Watching one of the scariest debates in American politics since the Confederate secession, I found myself wondering whether my metaphor of today’s elite and medieval castle days still held. My theory was that – led by Republicans and other corporatists – the most powerful in our country had more wealth and authority than ever before but simultaneously were so scared of the effects of this fact that they had to live behind high walls and large moats, ones that eventually would be transgressed by things like catapults.
My thought that while those of us who live beyond the moats lacked power, we still could have some peace and that our culture might survived for hundreds of years, not unlike the repeatedly invaded but still traditional Umbria in Italy.
But last night I realized that any one of these incompetent, irrational, irresponsible creatures would also have control over our nuclear weaponry and that their narcissism and a machismo that would be laughable in a bar but not in real life might endanger not only the power-deluded, say at the World Trade Center, but my own home a mere 336 miles away.
None of us are safe. We are facing the most dangerous election in a century and half (and that one only brought us a civil – rather than a global – conflict). Those running on the Republican side would, if elected, not only endanger global peace, but our environment; civil liberties; the rights of women, ethnic and sexual minorities; the working class and the economy in general. Every positive measure passed at least since the New Deal would be at risk. And the media won’t tell you this and, in fact, will encourage some the madness just as CNN’s war lord Wolf Blitzer did in the latest debate.
Further, there is another danger that is hardly mentioned. The main Democratic alternative, Hillary Clinton, has at best only a modest lead over her opponents , yet is particularly vulnerable to a predictable highly organized attack on her honesty and past behavior.
The customary liberals’ response – to ignore or ridicule these attacks – works fine with those of their ilk but that’s hardly the case in the rest of America that is willing to even give Donald Trump and Ted Cruz a second thought.
Here are three examples that have gotten no attention in the mainstream press. Before you dismiss them, remember that John Edwards’ campaign was successfully destroyed beginning with a personal scandal story in the National Enquirer:
- NY Post: A woman at a Hillary Clinton campaign event in New Hampshire on dared to ask the Democratic presidential candidate if she believed the charges made by women who say her husband raped or harassed them.Even if much of this Is false, the key political point is that it is already out there, it is only going to keep growing, and the Democrats and their supporters are ignoring it.
- Radar: According to The National Enquirer, Hillary’s political enemies are planning to unleash a $500 million campaign to destroy her credibility— and her relationship with Vince Foster will be probed… According to the book, Bill knew about his wife's infidelities, but "never confronted her," instead indulging in his own affairs
-National Enquirer - Stone claimed Chelsea was conceived during Hillary’s secret affair with disgraced Clinton crony Webster Hubbell, a lawyer and once close Clinton family friend
Thus we face a choice between the most destructive party in over a century and a half and a party whose leading candidate is strikingly vulnerable but whose members won’t face the fact.