On Backing Hillary 100%

If you take Trump out of the equation, are you still backing Hillary 100%? Is it a case of choosing the (far) lesser of two evils?


Hillary Clinton is a brilliant, honorable, and dedicated public servant who is more qualified to be President of the United States than any candidate in my lifetime. Fuck this “lesser of two evils” bullshit. This election is a clear case of choosing between a benevolent good and a malevolent evil.

Is Hillary perfect? Hell no. She’s got some major faults, but go ahead and cast those stones, because she’s also an undeniable badass who will get more shit done than any president since her husband. Good shit. The kind of shit that will actually improve the day-to-day lives of people like you and me. If she gets two terms, she’ll have the chance to nominate as many as four Supreme Court Justices. Fucking four. That alone is enough to steer this country in a progressive direction for the next half century, and Hillary has the chops to get her nominees confirmed.

I want to bitch-slap all the lingering Bernie Bros and Jill Stein Pollyannas who are either so latently misogynistic or waifishly leftist that they are incapable of recognizing how good they’ve got it with a candidate like Hillary. I want to scream at them to get their heads out of their asses and/or the fucking clouds. They can bitch and moan and hate the system all they want, but the system ain’t going anywhere, and when it comes time to work the system on our behalf, Hillary is who we want running shit.

And no, I refuse to take Trump out of the equation. We don’t get the luxury of doing that anymore. He is a brutal fucking reality, and he is dangerous. That spray-tanned megalomaniac will absolutely win the Presidency if you all don’t show up and vote. It really will happen, and how dare any of you let it when we’ve got such an amazing woman to rally behind.

Hillary Clinton is an ideal Democratic candidate and exactly what our country needs. I back her 100% with a huge fucking grin. I am as excited to vote for Hillary as I am filled with loathing for anyone who would vote for Donald Trump. I want her to win so badly that it makes my fucking teeth itch, and it scares the hell out of me to think that she might not.

It should scare the hell out of you too.


150 thoughts on “On Backing Hillary 100%

  1. Anonymous Poster says:

    If there’s anything lefties can do well, it’s sabotage their candidates and undercut any chance of forming a legitimate left-wing coalition with the kind of political power that the right-wing has due to having a solidified voter base and solidified political party that works 24/7 to Get Shit Done.

    Lefties splinter off and bicker and complain about certain groups/individuals not being “progressive enough” to get behind. Righties bicker and complain, too, but they don’t splinter off like lefties do—they just push those deemed “unworthy” out of their coalition. They keep their shit together because they understand how letting the party fracture will destroy it.

    We need a unified(-ish) coalition, not a bunch of in-fighting over “progressive purity”, goddamit.

      • Anonymous Poster says:

        In public, the RNC will repudiate Duke and his heinous positions.

        In private, the RNC will be watching to see if he wins—and whether he can do it by being openly racist instead of hiding behind dogwhistles like all the major RNC power players do.

    • Bi-Com says:

      The problem with that is socialists and liberals aren’t on the same side, have few or no interests shared between them, and are working toward completely different and contradictory goals.

      The Democratic party hates the far left and they always have. It’s the place where leftist platforms go to get bastardized into almost meaninglessness “reformist” positions and die.

      Asking someone who opposes capitalism and war for profit in all forms to endorse a party that stands fervently in favor of both for the sake of “unity” is kinda absurd on its face.

      We aren’t allies. Our president literally said communists were a threat to be beaten down during his speech at the DNC. Quit pretending that our disgust for being openly loathed isn’t justified. If they had a single moment in history of actually courting us instead of trying to bully and put us under foot, you might have a point. They don’t.

  2. Tom says:

    The DNC leaks. The e-mail scandal.

    The last thing in the world I want is President Trump, but my God. These issues can’t just keep getting swept away. When a new scandal breaks every goddamn day regarding how Hillary’s finessed and finagled her way to Philadelphia or exercised “extreme carelessness” with some of the most sensitive information our country possesses, it’s hard to convince myself that someone like that should be rewarded with the highest office in the land.

    Unauthorized personnel were given clearance to Special Access Programs so classified and sensitive that the agency in charge of them couldn’t even be named in Comey’s public hearing.

    She’s not calling for withdrawal from NATO or laughably antiquated isolationism, but I fail to see how someone can be a full-throated Hillary supporter in the light of these events.

    • The Coquette says:


      • Tom says:




        • The Coquette says:

          Apology accepted.

          Just know, in this election, left wing reservations are more dangerous than right wing ignorance.

          • Bob Qwerty says:

            COQ, not all teachers are democrats and not all military members are republicans. AND, not all of your readers agree with you – let alone will vote the way you suggest they should. When I had a drink recently with Al Sharpton in ATL Delta room, I told him that I only agree with him about half of the time but I ALWAYS appreciate his contribution to the public discourse. So, let’s get a drink so I can tell you that you are a gifted thinker, an extraordinary writer, and a national treasure whether I can kumbaya on every topic or not.

          • XMS says:

            a wild wit occurs!

            they used “fuck off” as a guest on someone else’s site!

            it was not very effective.

      • JustThisGirl says:

        Oh. Oh. I did not hear about this until just now. From Snopes (I may puke):
        “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

      • polezniye duraki says:

        OKAY! That’s not getting the media traction that the Kremlin dezinformatsiya – designed to discredit HRC and sow discord among liberals/democrats – currently is. The head of the DNC stepped down ffs.

      • Nina says:

        Absolutely vile. From the way he’s talked about his own daughter I wouldn’t be surprised if he molested her too.

      • Unapologetic says:

        Sure, think that Hillary is the lesser of two evils. No problem.
        Just make sure you realize just how deeply flawed she is. I laughed out loud when Coke called Hillary honourable. Hillary is far from honourable. She’s expedient, opportunistic and dishonest. She embodies everything most people loathe in politics Is she marginally better than Trump? Marginally. But don’t kid yourself into think that a Hillary presidency will be great for marginalized people around the world.

