In response to “What the WikiLeaks Emails Say About Clinton,” by Russell Berman in The Atlantic, 10.12.16
Right, the emails only support suspicions we already have of her, so in that sense, what’s the big deal, you could say. Still, the emails do hammer home Bernie’s old point about grandma being owned by Wall Street, and they shed light on behind-the-scenes scheming to undermine him. That might make it harder for his supporters to vote for her. I mean, can you really vote for the exact same person who just hosed you? How does that work, self respect-wise?
But to a larger point, you suggest, Russell, that the emails just reflect politics as usual. And you’re probably right, but why should we be ok with that? Why should we give a pass to a political campaign that has been given special treatment by the press, and advanced itself through evasion, deception, and fake posturing? I don’t accept that politics has to work that way, and I give credit to The Donald for the chance to try something else. Yeah, I know he’s quirky, but who else was going to challenge the established order? Jeb? Marco?
If you doubt that The Donald is any different from your garden-variety politician, Exhibit A is the fact that he is obviously not a politician, and Exhibit B is the fact that there are many career politicians in his own party who are against him even though, in terms of policy, they should obviously be with him. This is remarkable, but it makes sense if you understand that he is doing things his way, not theirs, and that makes them nervous. All they know how to do is put their fingers to the wind, and go that way. They don’t have any vision, or leadership skills to speak of. Neither does Hillary.