of that private server to get her emails while she was Secretary of State. She has interviewed her several times, seeming to intimate that there is a terrible secret reason for her choice of that private server.

Ms. Mitchell, whose own career in the news business rose steadily since she graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1967 with a BA in English Lit., is either at the peak of her career or slightly past the peak. On this issue she probes long after it seems that there is nothing much left to probe.

Hillary has apologized. She cannot go back and undo her choice. All Ms. Mitchell’s interrogation seems to suggest that she is with the right wing on this issue and believes there is some sinister connection to the events in Benghazi. Or perhaps she is trying to make the point that Hillary’s poor choice (boo boo, lack of tech savvy, accident – see how the weight of events changes with the adjective) makes Hillary unfit to be President and that she needs to be hounded out of the race so that the Democratic Party can be competitive in the 2016 election.

While it seems as if, for Andrea Mitchell, Hillary has already failed her screening the Presidency yet Andrea Mitchell does not seem to feel that the GOP slip which gave away the political nature of the Benghazi special investigation should lead to the demise of this committee. Why not? Why are we powerless to deal with these transparent and distasteful election ploys? Andrea Mitchell clubs Hillary with polls that show her as untrustworthy and unlikeable, but it is hard to tell if people are just susceptible to what they hear on the news.

I am here in the cheap seats and I am not hearing a groundswell or drum beat for Hillary Clinton to be President out here in the boonies of NYS, far from Manhattan, but not a lot of people here are news junkies like I am. They watch the evening news, they read what Facebook sends their way (usually articles that feed their beliefs) and they like some drama with their news (FOX News). It is still difficult to tell which came first, their stand on the issues or what they hear on the news. They do not agree that this is not their parent’s Republican Party and that boggles my mind.

My ‘spidey’ sense, which can detect sedition, is not tingling in relation to this email story, but I’m still listening. I am unable to discern how choosing an ill-considered server could be an act of sedition, but I have no trouble labeling a recurring desire to shut down the Federal government at great cost to taxpayers as sedition. Although these Republican disrupters may think they are patriots rebelling on behalf of Constitutional government, I see them as puppets of the Koch brothers trying to dismantle government.

If Andrea Mitchell is acting as Hillary’s friend I would not want to be her enemy. If she keeps pounding away at Hillary with this email hammer it is very possible that Hillary will eventually have to withdraw from the election. Ms. Mitchell seems to believe that Democrats cannot win in 2016 with Hillary, but what if we can’t win in 2016 without her?

Witch Hunt?

The jury is still out on the Hillary emails. We still don’t know what the FBI will find. And yet every day new information hits the press. The media enjoys reporting each link as if it is the missing link freighted with truth that will put this issue to rest. But it seems to me that they are treating this as a kind of a crime drama with new clues arriving all the time, hoping that there is a guilty party or parties. The only thing that we really know right now is that this story is being kept alive in the media with very little damning evidence that there is any crime at all to solve, only an election to be won or lost.

Now, apparently, the state department asked Hillary for more information about the use of a private server sometime in the summer of 2014. What does that say? What does that imply? No information is given beyond that the state department asked for clarification and that this does not seem to be the “business as usual” that Hillary mentioned. This information appeared in a story in The Washington Post written by Chris Cillizza who writes a blog for The Washington Post called The Fix. I hear that he tends to lean right.

The second “fact” he gives us in the Post story first appeared in Politico, which also leans right, and it is a release that says that someone has uncovered some deleted emails about Benghazi. Although it looks like these emails may be communications between the Congressional committee and Hillary we are left to conclude that perhaps what is hidden will finally be revealed.

A third fact gives the progress the FBI has made in recovering documents that were supposedly deleted. It is data, although it is presented in two colorful pie charts which make the data look more imposing.

Is this the smoking gun that the GOP has long sought? Will these emails finally nail Hillary and, even better, Obama to the wall, give the GOP the coup de grace for the Democrats that will send a GOP candidate into the White House on a wave of general acclamation. Oh, I sincerely hope not.

The Washington Post seems to have taken a right turn on this. They seem to have it in for Hillary. Do they have a special beef with her or is it more general? Is it a witch hunt or just a ploy to sell newspapers? The New York Times has not held back either. All the great newspapers are writing for their lives. They feel a desperate need to “scoop” the news and we have seen that this has led to a few boo-boos about this story, at least in the NYT.

