Hilary Clinton

The Endless, Soul-Sucking Emptiness of Partisan Warfare

Republicans are beating up on Hillary Clinton because that's what partisans do.

|

PAT BENIC/UPI/Newscom

What is it that compels the leadership of a party that holds all the levers of power in Washington to repeatedly attack political opponents who are out of office, to call for investigations into the actions of administration officials who are totally out of the picture, and plan political campaigns around opposition to politicians who are never going to run again? I'm speaking, of course, of Democrats during the start of the Obama administration.

In 2009, Democrats held both the White House and a commanding majority in Congress, including the 60 Senate seats necessary to overcome a filibuster. Yet on multiple occasions throughout the year, party leaders singled out former President George W. Bush and his administration for attacks.

President Obama, who would let the federal budget deficit soar to record heights during his first term, complained publicly that he had inherited trillions in debt from Bush. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi supported an investigation into potential Bush administration lawbreaking on national security issues. And at the end of the year, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, then the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, declared that for the 2010 midterm election, the party's strategy would be to remind voters of how much they disliked President Bush. At the height of the Democratic party's occupation of elected office in Washington, in other words, a president who had been out of office for nearly a year and would never again hold political power was enemy number one.

You can see a similar instinct at work right now, as Republicans and their partisan allies attempt to jujitsu Trump administration scandals into indictments of Hillary Clinton, who is, you may have noticed, not currently our country's president, or for that matter, our official anything else.

After the announcement yesterday that Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, had been charged with conspiracy and money laundering as part of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 election, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders responded that "today's announcement has nothing to do with the President, has nothing to do with the President's campaign or campaign activity." Instead, she said, "The real collusion scandal, as we have said several times before, has everything to do with the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, and Russia. There is clear evidence of the Clinton campaign colluding with Russian intelligence to spread disinformation."

This morning, Trump responded to news that campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI as part of the same investigation. While working on the campaign, Papadopoulos attempted to set up meetings between the Trump campaign and Russian contacts, and he noted that individuals he believed to be connected to the Russian government said they had dirt on Clinton, including thousands of emails. This occurred months before thousands of Clinton emails were made public as the result of a hack. The president used this as an opportunity to says that his political opponents deserve more scrutiny. Papadopoulos, Trump said, was a "young, low level volunteer, who has already proven to be a liar. Check the DEMS!"

This message was echoed by Trump's GOP allies in Congress: "Don't forget we still have all the Hillary activity," said Sen. James Inhofe when asked about the Manafort charges. Just last week, congressional Republicans launched several new investigations into Clinton's actions as secretary state. And Trump's most ardent defenders in the media have similarly spent the last week or so downplaying the importance of the Mueller probe while insisting that the Russia investigation that the entire operation is just a meaningless and shoddy Democratic hit job, and also that it reveals important and damning truths about Hillary Clinton and her allies. As always, the real enemy is someone who is out of power, and who will almost certainly never again wield it.

The need for a political enemy, for someone of the opposing party persuasion to despise and blame regardless of their current proximity to actual power, is a consistent feature of the partisan mind. It is a mindset that conceives of politics almost exclusively as a sport, played between two teams, with points to be scored and games to be won.

It's a zero sum approach to governance, and what it means, in the end, is that anyone who is concerned with improving the performance of government ends up losing, as empty partisan victories inevitably end up prioritized over policy advances. It is politics as a combination of entertainment and petty cultural warfare, and it is a habit that is, at predictable intervals, indulged on both sides of the aisle. It is exhausting, endless, inevitable, and utterly soul-sucking.

The bipartisan nature of this mindset does not mean that what Republicans are doing now is perfectly equivalent to what Democrats did eight years ago. When Democrats blamed Bush for exploding the national debt or for engaging in legally and morally dubious acts in pursuit of the war on terror, they were certainly engaged in a self-serving partisan blame game. But in an important sense, they also had a point: Bush had been president for eight years, and had made a multitude of errors and blunders that profoundly shaped the course of the nation.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, not only isn't president today—she never was. Yes, she served as President Obama's secretary of state for four years, and she exerted real influence in that role, but not at remotely the same level as President Bush. And it is all but certain that she will never run for office again. And yes, the Clinton machine, the faction of advisers and advocates and money managers inside the Democratic party, was amongst the most powerful and influential players involved in American politics for decades. It is not entirely unreasonable or out of bounds to note or consider Clinton's many roles in our recent national dramas. But given who controls the actual levers of power in our current government, it is also far from the most pressing concern at the moment. Yet Trump and his defenders would have us believe that shady Clinton dealings are the most important issue being raised by the current investigation. Perhaps even more bizarrely, the GOP faithful have attempted to turn Mueller, a lifelong Republican with a solid reputation, into a front for Clinton sleaze.

It is not an accident that the GOP's attacks on Clinton have grown louder and more agitated as the investigation into Trump has made progress. It is a strategy designed to muddle the issue by playing on knee-jerk partisan resentments. Those resentments, meanwhile, have yet to produce much in the way of legislative achievements. Shallow partisan deflection is being forced to serve as a substitute for a popular and successful policy agenda. This is partisan politics at its worst, power-seeking and power-weilding for no reason except empty self-perpetuation, which is to say that it is partisan politics as it usually is.

