Lesser of two evils? Not this time

Is it my imagination or has criticism of Hillary Clinton increased since Ted Cruz and John Kasich dropped out of the Repuglican nomination campaign?

In just a quick look at CNN's Web page, in big type with breaking news logo we learn that Donald Trump thinks John Kasich can help and Ben Carson will lead the search for Trump's vice president. Why are either of those breaking news? Also that Bernie Sanders can't win. Hillary Clinton? Who? Nowhere in sight. Oh, wait: Somebody named Kaine suggested as her running mate.

Repuglicans did this to themselves and to the American people. After years of failing to do their jobs in Congress, obstructing every move by a popular president and attacking every effort to maintain or improve conditions affecting the least fortunate of America's citizens, it had to reach a breaking point where people would strike back. 

Unfortunately striking back did not turn to support of viable leaders put forth by the Democrats, but the elevation of a racist, ignorant bully to a likely candidate for president. Even Republicans want a change, out with these do-nothing obstructionists and bring in a fresh face who challenges the present situation.  And it is a sad state of affairs when that party could not put forth one candidate who might actually be able to lead and govern to oppose the buffoon it now looks like they are going to nominate for the highest office in the land which also elevates him to the world stage, representing you and me around the globe. Do we really want to see an American president telling Angela Merkel, "you're fired?"

And a day after that became obvious with elevation of Donald Trump to the status of presumptive winner, the press is full of Trumpisms unchallenged by anyone while all the tired old criticisms of Hillary Clinton have been dragged out again. The emails, Benghazi, Arkansas are dusted off and displayed again, unsuccessful attempts to discredit her, while Trump's racism, business bankruptcies, bullying, threats of war, walls on the Mexican border are reported as if any of his ignorant rants were credible positions for a sitting president.

And do you know what the criticism and suspicions of her are all about? Like the cloud that obscured racist comments about Barack Obama, in the background of all the Hillary criticism is the fact that she is a woman. Not only that, she is one is who instead of being the "little woman," she has played politics with the big boys and has come out on top. Men and women alike are suspicious of her because she does the same things as men do in politics only it is not as roundly approved of or at least forgiven because of her sex, so those qualities which bring success for men in politics are reason for criticism and distrust of a woman who plays by the same rules.

Do a little research into where these charges and criticism come from. Most are from a decades long campaign by Republicans to discredit the Clintons, a campaign politically motivated in recent years to prevent Hillary from gaining the presidency. Case in point, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives who loudly advocated the impeachment of Bill Clinton over a blow job is now in prison for fondling little boys. Or maybe look at the freshman representative who forced endless hearings on Benghazi and admitted it was all about discrediting Hillary. Even the Pentagon has told him to shut up. But the Republicans cling to the Nixonian paradigm: tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. The sad truth is it continues to be effective, having generated even in what is supposed to be the responsible press, constant criticism of Hillary on the same old tired complaints. (That Nixonian note actually goes back to Nazi propagandist Hermann Goering. Godwin effect, you know. Can't write a political piece without it.)

In the modern era of free-wheeling unsubstantiated reporting across the media spectrum almost anything that shows up as a meme on social media after millions of views and shares becomes truth. Fact-checking sites like Snopes can't begin to keep up.

Bernie Sanders is the one candidate in this year's field I like the best. But, then I have been a radical since the 60s. To tell the truth I was a little dismayed when he entered the race, because to my mind I wanted to see Hillary have a clear path to the nomination with universal support from within the party. But over time reading about Sanders led me in that direction and he would be my choice of all of them for president. That doesn't mean thinking any less of Hillary Clinton. I was horrified when Trump entered the primary process but discounted him thinking the American people are intelligent enough to see through him and figured he would fade by this time. I should have known better. Now what's vital is not so much nominating Sanders or Clinton as is unifying the voters behind whoever wins the nomination in order to put a stop to the Trump idiocy and, down the line, break the Republican hold on Congress.

Over the years I've often thought I had to vote for the lesser of two evils. Not this time. While Bernie Sanders' progressive agenda is the most appealing, it would be difficult to name another president who came to the office more experienced and better qualified than Hillary Clinton. Two terms as an active first lady, two terms as a U.S. senator and another term as secretary of State is an enviable record for anyone aspiring to the presidency. So, while to my mind the most important aspect of this election is to break the strangle hold obstructionists have held on the government, either one of the two would be more than satisfactory as president of the United States, and certainly better than the probable Republican alternative.

Even the Rolling Stones don't want any any part of him.