Before it became known that Hillary Clinton’s Sunday fainting spell was the result of conducting a busy schedule while afflicted with pneumonia and allergies, the incident (a short video of which was played incessantly by media) sparked all kinds of both reasonable and whackadoodle speculation. Included in the first category were many calls for both presidential candidates to release more details of their medical records, particularly given their ages—Clinton will be 69 in six weeks and Trump was 70 in June.
On the internet were people expressing hope and glee that Clinton’s illness would force her to drop out of the presidential race (despite the fact that she has access to the best medical treatment in the world).
Rumors spread later in the day that the Democratic National Committee would hold an emergency meeting to replace Clinton. Would it be Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Tim Kaine or some other Democrat of note who got the nod? But David Shuster weighed in with several tweeted citations of unnamed “Dem operatives” including this one:
David Atkins at The Washington Monthly writes—No, Clinton’s Health Isn’t a “Real Issue in the Campaign”:
The Washington Post is, like many media outlets, a mixed bag. On one hand, they have some seriously great investigative journalists bringing important stories to light. Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman at The Plum Line are national treasures. The editorial page, on the other hand, is a different matter. But worst of all is Chris Cilizza of The Fix, who is the poster child for vapid, process-oriented, horse-race obsessed, campaign pseudo-journalism.
Case in point: today’s reaction to Clinton’s minor medical incident today in New York. It was a very hot day, Clinton was in neck-high shirt over the top of a bulletproof vest, and she had a spell of dizziness. As it turns out, she had been diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday—an inconvenience for a presidential candidate to be sure, but not really a major story in and of itself.
Conservative media had been noticing that Clinton appeared under the weather recently, most notably due to mild coughing. Whether it’s a simple scratchy throat, or allergies, or a mild cold, or even pneumonia still isn’t very important, and it’s not an issue on which voters should be judging candidates. Health only becomes an issue if there’s a serious chronic condition that might endanger the president’s life or impact their ability to do their job. So far there has been no evidence that Clinton has such a condition. That hasn’t stopped conservative media organizations from speculating that Clinton might be too ill to be president, however. But then, these are the same people who speculate the Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and the mainstream press shouldn’t be feeding the conspiracy trolls.
Melissa Batchelor Warnke at The Los Angeles Times writes—Hillary Clinton's worrisome wobble
… Clinton’s shaky early departure from a Sept. 11 commemoration ceremony in New York reinforced ugly speculation by Trump’s team that she is suffering from some kind of debilitating illness, possibly linked to the concussion she suffered late in her tenure as secretary of State. The clean bill of health she’d received from her physician this year did nothing to quiet those rumors.
For those who believe, as I do, that Trump’s candidacy is an insult to the safety and intelligence of our country’s electorate, Clinton’s poor health is cause for concern only to the extent that it has the potential to improve her opponent’s chances. Granted, neither the 68-year-old Clinton nor the 70-year-old Trump is a spring chicken. But consider who might take over for them if they suffered an incapacitating medical emergency: Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine, may be a snooze, but he’s far more qualified to lead than Trump or the Republican nominee for veep, Mike Pence.
Pence is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, an aw-shucks-dad type who has been a consistent opponent of reproductive rights and equality under the law for LGBT Americans. Pence once described himself as “Rush Limbaugh on decaf.” He’s the kind of evangelical who apparently thinks, “I’ll throw in with a twice-divorced former abortion rights advocate who vilifies a good chunk of God’s people. He could really get me somewhere.” Like Trump, he represents a platform that is deeply hateful.
For those of us who believe the integrity of our country’s future is predicated on a Clinton presidency, any wobble is cause for concern.
Chas Danner at New York Magazine’s Daily Intelligencer feature writes—Trump Favors Regime Change in Iran, Says He’ll Attack Them Over Rude Gestures:
Speaking at a campaign rally in Pensacola, Florida, on Friday night, Donald Trump indicated that, as president, he would attack Iran if their sailors made improper gestures toward the U.S. Navy. After promising to build more ships for the Navy, which has a base in Pensacola, Trump tossed in an aside referencing the recent run-ins that U.S. warships have had with Iranian attack boats in the Persian Gulf. During those encounters, small Iranian speedboats controlled by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, which opposes the country’s nuclear deal with the U.S., have harassed U.S. ships in ways the Navy has deemed “unsafe and unprofessional.” Said Trump, to the delight of the crowd, “When [the Iranians] circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water.”