Advertisement

NEXT: Is federal government flooding of Houston homes a taking?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If Clinton would just shut up and fuck off to wherever failed presidential candidates go (she can play shuffleboard with Bob Dole, how cool would that be?) instead of writing a book and doing a PR tour and commenting on politics on twitter and in the news, making her a public political figure, maybe the GOP would have less ammo.

        1. My Whole month’s on-line financ-ial gain is $2287. i’m currently ready to fulfill my dreams simply and reside home with my family additionally. I work just for two hours on a daily basis. everybody will use this home profit system by this link………

          ======================
          http://www.webcash20.com
          ======================

    1. This and pretty much every comment after it confirm the articles thesis with an absolutely stunning lack of insight and self reflection. You can lead a schmuck to water, etc, I guess.

    2. The funny thing is that for all the effort Clinton is putting in to staying in the spotlight it really is only conservatives who are paying attention to her

  2. Why is every photo of Hillary so fucking terrifying?

    1. Because the eldritch glamours Herself weaves to shield Her true form from mortal eyes aren’t picked up by modern digital cameras.

      Don’t you hate knowing that the photographer’s last words were six days of screaming?

      1. What happens if we can trick het into saying the Words of Making?

  3. ex-pols are above the law?

    Should the statute of limitations for public corruption kick in immediately after a humiliating election defeat?

    LOCK HER UP !

  4. So Bush is off the hook for everything he did because Trump is terrible.

    The RNC thanks you for your rhetorical service. Don’t neglect the balls, please.

    1. Yeah, basically. Bush’s popularity has grown since Trump took office, just as Clinton’s popularity grew when Obama took office. Nostalgia, hindsight and a new target do wonders for the reputation of the old target.

      1. Well, if new Presidents would stop saying ‘hold my beer, watch this’ to America maybe we’d stop fondly remembering the last asshole to rudely shove a Natty Light into our hands before face planting into an empty pool.

        1. Based on the current partisan-ship trajectory, and how little interest folks have in practical reforms that would weaken the two-party system, I find that unlikely. For the forseeable future, the other party is the “enemy”, and their president is Satan.

          But you can only have one Satan at a time, so when you get a new Satan, the old one starts to look better.

    2. I can practically hear the point going right over your head. Blaming one’s predecessor for one’s own failures is a shitty strategy. Otherwise I blame everything on McKinley.

  5. I personally think she’s an unindicted criminal. Does that make it ok to trash her when she insists on remaining a public figure

    1. Erm. We’re all unidicted criminals. Unless you follow every single law exactly to the tee, then so are you.

        1. Did I knock you off your high horsey Mr. Boyscout?

          1. I was the fucking SecState? I am a public figure, and insist on remaining so?

            No stupid ass, you ignored the entire point of the post.

            1. And he’s saying that we’re all unindicted criminals including other public figures and the current Sec State. So shit on them too or come up with a more specific reason. It’s really not hard, Hillary is bad enough that you can narrow your definition and still shit on her.

              1. “Does that make it ok to trash her when she insists on remaining a public figure”

                Try reading that.

                I know what he said, it’s a trivial point not worth addressing.

                1. And..you don’t think I’ll shit on them too?

                  get me when an article about them appears.

                2. And… you really don’t think I’ll shit on thrm too, when an article about them appears?

            2. Like every other person with CDS, you attempt to justify your raw hatred for her as if it wasn’t personal.

              1. And… you really don’t think I’ll shit on thrm too, when an article about them appears?

                Like everyone else who can’t read you ignore what I wrote

                1. “High I know she committed multiple felonies but because some guy wrote a book about 3 felonies a day sometime ago I’m going to stupidly draw equivalence with my lame ass sock puppet that’s obvious to everyone “

                  1. See, you’re narrowing your definition right there by specifying the level of crime required. Good job.

  6. I think I understand you, Mr. Suderman, but on the other hand, there appears to be a lot of evidence of wrongdoing by a certain previous secretary of state. Shouldn’t the current AG investigate that? We don’t ignore old cases locally just because a new sheriff is elected.

    1. Every special prosecutor is always a Republican. The current justice department is run by Republicans. The people who already investigated her, including the FBI and Congress, were all Republicans. If they haven’t found anything by now then either she didn’t do anything wrong or they’re all extremely incompetent.

      Stop watching FOX News you fucking morons.

      1. Anyone who has ever held a security clearance knows she should be in jail.

        Making your own email server and sending/receiving classified material using it is a crime. The device is not authorized to receive the material.

        She got a pass from the Obama administration, that no one else would ever get. Comey even alluded to it in his statement.

        1. Seriously? Talking points from a year ago after all we’ve been through? You do know that she didn’t make it to the presidency, right? And that the one who did is a fat treasonous nuke-happy incompetent grifter who’s about to ignite a constitutional crisis?

          You people are pathological.

          1. “”And that the one who did is a fat treasonous nuke-happy incompetent grifter who’s about to ignite a constitutional crisis?””

