The Dems Are Deluded.

Everything awful that Trump says is already policy. We already have a wall between the United States of Mexico and America. We already have judicial and economic systems that exploit immigrants and disproportionately target blacks, latinos, and muslims. We are already a racist and sexist nation. The Dems give lip service to changing that reality – as do the Republicans – but the fact is it does not change until the people change. Only then do both Republican and Democratic parties also change.

Everything good that Trump says is a threat to both Democratic and Republican policy. Cooperate with rather than antagonize Russia (and others). NATO is a cold-war anachronism. Make deals rather than threats. Protect jobs and personal dignity and security rather than corporate profits. Restore the separation of insured and speculative banking. Provide universal health care and maintain our infrastructure to reflect the success of an advanced democracy.

After Obama perfected the balance that Al Gore sought but couldn’t clinch – an embrace of Clintonism/Reaganism along with a prissy paternalism as the only difference from predecessors and rivals – as well as suave hypocrisy while pursuing both neoliberal and neoconservative agendas, it should not be surprising that people find Trump’s vulgarity to be refreshingly honest.

And after its diminishment for many people under the administration of the man who ran on the word, it should not be surprising that Trump’s populist rhetoric inspires hope.

As Bill Clinton instinctively grasped, people look for both hope and cheap entertainment in their figurehead: H.C.E. (cf. Finnegans Wake).

Trump, too, seems to grasp it intuitively, whereas Hillary Clinton tamps down hope and has but fear to offer. With her, the hope is only that she will dispel the fear that she herself invokes. Entertainment lies only in the cynical prospect of defeating the enemies she herself manufactures. It’s a never-ending spectacle of death and redemption.

But it’s not a game. Those enemies have human identities, and then they are ruined and killed. Between Trump and Clinton, only the latter already has muslim and black and latino blood on her hands and promises to spill ever more.

Billiary

[Hillary Clinton] is predicting that electing her Democratic rival, Barack Obama, will invite a terror attack because he has less experience than she has. If you wonder if you've heard that kind of argument before, you have. It has been a staple of hardball Republican politics for the past seven years: vote for the Democrats and the terrorists win.

But Clinton deftly purloined it for her own purposes, pivoting a classic Karl Rove tactic against one of her opponents ... Ever since the Clintons' near-death experience in the Iowa vote, their campaign has been playing a very Rovian game. The use of the politics of fear is just the start. In fact classic Rovian tactics are now at the heart of the Clinton campaign.

First, play to your base. Obama continues to appeal beyond core Democrats to independents and even a surprising number of disenchanted Republicans. Clinton decided, in response, to craft her appeal directly to core Democrats: public sector employees, the elderly, working women, the urban middle class. . .

Second, attack your opponent on his strong point ... Obama's biggest strength among Democrats is his early and clear opposition to the Iraq war. And so, following Rove's golden rule, Bill Clinton dismissed Obama's long opposition to the war as a "fairy tale". Because in 2004 Obama had refrained from criticising Kerry's pro-war vote, Clinton argued that Obama implicitly agreed with it. Because he had voted - like so many others - to continue funding the troops, Obama was no different than Hillary. It didn't work. But it was a classic Rove try.

Third, wedge issues. Rove's classic example was same-sex marriage; a way to pit one largely Democratic constituency - gays - against others, namely socially conservative white ethnics and blacks. Hillary Clinton's task in a Democratic primary is much trickier. But gender and race remain potent political tools for the unscrupulous. And she has used both.

Andrew Sullivan, Times, U.K.