I’m sure Hillary herself has no intention of standing aside and I doubt the establishment insiders and corporate media giants behind her candidacy would even let her stand aside if she wanted to.
But she probably should. And I don’t suggest this only because I have problems with Hillary Clinton for several reasons – but because it would seem to be in the common interests of both her party and the American people, along with the American political system and even the office of President itself, that she consider stepping aside.
I would also just like to point out that I’m not saying this out of hate for Hillary. I’m not demonising Hillary. I don’t like some of what she’s done, sure. And I don’t like or trust what she, behind the facade, stands for.
But, at the same time, I’m not with the legions of rabid Hillary demonisers online, who take their hatred of her so far that it becomes a farce – you know, the people who think she’s the Devil or is possessed by a ‘demon’ and eats children, etc (generally the same sort of people who think Obama is the ‘Anti-Christ’ because he’s Black).
For one thing, demonising her to that extent tricks people with a false impression that she is somehow the ultimate evil in Washington and then, when she’s gone, everything will be fine. Which is patently false and misleading.
And I also absolutely believe that there is a right-wing, Republican-centered operation against her that dates way back to when her husband was president: that they would attack, demonise and obstruct her no matter what, regardless of whether she was guilty or not of any Bad Stuff. The fact that she is guilty of Bad Stuff simply makes it so much easier – that, along with the fact that she is so unlikable.
As a case in point, President George W. Bush “lost” some 22 million emails, including emails that related to criminal investigations, and these too involved an illegal private server owned by the Republican Party and being used in the White House. The FBI said and did nothing about this and the Republicans kept quiet: and this was concerning a president whose administration, among other things, led US forces into an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, created the Patriot Act in America and massively expanded the surveillance state.
All of that said, given the recent announcement by the FBI concerning the reopening of their investigation into Hillary’s emails with just days to go before the final vote, there is a serious possibility that Washington will be in an extremely difficult situation if the Democrats actually do win the election. This FBI investigation is unlikely to be concluded before November 8th; which could mean two things; (1) this renewed cloud of suspicion over Hillary might lose her – and the Democrats – a lot of votes, and (2) if she does win the election, she might *still* face criminal proceedings once in office.
Now, if there was any danger of the President of the United States being arrested or impeached just months into their presidency, wouldn’t the moral thing to do be to step aside and to spare the Democrats, the presidency and America, that problem?
Even if she manages to win and hold on to the presidency, the Republicans – who’ve always given her hell – are going to tie her up in obstacles indefinitely.
Of course, Hillary should never have been here anyway: no one should be running for president when they were being investigated for possible criminal activity. And the fact that the DNC not only championed Hillary’s bid, but actually resorted to fraud and intimidation to remove her main opponent, means that this is all on them if the shit hits the fan later on.
This would be worse than Nixon and Watergate, however, because Hillary has been under investigation and suspicion for ages prior to the election – and the media has continued to fight her battle in spite of this.
Would not the honourable thing to do at this stage – both for America and for the Democratic Party – be to step aside and let Sanders, who has massive grassroots support, take over the fight?
Sure, it’s unheard of for that to happen this late in the campaign, I guess. But most of what’s gone on in this presidential election is unheard of too – from one candidate being under criminal investigation to the other being accused of being a foreign agent.
Regardless of whether you think Sanders would fare better against Trump than Hillary would, the fact is that if Sanders were to win, there would be no question about his legal right to be in office and no danger of criminal proceedings. And there is certainly a case to be made anyway that Sanders probably would’ve been the legitimate Democrat nominee had the massive voting fraud not been carried out during the primaries.
Furthermore, the simple fact is that the majority of people who are going to vote Democrat in this election will do so either because they are Democrats or because they don’t want Donald Trump to win – i.e: not out of any love for or loyalty to Hillary as a candidate. Which means you could put Sanders in there and it wouldn’t have any negative impact, and, if anything, might actually bring many more people to the Democrat vote (you know, like all those people who say they’re unwilling to vote for Hillary – including former Sanders supporters who are now voting Trump; of which, I’ve learnt, there are many).
In effect, in one simple move, all those scores of ‘reluctant Hillary voters’ will become non-reluctant Democrat voters.
More than this, DNC spokespeople and senior Democrats – including Hillary herself – along with the likes of Michelle Obama and countless others, have been saying for months that voters have to vote Democrat to avert the ‘catastrophe’ of a Trump presidency: not, let’s remember, because Hillary is great and deserves the vote, but because “we have to stop Trump”.
“Stop Trump” has in fact been the primary mantra: which is kind of like a really perverse version of Good Cop Bad Cop.
Fine then: so drop Hillary, get someone else in there, and do the same thing – vote Democrat and “stop Trump”, minus all the nonsense surrounding Hillary.