            You know really helped get that guy elected? People that see Hillary as doing no wrong ever.

            1. They simply refused to believe she was a horrible candidate. A lot of dems wouldn’t even come out and vote for her.

              1. Horrible as she may be, under no objective measure was she as horrible as the winner, so obviously horribleness wasn’t the decisive factor.

                1. So, because she didn’t win, she’s allowed to break the law?

                  And don’t you dare try to argue that she didn’t. I still have my clearance level, and am painfully aware of how illegal her actions were

                  1. The FBI said she didn’t.

                    Obviously it was part of the Clinton Conspiracy.

                    If they’re so powerful one wonders why you people don’t just give in and let them run things.

                    1. The FBI said she did. But for some reason couldn’t determine intent.

                      Comey said she lied 39 times. Lying to the FBI is only a crime if someone on the Trump team does it.

                      It never struck you as odd, that the FBI had to negotiated with Hillary to get an interview. No subpoenas issued?

                    2. The same James Comey who said “We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI”? That one?

                      Do you have any idea how tedious it is arguing with warmed-over rightwing internet bullshit that has been debunked for over a year?

                    3. Hillary said she did not send or receive classified emails

                      FBI showed her classified emails she sent.

                      Hillary said they were not marked classified.

                      FBI showed her classified emails with markings.

                      Hillary said she didn’t understand what the markings meant.

                      You know someone is a psychopath liar when they come up with a new lie to cover the old each time the truth is uncovered

                    4. Nope, that was my one attempt of discussion with Tony. I served as a military officer for a few years and was repeatedly warned not to even send a single classified e-mail to a private account. And I did so as a lowly O-1.

                      I cannot stand people who are so consumed by their partisanship that they willingly defend politicians who blatantly break the law, especially laws meant to protect the public from corrupt officials.

                      I wash my hands of this conversation.

                    5. So why did she not get indicted? In detail, please.

                    6. Because the only agency that could issue an indictment was headed by a partisan demoncrap, who didn’t want to see their party’s chances of holding the presidency, impacted.
                      Even Comey’s “she did all that stuff, but we aren’t going to indict” was meaningless – he was in no position file any charges.

                2. I believe they’re both equally horrible, each in their own special way. But tell me, is kissing Hillary ass more or less salty than kiss Obama ass?

              2. She was a horrible candidate. That doesn’t mean that Fox News and Trump aren’t using them to distract people from Trump and Republican FAILURES to do anything.

          2. Says the guy who takes as an article of faith that trump cilludes with the russians in spite of zero evidence after a year. If that isn’t textbook pathology in the DSM V I don’t know what is.

        2. Cool. Throw Trump’s kids in jail too then, eh?

    2. So you’re good with reevaluating Iran-Contra and taking St Reagan down a few pegs, right? I mean selling weapons to a declared enemy of the state to fund right-wing militias is at least as bad as keeping an unauthorized email server.

      1. Is that better or worse than selling weapons to foreign drug cartels and watching those weapons get used against Americans?

        1. Or leaving advanced weaponry in the hands of an incompetent military, only to have it stolen by an international terrorist organization and used against you.

        2. Or leaving advanced weaponry in the hands of an incompetent military, only to have it stolen by an international terrorist organization and used against you.

          1. I prefer extrajudicial summary executions of americans, but to each his own.

      2. Notably you can not try dead people in a court of law.

        1. But you CAN keep them off Mt. Rushmore and the dime.

        2. Unless you’re Pope Formosus

      3. is at least as bad as keeping an unauthorized email server.

        That’s a bit like saying Aldrich Ames left some sensitive material lying about, but other than that, I’m with you.

      4. “”So you’re good with reevaluating Iran-Contra and taking St Reagan down a few pegs, right? I mean selling weapons to a declared enemy of the state to fund right-wing militias is at least as bad as keeping an unauthorized email server.””

        IIRC, the Iran Contra affair had a special prosecutor. North, and Pointdexter were both convicted, albeit the convictions were overturned.

        Hillary et al got a pass.

        1. “Hillary eat al got a pass”

          Not really. She lost an election she should have won largely in part because of people’s disgust with her corruption. She’ll never get the legacy that she thinks she deserves, and history will likely mark her as the person who LOST to one of the worst presidents of all time.

          1. The U.S. population is only 320 million. How can you expect with such a small pool to pull from to get better people to run the nation than Clinton or Trump. Hell even the Libertarians couldn’t find two Libertarians to run at the top of the ticket.

            And for worst president your are forgetting Polk, or Tippecanoe And Tyler Too. Not to mention LBJ. He was proudly the biggest prick at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

      5. “keeping an unauthorized email server”

        Is that really what you think is the issue? Of course it isn’t. Repeated and continued release of classified information to those not authorized to receive it. That’s just one of the issues. Nobody gives a rat’s ass that she had a personal email server. It’s the illegal acts committed with that server which are the issue.

    3. It’s “the boy who cried wolf” all over again. Republicans have been screaming “treason” and “scandal” about the Clintons since the 80s, and the closest they’ve ever come to a real issue is a dirty dress, which just reinforced that Republican pursuit was out of proportion to the alleged crimes. And then Republicans kept that up for another decade and a half.

