I would take this more seriously if Ryan ever criticized all the mini-Trump's in his conference https://t.co/rmhrGuRLG3
— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) May 7, 2016
… and the NYTimes wants us to know about his noble stand for True Conservative Principles. Per the article:
… Although party leaders furiously brokered a meeting between the two men at the Capitol next Thursday, it is likely that only substantial changes in Mr. Trump’s language and tenor, not just minor calibrations on policy positions, will be needed to bring Mr. Ryan to his camp.
Mr. Ryan has become increasingly depressed about the tone of the race within the Republican Party, several people who have talked to him in recent weeks said. He could not bring himself to give even nominal support to Mr. Trump, despite pressure from more conservative House Republicans, after the candidate disparaged various ethnic groups and accused Senator Ted Cruz’s father of conspiring with Lee Harvey Oswald, among other inflammatory comments. Those remarks determined Mr. Ryan’s course far more than the considerable differences on policy between the men.
Mr. Ryan’s stance may lead to the remarkable scenario of a convention chairman presiding over the nomination of a man he does not support, but it basically comes down to three things.
First, and most important: he can do it. Unlike former Speaker John A. Boehner, who had to fight to cling to his gavel almost from the moment he took it in 2011, Mr. Ryan was drafted into his job by the majority of his conference. And unlike Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, who says he supports Mr. Trump, Mr. Ryan is largely impervious to criticism from the right. Agree or disagree with Mr. Ryan, at this point his members need him more than he needs them, at least to prevent unmitigated chaos in their ranks.
It is notable that House conservatives often derided Mr. Boehner for not “sticking to conservative principles” in negotiating with Democrats on legislation, but now are chafing that Mr. Ryan, whose conservative principles have in many ways been rejected by Mr. Trump, is not getting behind the presumptive nominee…
Second, Mr. Ryan sees the value in protecting Republican House members up for re-election in swing districts where Mr. Trump may well be a drag on the rest of the ticket…
The third reason is that nothing Mr. Ryan has said compels him to change his current course as speaker, which is largely focused on developing an alternative Republican policy agenda and shoring up vulnerable members with money and help campaigning. He plans to develop that agenda with House members, even if election politics may well prevent any of it from becoming actual legislation.
This is perhaps the weakest reason for withholding support from Mr. Trump, since without a Republican in the White House, there will probably be no Ryan agenda. But for Mr. Ryan, Mr. Trump’s conduct appears to loom larger than the speaker’s policy dreams. So even if the candidate shows up at the Capitol next week and says “I fully support this agenda,” it would almost certainly not be enough, Ryan aides say….
The Washington Post adds:
… Asked by CNN anchor Jake Tapper whether he backs Trump, Ryan responded: “I’m just not ready to do that at this point. I’m not there right now. And I hope to, though, and I want to. But I think what is required is that we unify the party. And I think the bulk of the burden on unifying the party will have to come from our presumptive nominee.”
“This is the party of Lincoln, of Reagan, of Jack Kemp. And we don’t always nominate a Lincoln and a Reagan every four years, but we hope that our nominee aspires to be Lincoln- and Reagan-esque,” Ryan said, adding that he hopes the candidate “advances the principles of our party and appeals to a wide, vast majority of Americans.”…
Translated from the Punditese (Punditease?); Paul Ryan, whose theatrical reluctance to ‘compromise his principles’ allowed him to crawfish backwards into his current position as The Second Most Important Republican Officeholder, finds Deadbeat Donald Trump’s brutish campaigning as distasteful as does the NYTimes. Since nobody who might want the Speakership is capable of taking it away from him, Ryan is free to stand upon his principles — mainly his principle that nothing is more important than ensuring Paul Ryan’s bright future — and spend the next six months publicly deploring the tone of the presidential race, while quietly ratfvcking downballot races for whichever minor Republicans the big money donors prefer.
When Trump self-destructs, before or after November, Ryan will be happy to point out for the cameras all the many ways in which it was not his fault, because he has principles. And the Media Village Idiots — led by Jake Tapper — will fulsomely proclaim him the Only Honest Politician in Washington (so unlike that vile harpy Hillary Clinton, who will be anointed 110% responsible for Trump, for reasons).
Fads in GOP leadership will come and go, but Paul Ryan will always be Vicar of Bray.
Hunter Gathers
The Village really wants Paul Ryan to fuck them like a rental.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I made a brief effort at reading McKay Coppins’ book on the GOP and their primary, and the chapter on Ryan reads like it was written by Ryan’s mother, and edited by Ryan and his chief political consultant. I don’t think words “Ayn Rand” ever appear in it. Sweet Paulie Blue-Eyes is the most gosh-darned sincere Jack Kemp acolyte ever to spend all his time thinking about conservative solutions to poverty, no mention of the culture of our inner-cities. (I could be wrong, the chapter became increasingly hard to read). I gave up on the book when it became apparent that Ari Fleischer was going to get the same level of gimlet-eyed scrutiny in the next chapter.
What’s the right-wing equivalent of Emo-Progs?
Rolling Along
Paul Ryan will be a valuable asset when the Independent Conservatice ticket is launched.
Neither Trump nor Hillary will be the next president of we can get a third party up and running.
#OnDemandFunding
#TakeItToTheHouse
Hunter Gathers
@Rolling Along: I’d hate to tell you this, but the deadline to get on the ballot as a third party candidate has passed in most states.
#OnDemandChickenFucking
#TakeItToTheOuthouse
D58826
@Bob In Portland: Neat slice and dice.
Trump has never talked/given speeches to Wall street leaders. Hard to believe. Bernie I rather guess he hasn’t but then until recently how many people outside of the NRA and the Socialist workers party would give two cents to hear Bernie speak.
And why limit it to just Wall Street speeches? Or is that just some creative accounting to get your blood pressure up over the wicked witch of all 4 points of the compass.
This is the first election cycle that one candidate has been asked to release transcripts of speeches that she made as a private citizen. Nobody ever asked Romney to release the transcripts of all the speeches he gave while a private citizen.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@D58826: I’ll admit it, I was curious and clicked and skimmed on the link. HRC’s income from “Wall St speeches” has ballooned to $25 million dollars.
Also, there are at least two “Wall St speeches” given by HRC on youtube. I don’t know whats in them, because I don’t care, but if Bob and NR and goblow are interested, they can hunt them down and comment there. I’m sure youtube comments sections will be the cradle of the New Revolution.
NotMax
Translation: My way or pound sand, bub.
Two “You’re not the boss of me!” toddlers in a slap fight.
Mike in NC
But surely Ryan and Drumpf could sit together in a quiet room to discuss their favorite novel by Ayn Rand.
Amaranthine RBG
I really hope that all of the predictions about Trump imploding are correct.
I would be curious to now how many people think that Clinton will win in a landslide also thought a few months ago that Trump was a joke who’d never win nomination.
debbie
@Mike in NC:
I can’t believe Trump would have read that, or any other, book.
Mike J
Bad news for Trump:
Sharp Azteca buries American Freedom in the Pat Day mile (KY Derby undercard)
Luthe
@Rolling Along: The mystical “third party” is the great white whale of American politics. Many have tried, many have died.
Enjoy your sweet fantasy.
NotMax
I will give Paul R. credit for demonstratng the good sense to not name one (or all) of his kids Ayn Ryan.
D58826
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I have no idea what she said in any of the speeches that she gave to any of the groups when a private citizen. And don’t really care. The rubber chicken speakers tour is well populated by politicians of all stripes.
On any given day more people would be willing to pay bigger bucks to hear Hillary than Louie Gohmert. Talent/celebrity sells, that’s why A-Rod and Kobe make the big bucks.