Some news reports are framing Trump’s statement about Iran as a matter of him once again going off script and ad-libbing some ill-advised bluster on top of the supposedly softened speeches his campaign has prepared for him. That’s undoubtedly what he did in this case, and maybe it was just intended as some kind of macho nationalistic towel-snap to get a quick “U.S.A.” chant out of the crowd. But while it’s indeed worrisome, if not exactly news, that the apparent body-language expert is unable to follow plans, or scripts, or basic political norms — in this case Trump, a major-party’s presidential candidate, indicated that he would be willing to start an armed conflict with another country, not to defend America’s citizens, interests, or allies — but over injured pride
Ben Adler at Grist writes—This Trump advisor might be even more confused about climate and energy than Trump himself:
Donald Trump is prone to ridiculous, fact-free assertions on the environment and energy. That used to be attributed at least in part to his lack of policy advisors. But now he has advisors, and they’re full of lies too.
Take Stephen Moore, one of Trump’s economic advisors. [...]
Moore, a notoriously foolish and dishonest “senior distinguished fellow” at the right-wing Heritage Foundation and a former Wall Street Journal editorialist, told Trump he should “stress the energy stuff” in the candidate’s big economic policy speech in Detroit last month. [...]
“Since Moore came on board this spring to advise Trump on his tax plan, he’s been encouraging Trump to hit back against Democrats’ claims that the transition to more wind and solar energy will be good for the economy and the environment,” E&E writes.
That the transition to wind and solar energy is good for the environment isn’t a claim, it’s a fact.
Larry Summers at The Washington Post writes—The next president should make infrastructure spending a priority:
Just as the infrastructure failure at Chernobyl was a sign of malaise in the Soviet Union’s last years, profound questions about America’s future are raised by collapsing bridges, children losing IQ points because of lead in water, an air-traffic control system that does not use GPS technology and chipping paint in thousands of schools.
The issue now is not whether the United States should invest more in infrastructure but what the policy framework should be. Here are the important questions and my answers.
How much more do we need do invest? For the foreseeable future, there is no danger that the United States will overinvest in infrastructure. An increase in infrastructure investment of 1 percent of gross domestic product over a decade would total $2.2 trillion and permit substantial steps both to catch up on deferred maintenance and embark on new projects. It would also still leave the United States well behind parts of Europe and Asia in terms of infrastructure.
What is the highest priority? The fastest, highest and safest returns are likely to be found where maintenance has been deferred. For example, inadequate maintenance of American roads imposes costs on American motorists that are the equivalent of a 75-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax.
That $220 billion a year that Summers posits is 20 percent less than the $275 billion a year Hillary Clinton has proposed, a figure she concedes is just a “down payment” on what is actually needed. Over 10 years—Clinton’s proposal is for five—the total would fall far short of what the American Society of Civil Engineers say is needed by 2020: $3.6 trillion. (The ASCE will be out with a fresh estimate next year, and it’s likely to be higher yet.) And that’s just to fix the stuff that’s decayed. It says nothing about infrastructure innovation, particularly green infrastructure: ultra-high voltage transmission lines, more wind, community solar, electrified freight-by-rail.
Charles M. Blow at The New York Times writes—About the ‘Basket of Deplorables’:
Let’s get straight to it: Hillary Clinton’s comments Friday at a fund-raiser that half of Donald Trump’s supporters could be put in a “basket of deplorables” wasn’t a smart political play.
Candidates do themselves a tremendous disservice when they attack voters rather than campaigns. Whatever advantage is procured through the rallying of one’s own base is outweighed by what will be read as divisiveness and disdain.
[...]
What Clinton said was impolitic, but it was not incorrect. There are things a politician cannot say. Luckily, I’m not a politician.
Donald Trump is a deplorable candidate — to put it charitably — and anyone who helps him advance his racial, religious and ethnic bigotry is part of that bigotry. Period. Anyone who elevates a sexist is part of that sexism. The same goes for xenophobia. You can’t conveniently separate yourself from the detestable part of him because you sense in him the promise of cultural or economic advantage. That hair cannot be split.
E.J. Dionne Jr. at The Washington Post writes—This election’s faith-based candidate:
This is the inversion election, a contest in which so many of our familiar mental categories have been turned upside down.