          • Diggin says:

            Precisely but it has the brazenness to meddle to the huge detriment of others. And she’s a meddler.

            Totally agree, unapologetic. To some extent I sympathise with Coke’s desperation, but calling her “honourable” is putting it far too highly.

          • Gaybeard says:

            That’s just what superpowers do. It has nothing to do with the individual President in charge.

            To quote an old adage from the Peloponnesian Wars:

            “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

          • Betsy says:

            I don’t think Americans appreciate just how powerless they are. Capable of immense destruction, yes, but still powerless.

          • J Lynn says:

            Not enough room in this space to theorize fully, but I think part of that’s because the average Jane/Joe American doesn’t fully understand the difference between pre-1945 and post-1945 USA in the international arena.

            On the one hand Joe Citizen loves the term “superpower” because it sounds simplistically like Superman. On the other, the average voter is astonishingly parochial and has pre-hegemonic, wholesome Yankee Doodle Dandy idea of what the post-war USA effectively is. They don’t realize that the British Empire had a baby and after the war that kid grew up and now it’s US (the pronoun and the abbreviation!).

            The US is the global hegemon now, with all that entails, for better and for worse. But we can’t kid ourselves: If it weren’t the USA it wouldn’t be an “It’s a Small World” kumbaya, it’s just be somebody else — maybe China, maybe India, maybe Germany again, hey third time’s the charm.

        • Anonymous Poster says:

          I am under no illusions that Hillary is a Perfect Little Angel™ or a white knight on a fiery steed who has come to be a hero ’til the end of the night. But I’m pragmatic enough to know that Hillary is a good candidate—the better of the two major party candidates—and I’m smart enough to know that political purity tests are bullshit because no one will ever be “[x] enough” (where [x] is “conservative”, “liberal”, “progressive”, or whatever you can think of) to be the “perfect” candidate.

          If my main reason for voting Hillary is keeping Trump out of the Oval Office, so be it. But at least Hillary has shown a propensity for aligning with progressive interests and changing her mind on certain political stances to win points with progressives. Trump doesn’t and won’t give a shit what the people voting for him think.

        • G says:

          “expedient, opportunistic and dishonest” … so, she’s a politician.
          “embodies everything most people loathe in politics” … I didn’t realize people hated people who’ve dedicated the majority of their career to trying to help marginalized children through political means but sure whatever helps you sleep at night.

        • Rainbowpony says:

          Hillary works the system. I like that about her.

          People that call it dishonesty don’t understand what it means to have a personal set of ethics. People that don’t like it have never had any real power in their lives.

      • Betsy says:

        Somehow, there’s always something more terrible to learn about Trump than you think there would be. Thanks for this.

    • Kelly says:

      What do you think the DNC emails revealed that was so awful? That the people running the party wanted Hillary to be the nominee? So what? That’s what they wanted in 2008, but they didn’t get it. Why shouldn’t they prefer Hillary? The emails didn’t reveal that they did anything illegal or unethical, so what is this but yet another manufactured controversy in Hillary Clinton’s life?

  3. polezniye duraki says:

    GRU & SVR, using their cut-out Wikileaks, seem determined to slant the election toward Trump. They seem to be succeeding.

    IMO the notion that Wikileaks is a Kremlin front that’s involved in anti-US espionage should be as controversial as, say, the notion that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Creating fake activist groups, using Western journalists and activists for deception purposes – this sort of shit is in the DNA of Russian intel going back to the 19th century and is second nature to them. There is a fucking reason they call tradecraft konspiratsiya.

    • Bry says:

      What does it matter who released them and why? No one disputes their legitimacy. Its not like they were made up. Really don’t see how anyone is surprised at all.

      • POLEZNIYE DURAKI says:

        That Russian intelligence has intervened directly in an American presidential election doesn’t matter. Gotcha.

        • Bry says:

          Intervened directly? That implies that they somehow undermined the election which is actually what the dnc did. The email dump simply exposed what already happened. I’d like as many of these corrupt pieces of shit exposed to the light of day as possible no matter what side they’re on. You should expect more from your leaders, not put your head in the sand because you don’t like the ugly truth that was exposed.

          • POLEZNIYE DURAKI says:

            So you stand by your position – Russian interference in a US election doesn’t matter.

          • Bry says:

            You stand by your position that ignorance is bliss and knowing things you wish you didn’t is scary? Even my fucking three year old thanked me for telling her Jesus isn’t real, he’s just a story grandmommie and Papa like hearing because it makes them feel better. So, you don’t think the blame belongs on the dnc for doing this rather than whomever leaked it? I hate that it happened and that it might give Trump an edge but damn, you really wouldn’t rather know what’s going on than live in the dark?

          • POLEZNIYE DURAKI says:

            LOL! I make an observation that appears fairly certain – that a foreign government interfered with your election – and you come back with “it doesn’t matter, because The Truth Maaann!” and make some insipid assumptions about me. Good job полезные дураки.

            ETA: he heavily edited his comment to appear more clever and biting – pathetic.

          • Bry says:

            Actually my assertion was that I don’t consider a releasing of facts to be interfering. If the emails were made up, then that would be interfering IMHO. You never even bothered to address any point I made. I do think that facts are objective and the truth matters, you got me there. Yes, I also edited my comment because I accidentally hit post and decided to finish my thought in one post instead of two. You got me again, sorry for posting from a smartphone while also making dinner and keeping a kid entertained instead of sitting in front of a keyboard hitting refresh. Do you have any comment on the meat of what I actually said at any point or is this just a pointless excersize? I actually do enjoy a good debate but this hasn’t been much of one.