      The moral of the story is that if you claim one family is so terrible for three decades, but can never offer any proof that convinces folks that weren’t believers before there was proof, don’t be surprised if people stop listening to you.

      1. Of course, there is the chance that her dealings over those three decades could be why she lost the election. Sure, she was in elected office in New York for a little while but her major role in government was as an appointment thus ‘the people’ of America had no particular say there.

        There was little reason to trust her, and at least some reasons not to trust her. That doesn’t work so well when you’re going for a national election instead of, say, an appointment as a consolation job that other time you lost in an attempt to bolster one’s resume.

        1. Still missing the point.

      2. The voters seemed to be fairly well convinced of Hillary’s ethical issues.

        1. So much that the majority of them voted for her.

          1. Not even. A plurality. Neither took a majority.

            1. Sorry.

              *ahem*

              So much that the plurality of them voted for her.

              1. a plurality of those who chose to exercise the franchise… get it fucking right next time, huh?

      3. “”and the closest they’ve ever come to a real issue is a dirty dress,””

        Bill was guilty of a perjury charge.

        Their partners in the Whitewater land deal went to jail for bank fraud. If Trump’s partners were found guilty of something like that, you can bet dems would say he’s just as guilty. Probably rightfully so.

  7. RE: The Endless, Soul-Sucking Emptiness of Partisan Warfare
    Republicans are beating up on Hillary Clinton because that’s what partisans do.

    Good point.
    The democrats never attacked republicans in partisan warfare.
    History has shown that many times over.

    1. Not reading the article before you comment saves tons of time, doesn’t it?

      1. I’m not here to read or consider other’s ideas. I’m here to POST

        1. Fuck you BUCS, and fuck whatever your comment says.

    2. Try reading past the headline

  8. Yeah but can you imagine how boringly, emptily, toxically partisan politics would be if Hillary had won?

    1. Seeing as we have multiple decades of Republicans attacking the Clintons, I think we don’t have to imagine.

      1. To be fair, we have multiple decades of Clintons holding some kind of political power.

      2. We do have multiple decades of the Clintons sleazing around the government.

        1. Yeah, and sexually harassing women.

          The only women that people don’t want to hear about their harassment, are the one’s Bill harassed.

  9. Oh come on. She is basically the poster child (well, hag) for everything wrong in politics.

    1. And I think that’s why she lost the election. Enough people who would have otherwise supported her policies, just couldn’t pull the lever for her. Which really speaks volumes considering how awful Donald Trump is.

      1. But would they have “otherwise supported her policies”?
        0blama had essentially the same policies and he lost 3.5 million voters between his two elections.
        Maybe its the policies that enough people can’t pull the lever for.
        That’s why it is such a shame that the Republicans nominated Trump, instead of a real conservative, that had ties to their own party.

  10. It is exhausting, endless, inevitable, and utterly soul-sucking.

    Scapegoating is also a proven winner. It’s good to have a plan and your plan damn well better include who to blame when your plan doesn’t work as intended.

    1. This is the world of lesser of two evils. When you ain’t got nothing yourself, make sure the other guy also has nothing and is smeared with feces too.

      And voters who admit they vote for the lesser evil eat all that shit up.

  11. Yet on multiple occasions throughout the year, party leaders singled out former President George W. Bush and his administration for attacks.

    Perhaps are leaders are more like us than we like to admit.

    Per Welch’s article downblog, every local non-partisan race has to make statements about #ResistingTrump. You get on a comment board about some seriously localized policy such as bus lanes down a central corridor, and somehow Trump and his supporters are thrown into the mix.

    I’m not sure if it’s a side effect of social networking– where everyone feels compelled to signal their broader political leanings all the time, I don’t know. But there’s definitely a Facebookification of people’s front yards that’s become very, very weird.

    1. Facebookification
      Snapchaticizing
      Instagramation
      Twitterization

      There’s gotta be more.

      1. I think “endumbening” covers it all.

        1. I prefer the term “stupidification” but your word is good too.

  12. At the height of the Democratic party’s occupation of elected office in Washington, in other words, a president who had been out of office for nearly a year and would never again hold political power was enemy number one. You can see a similar instinct at work right now, as Republicans and their partisan allies attempt to jujitsu Trump administration scandals into indictments of Hillary Clinton, who is, you may have noticed, not currently our country’s president, or for that matter, our official anything else.

    Politicians are all secretly pragmatic enough to know that the safest target to steer popular anger toward is one who you know you won’t have to try to make deals with later on.

    1. The good news is no one talks about Sarah Palin any more.

        1. She’s a star of some porn film a few years back.

      1. What a long national embarrassment that must have been for you, not to mention the nation.

        1. I bet you’re looking forward to Kemala Harris’s campaign.

        2. My question to you, Tony, is “why are you here?” You are not libertarian, you are not even conservative. You are an unregenerate liberal who seems to live only to insult those to the right of you, which makes you a troll and not a very imaginative one. You would probably be better served spending your time on a site more conducive to your peculiarities. The Huffington Post comes to mind. In the meantime, just know that nobody on this site takes anything you say seriously. So if you go out the door quickly enough it won’t hit you where the good Lord split you.