This year, it’s the Republican presidential candidate who says the United States isn’t great anymore and the Democrat who insists it is. The Republican says that the former KGB agent presiding over Russia is a better leader than the president of the United States. The Democrat condemns him for it.
But last week reminded us that there is another role reversal in this election. There is one candidate who is authentically religious, who has thought seriously about what the Scriptures teach, and whose own view of the world was changed radically by her engagement with faith. Her name is Hillary Clinton.
At The Circle, Winona LaDuke writes— Missouri River threatened by DAPL:
[Standing Rock Sioux] Chairman [David] Archambault said, “Perhaps only in North Dakota, where oil tycoons wine and dine elected officials and where the governor, Jack Dalrymple, serves as an adviser to the Trump campaign, would state and county governments act as the armed enforcement for corporate interests ...”
There are a lot of people at Standing Rock today who remember their history and the long stand off at Wounded Knee in 1973. In fact, some of those in Standing Rock today, were there in 1973 at Wounded Knee, a different, but similar battle for dignity and the future of a nation.
I am not sure how badly North Dakota wants this pipeline. If there is to be a battle over the pipeline it will be here. For a people with nothing else but a land and a river, I would not bet against them. The great Lakota leader Mathew King once said, “The only thing sadder than an Indian who is not free, is an Indian who does not remember what it is to be free.”
The camp represents that struggle for freedom and the future of a people. All of us. If I ask the question, “What would Sitting Bull do”, the answer is pretty clear. He would remind me what he said l50 years ago, “Let us put our minds together to see what kind of future we can make for our children.” The time for that is now.
John Nichols at The Nation writes—North Dakota Wants to Arrest Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman for Engaging in Journalism:
Despite well-established freedom of the press protections that outline and guarantee the rights of reporters who cover breaking news stories—including confrontations between demonstrators and authorities—North Dakota officials have charged Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman with criminal trespassing after she documented private security personnel’s use of dogs to attack Native American foes of the Dakota Access Pipeline project. [...]
“This is unacceptable violation of freedom of the press,” Goodman said Saturday. “I was doing my job by covering pipeline guards unleashing dogs and pepper spray on Native American protesters.”
Her assertion is backed up by a constitutional amendment that reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
That amendment applies everywhere, and to officials at every level of government—even those serving in Morton County, North Dakota.
Paul Krugman at The New York Times writes—Thugs and Kisses:
First of all, let’s get this straight: The Russian Federation of 2016 is not the Soviet Union of 1986. True, it covers most of the same territory and is run by some of the same thugs. But the Marxist ideology is gone, and so is the superpower status. We’re talking about a more or less ordinary corrupt petrostate here, although admittedly a big one that happens to have nukes.
I mention all of this because Donald Trump’s effusive praise for Vladimir Putin — which actually reflects a fairly common sentiment on the right — seems to have confused some people.
On one side, some express puzzlement over the spectacle of right-wingers — the kind of people who used to yell “America, love it or leave it!” — praising a Russian regime. On the other side, a few people on the left are anti-anti-Putinists, denouncing criticism of Mr. Trump’s Putin-love as “red-baiting.” But today’s Russia isn’t Communist, or even leftist; it’s just an authoritarian state, with a cult of personality around its strongman, that showers benefits on an immensely wealthy oligarchy while brutally suppressing opposition and criticism.
And that, of course, is what many on the right admire.
Syreeta McFadden at The Guardian writes—Can black celebrities shake America out of its racial justice slumber?
Once again, this is turning out to be a summer marked by prominent police killings of innocent black men. Black popular artists in American culture are complicating things for those fans who would prefer to remain silent or choose not to engage in the most significant civil rights issue of our time. These artists are shaking moderates out of complacency and extending our awareness to this crisis – just as their forebears did during the civil rights struggle in the 1960s.
Black musicians and artists are key partners in dramatizing equality and justice for black citizens. The cynical among us may presume that artists who call for action against systemic, racialized police violence are simply jumping on a cause célèbre – or that their earned privilege no longer affords them the right to be outraged. But that is a selective and ahistorical reading.
The other week, 23 artists working in music, television and film released a video in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. They urged the public to pressure Congress and the Obama administration to act against police violence that disproportionately affects black American citizens. Their call, which was organized by Alicia Keys, is significant and it exists within a tradition of activism among black artists.