Generally speaking Hillary is a smart woman, a good lawyer and an experienced politician. She saw how Mitt was turned into mincemeat after the 47% speech leaked. She must have known that there was a greater than 0% chance that somebody was recording her speech on a cell phone. The fact that none of that has leaked, unless somebody is waiting for the general, says to me that the speeches were expensive bores. In addition she is not going to stand up in front of a large audience and say that she considers Goldman’s sponsorship of her speech a bribe. If that was her understanding of why Goldman paid for the speech, she and the Goldman execs will hash out the details in a very small, private, secure room.
The whole reason for demanding the speeches is to go thru them with a fine tooth comb and see if three or four words can be taken out of context to make it look like she confessed to being the Zodiac killer. And there will be some reference that will require even more documents to be produced. We are seeing the same thing happen with the Goudy witch hunt on Benghazi. No matter how much information DOD turns over there is always a document or person that hasn’t been read or interviewed. DOD has to find them as it will break the entire scandal open and prove that Hillary personally flew over to Benghazi and executed the 4 Americans herself.
Ruckus
@D58826:
Especially that one that was secretly recorded. The one where we found out that he can talk with his foot in his mouth.
dedc79
@srv: Your boy is even going to have a fight to win Georgia:
bk
@Mike J: Nice exacta!
bk
I live in Las Vegas, so I made my bets this morning at the Bellagio and will watch the Derby at home.
kdaug
@Luthe: Think of it as a pressure valve
D58826
@Ruckus: Even more reason that that speech should have been made public. At that point he was running for president. Which does bring up another angle. If Hillary has to release all the speeches she made as a private citizen then why not require all candidates to release all the speeches they make in private fund raising gatherings. And oh yes those speeches that the GOP candidates made In Vegas as part of the Adelson primary or in California as they poll danced for the Koch network.
ThresherK (GPad)
@Mike J: Does that mean I should have margaritas instead of mint juleps if I want to win?
Mike J
@bk: I thought about going to the track to watch on the big TV, instead I bought bourbon and mint and am making my own juleps while doing some baking. Or I will make a julep in another hour or so, after the ginger cinnamon rolls finish proofing and get rolled out.
hellslittlestangel
Trump as the candidate means that nothing is guaranteed. Ryan doesn’t need to worry about keeping the Speaker job; he has to worry about keeping the Representative job.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Cacti
Ryan is a weasel. He’ll fall in line with all the rest of the fascists.
BR
I really hope “Deadbeat Donald” catches on, or at least replaces “Dangerous Donald” which is a lousy nickname.
gogol's wife
@Cacti:
Profiles in Courage this isn’t.
yellowdog
@D58826: Here’s my take on the speeches. She is saving them for the general. Trump will pull a Bernie and say I will release my taxes if you release the transcripts. And she says ‘Sure, here they are. Show me the taxes!’ And you know that there is shit in those taxes forms that he does NOT want to see the light of day.
Baud
The NYT is high.
Cacti
@Amaranthine RBG:
I never doubted for a moment that being an unhinged bigot would carry Trump far in the GOP nomination. I laughed at the people who said that Trump was too crass and bombastic for mainstream Republican voters.
It made me wonder which Republican party they’d been watching for the past 25 years.
Baud
“Mr. Trump, why can’t you sound more like the Republicans whose asses you you kicked?”
Davis X. Machina
@D58826:
There’s a big difference between people asking and the Dialectic demanding.
D58826
@Cacti: True but I think most people figured ‘sanity’ would prevail and Ben Carson or Tail gunner Joe would be picked as the presentable candidate. Trump keeps show that you can dress him up but you can’t take take him out in normal company.
Cacti
@D58826:
Did Boob in Putinland get the ban hammer dropped on him again?
Davis X. Machina
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: The prior record for a gender gap was 11%, in Bill Clinton’s 96 race against Dole. I think there’s a chance — maybe 15% — that we see that doubled this go round. I’d make bank on it being 50% higher.
Amaranthine RBG
@Cacti: To follow up:
Do you now think that Trump is going to implode/ that Clinton is going to win a historic landslide?
Cacti
@Amaranthine RBG:
No and no. I think barring a black swan event of some sort, Clinton will win an EC victory similar to Obama’s, maybe a little bigger due to Trump being so widely disliked by women voters.
lamh36
D58826
@Davis X. Machina: TGhere has been a long history of ‘the Clintons play by a different set of rules’ Which is true. They are held to a standard that no one else is.
A bit of a history lesson from the impeachment era to prove the point. First a little biographical info. The following two were fictures on the impeachment talk shows, esp Geraldo when he was on predecessor of MSNBC;
‘legislative advocacy being a polite term for influence peddler.
One evening while discussing the perjury charge Geraldo made a 10k bet with them that they could not find any other case, I think it was at the federal level but could have been all levels, of a prosecutor filing a perjury charge without some other illegal activity as part of it. They came back a couple of weeks later with two cases, one from 1911. I forget the details of the one case but the other involved perjury to extort money from a sports coach even though the indictment was just for perjury. The other case was better fit to the terms of the bet so Geraldo paid up. Since the money was going to a charity and all three were probability making 10k an hour any way it didn’t hurt anyone. But Geraldo proved the larger point that the Star perjury investigation w/o any other crime is exceeding rare, unless your name is Clinton.
The speeches fall into the same category. It’s ok if you are any one else but Bill or Hillary. And that doesn’t mean that they don’t have their share of faults. And to add a response to Trumps tweet the House can impeach for any reason what so ever, even if they don’t like the color of Prez. Trumps hair.
opiejeanne
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Bernie hasn’t given any speeches for pay because it is illegal for him to do so until he retires from Congress. Sitting members of both houses are forbidden to do so.
D58826
@Cacti: Not sure if its more fun with him here and reading his paranoid take on life or more productive when only sane people are on a thread..
Redshift
What bullshit! Boehner didn’t have to fight to keep his gavel. The Freedumb Caucus hated him because he wasn’t a pure wingnut, but there were never enough of them to come close to voting him out in part because no one else wanted the thankless job. He stayed until he got sick of it, and then quit.
D58826
@opiejeanne: Bernie has a tweet up that the public is not stupid and that if a person gives a large sum of money to a campaign then that person expects something in return. Maybe / maybe not but then will he explain what the NRA expects from him after supporting him for most of his public life?
JaneE
Ryan is not the first person to realize that Trump’s positions on a lot of subjects do not follow the “conservative” party line. The Trump voters didn’t care. Does Trump care about any of his positions enough to have the party platform changed? Probably not, unless he can see a way to make money from it. Do the Trump voters care? They think he will fix all their problems, or at least not object when they act out their anger on (pick your minority). Ryan may come out ahead by avoiding Trump, but he couldn’t even pick up the pieces that Boehner left him, and if Trump loses as I hope he will, the GOP won’t be any more unified than the house is now.
Amaranthine RBG
@D58826:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/20/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-nra-report-card-d-minus-most-recent/
JPL
IMO, Ryan is just upset that Trump won’t privatize Social Security.
? Martin
@JaneE: Ryan agrees with Trumps positions just fine. He just can’t tolerate the tactics because it’s a losing play.
Lots of people agree with the Klan but are smart enough to not say so out loud. That’s Ryan.
D58826
@Amaranthine RBG:
So if you want to talk about what the clintons did in previous election cycles then I guess it is only fair to bring up Bernie’s mixed record.
But to a note of levity. The House has issued subpoenas for Obama care documents related to payments they claim are illegal. The GOP is outraged that the administration has stonewalled their request for over a year. The WH has responded that the documents are part of an ongoing law suit and therefore they can’t release them. The plaintiff in the law suit – the House of representatives. They can’t even keep their own frivolous activities straight.