  4. K says:

    you’re not wrong that she needs to win, but the phrase “people like you and me” is key to the rest of this.

    what about people who aren’t very much like you (white, middle to upper middle class, and leading viable lives aided by the institutions that are currently in place)? because the people unlike you are the ones behind both bernie and trump.

    my mom (who finds trump horrifying, by the way) works two jobs, one of them cleaning houses, one of them in a call center, at age 60. she has diabetes, no retirement, and a significant amount of credit card debt from trying to survive on a working-class income with three kids. what’s honorable hillary going to do for her?

    not to mention that a lot of what hillary’s husband “got done” was incontrovertibly devastating for poor people. especially the black community.

    i hope she wins too and i’l be forced to vote for her but this kind of self-righteous scolding from women like you is a steaming&bitter load to swallow.

    • The Coquette says:

      It only felt like a scolding because you’re under the false impression that Bernie could have done anything more for your mother than Hillary will actually do, which is a helluva lot more than you give her credit for, especially with regard to health care and consumer debt.


        What exactly is she going to do that Bernie couldn’t do? Matter of fact, what’s she going to do any differently than President Obama?

        • J Lynn says:

          What can she do more than Obama and Bernie?

          If there’s a Democratic Congress, SO SO MUCH. Democratic Congress = almost New Deal time again, except this time it’s what Eleanor would have wanted. And she won’t fritter it away trying to be bipartisan like Obama naively did 2009-10; I don’t think Hillary has had any such innocent illusions since 1993 at the latest.

          With ONLY a Dem Senate (totally achievable this time) but Republican House, she can at least get Supreme Court justices confirmed, and that’s BIG, as Coquette explained. And some legislation can probably get through a Republican House, as well, just not as much. There may be a bipartisan bill on infrastructure possible, for instance, if enough bacon is made available for people to bring home to their districts (everybody likes roads and bridges).

          Another example: There seems to be a bipartisan consensus emerging around sentencing reform, which is an astonishing thing I never thought I’d see after the ‘70s-’90s crime wave. Even Sen Chuck Grassley, who is currently the top staller on Merritt Garland, is in favor of sentencing reform. Of course Hillary would sign such a reform. As compared to the other guy, channeling Nixon while yelling “law and order!” for 77 minutes like the world’s angriest tomato.

          Other possibilities: There may also be some bill possible around VA funding or vets benefits. Hillary also supports an Alzheimer’s initiative; seniors are a core Republican constituency, after all.

          Those examples assume Republicans decide they actually want to do something for their constituents, of course, not just block Dems out of spite.

          With Republican House AND Senate: She’s very limited, same as Obama. However (limiting discussion to just domestic policy per K’s comment) Obama’s made the best of it with executive orders and with very progressive cabinet members who are doing what they can according to administrative rules, e.g., DOJ investigations of Ferguson and other police depts, HHS putting more flexibility into welfare laws. HRC might be able to do more of this than even Obama has, because she knows the system in and out, and her wonkiness makes her a very effective bureaucrat. By most reports, her current and former staff are very loyal, so she’d be able to hire good people and those departments would probably be well run.

          Finally, why is Hillary a better choice than Bernie? Well, this is a hypothetical because Bernie is not in the race. But their platforms were very, very similar. Hillary voters generally liked the Bernie platform, but thought that he wasn’t a good enough politician to get much of it accomplished. They also thought Hillary would help down-ticket races more than Bernie could, and would more likely deliver the Senate. Hillary knows how the system works. Making her president is like hiring the very best lawyer when you need one, even if you thought — before you actually needed one — that you didn’t like lawyers.

          • G says:

            Yes. All of this. Especially the last line because so many “true progressives” seem willfully ignorant of why other voters preferred Hillary to Bernie and preferred to insist they were all sellouts, pessimists, or secretly Republicans (especially to voters in Southern states).

    • J Lynn says:

      To K: I understand, I also come from a blue-collar background and many members of my family are in a similar boat.

      Here, briefly, are a few things in the Democrats would do for someone like your mom — a working-class woman nearing retirement — that Republicans wouldn’t. And of course, a big part of this will be defending past liberal legislation that Republicans want to undo or weaken.

      #1 – Preserve Social Security. For years Republicans have been wanting to privatize the crown jewel of FDR’s New Deal. That proposal was a disaster under Bush, but they would try again if they could; Romney did float the idea. On the other hand, Hillary has said she wants to raise benefit levels, IIRC. More importantly, just all-around responsible fiscal management is necessary to keep it solvent. Finally, there are tweaks needed to SS to make it more fair to women (not penalizing for time spent child-rearing, I believe, is one of them), and Hillary supports them.

      #2 – Keep funding Medicare & Medicaid and manage them well. Republicans always want to cut them, and they try to devolve as much responsibility to the state level as possible, so that red states can cut them and introduce various dumb religious rules. Even today some states are refusing the federal funding increase for Medicaid that was part of the ACA, so benefits are varying greatly state to state. HRC says she will further incentivize states to enroll. A successful Democrat at the top of the ticket — and the Clintons are very good at supporting downticket Dems — could lead to more Dem governors and statehouses, so more chance of setting aside ideology to get that good federal Medicaid $$. Like SS, these programs need to be well managed to stay solvent — and Trump, with his multiple bankruptcies is not good at solvency!!

      #3 – Defend the ACA — Obamacare — and work to add a public option as a plan choice. Another proposal is letting 55+ individuals buy in to Medicare, which would be cheaper than private insurance for most of them. HRC wants to allow immigrants — regardless of legal status — to be able to buy insurance on the ACA exchanges. I doubt Trump even understands the ACA, but I know he wouldn’t want immigrants to be a part of it.

      #4 Raise the federal minimum wage. Your mom is probably making a little bit more than minimum wage right now, but obviously not enough. When the minimum wage goes up, there tends to be a trickle-up effect to other low-wage jobs, as employers compete for workers.

      #5 Just keeping employment high and managing the economy in a Keynesian way (demand-side, trickle-up) — rather than Friedman-esque (laissez faire) or, worst of all, Reagan’s trickle-down “voodoo economics” — tends to benefit people in the lower-wage brackets, in a macroeconomic sense. Higher employment leads to higher wages in a basic supply-and-demand way.

