Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Time to ‘re-defeat’ Donald Trump?

A late friend of mine in Amarillo, William H. “Buddy” Seewald, once told me during the 2004 presidential election season that he was working to “re-defeat” President George W. Bush.

Seewald was appalled at the manner in which Bush was elected in 2000, losing the actual vote by roughly 500,000 ballots but winning the presidency in the Electoral College by a vote of 271-266; and that vote came after the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to stop recounting the ballots cast in Florida, giving Bush a 537-vote margin out of more than 5 million ballots cast in that state.

Well, Bush won the 2004 election by a relatively comfortable margin.

Now comes the 2020 election and there well might be a revival of the “re-defeat” mantra, this time against Donald John Trump, the current president.

You see, Trump actually lost the vote to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who collected just short of 3 million more ballots than did the guy who “won” the election. Trump won the Electoral College by a 306-232 count; when the electors cast their ballots in December 2016, the final tally ended up at 304-227, with some electors voting for other candidates rather than the two major-party contestants.

What has gotten lost in all the hubbub surrounding that election is that Clinton actually finished where almost all the public opinion polls said she would. She finished with 48.02 percent of the vote, compared to Trump, who collected 45.93 percent.

All the pre-election polling pegged Clinton ahead by about the margin where she finished ahead of Trump. The difference came when Trump narrowly picked off those three states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — that Barack Obama had won in 2008 and2012; those stated provide Trump with the Electoral College majority he needed to win the election.

I don’t dispute that Trump was elected according to the U.S. Constitution. Nor do I dispute the notion to which I subscribe that he needs to be “re-defeated” in 2020.

Wherever he is, I am certain my friend Buddy Seewald would agree.

Rethinking how to refer to POTUS

I am giving thought to changing the manner in which I should refer to the president of the United States.

For many years prior to entering politics, Donald John Trump was known simply as The Donald. He cultivated that moniker. He thought it was cool, I reckon.

I cannot for the ever-lovin’ life of me attach the word “President” in front of his last name. Yes, he was elected under the rules of the U.S. Constitution. I do not dispute the Electoral College victory he scored over Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite his losing the actual vote by nearly 3 million ballots.

It’s been his conduct as president that makes me shudder. It has been the hideous extemporaneous riffs into which he launches when he stands before his adoring fans. I happened to attend a Donald Trump rally in downtown Dallas this past summer. It was at the same time both fascinating and disgusting. I met some truly nice people wearing MAGA hats and t-shirts bearing “Trump 2020” lettering.

I sat through the rally for as long as I could inside the American Airlines Center. Then I left. I drove home. I can now say I attended a Donald Trump rally

However, he hasn’t earned the title of “President” before his name … at least on this blog.

I might revert to referring to him as The Donald. Hey, it worked for him when he was making all that money and living with that glitzy glam, while he was walking into beauty pageant contestants’ dressing rooms and while he was boasting how he could grab women by their pu*** because his celebrity status enabled him to act like a total boor.

Has this guy elevated his public profile while serving as president of the United States? Has he risen to the standards his high office demands? Hardly. He’s just The Donald.

Is Bernie becoming the new Hillary?

Maybe it’s just me, but I have to ask: Is Bernie Sanders becoming the new Hillary Clinton?

By that I wonder if Bernie is going to become a first-name celebrity the way Hillary became one about the time her husband was elected president of the United States in 1992.

I see headlines, I hear commentators, I read actual next and commentary text referring to the Vermont U.S. senator by his first name, leaving off the last name as if we’re supposed to know instinctively about whom they are referring.

There ain’t many celebrities who attain what I call “first name status.” They’re usually athletes. I think of Arnie, Reggie, Wilt, Magic.

Then came Hillary. Commentators refer to the former first lady, former U.S. senator and former secretary of state in a sort of colloquial fashion. I find it a bit disrespectful, if you want to know the truth. Then again, I have fallen occasionally into that trap on this blog. So I guess I cannot gripe too loudly.

Now it’s Bernie. We say the name and we’re supposed to presume it’s the independent senator from Vermont who’s masquerading as a Democrat while running for the party’s presidential nomination.

Hey, before he became president, we used to refer to Donald Trump as The Donald. Do you recall that? I guess now that he’s seized control of the nuclear launch codes, we’re supposed to treat with a modicum of respect … if only he would behave in a manner that enables him to earn it. I don’t call him The Donald on this blog. I still cannot attach the word “President” in front of his last name; the thought of it makes me cringe. But I digress.

