Dear Joan,
I get that you’re mad. But:
Q1: Did you ever consider that there’s a reason the “likeability” issue gets more traction with Hillary Clinton than, say, Elizabeth Warren? Yeah, Clinton absolutely was, and remains, a target of the right. Also, she’s aiming higher, which makes her more of a target. But perhaps—as you yourself felt when giving her your (as you put it) “careful, qualified quasi-endorsement” in 2008—she also has some problems as a candidate.
Q2: Is it not problematic that, in a piece in which you decry what you perceive to be the erasure of female Hillary Clinton supporters, you reduce Sanders’ vast grassroots and online support—which happens to include many millennial women (like your daughter?)—to a bunch of trollish men?
Q3: Can you really think of no reason other than sexism that people would resent your daughter—and Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards’s daughter—getting prominent gigs on the Clinton campaign?
Yeah, sexism is rampant and trolls exist. And I want a female president as much as anyone. But to pretend that Clinton doesn’t come with a lot of baggage—or that nepotism is unobjectionable—is simply delusional.
dogwood
Why would anyone resent Cecile Richards’ daughter being prominent on any campaign? I would assume she is as committed to the cause as her mother and her late grandmother. For some reason Bernie’s supporters seem to think that people who have actually worked with Clinton on these issues over that last three decades are supposed to support Bernie instead.
Betty Cracker
I think Walsh was right about that smarmy douchebag who confronted Clinton in the recent town hall:
Maybe that speaks to your point in Q2 about erasing Sanders supporters from the debate? She’s not saying those millions of millennial Sanders supporters are all male trolls, though she does focus on the trollery in the piece. It’s a thing.
rikyrah
The Flint disaster is Rick Snyder’s fault
“You cannot separate what happened in Flint from the state’s extreme emergency-management law,” said Curt Guyette, who, working for the ACLU of Michigan, uncovered much of the scandal in Flint. “The bottom line is making sure the banks and bond holders get paid at all costs, even if the kids are poisoned with foul river water.”
The emergency-manager law, Guyette argued, “is about the taking away of democracy and the imposition of austerity-fueled autocracy on cities that are poor and majority African American.”
Snyder’s blaming of local authorities is disingenuous: Because of the emergency-management law, municipal officials can’t do anything without the blessing of Snyder’s viceroys.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
ah well, since we’re doing this
Thank god the Feelers are keeping their eyes on the real enemy.
(This post brought to you by something a supporter of not-my-candidate said)
Hillary Rettig
@dogwood: nepotism may be the way the world goes round, but it sucks, and the appearance of quid-pro-quo with a journalist, and with Planned Parenthood’s unprecedented pre-nomination endorsement of HRC, sucks more.
Bobby Thomson
Interesting observations on things Walsh didn’t write.
rikyrah
Joan needs to have a stadium full of seats.
Punchy
I’m very happy to report that I have not a clue, nor a whit of interest, in anything mentioned in the post. Intra-party panty fights are not my gig.
Hillary Rettig
@Betty Cracker: that guy was uber-smarmy. but trollery is a fixture of the web (wish it weren’t) and to imply that the Sanders community is extra trollish is plain wrong.
that said, I get where she’s coming from. if I had a daughter and she was being attacked online I’d wanna smash something
Baud
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Jesus H. Christ on a stick. And I thought Salon’s “Lose Now to Win Later” articles were the most ludicrous pieces this primary season. We have a new winner.
Baud
I never much liked Joan Walsh.
Betty Cracker
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Blimey, that’s one of the dead-ends I reached while unraveling a Twitter thread last night! Here are questions for anyone who is familiar with how HuffPo operates: They don’t pay this guy, do they? Can just anyone sign up to produce free content, like on Kos? Because if they do pay people and that writer was selected through a process that involved demonstrating minimal competence in the English language, my God, Arianna, you’re getting screwed! At least pay the editors!
dogwood
@Hillary Rettig:
Oh, come on. If Ms. Richards had a prominent position on Bernie’s campaign, you be using that as a positive.
Baud
@Betty Cracker: I think they do have guest authors who they don’t pay. I don’t know how involved they are in selecting and editing those pieces, however.
schrodinger's cat
To paraphrase a quote attributed to Gandhi
I like your Bernie but not your Bernistas. I actually like Bernie’s message about income inequality but his rabid and sometimes unhinged supporters have made me into a Hillary supporter.
Betty Cracker
@Hillary Rettig: I like Clinton and Sanders both and would be happy to vote for either of them, but my impression is that the Sanders supporters on social media really are extra-trollish, or perhaps just so much more numerous as to give that impression. Makes sense that Sanders would have the lion’s share of social media advocates since he’s doing particularly well with younger voters.
Applejinx
Yeah, me too Joan :/
On the bright side, I never gave six-figure talks to Goldman Sachs, and my Killer Death Flu appears to maybe be lifting! No doctor visit of course. I am getting badgered by Social Security trying to claw back several months of SSI from 2009 (doing a getting-off-Disability PASS plan, and while making a successful and functioning business my resources were over $2000 at a couple points, which they’ve decided means I should have told them back then not to send a disability check those months: easy to say now that I haven’t seen one in many years)
So I really can’t trust getting into a relationship with a doctor even if I’m sick, for fear they’d try to get money out of me that isn’t there.
I really am awfully sorry that Hillary gave those six-figure talks to Goldman Sachs. How inconvenient for her. Tsk, I say. Surely she could have just said no thank you, like I was apparently supposed to, just like we’ll all expect her to say no thank you to the many talks Goldman Sachs people would like to give to HER should she become president, starting with right inside her own family. Surely that is of no consequence at all and of course she’ll do the right thing. Right?
dr. bloor
@Baud: You’re just pissed because her kids won’t campaign for you.
schrodinger's cat
@Baud: Me 2. All I remember about her from the time I had shouty TV was that she used to be a frequent Tweety guest.
Baud
@dr. bloor: To avoid any allegations of nepotism, I insist on six degrees of separation between me and all my staff.
I currently have no staff.
Brandon
@dogwood: Here in the real world though, she doesn’t. Nice hypothetical though.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Betty Cracker: I would have liked to see that kid interviewed so he could explain why he thinks HRC is dishonest. I’d be surprised if he could string his buzzwords– Goldman Sachs, Wall St, Something— into a coherent sentence.
dogwood
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I’ve been waiting for someone to actually link to that First Lady claptrap. As a woman, I have always been annoyed at any attack against First Ladies in general. These woman don’t even earn a salary that would compensate for the shit that is thrown at them. But, I would imagine that piece isn’t going to go over too well with African American women in general if it gets out there, and the Clinton campaign should be seeing that it does.
SarahT
So it can’t be possible that Ms. Walsh might find anything problematic about Sanders as a candidate other than some condescending supporters, then ? I find many aspects of his candidacy troubling , & I’m far from alone.
Hillary Rettig
@dogwood: I doubt it. (If Ms. Richards SENIOR quit PP to work on Bernie’s campaign I’d sure be crowing about that!) It’s the “prominent” that sticks in people’s craws. If they were just doing the usual grunt work, no problem. But how many junior ops get retweeted by HRC herself?
Do you really want to be defending nepotism as a principle? And while we’re at it, how about dynasty?
Baud
As I noted the night of the town hall, the questions that Clinton got were the biggest disappointed. I expect Benghazi and email questions in moderated debates, not from regular folks. I don’t think she was asked a single substantive policy question.
Hillary Rettig
@SarahT: that’s not the piece she wrote, and that I responded to.
Botsplainer
I’ve been slowly evolving from a mild distaste for Bernie to an attitude of Fuck Bernie.
It’s posts like this one that do it.
Bobby Thomson
@Hillary Rettig: I’m curious. Walsh doesn’t pretend to be neutral – she writes for The Nation. If, say, Matt Taibbi wrote about why he likes Sanders, I doubt you would have a problem of it. You yourself are expressing a preference. Are Walsh’s kids somehow forbidden from working on campaigns? Are the hypothetical kids of Taibbi or you? Do you really think the token salary, if any, that Walsh’s daughter gets is enough to affect Walsh’s judgment? And do you think mothers keep their mouths shut when their kids do things they disapprove of, or say nice things about all of their employers?
Baud
@Hillary Rettig: Dynasty is a right-wing attack. I hope it won’t become commonplace on this blog.
Betty Cracker
@Baud: I like Joan. She strikes me as unusually earnest for someone in such a cynical profession.
OzarkHillbilly
@Hillary Rettig:
In what way is it unprecedented? I can’t count the # of other organizations that have already endorsed someone, be it Bernie or Hillary or any of the GOoPers.
nutella
@Hillary Rettig:
No, it’s not wrong. I suggest you go on record with a criticism of Sanders. He’s not perfect so I’m sure you can come up with something. Publish that and you’ll see the trolls. It’s not Sanders’ fault that so much abuse is hurled by his supporters but it is something that is happening a lot in response to criticism of the trolls’ current hero.
henqiguai
@rikyrah (#3):
Don’t think Joan Walsh’s article was addressing the Flint water situation; ‘course, I also didn’t click through to all of the linked stories, so maybe…
ruemara
So much whatever. Bernie’s your guy, we get it. It doesn’t mean he and his campaign are flawless. Get over it. Joan Walsh has a right to choose and did you think Cecile Richards has no concern about supporting a guy who doesn’t out the gate talk a good game about protecting a woman’s right to choose? Why not discuss Bernie’s platform in detail or ways he’s planning to work on issues, rather than a whine piece being upset some people and groups aren’t all about Bernie?
And trust me, Joan Walsh is hardly someone I give two farts about their opinions. This is like everything else on the Sanders side that’s pushing me towards Hillary.
Gin & Tonic
@Hillary Rettig: “Dynasty”? Who among HRC’s ancestors held high public office? Who among Bill’s ancestors held high public office?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Who are you quoting there? “Prominent” seems like a subjective judgment. In whose craws is this sticking? Of course, I didn’t know that HRC herself had retweeted something this prominent person tweeted.
My stars and garters! I’d best get to clapping for Bernie to save the public from this rampant twitter corruption!
Bobby Thomson
@Betty Cracker: Arianna doesn’t pay anyone.
satby
@Baud: Agreed.
Bobby Thomson
@dogwood: also, too, this.
Baud
@Betty Cracker: She rubs me the wrong way. But a lot of people on the TV do.
rp
@schrodinger’s cat: Well said.
Do Sanders supporters think they’re being bold truth tellers by pointing out that Clinton doesn’t have a ton of charisma and is a flawed candidate? Yeah, we get that.
Brandon
@Baud: I am not sure I understand this logic or reasoning. There is nothing partisan about being anti- political dynasties in a democratic system. Single payer is bad or social democracy is dangerous are however both in fact a right wing attacks.
Paul in KY
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: And Barbara Bush & Nancy Reagan were salt of the earth? Should be 5 at least & of course, Rosalynn Carter was the wife of a millionaire. Maybe Betty Ford as last one?
All first ladies are generally rich when they get there. Mamie Eisenhower was the wife of a 5 star general.
magurakurin
@Botsplainer: me, too. Who is this Hillary Rettig anyway? Is it a Dougj personality? Will she go away after Sanders is crushed on March 1 and then again on March 15? I kind of hope so.
MomSense
@rikyrah:
Yes, and I think bastards like Snyder also don’t mind sacrificing people to their goals of water privatization and breaking up unions.
Baud
@Brandon: Well, it’s false. A dynasty typically involves more than two people, and usually not spouses. And we’ve had related presidents before (as have other countries), and the nation has survived, so it’s a weak line. Finally, no one believes that it’s really a concern with a significant number of people — it’s just an underhanded way of attacking a candidate people don’t like.
Hillary Rettig
@Bobby Thomson: these are reasonable questions. i think (as Betty says) Joan Walsh is a great journalist; I’m actually a fan. And this article reads very much like a frustrated cri de coeur from an outraged mom. I get that. But there are problems with the situation that I’ve outlined in my 3 questions. And there’s an inherent conflict of interest between having family members of journalists work on campaigns. Maybe we don’t want to “outlaw it” but it should be noted when it happens.
If Matt Taibbi comes out pro-Bernie (which I hope he does) that would be great. It Matt Taibbi’s kid came out as pro-Bernie and Taibbi changed his endorsement to Bern, don’t you think that that might be worth a ddiscussion?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
And Katrina Vanden Heuvel appears as a Sanders surrogate. I think I heard that the Sanders endorsement is only the third time The Nation has endorsed in a primary.
I’m lukewarm on Walsh. I think she was in charge at Salon when they brought Camille Puglia back in ’08 (Walsh’s successor has brought her back again, in fairness, she could be called a moderating voice in a stable that includes Andrew O’Heir and Patrick Smith), and in 2010 (IIRC) she was very sympathetic to the idea that people had good reason to be Disappointed in Obama. In 2007 she used (again, IIRC) Tom Ricks book to argue that it was time for us liberals to admit that the Surge worked, darn it (which was pretty much the opposite of what Ricks was saying). A pretty standard LOC B-list Villager. I was surprised when she got hired by the Nation.
FlipYrWhig
@Applejinx: You do know that your fixation on Hillary’s daughter’s husband’s work associates, to the point where they are a key to your attitude about Hillary, is fucking bizarro, right? Just so you know, my parents have one daughter-in-law who’s a teacher, one who’s a public employee, and one who’s a community organizer, and a son-in-law who works on Wall Street. Which of those is the Rosetta Stone for my mother’s worldview?
Amir Khalid
It’s six of one and half a dozen of the other. I am unimpressed by Joan Walsh’s apologia, which is at least as much about Joan Walsh as it is about Hillary. (It’s a general flaw of Walsh that so much of her musings are about herself.)
I am also unimpressed by your rebuttal, which raises some pretty bogus Bernista talking points. Likeability? You’ve got to be kidding. You have to work at it to dislike either candidate personally. Look, if Elizabeth Warren were running for president against Bernie, do you think there wouldn’t be Bernistas griping about some aspect of her personality? Bernie doesn’t go for that sort of thing himself, but his supporters aren’t all so scrupulous.
To mention that many women in the same age cohort as Walsh’s daughter are Hillaristas is merely to state the obvious. It doesn’t amount to erasing that age/gender cohort from the Bernista ranks, and you shouldn’t claim it does.
If Bernie had one or more of his children (or his friends’ children) working in his campaign, I would think nothing of it. I would be far more surprised if none of them wanted to support him. Unless there was evidence of egregious nepotism — i.e. someone far better qualified for the job was not chosen. Do you know of such evidence?
All that’s going on here is petty sniping between Hilary’s supporters and Bernie’s. As a foreigner, I won’t be voting for either Hillary or Bernie. I know whom I consider the better candidate, and I’ve made that plain in my comments.
Brandon
@magurakurin: Or, as John would say, you could just get your own blog and write what you want and invite who you want to post on it. The internet is a big place.
Hillary Rettig
@Botsplainer: I would be grateful if you would explain why.
FlipYrWhig
@Hillary Rettig:
What if Matt Taibbi’s hypothetical kid likes Bernie Sanders and Matt Taibbi likes Bernie Sanders too? Would that be suspicious? Good God.
Hillary Rettig
@Applejinx: THANK YOU.
It really gets me. I get paid to give talks once in a while – for around $500. And if Goldman Sachs called me and said give a talk, I’d either say no or donate the fee to Bernie or Occupy or something. I don’t understand why Clinton – who has way more money than me despite feeling broke – is held to such a low standard when she takes money from GS aka Zuul the Destroyer aka the Vampire Octopus.
FlipYrWhig
@Amir Khalid: Supporters of a candidate who glowers and harrumphs through every public appearance probably shouldn’t be picking a fight about “likeability” in the first place. Bernie Sanders isn’t “likeable.” He’s righteous, and people who like him like that, but he isn’t “likeable.”
Baud
@Amir Khalid:
I remember when Mitt Romney’s kids patriotically chose to help their dad’s campaign rather than enlist to fight a war they supported.
Lee Hartmann
@Hillary Rettig: PP endorsement of a candidate sucks? Maybe they feel so threatened that they want to go with the supportive candidate that they think has the best chance to win? They may be wrong in that assessment, but given the unprecedented attacks on PP, why shouldn’t they do something unprecedented? Geez.
Brandon
@FlipYrWhig: I have to agree with you here. Ridiculous hypotheticals are ridiculous.
Hillary Rettig
@Amir Khalid: for the record I don’t dislike HRC at all. in fact I would probably like her. and I agree (and said) the critique of likability is sexist as hell. but I included 5 links to reasons people would dislike her as a candidate, which include dissembling, triangulation, and fauxgressivism. Those are factual links.
Adam L Silverman
@Baud: and for it to be an attempt at building a dynasty Secretary Clinton would have to be President Clinton’s daughter. And these positions for Ms. Walsh and Ms. Richards would be sinecures, not nepotism. Nepotism would be if their parents or relatives hired them.