Mike G
Shorter Ryan; That dreadful Mr. Trump is exposing our window-dressing for what it is, we can’t have the rageaholic rubes peeking behind the curtain.
shomi
Sweet sweet Republican tears. Drink all you want. Bottle it up and put it on a shelf. It ages like a fine wine.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Obama’s Howard Univ speech is getting rave reviews, even from Chuck Grassley.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Baud: The author(s) of that piece are not only high, they’re in a sensory deprivation tank.
Ryan doesn’t have any more control over his caucus than Boehner did. The “Freedom Caucus” kneecapped him about the budget in March. Their April 15 budget deadline came and went (warning Politico link).
As Krugman reminds us periodically, Ryan is a fraud. And the clowns are still running the asylum that is the US House of Representatives.
Cheers,
Scott.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@D58826: did you see that Gowdy Benghazi committee was looking for random Facebook and talk radio commenters to testify?
Mnemosyne
@D58826:
I never assumed sanity would prevail among Republican voters. I thought Trump would quit in a fit of pique if the race ever got too rough, but he had smooth sailing. I’m fascinated to see what he’ll do once he moves out of the Republican bubble and up against Obama, Warren, and Clinton.
@Cacti:
I think Clinton easily holds the Obama coalition together and adds some Hispanic and white women voters without too much effort. My dream is that we work our asses off, get massive turnout, and crush Trump like a bug.
Adam L Silverman
Trump unloaded on Speaker Ryan at a rally earlier over this.
22over7
Ryan wants either (1) the outright nomination by acclimation as he’s paraded around the convention hall or (2) the Presidency in four years. But this year he also has to contend with possibly (barely possibly) losing the House. Maybe the Senate too. Trump’s going to go to his office on Thursday, get the photo-op, and come out to say he doesn’t give a shit about Paul Ryan and his opinions. Going to be real interesting.
opiejeanne
@D58826: I think the NRA got their money’s worth from Bernie, with Sanders voting no on the Brady Bill 5 times and that bill to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits by victims of gun violence.
He made some remarks about a month ago about how people in Vermont only use guns for hunting, while people in big cities use them on each other. The big city in question was Chicago, if I remember correctly, and that wasn’t just a dog whistle, that was the noon lunch horn.
D58826
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: You mean John in Iowa? Yes. seems John told Hannity that he was a drone operator on the night in question. He saw things that havn’t been reported and are being covered up by the Obama administration.
DOD’s response was:
1. we searched all of the personnel files for drone operators around that time and we can not match any of the to John of Iowa.
2. The committee has all of the video from that night. GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT FOR YOUR SELF and leave us alone.
I haven’t seen any response from the committee but I suspect they will be asking DOJ to find the Vince Foster hitman because Hillary probably hired him take out John of Iowa.
opiejeanne
@Amaranthine RBG: Yeah, Bernie got a D- for some reason. Hillary got an F from them.
22over7
@Redshift: I think it was the pope. Seriously. All the pics that day showed Boehner SOBBING, not just teary. I think he had a spiritual moment.
StellaB
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I’ve watched the youtube Goldman Sachs speech. Helping women become entrepreneurs is good. Women need access to lending to become entrepeneurs. Blah, blah. Completely anodyne. Also, she appears not to be speaking from notes or a prepared speech. If the other apeeches haven’t been recorded, then it’s likely there are no transcripts available.
opiejeanne
@D58826: I read about the ridiculous demands of Gowdy’s Benghazi committee a couple of days ago. I was amazed at some of the stupid requests they made, especially the anonymous poster on Facebook and the one you mentioned who claimed to be a drone pilot.
Mnemosyne
@StellaB:
As I’ve been saying all along, anyone who thinks there’s going to be something revelatory in those speeches has never attended a corporate keynote speech. You’re lucky if you get anodyne.
opiejeanne
@StellaB: This is what I’ve heard, that the speeches were what you describe but I hadn’t found any online until now. The next time someone fusses about the speeches I can link to these. Yay!
D58826
@opiejeanne: I’m trying to give Bernie the benefit of the doubt on a lot of this but given the delegate math it is over. I have no problem with him playing out the string till June, Hillary did. But at this point he should be spending more time point his barbs at Trump and not trying to bring down Hillary. Things he said when the primary race was still competative are one thing but at this point its over. Trump will use anything he says in a campaign ad. What was said early in the primary is on the record and can’t be unsaid but no need to add anything more.
The longer he goes on like this the more I wonder will he do a Hillary for Obama like 2008 or turn his back and refuse to shake her hand like Teddy in 1980. Carter might still have lost given the headwinds he faced but that snub certainly didn’t help. And Teddy was a life long democrat to the bone. Bernie not so much. i
Woodrowfan
@Cacti: I hope so. He needs new talking points from Russia Today. His old ones were stale.
Yeah, Clinton gave speeches to rich jerks for lots of cash. It was pocket change for the bankers. The quid pro quo for those is usually letting the rich dudes get their photos taken for their “grip & grin” wall, and to tell people “I heard Such-and-such the other day, and they said…” If I had the opportunity to get big bucks for speaking to a group like that I’d do it too. I’d probably not be invited back a second time given what I’d tell them, but still, I’d cash their check.
That said, I want to see who Hillary would pick for her cabinet. I’d rather an Elizabeth Warren type than someone who spent their career on Wall Street. We need a guard dog, not another fox for the hen-house.
D58826
@Mnemosyne: Your lucky if you can stay awake. I think the people who want the speeches released are hoping for a ‘little blue dress’ moment. No dress, no grand jury and no perjury impeachment. Somewhere in those speeches there will be a phrase that they can blow out of proportion and make Hillary spend a week explaining away. The Goopers are still ranting about Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.
Baud
@D58826:
“I’m pleased to be here.”
Mnemosyne
@Woodrowfan:
This.
D58826
@Baud: lol that will do it
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@StellaB: Ah, but that’s what she wants you to think!!11 Of course she didn’t say anything of import in the speeches. It was in the closed-door chatting afterwards when she promised them that she’d give them everything they could ever want if they’d promise to support her and keep all her evil-doings for the banksters on the down-low. That’s why there’s nothing in the transcripts either, and that’s why she needs to be charged and locked up in solitary for 30 days until she tells what really happened!!11
You didn’t really think Reagan was a dottering old fool, did you?.
/snark
Cheers,
Scott.
(Who is disappointed by the number of seemingly sensible people who believe stuff like this…)
PatrickG
@D58826:
I actually read comments threads again. Please don’t bring back the nightmare. :)
Curious, though — did BiP actually get banned? When was this? By which I mean, what the hell did he post that was finally just too much for the rather relaxed standards here?
D58826
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
But even that won’t get to the truth. It is the eye blinks that they exchange. She learned from Obama that fist bumps are just to obvious.
Surreal American
@Rolling Along:
I’ll be sure to take that to the bank along with all your other predictions.
For the love of God, please don’t say the sun will come up tomorrow.
Denali
How about Casino Mussolini(hat tip to Samantha Bee) for Trump?
Frankensteinbeck
This narrative continues to drive me up the wall, and thank you @Redshift for calling it out. John Boehner had to find his own replacement. At that, Ryan took some convincing. He gave the Tea Party the unprecedented obstructionism they wanted with his asshole made up Hastert Rule that nobody else ever used, they bitched and whined, and he got sick of it and quit. They had no power over him.
D58826
Just a curious legal question. If the speeches were at Goldman sponsored events would there be some kind of confidentiality agreement or Goldman ownership that would prevent her from releasing them? When there was a big uproar about some of the charitable causes that Obama and Ayers were involved in back in the 1990s they had to get a legal release from some of the other stakeholders before the docs could be released.. The fact that it took awhile was just more evidence of corruption and once the documents were released it would provide grounds for impeachment. Well they finally released all of the documents and crickets..