    • J Lynn says:

      #6 Lilly Ledbetter Act. Besides Obamacare, one of the key accomplishments of the 2009-10 Democratic Congress before fickle, lazy liberals abandoned Obama at the 2010 midterms.. Lilly Ledbetter was a factory worker who had been underpaid because of being a woman for decades. When she finally found out, she sued for back pay. The case went to the Supreme Court and the conservative-led court denied her claim, saying the statute of limitations, 180 days, began when she had been first hired decades ago! The Democratic Congress wrote and passed new legislation that codified her right to sue; the amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act says the 180 days resets with each new paycheck. There is a difference between Democrats and Republicans .

      #6A Democrats want to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. That was one of HRC’s bills as Senator. Current sponsor is the awesome Barbara Mikulski of MD. Trump has seemed to say he wouldn’t support this (in a confusing, incoherent sort of way).

      #7 Hillary is willing to raise taxes on rich. Supports “Buffet rule” (wealthy shouldn’t pay a lower % rate than low-wage workers). That usually means a better government for everyone, and lower taxes on the poor, even if it doesn’t mean any direct wealth redistribution. Start here for more:

      #8 Preserve Earned Income Tax Credit. Your mom probably does qualify for this. It’s an actual dollar-value credit that offsets one’s tax bill. If you make little enough, you can end up with a check for more than you paid in that year. Happened to me once, even without dependents. Mitt-Freaking-Romney included recipients of EITC in his definition of the 47% of Americans who were “takers” because they didn’t end up with any liability under, specifically, federal income taxes.

    • J Lynn says:

      part 3
      #9 Hillary would preserve the right to organize a union. Republicans are ALWAYS trying to bust unions, and that goes waaaay back. Present-day example: Scott Walker of WI. You mention that your mom is a cleaner. Most of the time house-cleaners don’t organize. But if she ever were a janitor working in commercial properties, this could be a big deal. SEIU has done the Lord’s work organizing janitors and getting them union contracts, which means better wages, benefits, work rules, etc. (By the way did you know that unions weren’t even legal until FDR passed the Natl Labor Relations Act in the 1930s?) Because janitorial companies are often subcontractors, it’s WAY harder to organize them legally and practically than it is to organize, say, a GM plant. But it is happening. SEIU and other unions are one of the reasons Nevada is a swing state and not all-red. Hillary:

      #10 Democrats almost always support funding the Food Stamps program, and HRC would be no exception. They often support expanding it: Obama temporarily expanded eligibility during the 2009 recession for a few years, IIRC. Even though it doubles as a farm subsidy (part of the USDA), Republicans are often trying to cut it, and they also engage in hateful rhetoric towards its recipients. Your mom might make too much to qualify right now, but any of us living paycheck to paycheck are grateful it’s there!

      #11 Paid family and medical leave. The 6-weeks-unpaid FMLA was passed in 1993 under Bill Clinton, just before Newt et al got in. It wasn’t the Scandinavian ideal but it was a start. Hillary has said she’ll seek 12 weeks paid leave.

      • Alexander says:

        I’m a Hillary supporter but what do you say to people who say The Clinton Foundation takes money from foreign powers and then approve their weapon’s deals? It seems like a misconstruct.

        • J Lynn says:

          Sorry for not responding right away, I intended to do some research (I know more about domestic policy than foreign) but didn’t get to it yet. Responding now before the thread gets too old.

          Altho I haven’t researched this in detail, I do know that the Clinton Foundation has legal transparency requirements, and there’s no clear quid pro quo going down.

          One of the Foundation situations that drew criticism is discussed in this Josh Marshall article (the Foundation stuff starts in the 6th paragraph):

          It should also go without saying that the level of transparency is a whole Windex’ed curtain wall of clear compared to Trump, anyway. Also, not regarding the foundation, but Clinton has released years of tax returns, and Trump hasn’t.

          Criticizing the Foundation has been a popular right-wing attack basically since Bill left office, but it’s being picked up by the anti-interventionist left this year. That’s not to say there’s absolutely nothing there, of course, but my first impression is that it’s more likely one of the endless drummed up scandals than not.

      • Jenna says:

        The FMLA saved my ass when my husband was in hospice care before he died. Without it I would not have had a job to go back to.

        The ACA is the only reason I can get health insurance right now, because previously, I would have been denied for a preexisting condition (cancer) or it would have been priced out of my reach.

        Sometimes improvements are incremental. I want to see what Hillary can do with a Democratically controlled Senate, though.

    • J Lynn says:

      # 12 Alzheimer’s disease. Hopefully your mom won’t get that! But if you are a senior citizen, sooner or later some of your friends will. And with the large quantity of Boomers, well, you get it.

      So that’s 12 things — selected for being potentially applicable to your mom’s situation — that make it absolutely critical that we have a Democratic president and as many Democrats in Congress as possible. I know it sounds partisan, and I wish it weren’t, but moderate Republicans like Dwight Eisenhower aren’t on hand anymore; the GOP has gone full tea party crossed with fascism.

      Originally, I was also going to write about ways having Democrats in power might help help you and your siblings but this is already too long! Just to mention a couple, maintaining Obama’s income-limited student loan payment programs, and HRC’s debt-free college pledge.

      Coquette, I am so so sorry for the manifesto! K’s question was a valid one, and I was so impassioned about it I just couldn’t help writing this.

  5. Lin says:

    I can’t vote, so all my my views on the American election don’t really matter, but I do get what Coke means. Clinton is a politician and a fucking good one. The political system and institutions of America (and let’s be real, everywhere on earth) are unjust and underhanded and engaging with that system takes accepting and getting comfortable with that fact. Being a politician in America basically requires deceitful behaviour as the price of admission.

    I may not want to be Clinton’s friend (but who knows, maybe we’d be gal pals), but I sure as shit would trust her to be at the helm of America. She may actually be a weapons-grade bitch but I’d pick her over any of the Republican candidates who ran.