Bobby Thomson
@Hillary Rettig: who said Walsh changed? And she’s not Christiane Amanpour. She’s a liberal op-ed writer. Different standards.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
But The Nation’s pre-nomination endorsement of Sanders is OK, because it has precedents?
dogwood
@OzarkHillbilly:
Anyone or any organization that doesn’t endorse Bernie is an affront to these people. it is unimaginable to me that these people expect organizations to endorse Bernie when during a long career in office he has never lifted a finger to champion their causes. His voting record is ok, but that’s all the support he’s ever given. It’s especially sad to see someone who has the power to raise money and inspire people never bother to do it for anyone other than himself. I’m sure that’s why he isn’t getting endorsements from his colleagues.
PhoenixRising
Oh, for Christssakes
-If you didn’t want to punch that kid at the town hall right in the mouth, you need to see someone to find out how to become a woman over 29 who works in this economy. It was embarrassing to him and to the Sanders campaign, and Joan Walsh could easily have confined herself to 1200 words on that one moment of sleazy immaturity.
-Bernie’s probably okay, if you are good at the audiological test of deriving meaning from shouting, but his fans are just annoying. Let it go. He’s not going to be the President. His contribution to our national discourse is important, and is being detracted from by the attacks on his rival that he’s too smart and ethical to sanction. Once your candidate tells you to shut up, consider shutting up.
-The fact that Joan Walsh doesn’t see ‘my kid and her school friend got each other paying jobs on a campaign that kids at other schools didn’t know existed’ as an indictment of everything about her life reflects badly on Joan Walsh. Not Hillary Clinton.
And now I have to go to work managing to help condescending, clueless white boys think they managed investor money well all by themselves without a grownup lady helping them, and without finally smacking one upside the head while screaming ‘I have towels older than you, and they are more qualified to run this startup!’ so proceed with the rest of the chum. Have fun with it.
OzarkHillbilly
@magurakurin: It’s pretty simple: Don’t read her posts.
Amir Khalid
@Baud:
Suppose the spawn of Mitt were all Democrats. What would you think of Mitt then?
FlipYrWhig
@Hillary Rettig: I don’t like her positions when I disagree with them, and I ALSO don’t like them when I AGREE with them, because she doesn’t really Really REALLY believe in the good ones, I’m pretty sure.
Redshift
Also, leading off with a dismissive “you mad, bro?” is particularly asinine, since the tone of the piece, even the part complaining about sexist trolling, is not at all angry. If you have a real argument, make it.
Matt McIrvin
@Baud: Some of the “dynasty” objections early on just came from people who were bothered by the idea of a Bush vs. Clinton election in 2016. But that’s not going to happen.
FlipYrWhig
@PhoenixRising: BUT GROWNUP LADIES ARE SO UNEXCITING
Hillary Rettig
@Baud: Le sigh. I don’t know what else to call it when they’re setting up the next generation for dominance.
Betty Cracker
@FlipYrWhig: I disagree with you there; I find Bernie likeable — loveable even! — in a sweet old curmudgeon-with-a-heart-of-gold way. I also like Hillary (both of them!). All would be welcome at my tiki bar. Baud too! We could do shots of Jameson’s and discuss the merits of radical vs. incremental change.
Marc
I’d ask Clinton supporters to step back and see if – just maybe, mind you – the perception of annoying supporters of another candidate is actually the main factor, not just some unique problem by supporters of Sanders.
For example – I’m increasingly finding Clinton supporters obnoxious. I expect to vote for her in the general election, and I recognize that my reaction is tied to the fact that I really like the message that Sanders is sending. I’m not going to turn that into some grand theory that Clinton supporters are somehow uniquely bad – I think that they’re attacking a candidate that I like because they prefer a different one. And I honestly could imagine voting for Clinton in a primary if I was convinced that a Sanders win would be a net negative. But I view things like the reparations attack as unmitigated bullshit – pretending that when two candidates have the same view on an issue that it’s OK to to attack only one of them. It’s the sort of thing that people do when they’ve made up their minds and are looking for convenient excuses.
The people here who are attacking Sanders and complaining about his supporters are not neutral observers, and that’s fine. Just exercise some perception and recognize that you’re not neutral, accept that people with the same basic views may disagree on judgement calls. And stick to the positives of Clinton, which are a lot more convincing to people on the fence than attacks on Sanders supporters are.
FlipYrWhig
@Baud: “Dynasty” means I’M BORED SUCH OLD NEWS
Hillary Rettig
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: if there are precedents, yeah that’s better
Baud
@Amir Khalid: If they were Democrats, I’m sure they would have the ones transported on the roof of the car rather than Seamus.
@Matt McIrvin: That was wrong too. It was attempt to make Clinton look worse by melding her with the Bushes, who have been in far more presidential elections than the Clintons.
FlipYrWhig
@Hillary Rettig: Tell me about it. Roosevelts? Kennedys? Pfft.
Betty Cracker
@PhoenixRising:
LMAO!
Baud
@Hillary Rettig: Do you think Chelsea is going to run and win a high level office?
Ruckus
JFC, someone who is prominent has a daughter who follows her footsteps and it’s nepotism? Am I misunderstanding the entire point? Is the daughter getting paid to stand there and look pretty or is she actively working for her chosen candidate because she might have a mind of her own? At what point is a child their own person and not a pawn owned by their parents? Are they over 18? They have famous parents, so fucking what? I followed in my fathers footsteps and neither he nor I are famous or ever will be. I worked hard and was paid the same wages as anyone else in his business. I cleaned the floors and the toilet, made coffee and worked my way up. Yes I got opportunity that others in the world did not, but then so do many people who don’t have famous parents or who happen to be in the right place at the right time or born to someone who wants to provide for their kids. And yes nepotism exists ¿jeb?, tDump and Romney are perfect examples of that.
Bobby Thomson
@FlipYrWhig: and Levine worked at a law firm that represented CORPORATIONS! Including – gasp – Monsanto! Bernie is just a tool of the oligarchy!
I’ve indulged this argument too much already. It’s too far into the weeds for anyone to care about it. It’s like McCain ranting about bear semen.
SarahT
@Hillary Rettig: Maybe, like me, she’s tired of her motives being second guessed by Bernie supporters ? She gives her reasons for supporting Hillary but apparently, still not good enough, because anyone with a brain would HAVE to be a Bernie supporter, right ? Balls to that. I’m thoroughly sick of the condescenion of his supporters and yes, the occasional condescenion of the great man himself, but the constant mansplaining and whitesplaining by Bernie supporters is, IMHO, one of several valid reasons to support Hillary.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Me too. He’s very funny. I liked the way he played along with Larry Wilmore and Larry David. His faux-blustery correction of Cuomo about his age. He’s very likable. But he can’t win a general election.
@Marc: we’re responding to the OP
Baud
It’s pretty clear at this point that Baud! 2016! supporters are the only decent people on this planet.
FlipYrWhig
@Marc: Maybe calling everyone who isn’t so enthusiastic about Bernie Sanders a retrograde corporate patsy and tool of corrupt power is ALSO a bad idea!
Lord Baldrick
@Hillary Rettig: Excellent points, but all lost here in Clinton country.
Still, having PP execs back Clinton against Mr. 100% Voting Record shows why Clinton will advance in the primary – Clinton money talks. I back Sanders, but will vote for Clinton in the GE if she handles Sanders as expected.
Two biggest problems in the GE:
*Clinton’s strongest primary states won’t be so supportive in the GE.
*Trump: “Vote For Me, Make America Grate Again”
Clinton: “Vote Against Him”
Messaging might not work this year. I have been phone-banking for Sanders, and there is a sentiment out there that Trump may successfully exploit.
OzarkHillbilly
@dogwood: I don’t really want to get into that kind of fratricidal sniping. I am just asking an honest question and would like Hillary to respond if she should choose to.
bystander
@Betty Cracker:
Another thing I like about her is that she’s West Coast. Nice to hear someone mainstream who is not from NYC or DC and who is not a kook.
A Socialist, and, frankly, a Johnny Come Lately to the Democratic Party, has less chance than McGovern or Dukakis. I want a Democrat in the WH in January 2017.
msb
“the appearance of quid-pro-quo with a journalist, and with Planned Parenthood’s unprecedented pre-nomination endorsement of HRC”
Aren’t you interested in proof? Apparently not. I remember Molly Ivins writing a lot of positive things about Ann Richards, who was a close friend. Should she have written nothing? The unprecendented attacks on PP and Hillary’s unequalled support and advocacy for PP seem like adequate reasons for the endorsement to me.
And if you wanted to convince me that you were giving fair-minded criticism of Hillary, I would think you’d have included her name in the tags for the post.
Hillary Rettig
@PhoenixRising: >If you didn’t want to punch that kid at the town hall right in the mouth,
FINALLY SOMETHING WE CAN ALL AGREE ON!
>And now I have to go to work managing to help condescending, clueless white boys think they managed investor money well all by themselves without a grownup lady helping them, and without finally smacking one upside the head while screaming ‘I have towels older than you, and they are more qualified to run this startup!’ so proceed with the rest of the chum. Have fun with it.
my sympathies…
Adam L Silverman
@Adam L Silverman: additionally, the real problem is the limited pool of personnel that are chosen, regardless of cabinet or party, to fill key positions. We recycle the same people over and over, as well as their protégés, and this serves to artificially limit and narrow our policy options and the stratgies that could be developed to resolve problems. Personnel is policy and our personnel (gene) pool is artificially shallow.
Anya
@Betty Cracker: the most annoying Sanders trolls I encounter on twitter are the olds. Most are middle aged men with too much time on their hands and too annoying. THey spend most of their time attacking Obama and then Clinton.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@FlipYrWhig: I tend not to be romantic about politicians, but by all accounts Beau Biden was a remarkable individual. And I say that as someone who was partly relieved when Crhis Coons beat Christine O’Donnell because it spared us a dynastic Senator with Beau Biden in the next cycle. I think I was very wrong about that.
That said, what I’ve seen of Chelsea Clinton suggests she would be a really shitty candidate.
Paul in KY
@Applejinx: Sorry you are having problems with your SS stuff. Hope it is resolved in your favor (assuming you are not trying to screw over the American taxpayers).
FlipYrWhig
@Betty Cracker: I know and like a lot of Bernie Sanders types, but that’s not what “likeability” means in a political context. “Likeability” connotes warmth and friendliness. Bernie has integrity, righteousness, authenticity, and people like and respect those things, but IMNSHO that’s not the same as likeability.
FlipYrWhig
@Lord Baldrick: EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS NON-BERNIE IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR
Hillary Rettig
@ruemara: Bernie has a 100% rating from PP just as Hillary does.
Even assuming that Hillary would be a somewhat more steadfast advocate for PP than Bernie – and that’s a big assumption given the realities in Washington – that doesn’t mean Bernie wouldn’t be a good advocate.
In my mind any extra support Hillary might have for PP are nullified by her centrism on so many other things. “it’s the inequality stupid.” Unless we address that nothing else matters, and everything else is at risk. That’s why I support Bernie.
benw
On most issues where they differ (I think there’s not a lot of significant difference on most issues), I agree with Bernie’s policies more than Hillary’s. I think that accurately predicting things like who is more electable in the general (e.g. likeability, “socialism”) and what exactly their presidency will accomplish is almost impossible (e.g. Obama – if you’d told me just before Iowa in 2007 that the skinny black dude was going to win and legislate a massive upgrade in health care I’d have been skeptical). So I’m voting for Bernie in the primary. That both campaigns have some supporters who are annoying jerks on the internet I disregard. On the dynasty question, I think both campaigns should pledge now to nominate their children for VEEP:
SANDERS/SANDERS or CLINTON/CLINTON 2016
Iowa Old Lady
When people say they don’t trust Clinton, I honestly would like them to go on and say what they don’t trust her to do or not do. Presumably they’re looking at her record and donors. The implications and consequences of those things can be examined and talked about. But “you’re not trustworthy” can’t.
Paul in KY
@Gin & Tonic: I think one of Bill’s long ago ancestors was hereditary drunk of Fingal.
Beyond that, nothing.
OzarkHillbilly
@Hillary Rettig: I have to say, it’s called a Democracy and any one who wants (and meets the constitutional requirements) can run. If the people don’t like it, they are free to vote against them. I don’t like any argument that disqualifies a person based on who their relatives are any more than one that endorses someone based on who their relatives are.
It’s the same plugged nickel.
ETA cause I brain farted
Hillary Rettig
@FlipYrWhig: judging from his crowds, many people obviously disagree.
for many of us, authenticity is not just highly likeable, but a breath of fresh air.
kindness
I’m glad Democrats have an actual choice this primary season. What disturbs me is very much the same thing as what disturbed Joan. That young knucklehead that announced that youth doesn’t like Hillary (fine, I’m OK with that even if it is an over-generalization) and considers Hillary to be dishonest. OK, it’s that part I find offensive. First off I don’t think Hillary is dishonest. Saying as such to a national audience in support of Bernie is stupid as this is Fox News cannon fodder. You can support Bernie without slagging the other candidates like Fox does. That is just plain moronic.
Me? I like Bernie. I probably prefer his policies over Hillary’s. But I am not convinced Bernie could win the general election. I have no doubts Hillary would. The Supreme Court is in the balance and it is more important than the purity of thought/policy that Bernie brings. I won’t gamble away my children’s future with the prospect of packing that court with more right wing nuts.
Hillary Rettig
@Baud: I have written for HP. I was recommended by one of their existing authors (whom I wasn’t related to btw ;-)) and wrote a few articles for them. It was good exposure. But I stopped writing for them when they refused to publish a piece I wrote without explanation (I suspect it would have offended one of AH’s business interests) and also when she made millions from the sale to AOL and didn’t share any of it. // Now I regret that I wrote for her at all.
OzarkHillbilly
@Baud: Yeah! All 3 of them!
Botsplainer
“Bernie gave a soundbite on an issue and the phrase was memed into a shareable internet photo of Bernie scowling and shaking his fist about it. Every org interested in the issue is obligated to support Bernie!!!!! Eleventy11!!!!”
Anya
I am a huge supporter of Planned Parenthood and their involvement into the highly charged primary wars bothered me a lot. I have lots of issues with Hillary Clinton but I am supporting her based on electability alone. I want a Dem to win because the country can’t afford a republican win. Going back to Planned Parenthood, they should’ve stayed neutral.
Did Planner Parenthood endorse HRC over Obama in 08? Somehow I don’t remember it being a thing.
Davis X. Machina
@SarahT:
It doesn’t matter if you’re interested in the dialectic, the dialectic is interested in you.
MomSense
If anyone doubts the trolling of Sandernistas, just go check out the awfulness directed at Elon James White and Imani Gandy, neither of whom have endorsed a candidate.
Hillary Rettig
@kindness: is this not an example of Clinton’s dishonesty, or disingenuousness at the very least:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/12/actually-hillary-clintons-wall-street-money-more-than-double-that-3-percent/
FlipYrWhig
@Hillary Rettig: No one in the brief history of the concept of “likeability” in politics has ever used it to mean that, but, whatevs.
dogwood
@OzarkHillbilly:
Sorry. But to me it’s not fratricidal sniping. How can it be when Bernie never joined the fraternity. It’s pretty darn easy to protect your reputation and integrity as an independent politician from a liberal white state. You can stay above it all. You don’t have to raise money for a party or campaign for like-minded candidates. You can be perpetually critical without having to actually do anything. I don’t have anything against Bernie personally; he seems decent enough. But he’s been a political free-rider for decades, and that isn’t a quality I want in a President.
Brandon
@Baud: I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the “dynasty” issue. I would tend to define “dynasty” a bit more broadly than you.
Iowa Old Lady
Also I can’t believe we’re talking about the jobs people’s children get. This needs to be over soon before we all lose our minds.
Baud
@Hillary Rettig:
Technically right is the best kind of right.
Lisa
@dogwood: Right. I like Sanders and, though I am all in for the Hillz for the primaries, will vote for him enthusiastically in the general, should he get the nod. But I am really starting to loathe a huge swathe of his supporters. They are really fucking mean. And though all candidates like to put out these pledges for people to sign saying they are going to vote for them (it is a good way to gauge your loyal base and get some info from them) there are way too many “Bernie or NO ONE” pledges floating around out there. That is not a cool. Not cool at all.
schrodinger's cat
@Iowa Old Lady: I say that’s still better than recipes with Frankencheese.
FlipYrWhig
@dogwood: That’s not fair. He does things. He’s kind of a grind in his actual job, and so is Hillary Clinton. But the _aura_ around Bernie Sanders, which he wholeheartedly believes as the Grand Unified Theory of politics, is that THE MANY PEOPLE LIKE US DEMAND THINGS AND THEN ITS BETTER, which is totally fucking stupid, and I’m already tired of hearing about it.
chopper
what is it about Bernie supporters’ incessant need to bernsplain at every person or organization that publicly backs clinton exactly why they’re idiots for doing so?
L Boom
As a Vermonter who’s been voting for Bernie for 20+ years and has met him several times, I gotta say “likability” isn’t really something that works with him. “Lovable old curmudgeon?” Sure. But likable, in the sense of someone you could relate to over a beer and a conversation? Not unless you want to be on the wrong end of a lecture with no chance of escape.
And Jane’s the scourge of adjuncts all over central and northern Vermont, with Burlington College still struggling to dig itself out of the rubble she left behind. Now she’s working the same magic at Goddard. She’s much less likable/loveable than her husband.