  13. I feel like I read the entire article, but I also feel like it didn’t say anything.

    Truly some bizarre, written at 4am while half-stoned, sort of stuff.

    What are the odd’s that the Clinton’s are the only politicians who’s deals that look sort of shady are the only one’s not being shady? And, on top of that, Trump could very well be guilty of lots of things even if he isn’t guilty of the thing he’s being accused of specifically.

    Recall that the actual reason for Clinton’s impeachment hearings wasn’t related to the thing he was actually being investigated for at the time (which he lied about under oath, which is itself a crime, but whatever). It’s like we’re reliving the 90’s all over again. It’s always been a matter of when, rather than if, Trump will be impeached.

    The only major question, to me, is if it will be something so innocuous that only a hyper-partisan could think it warrants impeachment or if an unrelated crime is uncovered that they attempt to use in lieu of some mythical espionage on the part of the President as justification.

    1. It’s not just you. Typical suderman ramblings.

    2. Regarding impeachment, an important thing is if the house is controlled by Republicans or Democrats at the time.

      If Republicans are in control, you can bet that it’s something serious, more like Nixon then Clinton. It’ll have to be pretty bad for them to turn on their own president.

      If Democrats are in control then it’s more questionable. Do we still have a lot of veteran democrats that remember the 90s, or was there some kind of “Tea Party” resurgence among Democrats, giving them control but with a lot of new blood? If there’s more veterans, then they’re probably more leery of a Clinton-esque show-trial, and won’t bite until there’s something substantial.

      If the Democrats win 2018 with a “tidal wave” of anti-Trump resentment, then all bets are off.

      1. Trump isn’t like Nixon; Nixon aligned reasonably well with the GOP of his time. On the contrary, Trump is likely thoroughly despised by most Republicans in congress, and they are having difficulty controlling him. I’m sure many would like an excuse to be rid of him and have Pence instead even more than the Democrats (who are making good use out of him as a villain for 2020).

      2. The cover up that caused Nixon’s resignation was really not much, when compared to the corruption and criminal activity of the 90s through today in presidential administrations.

  14. This article will fall on deaf ears. The partisan people who read this won’t let the content sink in. On one hand, I find these articles really relevant and needed, and on the other hand they are a waste of fucking time. Regular people can’t face hard truths.

  15. The mysterious and dubious sourced dossier that was used as probable cause for warrants against some of Trump’s advisors which we now know came from the Clinton campaign. For the past year the Democrats screeching that the election had been unfairly taken from them for reasons, because Trump undermined our democracy by colluding with the Russians somehow. Yet th at dossier was created with Rusdian help. Yet because Clinton list the election, mentuoning that is somehow out of bounds?

    That is nuts, Suderman.

    1. The inherent problem with the Democrat line of attack on Trump is that factually speaking they are guilty of the same shit, so if they try to go all McCarthy on the Republicans they’re painting bulls eye’s on their own asses.

      We’re already starting to see that play out. Both parties are biting off their own noses to spite their faces, and it is glorious.

      1. That is the problem with this. If there id something there with Trump, fine, but calling Clinton, Obama on their shenanigans is beyond the pale because they are out of office? If Clinton had not been having a pity party for herself for the past year, I could say that bringing up her wrongdoing is irrelevant, but ger people have been the ones egging on this accusation.

        I have just been finding Suderman’s logic on most issues bizarre for modt if the past year. This one takes the cake though.

        1. She has no power over you, so it comes off as a bit obsessive.

          1. Why do you believe that politicians should not be investigated for past wrongdoing?

            Also, why do you believe Trump should be investigated for past wrongdoing?

            It’s almost like you’re an idiot, but personally I think you’re more of a living work of art in how you expertly take the dumbest possible position on basically every issue here at Reason. Truly, you are a marvel of mindless talking points.

            1. She was already fucking investigated! Why can’t you people get that through your delusional little heads?

              1. If the Trump investigation went like the Hillary investigation, you would be claiming bullshit on it.

                And you would be right.

              2. By the FBI whose head was writing an exoneration letter before tjey even interviewed the suspect. The fact that you consider that an investigation doesn’t surprise me.

                1. The same FBI head who spiked the election at the 11th hour.

                  1. Oh God!
                    Not that old, bullshit trope.

              3. Al Capone was never convicted of bootlegging! Why do you assholes keep slandering his memory by calling him a bootlegger!

  16. The irony, of course, is that the entire “Russian collusion” thing was her “loser’s limp” of an explanation for her loss.

    1. If there was Russian collusion, how did Hillary win the popular vote?

      1. The question is, if there wasn’t Russian collusion, how did Trump win precisely the counties he needed to in order to win the electoral college, the very same counties Russians are known to have targeted with online propaganda and other efforts?

        1. Because Hillary didn’t campaign there and Trump did. You get efforts where you put your work.

          “”the very same counties Russians are known to have targeted with online propaganda and other efforts?””

          Source?