Frankensteinbeck
@D58826:
I figure they’re full of blandly positive comments, and Clinton figures that not releasing them is less of a fuss than dealing with the ginned up misinterpretations. Bernie fans actually declared it was a conspiracy when one of Sanders’ top campaign operatives stole Clinton’s campaign data, for pity’s sake. They would go nuts over ‘It’s nice to be here with you good people’ or ‘Banks play an important part in our economy.’ She’d never hear the end of it.
WaterGirl
@Mnemosyne:
I think you seriously underestimate how much of the Obama coalition was more than about “voting for the democrat” or “voting for his positions on stuff”. I don’t care what lists anyone can come up with about how similar Obama and Clinton are position wise, I just don’t buy it. To me, she’s 1/10th of the candidate Obama was, and I’m sure I’m not the only one from the Obama coalition who feels that way.
Clinton will definitely keep the “I’m not crazy, of course I’m voting for a democrat” coalition, but I think Obama’s coalition was much bigger than that, and I don’t think Clinton can hold the Obama coalition together easily. The people who really like Hillary often seem to just not able to see how many people just don’t like her. For instance, me and every single person i know.
It’s not Clinton derangement syndrome – it’s possible to not like or trust her without thinking she killed Vince Foster or thinking she is the second coming of the devil – but some of us sure as hell don’t like her or many of her policies that are different than Obama’s. She’s much less progressive than Obama, and there are many differences on foreign policy. So it’s at your peril that people who love Hillary can blithely say that “oh, she’ll get everyone Obama got”. She will surely get anyone who’s sane enough to know that Trump would be worse than the second coming of the devil. Sadly, that’s not as big a group as it should be!
But I wish the folks who love Hillary would quit saying things like “everyone will love her once they get to know her”. Just reading things like that makes me see red every time. I usually ignore it, but I’ve seen too much of it lately and I can’t seem to ignore it this time.
P.S. I will not vote for Hillary because she’s a woman any more than I voted for Barack Obama BECAUSE he was black. I thought he would be the president of a lifetime, and I was right, but I voted for him because of who he was not the color of his skin or because of his gender.
Smiling Mortician
@WaterGirl:
Could you provide a few important, specific examples of these differences? With links to policy statements? I’m not being snarky, and not trying to be difficult, but I hear these claims all the time but don’t see much evidence to support them.
debbie
@WaterGirl:
Absolutely this.
Also,
I think it’s worse than “just don’t like.” There are people who have a visceral hatred of Hillary. I know I had that same kind of feeling about Reagan.
Tilda Swinton's Bald Cap
@Smiling Mortician: Conventional wisdom, you know, like Bernie’s making Hillary run to the left.
Mnemosyne
@WaterGirl:
The Obama coalition is African-American voters, Asian-American voters, Latino voters, and a small number of white voters. Tell me which of those groups you see either defecting to Trump or deciding to sit out the election because they don’t care who wins.
Honestly, white people (my ethnic group) are probably going to do their best to fuck up the election once again by voting Republican by a majority like they always do, and once again minority voters are going to have to save us all.
patroclus
I can’t imagine Sam Rayburn ever not supporting his party’s nominee, no matter how ridiculous he might have been. Despite being a McAdoo guy, he supported John W. Davis in 1924, despite being the same racist that argued the Brown v. Board case before the USSC in the 1950’s (that probably helped Mr. Sam at the time), but 4 years later, he supported Al Smith despite being a “wet” and a Catholic to boot (that probably didn’t help). He was for Garner in 1932 and again in 1940 (against FDR) but switched on a dime to support FDR when Garner couldn’t convince the super-delegates at the convention (well, maybe that’s anachronistic). He never was a big Adlai guy, but then switched and said “he was FDR and Truman all rolled into one.” He was for Landslide Lyndon in 1960, but then switched to JFK because “that boy grows on you.” Different times; different Mr. Speakers.
D58826
@WaterGirl:
Couple of points. Yes she is not the politician, esp. on the stump that either Bill or Obama are. That kind of talent is rare. And it is also true that some of her policies are different than Obama’s. Some of my policies, when I run for the presidency, will be different than Obama’s. You can blame that on the 22nd amendment and the fact that Obama can’t run for a third term. It’s just the way the system works.
As far as not liking her, we are voting for the first citizen not your BFF. By all accounts Bush 43 was a hail and jolly fellow. Great to talk baseball over a couple of beers. How did that turn out? I hate to use the term lesser of two evils but in this case it really does apply. Exactly where are those members of the Obama coalition, that are not suffering from CDS but just don’t like her as a person going to go in November? You have three choices – Hillary or Trump or stay home which is a vote for Trump. It really isn’t rocket science.
eclare
OT, but wow, watching Obama’s graduation speech to Howard. Beautiful speech, and wow does he call out the Bernie Bros and people who only vote every four years. He deserves his rest, but I sure wish he could stay.
The Thin Black Duke
And remember folks, once Bernie’s Magical Mystery Tour is finally over, Obama, Elizabeth Warren and Uncle Joe will be free to campaign loud and proud for Hillary.
patroclus
@WaterGirl: Well, most people vote on policy issues, not because they “like” or “dislike” the nominee. And Hillary’s not running against Obama this time; in fact, she’s the candidate closest to him on policy issues. And certainly closer than the proto-fascist Do you want to raise the minimum wage? Do you want an Employment Non-Discrimination Act? Do you want an immigration Act? Do you want a Climate Change Act? Do you want clean energy or do you like coal? Do you want criminal justice reform? Do you want a pro-choice USSC? Do you want equal pay for women? Do you want to fund Planned Parenthood? Do you want an active DOJ on racial issues? Do you want a re-authorized Voting Rights Act? Do you want marriage equality? Do you want increased discretionary domestic spending? Do you want infrastructure investment? Do you want Flint and other places to have clean water? Do you want good relationships with our allies? Do you want to implement the Paris Accord? Hillary wants all those things.
Do you want to build a wall in the middle of Big Bend National Park for $10 billion (and another $25 billion per year for maintenance)? Do you want to deport 11 million people, including children? Do you want a trade war with China and Mexico? Do you want to carpet bomb Iran? Do you want punishment for women who seek abortions? Trump wants those things.
Mnemosyne
@The Thin Black Duke:
I can’t WAIT to see our Crazy Uncle Joe laugh at Trump the way he laughed at Paul Ryan.
patroclus
@eclare: It was truly inspiring. Barack’s the greatest President of my lifetime.
D58826
@patroclus: I’ll second this
WaterGirl
@Smiling Mortician: I appreciate that you aren’t snarking! But I”m not trying to convince anyone of any specific thing policy-wise. I’m trying to suggest that it’s not helpful for the people who love Hillary to talk about how how everyone will come to like her when they get to know her. She gets my vote but she does not get my love (or like) or my trust, and it makes my blood boil when even people I like and respect on this blog blithely assume that I (and others like me) will magically come to like or love Hillary.
Shorter: how about a little more putting ourselves in the shoes of people who see things differently from us? It makes no sense to insult or piss off the good guys who don’t like your candidate but will vote for her anyway. And it makes no sense to insult or piss off the people who like Bernie that you will need in November. I’m seeing way too much of both of those things.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Hillary Clinton was far from my first choice, but I always liked her more than her husband. She makes me nervous when it comes to foreign policy, but on domestic policy, I trust her to do the right thing. A year ago I was saying she would get my vote but not my money. Two months ago I signed up as a monthly donor. Negative partisanship is a helluva thing.
eclare
Ah, Cole has now included it in a front page post!