See, it isn’t just the morally right thing for Hillary and her people to do at this stage – but the strategically correct thing for the Democrats to do as a party. And I genuinely suspect that Bernie Sanders could give Trump a much better fight than Hillary can. The DNC has, in fact, acted against its own interests – or at least the party’s interests – this entire time.
A poll from some weeks back, when Hillary’s health issues were being questioned, suggested that 48% of ‘Likely Democratic Voters’ would want Bernie Sanders to replace her in the event of her having to step aside. Only 14% suggested they’d like Hillary’s VP Tim Kaine to take over, with Joe Biden with only 22%.
Of course, I know that the party won’t let Hillary stand down – and her network of establishment/elite backers will pull whatever tricks, and pump her full of whatever drugs, they have to to make sure she stays in place.
But it still seems for now at least – though the opportunity is almost gone – that a sane, moral and vaguely redemptive path is, in theory, still open to the Democratic Party.
Because the Hillary candidacy is clearly a millstone around the neck of the Democrats – and they simply, stubbornly, refuse to remove it. It might ultimately be to their own detriment.
Having an enhanced period of overall allergic reaction to politicians. Just the sight of any of them on telly, however minor league, has me reacting with what’s the option but “we need some judgement” because don’t hear a glimmer of deeper sense in any of em. And then I look at the general pop. – posher/clever clogs crowd – who to me, somehow come across and behave ‘like’ them? Modelled along. Believers follow these ‘leaders’. With this US swap-puppet time? Coming around to reverse psychology – and maybe-best Hillary wins to stir some awaken-like reaction? Concerned in needing more than Donald who, if nothing else/why, threatened into being surrounded by the bosses lackeys. This assuming, he is the maverick most times seems? Thus far, he doesn’t make me retch but rally-up some, unlike almost all other mainstream leader types. (Neither does Corbyn somehow get me revulsing). Much of what Donald’s said has mattered in the greater cause. Man alone has changed the conversation. As for “Hill-ar-e…” this poor mad woman. IF..? – oh boy, the dangers, that she appears to pose? (Yes, accept your ‘can be overdone’ …just. But all I have to think of is her ‘foreign policy’ and Syria, wider-war, web purge and an uprising, not-good. How quickly would they gun-grabbing, roll through, in their destructive might? I’ve not got much socialist patience in me, therefore Donald doesn’t (my theory) have me all shook up so bad. As for Bernie, bit Jeremy C – let my guard down and see the sincere. Still don’t believe we’ll see Donald or Hillary president. Perhaps Hillary will steal from a landslide and get a pardon for retirement. “O – ba – ma”. Sheep salivate and sigh. The false-flags sit ready, Emergency Measures Act…
The so-simple adage; “If they’d pull off a 9/11, what wouldn’t they do?”
What do you do with all the early votes cast? Last I heard a few days ago about 20% of the electorate had already cast their vote. You can’t just switch the name on all democratic votes cast prior to a candidate change. In the strangest US election ever many voters are voting for the other side because they don’t like their preferred party candidate. So even if Killary came over all humble and stepped down you would surely have to discard all those votes and let them vote again. No?
As lovely as it all sounds, a switch this late would certainly guarantee failure. Too many people would be uncomfortable voting for a last minute substitute, regardless of how appealing they appear to be. The change itself would be too unsettling.
I take your point; but a lot of people are unsettled by this current race anyway, so if there was any election in which to pull something unorthodox out of the bag, this would be the one.
Not that is anything more than hypothetical anyway – since we know it won’t happen.
Perhaps Bernie Sanders will experience a personal epiphany, overcome his fear of death created from the threats, and do the right thing by endorsing Stein/Baraka to the American people. Or.. perhaps not – par for the course in the most bizarre presidential election in U.S. history.
Did Sanders ever explain why he declined to run with Jill Stein when she offered it?
Your question relates to what is likely the most profound aspect of the 2016 election. The short answer is that he and/or his family were threatened, he knew the real truth about the assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK and national leaders around the world through history, and he declined what was likely an opportunity with Stein to win the election. In a real sense, because he was placed in an existential position “between a rock and a hard place”, he chose to turn away from leading a movement that would have transformed America and the world. God only knows what caused Sanders to give up the fight. One thing is certain: a Sanders/Stein collaboration presented a truly historic opportunity to evolve civilization, and it’s most unfortunate – perhaps ultimately a profound tragedy – that was the road not taken.
Yes, I was aware of a WikiLeaks file suggesting he had been threatened. And I think you’re right him and Stein could’ve taken a massive cut out of both Trump and Clinton support.
Came across this article this morning which muddies the water even more.
Hillary Clinton: Wall Street’s Losing Horse? Constitutional Crisis? What’s the End Game?
Thanks ray032, will have a read. Funny enough, the post I’ve got scheduled in for later today is the possible worst case scenarios of constitutional crisis and end game.