          1. If you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, why are you talking? May I direct you to google.

            1. That’s rich,

              You made the claim.

              1. So is your google broken or did some fat man on tinfoil hat radio instruct you that it was part of the conspiracy?

                1. I did look it up and it’s bullshit. Speculations, assumptions, and innuendo was all I found.

                  Hillary was a horrible candidate because she couldn’t even tell the truth about a cough. Yet, you want to think there’s a grand Russian mind control conspiracy.

                  1. So truth-telling was the decisive factor? Meaning Trump was the more honest candidate?

                    1. Amusingly, between Trump and Hillary he did appear more honest. That isn’t a point in his favor, since as it turns out Lucifer and Hitler also polled more favorably.

                    2. Fuck no

                      Like war, in politics, truth is the first casualty.

                    3. The point is none of these “Hillary sucks” explanations washes, because she actually won the popularity contest, and objectively he sucked more no matter what the criterion.

                    4. “” because she actually won the popularity contest,””

                      Again with that irrelevant rehashed talking point?

                    5. Well it’s true… Or are you one of those cousinfuckers who thinks Californians don’t count as people?

                    6. A hell of a lot of them don’t count as Americans.

                    7. “”objectively he sucked more no matter what the criterion.””

                      Well perhaps if she sucked more, Bill wouldn’t have gotten impeached.

        2. The answer is, James Comey and the FBI concluded that the Russian attempt to sabotage voter registration information (not the actual vote) no effect on the election outcome. And for that scheme to work, Russia would have to send in thousands of fake voters to overwhelm Clinton’s count. And the initial report of the sabotage actually came from southwestern states.

          There’s no guarantee that a voter ID requirement would have stopped unregistered voters after the Russian made up things in the registration, but which party says election integrity is just racist nonsense?

          1. “””no effect on the election outcome.”‘

            The one part they forget.

        3. And you call others conspiracy theorists. You don’t seem far from blaming the reptilian overlords.

  17. Trump made a specific campaign promise to lock Hillary up.

    I assumed he was just bullshitting us.

    But what if he was actually serious?

    If she committed crimes which would cause one of the little people to go to prison, maybe she should go there, too.

    I know there’s supposed to be a gentle(wo)man’s agreement thing by which Reps and Dems don’t prosecute each other’s major leaders, but instead reserve their prosecutions for low-level people, or for peasant citizens without influence.

    Why not break that agreement and operate on the assumption that just because you’re a bigshot, you won’t get a pass on stuff which would put a lowly peasant citizen in prison?

    1. Talk about focusing on issues – now *there’s* an issue!

    2. Because targeting political opponents for legal retribution is a definition characteristic of a tinpot dictatorship. Also, she’s already been investigated and exonerated.

      Let it go people. Plenty of other notable figures whose political affiliation you don’t like to rip apart for sport.

      1. So it would be OK for a low-level official to do what she did?

        1. It’s impossible for someone who’s not Hillary Clinton to commit the crime of being Hillary Clinton.

          1. Is it possible for a low-level official to have an unsecured server where classified info gets transmitted?

            1. This has literally been litigated already. Aren’t you ignoring the giant fat treasonous pig in the room in favor of this bizarre Clinton fixation?

              1. Aren’t you ignoring the giant fat treasonous pig in the room in favor of this bizarre Clinton fixation?

                I thought Hillary was the “giant fat treasonous pig”.

              2. It was not litigated. It was never brought to court. The “Justice” department refused to pursue the investigation.

            2. You know one big difference between cretinous GOP cockgobblers like you and normal people like me? I don’t wish prison time on anyone but truly evil, violent people. I don’t want to see Don Trump Jr in prison, even, criminal douche though he may be.

              Yet you want to see a grandmother who’s never been convicted of anything suffer in prison just because she has the wrong letter after her name and you’re a sick, psychopathic fuck who lets fat wombat-haired assholes do your thinking and feeling for you.

              1. Why do I always imagine you screaming into the mirror ecery time you post this sort of insanity? Just an unknowable mystery of the universe.

              2. “normal people like me”

                That’s a slur on the American people.

                “I don’t want to see Don Trump Jr in prison, even, criminal douche though he may be.”

                If he can be convicted of a crime in a fair trial, why *wouldn’t* prison be an option? Or is it this gentleman’s agreement thing? Or maybe he *isn’t* a criminal?

                “Yet you want to see a grandmother who’s never been convicted of anything suffer in prison”

                Oh, pull the other one. I’d like to see her get the same treatment as some low-level government employee who did the same shit she did.

                If it turns out her behavior would have been legal for Mr. or Mrs. Low-Level Employee, or wouldn’t have gotten Mr. or Mrs. Low-Level Employee prosecuted, or if Mrs. Low-Level Employee would have gotten off because she’s a grandmother, then extend the same benefit to Hillary.

                But this is a regime which gets off on putting grandmothers and others in prison for stuff like growing weed – and just because someone is crooked enough to climb to a top position in the Democratic Party or the Republican Party shouldn’t give her the benefit of a bipartisan gentleman’s “Do Not Prosecute” agreement.