SiubhanDuinne
@Mike J:
Tell me more!
Smiling Mortician
@WaterGirl:
Fair enough. But as a Hillary supporter, I’ve never done this. I have, however, listened to a lot of people like you who insist that there are significant domestic/progressive and foreign-policy differences between Hillary and Obama. I don’t know what those differences are because those very same people (like you) always demur when I ask for an example or two.
WaterGirl
@Mnemosyne:
A small number of white voters? That is totally not true. Not enough white voters, I’ll give you that. I’m never particularly interesting in delving into the percentages, etc but a quick google brought me this article:
http://www.politico.com/story/2008/11/exit-polls-how-obama-won-015297
43% of white voters is not a small number of white voters. And if a lot of them liked Obama and really didn’t like Hillary, then that’s potentially a lot of people in the category that I’m talking about.
I don’t want to get into a big back-and-forth about this. I’m just suggesting that we not insult the people we need to keep Trump out of office.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Smiling Mortician: what I never understood was people who disliked (or more) Clinton but were gung-ho for Joe. From Iraq to the 94 crime bill to the bankruptcy bill (to NAFTA?), there’s nothing (that I can see) people reproach Clinton for that Biden wasn’t at least as deep into.
WaterGirl
@D58826:
I’m sorry for the shorthand. Let me try to be more clear.
When I say I don’t like Hillary, I’m not saying I don’t want to have a drink with her. I’m saying I don’t like her policies. I don’t think she shows enough good judgment. I don’t like her hawkish tendencies foreign-policy wise. I don’t trust her. I don’t like what she showed of herself in the 2008 election. I don’t want her as my president.
Now that I have that off my chest, I will go back and read the rest of your reply. Okay, I read the rest of what you wrote.
@D58826:
You either missed my point or didn’t read what I actually wrote.
patroclus
@Smiling Mortician: And, on guns, women’s liberty and immigration, Hillary has clearly moved Bernie to the left throughout the primary process. Bernie’s rhetoric is often more left-sounding, Clinton’s policy positions are often more leftist that Bernie’s policy positions. Part of that is because Bernie’s never run nationwide and never tried to appeal to urbanites (for which you can’t really fault him), but it’s accurate nonetheless.
D58826
@WaterGirl:
I understand where you are coming from but there are some folks on this blog who feel the same way about Bernie but will vote for him if he is the nominee. I’ve been voting since 1968 and long ago gave up any illusions about liking or befriending or knights in somewhat shining armor.
I understand the policy difference. I understand feeling an emotional attachment of some sort to a candidate. I guess and this is not meant as a put down, what I don’t get is the ‘trust’ part. Why do you think Obama or Bernie are any more ‘trustworthy’ than Hillary? Has she changed positions over the years, yes but most politicians do over time. Life and the electorate and the problems facing the country change. Unless a politician can adapt to that they soon disappear from the national stage. Is she dishonest? Both Clintons have been investigated back to their kindergarten days and other than the blowjob they have come up with nothing. If Bernie is the nominee I’m sure the GOP will highlight every flaw, right down to how he combs his hair.
debbie
@Smiling Mortician:
Laundry calls, but here’s a couple: Clinton willing to arm Syrian rebels (as if she knew who the good rebels were), Obama not; Clinton voting to invade Iraq, Obama no. Clinton more supportive of whatever Israel does than Obama. Overall, she’s more hawkish than Obama.
patroclus
@WaterGirl: Well, I agree with you there. This blog is full of what some have described as snarling jackals who seem to not be able to resist baiting Bernie supporters at the drop of a hat. That needs to stop. And I’ve said it many many times. It’s up to Hillz and her supporters to try to appeal to Bernie supporters at least as much (if not more) as it’s up to Bernie’s supporters to join us in stopping the proto-Fascist.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: and I should say, I like Biden, too, but he’s been on the wrong side of a lot of issues
WaterGirl
@patroclus:
Okay, I had a good laugh over that one. I think many, many people, possibly even most people, absolutely vote based on whether they like or dislike someone. I bet a lot of people don’t even know the specific policies of the person they are voting for.
Again, I feel like you didn’t actually read what I said. It feels like people read what i wrote as “she doesn’t support Hillary” and didn’t actually read enough to grasp the point I was trying to make. I am not saying that it’s not logical to vote for Hillary over Trump.
WaterGirl
@SiubhanDuinne: @Mike J: Ginger cinnamon rolls? Now that’s something I can get behind! I would like some now, please.
divF
@patroclus:
The other side of this is the implicit, and not-so-implicit, threat by members of the Sanders camp of “give us the win, or we’ll shoot the hostage,” where the hostage is a large fraction of the Democratic base for whom holding the Presidency is the only remaining firewall between them and oppression and disaster.
WaterGirl
@Smiling Mortician: You want specifics? Please read this, and the two articles listed in bold in the block quote below:
What Sort of Foreign-Policy Hawk Is Hillary Clinton?
WaterGirl
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Disagreements on policy are less potent than the issue of trust. If you trust someone, it’s easier to give them the benefit of the doubt.
D58826
@WaterGirl: Not liking her policy positions is perfectly fine. It’s why we have primaries and elections. I can flip it around and say I don’t like Bernie’s policy positions as they are to pie-in-the sky. And I don’t trust him to not try and blow up the convention in July if he doesn’t get his way. And while I would prefer Hillary as president I would vote for Bernie in November and not lose a minutes sleep over it. Either way on Nov. 9th we will have a new president-elect.
Yes some commenters have gone overboard on the Bernie bashing and the same can be said for the Hillary bashers. But what I think most of the Hillary folks are trying to say to the Bernie folks is he ran a good race, he fought the good fight for his ideas but there can be only one candidate come the general. The primary battles have to be put aside in order to unite for the general election. I would be saying that even if the GOP had picked a sane candidate. Many of the issues that divide Hillary and Bernie are not the goal but the best way to get there. A gracious end game by Bernie and his supporter makes it easier for Hillary to fold them into her campaign and for Bernie to get some ‘goodies’, i.e cabinet posts or platform planks more to his liking. Hillary isn’t stupid she knows that having the Bernie folks in side the tent pissing out is better than having them outside the tent pissing in. Obama talked about that today. He made the same point that he made a couple of weeks ago. There is nothing wrong with having strong beliefs but yelling at people who have different strong beliefs doesn’t get you anywhere near solving the problem that you both claim to feel strongly about. In the end if you want to get something done you have to sit down and listen to the other guy and ultimately compromise with him. Nobody gets the whole loaf.
I saw a good metaphor the other day – Bernie is going for the whole loaf with is ideas. Hillary is trying to get it one slice at a time. I just think given the way our system is constructed and the current political environment ‘one slice at a time’ is the best we can do in 2016. The entire reaon for the GOP is to take every last crumb of that loaf and give it to the 1%.
starscream
All you have to do to get Sanders to fail his own bullshit purity tests is to convince him you can help him stay in power (see: guns, F-35’s, Majority Trust, using Hillary’s fundraising apparatus in 2006, etc). At this point I find his total hypocrisy to be amusing, since he’ll never be president. Where are this fraud’s tax returns?
WaterGirl
@D58826: Hillary made up the whole “sniper fire” story that she told in 2008. I’m sorry, but it begs disbelief that you could think you had taken sniper fire and not actually have done so. She made that up. She lied. I also didn’t like the lack of character she showed in 2008 when she started to really see Obama as a threat. Concerns about trust and concerns about character can’t be overcome by reading policy positions or having someone tell you, she’s nice, really! You should like her!
karen marie
@WaterGirl: If you can’t support HRC, at least donate/volunteer for down ticket races. It’s obvious there will be a lot of loose GOP $$ that will be going to those campaigns because they’re not being used to support Trump. The House and Senate races can use all of our help.
divF
@WaterGirl: Trust is a relative concept. There are many issues on which I don’t trust Bernie, yet I will vote for him if he is the nominee because I trust Trump far less on all issues.