All that said, my family is only grudgingly leaning towards Hilary. Bernie’s politics are great, but I see him as being much more useful on the national stage for starting and maintaining actual left-wing political conversations. I was blown away by some of the topics that came up on the first Democratic debate. I don’t see him holding up on a long campaign without alienating large swathes of people over time.
chopper
it’s as if every single endorsement inherently belongs to Bernie and Clinton is somehow illegally poaching them.
Betty Cracker
@Hillary Rettig:
And that’s what keeps me on the fence during this primary season, even though I think HRC is more electable and I will obviously vote for whichever Democrat prevails. The growing gulf between rich and poor must be narrowed or a vote won’t be worth a fart in a whirlwind.
That’s Bernie Sanders’ signature issue, and I respect him for it and am grateful he’s made it such a key part of the discussion. But I do think HRC understands that better than her most vociferous detractors believe. President Obama attempted to orchestrate the largest top-down transfer of wealth in US history with the much-maligned ACA, and I think HRC intends to continue his work and expand on it.
By the time Florida votes in the primary, it probably won’t matter. But my vote is still up for grabs!
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Baud: I’ll need a ruling that counts Pinnochios or includes phrases like “pants on fire”. Or a Mark Halperin grinding curve
@Iowa Old Lady: Yup
FlipYrWhig
@chopper: ITS A POLITICAL REVOLUTION
Lisa
@dogwood: Real shit. When he has to compromise and give up something to get something, every one of his supporters will hate him so much and want to toss him in to the Fires of Mordor. Kind of like they did Obama. They want the world. They want the whole world. They want to lock it up all on their pocket because its their box of chocolate….give it to them NOW.
kindness
@Hillary Rettig: My point was someone who want a Democrat to win the election should not try to further their cause by using Fox tactics against their Democratic opponent. If that kid doesn’t think his 60 seconds of fame won’t be used in the general election by who ever wins the Republican race he’s as much an asshole as he comes across.
Don’t bite off your nose to spite your face. How hard is that?
Hillary Rettig
@Iowa Old Lady: Great point.
I don’t trust her to reinstate Glass-Steagall and break up the banks–mostly because her campaign said she won’t. http://robertreich.org/post/124114229225
This is the foundation for any meaningful reform of the corrupt financial system that brought this country (and others) down, and that has gotten even stronger and more corrupt over the past decade.
OzarkHillbilly
@dogwood: I’m not talking about Bernie or Hillary. I’m talking about the insulting tones so many of their supporters feel the need to use, and that IS fratricidal. We’re all Dems.
Redshift
@Hillary Rettig:
No, it fucking well doesn’t. Did you come into the article via a link from someone angry about it before you actually read it? Is the fact that you’re butthurt about one paragraph maybe coloring your reading? Even her paragraph complaining about the trolling is fairly measured.
Hillary Rettig
@kindness: agree 100%
dogwood
@Lisa:
I suspect among young people Bernie attracts a lot of the same voters that were in love with Ron Paul. I was still teaching US government in ’08 and many of my student were totally enamored with Papa Doc. The young man who addressed Hillary at the townhall seemed typical of the Ron Paul kids I knew.
OzarkHillbilly
@Hillary Rettig: I read that when it first came out. My reaction was “Meh. What else is new?”
Lisa
@FlipYrWhig: Right. HRC is a total mom totebagger who probably listens to Will Shortz avidly on Sunday mornings. She didn’t even get what was so funny about her “texting with sunglasses” meme. Lame.
I love her.
schrodinger's cat
@Betty Cracker: His my way or high way style is not going to help bridge the economic divide. This is the home of capitalism, a socialist is not going to win a national election. I just don’t see it happening.
Mike E
Uncloaking to give the mobile site a thumbs up…would it hurt to put a Top of Comments button at the very bottom of the page? Or, Prev/Next toggles down here…thanks, buh-bye
WarMunchkin
@Iowa Old Lady: While we’re here, though, is anyone else seriously weirded out when things like, I dunno, Andrew Cuomo becoming Governor of New York or Bush The Younger becoming President happens? Nepotism is weird and just accepted because we like the familiar – we don’t cultivate a healthy cultural hostility towards it.
SarahT
@Davis X. Machina: Heh. Well, right now the dialectic will just have to gay avek (Yiddish for “take a walk”) – gotta head to the subway because Hillary supporters don’t get Purity Ponies,
Paul in KY
@Hillary Rettig: I’m not sure I would turn down Goldman-Sachs if they offered me that dough (and I would be OK with executing their complete management team). The deal breaker would be if they wanted control in any way over my message to them.
Cacti
Bernfeelers still can’t get over their personal pique at PP and Cecile Richards by extension, for having the temerity to endorse someone besides the one true candidate.
And in this case it starts at the top. Can Sanders supporters point to a comparable instance of Clinton making a point to diss any of the orgs that have endorsed Sanders?
WarMunchkin
@dogwood:
Or, you know, Barack Obama. It’s easy to fall prey to your heuristics here when broad-brushing a candidate’s support. It’s really just simple to me – people who came of political age after 9/11 and the Iraq War were considered things that happened in their “childhood” view the financial crisis as the defining issue of this era. Thus, they are more likely to vote for the candidate who speaks to that world view.
Lisa
@dogwood: You are probably right. He appeals to a certain kind of dudebro who believes that just by being kickass and clever, shit will just GET DONE exactly the way you want it to. When you ask them about the importance of being able to work with congress, they go on about how congress sucks. They have no plans to vote in the midterms, local elections, NOTHIN’. They just want to get someone into the White House who will say really cool stuff, like Martin Sheen’s monologues in “The West Wing” and then drop the mic and everything will be awesome.
schrodinger's cat
@Adam L Silverman: Are you going to do another update the loon refuge?
Paul in KY
@Ruckus: The difference would be if you had jumped right-off-the-bat into a high level job under your father, without any prior verifiable experience, other than being your father’s kid.
Hillary Rettig
@schrodinger’s cat: OK I had to LOL despite myself. Good one.
Lisa
@WarMunchkin: And remember how supportive of Barack Obama the kids were after the election and when the real work started? Yeah. Not so much. They went back to their sparkle ponies and he had to scrape through with a shitty congress (because voting in the midterms is not important to kids who need people to “speak to their experience”).
Brandon
@Betty Cracker:
I am curious on this point as I am ignorant of the intricacies her health care position. My understanding is that she has staked out a position of maintaining and defending the ACA, not expanding it. Which is probably just as well for now in the current climate. But has her campaign proposed something else I missed?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Stupid Krugman
April
@Hillary Rettig: I suppose that is why you won’t be able to influence any of the Wall Street types, you think they are all evil and that taking their money to tell them what you want to tell them is somehow compromising. I am no worshipper of Wall Street, but they are big movers in our economy and politics and if they were to give me opportunity to tell them what
I think and take money they don’t need from them, sign me up!
Also, your “concern” over the children of journalists having their own opinions and lives is strange. Are they to stay out of the political arena they have been steeped in their whole lives just because of their parents job? Can’t they live? Or do you think that Joan should skip election reporting because of her children’s job choices?
Hillary Rettig
Hey good peepz – I need to bow out and get going with the rest of my day. Thanks for the discussion and TTYS
Calouste
@magurakurin: I’d definitely say that this Hillary Rettig person is the worst pick as a front pager by Cole since Freddie de Boer.
Iowa Old Lady
@Hillary Rettig: Now that’s useful. Is her campaign saying something different than she personally is saying? If she’s consistent, then that’s a question of policy difference, not honesty.
Re the kid at the Town Hall. To me, he looked really nervous asking his question. I can accept a certain amount of arrogance in the young. Sometimes they need it to wade through all the new experiences life is throwing at them. Time usually cures it. It’s arrogance in the middle-aged and older that makes me want to smack someone.
Botsplainer
@chopper:
The proletariat should know from birth what is right, and the vanguard should be skillful at directing that knowledge toward the seizure of the means of production.
schrodinger's cat
@Hillary Rettig: You are winning me over with your sporting spirit and sense of humor. Thanks!
Paul in KY
@Lord Baldrick: Here’s a commercial for Der Trump in the general:
Show pictures of Putin, Chief Ayatollah, ISIS thug, etc & then say
‘How can you face down these people when you can’t face down Megyn Kelly?’
And scene…
Barbara
Because, you know, it’s not as if Bernie Sanders and men in general have benefited from a built in bias towards men for the last millenium. No doubt Bernie would have achieved in JUST THE SAME way if he had been born a woman. Or, as my mother said to me when I supported Obama in 2008, “why is it that nepotism only comes to the fore when it’s a woman who is running? Did anyone accuse Al Gore of being the beneficiary of nepotism? Why is being someone’s wife worse than being someone’s son or daughter?”
I sometimes ask myself if Hillary Clinton would have been a better president than Obama, and my view is, in some ways, probably yes, and in others probably no, but I have no doubt she would be a better president than Sanders. I don’t care who she is related to. I am not going to punish her and her alone for what has become a built in deficit of fairness and access. She is not the product of wealth, unlike most of her Republican counterparts.
Cacti
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Hell, even the sainted Elizabeth Warren has acknowledged that reinstating Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have prevented the subprime crisis.
JMG
Dear Ms. Rettig: In 2007-2008, my son did advance work for the Obama campaign. The Clinton-Obama race was a hot topic in my very Democratic town, so when asked about my position, I’d say, “I’m for Obama. He gave my son a job. I’m from Boston, he’s from Chicago, and we understand each other.”
Jobs for your friends and the children of friends is how politics work. If you think that in his 40 year career Bernie Sanders never found employment for a relative of a Vermont supporter you are delusional.
Cacti
@Calouste:
She’s like a DougJ parody of an enthusiastic Sanders supporter.
Lisa
@Barbara: Word. I have said that to people. They are harder on her about her connections than they were to Bush sometimes. Man, people go NUCLEAR when you point that out.
dogwood
@L Boom:
Unlike Michelle Obama (also too Hillary and Laura), Ms Sanders will be a real First Lady who represents real Americans. Not some insincere lawyer, or school teacher.
College presidents are the new working class, I guess. This isn’t Bernie’s schtick, but some of his supporters are flat-out embarrassing.
Paul in KY
@kindness: Might have been a Republican plant or a doofus put up by them (who didn’t know/understand he was being used by them).
japa21
@Hillary Rettig:
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Cacti: @Calouste: Does no one remember the brief blog splatter of Bernard Finel?
OzarkHillbilly
@Calouste: I’m just gonna hazard a guess and say that Cole doesn’t pick his FPers to please you. Or me for that matter.
FlipYrWhig
@WarMunchkin:
Is the “world view” “banks fucked me over and I’m still pissed”? OK, understandable. So what is “breaking up the big banks” and how do you accomplish it, and is a small bank less likely to fuck you over than a large bank? Isn’t it the fucking-over part that’s the problem, and the size and structure of the bank beside the point?
I feel like it’s the same argument as about Obamacare and insurance companies. Do we “break up” insurance companies because they suck? How, by buying them up and tearing them down? Or do we regulate them to make them suck less?
Melissa
Oh, please. I’m a female Bernie supporter, as is my mom. This lumping of Bernie supporters into a “BernieBros” trope does no good — some people don’t like Hillary, and it’s not because of sexism. I want a president with a vision, not one who starts out saying “well, that’s not practical.” What is good policy? Shouldn’t we work toward it rather than starting with a compromise?
Yes, compromises will be made in reality: but better to start with big ideas and bargain down, than start with smaller ideas and bargain down from there. Yes, I voted and supported Obama … and yes, I think he will go down as a great president, despite a few foreign policy issues I have with him … But Hillary is not Obama, and yes I think Goldman Sachs is a huge problem for her – GS has had way too much influence in our government, both under Republicans and Democrats, and I think it needs to end.
hueyplong
Re: Kids on campaign staff. It’s working on a campaign, not being named to a cabinet post. If it’s nepotism in a bad sense, that’s good for your guy because she won’t have the most able person in whateverthefck spots her daughter and the PP person’s daughter are occupying.
Re: PP endorsement. They have a preference. They said so. So what? They didn’t pick your guy. Sucks. Someone else will. With luck, it will be people in voting booths. If it ain’t, your guy will lose, and then you’ll vote for the other person in a race against an actual threat to the nation.
I want a third Obama term, but that can’t happen, so I’ll support the winner. It’s not like either actual Democratic candidate wants to deport eleventyzillion people, crawl up into women’s hey-that’s-my-place, declare a war each month, or make sure half the nation is uninsured.
Botsplainer
@schrodinger’s cat:
The fellas at the refuge are prolly slow to rise after their (no joke) night of sitting around the campfire drinking beer and smoking weed.
Hope they enjoyed it; I hear that the best pruno makes the worst beer taste wonderful in comparison.
Paul in KY
@WarMunchkin: I think a lot of people who work/own their own businesses practice nepotism & thus don’t see that much wrong with it.
Paul in KY
@Calouste: She’s better than Freddie, that’s for sure.
StellaB
@schrodinger’s cat: My husband used to lean Bernie, but has blocked the annoying Bernie-bots from his Facebook page and is rethinking his position. I don’t Facebook because it would drive me insane.
@FlipYrWhig: the Adams, the Harrisons, the Pierces (“Pierce?” you say? Barbara Pierce married a young WWII veteran and had several children that you have heard of.) The Roosevelts were fifth or sixth cousins, more closely related by marriage.
Bernie doesn’t have a history of working well with others in Congress. Since we all understand that presidents don’t legislate by fiat, we need a president who can at least get cooperation from his or her own side.
I vote for the party, myself, so the choice for me is between HRC and Martin O’Malley. I am pleased to hear that Bernie has decided to lower himself to becoming a Democrat, though. If he demonstrates loyalty for a few years, I might consider him in the future.
I’m not about to forgive his horrible record on the NRA, despite his recent poor rating from that organization. My family was devestated by the accidental shooting of a child and guns are an important matter to me.
It is interesting to find out that a senator’s wife is not a member of the middle class like the Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Obama. I wouldn’t have guessed.
Betty Cracker
@Brandon: See here.
Iowa Old Lady
@Botsplainer: I’m thinking that live stream is pure gold to any law enforcement looking for evidence of things to charge these guys with.
Lisa
@hueyplong: I love you. Well said. I love all three of our candidates. Because they are NOT CRAZY!! Let’s stay focused making sure ONE OF THEM gets into the Oval Office. The alternative is to horrific to contemplate.
Patricia Kayden
@Punchy: I agree with you. Dems have two good candidates. Let’s not tear each other apart. Just support who you like in the primaries and commit to supporting the general candidate in the general election.
As a great Black man once asked “Can’t we all just get along?”
FlipYrWhig
@Melissa: What was the thing Hillary did for Goldman Sachs again? Was it something other than getting paid to give platitudinous speeches and taking campaign contributions from certain of their employees?
Betty Cracker
@Barbara: Well said.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Not an expert, but IIRC when FDR got into politics he played up his connection(s) to his wife’s beloved uncle.
dogwood
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
You are wasting your time. The repeal of GS as the cause of the crash is gospel to people like Hillary Rettig. It’s been debunked for years, and it just doesn’t matter. The fact that Sanders still rides this hobby horse, tells me he isn’t all that well-versed in causes of the crisis. Reinstating GS is fine, but it won’t necessarily prevent another crash.
WarMunchkin
@Lisa: Historically, “the kids” have voted in Presidential elections and not voted on off-year elections. That’s been true since forever. For years, Democrats have been trying to figure out how to increase engagement among younger voters in all elections. If you want to insulate the choice of Presidential candidates from “the kids”, then the only real way to do that is to deny the right to vote in a primary for people who haven’t voted in Congressional and local elections. That will get you what you want.
@Paul in KY: In my ideal world, people would be embarrassed by that. Though I understand the role history plays in it – I’m sure sons and daughters were apprentices to their fathers and mothers; that practice has been around forever.
Mnemosyne
@Hillary Rettig:
So saying 3% instead of 7.2% is proof of lying and dishonesty? It was okay for less than 5% of her donations to come from Wall Street, but now that we know the truth is that it’s less than 10% percent — more than double what she said! — that shows that she’s controlled by them?
You may need to cut back on your caffeine intake. Just sayin’.
hilts
“But to pretend that Clinton doesn’t come with a lot of baggage—or that nepotism is unobjectionable—is simply delusional.”
@Hillary Rettig:
I stopped taking Joan Walsh seriously once she became a sycophant for that repulsive, babbling jackass Chris Matthews.
Betty Cracker
@Patricia Kayden: Oh, what fun would that be? Seriously, though, thank dog for the Internet or I might have gone through life not knowing that scads of people who share my basic liberal values are blithering idiots and/or vile douchebags.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I know, just offering a counterpoint to those that are interested
And for the record, if I were elected to absolute progressive monarchy Sanders supporters seem to think he’s running for, I would break up the banks out of spite, and issue lettres de cachet order the seizure of Jamie Dimon, Martin Shkreli (don’t care if that’s spelled wrong) and the AIG guy.
Brandon
@Betty Cracker: Thanks, especially since you could’ve just said “Google it yourself”.