    And none of this excuses or ignores any of the bullshit things Clinton has done either. Her praising the Regan’s response to AIDS had me seeing red. But from where I sit she’s the most qualified living person to be president.

  6. We'reDoomed says:

    Oh god…I think I’m becoming a “truther.” I honestly believe upper level management at various news outlets have decided to double down on Trump because the news cycle would be far more profitable with him in office.

    • G says:

      Well, if you see anything from the New York Observer, it IS Trump propaganda, since Ivanka’s husband owns it. It’s amazing how many disgruntled “progressives” are linking to it to validate their feelings of victimhood and playing right into the Trump campaign’s strategic desires.

      • J Lynn says:

        NY Observer is the pinky-peach colored one, right? Haven’t checked in for a while, but several years ago I enjoyed some of the articles quite a lot; they had an entertaining POV that was magazine-like and counterintuitive (a word way overused by journalists/editors, sorry). On the one hand it’s a story as old as the printing press that writers have had to work for “greedy capitalist” publishers, but knowing it’s linked up to the Trump family is a step too far; i.e., not just your basic moneyman, but a Murdoch-aligned Ailes pal. Ugh.

        BTW, pretty weird how Ivanka seemed to think her dad was a liberal based on her speech! All her preferred policies are Democratic ones, not the Donald’s! It was so weird I thought it might be a troll like Cruz’s “vote your conscience” but ultra subtle. I admit that notion is probably fanciful, tho.

  7. JC says:

    PREACH, girl.

    Fuck yeah.

    I am proud to vote for Hillary Clinton. I voted Bernie in the primary because I’m a total lefty, but I am 100% on board with President Hillary Clinton. I will be spending my time and my money to get her elected.

  8. Yes! Not only will I proudly vote for Hillary Clinton, my 5-year-0ld granddaughter will have her finger on the button with me. We’re both giddy at the idea of voting for the first woman President of the United States. We already voted for her in the primary, but this is going to be historic, and we’re going to do it together. I just hope all the left-wing whiners don’t ruin it, because ruin won’t be the word for it if Donald Trump ends up with his finger on the button of a nuclear device.

  9. La la la says:

    Coke, your problem is a lot of this demographic were children during Bill Clinton’s time in office. He’s nothing more than a caricature to them and by association so is Hillary. People aren’t doing candidate research, those that are take it from news headlines or comedy sketches. And you can be damn sure they didn’t research Bill’s tenure.

    *before I get the dog pile of comments. This is a generality. I’m sure you, reader, are personally a well informed voter looking at the grand scope.

  10. Lucille says:

    Trying-not-to-stay-ignorant millennial here, Coke. Can you talk to me about all this DNC Debbie Wasserman Schultz bullshit? And Hillary’s decision to induct her directly into her campaign? Pretty much everyone I know right now is marching on the DNC and writing in for Bernie in the fall, and they’re picking up more and more supporters now because of this fucking DNC drama. What do I say to them? I’m disgusted that this whole thing is just perpetuating party disunity when our solidarity is the only thing standing between Trump/satan-Pence and the White House, but…the DNC really hasn’t been making Hillary look very good, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz honestly seems like a fucking scumbag. Why is Clinton rewarding her now, not caring that there’s evidence of discrimination in the DNC against other candidates? What are your thoughts on that?

    • JC says:

      The key word I think is “honorary.” Hillary didn’t give her a real position, she gave her a face-saving little pat on the head. I wish she hadn’t done that, but I’m not going to wet my diaper and cry about it.


      Ask them why they’re fine with Russian intelligence exerting influence over US elections?

      ETA: Futile. I know. Most of them believe Wikileaks is a noble anti-secrecy or privacy organization, instead of a cut-out for planned intelligence operations under the guise of “freedom” and “civil liberties”.

          • Gaybeard says:

            I do my best 😛

            Seriously though, you don’t think it’s taking it a little far to think that Russia has enough power to influence Western media to such an extreme degree, regardless of their intentions?

          • J Lynn says:

            What I’ve seen so far is that there’s strong evidence that Wikileaks (very different entity from what we’d normally call “Wesrern media”) got their docs from a Russian hack. Key physical evidence so far: Same IP addresses as a known Kremlin attack on German servers. Details still emerging.

          • POLEZNIYE DURAKI says:

            We’re talking about master practitioners of активные мероприятия (active measures) and дезинформация (disinformation); intelligence apparatus that are not primarily concerned with intelligence collection, but subversion. Acting to demoralize or manipulate the Western public is what they do.

            Looking at Mrs. Schultz’s resignation as DNC Chair, as well as the discord in Philly it seems they’re performing their duties successfully.

  11. coskel says:

    re: and writing in for Bernie in the fall

    This has me very very afraid. Canada better be ready for an influx of people in December.

    • JC says:

      I’ll be stockpiling canned goods and learning to shoot a gun. I have the means to leave, but I will stand and fight. Y’all can be part of my militia if you like.

      Or, you know, people could just suck it up and be adults about the election. I voted for Bernie, but I’m about to start handing out diapers to some of his supporters. The JillNotHill people also need a punch in the fucking face for thinking an anti-vaxx pandering “doctor” with no political experience above town council is even remotely qualified to be the president.

    • Lucille says:

      I know. They aren’t listening to anything I say, and they’re so anti-Hillary that even when Bernie endorses her and calls for solidarity, they get angry with him and call him a sellout (but they’re still voting for him anyway because they want to show The Man that they’re not swallowing the two-party mandate anymore). And I know maybe a dozen people who’re planning on voting for Gary Johnson or Jill FUCKING Stein “so they can sleep at night.” I hate everyone right now.

      • J Lynn says:

        Frustrating! All I can say is don’t fuck any of ’em. I turned down a few Nader voters in the early 2000s!

      • JC says:

        Jill Fucking Stein is what I call her, too. She’s totally unqualified, is that really the best the Greens can do?

    • Kelly says:

      I’m not leaving. I’ll be hiding Syrian and Guatemalan children in my attic, like all honorable people will if Trump wins.