Is your lack of trust for Hillary sufficient to have you not vote for her if she is the nominee, given that the alternative is Trump?
patroclus
@debbie: She’s more hawkish than Obama – that’s true. But she’s not running against Obama. She opposed the “we are all Georgians now” proposed war. She has smoothed relations between India and Pakistan. She advocated and implemented a peaceful settlement after the 2009 Honduran coup. She was instrumental in the Sri Lankan settlement; helping Thailand through its recent coups with little bloodshed; aided in the transition to democracy in Myanmar. She supported the overture towards Cuba.; she supports the Iran deal. She knows personally and has the respect of all of the EU leaders; she was the point person on the pivot to Asia; emphasizing peaceful progress across a broad front.. She helped reach a negotiated settlement of Argentina’s financial woes
She was clearly wrong on Iraq – it boggles the mind how wrong she was. But Churchill was just as wrong on Gallipoli in WWI and he did okay in WWII. As SoS she grew beyond being merely a junior Senator from NY – she is now much more aware of diplomatic solutions than she was 8 years ago. And compared to the proto-Fascist, who wants to dismantle NATO, withdraw support for Japan and the ROK, destroy the Iran deal, belittle and demean Mexico, start a massive trade war with China, default on the national debt, drop nuclear bombs on virtually every Mid-east country (and maybe Europe) and insult foreign leaders, well, there is no comparison. I’d still vote for Obama over her, but between Hillary and der Trump, it’s clear-cut.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@WaterGirl: fair enough
WaterGirl
@D58826: There’s just so much snippiness and arrogance and condescension from supporters on both sides of the Hillary-Bernie thing. It’s not just stupid, it’s not productive. It doesn’t get you where you want to go, which is for your person to win.
It’s similar to torture in that it’s not just wrong, and immoral; it also just doesn’t work, it doesn’t get you where you want to go.
And no, I am not saying that being snippy to supporters of the opposing candidate is like torture – I was just trying to give another example of where something isn’t just wrong. It plain old just doesn’t work. So why do it? You are shooting yourself (and your candidate) and in the foot. (or worse)
WaterGirl
@karen marie: I appreciate the constructive suggestion. And I do that. I give regularly to progressive senators and to other places where I feel I can make a difference.
And I do support Hillary from the perspective that I encourage everyone to vote for her, even though they don’t like her. Even though I don’t like her. I am more political than most of my friends. Okay, make that more than all of my friends. So they often look for me for information and more related to who to vote for. And I make it very clear that it doesn’t matter that I don’t like Hillary, she is 1,000 times better than the alternative. And that not voting is not an acceptable option this time around. Not voting in November is downright dangerous.
D58826
@WaterGirl: In the primary I may vote for one or the other because I like them better or trust them more. I hope I’ve learned a bit over the years that I don’t give in to that temptation very often. As far as ‘liking’ I don’t know these people other than the carefully staged presentations I see on TV, in the paper or on the stump. I can’t say I was a fan of LBJ but if I could have voted in 1964 the choice was a no brainier. Again as far as trust all I know about them is what they show in the media and if in office the things they do. Since every politician will throw someone under the bus at one time or another it becomes a balancing act as to whiter on the big picture he is more trustworthy. In the general it is policy issues and for most of my adult like the democrats align much better with my beliefs than do the republicans. Every last democrat who has run since 1964,.
As far as Hillary being more hawkish than Obama, yes probably true. But she doesn’t plan on carpet bombing the middle east. Bernie voted against the Iraq war but for the war in Afghanistan. Less Hawkish Obama has been using drones throughout the middle east, surged in Afghanistan and is keeping troops there past his 2016 withdrawal date, is slipping back into the Iraqi swamp and authorized the policy in Libya.
I would say being ‘hawkish’ is very much a relative matter and often dictated by events beyond the presidents control.
Woodrowfan
I don’t “like” Hillary that much, but I think she;ll make a pretty good President. I’d prefer Obama for a third term, but even with him I don’t like everything he does (I think the TPP is an awful mistake). But Hillary would make much better SC appointments than any republican, unless you’d prefer to have three new Scalia’s in their 40s, because that’s who the repukes will appoint—young reactionaries who’ll be on the Court for the next 30-40 years.
WaterGirl
@divF:
I read that and said “oh my god” out loud and (lightly) banged my head on my laptop keyboard. If you have ever read a single comment I have written here you would know that of course she gets my vote. Again, I have to think people aren’t actually reading what I wrote.
Smiling Mortician
@WaterGirl: I’ve read both of those, thanks. What they tell me is that Clinton is closer to Obama on foreign policy than anyone else running for the nomination for president this year. I think the same is true for domestic policy, but you didn’t provide any sources for that part of your claim.
I get that you don’t like Hillary Clinton, and that’s OK. I’d never expect you to like her if you don’t. But rationalizing your dislike by making unsupported claims isn’t particularly rational.
James E Powell
@WaterGirl:
Part of that is because the great majority of Hillary Hate is irrational or based on fact-free characterizations. Now, maybe you and every single person you know are different. You dislike her for good & principled reasons. And these reasons are so important that it would be better if we had a Republican president, even Donald Trump. Because you and everyone you know just do not like her.
I and every single person I know think you and every single person you know are completely out of touch with political reality.
debbie
@patroclus:
I would never vote for Trump. I’ve voted for Dukakis and Mondale, so I know very well how to vote for uninspiring candidates. In fact, the only candidates that have ever inspired me are Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, and Barack Obama.
debbie
@James E Powell:
Please point me to where WaterGirl said she was voting for Trump. You can’t, can you? But thanks for making WaterGirl’s point for her.
henqiguai
@D58826(#77):
Was wondering if I was the only one thinking that. If you weren’t an invitee to the conference, why the hell do you think you’re entitled to the entertainment? You’re the only other person I’ve seen actually articulate that little constraint.
ETA: corrected the reference number.
patroclus
@James E Powell: No, she’s said over and over again that she’s voting for Hillary. She’s clearly in touch with political reality; she’s just a Bernie supporter. Most of whom are stronger and loyal Democrats (African Americans excepted) than many others. Treating Bernie supporters as “out of touch” is counter-productive. I wish it would stop. Now.
D58826
@WaterGirl: Yes she lied about the sniper fire. Every other week some politician is being out on his supposed war record. Politicians lie. There was an old joke that the patron saint of the democrats FDR didn’t let his left thumb know what his left index finger was doing. There was no more devious, crafty and yes lying president than FDR. Well maybe until LBJ came alone. Ike the patron saint of the world war II generation lied thru his teeth about the U2 incident. It happens. Heavens if the worst lie Hillary ever tells is the sniper incident then she will be up there with George Washington and his cherry tree.
WaterGirl
@Smiling Mortician: Rationalizing my dislike by making unsupported claims? That’s offensive. What unsupported claims?
patroclus
@D58826: I remember a GOS diary about the sniper fire lie that was one of the most hilarious things I ever read. About how Sinbad and Sheryl Crowe (who were with her in Tuzla) got mowed down in the melee. Just thinking about it is making me LOL again.
And giving credit to Nancy Reagan, of all people, for speaking out for HIV victims is a more recent example of that. Bleah!
WaterGirl
@James E Powell:
Come on! Where are you getting that bullshit? This is what I wrote that started this whole conversation. Maybe you could read it before you write stuff like that.
