Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist and columnist for the New York Times, became disgusted with mainstream reporting on the Clinton Foundation. The right wingers have tried to create a scandal, and to liken it to the Trump Foundation, which serves only Trump’s mammoth ego. But Krugman says the comparison is absurd. The Clinton Foundation actually uses its funding to alleviate poverty and combat AIDS and promote literacy.

He writes:

“Step back for a moment, and think about what that foundation is about. When Bill Clinton left office, he was a popular, globally respected figure. What should he have done with that reputation? Raising large sums for a charity that saves the lives of poor children sounds like a pretty reasonable, virtuous course of action. And the Clinton Foundation is, by all accounts, a big force for good in the world. For example, Charity Watch, an independent watchdog, gives it an “A” rating — better than the American Red Cross.

“Now, any operation that raises and spends billions of dollars creates the potential for conflicts of interest. You could imagine the Clintons using the foundation as a slush fund to reward their friends, or, alternatively, Mrs. Clinton using her positions in public office to reward donors. So it was right and appropriate to investigate the foundation’s operations to see if there were any improper quid pro quos. As reporters like to say, the sheer size of the foundation “raises questions.”

“But nobody seems willing to accept the answers to those questions, which are, very clearly, “no.”
Consider the big Associated Press report suggesting that Mrs. Clinton’s meetings with foundation donors while secretary of state indicate “her possible ethics challenges if elected president.” Given the tone of the report, you might have expected to read about meetings with, say, brutal foreign dictators or corporate fat cats facing indictment, followed by questionable actions on their behalf.

“But the prime example The A.P. actually offered was of Mrs. Clinton meeting with Muhammad Yunus, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize who also happens to be a longtime personal friend. If that was the best the investigation could come up with, there was nothing there.

“So I would urge journalists to ask whether they are reporting facts or simply engaging in innuendo, and urge the public to read with a critical eye. If reports about a candidate talk about how something “raises questions,” creates “shadows,” or anything similar, be aware that these are all too often weasel words used to create the impression of wrongdoing out of thin air.

“And here’s a pro tip: the best ways to judge a candidate’s character are to look at what he or she has actually done, and what policies he or she is proposing. Mr. Trump’s record of bilking students, stiffing contractors and more is a good indicator of how he’d act as president; Mrs. Clinton’s speaking style and body language aren’t. George W. Bush’s policy lies gave me a much better handle on who he was than all the up-close-and-personal reporting of 2000, and the contrast between Mr. Trump’s policy incoherence and Mrs. Clinton’s carefulness speaks volumes today.
In other words, focus on the facts. America and the world can’t afford another election tipped by innuendo.”

I watched it all, with a growing sense of dismay. Once again, Trump was rude, abrasive, and couldn’t stop sniffing. When Clinton was speaking, he got up from his chair, lurked behind her, loomed over her, and it was incredibly distracting. He changed the subject and deflected as usual. His attacks on Bill Clinton were disgusting. Bill Clinton is not on the ballot. For a man who is a serial sexual abuser, a man who boasts of his sexual assaults, to complain about another man’s infidelity is a high level of hypocrisy. What I found so depressing was the small amount of time devoted to discussing actual issues that confront the nation. Trump talks in slogans; he will kill Obamacare and that will fix all the problems with spiraling costs. He will crush ISIS. He will do this and do that, but forget the details. He knows nothing about foreign issues and it is embarrassing to listen to him blabber on about Russia or Syria or anywhere outside of his social media orbit.

But, for me personally, the worst moment of the debate occurred when he said that if he were President, Hillary Clinton would be in jail. That sounded like the kind of threat or behavior that one expects to hear from a dictator. In democracies, winners are gracious in victory and form a government. They don’t pursue their opponents and threaten to jail them. This man is a psychopath. He is unfit to be anywhere near the Presidency.

He played to his hard-core white nationalist base. He gave them the Red Meat they love. He was the bully we have come to know and loathe.

As for the infamous sex tapes, where he bragged about grabbing women by their genitalia, he again said it was “locker room banter,” the kind of thing that men say to one another whenever they are together. If he attempted to apologize for his remarks, it was clear that he was not sincere. He still does not understand why women and men too would find his vulgar remarks offensive. But his debate coaches told him to be contrite, so he pretended. But it wasn’t a good pretense.

The idea that this man is the candidate of the Republican party is a stain on the party. It once claimed to be the party of “family values.” No more. If ever. If they accept this man afflicted with satyriasis as their leader, they lose all pretense of caring about family values, morality, decency, or respect for women.

Yuck! The level of discourse in this campaign has been driven down to potty talk and worse by the most unqualified candidate for the Presidency in modern times, maybe ever.