Basically her position is (i) defend ACA (which I suspected) and (ii) reduce costs for co-pays, deductibles and prescription drugs. Not bad, but I suspect out of pocket costs are kind of like whack-a-mole. Reducing co-pays and deductibles don’t mean much if those costs are passed right back through premium increases. I’ve seen some recent projections on costs of bronze plans on the exchanges and it is rather worrisome for the future of the ACA.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Did I hear right? Is Aretha Franklin about to be on MSNBC to talk Flint?
kindness
@Paul in KY: Freddie was a shitty version of Andrew Sullivan. Try and fathom what his posting here would have been like. Can you say ‘Clusterfuck’? Yes, you can.
gelfling545
@schrodinger’s cat: I could be heading that way myself. I have been supporting Sanders right along but do not see the need (and apparently neither does Sanders) to cast HRC as Satan. It be a good move for him to ask his supporters to “accentuate the positive” of his campaign & stop the unhinged attacks.
Amir Khalid
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Please refresh my memory: What was the maiden name of FDR’s wife?
Eric U.
Our Democratic-leaning journalists suck. I don’t want Roger Ailes-style propagandists, but this sort of Democrat on Democrat nutpicking isn’t appreciated.
Kay
@Iowa Old Lady:
Well, but Clinton could have done that. Instead she assumed he didn’t or doesn’t trust her because she’s been attacked for 30 years. She can’t supply the implied answer to how she perceives his question. That leaves no role for him at all.
Mind-reading is one of the things people do to women that Joan Walsh probably objects to- it makes me crazy in my job. The people who do it are taking a position that they don’t have to listen to you– they know what you’re thinking and they’re assuming you are either uninformed or misinformed.
rdldot
@Hillary Rettig: That’s fine for you. Obviously PP has come to a different conclusion.
Brandon
@Lisa: You have to be fair that Obama also dismantled his campaign apparatus. There were plenty of “kids” after the election ready and eager to keep pushing on, but instead basically were told to go home and get on with their lives.
schrodinger's cat
@Amir Khalid: Just in case, your question was not rhetorical. Roosevelt, her uncle was of course Teddy Roosevelt.
BTW how is the paw?
Cacti
@Melissa:
Tool of the corporate establishment (snark) Nancy Pelosi has already told The Bern that middle class tax hikes are a dead letter for the House Dem caucus.
It’s going to be a lonely job for Bernie being a one man revolution.
Mike J
@WarMunchkin:
It’s hard to call it nepotism when it explicitly requires a majority of votes.
Felonius Monk
@schrodinger’s cat:
LMAO.
Amir Khalid
@schrodinger’s cat: The paw is still there. I think there will be an operation on my hand in mid-to-late February, but that remains subject to confirmation.
ETA: So you’re saying she kept her surname after marrying FDR? Wasn’t that considered a bit scandalous in those days?
Kay
@Iowa Old Lady:
Mind reading is about control. It’s about controlling the interaction or dispute so the person doing it can fight on their best turf. “You say I’m dishonest? Well, I’ll tell you why you say that. Because I have been attacked (often falsely) for 30 years”.
I don’t even mind her doing it! It’s aggressive and strategic and Clinton probably can run rings around him and obviously framing this as about whether she has been attacked for 30 years is a stronger position for her. It’s true she’s been attacked for 30 years. It may or may not answer his question though.
Brandon
@FlipYrWhig: Her relationship with Wall Street is a bit of a mixed bag, as detailed by ProPublica.
https://www.propublica.org/article/hillary-clinton-mixed-record-on-wall-street-tough-cut-it-out-talk
chris m
@dogwood:
“Why would anyone resent Cecile Richards’ daughter being prominent on any campaign?”
Perhaps because it is just one more instance of the wealthy and well connected abusing their class priviledge. There are undoubtedly lots of people who are equally committed to both the cause of Planned Parenthood and Hillary Clinton and would to get the career boost that a prominent position in the campaign brings. Unfortunately for them they chose the wrong parents.
The favortism toward the well connected shown here is precisely the sort of thing that half the country is up in arms about and the fact that Hillary can’t see this is one reason she’s a lousy Democratic candidate and potentially a lousy Democratic president.
schrodinger's cat
@Amir Khalid: Even more scandalous, her husband took her last name.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
In 2008, there was an attempt on the part of the Clintonistas to tarnish Obama supporters the same way they are going after Sanders supporters now. It was just as silly now as it was then.
hilts
OT
Chicago Police Hid Mics, Destroyed Dashcams To Block Audio, Records Show
h/t https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160127/archer-heights/whats-behind-no-sound-syndrome-on-chicago-police-dashcams
dogwood
@Kay:
“That leaves no role for him at all”
Oh come on Kay, he played his role to perfection. His question wasn’t designed to get a response. It was designed to make her uncomfortable. It wasn’t an uncomfortable policy question, it was a nasty personal question he was smugly proud to pose. I don’t dismiss young people and their concerns; I taught high school for 35 years and loved my clientele. But I don’t give young people a pass on being deliberate assholes. What you wanted her to do was ask him why he didn’t trust her so he could spout more embarrassing stuff. She didn’t give him the chance.
oldgold
I am starting to detect more than whiff of firebagger smoke from some of the Sander’s partisans.
After 2010, I thought the purists might have learned a valuable political lesson. I guess not.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Then it shouldn’t be hard for you to name two.
can you point to the blog post that proves the negative that Bernie has never hired anyone he know, nor the children of anyone he knows? Did you know, or give a fuck, 24 hours ago that Cecile Richards had a daughter, or where she worked?
Jesus Christ. This isn’t moving goal posts, it’s redefining the Platonic idea of goal posts. Lighten up, Francisses.
Iowa Old Lady
@Kay: That’s true too. I saw that you gave this analysis a couple of days ago and thought it made sense. All she had to do was say, “Can you say a little more about what you want me to do” or something like that.
OTOH: I have to say I recently read Axelrod’s book and was impressed by how carefully campaigns think about openings they don’t want to give the competition. I’d be a terrible candidate.
Redshift
@Kay:
Come on. The essence of being a politician is answering the question you wanted rather than the one that was asked. It can be frustrating as hell when you really want an answer, or when you think you know a more honest but still better answer, but it’s hardly unique to this instance.
geg6
@Hillary Rettig:
By this measure, I’m guessing you are haranguing Sherrod Brown to divorce Connie Schultz? Or he’s some kind of corporate nepotistic sellout, right?
Jesus, I’m really done with the Berniacs.
chris m
@Mike J: It’s not hard for me when they would never have been in a position to be seeking those votes in the first place but for their family connections.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@geg6:
Have you thought about setting up a group called PUMA?
geg6
@Hillary Rettig:
Well, she might want it for oh, maybe, to pay for staff? To donate to her husband’s foundation?
I don’t think you have those things to worry about, but I could be wrong.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Patricia Kayden:
It was fairly polite until Bernie passed HRC in polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. Bernie had some good ideas, was very helpful in nailing down the left flank for HRC, helped the Democratic brand as a whole, helped build enthusiasm. Helped deflect questions and criticism of HRC vis a viv the email server stuff, Benghazi and her husband’s philandering past.
Now he and his stupid supporters are totally getting on my last fucking nerve!
Kay
@dogwood:
You can do that, dogwood. You can supply a motive. I might even agree with your evaluation of his motive and what he knows or doesn’t know. I don’t think political candidates can do that. For better or worse, they have to assume good faith. Not in their opponents! In “the public”. You know this drill- candidate goes to town hall, person asks bad question, candidate either answers bad question or reframes in such a way that answer to different question is called for. Town hall questions are often terrible.
Obama does this all the time. “I recognize there is a legit disagreement and debate over my dog and questions have been raised” :)
The “trust” thing will come up again and again because media have polling on it. She can answer it when posed by this person or she can wait until a media personality poses it.
WarMunchkin
@Mike J:
Oh come on, seriously. It’s hard to just stumble your way into politics. That’s why some random dude named Barack Obama doing so well is such a big deal. The connections and opportunities cultivated and given to these people with big names is exactly what gets them into a position to be elected in the first place. Voting for someone whose name you recognize is pretty much a politics marketing 101. It’s not a stretch to call this nepotism at all. Nepotism isn’t just explicitly handing a job to someone with your name – it’s recognizing the social factors that go into virtually guaranteeing that it happens.
chris m
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I could name a dozen and you probably could too but what would be the point. We’re talking about young people trying to start their careers, neither one of is going to know them.
It’s not incumbent on me to prove Bernie is pure as the driven snow, it’s objectively obvious that he has abused his position of power tp benefit himself, his family and his friends one hell of a lot less than the Clintons. CNN didn’t pay his daughter 600k for a no-show job and he hasn’t collected $100 million for speechs to the same criminals that threw the world into financial chaos.
What difference does it make if I knew about Cecille Richard’s daughter 24 hours ago? I can’t object to something if I’ve only just found out about it?
Lisa
@Brandon: But to then say that because he worked with congress as much as he could, he was a loser and a wimp? Or because he did not shoot magical sparkle rays out of his hands and vaporize all of the hedgefund managers, he was a Wall Street crony? I suspect that if Sanders wins the primary and the general election and then has to start making practical decisions, he will go from awesome to Worst Person Ever in short order.
Anya
I know this is thread is a Dem flame war but look at what <a href="
“>Trump retweeted:
FlipYrWhig
@chris m:
Christ al-fucking-mighty. Yes, it’s quite a scandal that the granddaughter of one of the country’s most famous female Democrats and the daughter of one of the country’s most famous advocates for reproductive rights would work on the campaign of one of the country’s most famous female Democrats. I can see why “half the country” would be “up in arms” about the baleful influence of the Ann Richards dynasty on not just politics but ethics itself. This is some Khmer Rouge shit.
Grumpy Code Monkey
@Gin & Tonic:
Split those hairs.
Father/son, husband/wife, brother/brother, it’s all the same – the point is that the office of President has been held by two families for 20 of the last 28 years, and that may be extended by an additional 4 to 8 years. That is not a good thing, and I’m not ashamed to admit that was my primary motivation in supporting BHO over Hills in 2008. I’d have had the same problem with RFK and Ted had I been old enough to vote at the time.
The bigger issue that this is exposing is that the Democrats have no fucking bench. Do we really have no one under 70 who could generate any kind of support?
dogwood
@geg6:
People get jobs and advantages all the time because of who they know. That’s not exclusive to the rich and powerful . We all travel in various social and economic circles where we make connections. As a teacher I went out of my way to recommend various students for jobs and scholarships to people I knew. People who knew and respected me also went out of their way in many instances. I’m completely baffled that this is now a sign of corruption.
Kay
@Redshift:
Absolutely! So why is Joan Walsh so mad at this person who is not the most admired person in the world and is not running for President?
bystander
@Hillary Rettig: Pssst, she can’t reinstate Glass-Steagall. Bernie can’t either. Only Congress can. Congress is held by Repubs and they won’t reinstate G-S if you hold a gun to their collective head. And with that sweet, sweet image, I close.
FlipYrWhig
@Lisa: No, that won’t happen. It will always be someone else’s fault that poor Bernie got frustrated from implementing the grand vision. Probably Charles Schumer and the Democratic House Whip.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Actually, I don’t personally know any PP activists currently holding paid positions with the Clinton campaign.
You’re moving the goal posts again (and I think that was NBC– and they probably thought, wrongly, she would draw eyeballs. They make that mistake about a couple of dozen comedians, athletes and hot young fashion mannequins every year). The subject was noble young activists cheated out of jobs and a future by those corrupt bitches Hillary Clinton and Cecile Richards, who is obviously utterly useless and ineffective and only has her job because of her mother.
FlipYrWhig
@bystander: But they’re supposed to bully pulpit the Overton Window about it until the Republicans get scared and change their minds! But, no, they WONT EVEN TRY!
Betty Cracker
@Grumpy Code Monkey: The bench is thin in the states because the Republicans control so much, but there are able, younger Democrats in Congress, Kirstin Gillibrand for one. But she didn’t want to oppose her mentor HRC. If, dog forbid, the Democrats lose the upcoming, I bet Gillibrand runs in 2020.
Lisa
I have missed this blog. I still read it occasionally but I only have commenting spasms every couple of years or so. The last time I commented was to offer my condolences when the fat white cat died.
That said, I love that you smarty mcsmartsters are still having intense, sometimes heated discussions without ripping each others’ faces off or SWATing each other. Very nice.
That is all.
PS. I thought Freddie de Boer was really boring and prone to annoying navel gazing, but I never knew he was so universally loathed. LOL. Poor guy.
sharl
@Iowa Old Lady:
~
Yes, a lot of people don’t get into details on why they don’t like someone, especially HRC.
At least among the politically inquisitive Millennials I tend to follow on Twitter – quite a few of whom are working shitty jobs (if they have jobs) and living paycheck-to-paycheck – Sanders’ economic stances resonate. Beyond that, some of these youngsters read the works of folks like Matt Bruenig (example), through which they learn of the more odious aspects of the “welfare reform” initiative passed in the 90s under WJC, with apparently active support at the time from HRC. It would appear that economic issues are a major factor in why Sanders gets a lot more support from Millennial women than is acknowledged by folks who dwell on “Bernie Bros”, who are clearly a real thing, but maybe not as influential as they are loud and annoying (another Bruenig link). It could be that a certain number of these online Bernie Bros are more trolls than they are politically engaged, let alone genuine Sanders supporters (like all those “noble” “pro-life” men outside of PP clinics who are in fact motivated by rage at their castrating bitch exes who insist on child support to help raise the kids they had together…castrating bitches…).*
A number of these kids are also engaged in discussions on social media with their counterparts elsewhere in the world, and in that respect, HRC is criticized based on her active support of anti-Palestinian Israeli policies (e.g., on West Bank settlements), the disastrous Libyan intervention (part_2 may be coming on that, btw), and of course her vote as a Senator in favor of invading Iraq still comes up.
Will any of this matter when Election Day rolls around? I have my doubts, given the known (non-)voting habits of the younger crowd. But whether it’s more pro-Bernie or more anti-Hillary, there are genuine concerns about HRC out there. [For my part, I’ll vote for whichever Democrat goes to the General Election; I’m registered to vote in Maryland, so it will likely be all over anyway by the time our primary comes up.]
*To the extent likable candidates and supporters are relevant, there are few saints to be found among these young pro-Bernie/anti-Hillary folks. While they can be pretty damn funny (it’s why I follow them), they are often frustrated, angry, and impatient (qualities often found in youth anyway). And Bruenig himself can be a real shit sometimes, and is fully capable of initiating “dog-piling” by his followers on twitter in premeditated fashion.
……Regarding that rude and annoying kid who posted on HuffPo, one or more Hillary surrogates can make lemonade out of that giant lemon by distributing that op-ed to places where older HRC supporters will see it; I saw that suggested somewhere, and it would be a smart move for her campaign IMO.
WarMunchkin
@Grumpy Code Monkey: I was totally ready to volunteer for President Kirsten Gillibrand.
@dogwood: I mean this is always a problem/thing in general though – your personal success is greatly tied in with your ability to make connections. If your circle of connections happens to be people with wealth and or power, you’re likely to gain wealth and power yourself. If you can’t manage to make connections with people who have wealth and or power, you are unlikely to gain wealth and or power.
This is not always a sign of corruption – corruption implies unethical abuse of a system. That said, the social norms and expectations of network and connections itself is always problematic because it’s easy for us to believe that our success is meritocratic when it has a high social component that prevents meritocratic economic mobility.
Kay
@dogwood:
Remember Joe the Fake Plumber? His “question” was basically a complete lie. Here’s the response:
I guess he could have said “you obviously don’t have a plumbing business but are instead an unemployed would-be Right wing grifter” but he took the question straight. Because he has to. You really can’t lose with earnest :)
Gin & Tonic
@Grumpy Code Monkey: Words have meaning. As English wasn’t my first language, I try to be precise with it. John Ellis Bush, son of a U.S. President, grandson of a U.S. Senator, is heir to a dynasty. HRC and WJC, who came from, effectively, nowhere and happen to be married to each other, are not.
Anya
@Kay: This is what’s puzzling about the whole thing. That dude’s 15 minutes of fame ended the day after. Joan should be angry about the way the Media sets the narratve about Hillary’s supposed dishonesty while not saying anything about the lying liars running in the republican primary.
FlipYrWhig
@sharl: Incidentally, do we know what Bernie Sanders thinks about Israel and the Palestinians?
OzarkHillbilly
@dogwood: When I do it, it’s just helping out. When somebody else does it, it is the work of Satan. Got it?
rdldot
@dogwood: Thank you. You said that much better than I was going to. This is how the majority of people get their jobs. Very few people enter any organization without recommendations from someone inside the organization. That’s just how it works in real life.
chopper
see, right there you answered your own question. people everywhere, even liberals, have been stewing in right-wing media’s clinton hate for 20 years. they’ve absorbed all these right-wing talking points through osmosis. you too, apparently. she’s unlikable! why is she unlikable? i dunno, i just can’t put my finger on it.
too many liberals start to think highly of clinton but then this voice inside their heads that’s been mainlining this shit for decades puts the brakes on it. that’s why you see liberals even today bringing up bill’s infidelities as a knock against hilz. wtf?
mike with a mic
Hillary Clinton is an upper class white woman who’s liberalism only extends to other upper class white women… and it’s THEIR TURN. Which means nothing else matters, and anybody who brings up the fact that Clinton might be horrible for the poor, minorities, or anybody else who isn’t an upper class white woman is sexist. And sexism is worse than racism, bombing people, or hurting poor people.