                1. So James Comey was in on a conspiracy to let her off the hook? That must be what you’re asserting. Spell it out for me please. Don’t just give me your expert legal advice, tell me why the FBI and justice department didn’t do their job. Specifically.

                  1. Explain why a low-level employee would have gotten away with the same behavior.

                    1. How the fuck would I know if that were true? It’s just a stupid-ass talking point that’s been passed around by rightwing computer geek jerkoffs for a year. She was investigated. She lost the election over this nothingsandwich. The actual president meanwhile is probably a treasonous raping fat pig who might get us all killed. Who the fuck are you trying to convince of what?

                  2. Specifically: She was the nominee of their party. If she was indicted, there would be no chance of her winning, even against someone they thought was a sure-fire loser.
                    Evan a complete dumb-fuck like you should be able to see that.

              3. I don’t wish prison time on anyone but truly evil, violent people.

                I agree. Which is why I’d like to see Hillary go to prison.

      2. Because targeting political opponents for legal retribution is a definition characteristic of a tinpot dictatorship.

        Only if the charges are unfounded. If the charges are rational (and in Hillary’s case they are), that is actually an important function of opposing parties in a free and democratic society.

        Also, she’s already been investigated and exonerated.

        The only thing that legally exonerates you is a court of law. An investigation that doesn’t result in charges is not an exoneration: prosecutors decide not to file charges for all sorts of reasons, including political reasons and priorities.

        Let it go people. Plenty of other notable figures whose political affiliation you don’t like to rip apart for sport.

        I used to be a Democrat, and I always found Hillary loathsome. I think I’m not alone. Many people likely voted for Obama because they hated Hillary.

        Seeing Hillary go to jail isn’t high on my list of priorities for this administration, but it would be satisfying.

        1. Because you’re a moron who has been victimized by rightwing propaganda. Stop being a moron.

          1. How are Republicans responsible for Hilary’s long standing, hateful position on gay marriage? Did Republicans fake Hilary’s interviews and campaign appearances?

            Hillary is a loathsome human being. Of course that’s why you like her, because you are too

    3. Why not break that agreement and operate on the assumption that just because you’re a bigshot, you won’t get a pass on stuff which would put a lowly peasant citizen in prison?
      Well for one thing, it’s pretty much a guarantee that every time a president leaves office they’ll be in prison within a year. So it’s against their own self-interest if nothing else.

      1. I would see that as a feature, not a bug. But I agree with you as to why they overlook the crimes of the previous admin.

        1. all elected officials should go directly to jail after leaving office for at least 1 year; do pass go, do not collect $200. this based on the assumption that they must have done something illegal. It should be part of the electoral process

      2. It would only need to happen once, or maybe twice, before presidents made sure the didn’t break any laws that could be prosecuted, later.
        The same would be the case, down the executive branch line.
        Letting them get away with it, if they can run the clock out to the next change-over of parties, just encourages the practice to continue.

    4. I was watching the debate when that was said, and do NOT consider that any kind of a campaign promise. I interpret what was said as, if Trump were President (as a hypothetical), Hillary would not be able to get away with the shit the Obama administration ignored.

      Not a Trump admirer, but really…

  18. Why are the Republicans attacking Shrillary? A) It’s easier to do than actually repealing Obamacare or rationalizing the immigration laws, or cutting the damned budget. B) It has less fallout than any of the above. C) It pleases the Trump voters, who might otherwise get mad about A&B. D) She’s a loathsome toad who makes it sooooooo tempting.

    Seriously; She’s a crook, and got given a pass – a lot of passes – by the Media and the bureaucratic establishment. That itches. She appears to think she has another run in her (which might be fun to watch; especially if she dropped dead on the Presidential Debate Stage), and the Democrats have yet to put forward anyone who looks better (apparently Bozo the Clown isn’t available). Any hit on her – and she’s making herself a big fat target – hurts the Democrat Establishment who insisted on running her in 2016.

    Yes, it might be nice if the Republicans would do something useful.

  19. This is the first bad column by Peter Suderman that I’ve ever read. Why did Obama complain about Dub-ya running up the deficit? Maybe it’s because Dub-ya 1) doled out a massive tax cut that turned multi-billion dollar budget surpluses that could have been used to cover the increasing costs of Social Security and Medicare into multi-billion dollar deficits, a tax cut that did not promote economic growth and 2) lied the U.S. into a massively costly, and massively counter-productive, war in Iraq.*

    Is it shocking that politicians play politics? I don’t think so.

    *Obama had his own share of disasters, and when it comes to civil liberties, the best we can is that he didn’t re-segregate the DC schools.

