I’ve been
listening to the election post-mortems, those of the cable news pundits and of
my dearest friends, for the past two weeks. All have missed the point, blaming
Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff for the loss. If only she’d done this,
or that, or this, or that…. The image this debate calls to mind is of a soldier
charging across an open field at a machine gun nest. If she’d zigged instead of
zagged, she would have escaped the bullets that took her down. But there was no
escape for Hillary, not in the face of the three obstacles placed in her path:
Bernie Sanders, James Comey and Vladimir Putin. Any one of them, or even two,
might have been overcome, but not all three.
I’ll start with
Bernie and his morally-bankrupt campaign. By the time Bernie jumped into the
race, the Republican party had been attacking Hillary’s character, en masse, for two years. And why not? Few
presidential candidates in American history, if any, had come to the races as
prepared as Hillary Clinton. Her readiness could not be directly challenged and
character assassination, by default, was the only play on the table. Vilification,
demonization, defamation – Hillary had to be transformed from a superb
Secretary of State, praised by John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Henry Kissinger,
into a lying sleazebag who could not be trusted with the nation’s highest
office.
I don’t blame
the Republicans. They’ve used vilification - think Vince Foster, the swiftboating
of John Kerry and birtherism - to win elections for decades now, a strategy
that’s proven highly successful. Bernie, by contrast, might have
chosen a different tactic, but I suspect the temptation was too great, the
weapon too easily acquired. He attacked Hillary’s character from the outset.
The campaign donations she took from the business community, especially from
corrupt Wall Street sources? Her well-paid speeches, especially those made
before corrupt Wall Street audiences? How could all that corruption not rub
off? Clearly, the woman was tainted.
The saddest part
was that Bernie’s attack continued long after all hope of his winning the
nomination had been lost. Or maybe that’s not the saddest part. Bernie’s ritual
denunciations, in fact, had the ring of truth only because of the several lies
of omission he committed throughout the campaign.
Politicians would confine the definition
of a lie to a deliberate misstatement of a fact. They exclude dissembling,
obfuscation and lies of omission because these forms of deception, if applied
to politician, would put them at the heels of Satan, the Great Deceiver.
So, what did
Bernie’s stump speeches omit? First, that every Democrat takes money from any
legal source willing to give it. If Hillary’s fundraising rendered her corrupt,
the entire party, the party Bernie Sanders voluntarily joined, was corrupt. Why
then would Bernie seek to be their candidate? Why not run as an independent? The
answer is simple enough. If he hoped to actually win a general election, Bernie
needed the party’s resources, accumulated in large part by contributions from
the rich and powerful, including Wall Street wheeler-dealers. This was the part
he omitted when he attacked Hillary’s fundraising. You’ll note that he didn’t
attack Barack Obama who took money from the same people. Nor did he admit the
obvious, that as long as the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision stands, money will continue to pour into political
campaigns. More lies of omission.
Even as he
challenged Hillary’s fundraising, Bernie opened a second front. Since leaving
the Obama administration, Hillary had given speeches to many organizations,
including the dreaded Goldman, Sachs, for which she was paid as much as
$225,000. Who can forget Bernie throwing out his arms, declaring, “Here are the
transcripts of my paid speeches. There are none.” It sounded great. The man of
integrity refusing many thousands of easy bucks. How noble. How deceitful.
Federal law dating
to 1991 prohibits federal officeholders from giving paid speeches. Had Bernie
done so, he might well have been charged with a crime. And Bernie knew his
claim was misleading. His own actions convict him. In a television ad, a thirty
second spot aired in April, 2016, he declared that “Washington politicians are
paid over $200,000 an hour for speeches.” But politicians holding office,
including staffers, are not allowed to give paid speeches. Perhaps he meant ex-politicians. Perhaps he was merely dissembling,
and not telling an outright lie.
The website of All American Speakers, a talent
agency providing speakers for events held around the country, has a page
devoted to one of its favored clients, Condoleezza Rice. Her smiling photo
greets the visitor, underscored by her extensive resume. She’s ready to share
her wisdom for a fee of $100,000 and above, plus expenses. Call now.
But you might
not want a politician. You might want a comedian to cap off your annual
convention. All American Speakers lists the resumes of 1,040 comedians willing
to entertain your conventioneers. If you're willing to pony up $200,000, Jay Leno, for example, will be happy to
attend your event. I could go on and on,
but I believe the point is made. After-dinner speakers are entertainers. Their
compensation is based, as with athletes, on supply and demand. All American
Speakers lists hundreds of semi-celebrities who’ll grace your gala dinner for
as little as $5,000. And by the way, just so there’s no misunderstanding. Every
former Secretary of State, including Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, Henry
Kissinger, Condoleezza Rice and even James Baker, gives paid speeches. George
Bush has given at least 200 paid speeches at up to $175,000 per.
Even as I write
this, Bernie’s out there, urging Dems to endorse his pseudo-socialist brand.
Hillary lost, he insists, because she espoused the conservative policies that
failed to excite the populace. That he took the baton of vilification from the
Republicans, ran with it throughout the primaries, then handed it over to Donald
Trump, goes unmentioned. And, apparently, unpunished.
Go, Bernie, go.
No comments:
Post a Comment