IT’S THEIR TURN.
FlipYrWhig
@WarMunchkin: BTW, when Gillibrand was appointed, the DailyKos crowd (among others) exploded with outrage because she was too conservative and corporate, a Blue Dog who worked for Philip Morris and had family ties to Republicans.
geg6
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
Why would I do that? It seems the Bernistas already have that market cornered.
different-church-lady
@Betty Cracker: Wait… you have a tiki bar?
Felonius Monk
@Grumpy Code Monkey:
There are over 200 comments above here and I don’t recall anyone even mentioning Martin O’Malley, so I think the answer is pretty obvious.
chris m
@Iowa Old Lady: Off the top of my head: I don’t trust her to veto TPP and it’s European and intellectual counterpar treaties, I don’t trust her to defend Social Security – let alone expand it, I don’t trust her to reign in the criminal Wall Street class and I don’t trust her not to repeat her Iraq and Libya mistakes. That’s just for starters, enough?
WarMunchkin
@FlipYrWhig: I don’t see how that relates. She turned out to be awesome – but that wasn’t a foregone conclusion. It’s not wrong – at all – to oppose someone’s nomination who has ties to a corporation and who is more conservative than you like.
Goblue72
@schrodinger’s cat: Then you were never a supporter – if some random things random supporters say on the Internet is enough to make you switch.
Kay
@Anya:
I genuinely think one has to look at this from their perspective, too. They have no duty to know the entire history of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton. One of the advantages Clinton had over Obama here was Democrats “knew” her. They would phrase it exactly like that. Obviously they don’t “Know” her personally but they have a history with her- that goes to trust- they trust her. Clinton can’t take the upside of that without the downside.
My 13 year old asked me the other day “did people like Bill Clinton?” He wears glasses and he screws up his face when he asks earnest questions. Apparently the jury is still out for him and Bill Clinton. I literally lol’ed because that’s such a complicated question.
Betty Cracker
@Anya: Walsh is angry about HRC’s treatment in the media — the article goes on to criticize media figures too. She used smarmy douchecanoe question guy as just one example of what she sees as the unfair forces arrayed against HRC.
chopper
@Melissa:
we can start with “those policies that have a chance in hell of being implemented” and go from there.
to put it another way, “pie in the sky” has no nutritional value.
there’s policy and there’s window-shifting. bernie’s campaign is really only going to accomplish the latter, and only if that’s what he concentrates on.
The Other Chuck
@Grumpy Code Monkey:
Whereas the Republicans have a deep bench of crazy.
Bench schmench. Who’d heard of Bill Clinton in 1991?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@FlipYrWhig: NRA supporter while in the House, IIRC. Bragged about the shotgun she kept under her bed, no?
I don’t know why the Dem bench is not bigger, not that that’s always a sign of strength. They had a big bench in ’04 that included Lieberman and Edwards. 08 included Richardson, who I liked but a lot of people said was an extraction industry advocate, and Dodd, again hated by some for reasons I don’t share. Uncle Joe Biden has a foreign policy record that looks a lot like HRC’s, and he held on to fantasies about his good friends across the aisle far longer than Obama is alleged to.
And part of running is wanting to run. I don’t know what kind of GE candidate Warren would have been, but I think she’d be better than Sanders. I’m a huge Sherrod Brown fan, but who knows how he would have held up under scrutiny and attack. And people who just read those last two sentences are going to yell at me for hypothetically poaching their Senators. And from states with GOP govs!
Goblue72
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: In other words, it was all well and good when he had low poll numbers, but now that he might embarrass the shit out of Clinton in NH, he’s just the worst.
geg6
@dogwood:
Exactly. But unless you’re completely unknown and have no known relatives who ever ran for office or ran an advocacy group, want to tear down the entire economic structure of the nation/world regardless of the consequences, refuse to join a party for whose nomination you are running for, decline to help out any downticket members of the same part because they, too, are just corporate tools, apparently you aren’t good enough for the Bernie groupies. You must be a tabula rasa, with no experience and no knowledge. Only those people are pure enough.
mike with a mic
@Betty Cracker:
Walsh is a smarmy douche who doesn’t give a rats ass about anybody who isn’t a white, corporate, woman. Because IT’S THEIR TURN.
She’s patient zero of why people like Rush Limbaugh are right about Democrats from time to time. And the fact that she can’t see that makes her hilarious.
schrodinger's cat
@Goblue72: I never said I was a Bernie supporter, but neither was I Hillary supporter.
sharl
@FlipYrWhig:
~
I’ve seen this come up on occasion, but I haven’t pursued the question, instead assuming that he had a typically awful position (in the absolute sense) that was as good as US politics would permit. But in response to your question, I did a quickie search and found this from a pro-Bernie site:
~
So yeah, mealy-mouthed and generally non-controversial within Democratic circles; the occasionally problematic Zaid Jilani did a deep dive on this topic in an October post.
I saw nothing on this at Sanders’ campaign site, at least not under the “Issues” index on the front page.
Bobby Thomson
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: she’s certainly a shitty surrogate.
geg6
@Goblue72:
I was open to Sanders or Clinton. It’s the Sanders people who pushed into the Clinton column. Literally.
WarMunchkin
@Kay: Bill has a tendency to explain things in a really cool and open way. I saw him live, once, easily one of the best speakers I’ve ever had the privilege to listen to. I’ve seen Barack Obama live, too, and yeah, he’s good in that his speeches are aspirational, but Clinton is just nitty-gritty technical, and I love that stuff.
sparrow
Bernie’s supporters skew young. When you’re 17,18, 20 years old and full of indignation that the American dream is in fact crap, you might tend towards intemperance in political discourse. You won’t find as many obnoxious twitter supporters of Hillary because Hillary’s supporters don’t use twitter as much.
All the complaints about Bernie Bros (despite the female advantage in that demographic) to me sound like agist griping against the youth. In many cases, the infantilizing of the Bernie supporters is little different than what women of all ages get for having opinions that go against what the VSP think they should have. Or in the case of Anne Laurie’s infamous “young women don’t know what they’re doing” post, sometimes as a young woman you get both at the same time.
I am not expecting Bernie to pull this off — too many traditional forces arrayed against him. But to pretend that this isn’t our best chance to rebuild a grass-roots left, with down-ballot effects for DEMOCRATS, is just ignoring reality.
mike with a mic
@chopper:
No, good policy is what benefits the top 10% of white women at the expense of the working class. IT’S THEIR TURN!!!!!
Anything less is sexist and the most evil thing ever. Fuck your social security and economic security, vote Clinton. IT’S HER TURN you sexist pig.
Marcelo
@Redshift: THANK YOU. And later in the comments she dismissed Joan’s arguments as rantings from an “angry mom” – sexist attacks that dismiss arguments because the woman is just too mad and maternal.
different-church-lady
@Betty Cracker:
Can we talk about these things at your tiki bar?
Amir Khalid
@Grumpy Code Monkey:
I wouldn’t say the Democrats have no bench. Their players are few but pretty good, from what I can see. The Republican bench is crowded, but with players no sane coach would want on the field.
dogwood
@Kay:
His question was a lie, but it wasn’t a personal attack. It was actually a policy question. If you don’t see the difference, I don’t know what else to say. If a journalist or voter asks president Obama why he thinks so many people think he’s a foreign born Muslim who can’t be trusted, and he answers because they’re watching too much Fox News, would you criticize that? Luckily I’m not a public figure or someone running for office, so I don’t have to take assholes seriously.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I hope you’re right, and I wish he would focus on that instead of tilting at the windmill of a short term “political revolution”
Kay
@WarMunchkin:
Honestly I think he’s lost some of that. To me it sounds too Davos-ish. It was probably inevitable. He’s a former President and that is what he does- he travels around conferring with important people.
I liked about Bill Clinton what everyone else complained about. I liked his salesman aspect. When they were like “Slick Willy” (which was a dogwhistle “he’s trashy” in my opinion) I was thinking “damn straight he’s slick and you wish you had him”. Yes, he can cry on cue. What of it? :)
Amir Khalid
@sharl:
Quoting from Bernie fan sites is all well and good, but that’s a Thoughtful Today shtik. what does the man have to say for himself on his own campaign site?
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
I’m sympathetic to the argument that HRC is an unfair chewtoy of the right but she does herself no favors with the way she handles the constant scrutiny, going all the way back to the time the missing Rose Law Firm records mysteriously appeared in the White House one day. I was ready to put the past aside and support her in 2016 but the way she handled the email server brouhaha was just like a time machine back to the 90s, showcasing her secretive, arrogant nature and illustrating that she will always do the wrong thing first and help to turn a molehill into a mountain.
Cacti
@schrodinger’s cat:
In the binary world of Berniebros, you either Feel the Bern, or you’re “the establishment”.
Hence the petulant attacks on Planned Parenthood.
chopper
@mike with a mic:
okay.
Bobby Thomson
@Hillary Rettig: that’s not trustworthiness. That’s a difference of opinion on a policy issue. Clinton believes neither of those things actually solves the problem. For you to conflate political disagreement with dishonesty is, unfortunately, par for the course with Sanders supporters.
lonesomerobot
@chopper: I’ll tell you why she’s unlikeable: it’s because her instinct is to hide things, which looks deceptive to the public. You see it with the private email server, and you see it with the private speeches. And then her first reaction to requests for transparency tends to be marked by arrogance. She was recently asked by a reporter in New Hampshire if she would reveal what she said for $600,000 in her speech to Goldman Sachs. She laughed and walked away without even answering. She did something similar the first time she was asked about the email server thing.
I, for one, would be very interested to know what she said in her speech to Goldman Sachs. But she will never reveal it. That’s why she’s unlikable, and people get that impression because it’s a real, observable thing. Your point about the right wing pounding her is well-taken, but Hillary Clinton has built at least some of that reputation on her own.
I’ll still vote for her over any Republican clown, but I won’t be too enthusiastic about it.
Betty Cracker
@different-church-lady: Only if you sit by me and name names!
Kay
@dogwood:
I would. I think Obama is not at his best when he’s scolding or lecturing. He’s at his best when he’s producing the birth certificate at a very good time and putting himself on the side of the public versus the media.
chopper
@lonesomerobot:
like white water! and the rose law firm records. and whatever actually happened to vince foster, anyways?
Cacti
@mike with a mic:
Right on broseph. White chicks have been oppressing our fragile democracy for too long now.
Fight the power and elect a white, male U.S. Senator!
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Kay: I always say I’m immune to the Clinton magic, but I recognize it exists.
To my ear, in his 2012 convention speech that I saw some Beltway type say a couple of weeks ago say saved Obama’s re-election), I didn’t hear anything that Obama, Biden and their other surrogates hadn’t been saying all along (other than the “that takes brass” line, that even I loved), but, along with his (for me) indefinable charisma, it was the (white) president from before everything went to hell talking, so a lot of people listened. I hope he’s still got some of that for when it’s needed.
sharl
@Amir Khalid: Here’s the last paragraph of my comment (#257):
~
I had used up my 3 links there… here’s the link to Sanders’ campaign site.
Tom Q
Though their candidates’ economic approaches are miles apart, i’m seeing real similarity in tone between the Sanders supporters and the Tsongas group in 1992. In each case, the feeling was that their guy was the only honest person out there; if you favored another candidate, it was because you didn’t have the guts to face up to the Obvious Reality their guy was articulating.
It’s not the most edifying lesson to offer, but more than 4 decades of voting have demonstrated to me that honesty isn’t what voters are looking for. The most notably honest president I’ve ever lived under was Jimmy Carter, and consensus at the end of his term — from Democrats as well as GOPers — was he had not been an effective leader (lots of Dems will say different mow, but in 1980, they loved them some John Anderson).
The usual disclaimer: if Sanders is the nominee, I vote for him with no hesitation. But I think Hillary’s the way to go.
FlipYrWhig
@WarMunchkin: So maybe a politician does some of the things she or he does because of immediate circumstances that, when they change, are no longer dispositive, and hence turn out not to be reliable predictors of said politician’s deepest nature? I wonder if that applies to anyone running for president this time.
sparrow
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I suppose it’s partly the pressure of actually putting on a presidential campaign leading to soundbites dominating what people think of a candidate, but i you listen to what Sanders says in full, he really does say “we have a big problem at the local and state level and we need more people, not just me” (paraphrasing) pretty often.
Bobby Thomson
@Paul in KY: Dems can’t use that because we also refuse to go on Fox because it’s an RNC organ. It might work in the primaries, except that every one else looks even weaker. He kicked sand in their faces and they all backed down.
FlipYrWhig
@Tom Q: Hey, I just brought up Tsongas today too, either on a different thread here or somewhere else!
dogwood
@WarMunchkin:
I have never ascribed to the idea that anyone’s success either grand or humble is the result of individualism alone. It just doesn’t work that way. I also don’t ascribe to the idea that success or the “American Dream” is about gaining wealth or power. I’m a successful person who never desired either. I guess that’s why I’ve never been a populist.
lonesomerobot
@chopper: Except I gave relevant non-wingnut examples from right now, thank you. Your non-sequiturs aren’t really winning the argument here.
FlipYrWhig
@lonesomerobot: Whereas Bernie Sanders’s instinct is to say that his skeptics are corrupt and/or The Establishment. Much more “likeable,” that.
mike with a mic
@Cacti:
A vote for Clinton is an affirmation that the Democratic party doesn’t give a fuck about anybody but the top 10% and loves identity politics.
We need a female president, but Clinton is not it. Just as we needed a Jewish president or VP, but Liberman was not that. We also needed a female VP but Palin was not that.
But I get it, rich white women, it’s THEIR TURN. And Walsh remains the perfect spokeswoman for this viewpoint. And also the perfect reason why anybody not pulling in six figures should run screaming from team D as fast as they can.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Do you think the secret Goldman Sachs speech contained as much important information as the emails? Do you think she got up there and repeated the name Sidney Blumenthal over and over again?
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Goblue72:
He’s not nearly as bad as his supporters who are totally ruining the election for everyone now.
hueyplong
I got a little Schadenfreudelicious tingle at the thought of Ailes stepping down “for health reasons” or to “spend more time with his family” and Trump then bragging, “You’re fired!”
It was triggered, somehow, by seeing that media whore and not-real-candidate Huck is blowing off the little debate to appear on Trump’s counter-program.
Cacti
@mike with a mic:
I’m with ya brofessor.
Fight the power! Stop the white chicks!
Kay
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Exactly. I could appreciate what he was doing while he was doing it. I just didn’t see malice there- “you lie!”. It’s how he approaches things. He gave a speech in Ohio that was a flat-out dud, but it’s hard to separate if you’ve been listening to him for a while because you fill in “charisma”. One thing I noticed that made me smile was he carefully didn’t appear on stage with the Dem candidate for governor, who imploded shortly after. I thought “oh, that’s bad for him”.
Corner Stone
@lonesomerobot: Except they are all of a piece. What did she actually do wrong by giving a paid speech to GS? After elebenty hundred hours of investigation and testimony, what did she actually do wrong with the email server?
It’s all the same shit, just retreaded with up-to-date RW asshole bullshit. I am only surprised you could not manage to throw Benghazi in there somewhere. Here, I’ll help you out:
“I’ll tell you why she’s unlikeable: it’s because her instinct is to hide things, which looks deceptive to the public. You see it with the private email server, and you see it with the private speeches. You see it with the way she hid in the basement under Benghazi so she’d know the exact moment to call in the “Stand Down!” order.”
Cacti
White women of BJ, stop oppressing mike with a mic, mmmkay?
Corner Stone
@mike with a mic:
Toward?
goblue72
@chris m: @lonesomerobot: Pretty much.
dogwood
@Kay:
The problem with that kid’s question was that it didn’t have any hook where she could conceivably talk about herself in a positive manner. Maybe the next time she’ll think of something to make you happy. Joe the not-Plummer actually gave Obama a chance to speak to and explain policy. “Please respond to the non-specific fact that young people don’t like you”, is just a silly trap.
goblue72
@Corner Stone: Socialism.
goblue72
@Cacti: You’re kind of a moron.
lonesomerobot
@FlipYrWhig: I don’t understand your instinct to attack Bernie because I’m here expressing a fairly straightforward opinion about how Hillary Clinton is perceived. I’m not throwing #FeelTheBern hashtags, I’m just saying something I’ve thought for a long time before Bernie Sanders was even on my radar. And I’m still saying I’ll gladly vote for Hillary. So I don’t really understand why you feel the need to turn what I’m saying around into an attack on Sanders. Both candidates are far superior to the GOP alternative.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
Why has no one noticed that the SIFI banks are starting to break up?
Mnemosyne
@chopper:
Ding ding ding! I have seen self-proclaimed liberals (usually young) claim that Hillary is untrustworthy because we still don’t know the truth about Whitewater.
Joel
Sanders has done a pretty good job running an insurgent campaign.