    1. multi-billion dollar budget surpluses

      lol

      1. I love the Clinton magic surpluses. They were sooo huuuge but magically the federal debt NEVER GOT SMALLER.

        President William Jefferson Clinton
        Year Debt for the year Cummulative Debt %yr %Term %total debt.
        1993 $346,868,227,617.72 $4,411,488,883,139.38 8.5% 39.6% 8.9%
        1994 $281,261,026,873.94 $4,692,749,910,013.32 6.4% 39.6% 8.9%
        1995 $281,232,990,696.07 $4,973,982,900,709.39 6.0% 39.6% 8.9%
        1996 $250,828,038,426.34 $5,224,810,939,135.73 5.0% 39.6% 8.9%
        1997 $188,335,072,261.61 $5,413,146,011,397.34 3.6% 39.6% 8.9%
        1998 $113,046,997,500.28 $5,526,193,008,897.62 2.1% 39.6% 8.9%
        1999 $130,077,892,717.81 $5,656,270,901,615.43 2.4% 39.6% 8.9%
        2000 $17,907,308,271.43 $5,674,178,209,886.86 0.3% 39.6% 8.9%

        National debt under Clinton terms increased 39.6%. That increase was a total of 8.9% of the total U.S. debt to that date. NO SURPLUS.

        Of course Bush and Obama were even worse.
        George Walker Bush 76.7% 24.0%
        Barack Hussein Obama 93.4% 48.3%

        Almost a quarter of the total national debt at the end of W’s term was from Bush’s term, but Obama was almost half.

        1. And the fiction that there was a surplus has informed the public debate ever since…

        2. It’s quantum economics: imaginary quantities interfere with one another

    2. Well barry kept the majority of the bush tax cuts but even if he didn’t it wouldn’t be enough to cover the cost of your welfare state.

    3. Nothing compared to what Eisenhower did.

    4. 1) doled out a massive tax cut that turned multi-billion dollar budget surpluses that could have been used to cover the increasing costs of Social Security and Medicare into multi-billion dollar deficits, a tax cut that did not promote economic growth

      Tax cuts are their own reward. Pay for your welfare state yourself or else end it. Damn commies.

    5. There was no such surplus.

  20. Agree that the partisan attacks are soul-sucking. But there is a difference between the two examples given: There was no personal reason for Obama & Co. to attack Bush. However, the Democrats, (Hillary still seems like their emotional leader) and the media have spent the last 300-some days attacking Trump with clear intent to bring down his presidency. Probably 500 times a day. Probably 50 million times a day if you include blog comments. It’s a wound that’s not allowed to heal or be forgotten, it’s a fight for life for this White House. Kinda hard to ignore, especially if you have the temperament of Trump.

    1. at this point I’d settle for a little cock sucking…just saying

  21. “At this point, what does it matter?”, this rule of law shit.

  22. Pretty sure Trump was willing to leave Clinton alone, yet she and her cronies have pushed the Russia conspiracy theory from the beginning. She and her cronies have done everything they possibly can to keep the heat on Trump. She is continuing the war against him either because the narcissistic psychopath thinks she might be able to beat him in 2020, or she has something to hide. Trump would be a moron to not fight back.

    1. “Pretty sure Trump was willing to leave Clinton alone”

      If Clinton and all of his other enemies, real and imagined, didn’t exist, he’d invent them. That’s sort of the point, both sides need enemies like they need oxygen.

      1. True, politicians need political foes. Some of those might be invented, but others are not. Clinton really is Trump’s foe, and a mean and evil one at that.

      2. Actually, if the demoncraps had half the sense of a retarded mule, they would have left Trump alone and his vitriol would be solely aimed at the Republicans in Congress, who won’t pass any of his agenda.

  23. “President Obama, who would let the federal budget deficit soar to record heights during his first term, complained publicly that he had inherited trillions in debt from Bush.”

    I actually had a family member who recently said it was disturbing that Trump deviating from custom and was being publicly critical of Obama, because presidents usually had more respect for former presidents. When it was pointed out that Obama (and every president) did the same, he posted some articles about nice photo ops from later in Obama’s term. By the end of their time in office, they’re all friends, but in the beginning and middle, they’re all politicians first. But everyone thinks the guy they didn’t vote for is an original, I guess.

  24. I actually used to be a registered Democrat. I thought Hillary was an evil, lying, corrupt, homophobic, manipulative psychopath ten years ago, and since then, more and more shit has come out. I left the Democratic party when she got the nomination, so my dislike of her can’t be explained by “partisanship”.

    And HIllary doesn’t have the good sense to just shut up and retire with her ill-gotten gains, instead, she keeps blaming everybody but herself for her embarrassing loss and keeps showing up in the news. People beat up on Hillary because she deserves it. In fact, what she really deserves is a lengthy prison sentence.

    1. What was her crime?

      1. Here’s a thought: do your own homework. Don’t try to copy others’ homework, or test answers. Jackass.

      2. Too numerous to get into.
        Only complete fuck-tards think she didn’t commit any.

      3. I think Tony’s Google must be broken too.

  25. the picture tells it all, the hair and the cackle (or is that the cankle?) each one worse than the other…

  26. I’m not a Republican, and I utterly despise Hillary. “Hillary for Prison”. Those of us who are “beating up on” Hillary are doing so because she damned well deserves it and needs to pay the price for her own sins. When did Libertarians cease believing in paying that price?

  27. Donna Brazile is now beating up on Hillary, saying she took over the DNC, and even Elizabeth Warren is now saying the nomination of Hillary was rigged. The Clintons are a mafia organization, and decent Democrats are very concerned about this. Don’t the Democrats still believe in democracy?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.