What I wrote to Mnem:
D58826
@patroclus: I think the problem is and I may be putting words in her mouth, which if I am I’m sorry, that she views voting for Hillary as some sort of betrayal of her support for Obama and Bernie. The point I’m trying to make is that it isn’t a betrayal its just that there can only be one winner coming out of the primary and that is Hillary. Yes she has many warts but she is the candidate. And come Nov.8th we either elect Hillary warts and all or Trump and his cancerous view of the world. I’ll risk Hillary lying about sniper fire and being more hawkish than Obama
WaterGirl
@patroclus: I’m not even a Bernie supporter! :-) I was Bernie-adjacent, but he lost me, what, maybe 4-6-8 weeks ago when he seemed to lose the plot.
But yes, James E. Powell completely made my point for me. thank you
patroclus
@D58826: I think watergirl knows that just as well as you and me. I know what she’s going through. I was/am an Obot and in 2008, I despised Hillary as much as anyone. But I’ve gotten over it. Against Trump, I’m all in!
WaterGirl
@D58826:
I didn’t like Hillary in 2008.
I don’t like Hillary now.
My dislike of Hillary has nothing to do with Obama.
Though it is depressing to follow votes for the best president of my lifetime with votes for someone I do not like.
It’s pretty funny that this all started with my trying to say this: Don’t assume that people who don’t like Hillary will love her when we get to know her! I suggested that those who love Hillary shouldn’t say things that are presumptuous and insulting.
And what happens? Attacks and insults for not loving Hillary enough. Geez, I am so done with this conversation.
D58826
@patroclus: Yes she puts her foot in her mouth at times but I seem to remember Obama and clinging to religion and guns didn’t go over well.
I agree her comment on Nancy Reagan was stupidly overly broad and she should not have said it. Reagan did little or nothing about HIV until his friend Rock Hudson went public. Then they did start to come around a bit, better late than never, So a bit of credit may be due Nancy as from what I’ve read, like with Gorby, she was pushing Reagan in a better direction
The Thin Black Duke
Jesus. A vote for Hillary is a vote that keeps Trump out of the White House, this ain’t Sophie’s Choice, people.
mak
@D58826: Maybe, but I tend to think that the whole point of demanding the Hillary-GoldmanSachs transcripts is to avoid publishing the Bernie-Jane tax returns.
D58826
@WaterGirl: You don’t have to love her to vote for her. In a nut shell that is all I have been trying to say. and it is not fair to insult you because you don’t like or trust her. I hope that I didn’t leave the impression that your feelings and views are some how less worthy of respect just because I disagree with with you on some things.
It gets back to Obama’s people have to stop yelling at each other and listen more.
I will say and this isn’t aimed at you in particular, that I am mystified by the Hillary hatred of so many, esp on the left. I’m not talking about the CDS folks on the right but many of the people writing for Salon, for example,seem to have lost it. One witer is opening hoping for an indictment, others including Susan Saradon think that Trump is the lesser of two evils. Many of the things you find objectionable about Hillary may or may not be true but she is not unique in having faults. For some, and again I’m not saying you, no other politician past or present has displayed the faults and failing of Hillary. The reaction seems all out of proportion to the actual fault.
D58826
@The Thin Black Duke: Heck it isn’t even as hard as having to decide between chocolate cake or cheese cake for desert
James E Powell
You are? Really? That might be good for you.
I apologize for not reading past “I’m not voting for Hillary . . .” I should read more thoroughly before making caustic remarks.
I don’t think I made your point at all. I can’t be completely sure what you point was, but I took it to be that
I can’t speak for people who really like Hillary, but I’ve been listening to people tearing down Hillary since 1992. I think I have a very good idea “how many people just don’t like her.”
I didn’t criticize you because you didn’t love Hillary enough. I criticized you and every single person you know for believing that it matters whether you like a political candidate.
If you are going to vote for her, as you say, what is your point?
D58826
@James E Powell: I read her entire post before I responded but I not sure I understand her point either. Hillary is running for president of the United States not Miss Congeniality in the Miss America pagent.
henqiguai
@patroclus(#127):
Um, wait, what? No, a significant portion of the strong/loyal Bernie supporters are, most likely, at best part-time Democrats; many, based on reports and commentary across the ‘net, are not actually Democrats; maybe liberals, maybe progressives, independents, etc.
And stop with the gawds damned whining about not liking or distrusting a candidate because of a handful of tendencies. You want real reasons to dislike or distrust a politician for whom you have to cast a vote? Be non-white in these United States. Be Black, or non-white Hispanic, or Asian of any stripe (and for a little extra kick, be female and poor on top of all that), and look for a national (or more often than not, local) candidate that’s going to make you all warm and fuzzy and be four-square with your hopes and dreams and wishes for a perfect world. WATBs.
Mnemosyne
@WaterGirl:
I was thinking of 2012, when even fewer white people voted for Obama, and he still won. Like it or not, you and I are a distinct minority within our ethnic group: we’re white voters who vote for Democrats. The white men here are even more rare — 62 percent of white men voted for Romney in 2012.
And you seem to be operating under a misconception. I don’t think that Hillary is going to hold the Obama coalition together because they all love her. I think she’s going to hold the coalition together because every group in it realizes they’ll be far, far worse off under Trump no matter what Hillary does. I think they are all very clear-eyed and practical about it. I have no idea how you keep translating that into “they’re all going to love Hillary.”
Mnemosyne
@WaterGirl:
Just to re-emphasize: I never said this or anything even close to this. I said that voters in the Obama coalition are going to make the very clear-eyed, practical decision to choose Hillary over Trump. You don’t have to love her. You just have to acknowledge that Trump would be an absolute fucking disaster in office and decide to take steps to prevent that.
D58826
@James E Powell: I think I have sorta figured out the Clinton hatred. On the right I understand. I’m just amazed at seeing the right wing talking points on lefty blogs
The vast right wing conspiarcy has been working since 1992 to destroy the Clintons (and since 2008 Obama). They have made all kinds of wild claims some of which bleed into the MSM. For whatever reason the not really so liberal MSM reports on the stories. Since much of the MSM do not like the Clinton any way (NY Times!) they are not particular about passing on poorly vetted and thinly source stories. Eventually the story collapses on its own just like all of the Ken Starr investigated ‘scandals’. But for most non-political junkies all they remember is the initial headlines – ‘NEW Clinton Scandal’.
Over time most people just equate Clinton with scandal and dishonesty even if they can’t point to anything that they really did that was illegal. And so here we are in 2016 with the MSM reporting on one more weakness of the scandal prone Clintons. Folks don’t have to know what the scandals are just that where there is a Clinton there must be dishonesty.
D58826
@Mnemosyne:
Oh god I’m a dodo bird. and to make me even more rare I’m old and in the south. Our next convention will be in a telephone booth if we can find one!
WaterGirl
@Mnemosyne: I would point you to dozens and dozens of comments like that on BJ in the past few months, comments made in passing because of course everyone will love Hillary. But it was a mistake to have even started this conversation so I think it’s best to not pursue that.
It is beyond my comprehension how perfectly good, caring people can vote republican these days. I met a really nice woman who is actually considering voting for Trump because she can’t fathom voting for Hillary. Who did she want? Why, Ben Carson, of course! The mind boggles. Seriously, this is a woman who drops everything because a friend of hers needs to go to the ER, she takes neighbors to their kidney dialysis. And she’s smart. Yet she supports our terribly evil governor in IL and she wants to vote for fucking Ben Carson, and will consider voting for Trump.
I truly do begin to understand the obstructionism from the right, because they surely feel about Obama they way we do about Trump. And god forbid if Trump ever because president, I would want democratic senators and representatives to obstruct every judge and every law and everything he wanted to do. What I can’t comprehend is how a person can think that the kind of things Obama wants to do are bad, and the things Republicans want to do are good.