But to take it to the next level, you need to make joining the campaign appealing to skeptics. And it’s pretty clear that they have few ideas on how to do that effectively. My facebook feed is filled with lectures from prominent Sanders supporters as to why I should support him. But I’m not going to voluntarily listen to someone lecture me about some shit that I already know. It’s boring and a waste of time.
And that’s coming from someone who’s pretty damn sympathetic to Sanders in the first place.
Cacti
@goblue72:
So, how was last night’s chapter meeting of douchebros for Sanders?
goblue72
@sparrow: @Tom Q: Beyond the honesty thing, there isn’t any difference between the two. Tsongas was a Concord Coalition guy – he though the biggest challenge the country faced was the national debt / budget deficit. His prescription was belt tightening and eating your peas. Its of no surprise that nobody voted for him.
Sanders prescription, is pretty much the opposite.
chopper
@lonesomerobot:
sure they are.
people have been hearing right wing garbage for 20+ years and it’s created a wealth of automatic thoughts in people. she gives a speech as a private fucking citizen and it’s all ‘we deserve to see the transcript’ because obviously she can’t be trusted because of reasons basically set forth in the 90’s.
when bill was elected the GOP made it their goal to ruin his presidency, and barring that, ruining his legacy. and they basically did the latter; they made him into a sleazy liar and got democrats everywhere to back away from the guy and his presidency, which helped hand the country over to C+ Augustus in 2000.
they also promised to do the same to hilz. and it looks like their doing a fine job in that regard as well.
they’ve been trying to do the same to O. chances are, in 20 years, democrats everywhere will be bitching and moaning about how “obama was so divisive, rite?”
goblue72
@Cacti: There were a lot of young people there – including a lot of young women. So, basically, nothing like the fantasy inside your head. Are you some sort of early onset senility Boomer?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@dogwood: and I believe the questions were screened and approved by CNN? That’s what caused a kerfuffle when another kid said “I can see why they gave you this question…”. It was one of many he submitted, and CNN decided which candidate would get which question (is my understanding from a hastily read article). If CNN had asked him to be specific, she could have been flummoxed (TPP) or knocked it out of the park (Bdnghazi)
WarMunchkin
@FlipYrWhig: Perfect segue to why nearly all the words used in the primaries are just bunk. Politics is about identity, not policy. If you identify with Clinton, you’ll vote for her and view your fellow tribe as the good guys. If you identify with Sanders, the opposite. You might view Clinton supporters as corporate people who don’t understand how to advocate for what’s good before what’s possible, or you might view Sanders supporters as entitled white dudebros. That’s why I don’t really come down on @schrodinger’s cat. It’s basically just – I can’t identify with the things some people who call themselves x do, so I don’t want to call myself x.
@dogwood: Wealth and power are scary boogy words, but I meant them in a more benign way rather than something out of Gatsby. Just to be accepted by any group and do well in the thing you care about, you probably need friends who are relatively successful in it. It’s just starker for politics, business and journalism because ideas and money are at stake.
goblue72
@chopper: So, basically, anybody critical of Clinton has been brainwashed.
I see.
Applejinx
@Iowa Old Lady: Actually, it’s pretty simple.
It’s the money. Period. I absolutely don’t think Hillary can govern and want Wall Street to love her and not preside over a horrible, catastrophic existence-fail of America. I think that’s looming, and it’s a big deal.
I don’t give a shit about Benghazi, about emails, I don’t doubt that Hillary is a better opportunity to see feminist issues better supported (be careful what you wish for, though: Obama’s presidency saw Ferguson), I don’t even doubt that Hillary is a shrewder, more manipulative politician with a clear view of the problems facing a Democratic President in 2016.
I could support a liar, no problem. I can absolutely support a schemer. I’m just trying to work out what they’re going to do in office (always considering that ANY PRESIDENT from either party is now going to face total gridlock no matter who they are, barring a crazy stroke of luck or the populace marching on Washington with tumbrels)
I have a problem with demands that I support a woman who is too beholden to what I see as the primary problem not just with America but the world right now.
But then I’m a socialist, evidently, or at least I’m absolutely not a freemarket capitalist acolyte.
Pretty sure that Wall Street are all diehard freemarket capitalist would-be gurus who are utterly unwilling to budge from that. I see that as a problem.
goblue72
@geg6: @geg6: That’s a dumbass reason to choose a candidate.
different-church-lady
@Betty Cracker: I don’t know many names, but I mix a mean Mai Tai according to the original recipe.
Cacti
@goblue72:
I’ll bet there were some tasty craft brews, eh broheim?
My fave is Neu Dungling’s honey walnut garlic power porter.
FlipYrWhig
@lonesomerobot: As Corner Stone was saying, there’s no there there. That’s the media narrative: Hillary Clinton is sneaky because of the last 3 no-there-there stories where she was made to come across as sneaky. What do you think she said at Goldman Sachs? “You are my people and when I’m President I will coddle you even more than I normally do”? I assume she said “My whole life I’ve been a fighter” and “Tomorrow is the future and in that future will be change,” because that’s what high-profile speakers do, say nothing and provide a pretext to get people to come to the event.
Mnemosyne
@mike with a mic:
Yes, because Republicans will TOTALLY protect the interests of those making less than six figures.
And claiming that people should vote third party is like saying that you rooted for the Chicago Bears in last year’s Super Bowl. I mean, stick to your dream, but accept that you had no effect on the outcome.
hueyplong
Good thing I’m not made of straw or I’d be taking offense to some of these attacks on me.
goblue72
@sparrow:
That’s because they are waiting for their grandkids to come over and fix their computer, because they just can’t stop clicking on those blinky pop-up ads, no matter how many times their grandkids tell them not to.
sharl
@Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism:
~
Once I looked up the meaning of SIFI*, I understood why that’s probably very newsworthy.
*
goblue72
@Cacti: Like I said, a complete moron. Or early onset senility Boomer. Or possibly a mxi of the two.
chopper
@goblue72:
yes, that’s exactly what i said.
Cacti
@goblue72:
You are so smart. You are so smart. S-m-r-t. I mean s-m-a-r-t.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@sharl: So what’s Bernie going to do if his big goal of breaking up the banks is a fait accompli by the time he takes office?
Take credit for Obama’s work?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism: there is only Goldman Sachs, because of that vampire squid thing Taiibi said that time. The other day a couple of our more prolix Berniacs told me Hillary meant doom because Obama hadn’t sent the King’s Guard to seize Jamie Dimon of Goldman Sachs and conduct him to the Tower.
And for the record, I’m all for hating on Goldman Sachs, but using those that shibboleth as a stand in for Wall St has, I suspect, less resonance outside of the blogosphere.
FlipYrWhig
@Applejinx:
So, AJ, the whole thing about Wall Street is that they have so much money they hire miscellaneous smart people from fancy colleges and ask them to figure out what to do next. There are true believers (like the ones who appear on CNBC) and there are people who think the whole thing is a joke or a complicated puzzle, but will keep on cashing the checks. There are wealthy liberals working on Wall Street using their employer’s filthy lucre to support Democratic candidates for office in the state of New York. This doesn’t strike me as scandalous the way it seems to strike you.
PJ
@Grumpy Code Monkey: Sounds like now would be a good time for “Draft Biden”! (I realize he is over 70 . . .)
different-church-lady
@FlipYrWhig: Hey, you never know, she might have regaled them with stories about how she murdered Vince Foster.
dogwood
@chopper:
I think that the GOP has done everything it could to derail the Obama agenda. They’ve had individual successes, but overall came up short. That’s why you see so much anti-establishment anger among the GOP base. I don’t expect that Obama’s legacy among Democrats and many Indepents to be tarnished, because he never handed the opposition any type of personal scandal. That’s the stuff that sticks.
Cacti
@chopper:
No point arguing with that one.
He’s an alpha Berniebro. He’s right, and you’re stupid, and probably old and stupid, and that’s that.
Mnemosyne
@Applejinx:
But you were okay with Joe Biden, the Senator from MBNA, being a heartbeat away from the presidency?
Yes, Hillary has a lot of support from Wall Street. The financial industry is one of the top 5 industries in the state of New York, a state of which she is the former senator. It’s like claiming that Barbara Boxer would give the entertainment industry everything they want if she became president because she boosts them in her role as one of California’s senators.
lonesomerobot
@Corner Stone: I’m not here to discuss right-wing fantasies. She’s Hillary Clinton. If she hasn’t learned by now that politically, she would be far better served by being as transparent as possible, then she never will. Regular, non-Republican people observe that and it negatively contributes to the public perception of her. The private email server isn’t a big conspiracy, but it is an example of a person who doesn’t seem to get that because of who she is, she needs to avoid stupid decisions like that, specifically because of how it ends up looking. And yes, by how the right-wing will spin it, because she should damn well know by now that they will flood the zone with any bullshit they think will stick.
Again, I’m not arguing the right-wing effect in the least. But since we ALL can agree that it exists, why can’t Hillary see it enough to know that doing something like having a private email server while you’re Secretary of State is an incredibly stupid, what-in-the-hell-were-you-thinking idea? Hopefully you see how the argument isn’t the legality of it, but the political ass-hattery of it.
Applejinx
@Hillary Rettig: I’d like to know exactly how much each taxpayer, on average, paid out to bail out the banks for the 2008 crash. We talk about not being able to raise taxes on the middle class, like it’s some unthinkable topic, as if taxes aren’t buying us stuff and we hope (like Sam’s Club or something) that we’re buying into a substantial discount on stuff we need that would be unaffordable on its own.
Health care, for instance.
So when people are upset about paying taxes because they’re not seeing that they’re getting ANYTHING for their money (and they don’t get to opt out, obviously), exactly how much are we all paying for what Bill Clinton did when he repealed Glass-Steagall, with Hillary right there, not in a position to do anything about it, but if you ask her now she’s like ‘lol nope’ and wouldn’t reinstate it?
How much, each year, do we all pay to bankers just to ensure they can gamble with federally insured money?
And I get that Obama set it up so we’ve been paid back. That’s not the point. This is a cyclical condition and at the time the banks were bailed we had NOT been paid back and the idea that we’re paid back and all is fine assumes they’re not going to crash AGAIN and get bailed out even more.
And they’re about to. And then where’s that ‘paid back’?
How is this not a legitimate issue? Issues, please. We get to pick what issues we think are most urgent. Like if you live on a coast and are thinking about climate change. You get to care if your home will be underwater in your lifetime. We get to care about Glass-Steagall since the banks are ABOUT to crash, again, even harder.
If Hillary is really on their side that’s a damn good reason to resist reinstating Glass-Steagall. Her people are about to need another huge bailout, so changing the system is a big nonstarter. She might be waaaay more open to it AFTER they are bailed out again, but then we’re on the hook once more.
Immanentize
@Applejinx: “I don’t doubt that Hillary is a better opportunity to see feminist issues better supported (be careful what you wish for, though: Obama’s presidency saw Ferguson)”
Oh. My. God.
FlipYrWhig
@lonesomerobot: No one ever ever ever gave a rat’s ass about a “private email server” until the New York Times decided it was the most scandalous thing ever because it has the word “private” in it. It’s a stupid story that doesn’t mean anything. That’s the kind of thing Bill and Hillary have dealt with for 25 years: things that aren’t even a footnote to anyone else’s political lives are made to define theirs because of an alliance between the major media and Republican ratfuckers, otherwise known as a “vast right wing conspiracy,” a phrase coined by some clever person who should probably run for president.
different-church-lady
@lonesomerobot:
How else was she going to keep the NSA from spying on her?!?
[nods]
chopper
the GOP crafted this profile of the clintons and they pushed it and pushed it for so long that it’s soaked deep into the country’s political discourse. and now some meaningless thing comes up with hilz, self-ascribed liberals everywhere pop up with a pavlovian response to the conditioning.
criticize hilz all you want. shit, i do it every day. but this line of shit smells of a 20 year old bottle of “Obsession: for Right-Wing Hacks.”
FlipYrWhig
@Applejinx:
So your biggest complaint is that each taxpayer should know in detail that on average she paid, net, zero dollars?
lonesomerobot
@FlipYrWhig: Yes you’re kind of proving my point. Because she is Hillary Clinton, she should not have used a private email server. It’s not that hard to understand. Political life is not fair for Hillary Clinton. Deal with it. As soon as she actually learns this, she will be an incredible candidate.
I’m not saying it’s fair, I’m just saying it’s true.
Cacti
Overall, I’d say Hillary Rettig’s political insights sound about as good as her recipes.
Does she have some incriminating photos of Cole that got her front page status?
bemused
When the Sanderista and Clintonite firing squads start aiming at each other my eyes glaze over, it’s so tedious. They both have pluses and minuses but ultimately I will vote for which of the two gets the nomination. No campaign will be as exciting and motivating to get voters out as Obama’s, not in my lifetime anyway. Obama did accomplish many things I didn’t expect to see and I think Sanders or Hillary would continue to build on those accomplishments. A Republican, any Republican, in the White House would be horrific.
Bernie had a crowd of 6,000 in Duluth, MN this week and 14,000 or more in Mpls. One comment in Duluth News Tribune from a man in the Duluth audience who basically said Bernie’s sentiments won’t go away if he doesn’t get the nomination. I think I believe that. The natives are mighty restless. Trumpettes, as Palin puts it, are just as restless, insane with rage, but they are delusional if they really believe Trump is going to make their America “great” again. The huge crowds at Sanders and Trump events show a massive dissatisfaction among the majority of Americans that legislators have dropped the ball for them, feel they have been screwed even though they don’t agree on who to blame.
Populist sentiments aren’t going to fade away. Hopefully, the raging, blow up everything Republicans will catch on they are being scammed to believe counting on billionaires will improve their lives.
I saw a homemade sign at Duluth Bernie event that made me smile, Earthlings for Bernie.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Oy.
And of course I’m sure that none of them know anything about the relationship between Trustbuster Teddy and J. P. Morgan.
FlipYrWhig
@Applejinx:
So… the repayment of said bailout came _after_ the bailout? Seems hinky to me too.
chopper
@FlipYrWhig:
exactly. “clinton rules”.
dogwood
If Bernie starts winning he and his supporters will find out very quickly how clever Republicans are at opposition research and narrative control.
sparrow
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: LOL!
Bobby Thomson
@Redshift: she gave the question and questioner the respect they deserved.
randy khan
@Applejinx: I think you would discover that there’s not really a good answer to your question. The overwhelming majority of the bailout came in the form of Fed actions, and the Fed isn’t really part of the U.S. budget (not to mention that a lot of the Fed actions were variations on things it does all the time, so it becomes hard to tease the exact amounts out). Of course, if Fed loans weren’t repaid, taxpayers would have been on the hook in the end, but that’s not what happened.
TARP itself was authorized for $700 billion (coincidentally about the same as the Recovery Act), but something in the range of 1/3 to 1/2 of it wasn’t spent in the end, and much of it came back to taxpayers. TARP also had some direct benefit for taxpayers in the form of mortgage refinancings at lower rates. (My wife and I refinanced through TARP – initiated by the bank, not us – and it saved us about 2-1/4 percent in interest.) I don’t know the magnitude of the impact of those refinancings. And of course you have to decide whether the auto industry bailout also is a bank bailout or not. (I’m inclined to say no, but it’s not unreasonable to say that at least some of it was.)
But none of this is to say that it’s not legitimate to talk about what kinds of reforms ought to be enacted to prevent future bank bailouts from being necessary. The truth is that the damage to Americans from 2008 went far deeper than what taxpayers spent to keep it from being worse, so it’s clearly worth talking about. I’m just saying it will be hard to answer the specific question you ask in any useful way.
Mnemosyne
@sharl:
IIRC (and I don’t have the link), the SIFI’s are feeling that the new regulations that Obama put in place are too onerous, so they’ll be better off as smaller institutions. Personally, I don’t demand the violent breakup of the big banks as long as it gets done.
FlipYrWhig
@dogwood: “I can’t believe Bernie didn’t realize that talking about revolutions and tax increases would make people think he was some sort of wild-eyed radical! Why doesn’t Bernie know better than that by now and think before stepping in it?”
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@Mnemosyne: Carl Icahn is suing AIG demanding that they break up. There’s just not enough profit to be had from a large institution these days.
Hillary Rettig
@Barbara: I’m not saying that Hillary would not be vastly astronomically better than any of the Republicans.
Also, this is a valid point:
“Or, as my mother said to me when I supported Obama in 2008, “why is it that nepotism only comes to the fore when it’s a woman who is running? Did anyone accuse Al Gore of being the beneficiary of nepotism? Why is being someone’s wife worse than being someone’s son or daughter?””
However please bear in mind my initial discussion of nepotism wasn’t about HRC being a beneficiary of it–although she is–but a member of the press’s kid being a beneficiary of it.
FlipYrWhig
@Mnemosyne: Just like I don’t mind the existence of insurance companies as long as they actually, you know, insure people when they get sick.
Mnemosyne
@lonesomerobot:
So you acknowledge that it’s unfair to hold Hillary Clinton to a higher standard than everyone else, but still insist on doing it?