Bernie is now the established front runner for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2020. I don’t want him to run against Trump this fall. I believe Trump will bury the democratic socialist after sliming and smearing him beyond all recognition.

However, for as long as he remains in the public eye, I guess he’s going to be just plain ol’ Bernie.

Mike and Hillary vs. Donald and Mike? This must be a joke

I realize fully I am likely getting way ahead of myself, but some media are reporting it, so I will offer a brief comment.

It is being talked about that Michael Bloomberg is considering fellow New Yorker Hillary Rodham Clinton as a potential running mate if Bloomberg manages to snag the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination.

Oh … brother. Say it ain’t so.

I’ll restate what I consider to be the obvious. I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 to become the 45th president of the United States. I cast my vote without an ounce of regret. She remains highly qualified to be our head of state.

However, she also is a colossal punching bag for Donald Trump and his Republican smear/slime/slander machine. To that end, Hillary Clinton likely would overshadow a nominee named Michael Bloomberg. Does the next presidential nominee want to be eclipsed by a VP running mate who will become the focus of idiotic chants such as, oh, let’s see: “Lock her up!”?

The Drudge Report has reported that Bloomberg is considering a Mike/Hillary ticket. So has MSNBC. Who else is going to join the bandwagon?

This would be a monumentally bad idea for whomever the Democrats nominate for the presidency. It’s not that Hillary is a bad candidate. It is only that she presents the kind of insurmountable distraction that is going to pull voters’ attention away from the issues that ought to matter as we consider for whom to vote as our next president.

Furthermore, I do not want to hand the current president any additional ammo he can use to slither his way to re-election.

Trump likely to turn 2020 campaign into personal bloodbath

Those of us out here beyond the Beltway who want an issues-centric campaign for the presidency are likely to be disappointed greatly in what we get from the major-party nominees.

Why? Because the Republican incumbent, Donald John Trump, appears intent on personalizing the fight. He will level a heavy barrage of innuendo, laced with insults at whomever the Democrats nominate to oppose him.

Bet on it. This is the type of campaign that lines up just the way the president wants it.

As for the Democratic Party nominee, he or she had better be prepared for what is likely to come.

To be candid, I am weary of the insults that Trump hurls with abandon. I want to know what he intends to do about the serious crises facing this nation and the planet: climate change, for one. Trump says climate change is a hoax, although he did recently make a sort of endorsement about how important the environment is to him. It sounded more like a platitude than any sort of serious assessment.

I will not hold breath in anticipation of any sort of serious discussion by Trump and, by extension, by the Democratic nominee. If the Democrat talks about serious matters, the public is likely to tune him or her out.

So that produces a campaign of personal vitriol.

Yes, it will be a virtual repeat of what we got in 2016.

The Democrats nominated an eminently qualified public servant in Hillary Rodham Clinton. She blew it apart at the end by ignoring key Rust Belt states that Trump’s campaign adroitly picked off, enabling him to win a slim Electoral College majority.

Throughout the 2016 campaign, Trump kept up the drumbeat of innuendo against Clinton, suggesting corruption that no one has been able to prove against her.

Take this to the bank: The president will do the same thing against whomever he faces as he seeks re-election. The Democrats’ challenge is to be ready to slug it out.

The losers in this bloodbath will be, well … you and me.

So very sad.

A ‘get-Hillary’ probe comes to an end

The U.S. Department of Justice is wrapping up its years-long examination into alleged corruption involving Hillary Rodham Clinton, her work for the Clinton Foundation, with the State Department and God knows what else.

It has come up empty. Nothing of consequence. It’s over, man!

Imagine that, if you can.

Donald Trump has been yammering incessantly about Hillary Clinton since before he ran against her for president in 2016. He defeated her in that campaign. He hasn’t stopped bringing her name to our attention.

The end of the investigation, under normal circumstances and involving normal politicians, ought to spell the end of “Lock her up!” chants at Trump rallies. Something tells me we are not likely to be free of that tiresome, idiotic and borderline defamatory rallying cry.

After all, we’re talking about Donald Trump, the man who needs a foil against whom he can campaign.

However, the Justice Department’s conclusion that it came up empty is good enough for me.

