A few thoughts from recent articles online:
The author of the list below, at naked capitalism responded to an enquirer: "feel free to share" - so I'm sharing it too -
Lambert [Strether] here:
Clinton’s presumptive nomination comes with a number of key policy decisions that liberals must own “going forwards,” as we say:
1. Corruption. To protect Clinton, liberals have adopted the majority doctrine in Ctizens United: Only a quid pro quo is proof of corruption.
2. Transparency. To protect Clinton, liberals maintain that high government officials can, at will, privatize their communications to shield them from FOIA.
3. Militarism. To protect Clinton, liberals minimize her AUMF vote, ignore Libya, ignore Honduras, ignore Ukraine, and treat unwavering support for Israel as an unqualified good.
4. Health. To protect Clinton, liberals reject Medicare for All.
5. Working Class. To protect Clinton, liberals deny that there is or can be a working class electorate. The electorate is only to be viewed through the prism of identity politics. Two category errors follow: The “white working class” is deemed to be racist, by definition, and the non-white working class is erased. Consequently, it’s impossible to think through the universal effects of the FIRE sector on the working class, nor its differential effects on particular working class identities. This is not an accident.
That’s quite a platform. And if you’re thinking the Democrat Party isn’t the Democratic Party you knew and loved, that’s not an accident either. This has been a wonderfully clarifying primary, for which I congratulate all the players.
A couple more shared thoughts on this "historic" event of glass ceiling shattering we are supposed to celebrate.
Robert Parry - Democrats are now the aggressive war party
Amid the celebrations about picking the first woman as a major party’s presumptive nominee, Democrats appear to have given little thought to the fact that they have abandoned a near half-century standing as the party more skeptical about the use of military force. Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes.
Lauren McCauley: Despite Historic Achievement, Feminists Grapple with Clinton's Deeply Troubling Record
"As a feminist, I should feel a thrill right now. I grieve that I don't," lamented author and activist Naomi Klein.
"We are asked to celebrate the breaking of glass ceilings this week, as the possibility of a female president is hailed as long-overdue feminist triumph? But just what kind of a feminist is Hillary Clinton?" asked author Liza Featherstone on Tuesday during a panel discussion on her recent book False Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
While some pointed to Clinton's hawkish foreign policy and lackluster environmental record, others, like Klein, noted that the win was only possible because of her elite status, particularly taking issue with her promise of "trickle-down feminism," as some put it.
We're stuck with Hillary Clinton now though, unless her poor judgment in e-mail management catches up with her. We're stuck, also, with her loud band of obnoxious media surrogates, at least until November. What happens then could well depend upon how many former Bernie supporters obediently fall in line.
From Andrew Levine at Counterpunch
In truth, Hillary’s problem has never been that she is a woman; it is that she is the woman she is........
But compelling evidence and sound arguments are useless in the face of ideologically fixed ideas; and so, the Gloria Steinem types are happy too. However, for everyone whose moral compass is sound and whose head is screwed on right, this final “super Tuesday” was, and always will be, a day of infamy.
On a more shallow note, something I've commented to my husband whenever Hillary Clinton has appeared on a debate stage or during her speech-giving: those peculiar jackets ! I was amused to note, in a piece yesterday, that even a male writer was commenting on this :
Ken Carman at Smirking Chimp: Inspection - Ms Hillary
As she spread her arms to welcome the Tuesday's results I must admit, I kept thinking, "What the hell are you wearing and why would anyone keep choosing this look?" If someone chooses for her they need to be assigned another task.
I understand how that comment may seem sexist, but this Chairman Mao look just undercuts all she says. It would be like Bernie sporting a Hitler mustache: a visual oxymoron. And she seems to have so many blouses, overcoats or... whatever the heck they are, like that.
Women of a certain age, or of any age and certain size, prone to feeling sensitive about lack of lithe body, lovely legs, tend to embrace trousers for the latter lack, and loose fitting tops for the former problem. I understand this well - it's not so much the loose tops as the really boringly awful styles she chooses - or has chosen for her. I'm no fashionista, but I do pretend to have "an eye for a good thing", at least to satisfy my own taste - which, admittedly, is probably not hers. Those necklines are so unflattering - a neckline opening to a "V" (not too low of course) would be much kinder, even if she wore a round neck top under the jacket, or at least left the top button of the round necked style unbuttoned. The line of the jacket's "V" would help soften her roundish face, instead of emphasising it, and always looking, to me, too buttoned-up and vaguely uncomfortable.
Sarah Palin, for all her flaws as a political candidate, did sport some really great jackets during her much ridiculed VP escapade. Hillary couldn't get away with the same kind of jacket, but she could improve on those awful outfits we've seen lately. I also read that one of those monstrosities (the reddish one above) cost $12,495 originally - an Armani job, made from lambskin cut into strips, coloured and woven; more about it, and the exact price, which she may or may not have paid at Snopes, HERE.