WaterGirl
@Mnemosyne: I get what you’re saying here. But I didn’t get that from your original comments because you didn’t explain why you were so sure that she would keep the Obama coalition.
When Trump is the only alternative, any sane person would vote for Hillary. But folks were making the assumption that Hillary would keep Obama’s coalition regardless of the opposing candidate, so in the absence of the explanation you gave here, I thought it was just more of the same.
One of my favorite quotes: The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.
J R in WV
@WaterGirl:
You opinions on Hillary Clinton’s policies and intentions as President are not based on facts. Whether you like her or not is not a fact-based thing, it’s emotional, and I understand that. I didn’t much care for her campaign in 2008 because I was Obama from early on, when I saw him speak at the Democratic National convention.
But the fact that I don’t trust Senator Sanders unless I am videoing both of his hands doesn’t mean I’m going to attack him in any way, other than to tell you that to further this conversation. The fact that you didn’t like Secretary Clinton’s 2008 campaign (as I said, I didn’t like it as a fierce Obama supporter) shouldn’t have that much to do with her campaign today.
She worked in the most important appointed job in the nation for President Obama, and he appreciated her work. She did a good job for America and for President Obama, and laid the path for much of the good work Secretary Kerry has done for America and
President Obama.
TL;DR:
If Obama could get over the 2008 campaign and hire Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, I would think you should think about getting over Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign. You aren’t the person President Obama is, few of us are. But at least work on trusting his judgment on Hillary and her ability to lead this country.
Thanks!
Kay (not the front-pager)
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I don’t know, Hillary is just missing something. Something that Joe has. I’ll have to stare into my lap while I think about what it might be…
Smiling Mortician
@WaterGirl: You claimed that there are significant differences between Obama and Clinton on domestic and foreign policy. I asked you (politely) for specific policies with links to those policies. Instead, you told me to go read two articles (not policy statements from Obama and Clinton, as I asked). I had already read those articles, and I don’t see any significant differences in policy. So again, if you have actual evidence of significant policy differences, foreign and domestic, as stated by Obama and Clinton themselves, I want to see it. At the very least, you could have articulated what, specifically, in those two articles you think represent those significant differences. You did not. That’s what I mean when I say “unsupported claims.”
Zinsky
Eddie Munster (a/k/a Paul Ryan) may be the phoniest politician in American history. He literally doesn’t know anything about anything.
WaterGirl
@J R in WV: I appreciate your considered response. But this isn’t some grudge from 2008.
I guess I need to stop using the word “like” as shorthand, because then people can dismiss my concerns about Clinton as being based on emotion. That’s backwards, because the “dislike” came about for a lot of reasons that aren’t emotional.
I didn’t think she was qualified to be president in 2008, and many things happened in 2008 that did not show Clinton in a positive light. I do think she’s qualified now, but I do not believe she has the temperament to be an excellent president, nor does she have the character that I want to see in a president. I don’t think she has particularly good judgment.
I think she may be okay on domestic issues, but she is not progressive enough for me. As for foreign policy, I think if she had been president for the past 8 years we would have gotten more involved militarily in a lot of the places that are a mess in the word. She is far too hawkish for my tastes. I am certain she won’t be a great president; I think it’s possible that she will be an okay president. But this country is such a clusterfuck right now that I don’t think okay is good enough. We need better than okay. I think she was an okay secretary of state, but I think Kerry has been much better. She doesn’t meet my standards for a good or great leader.
Can you still dismiss all that as emotional? As a grudge from 2008?
Smiling Mortician
@WaterGirl: I know, this thread’s dead, and you’re asking J R in WV and not me, but:
Yeah. That’s all emotional. Not one piece of actual fact anywhere. Claims without evidence.
It’s not even that I necessarily disagree with you. I just wish you could see how logic-free your argument is. It’s entirely based on what you already believe, without a shred of backing.
D58826
@Kay (not the front-pager): Some people are just naturals at it. Joe is one, yet his presidential campaigns crashed and burned. Obama and Bill have it. FDR had it. Ike had it (if he could keep Patton, Monty and DeGaulle from killing each other before they got Hitler, he had it in spades).
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@WaterGirl:
She wrote about the Bosnia trip in her book “Living History”.
She mis-remembered her telling of a story from 12 years earlier. It tells me that she wasn’t getting enough sleep in that campaign. You’ll note that she hasn’t had as full a schedule this time around, and she hasn’t made mistakes like that again.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
D58826
@WaterGirl: Ok you’ve made your point as to why you don’t like Hillary. A lot of folks, whither they love Hillary or not, simply disagree with you. That’s politics. In the end it will be Hillary or Trump regardless of love or like or whatever term you wish to use.
D58826
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: And one of the girl friends in Obama’s memoir was a composite. Politicians, among many others fudge things to gild the Lilly of their career.
WaterGirl
@D58826: It was never my point to enumerate why Hillary Clinton will not be an especially good president. My point was that it’s not helping when people who are very pro Hillary make comments that blithely assume that everyone will love Hillary if they just get to know her. It’s not helpful to challenge and attack people who will vote for her in spite of not thinking she is good presidential material.
I have tried really hard to listen to every single person who responded tonight and try to genuinely understand what they were saying. Either I have done a very poor job of communicating this evening, or I have not received the same courtesy in return from many of you. In all my years at balloon juice, I have only twice regretted participating in a thread. Tonight makes three. Live and learn, I guess.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@D58826: Yeahbut…
From the NYTimes story in my previous reply:
Is the bolded statement really worth all the ink that has been spilled about it over the years? She didn’t say that she saved someone’s life, or had a Harvard PhD, or that she could tap the President’s e-mail account, or something…
She mixed up a story that she had probably told correctly dozens of times. It’s doesn’t, to me, indicate that she’s a “liar”. She wouldn’t have told the story (correctly) in her own book if she were trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes.
But it’s old news either way. If it’s some important talisman of her character, then nothing anyone says about it now will matter.
(shrug)
Cheers,
Scott.
StellaB
@WaterGirl: I think that everyone has done a good job of listening to one another, it’s just that no one has changed their mind.
It’s not that we pro-Hillary people cheerfully tolerate her lies, but rather that we don’t view her as a liar. To us it appears that she has been the victim of the Republicans and the CDS of the villagers. Misremembering Nancy Reagan’s pet disease or botching the telling of an old story aren’t “lies” to most people. I’m sure that Bernie wasn’t lying about his civil rights activism, just viewing from fifty years later and remembering it as something larger than it really was. However, Bernie hasn’t been called a “liar” for decades and we haven’t internalized that belief.
WaterGirl
@StellaB:
If everyone has done a good job of listening, then why do I feel like only about 2 people actually heard what I was saying? The rest misdirected the conversation to something that had nothing to do with my point, which was not that Hillary is a bad person or that she will make a bad president.
My point was that telling people who do not like her or believe she will make a good president that “oh, you’ll love her when you get to know her” is about as helpful as telling someone who is upset to “calm down” or telling someone who is upset to “lighten up, Francis”. It’s not helping Hillary’s cause, it’s hurting it. It’s dismissive and insulting to people who are all supposed to be on the same side. No matter how many times I say that, no one seems to have responded to that. It’s disappointing, and I’m sorry I tried.
mak
@WaterGirl: Jeezaws, this ain’t fucking rocket science. Your choice is Trump or Hillary. You choose Hillary?; congrats, you’re not a fucking ignorant loon. You want a medal? Join little league. Meantime, stop being so fucking dramatic. And thanks for wasting a perfectly good thread with your drama.
No One You Know
@Smiling Mortician: This.
Hunter
The GOP has not been the party of Lincoln since 1965. It’s the party of Reagan in name only.