I am not one of the ‘many, many, many’

Hillary Rodham Clinton has let it be known that, according to her, “many, many, many people” want her to run for president of the United States of America.

OK, here we go.

I would vote for her again, more than likely, were she to win the Democratic Party nomination against Donald J. Trump.

However, I do not want her to run. I do not want her to muddy up the water. Nor do I want her to offer herself up as a sort of piñata that Trump could pummel were she to seek another nomination.

Hillary Clinton had her moment in the sun. She won the Democratic Party nomination in 2016 with high hopes of cruising to her election as president. She made some terrible errors along the way. She got torpedoed by the FBI director, James Comey, who decided at the last minute to reopen an investigation into the email matter. Trump squeaked past her at the end of the long, bitter and invective-filled campaign.

The Democratic field has been set for some time. It might get another candidate, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Does it need Hillary Clinton 2.0? No.

Stay on the sidelines, Hillary. Speak out when you think it matters. Endorse the Democratic Party presidential ticket and then campaign for the two of them.

Do not listen to those “many, many, many” fans of yours.

Let’s knock off the ‘Lock him up!’ chants

It’s time to clear the air.

Millions of Americans — me included — were appalled when Donald Trump stood there and allowed his campaign rally crowds shout “Lock her up!” when the subject turned to Hillary Rodham Clinton. He did so again when the so-called Gang of Four congresswomen criticized Trump over his immigration policy; shouts of “Send them back!” erupted from crowds while Trump did nothing to stop the idiocy roaring from the mouths of his allies.

Democratic candidates for president are now hearing “Lock him up!” chants from their own crowds. They are just as guilty as Trump has been at allowing that kind of idiocy to infect the tone of the 2020 campaign debate. Sen. Bernie Sanders heard it at a rally when he declared that Trump runs the “most corrupt administration in history.”

They need to quell this nonsense.

Donald Trump is just as entitled to due process as anyone against whom allegations of potentially criminal behavior have been leveled. He’ll likely have an element of due process delivered to him when the House of Representatives impeaches him for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

As for calls to “Lock him up!” the crowds need to be scolded from candidates’ podiums to show Donald Trump a level of respect and decorum that he has failed to show toward his political foes.

In other words, they need to be better than what we’ve witnessed from too many on other side of the great political divide.

Crowd gives POTUS a taste of what he has dished out

Donald Trump’s political and media allies have worked themselves into a lather over a World Series crowd’s reaction to his appearance during a Major League Baseball game.

The president’s arrival Sunday at the Washington Nationals ballpark was greeted with a thunderous chorus of boos and then a chant of “Lock him up!”

How dare those lefty-leaning fans from D.C. disrespect the president in such a manner? That has been the response in some quarters.

My answer? Trump got just a taste of what he has dished out, or allowed his crowds to dish out, regarding a former secretary of state. You have heard those crowds shout “Lock her up!” while referring to Hillary Clinton and those email messages that vanished while served in the State Department.

She hasn’t been convicted of anything, but the crowds delivered the chants anyway. Many of them did so in Donald Trump’s presence. Did he stop them? Oh, no! He encouraged and enabled them.

Had I been in the crowd, I likely would not have joined in the chant. That’s just me. I do not begrudge those who couldn’t resist the temptation to yell the chant along with those on either side of them.

Donald Trump is a grownup. At least he is according to the calendar. Therefore, he should suck it up and take the heat.

Who didn’t see this coming?

I guess this had to be one of the biggest non-surprises of the 2019 World Series.

Donald Trump showed up tonight at the Washington Nationals ballpark in D.C., while the Nats were playing the Houston Astros in the fifth game of the World Series. The public address announcer told the crowd of more than 40,000 fans in the third inning that the president was among them.

The crowd reaction? They booed loudly and then began chanting “Lock him up!” in a move reminiscent of the “Lock her up!” chant heard during the 2016 presidential campaign; the former chant, of course, was aimed at Hillary Rodham Clinton and her now largely debunked e-mail controversy.

But now the president is facing, shall we say, much more serious charges of corruption and violation of his oath of office. He is likely to be impeached by the House of Representatives.

So he goes the ballpark for a little “down time” from the rigors of the impeachment inquiry and killing of the Islamic State guru in Syria.

He got the greeting he deserved and quite likely expected to receive from the Nationals crowd.

Is he disheartened by it? Hardly. That would require a conscience on the part of the president.