      • JC says:

        Wow, you just gave me a flashback of visiting the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam. When I got up to the top of the stairs and saw that little window, I almost lost it. Then I saw her diary translated into what seemed like 100 languages, and I did lose it.

        Never. Again.

  12. Ac says:

    I feel like you can’t honestly believe the things you’re saying about Hilary. She’s better than trump and Bernie, but your praise of her is heavy handed craziness.

    • G says:

      I didn’t realize it’s so incredible to be excited about a candidate who’s dedicated almost her entire career, legal, political, and otherwise, to progressive causes and particularly children’s welfare, for decades upon end. Gosh, I guess we’re all just horrible corporate shills.

      • Ac says:

        Yes, she proved that she was very dedicated to progressive issues when she didn’t support gay marriage until 2013.

        Certainly, Hilary is the best of bad options. But she’s a politician and got to where she is by being crafty, not by being honorable. So let’s not get carried away by talking about her in heavy-handed glowing terms.

        • WhoAmI says:

          Being honorable but not crafty lead a country nowhere in politics. That’s why it’s been a profession for so damn long ; you need the skills to rise to power and to stay in power, before you worry about actually leading your country.
          Bashing a politician for being crafty is like bashing a surgeon for having nimble fingers.

          There’s, like, this small italian political treatise which talks at lenght about it. Probably never heard of it.

          • Ac says:

            My point is that it’s stupid for coke talk to call Hilary honorable. Please fuck off with your Machiavellian nonsense, you condescending twat

          • WhoAmI says:

            And my point is that it’s stupid to call someone names just because they’re a politician ; if they weren’t one you wouldn’t be talking about them at all.

          • JC says:

            I don’t understand why career politician has become a dirty word. Would you hire a plumber that had no experience? Obviously not, but some idiots would be happy to let someone with no qualifications run the country. Trump, Stein, take your pick. If you are trying to buck the system, just write your own fucking name in. It does about as much good, and you can be assured of a candidate that 100% agrees with you about everything.

          • AC says:

            WHOAMI: Calling it a Wu is just a douchey way of agreeing with me.

            JC: You’re arguing against a strawman; I made none of those points.

          • JC says:

            I wasn’t responding to you in particular, rather the tone of the thread, but anyway you seem to be looking to pick a fight, and I’m not interested this morning.

        • alyssa says:

          Okay Ned Stark, but you know as well as I do that being honorable in the unequal playing field we call politics doesn’t get you very far. I personally appreciate her craftiness when she’s using it to further good causes. I would also like to say, as a lesbian, that I understand why she didn’t openly support gay marriage until 3 years ago, and at least I know she won’t try to overturn the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, which is really the most important thing here.

          Quit with this black and white stuff y’all- you can recognize Hillary’s good parts while also being critical of her policies.

          (Sorry if that came off a bit harsh, I’m just really over this “bashing Hillary because it’s socially cool and acceptable” nonsense)

          • Ac says:

            I’m not saying that I object to her being crafty. I’m saying that it’s complete nonsense to call her honorable.

            How many times am I going to need to make this point. Are you all idiots?


    Bullshit is ubiquitous in human affairs. This is especially true in politics, where every assertion illustrates motivated reasoning (or motivated cognition = bullshit). The content of the bullshit is unimportant, but the bullshit must be plausible.

    What is important is that the bullshit must resonate positively with those evaluating it. Hillary’s bullshit STRONGLY resonates with Coke.

    • G says:

      It’s amazing how many people discredit a good candidate with an ounce of innuendo and their own brand of bullshit. Nice work. Do you feel proud spreading baseless “trustworthiness” malaise about a candidate?


    lol good candidate. Better than a proto-fascist? Yes. A good candidate? Nah. A tolerable candidate? Yes.

  15. Ashley says:

    unbelievable. hillary is the worst candidate the DNC has ever ran, we didnt have free and fair elections, and you expect me to vote for this neoliberal, anti working class, war mongering, voted for iraq, against LGBTs, piece of shit?

    a trump presidency is what you well off liberal hypocrites fucking deserve. you have NO SPINE. NO MORALS. you are just as much a part of the problem as the republicans.

    #bernieorbust #demexit #jillstein2016

    • J Lynn says:

      Are you for real, Ashley? This reads like a parody. Either you’re really angry and saying stuff you don’t mean, or else you’re just trolling.

      Only one thing in your post is true: Hillary did vote for the 2002 authorization of force in Iraq, a vote that she now says was wrong. The fact that she has said it was the wrong choice means a lot to me because a lot of powerful people won’t admit when they’re wrong. A lot of Congress members — including liberals/progressives — cast the wrong vote then, even as thousands of people protested in the streets. Refusing to vote for anyone today who was responding to the pressures of the moment — which included an appalling disinformation campaign from Bush’s neocons — as well as the demands of his/her constituency in 2002 is a purity test that bars a lot of useful politicians from office, and it reflects a self-defeating tunnel vision.

      Second, you’re mistaken if you think that Bernie is a pacifist or an isolationist. He’s a liberal interventionist, just like most American liberals since WWII. He voted twice to authorize a coup against Saddam Hussein in 1998 (which of course didn’t happen), and has voted for many other force authorizations.

      The rest of your post is nothing but insults and name-calling and, even granted the most generous interpretations, completely unsupportable.

      • Bruce says:

        Not defending Ashley’s, uh, tone, but I see this frustrating liberal counterattack a lot where the claim that Bernie is “not a hawk” is conflated with the claim that he is a “pacifist.” Which, to me, is the same sort of standoffish, all-or-nothing reasoning that makes Bill O’Reilly’s interviews unwatchable.

        Besides, the Iraq Liberation Act was light years from a military invasion and we both know it. Bernie was anti-Saddam in 1998 and he was just as anti-Saddam in 2002. The difference was that Bill Clinton was president in 1998 and the measures authorized in that vote were entirely peaceful but for four days of bombing against military targets which we actually knew existed.

