Does Hillary remember the first rule of HOLES?

“The first rule of holes: When you're in one stop digging.”

Some attribute it to Molly Ivins, some to Will Rogers. No matter who first said it, it's wise counsel.

Now, about that hole Hillary is in... and is likely to be in much deeper later today, after the New Hampshire polls close.



Okay, so it's fair to infer that we all have emotional blinders. The most objective and highly skilled critical thinkers are not immune.

In a twist of irony, the cause for women in America and even more so the rest of the world (recalling Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In, a treatise for empowering contemporary women) will be hindered, not helped, by electing Hillary Clinton.

Besides the excellent essay by Karen Bravo (recently posted to the Arizona Eagletarian), one example is that Hillary had the opportunity to call for electing New York State's first woman governor in 2014, Fordham University law professor Zephyr Teachout. Instead, this year's woman candidate for president publicly endorsed Andrew Cuomo in that gubernatorial contest.

If she's such a feminist, why didn't Hillary promote the election of Professor Teachout?

My friends may have plenty of reasons for supporting Hillary over Bernie. Some of them may be logical and rational. Regardless, in the Democratic primary for the 2016 presidential nomination Hillary represents the status quo. Hillary is also anti-democratic.

And about whether she's a Progressive?

But in a funny way, the electability argument is at odds with the argument that Clinton deserves our support because the forces of misogyny and rightwing hatefulness are arrayed against her.

Can such a polarizing figure really argue that she’s the one to “break the gridlock” and get things past a Republican Congress?

And if she does find common ground, will it be by bringing in another Wall Street dominated administration?

In some ways, figuring out what the sensible choice is for Democrats is beside the point. Sanders is giving Clinton a run for her money, not because one group of Democrats or progressive pundits is winning an argument. The interesting thing about the Sanders phenomenon is the movement behind him—many of them young people, including young women. Any Democratic candidate is going to have to respond to the real aspirations of those voters—and not by telling them they are being unrealistic.

It would be nice if that movement were coalescing around a woman.

In fact, as Abby Scher reported for The Progressive more than a year ago, young feminists chose their candidate a long time ago—a champion of real progressive values, and an enemy of the Wall Street establishment.

Her name is Elizabeth Warren.

The decibel level of the cacophony is loud and will only get louder over the next nine or ten months.

In the meantime, don't be surprised if Hillary will inevitably fall flat on her face, despite all the best intentions of all of her supporters.

She's going to have to get honest about her speeches to Wall Street, the ramifications of the money she has accepted from major corporate interests (campaign donations and otherwise) and she's going to have to #releasethetranscripts.

The transcripts, again -- despite the best intentions of her Democratic loyalist friends -- could prove to be her Achilles' heel.

An Achilles' heel is a weakness in spite of overall strength, which can actually or potentially lead to downfall. While the mythological origin refers to a physical vulnerability, idiomatic references to other attributes or qualities that can lead to downfall are common.

I again refer you to page three of the Rocky Mountain Poll conducted by the Behavior Research Center of Arizona last month. This is what voters believe right now.

                                                                                                                                        Not

                                                                                            Agree     Disagree        Sure
These days big business and Wall Street 

have too much influence on elections                     77%         14%                 9%

These days labor unions have too much influence on
elections                                                                              52             29                   19

Labor unions should not be allowed to contribute to
specific candidates without the approval of a majority
of their members.                                                                81             14                   5

Corporations should not be allowed to contribute to
specific candidates without the approval of a majority
of their stockholders.                                                          78              15                   7

There should be no limit on how much money an
individual can contribute to a political candidate.       40              55                   5

NOTE: the empty space below is due to a blogspot.com formatting issue
that I don't currently know how to solve.