Oooooookay.
chopper
@lonesomerobot:
it’s true that, given the “clinton rules”, having a private email server wasn’t a smart move; other people think of it as evidence that she’s hiding things.
but your argument above was that the email server was evidence to you that she was “hiding things” and thus unlikable.
Applejinx
@mike with a mic: Lighten up, Francis…
Cacti
From Bernie spox Mike Casca:
And
Hmmm…maybe, just maybe, The Bern is noticing that the tone of his most enthusiastic supporters is getting a bit problematic.
Hillary Rettig
@Mnemosyne: Interesting thing is that the Clintons chose to settle in/around NYC, when they could have settled anywhere. Wonder why?
rdldot
@dogwood: Carter didn’t have any personal scandals and they still trashed him.
randy khan
@FlipYrWhig: I’d add that there always was going to be *something* – if it wasn’t the email server, another scandal would have been ginned up in the same way.
It’s particularly telling that the email flap is condemning her for doing something that her Republican predecessors did as well.
FlipYrWhig
@Hillary Rettig: Probably to slurp up ill-gotten wealth like they usually do!
Hillary Rettig
@Cacti:
>I’d say Hillary Rettig’s political insights sound about as good as her recipes.
LOL… Looking forward to embroidering that on a pillow!
> Does she have some incriminating photos of Cole that got her front page status?
I thought every photo of Cole was incriminating.
Corner Stone
@lonesomerobot:
Then why is that all you are using to support your assertion? Why is RW nutjob bullshit the only thing you keep bitterly clinging to while you proudly assert that HRC is not likable?
It doesn’t matter what she says, or what she does. She will be pilloried for every possible outcome. On this very liberal blog she was derided as an inauthentic panderer for saying the Bible was one of her favorite books, and that anyone who said something like that should not be president. I am sure PBO would be stunned to hear same.
It’s interesting that if only she had done things a little different all this would have gone away. Rose Law firm and Whitewater and Travelgate, and drug running and head shot suicide re-enactments by sitting R elected officials would alllll be for naught if only she had just.done.it.a.little.different.
If only she hadn’t given a speech to wealthy people (funny how Obama doing a fucking $10,000 and up per plate fundraiser at the home of a man named Rich Richman never was an issue). If only she hadn’t done exactly what at least the three previous SecState’s had done until she came in and secretively, and very privately, used her private vibrating home secret email private orgasm machine servers to S&M style sexually torture Huma Abedin in their thespian pleasure dome.
FlipYrWhig
@randy khan: And the email thing was just a fishing expedition about Benghazi originally too.
Corner Stone
@Applejinx: Son, death flu is a hell of a drug.
chopper
@Hillary Rettig:
i know. why would anyone want to live in New York?
dogwood
@FlipYrWhig:
People who continually bitch about the bank bailouts don’t seem to give a shit about horrendous long term effects on poor, working class and middle class Americans had we allowed those banks to fail. Not to mention the international effects. Same thing with the auto industry. The fact that we were repaid “isn’t the point.” Seeing wealthy people lose their money and getting marched off to jail is the only goal they care about. It’s pure tea party populism.
Amir Khalid
@Hillary Rettig:
Is there something suspicious about choosing to live in New York City? Lots of people do.
randy khan
@Hillary Rettig: Well, they weren’t going back to Arkansas, and no President I can recall decided to stay in D.C. after leaving office. (And it’s similar for Vice Presidents – It’s actually pretty unusual that Cheney still lives in northern Virginia.) But as you’re suggesting, it’s likely they chose New York because it fit with her political ambitions.
Applejinx
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Regarding the 600K speech, it is a revealing response but she missed a golden opportunity there.
To laugh and walk away just says ‘you’re not one of the people who matter’.
She could have said, “Sure! Sit down. This is going to take a couple hours. Be ready to take notes because it’s distilled from years of experience, tough experience other people don’t have. Oh, and before we start: I’m gonna need you to pay me $600,000 too. That’s the price.”
That would have been kind of awesome. It’d imply that yeah, the news or the people can have access to all that experience and the insider briefing so long as they pay the bill.
It didn’t occur to her to do that because the news reporter was just not the right class of person, in the right situation, getting in touch with her the right way to arrange for the right speech at the right huge price. He wasn’t the Right People. So she laughs it off. He would never be one of the privileged, even if he had $600,000. She now gets to be one of the privileged, and she’ll never go back, ever. Peasants.
To miss that chance, the chance to go ‘sure! I’ll tell you all the special expert knowledge. You pay the bill too, then we’ll start’ is horribly revealing.
Miss Bianca
@chopper:
“it’s as if every single endorsement inherently belongs to Bernie and Clinton is somehow illegally poaching them.”
THIS.
As a former Planned Parenthood employee, and supporter of their efforts, I have NO problem with the fact that PP has decided to endorse HRC. None. Cecile Richards is a smart lady, and one whose political instincts I trust. If nothing else, she and HRC both have the experience of being grilled at length by clueless, arrogant, condescending male politicians to make them both objects of my intense sympathy and support.
And I’m getting mighty tired of people suggesting that not to be in the bag for Bernie is somehow just WRONG WRONG WRONG (imagine the big old Terry-Gilliam-style cartoon hammer coming down), and if only I were a better liberal I would be able to see the error of my ways. I’ll vote for him if he makes it to the nomination, but I don’t see him as the Great White Hope.
randy khan
@FlipYrWhig: Yep.
dogwood
@rdldot:
We’re talking about “legacy” here. Carter was certainly trashed while in office, but has been seen as an exemplary ex-president.
Mnemosyne
@Hillary Rettig:
I thought the media agreed that she was a opportunistic carpetbagger who moved to New York because she thought she had the best chance of winning a senate seat there. But I can’t always keep up on which bits of anti-Clinton propaganda had legs and which ones didn’t, so that may have vanished down the memory hole.
;-)
Full disclosure: I once won a gift certificate from a long-defunct furniture website for winning second place at designing Hillary’s new home office in New York. I bought a really cool white metal four-poster bed with it, but I had to sell it when I moved in with my now husband because it was only a full size.
Gin & Tonic
@lonesomerobot:
Stupid decisions like those made by every prior Secretary of State in the e-mail era?
Bobby Thomson
@Kay: that question was at least in the ball park of policy and not pure ad hominem.
singfoom
@dogwood: I don’t think it’s quite as binary as you think it is. If we had let some of the banks fail and had done perp walks, the behavior would have changed.
It’s called incentives. What behavior was incentivized by the bank bailouts? For Wall Street to change and stop bad actors? Hardly. Bad behavior was not punished, it was rewarded. If you believe in justice and the rule of law, you want it to be applied equally. When there was systemic fraud and abuse all along the subprime mortgage pipeline, from those valuing the house to the realtor to the bank officer pushing people into subprimes and LIAR loans and then on top of that add robosigning and not filling documents. Then on top of that you have firms selling synthetic CDOs to clients while BETTING against those directly.
In the 80s we successfully as a nation handled the Savings & Loans scandal. Hundreds of people went to jail. That not one high profile executive went to jail on account of that massive fraud is in of itself a scandal. You may not consider it so, but please don’t tell me that my motivations for wanting that is tea party populism.
I wanted the rule of law to rule the day. The dollar did instead.
chopper
@Miss Bianca:
yeah, this condescending “(insert person/group here), I WILL NOW EDUCATE YOU ON THE REASONS WHY YOU MADE THE WRONG CHOICE” shtick is getting old.
dogwood
@Hillary Rettig:
You wonder why they settled in NY? Now you’re just making a fool of yourself. Why don’t you take a hint from Bernie, and act like a grownup?
Corner Stone
@dogwood:
When did that start?
FlipYrWhig
@Applejinx:
The things Hillary says in my imagination piss ME off too! Head-Hillary is consistently contemptuous and shrill. And it’s been that way for 30 years! This is a real problem for her.
rdldot
@Corner Stone: Too funny! Please proceed!
Gravenstone
@Gin & Tonic: I was going to suggest that the dynastic talk might be valid when Chelsea Clinton runs once she’s eligible. Then I double check and find she’s already 35, and thus eligible. Damn I feel old.
Corner Stone
@Applejinx:
I am not too surprised to find you are just flat out of your fucking mind.
This little imaginative retort would have got her crushed, absolutely fucking crushed, on both sides of the aisle and all the way up the Bernmentum mountain.
dogwood
@singfoom:
Maybe you think freezing up credit for people like me, and letting my savings collapse without any hope of recouping them even I the long run is the price we should pay to teach the oligarchs a lesson, but I care more about the people who would actually have to pay the piper.
Cacti
@dogwood:
Now why would an ex-POTUS and his wife decide to live in a large, diverse, dynamic, and interesting US city, that is home to more than 8.4 million Americans?
Truly a mystery.
Gin & Tonic
@singfoom:
Ever heard of Charles Keating?
rdldot
@dogwood: Well, I’m talking about the legacy of his presidency which is decidedly trashed by media, and ignored by Democrats, which is what I thought was the topic. I didn’t think we were talking about Clinton’s post-presidency (or Carters). Guess I was mistaken.
Mnemosyne
@Applejinx:
I hope you’re not a political consultant, because Sure, give me $600,000 and I’ll tell you what I said in that speech is a TERRIBLE response. That’s something Trump would say, fer chrissakes.
Asking what was in the speech is a BS attempt to create a new “scandal,” so I really don’t blame her for blowing off the question. If a reporter asks her if Bill is still cheating on her, is she being evasive and dishonest if she blows it off without responding?
Applejinx
@FlipYrWhig: ‘Head-Hillary’?
There is VIDEO.
That said, it’s obviously a zinger question, but Bernie would have been able to turn it on the questioner. Hell, Bill would have been able to handle that better. And she didn’t walk away as the commenter said.
She did literally laugh at him, and then she TURNED away, did not engage, and waited for her handlers or possibly FBI to remove the guy for being a douche.
And he was being a douche, because he was asking something pretty unreasonable. A transcript? srsly?
But she could have also said ‘No’. And I for one would like to know what she told them. It seems important given that she could be President.
chopper
@Cacti:
they should move to vermont, where everybody’s white.
singfoom
@dogwood: You know there’s a process for winding down banks without hurting customers, right?
FDIC Bank Closure FAQ
List of Failed Banks
The FDIC does it all the time. I think that fucking up the economy for people like you and me is a crime that should be answered. We’ve all paid the piper as people participating in the economy.
I don’t want you to suffer more to “teach the oligarchs” a lesson. I want the rule of law followed to prevent another repeat of the same damn problem. I care about people too and I don’t think it’s a question of
A)You care about normal people.
OR
B)You care about prosecuting financial white collar crime.
I think it could have been handled in a way that prevented the specific harms you worry about while prosecuting those who committed the crimes. I respect your difference of opinion.
eemom
Way, way late, but put me down amongst those who find this smug-ass post a steaming pile of horseshit. And I don’t even like Joan Walsh.
Bobby Thomson
@FlipYrWhig: I’ve been to a few of those lecture circuit speeches at job functions. Both by media villagers known to all here. One I gritted my teeth through and the other I walked out on. They basically don’t say anything you don’t hear them saying on TV. It’s a way for management to make the help feel like they’re important.
Applejinx
@Corner Stone: So if it’s that unacceptable for her to have given a speech for $600 grand to Goldman Sachs, that we can’t even TALK about it much less ask what she told them, why exactly are we trying to make her President again? If she’s doing things that we can’t even speak of publically because they’re too beyond the pale that they’re unthinkably politically destructive, I see that as a problem.
I am FINE with her going ‘yup, special knowledge, speech costs this much, available to all, if you can’t afford it suck it’. You could even make an argument that she’s worth that much, to do that.
It only makes the contents more interesting. And if you say Trump would come up with a retort like that?
Trump’s winning, on the Republican side. He gets this stuff. He’d demolish her in the general election if she can’t handle herself in this area.
FlipYrWhig
@Applejinx:
You’re the one who turned all you saw into “You’re not one of the people who matter.” That’s more of an indictment of your imagination than anything else.
singfoom
@Gin & Tonic: Sorry, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I was loose in my use of indefinite articles. When I said
, I was referring to the 2008/9 Economic Collapse, not the 80s S&L.
I know exactly who Charles Keating is and who the Keating Five were/are.
Cheers.
dogwood
@Mnemosyne:
I actually listened to an interview Maddow did with Clinton where they talked extensively about those speeches. What she said the audience was most interested in were her impressions of the world after serving as SoS and her views about threats and opportunities in the future. In a global economy, that’s not surprising to me.
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig: Nothing Head-Hillary says to me is ever a problem. She’s always like, “Oh, Corner. You know when I break that glass ceiling I am totally going to expropriate the appropriators, seize the commanding heights and heighten the contradictions!”
Anya
@Betty Cracker: I should read the damn thing before I make a comment. But I got so weary of JW during the 08 primary wars.
chopper
@Applejinx:
uh, okay.
hitchhiker
I have towels older than you is now my go-to silent comment when confronted by smug young fools.
FlipYrWhig
@Applejinx: What the ever loving fuck are you talking about? Famous lecturers get paid to say jack to the power of squat. They’re there to make people want to come to the event. It’s not sooper seekrit arcane knowledge.
chopper
@dogwood:
of course. but that won’t stop those out there steeped in right-wing bullshit to make up whatever they want about those speeches.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Cacti: word is the Obamas are thinking of New York City, imagine that. I’m sure spending the cold seasons that Michelle reportedly has had enough of in Hawaii.
Here’s hoping they stay restless and take that restlessness down to register voters in some of the deep red congressional districts in MN, and some folks who crossed over the borders take it back to WI and the Dakotas and Iowa
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone: Hawt.
Bobby Thomson
@Hillary Rettig: New York Values attacks are so Ted Cruz.
dogwood
@singfoom:
And I respect your response. I think ’08 was a bit different because negligence brought us to a point where too many banks were going to implode making some sort of orderly process of holding people accountable almost impossible unless we were willing to screw the little guy.
Corner Stone
@Applejinx: Woah there, boss. How about you stop putting words in my mouth the way you so enjoy putting fake shit in HRC’s?
Never, anywhere, have I said that asking about interaction with GS or the wealthy was not worth discussing. I simply wanted to know upthread what was the actual “wrong” with her having given a paid speech to GS. I am commenting on your completely asinine suggestion that HRC dismissed the questioner as a lowly commoner not worthy of being in her presence, and further, your fucking ridiculous suggestion that she tell that commoner to pony up $600K and she’ll be happy to spend time with him. That is about the stupidest thing I have seen posted here since a certain former political strategist-in-house passed on.
And, no. I was not about to say anything about Trump. You’re really bad at screenplays for other people, eh?
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig: I had to re-write that a couple times. Because what Head-Hillary *really* says to me? That’s like Balloon-Juice After Dark stuff that may make SP&T blush.
FlipYrWhig
@dogwood: It was a very frustrating political moment, but from reading around (I’m no expert) I started to feel like the risk was that we’d have a stock market crash followed by a deep depression, and you just can’t screw around with that. Which, of course, banks _know_, which gives them power. Which is why coming up with a toothy regulatory regime is a great idea. And Glass Steagall could be part of it, and other things could be part of it, just like how in 2008 on health care the individual mandate was one approach and the employer mandate was another.
Betty Cracker
T-Bogg unit! C’mon people, let’s do this thing! Corporate sell-out dupe! Unicorn fairy dust-huffer!
schrodinger's cat
@WarMunchkin: I am all for reducing income inequality. I just don’t think Sanders has outlined a plausible path to getting it done.
dogwood
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
That’s interesting. I don’t know why I thought they might stay in the DC area until Sasha finishes high school. Moving young children isn’t a problem, but moving young adults away from their school and friends can be traumatic . But it might very well be that Sasha is ok with it.
Emma
@Hillary Rettig: Just what the hell do you have against New York City? Millions of people arrive and leave every freaking day, from Argentinian millionaires to starry eyed theater wannabees from Iowa. NYC is the power center of the United States in many ways. For an ex-president who was setting up his own foundation and was going to be schmoozing donors it would be the absolute best place to be in. Their friends were most likely settled there. Why should they pick Oshkosh instead of NYC? To prove their political purity?
Christ. This is just too much Republican recycled claptrap.
Davis X. Machina
@dogwood: The means of production, distribution, and finance were right there. Begging to be seized in the name of the workers.
No revolution without martyrs.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Cacti: And is your tone problematic for the Clinton campaign?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Betty Cracker: Troll front pager second-rate DougJ spoof don’t even live in Florida and your chicken’s suck their own eggs’ and who the fuck would even live in Florida and you probably really live somewhere stupid like Kansbrashiregon where you vote for the fucking KOCH BROTHER’S you Naderite gobshite-spewing hack who probably voted for Bill Bradley to and reads Marks SHiled’s columns outlaid to your dog’s! ! ! ! ! Maureen Dowd under the bus with Glenn Beck in The Veal Pen
McCluskey! McCluskey! I want McCluskey!
ETA: @dogwood: Forgot about Sasha. Lots of nice places in that region, I think, where persons with means could run out a high school clock
FlipYrWhig
I kind of want to keep fighting alongside my bosom companion (teehee, ‘bosom’) Corner Stone, but I have other things to do this afternoon. Aux armes, citoyens et citoyennes!
