My friend Larry shared on Facebook to an article ,  on which I posted this comment:

Although it is certainly true that Trump is a uniquely crazy and even dangerous candidate, to diss the criticisms of Cliinton as suffering from “false equivalence” is itself a form of false equivalence. It is almost an underhanded way of ignoring the candidate’s real flaws by placing them in the category of “typical” and “not unusual”. The whole wide-eyed “Oh my gosh, did you see/hear what Trump just said?” (again, deplorable and concerning stuff) , but this also serves to deflect criticism of the other candidate(s).

Clinton’s disturbing money ties, her incrementalism re: the Climate (and lack of attention to it in her campaigning unless directly asked) gets a free ride. The attacks from the Right are not even what I’m referring to here. Those have been going on since the 90’s. I am referring here to much more substantial and concerning issues such as alliances with big money, military, using the office of Secretary of State for personal/family gain, and , most importantly, showing no real signs that she “gets it” regarding the level of Crisis we face with the planet’s ecosystems. She is going to be a stick in the mud on efforts to move to renewable energy as quickly as possible.

Yes, I WOULD rather have her as President than Trump. But this does not rise to the level of “endorsement” for me or many others. That she is not “crazy” does not seem to me to be “qualifications”. And that she is “the most qualified” seems to ignore the actual performance and results of those “positions” and “resume points”. The specter of money influence and the backroom support she expresses to the big banks, all given a free-ride (notice her refusal to talk about this, even when directly and repeatedly asked in debate on national television) reveals to me a willful blindness of her supporters to what is obvious to anyone who is not in that camp.

So, sorry, I dont buy it because this argument seems blind to the slight of hand employed here. It seems employed in the service of obfuscation.