Ontario Global Research

The mechanisms of secrecy

The Danger of Hillary Clinton: She Is Not the 'Safer' Candidate


Nothing could be more mistaken, or more dangerous, than the perception that Hillary Clinton is the "safer" candidate for president.  She is nothing of the kind, and voting for her will not save us from Donald Trump--or from anything else.

Many liberals I know say that while they like Sanders and admire his plans to take on Wall Street and global warming, they're afraid to vote for him.  What about Donald Trump? they say.

What indeed about him?  The idea that only Clinton can defeat Trump is a myth, promulgated by Hillary supporters.  Polls taken over the last nine months in fact show Sanders faring better than Clinton in a hypothetical match-up against Trump.  That shouldn't come as a surprise.  Sanders would challenge Trump at his own game, showing himself to be the more "authentic" and independent populist of the two. 

In a general election, Sanders would in fact likely siphon votes away from Trump, as moderate Republicans and independents recoiled from the specter of Trump in the White House.  According to an analysis in The Atlantic last year, a number of Republican voters like the democratic socialist from Vermont, admiring Sanders for his honesty and directness, and say they would vote for him. 

By contrast, Hillary would enter a general election with enough political baggage to open a Samsonite outlet.  Even leaving aside the ongoing FBI investigation of her mishandling of classified information as secretary of state, the public perception of Hillary as a dissembling establishment pol who will say anything to get elected would hurt her in a face-0ff with Trump.  While Sanders would attract independents and Republicans, a Hillary run would have the opposite effect, lighting up the Republican base like the East River on the Fourth of July, because there's nothing the far right hates quite so much as a Clinton (either sex will do).

In an election year that finds both the left and right clamoring for political change, then, it seems suicidal for the Democrats to be putting forward a candidate who is as much a creature of the establishment as Hillary Rodham Clinton is.

Even harder to account for, though, is how sanguine liberals are about the prospect of having another Clinton in the White House.  Weren't they around for the first one?  Haven't they noticed the shocking deterioration of our society, and of the world, under President Obama's watch?  Do they just not care?

Liberals, beware:  casting a vote for Clinton is to affirm militarism, economic inequality, and Wall Street.  It is to vote for the ecological meltdown of our planet, duplicity in government, the control of our institutions by the rich, drone strikes, government surveillance of the people, and perpetual war.  It is to cast a ballot against the interests of the working poor, and for the interests of Goldman Sachs and Big Pharma.

Number of comments: 0

Name: E-mailaddress: Homepage:
:) :( :D ;) :| :P |-) (inlove) :O ;( :@ 8-) :S (flower) (heart) (star)

Enter the code embedded in the image