This is what “No enthusiasm for Hillary” looks like

My little corner of Chicago–two wards, with a tiny boost from Evanston–has more than 100 people signed up to go to Wisconsin to knock on doors for Hillary this Saturday.  With less than 10 days’ notice, we’ve turned out enough people to spill over the boundaries of our original target (Kenosha) and conquer Racine as well.

To put that in perspective, that’s a bigger group of volunteers than we sent to Wisconsin at this time during the Obama campaign.   After Labor Day, we’re going to flood the zone in Iowa.

So don’t let anyone tell you there’s no enthusiasm for Hillary.

Author: Kelly Kleiman

Kelly Kleiman is a freelance writer on the arts, feminism, travel and social justice. Her reportage and essays have appeared in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Christian Science Monitor, among other dailies; in magazines, including In These Times and Dance; in the alternative press; on the BBC; and on Chicago Public Radio, where she’s one of the “Dueling Critics” and a contributor to the Onstage Backstage theater blog. She is also a consultant to charities and editor and publisher of The Nonprofiteer, a blog about charity, philanthropy and nonprofit management. She holds undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Chicago.

6 thoughts on “This is what “No enthusiasm for Hillary” looks like”

  1. Of course there's enthusiasm for Hillary. With the media portraying Trump as the reincarnation of der Führer, you could get up enthusiasm for Vito Corleone in drag. In fact, I think you have.

    Oh, well. All good things come to an end, and the US was a good thing. I'm not under any illusions about how this election is likely to turn out. Most of the illusions are on your side of the aisle this year. But I think a few years of Hillary being in power will clear them up, God help us.

    1. Yes, the media has the audacity to repeat what Trump says in his speeches. My view on Trump is that there are real, unprecidented risks, including but not limited to, the possibilities that he will commit atrocities trying to deport Mexicans and other Latinos on the cheap; that he will persecute Muslims, and probably other religious minorities, like Sikhs, out of ignorance; and that he will institute foreign policies that give more power to Putin's Russia.
      My view on Clinton is that it will basically be 4-8 years more of Obama. It that what you fear, or do you think she'll be worse?

  2. I wish you well, but please don't come to my house in Iowa. No matter how bad Mr. Trump is, I will never be able to bring myself to vote for Mrs. Clinton. A system that nominates two of the most unpopular people possible is in bad need of revision.

    1. I'm really curious. Do you fear 4-8 more years of Obama's policies more than Trump? Do you think Clinton will pursue policies that are substantially different from Obama's? Am I missing something?

      1. It's not as simple as that. There are policies, and then there is performance towards achieving the goals of policy. It seems to me that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are very different psychologically. Mr. Obama is primarily motivated by a need for achievement, while Mrs. Clinton is primarily motivated by a need for power. Mr. Obama will make decisions based more on what he perceives as the best thing for the country as a whole, while Mrs. Clinton will make decisions based more on what she perceives as the best thing for maintaining or increasing her power. It may be stated as furthering the policy goal, but actually it's confounded with the priority of her own needs. At best, it's a short-term gain that will lead to a long-term pain for the country. The Iraq War is a good example – I don't think Mrs. Clinton was guided in her vote by any thought other than anyone who voted against it could never be elected president. The E-mail situation is another example – putting her own needs to protect herself from looking bad for whatever reason was more important than protecting the security of the country, and maintaining open records of what her part of the Government did. Such people are dangerous. They will have no problem at all throwing you under the bus if it's necessary to protect themselves, and their opinion of themselves. I have done my best to avoid working for such people, I certainly don't want one to lead my country. When Mrs. Clinton is elected, her first thought will be, how do I get myself re-elected in 2020? That's going to take a lot of money, and she'll be looking to obtain it from the beginning. It isn't lost on me that she gave speeches directed specifically at investment bankers and still refuses to reveal what she said. I don't think she'll repeal Dodd-Frank in its entirety, but she will look for ways of making it a little softer, saying that the demon that made it necessary has been tamed now. It will be couched in terms of fully conforming to the policy goal of avoiding the banking system creating another crash. Finally, I greatly fear Mr. Trump's policies and what he might achieve, but it has the potential benefit that it might allow people to finally understand the effects of radical conservatism, and nail it to the wall for a good 50 years. It will be a short-term pain for a long-term gain. Whatever happens, I'll never regret not having voted for either of these horrible people.

        1. I can't claim to know what is in Hillary Clinton's heart, and I'm not quite sure why you think you can. I don't think there's any reason to believe that she's any more power-hungry and selfish than her husband, and despite his mistakes, he didn't lead us into ruin. You list some very valid criticisms of Clinton. However, on every point – war mongering, lack of transparency, ties to Wall Street, Trump wold probably be substantially worse. But, I'm not sure you disagree with me there based on this:

          I greatly fear Mr. Trump's policies and what he might achieve, but it has the potential benefit that it might allow people to finally understand the effects of radical conservatism, and nail it to the wall for a good 50 years. It will be a short-term pain for a long-term gain.

          Most people who will be on the receiving end of most of the short-term pain should Trump win (non-white, non-Christian) are going with Hillary. I think they know what's best for them. I support them in that choice.

Comments are closed.