Monala
@Applejinx: Not sure I agree with all your post, but I like your analogy, substituting my preference, Costco, for Sam’s Club: “Paying taxes is like buying a Costco membership. It gives you discounts on a lot of things you wouldn’t be able to afford otherwise, such as police, fire, roads, schools, healthcare, etc.”
lonesomerobot
@Corner Stone: Yea, I only brought up the email server and the speeches. Everything else is your window dressing. Hopefully you understand that I’m allowed to observe something and then form an opinion about it, while also knowing that there are other things trying to influence that opinion. But you can’t just grandfather these other things into to my argument. I never brought up a single one of them. I don’t think it’s fair that Hillary Clinton has to play by different rules, but she does. But some of these things I’m talking about would be rules for any progressive candidate: Be transparent. Don’t give six figure speeches to the banks that helped destroy our economy if you’re not prepared to reveal what you said to them, or at least have to pay a political price with progressives for having done so.
The other thing here: I’m allowed to not like Hillary Clinton, as are other progressives. I’m old enough to have seen basically her entire public life, and my feelings about her have nothing to do with Bernie Sanders. Her instincts have led to actions that have been the opposite of transparency. You want to act like it’s just some “feeling” that people don’t like her are making up, or is only there because she has enemies who have put it there. But it’s very real, and in my case it’s because I perceive that she has bad instincts. Which is what I said in the first place. You don’t agree, fine. We’ll agree to disagree.
And finally, I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. Therefore, back off. Because the things you say and the way you say them are only doing damage to the candidate you support. Everything doesn’t have to be a throwing down of the gauntlet. Accept that there are a lot of people, even progressives and Democrats, that think Hillary is unlikable, and they felt that way long before Bernie Sanders came along. Do what you can to get them to realize they still need to vote for her if she’s the nominee.
elftx
And here I thought listening to Hugh Hewitt last night tell Charlie Rose just what a DREADFUL candidate Hilary is was sooo important. But no, I’m s’posed to get all upset w her supporters..Got it!!
Gin & Tonic
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: That was very, very good.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@dogwood: Do you think that tone may be problematic for the Clinton campaign?
kindness
Oy vey. This thread went off the rails. Stop sniping each other folks. We aren’t each others enemies. We may disagree but we’re on the same side. Or at least I thought we were.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Was that an attempt at humor? I kind of hope so, for your sake
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
Just a reminder to the Clinton supporters that while you are policing tone, it may help to moderate your tone. I feel bad for having to remind you of that because I know how important tone is to you.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: I don’t like your tone.
(just trying to get to that non-magic number)
Corner Stone
@lonesomerobot:
We can agree to disagree, but you’ll still be wrong.
Firstly, let it be acknowledged that nowhere in this thread have I said word one about Bernie Sanders, or his supporters. So let’s not play silly buggers and try to make this about one candidate supporters versus another. I am not pushing back against your narrative because I consider you supporting any one candidate, because frankly I don’t care. I am, in fact, pushing back against your RW narrative because it does, in fact, lay in the foundation of all the same lifelong schmear campaign that HRC has been put to. I understand you keep mentioning the email lesbian servers and the paid speech orgies, and not Vince Foster’s murder or the Clinton’s drug running. If you’ve lived long enough to see HRC from 1991 on then you simply *must* be aware of the things I am bringing forward. It is impossible to not be aware of these unstoppable myths and scandals the RW have made damn sure stick to her like semen on a blue dress.
This is incredible. Simply boggles the mind that you flat out state she is judged by a different criteria but certainly none of the things you so studiously do not mention could possibly be a part of that equation.
You can not like her all you want. You don’t have to like anyone your feels tell you not to like. But it is simply the height of disingenuousness, if I may coin a term, to say HRC seems unlikable because she wasn’t transparent on the same thing previous SecStates all did and she won’t give prop content that GS paid for, which, I am godsdamned sure I saw people in real life do every day.
sharl
@Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism:
~
My answer to both questions is: Beats me!
It wouldn’t seem characteristic of Bernie’s style – at least as is popularly assumed – to take credit for Obama’s (or anyone else’s) work. But if he’s smart, and actually reaches the White House (an extreme long shot IMO), he should mimic what any other politician in that role would do, and take that credit.
Cacti
@Emma:
Maybe she just disapproves of New York values, like progressive Ted Cruz.
dogwood
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
I don’t know what you’re referring to. I’m guessing my comment to Hillary R. about acting like a grown up. She’s a front pager here. I’m just making a comment. I’m not part of the Clinton campaign, and have never been a Clintonite. I’m not confronting candidates with ridiculous questions at townhalls on behalf of any candidate. I don’t write for any major publication, so I’m ok with what I said. I don’t find either Bernie or Hillary to be particularly charming, likable or exciting and I’m ok with that. I don’t need to be passionate about a candidate in order to get off my ass and vote. Seeing something nefarious about living in NY is juvenile.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Bern the Village to Save It!
follow up tweet for context
ETA: I wonder what “too tied to Washington” means in their minds. How and where do the children think politics/policy get changed?
negative 1
@rp: Perhaps they are pushed into having to defend that when the second you say you prefer Bernie to Hilary you get called sexist.
Bobby Thomson
@Cacti: indeed
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
Late to the party, but…
@Hillary Rettig:
(Emphasis added.)
BTW, I thought GS was called the “Vampire Squid”.
I don’t understand your comment that I bolded. Is there any dispute that Bill and Hillary owed their lawyers millions when they left the White House?. Why conflate her obviously true statement from around 2001 with her opinion about her finances now?
Yes, they’ve made a lot of money. That story from 2005 says that she had at that point made $8.7M from one of her books alone.
I don’t know what she told GS that was worth $600k or whatever it was. Maybe she told them to “cut it out” as she says she did in an early debate. Maybe she told them all how great they were and how she would give them everything they wanted if she ran for President and won. Maybe she talked about her books and her work helping women and girls.
Who knows.
I do suspect, but don’t know, and neither does anyone else, that she wasn’t bought off by GS.
And I suspect, but don’t know, that she doesn’t feel broke and hasn’t since 2005 at the latest.
YMMV.
Cheers,
Scott.
negative 1
@singfoom: The idea of multistate banks is only about 30 years old give or take. I don’t know why anyone acts as though we’d be going back to trading grain for swatches of fabric by breaking them up and making a federal law to reverse the state covenants that allowed it in the first place. They are organized by holding company anyway, it’s not the world’s most difficult proposition to break them up along those seams.
imavettoo
@Hillary Rettig:
Read this Hillary then get back to us.
chopper
@lonesomerobot:
and this ‘oh well” attitude among self-described liberals no less is exactly why those unfair rules continue to exist.
want those unfair rules to go away? STOP FUCKING PLAYING BY THEM.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Thanks, I didn’t bother with that one, but the talk-radio dishonesty there struck me too.
dogwood
I’ve never thought paid speechifying by ex presidents or soon to be presidents said all that much about what they did or will do in office. It’s just a crass money grab for politicians and probably a general waste of money on the part of the corporations. While billionaires spend obscene amounts of cash on political campaigns, it’s becoming obvious that a good share of that money just lines the pockets of grifters. How much money did the Romney campaign spend lining the pockets of the consultant class while the Obama campaign wisely skipped the middlemen?
vhh
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Hasn’t Bernie been a Senator for ~25 years (ie, since about 1990)? Isn’t his office and most-of-the-time home in Washington DC or the MD/VA suburbs?
Hillary moved to the Washington and the White House in 1993, ie 22 years ago. She then moved to NY for a few years, and then became a US Senator, and then Sec State until 2011 or 12. If simply being “part of Washington” is the original sin here, it would seem to me that Bernie has put in more time on that gig than Hillary has.
ellennelle
BRAVO!!!
thankuthankuthanku!
very well said, and i second that emotion. and all 3 questions.
Miss Bianca
Now that I’ve actually read the cited article, I find myself rather liking it. And while I don’t always agree with Joan Walsh, I agree with her central premise on this one: a lot of HRC criticism is tainted by plain old sexist BS. Yes, even legitimate criticism. Yes, even lefty criticism. Even women’s criticism. Is it possible to have legitimate concerns about her stand on various issues? Of course. But so much of what’s legitimate gets mixed up with all the other crap – whether it’s her looks or her “likeability” (and really, what kind of BS is that?) or whether she’s really a Vampire Lesbian of Sodom who offed Vince Foster for the lulz – that at a certain point I tend to tune it out. Particularly when both my Libertarian boyfriend and my various lefty friends start spouting the EXACT SAME talking points, I tend to want to tune it all out. Probably a character defect of mine.
(Seriously, I just had the “Hillz is in the bag for Wall Street because of that 600 hundred grand speech and Bill and how come she won’t tell us what she said, huh??” – to which my response, at least to the BF, was “oh, right…and if I as a reporter put you on the spot about the subject of your presentation at the Black Hat Conference, you would TOTALLY whip that out for me to put on the record in any way shape or form I chose, right? Whether or not I understood it? Because of the public’s right to know?”). Le sigh.
Just Some Fuckhead, Tone Police
For the remainder of the 2016 presidential campaign, I will personally monitor the tone of the public discussion on Balloon Juice. Frankly, until Bernie started outpolling Clinton, I didn’t realize it was an issue.
You are all on notice about your tone. Don’t force me to continue to make this all about me.
different-church-lady
@dogwood: Hey, you gotta admit the collapse and elimination of the U.S. Dollar would have made the revolution arrive a lot sooner, right?
different-church-lady
Say what you want about Ms. Rettig, but she’s on target for a TBogg.
different-church-lady
@singfoom: You are aware that they let Lehman Brothers collapse, yes?
randy khan
@singfoom:
It’s absolutely true that the FDIC (and FSLIC and other similar federal agencies) deal with bank failures all the time. But they have only a limited amount of money, obtained through premiums paid by the banks, and they don’t cover brokerage accounts at all. (Brokerage accounts generally are covered by private insurance.) Given the magnitude of the potential crash, the FDIC and its brethren almost certainly would have run out of cash very quickly, and a lot of people would have gotten nothing or Congress would have had to step in and appropriate a lot of money – a lot more than the amount appropriated for TARP. And, of course, that wouldn’t have dealth with the brokerage accounts at all.
sharl
@Miss Bianca: I kinda like Joan Walsh anyway, but one thing I really appreciated was her retweeting a number of critics of her Nation article. She could have been a real shitweasel and only RT’d the asshole trolls to “prove her point” – she would not have been lacking for material! – but she instead RT’d a mixture of those assholes along with a number of thoughtful/respectful dissenters to her article.
A class act, that was – although I wasn’t about to even attempt the impossible task of quantifying whether she got the balance right; it looked pretty representative, from my qualitative eyeballing of the responses on her timeline.
randy khan
On the topic of the Goldman Sachs speech, as others have said, those speeches generally are pretty much nothingburgers – no great secrets revealed, no great insights provided. $600K is very much at the high end, but honestly not out of the normal range that someone like HRC would get.
singfoom
@different-church-lady: Yes, I’m very aware of that fact. And since Lehman brothers had a bunch of the other banks/financial institutions as counterparties to the deals, they had to bail them out.
I won’t argue against the basics of the bailouts at the time. Something had to be done in the short term to make sure the entire system didn’t collapse. I’m not advocating that. What I will be forever disappointed by was the lack of breaking up / prosecuting fraud done AFTER the bailouts. The political capital to seriously reign in the banks was sitting right there. But not enough was done.
The big banks are even bigger today. There was widespread financial fraud just like the S&L debacle of the 80s and in order to fix the culture lots of people should have gone to jail.
Adam L Silverman
@schrodinger’s cat: it’s always the loon refuge with you people… You’re like junkies//
Depending on how the rest of my day goes (I’m babysitting someone who had a procedure this AM) I’ll get it up tonight. I’ve been up sine zero dark hundred though, so I’m sure the spelling will be imaginative.
different-church-lady
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I thinks I sees the problem…
Scarcelight
Ew, when did Balloon Juice become PUMA Central?
sharl
@Adam L Silverman: Adam, do you have any thoughts on the rumblings about maybe going back into (or over?) Libya, to…umm…”fix” things there?
I’d be a willing reader, whether you want to wait until you get some sleep to give it a sober-minded effort, or post something in your current sleep-deprived state (for greater potential for entertainment value!).
singfoom
@randy khan: I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t have done something like the bailout/TARP, etc. It was necessary at the time. I just want/wanted more strings attached and more prosecutions of the systemic fraud addressed.
Yes, the FDIC etc didn’t have enough money and there was always going to be a vehicle for bad banks. I just think it should have been handled along the 80s S&L resolution lines more than what happened.
Cheers.
Betty Cracker
@singfoom: I would have loved to see the greed-heads do the perp walk too, but from what I understand, a lot of the fraudulent activity was perfectly legal at the time.
mapaghimagsik
@Betty Cracker:
You had me until shots of Jameson at a Tiki Bar. Where’s the Ron Zacapa?
randy khan
@singfoom: It was potentially an order of magnitude bigger (or more) relative to the size of the economy than the S&L crisis. I honestly don’t think that kind of solution would have worked. Leaving aside whether there would have been enough money to pay out to account holders, it’s hard to even fathom the impact of that kind of collapse on the economy as a whole – like it or not, the banking system is the circulatory system of the economy.
dogwood
@Betty Cracker:
I think you’re right, a lot of went went on was perfectly legal. And it will be legal again if a republican gets into the WH. I’m pretty sure I’m an anomaly around here when it come to giviing much of a shit about what the rich do. I know that in my own community, if I want to point the finger at who is most responsible for hindering progress, it ain’t the wealthier citizens. It’s middle class assholes who organize against school bond levies, libraries, park renovations, public art projects and civic theater support. It’s working class and middle class kooks who put the breaks on everything. I wish I could say it’s the selfish rich country clubbers who lead the charge, but it isn’t.
the Conster
@Anya: @mike with a mic:
To where?
randy khan
@the Conster:
<blockquote
To where?
Michael Bloomberg, I suppose.
singfoom
@Betty Cracker: So, that’s a tough one. Some of the behavior you’re talking about, that’s totally correct. But here’s a good example of what makes me want to scream:
JP Morgan Robosigning
The whole “robosigning” scandal (which happened at multiple banks) was straight up perjury. They signed legal documents saying X and Y when they KNEW that was not the case. So, the companies end up paying a fine.
So, my problem is this. Someone, an actual living breathing human being (most likely an executive) made the decision to countenance that. This wasn’t a low level employee going rogue, it was company policy. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have happened on the scale that it did. So why didn’t the government use the DOJ to go after JP Morgan, use discovery to find out who made that decision and prosecute them for perjury?
A little person fights back
So, some of the behavior may have been legal, but some it was clearly not. The companies have “admitted wrongdoing” and paid fines. This isn’t abstract, it’s not just about money. People were clearly harmed. People lost their homes, their lives imploded. Real people inside the banks harmed real people outside the banks. Yet the banks walked away with slaps on the wrist, a cost of business.
You can say you don’t think it was possible to prosecute at the time, etc…, etc….
I don’t think the DOJ ever even tried or was interested in trying. I can understand where others are coming from. At this point it’s a pony I know I’ll never get and it’s just bitterness. For me it’s that way because the rule of law is the idea of this country to me…and that wasn’t followed in this case from my perspective.
Cheers.
Gravenstone
@mike with a mic: If clowns like you are representative of a Sanders supporter, then there should be little question why people are being pushed away from even considering, let alone supporting him.
Gravenstone
@Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism: Shhh. Doesn’t fit the narrative.
Corner Stone
@dogwood: He’s very concerned. About your tone.
Betty Cracker
@singfoom: Good point, and you’re right — it is maddening.
Gian
@Bobby Thomson:
better than diaper dave vitter
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
mclaren should show up and post a few things so that this thread finally hits a TBogg Unit. So close…
Cheers,
Scott.
Joel
@Mnemosyne: That would be the last 29 superbowls to you, mister.
J R in WV
@chris m:
CNN never paid Ms Chelsea Clinton (I forget her married name) anything ever.
It was NBC, she produced show bits that she was paid for. Not a no show. Maybe not as successful as everyone hoped, but still.
J R in WV
@Lisa:
It’s good to hear from you again.
Don’t feel bad about Freddy, he’s well paid for his commentary, regardless of what B-J commentariat thinks of him.
J R in WV
@mike with a mic:
You have said “But I get it, rich white women, it’s THEIR TURN.” over and over. That’s stupid, you’re stupid to repeat it over and over.
Hillary is the most experienced candidate running for president this election cycle. So get over that “IT’S THEIR TURN!” nonsense. If you oppose Mrs. Clinton, and support Mr Sanders, say why you like Sanders, and stop berating Mrs Clinton, because she will be the Democratic nominee.
Also too, go away.
You other choices will be Trump. Good luck with that!
BruceFromOhio
Aaaand the circular firing squad labors and fails to produce a TBogg unit. Good try, though!
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@BruceFromOhio: Is there a time limit?
With the Recent Comments sidebar, and the trick of putting the date in the URL, we should be able to keep this going…
:-)
Cheers,
Scott.
bemused senior
@Hillary Rettig: No.