I’ve been unusually silent here on the 2016 Democratic Primary, mostly because I’ve had a lot of ideas that sounded great in my head, but each of which ultimately proved to be unworkable when I tried to get them on paper.
The above concept took me mostly by surprise. I was looking at photographs of Bernie Sanders as a young civil rights protester in the ‘60s, and one of them reminded me vaguely of the contemporary depictions of Clark Kent – skinnier, of course, gawkier; not nearly as square-jawed or broad-shouldered: but Clark’s intelligence, confidence, and determined, perhaps slightly overbearing righteousness were all unmistakably there.
And they both had dark, slightly curly hair, and wore thick, heavily-rimmed glasses, at the time. Bernie, in his youth, really looked like a more realistic Clark Kent, like if Kal-El had to put a bit more effort into his disguise than just throwing on a single hypnotic fashion accessory and calling it good.
From there, I thought about how Superman’s iconic S-Shield could also stand for “Sanders,” and since the dollar sign appears with quite a bit of frequency in my work, using it to represent the contrast with Hillary occurred to me immediately.
That was the entire thought, when I first sketched it out. As with most of the best ideas, it was only afterwards that its additional layers of meaning began to reveal themselves to me…
Such as how the “S” could also stand for “socialism…”
Or the fact that (at the time) Super Tuesday was approaching…
Or (since then) how the (awful-looking) “event” movie Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was about to open in theaters…
But the most exciting connection for me, the part that made me realize just how great an idea this really was, involved the serendipitous recollection that Superman’s creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster, were Jewish. A purposeful duality informed his character: as Clark, he was one of the meek, the downtrodden, and the oppressed; while as Superman, he was someone who could stand up, on their behalf, to the bullies of the world.
The character came about just as the Nazis were beginning to establish their concentration camps, so Superman could also be seen as a defiant repudiation of global anti-Semitism during its most frenzied pitch, in addition to being the patriotic symbol of “truth, justice, and the American way” for which he is more widely-recognized. Given that the current front-runner for the Republican nomination is not just a notorious, unrepentant bully, but also THE NEW HITLER, you can see how this symbolism is especially meaningful, during this election.
Hillary, meanwhile, has spent the entire primary reminding me why I didn’t like her in 2008.
From the very beginning, practically her entire campaign has been made of little more than ersatz forgeries of someone else’s better ideas: whether it’s her campaign logo, an obvious but unsuccessful attempt at duplicating Obama’s revolutionary approach to political branding, or her recent, craven lifting of her 2016 primary opponent’s policy positions like a newspaper comic strip panel picked up and distorted by a blob of Silly Putty, she has revealed herself to be almost completely unoriginal, and totally lacking any individual principles whatsoever, aside maybe from greed, and a thirst for war-blood.
Whenever she has brought anything of her own to the table, for at least the last 15 years, it’s tended to be dumb and/or revolting. Foreign policy, for example, is one of her supposed strengths, but as cannot often enough be reiterated, she voted yes on Operation Iraqi “Freedom” – a resume item that frankly should disqualify anyone who possesses it from ever again occupying the Oval Office. TO THIS DAY, she still argues W. was worthy of her trust!
As Secretary of State, the nation’s top diplomat, she thought it was appropriate to tell lousy jokes about angry mobs murdering people; even reveled in it! Yeah, Gaddafi was an asshole, just like Saddam Hussein, and all the other strongman dictators installed and/or propped up by the United States since WWII, but has the type of “regime change”-oriented intervention she championed in Libya, which had at the time already catastrophically failed in Iraq, made things better there, or worse?
I think we all know the answer. Well, all of us except her, anyway, since she continues to insist that we should try the same thing in Syria even now!
“Third time’s the charm” is what people with gambling problems say, not a desirable strategic philosophy for the Commander in Chief!
Like a crappy, unnecessary US remake of a British sitcom, Hillary is the American Margaret Thatcher, trying to prove she can win a dick-measuring contest with the big boys by being even more ruthless, warlike, and aggressive than the worst of them, instead of using her female perspective to calmly explain that dick-measuring contests are a stupid waste of time, and introduce a new, better approach to world affairs.
And speaking of dicks, she’s about as honest, forthright, and likable as Richard Nixon.
A lot of people, even dedicated Bernie supporters, believe
Trump Drumpf would get curb-stomped by either Democratic candidate like an Hispanic Muslim immigrant at one of his Hate Rallies. I’m afraid I don’t share their optimism (if “Hillary Clinton elected President” can even be considered a glass-half-full scenario, anyway). My feelings are more like those of Glenn Greenwald and others who have cautioned that Hillary’s weaknesses play directly into Trump’s Drumpf’s dainty little hands, since she’s the embodiment of everything about the Establishment which voters from both major parties, as well as Independents, have come to despise.
Personally, I trust Superman to do better against Hitler than I would expect from Bizarro.