I did make the mistake of listening to Joe Scarborough this morning and he is never happier than when he can rail against Hillary. He has her practically behind bars. Louis Gohmert, head of the eighth iteration of the Benghazi investigation is once again feeling victory within his grasp. The GOP believes/hopes that Hillary (and Obama) have been using denial to avoid exposing their guilt to the world.

Perhaps you are among those who classify Hillary in the fishwife or shrew category. Well a New York Post article published today claims that Hillary “blew up at Obama…during a tense Oval Office meeting. We can only assume that the two authors were not actually in the Oval Office. They say that a “Clinton source” supposedly snitched on her (someone Hillary thought was a friend). I feel that even though this is hardly considered a reputable source for news I must mention it because the media probably will bring it up soon. There is even a book by a man whose journalism skills are somewhat suspect apparently entitled Unlikeable: The Problem with Hillary. The author’s name is Edward Klein.

When I see Democrats acting as if they have to wait and see what the FBI will decide about the Hillary emails and looking around desperately for another viable candidate, then it is fairly obvious that unless something miraculous happens to turn this whole thing around then Hillary may never sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.

Those of us who are Hillary Democrats sincerely hope that if Hillary is covering any crime against the American people (what could it be) (the Americans at the embassy could not be saved) (no words after the fact could change the outcome) then she will find a graceful way to withdraw from the Presidential race. Personally, I think this is just Hillary-bashing. But these leaks, which give us precious little new information, keep coming and seem to be designed to drum Hillary out of the Presidential race.

As for me, for now, I continue to wish that Hillary Rodham Clinton will become our first female President.

By Nancy Brisson

Is Hillary a Traitor?

I can’t believe we are falling for this Republican gambit again. The GOP knows how to create a scandal and how to keep it center stage for as long as it proves to be to their political advantage (which is about as long as the half-life of U-235).

I can understand the argument made by a constituent at the Iowa State Fair who felt that Hillary’s poor judgment in choosing to use a private server seems to argue against those who tout her as being politically savvy. And yet we learn from the media that a number of Cabinet members have used private servers including Colin Powell. The problem is, however, one of degree. Republicans have us thinking that she is practically a traitor. They say that what she did is worse than what General Petraeus did – really – Petraeus actually shared national secrets with his paramour. Hillary did not share secrets with anyone as far as we know. Joe Scarborough is once again engaging in waves of bombastic hyperbole on the subject any morning you choose to turn in to Morning Joe, a habit I may have to give up because I don’t like to get worked up quite so early in the morning.

It sounds like so far the FBI has retroactively classified 305 (2, 60, 301, expect the number to keep changing and expect the media to be aghast as each new number is announced) out of 50,000+ emails as at least qualifying for the label Confidential, although Hillary tells us that she did not receive, on her private server, any emails that were marked as Classified when she received them. Joe Scarborough, foaming at the mouth, may buy that Hillary planned for future cover-ups when she decided to opt for her personal server, but that would suggest that Hillary is a scheming woman who lies all the time because she thinks lies will serve her better than the truth. This merely points out how women are painted with a different brush than men because this is obviously a skill we already contribute to almost every man who is a politician, but we don’t call it scheming, we call it strategizing.

This is what Republicans do. They create scandals and they kick back and watch as the media, which knows the people love a good scandal, broadcasts the details over and over. If the meme starts to die out then the scandal mysteriously escalates a bit. If the party doles out the rumors and innuendoes carefully the story lives through can entire election cycle and perhaps beyond (much like the way the press merely has to say a code word like ‘Whitewater’ to cast unproven aspersions on someone).

It is entirely possible that there is nothing sinister at all in Hillary’s use of a private server as there was no rule against it at the time and others at her level of government did the same. Considering the number of hostile hacks against our government computers (IRS, etc.) in recent years and the exposure of secure data, it could look like it was actually a prescient move to use a private server. But Trey Gowdy, the media, and, apparently, the FBI will make sure that no one else in America believes that because that Benghazi drumbeat is still kept alive and damning in the back of our minds.

[When have we ever had a perfect person in public office, a person we could trust 100%. Given the flawed nature of all humans we would be deluded to put all our trust in any President. It is why a democracy is supposed to be strong, because the people keep an eye on our leaders and call them to account if necessary. If we have never had a male President who is perfect (sorry Republicans, even Ronald Reagan) then how can it be that we expect to find a female President with no flaws? This is why it is important to concentrate on policies rather than appearance or personalities and make policy considerations at least as important as more superficial attributes.]

This does not have to be a huge story on the news every day. The data is in the hands of the FBI. The investigation is launched. We must wait for the results. Get a grip!

By Nancy Brisson

Our Daenerys Targaryen

I love Bernie Sanders, but I’m a girl and I want us to have a girl for President. We have to break this particular “glass ceiling” and we need to do it now. Hillary is the woman who is most prepared to lead America at this particular moment in time. We are in a gender runt. Even women seem unable to accept that a woman could run America.

Bernie Sanders would make a great President but he is definitely not female. If he wins, Hillary can’t and then how long will we have to wait. Gender should not be an issue in electing the American President yet unless we break the male dominance now we may not break with tradition in my lifetime.

Of course if Hillary is considered truly incompetent to lead America then she should not get to be our President regardless of her gender. Fortunately, Hillary has a resume that suggests that she is more than qualified to be our President.

Our Presidents never govern alone anyway. As we have seen clearly in recent years Congress can act as a check on a President. In fact we have watched a Congress that interpreted checks and balances to mean blockades. If President Obama overstepped his powers (which I do not believe he did) Congress has definitely overstepped theirs. If both Parties had acted equally to control the President’s executive powers that might read as appropriate, but to have one Party (the Party out of executive power), erect an ersatz wall against the exercise of the executive and to, in fact, execute what appears to be a plot against the executive power. This does not read as appropriate at all.

If the Republicans don’t win, if Hillary wins, will obstruction continue for four more years at least? Will Hillary be able to buck the obstruction which has become the way Congress conducts itself.

Well, we already have the NRA getting their way through mad intimidation tactics (in the sense of insane) and we have the climate deniers using this same tactic to halt actions designed to counteract climate change. We have Grover Norquist, large and in-charge, and the hot and stubborn tea party and Republicans in Congress, all digging in and winning by turning into immoveable objects. This may not make you nervous, but it makes me very nervous. It smacks of anything but democracy.

Hillary seems mild and too light-hearted to handle these people, but I’m not sure Bernie Sanders is tough enough either. I’m not sure if any Democrat is. But Hillary is up. She’s the next metal marble in the chute of the pinball machine that has become our government. She’s up next to beat back the right wing beasts or tame them from dragons into pussycats. Perhaps she is our Daenerys Targaryen.

Therefore it is Hillary for me even though I would normally be torn between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Since we really need a Democrat to win this one, and the outcome is anything but certain, and many people continue to “dis” Hillary, I will do what I have in the end.

By Nancy Brisson



Hillary Clinton and the Media – and Bill…

The media seems to salivate every time the Clinton finances are attacked. The most recent tidbit reveals how much money the Clinton’s earned from speaking engagements between January and May (25 million dollars). They act like Bill and Hillary are con artists forcing people to turn out their pockets just to listen to charismatic charlatans for forty-five minutes to an hour.

I would think that perhaps people are willing to pay such large amounts as $250,000 per speech because they want to contribute to the good work being done by The Clinton Foundation and The Clinton Global Initiative. And there is the political celebrity status conferred on these two by holding top posts in our government like President and First Lady and Secretary of State.

Lots of politicians (mostly Republicans) and media people are offering up a silent and not so silent delight that we will soon be able to prove that the Clintons are guilty of that powerful leveler of political careers, “corruption”. The rest of us “everyday” folks out here think that it is almost impossible to participate in politics today without being corrupt. We will only be impressed with corruption on a very grand scale. We expect that our politicians will find ways to make public service pay. We don’t love the idea, but we feel helpless to change this dynamic.

People understand that there could be a conflict of interest here: it is possible that large donations given by foreign governments and by media figures like George Stephanopoulos could lead the donors to believe that favors might be forthcoming if we elect Hillary as our President in 2016. However giving to a charity that tries to mitigate misery around the globe does not seem like the usual road to a quid pro quo.

Hillary and the media have a sort of come here – go away kind of relationship. The press likes to expose the soft underbelly of candidates for public office, Hillary included. However, once you show emotion (fear, resentment) some in the press “smell blood” and like to go in for the kill. Hillary feels that she must exercise caution when reporters are present. We also accept that since she is running for President she cannot avoid the media. News people complain that she seems overly formal and gives off an edgy, annoyed air when confronted with questions which seems accusatory.

While it is true that the press is intrusive and operates without filters, we are all hoping that Hillary gets a bit more comfortable around the media and that she is able to hide the defensiveness she currently reveals. I do not mind if she avoids situations which inspire a feeding frenzy in the media. As for the press they could stop being so thrilled by the shots candidates lob at each other, especially when they are aware that what they are repeating are rumors that have not been and never may be proven to be facts.

We have never before had a Presidential candidate with a partner who is an ex-President and who heads a charitable foundation. Unless this charity is simply a way to bilk donors of their money so it can fatten the personal bank accounts of the Clintons, it would seem that we need to cut them a little slack here.

I believe there is evidence that this foundation takes on real projects both at home and abroad to lift up people in need. I also tend to doubt that there is any criminal activity here worthy of Republican glee. All these allegations will do is force Bill Clinton to stop doing good things out in the world if he wants his wife to win the Presidency. And that will be a true loss for all who currently benefit from The Clinton Foundation and its programs.

Note: Isn’t the phrase “everyday people” from a song by Sly and the Family Stone?

This is the view from the cheap seats.

By Nancy Brisson

Bill and Hill and Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer

I have always admired the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative. After all, Bill Clinton was fairly young when he finished his second term in office. He always had a larger-than-life quality. Retiring to a farm did not seem like his cup of hooch. I suppose some could see the way that he is so outgoing and the fact that he seems to bask in the limelight as character flaws, but I would think that it is more likely that the world is lucky to have someone as energetic and socially involved, as idealistic and optimistic as Bill Clinton. He does the unexpected. He set up his office in Harlem. He and Hillary decided to make New York State their home base, perhaps because they had to while Hillary was a Senator, but they seem to have settled in and made a niche for themselves. He does not always hang out in the safest, most tony places.

I do not think of either of the Clintons as being the overly ambitious, social climbers, political manipulators that most of their press paints them out to be, although it is clear that they are ambitious. They seem to me like people who see room for improvement for people everywhere, especially women and children, and who have enough good will to find the funding necessary to tackle some of the world’s problems. They don’t come off as missionaries trying to sell religion or ideologues trying to sell the American way; they come off as trying to help families with some things that are quite practical and useful, like fresh water supplies, schooling, health care, defending women, and making microloans so women can start their own businesses.

I have always admired the fact that they did not just retire into what would most likely be a very comfortable lifestyle. They could have attended charity affairs in fancy dress and spent their time on a yacht or at the ballet. But they did not do that. They chose a life of public service long ago and they seem, despite the haters, not to regret their choice.

I do not know if, as the author of Clinton Cash Peter Schweizer apparently claims, the Clinton charities spend 90% on administration costs and only 10% on actual charity. If this is so then I am wrong about the altruism I attribute to Bill and Hillary Clinton. They have lots of expenses including their home, two offices and perhaps a few other dwellings (maybe an apartment in NYC and a home in Washington, DC). They both have big travel expenses I am guessing and spend quite a bit on clothing and personal care. Still a charity that keeps all but 10% for personal use is not usually considered much of a charity. The author of this book, Clinton Cash, admits, however, that he has no proofs for his accusations. Ridiculous – tons of press for a book that is pure speculation – this particular book looks as if it might be just a negative campaign ad that rests on false claims until someone fact-checks it and gets it pulled. We’ll see.

In the meantime Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe is getting on my last nerve. He compares the Clintons to Bob McDonnell and his wife (of Virginia) who were recently convicted for accepting favors from someone seeking their endorsement for a product and perhaps help with getting the product included in some state project, making it a sure-fire success. But no mention has ever been made that these people, who obviously lack the proper subtlety to make themselves rich in public office without getting caught, ever had one altruistic bone in their bodies. It was the blatancy of their greed, their flouting of the laws that sent them to jail. Joe Scarborough obviously feels that their transgressions were so small compared to the grand scale of the alleged exchange of money for favors by the Clintons. Usually I just write Joe off as a yuppie, loudmouth jock with great taste in music, but he does have a pulpit from which to bully listeners, so he has to be taken somewhat seriously.

Bill Clinton, of course, is no longer a public servant and is no longer bound by the rules which governed the McDonnells. That’s why ‘they’ are trying to intimate that Hillary got in on the act and offered favors to foreign governments if they would contribute to the Clinton charity. We’re not talking small favors here either, one such favor involved an agreement on nukes. And since 90% of Clinton charity monies are allegedly the private slush fund of the Clintons then Hillary used the Foundation to basically launder foreign money. My, my, she’s a bad one; Bill too. And if these unsupported charges prove true then Hillary should not ever be our President. But I do not believe that Bill or Hillary are guilty of any of these things.

I choose to believe that there are still people who go to bat for opportunity and progress for those who have no voice of their own. Until someone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bill and Hillary are guilty of being generous-in-name-only while they have been quietly plotting to take over America, I will cling to the belief that these are two people who just want to use their skills and power to make a difference in the often violent and unequal world in which we live. I see them as heroes; some see them as villains, and the truth probably lies somewhere between these two extremes.

By Nancy Brisson

Playa’ Haters

Hillary Clinton is Nixonian. That is the newest annoying political meme on the right. This coded language draws an analogy between the missing 18 minutes of audio tape that became a bone of contention during the Watergate scandal and the allegedly missing emails that Hillary deleted from her private server after she downloaded the emails she handed in as the official record of her email correspondence during her time as our Secretary of State.

But wasn’t Nixon a criminal? Didn’t he commit some unacceptable activities when he covered up for his friends who got caught breaking into Democratic Headquarters? Wasn’t he almost impeached? The answer to each of these questions is “yes”.

“While historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened, he took steps to cover it up afterwards, raising “hush money” for the burglars, trying to stop the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from investigating the crime, destroying evidence and firing uncooperative staff members. In August 1974, after his role in the Watergate conspiracy had finally come to light, the president resigned. His successor, Gerald Ford, immediately pardoned Nixon for all the crimes he “committed or may have committed” while in office.”

Only in the mind and in the presidential campaign propaganda of the Republicans does anything that Hillary Clinton has done equate with the things Richard Nixon did. Nixon was known to be prone to a deep paranoia and believed that everyone who criticized America or Nixon in any way was an enemy of America. Just read about his behavior towards John Lennon, who was an avowed pacifist, although highly critical of American politics under Nixon. Nixon treated the presidency like he and his cronies were holed up in the oval office under gunpoint and had to strategize their way out. Except that was not true and it turned the president’s role into that of a mafia don.

I know the Republicans want us to never forget Benghazi even though at least one embassy was also attacked on their watch (and we won’t forget because Americans died there). They want Hillary to pay for Benghazi because they don’t want to see Democrats in the White House any longer and they specifically do not want to see Hillary Clinton in the White House, ever. But Hillary is no crook. She did not plot with anyone against the Republicans no matter how hard they try to make it look that way. Although she may not have plotted against them, she may have had good reasons to distrust them. I don’t know why she chose to use a private email server or to use her own personal email address for official business. It may have been more secure but it looks unprofessional. Governments change slowly and big governments change even more slowly, and email has not been used in official circles for very long so protocol may not have been set in concrete. It could make it look like Hillary is covering something up but I don’t believe that she is. If she were she would probably just have deleted a few emails and handed over the server. I think she decided not hand over her server as a matter of precedent and principle, but I, of course, do not really know.

Obviously Hillary doesn’t need me to defend her nor does she even have any idea that I am defending her, but when Republicans make these ridiculous analogies – Obama is like Hitler; Hillary is like Nixon – I just have to say something. I can’t let everyone think that I, or any Democrat, believe this kind of name-calling and guilt by association constitutes actual campaigning, although it seems to make Republicans quite happy. This is the kind of sniping we seem prone to these days, but if one side gets to play the other side gets to expose them as players. We get to be the playa’ haters.

By Nancy Brisson

Hillary Clinton versus the Bully Boys of the GOP

I completely understand the low key way that Hillary Clinton has decided to enter the 2016 Presidential campaign. She is not looking at a primary yet and arrayed against her are the boys of the GOP, the many, many bully boys of the GOP. Every one of these good ole boys has a sheaf of critical arrows to unleash at Hillary. Keeping a low profile sounds like a great idea. Although I’m sure Hillary can handle them, it would require a lot of energy and time that could be put to better use.

Only one of these guys will actually win at the GOP convention and become the official candidate of the Republican Party. Why should Hillary take them on now en masse when she can just hold her council and wait until we know who gets the GOP nod? It doesn’t look like the media will cut her any slack and focus on the multiple Republican primary candidates at this time while giving the single Democratic primary candidate time to stay under the line of fire until after the Republican National Convention.

Will Hillary hold up well against all this testosterone and fraternal crapery (all right I made up this word, it comes from crap)? Perhaps she is unflappable and will hold up fine. It sure wouldn’t hurt to let her know that we are with her through this stage of her campaign where she is so outnumbered. It might be a good thing to have a couple of other candidates in the race to draw away some of the fire. Emily’s List we’re counting on you and on all the other girl power groups that everyone makes so much ado about to make sure that Hillary is not caught up in some fatal flaw before we can vote for her in November, 2016. You know that old warning that there is many a slip between the cup and the lip. Right now the distance between the cup and the lip is very big.

By Nancy Brisson