        Bernie was indeed supporting Bill Clinton’s policies toward Iraq, but those were not Bush’s policies. Or, put another way that I think we can all agree on, Hillary Clinton’s husband’s policy on Iraq was very different from W’s. (

        • J Lynn says:

          You seem to saying I misconstrued a claim Ashley made? She didn’t claim that Sanders is “not a hawk.” She didn’t claim anything about Bernie at all, so I wasn’t responding to any claim. I was commenting, all on my own, that Bernie’s record is politically within the same general tradition of liberal interventionism that’s dominated post-WW2 (I.e., post-hegemonic) US foreign policy. I’m only saying his record isn’t a drastic break with that tradition, but on the same general continuum of interventionism, as opposed to pre-War isolationism. After Vietnam, most Democrats including Bernie, Hillary C as well as Bill C and most Congress Democrats will usually justify intervention based on some vaguely humanitarian goal, but intervene they nevertheless do. (The exception would be Afghanistan in 2001, that was straight up regular war, no ambivalence.) What I’m saying is not a criticism of Bernie, just anodyne but necessary context.

          The US is the global hegemon post WW2, there’s no avoiding that reality, and that brings moral hazard to all of us. Liberals try to be well meaning, but in certain situations no matter how the U.S. handles it, people die on one side or the other and this country bears some responsibility as an inevitable feature of its hegemonic power. I don’t mean to sound nihilistic, there are definitely smart and dumb, judicious and arrogant ways to handle that power. But there’s no chance of staying Iceland-pure.

          Acknowledging this reality and Sanders’ inevitable part in it takes nothing away from His laudable “no” vote in 2002. If you think I was saying the 1998 Iraq vote and 2002 Iraq vote were equivalent in seriousness, danger, risk, and overall bellicosity, NO. No comparison. And Hillary has paid dearly (but not as much as a war casualty!) for the 2002 vote, it’s the weakest part of her record, an Achilles heel. As I said, her only defenses are the Bush misinformation and the fact that a majority of her NY constituents wanted it; it was sick the way a bare majority of the public was on board well through 2004. But, she’s smarter than most and should have known better anyway. Still and all, her other attributes outweigh this past error, which I believe she has learned from.

          Anyway, back to the main thrust of your complaint: There definitely WAS someone in this thread using black-and-white thinking, but that person wasn’t me (or you … Uh, pretty obvious who!).

    • Anonymous Poster says:

      So you want to punish everyone in the country who plans to vote for Hillary, regardless of why, by throwing your vote away and helping Trump gain the White House?

      You want to help put a racist, sexist, fascist son of a bitch into the Oval Office—and help the GOP pass laws that will affect everyone but rich white men, and help conservatives control the Supreme Court for potentially decades to come—because you’re pissed that Hillary isn’t a perfect candidate?

      I mean, I don’t want to set up strawmen, but your post seems to be implying that you’d vote to hurt others because you disagree with their choice of candidate. That’s a bit harsh, don’t you think?

      (And if you’re just being a trollish ass: quit weaponizing insincerity, you bloodied bag of dick cream.)

  16. J Lynn says:

    Referencing posts above:
    Looking like Polezniye Duraki above might be right. (Can’t say I doubted her/him … that Cyrillic looked pretty legit! haha) Namely: Russians hacked the DNC then passed the loot to a pliable or gullible Wikileaks.

    This story is still developing, but a good overview so far is found in this Daily Beast article:

    Further, the links between Trump and his campaign to Putin and Putin friends are being verified. Whether there’s a direct relationship between [Trump-Putin] and [Russian hackers-Wikileaks] hasn’t been nailed down, i.e., bullets but no smoking guns.

    Two other sources you’ll want to read on this:
    1 – Josh Micah Marshall at Talking Points Memo, my #1 favorite political writer. That guy is so smart. (My sapiosexual internet boyfriend, or so I wish.) He’s been very intuitive about Trump this year, coining the phrase “dominance politics” and detailing Trump-Putin connections without sensationalizing. @joshtpm on Twitter.

    2 – For the Wikileaks commentary, I’ve found myself appreciating journalism prof John Stoehr, @johnastoehr: is one thread

      • J Lynn says:

        Right now I have a little Tumblr, but it’s not about politics, Twitter is @juliemickens

        I can’t seem to keep my typin’ fingers still on politics lately, tho, so I think I better start blogging. Thanks for asking, you’re inspiring me to quit dithering and get on over to wordpress. (or squarespace or whatever people are doing now!)

        • Nina says:

          Your comments are amazing and have opened up so many things to me that I was completely unaware of. Thank you!!

          I hope this isn’t too much to ask but could you recommend some books to someone fairly ignorant of American politics?

          – Dumb Brit

          • J Lynn says:

            Hi Nina,
            Thanks for your wonderful compliment! I don’t know if you’ll make it back here or not, but the only *book* off the top of my head I can think of is Nixonland by Rick Perlstein. It explains a good bit of how Democrats lost the white (esp white men) vote after the 1960s, and how Republicans picked it up with their “Southern Strategy.” A lot of modern American politics can be traced to that period.

            I also recently read Bill Clinton’s own book from 2011: Back to Work: Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy. It’s pretty nerdy, but nevertheless an accessible intro to recent (1980-2011) US economic and domestic policy. It sounds just like Bill himself, folksy and super smart, but sometimes very long-winded.

            A lot of my knowledge comes from PBS (American public tv) history documentaries! I bet you can find a lot of them online. I particularly recommend the American Experience series (history) and Frontline (in depth journalism). In the US, the website is, but there may be other sources too.

            Best reading strategy: Read every politics, history and foreign policy article in the New Yorker magazine that looks interesting to you. It’s just the best writing (thus digestible), and the articles tend to include a lot more explanatory context than elsewhere. Everything current is online. Old stuff is subscription-only, but there are probably other unofficial copies scattered online.

            For short digestible bits, some of the writers on the Q&A website Quora in the American history, American politics, etc., topics are surprisingly good. (Lots of chaff, there, too, like “Why isn’t Hillary in jail?” for the 1000th time, but some real insight as well!)

  17. J Lynn says:

    Hi Coquette, just posted a comment but I think it’s stuck in moderation queue, probably bc too many links? (or maybe I’m just posting too much, haha!)

  18. MaybeDoomed says:

    I don’t know about you guys but between J Lynn’s post, Michelle Obamas speech, Bernies speech, and the tears in the crowd…I feel like my fever has broken. Some semblance of sanity just showed up to the party and brought a keg of hope. We might weather this.

    How could anyone not be moved by all those tears in the audience?

    • J Lynn says:

      Yeah, stunning!! A weeper. She had so much classy stealth shade, too. Good argument on the “role model” stuff: As awful as Trump is, I hadn’t yet thought of how horrific it would be to have his orange face on the schoolroom “Presidents of the USA” posters, and have kids writing reports about him, nononononono!

  19. Soooooooooooooooo says:

    Saying Trump is a rapist is damn near a moot point. Most of our presidents were rapists. Hell some of them owned slaves which we can be sure they raped. Not to mention that most of the high powered men in this country are rapists and pedophiles anyway. No one will care that Trump was accused of rape like no one cared that Bill Clinton was accused of his many sexual indiscretions.

    I’m still team Hillary, I just feel that it’s better to argue his apparent weaknesses and leave his accusations out of the conversation because America will always protect a rapist.

    • MaybeDoomed says:

      Indiscretion is not the same as rape.
      Just because past presidents were rapists doesn’t mean we should elect one.
      It’s not a moot point; it’s another stone on the scale.
      Yes, a lot of people will forget it. But that thought should keep them company in the voting booth.


        “Indiscretion is not the same as rape.”

        Bill Clinton was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick.

        • MaybeDoomed says:

          I don’t know if I would have voted for him if I knew that. But I do know that Hillary has not been accused of rape. So if we want a non rapey president, the vote is pretty clear.

  20. Soooooooooooooooo says:

    Considering that Hilary wants to be president, what she has been accused is a big deal and is a different subject than Trumps rape accusations. People will say that rape has nothing to do with the actual position and that many rapist presidents (including Hillary’s husband) were still able to do what’s best for the country. However, having already had a high power position and being amidst this type of scandal, it looks like Hillary has already proven that she won’t do what’s best.

    That’s why I said it’s moot. It opens the door to a very pointless back and forth.

    Jesus it sounds like I’m defending Trump and that makes me ill. Just skip my post lol.

    • MaybeDoomed says:

      I’m sorry…I’m not clear on what the big deal is. Emails deleted? Seems like the FBI doesn’t give a shit;, so I’m done worrying about it.

      But here’s the funny thing…I don’t even know what crime she would have to commit before I wouldn’t vote for her. Trump is so clearly criminally versatile that I think she could go all the way up to first degree manslaughter.

  21. Pingback: For My Friend’s Abroad: On The 2016 US Election – pillowtalkwithcharlie

  22. Soooooooooooooooo says:

    The FBI/CIA didn’t give a shit about 9/11 either. But like I said, I’m not going there for the sake of Trump. Hillary could suck a baby mule’s penis while licking Rihanna’s ass during a sacrifice of 29 Crackheads to Xenu in a crowd of Aboriginal babies for all I care. She’s got my vote.

  23. One of the other Slim Shadys says:

    For what little my opinion is worth, I have to disagree with your ardent support of Hillary.

    To say that people should vote for her because no realistic voter would expect a third party candidate to win is probably true, although it saddens me that our population lacks the integrity to vote for a reasonable candidate. But please don’t lead your readers to believe Hillary is a good candidate when she is at best a necessary evil.

    My one and only argument, as an IT worker, would be her hosting her own e-mail server and using it to transmit classified information. She may not have known any better, given the phone calls I get from people of all demographics who can’t figure out how their fucking web browsers work, but that’s not an excuse for a Presidential Candidate. If she didn’t know better, she should have known enough to ask someone who did what the repercussions could be if she chose to host her servers in-house.

    I personally consider her actions treasonous, even if only through neglect, but I also know for a fact that if I accidentally deleted a client mailbox out of an e-mail server or sent someone their security information via a plain text e-mail, I would get fired from my job. I expect my President to be held to a standard higher than that of a small town 24 year old IT geek.

    But sadly, Trump is still worse. I just take issue with anyone who’s trying to sell Hillary as anything less than “not Trump.”

  24. EP says:

    Hi Coke et al. Resident of a soon-to-be-former EU member state here.

    “I want her to win so badly that it makes my fucking teeth itch, and it scares the hell out of me to think that she might not.”

    This is how I felt about Brexit. Exactly how I felt. The real terror set in a couple of days before the vote. When everyone thought we would remain, really. They toyed with the possibility we might not, but nobody *really* thought we would leave. The only fear that won was the fear of the foreign (literally), and not the fear that shit might go horribly wrong.

    There are so many echoes of Brexit in American politics, especially this week. President Obama in his DNC speech said “What we heard was a deeply pessimistic vision of a country where we turn against each other, and turn away from the rest of the world. There were no serious solutions to pressing problems — just the fanning of resentment, and blame, and anger, and hate.” This is exactly the campaign the EU Referendum ran on. Not a solution in sight. And sadly, that vision won.

    And here we are. A month later and all we have to show is more hatred, more uncertainty, more division in a time where we so desperately need to stand together.

    Just to say I’m behind you when you implore people to vote for Hillary. She might not be perfect, hell, she’s a politician – but what she doesn’t stand for: fear, resentment, blame, anger, hate – that’s what matters. Nobody has to agree 100% with her ideas, but they do have to vote for humanity in the only way the system at hand allows.

    Vote. Keep out the bad. Then stand the fuck up and shout about it, because if she loses, you can be damn sure that hope will be lost too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *