This came out before last week’s speech in San Diego; every time I went to post it, something new had happened. Rebecca Traister, at NYMag, on “Hillary Clinton vs. Herself”:
… All the epic allusions contribute to the difficulty Clinton has long had in coming across as, simply, a human being. She is uneasy with the press and ungainly on the stump. Catching a glimpse of the “real” her often entails spying something out of the corner of your eye, in a moment when she’s not trying to be, or to sell, “Hillary Clinton.” And in the midst of a presidential campaign, those moments are rare. You could see her, briefly, letting out a bawdy laugh in response to a silly question in the 11th hour of the Benghazi hearings, and there she was, revealed as regular in her damned emails, where she made drinking plans with retiring Maryland senator and deranged emailer Barbara Mikulski. Her inner circle claims to see her — to really see her, and really like her — every day. They say she is so different one-on-one, funny and warm and devastatingly smart. It’s hard for people who know her to comprehend why the rest of America can’t see what they do.
I spent several days with Hillary Clinton near the end of primary season — which, in campaign time, feels like a month, so much is packed into every hour — and I began to see why her campaign is so baffled by the disconnect. Far from feeling like I was with an awkward campaigner, I watched her do the work of retail politics — the handshaking and small-talking and remembering of names and details of local sites and issues — like an Olympic athlete. Far from seeing a remote or robotic figure, I observed a woman who had direct, thoughtful, often moving exchanges: with the Wheelers, with home health-care workers and union representatives and young parents…
The sexism is less virulent now than it was in 2008, she said, but still she encounters people on rope lines who tell her, “ ‘I really admire you, I really like you, I just don’t know if I can vote for a woman to be president.’ I mean, they come to my events and then they say that to me.”
But, she maintains, “Unpacking this, understanding it, is for writers like you. I’m just trying to cope with it. Deal with it. Live through it.”
Here, Clinton laughed, as if living through it were a hilarious punch line…
If Clinton suffers from a kind of political PTSD that makes her overly cautious and scripted and closed-off, then its primary trigger is the press corps that trails her everywhere she goes. Clinton hates the press. A band of young reporters follows her, thanklessly, from event to event, and she gives them almost nothing. Unlike other candidates, she does not ride on the same plane with them (though this may change once the general election starts and the traveling group gets bigger). Every once in a while she has an off-the-record drink with them, but without the frequency or fluidity of her husband, whose off-the-record conversations with the press were legendarily candid.These young reporters are so starved for what they call “fresh sound” that they thrill to the addition of a new line — about Trump being “a loose cannon” — or even a word (“Basta!”) to Clinton’s stump speech. They want to know Clinton better, and are occasionally so eager to get a fuller picture of their subject that, in conversation with each other, they turn to fan fiction…
Most of the traveling reporters are too young to remember the way Clinton was barbecued by the media from the beginning, labeled too radical, too feminist, too independent, too influential; dangerous, conniving, ugly and unfuckable. But it’s clear that even today she and her campaign feel that they can’t win with the press, that the story lines about her are already written. Case in point: In early May, the New York Times ran a feature about Clinton’s wooing of Republicans turned off by Donald Trump, which sent supporters of Bernie Sanders into a frenzy of I-told-you-so’s about Clinton’s crypto-Republicanism. The paper barely acknowledged that days later Clinton teed up her plan for subsidized child care and raising the wages of caregivers — proposals that would have been understood not long ago as something out of a ’70s feminist fever dream. There was also little media notice of her declaration, that same week, that she would remove bankers from the boards of regional Federal Reserve banks — an announcement that should have pleased left-leaning champions of financial reform…
There is an Indiana Jones–style, “It had to be snakes” inevitability about the fact that Donald Trump is Clinton’s Republican rival. Of course Hillary Clinton is going to have to run against a man who seems both to embody and have attracted the support of everything male, white, and angry about the ascension of women and black people in America. Trump is the antithesis of Clinton’s pragmatism, her careful nature, her capacious understanding of American civic and government institutions and how to maneuver within them. Of course a woman who wants to land in the Oval Office is going to have to get past an aggressive reality-TV star who has literally talked about his penis in a debate.
For all the hand-wringing about how she will hold up against a bully who has already made it clear he will attack her in the most shameless ways imaginable, Clinton seems extremely pleased about the prospect of running against him. “I’m actually looking forward to it,” she told me. “See, I don’t think it’s as fraught with complexity as some people are suggesting. I think the trap is not to get drawn in on his terms. We saw what happened to those Republicans who tried.”
Clinton says she knows what he’ll say about her — her marriage, her husband. She says she doesn’t care; she can ignore it. “But that doesn’t mean you don’t stand up for everybody else he’s insulting,” she said. “That doesn’t mean you don’t talk about where his policies would take this country, to draw the contrast.”…
Baud
Good.
Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class
For anyone interested in coming to Louisville, here’s the details on the ceremony.
http://www.wdrb.com/story/32156088/watch-live-ticket-information-for-muhammad-ali-public-memorial-to-be-released-at-530-pm
I’m going to try to be in line in the morning – if I get lucky, I’ll score 4 tix, and may have two extra to the two I will use.
gwangung
And this is a bad thing…how?
Barbara
This, a thousand times. And this, this, is what Republicans can’t seem to absorb — that it’s not enough to whimper that Donald should watch his language, but that an actual principled stance demands that they should actually oppose him for his obscene statements.
Frankensteinbeck
Possibly because the press has done everything in their power to hide that? It will be fine. I’ve been watching the primary, and a phenomenon I suspected played out: She is reverse Romney. To know her is to like her. When the campaign is far enough along that the press cannot (and they will try) hide who the candidates are and what their positions are, Hillary will be immensely popular.
Brachiator
But campaigning is not just retail politics. Clinton has been in the game long enough, at least as an observer. She has some considerable strengths, but she needs to put it all together. And puff pieces like this are a waste of time. Voters don’t care about “if you only understood my style, you would cut me a break.” Voters, even ardent supporters care about their problems and how the politician is going to solve them.
What does this have to do with her strength or weakness as a campaigner? Unfortunately, no one is going to cut her a pity break because of the sexism (and no, this is not to excuse it). She has to deal with it.
And I do note the decrease in sexism that she notes. This means, hopefully, that she can work more on selling herself to the voters on her merits.
Schlemazel Khan
@Barbara:
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that he be the GOP nominee and watch other Republicans say nothing.”
– Edmond Burke
justawriter
Someone should do a kickstarter or something to buy a case of copies of Fools for Scandal for all the young’uns on the press plane. Hell, we should raise enough money to pay Gene Lyons to spend a month with her press gaggle and fill them with stories of how today’s pundits were once young and stupid and are no longer young.
Baud
FTA
Gvg
Need to thank my parents again. I was born in 63 and was never ever taught by word or deed that I was lesser because I am a woman. I just cannot understand how anyone can think that. Don’t have a clue how to persuade any more than I know how to talk someone out believing in some other nutty idea. Also haven’t had much of an issue in the rest of my life by some luck so I have been sad about all the stories others have shared recently. I have a feeling I am going to see more than I want in the coming years. This campaign has been revealing to me about how many people are flakes.
Cacti
If you’re a Democrat, you should assume the political press is rooting for your opponent.
If you’re a female or a minority Democrat, you should assume they’ll be rooting doubly hard for the GOPer.
Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class
Shit, even more trucks at the Ali Center. Tents, too.
One of my officemates is Metro Council president. All hands are on deck. According to his assistant, the mayor’s office is an asylum right now – this is impacting them WAY more than Derby – in addition to all the sports figures, they’re now expecting dignitaries from every Muslim country on this spinning rock, not to mention all the Europeans and Africans.
The mayor will do fine. We’ll see if Bevin can manage to not step on his dick n the process.
Baud
FTA
Emma
@Cacti: Exactly. Hillary can’t trust the press. They’ve been after her scalp for a very long time.
Gvg
@Brachiator: I disagree. I find articals like that interesting right now. Too many and only this would strike me as puffery but some of it helps explain some things I want to know right now.
Bernie is part of it. He doesn’t get along with others. I would have assumed nearly all politicians did automatically but found out that was a bad assumption so now I need to know a little more about her personality. Getting along well with people she works with is IMO really important for the job.
Cacti
@Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class:
Who all is coming?
I saw that Erdogan of Turkey and King Abdullah of Jordan would be there.
lollipopguild
I think most voters are looking for someone they feel can handle the job without doing anything real stoopid. They want someone that they can trust on a certain level. They do not have to love this person or even like this person. Which of the two people running has the best chance of getting their vote?
lamh36
Shorter POTUS to Bernie? It’s Over
Rex Everything
I supported Sanders all the way, am voting for him tomorrow in NJ, am far more pure and virtuous than you, etc. But when I read this —
— there’s no doubt in my mind she’s being real. Because she’s going to make a complete ass of Trump. I don’t think he realizes it, but he’s about to tangle with someone who’s so far out of his league it’s almost cruel.
lollipopguild
@Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class: Bevin has a 33% approval rating. Gov. Beshear had a 57% rating when he left office.
aimai
@Brachiator: I don’t understand what you mean by “puff pieces like this are a waste of time” Hillary Clinton isn’t relying on a puff piece to get over on the voters. She’s working the rope lines, giving speeches, working directly with local officials (who she name checks and references personally in every speech in every locale). She’s a professional. She’s not wasting a moment of her time.
Baud
@lamh36: Hmmm. Obama hasn’t called me yet.
Jim C.
I don’t have a whole lot against Hillary Clinton, the person. Once you dig through the various levels of BS that have been layered on over the last couple of decades she isn’t that bad. Similarly, I wish Hillary was a little further to the left on policy items, and more courageous about standing up and not triangulating at the first hint of trouble, but she’s reasonably center-left within the standards of whatever time period she’s running for office in.
My main and only issue with her is that Hillary Clinton, the candidate, is flat out awful. She’s legitimately terrible at running for public office. She’s the candidate, the best we have, and I’ll be supporting her and Bernie would have been worse, but I remain in dread that she’ll find a way to blow an election we should win blindfolded, sleepwalking and zombified.
She’s the anti-Bill Clinton.
lamh36
AkaDad
The Press sucks harder than Trump’s Hispanic outreach program.
Omnes Omnibus
@Baud: Oh, he’s tried. He just starts giggling too much every time he tries to punch your number into his phone
chopper
like obama, she knows that the media and the gop (but i repeat myself) will take anything she says and twist it out of context. so she has become more careful about what she says in front of the cameras. O is the same way; he often stops as he talks because he knows he has to say things just right.
in person there’s no need for the defensive wall. both O and hilz are much better retail politicians in person.
Betty Cracker
I didn’t know that about Clinton. Makes me like her more!
aimai
@Jim C.: So–how do you feel about discovering that this is complete and utter horse shit? Hillary Clinton is winning, handily, over Bernie Sanders who apparently is a great campaigner. She has adoring fans. Women and AA voters are ecstatic to vote for her. Have you ever thought that your opinion of her as a campaigner is conditioned by something other than reality?
Omnes Omnibus
@Jim C.:
I gotta say I disagree completely.
smith
So how is it that one reporter travelling with Clinton can readily perceive her strengths as a politician, and the others also travelling with her can’t? This characterization of Clinton — warm, friendly, likable in small groups or face to face — has been noted before, but somehow the press always defaults to cold, stiff, ungainly when they describe her political skills. Some of this has got to be due to long-standing messaging by the press, such that it’s become more of a tradition than a real observation. However, not long ago, Nancy LeTourneau suggested that it may also be because candidates are judged as politicians primarily for their performances in big barn-burning speeches in front of large crowds, and not for the settings in which Clinton apparently excels. This was in relation to the ‘shouty’ thing, and the fact that male candidates do better in situations that actually call for shouting. There are other ways to campaign, however, some of which might show women candidates in a better light, but somehow those aren’t given much weight.
Monala
@Baud: Are you trying to flip the superdelegates? in that case, he just might! :)
Emma
@Jim C.: That’s funny. Several friends who have seen her in person — at different times — all say she comes across as incredibly likeable and friendly, in addition to being always poised and in command of her facts and figures.
Monala
@Jim C.: How exactly is she awful? What did she do or not do in this campaign that equals “awful”? Other than “her voice is shrill,” I haven’t heard any specifics.
germy shoemangler
I posted this downstairs, here it is again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=60&v=2CAUOa5m5nY
Hillary giving her commencement address, 1969
Elie
Over time Hillary might select and groom a press member to write a for real article about the REAL Hillary. I think that will happen and she will need to use some of these folks beyond just saying she hates them. Sure, I understand why but its like essential jedai skills she will need to groom over her presidency. Just my take anyway…
Bobby Thomson
@Jim C.:
Well, let’s see.
She pasted Lazio.
Didn’t break a sweat against
Palladinoher 2006 opponent, who admittedly was a sacrificial lamb.Came within striking distance of beating the best political organizer of our lifetimes.
Won solid victories in a two-person race, including all the largest states in the country.
Has brought together all parts of the Obama coalition save young whites, despite the best efforts of that Vermonter piece of shit to rend the coalition asunder.
Is pantsing her Republican opponent effortlessly.
I guess I’ll settle for that brand of awful.
ETA: I was thinking she drew Palladino, which would have been great practice for Trump. No worries, though. Trump makes Romney look skilled.
Chyron HR
@lamh36:
Good news, a high ranking Democrat talked to Sanders and he’s going to put the gun down and come along peacefully! I’ve never heard that before!
lwestsd
@Baud: Something about this reminded me of lionesses when they hunt. From Wikipedia:
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Jim C.
@aimai:
I think you need to read my post again because you apparently didn’t for comprehension.
I’m not a Bernie guy. I said so in my post. Beating a cranky, old, white socialist who was never supposed to do as well as he has is no gold trophy.
Iowa Old Lady
I’m a Clinton supporter but I don’t usually find her to be an engaging speaker, last week excepted. She seems stiff and formal. I don’t hold that against her, and campaigning is way more than that.
chopper
@Omnes Omnibus:
yeah, me too. i mean back in 2008 it was a more accurate statement but this campaign she’s been doing a pretty fucking good job.
Mike J
Seems like an odd time to schedule a victory speech.
Rex Everything
@Monala: Whoa…seriously? I mean, I’m sure Nancy Reagan and Henry Kissinger and the Nicaraguan Contras and all the Wall Street bankers in the WTC’s backyard would agree with you, but…
Bobby Thomson
@smith:
Laziness. It’s much easier to plagiarize the same dreck that’s been rewritten hundreds of times before.
Jim C.
@Bobby Thomson:
She beat a Republican (Lazio) for statewide office in NEW YORK with everything in her favor. Wow.
She beat Palladino. (Who? I legitimately don’t know who this is. Seriously. I really, honestly, don’t.)
She won a primary that she has been running in since 2008 over a last minute cranky, socialist, old white challenger. Wow.
She’s beating Donald Trump. Wow.
Which of those things is supposed to impress me? Seriously. People. Take a step back. As a politician she’s about at Mitt Romney’s level. That doesn’t mean I am not in her corner, not favoring her, etc. But she’s not good at this. I’m sorry, I truly am. I wish she was better at this part because she’s fantastic as a policy wonk. Me saying Kerry or Biden aren’t great national politicians doesn’t diminish my respect for them on the issues. But, like them, Hillary’s never managed to win anything significant outside of deep blue circumstances.
Hillary’s bad at running for office. There are worse failings. But it’s legitimately true.
Elie
There is so much Hillary antipathy. A couple of days ago Moira Liason with NPR in a panel discussion about HIllary’s effective foreign policy speech where she literally jumped in and made her own editorial statement that Trump needed to point out Hillary’s flaws because Hillary had “character problems”. Now can you tell me what character problems Hillary has specifically and real examples? What the fuck is a news correspondent doing making such summary statements — all the while giving Trump a pass — the guy with real and severe character and possibly serious mental problems? I am tired of hearing these summary statements without any examples beyond imbedded misogyny….. I think a lot of men project what they hate about women onto her and women are just resentful of her success and power.
SFAW
@Omnes Omnibus:
You obviously haven’t seen the Reuters/Ipsos poll which has Baud! at 19 percent.
At least, I think it was Baud! — except he was going by his real name, “None of the Above.”
Bobby Thomson
@Jim C.:
It’s a lot smarter to hold her fire against the dipshit and bring his supporters back into the fold afterward than to bludgeon him the way she’s going to bludgeon Trump. But a lot of idiots confuse strategy with weakness.
SFAW
@Elie:
Mara Liasson has been a right-winger (well, a Fox-bot) for awhile, I think, so that’s no surprise.
sempronia
AL’s threads are open, so…
Los Angeles Juicers: A couple weeks back, someone made a motion to meet up after tomorrow’s primary. Anybody up for Wednesday night in Old Town Pasadena? I’m a native Angeleno, moving away on Saturday, and would love to meet some of you before I go.
Bobby Thomson
@Elie: Liason is a partisan right winger and doesn’t deserve any more respect than Robert Novak got.
rikyrah
@Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class:
I love that he is going home to be buried. It fits with who he was.
Germy
@Elie: Moira Liason is like Jon Karl. A GOP mole. Sometimes she’s subtle, sometimes she’s not. She’ll use negative terms when discussing any democrat up to and including Obama. When discussing republicans, she tones it down.
Bobby Thomson
@Jim C.: So, in other words, you got nothin’?
“She’s terrible, because c’mon guys, amirite?” is not terribly persuasive.
Monala
@Rex Everything: Wait, Nicaraguan Contras? That’s the first time I’ve heard about them in respect to Clinton. What’s that even about? She somehow helped fund them as First Lady of Arkansas?
D58826
@Iowa Old Lady: When Bill and Obama speak it’s like they are talking just to you. The TV seems to disappear. She doesn’t have that skill. Very few politicians do. So she suffers in comparison to Obama and Bill and that makes her ‘a lousy campaigner’ .
Jim C.
@Bobby Thomson:
It would have been a lot smarter never to let the dipshit gain any sort of momentum and therefore be able to start the general election three months ago minimum.
Strategy can be both good and bad, and Hillary had a bad strategy with regards to Bernie. This should never have even been a contest and she somehow is still fighting into June because she let him get a foothold, gain momentum, and turned it into a race.
Hillary misjudged her competition AGAIN just like she did Obama in 2008.
Mike J
@Bobby Thomson: It’s hard to complain that she isn’t winning by moire since she hasn’t really run against Sanders at all.
smith
@Monala: It was part of the drug running.
cokane
I think it’s just hard to be in politics as long as the Clintons and not be this dirty. The dirty ones get ahead. I’m not trying to slam her or them, but the system definitely rewarded this kind of shit. I think it was inevitable there was going to be an anti-Clinton candidate. Shit, if Bernie hadn’t run, there’d probably be a bunch of O’Malley dead enders right now.
smith
@Jim C.: She’s not still fighting into June. Only Bernie is. She essentially had it won after NY.
SFAW
@Jim C.:
How exactly would that have been accomplished?
Elie
@Jim C.:
Hey — have you ever run for anything? School board, PTA, anything? Do you know what you are talking about? Do you know how to get large groups of people organized and loyal to you while keeping the issues front and center? Did you see her recent ass whipping of Trump? Have you ever done or helped to put together any kind of complex strategy then have the discipline to carry it out? Have you lost something you worked very hard for and were crushed by it, but then got up off your ass and learned/grew from it? Hillary has a top notch campaign team. That is not just a thing that happens.. You have to work on it and trust/groom the right people and sustain deep and trusting relationships with them over a period of time. You have to learn to delegate to them and trust them — not that easy. Trump is having a hell of a time with his organization and managing the whole financial and message thing and its going to get harder with time. Its so easy, why aint he doing it? Your misogyny and ignorance is breathtaking.
Germy
@Jim C.: Could it be she had the same problem the GOP deep bench had with trump? Not wanting to antagonize his supporters?
debbie
@Barbara:
I particularly love their differentiating between supporting and endorsing Trump, as if there is a concrete difference.
Keith G
@Baud:
No.
Hate is useless and often the originator of own goals. (See Nixon…Hell, see Hillary’s private server)
I don’t know if the press can be “won over” as such, but dumber folks than HRC have been able to use the various motives of the press to an advantage. Considering her stature, wealth, and power, somewhere on this planet is the talent to help her succeed at this and they can be bought.
Jim C.
@D58826:
Pretty much yes.
When we describe somebody as a “lousy campaigner” we aren’t judging them by the bar of normal people. Normal people don’t get to the point where they’re the nominee of a major party to run for the presidency.
Hillary Clinton is hardly a lousy campaigner by normal people standards. But the bar is different for national politicians.As a national politician, she’s a bad campaigner compared to other NATIONAL politicians.
I want her to win, and I think she will, but that doesn’t mean she’s actually legitimately good at this. She’s been blessed with a massive electoral college advantage and a truly awful GOP challenger.
Imagine a truly gifted national politician running this cycle with the advantages she currently enjoys.
Bobby Thomson
@Jim C.: She did start the general election at least weeks ago, and she’s not running against Sanders now. Other than in their debates, she never has.
So, other than not murdering Sanders in his bed, how is she a bad candidate?
Mary G
Hillary is even more no-drama than Obama, and that bores the pants off the if-it-leads-it-bleeds set. She will let Trump hang himself while she gets shit done.
Emma
@Monala:You forgot to factor in the TARDIS and the help from renegade Silurians using their mind control powers.
Monala
@smith: Is that an answer? Hilary Clinton, in the 1980s, while living in Arkansas, was involved in Ronald Reagan’s scandal somehow? I’ll need more information than that.
D58826
@Monala: I don’t even see the relationship to your original comment but since the Clintons have been responsible for everything bad that has happened since the asteroid took out the dinosaurs, I guess you can blame Iran-contra on them also.
aimai
@Jim C.: I don’t think you are a bernie supporter. I assumed you were just a garden variety white man with some built in misogyny which you mistake for a realistic appraisal of a phenomenal woman running an impressive political campaign.
Trollhattan
@Rex Everything:
President Trey Gowdy completely agrees. Republicans and their enablers have been forging her since 1992. That’s some pretty stout steel by now.
Bobby Thomson
@Jim C.:
So in other words, she’s not measuring up to an imaginary candidate in your head, who I’m pretty sure has a p3n1s.
smith
@Monala: S@Monala: Should have added the snark tag…
Mike J
@Monala: Retune your snarkometer.
les
@Jim C.:
She’s lost once. To a once in a lifetime politician. And not by a lot. Turns out people she asks to vote for her don’t really agree with you.
Tilda Swinton's Bald Cap
@Jim C.: I think you need pancakes !
aimai
@Elie: Bingo, Baby!
Chyron HR
@Jim C.:
“Well, okay, maybe she’s only ever lost once, but all the people she beat are losers so it doesn’t count.”
Jim C.
@Elie:
Ellie: What misogyny? Point to a specific example. I said I think Hillary is a bad at connecting with people and running for office relative to other national politicians. I said that I support her over Bernie and that I will be supporting her in the general election and that I think she’s fantastic as a policy wonk and for that…my misogyny is “breathtaking”?
Okay. Whatever. You’re entitled to my opinion…just as I am to mine. And, for the record, I’m able to present my opinion without personally attacking the people who disagree with me on a NARROW point (that Hillary is a bad campaigner but still the person I most want to be the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD as the most qualified candidate who has run this cycle.) without casting some pretty serious insults.
Mary G
@sempronia: I’d come up for a meet up again, but my health doesn’t allow for it. Sorry to hear you’re moving away.
dmsilev
@sempronia:
I might be up for that (might have to work late on Wednesday; not sure yet).
Trollhattan
@Jim C.:
I was at her rally yesterday. You. Are. Simply. Wrong.
Mike R
@Bobby Thomson: Wow, low blow. If she deserves that she really sucks.
Jim C.
@Chyron HR:
Quality of competition counts dude.
Cleveland Cavs cruised through the Eastern Conference playoffs because the Eastern conference is very weak. That doesn’t make them a GREAT team. As we’re seeing in the finals.
Warriors, Thunder and Spurs are all great teams. Everything is relative.
YES, who Hillary has beaten and the circumstances she’s beaten them are a factor in evaluating the context.
Omnes Omnibus
@Jim C.: If she had cut Sanders out early, the coronation narrative would have been resurrected. She adopted a strategy based on Obama’s 2008 strategy that is going to get her the nomination. She stuck to her strategy through the thick and thin of the winning the day news cycle. She’s been concentrating on build a good ground game for the general. I don’t see much to criticize.
Jim C.
@Trollhattan:
Solid argument bro.
boatboy_srq
@Barbara:
Trouble with that is that Trump’s statements are the unobfuscated versions of the principles they revere: hetero Caucasian Xtian male privilege, imperialist/isolationist foreign policy, Ahmurrca-First-and-to-Hell-with-the-rest economics, and the rest are all principles of the modern (and not-so-modern) GOTea. Trump’s sin isn’t holding offensive policy positions or making reprehensible statements: it’s saying plainly what decades of Southern Strategy dogwhistle have been dancing around. They can’t oppose Trump’s positions because they don’t oppose his positions. All they oppose is his offensiveness, and they don’t have – or won’t admit – the integrity to admit that what they believe and desire from public policy is the same offensive policy planks Trump is spouting. If anything, the GOTea wants Trump to STFU because they can’t continue to pretend that “entitlement reform”, “tort reform”, “deficit reduction”, “family values”, “culture of life” and “religous liberty” are not (respectively), racist poor-shaming, poor shaming and yoonyun bashing, racism, queer-shaming, slvt shaming, and queer/slvt-shaming.
aimai
@Jim C.: This is so dumb. I don’t get where people get off thinking that the candidate can be judged by how easy they make it look. I see this crap from people criticizing Gore (he should never have lost!) to Kerry (he should never have lost to a sitting president in time of war) and now to Hillary who is insulted because she lost narrowly to a phenomenal politician, and now excoriated because she beat Bernie by a mile more than Obama beat her. How childish is this? I mean that literally. Only a child thinks this way. This shit is hard. Its hard to win a campaign. You fight againstthe opponent you get, you don’t get to “make” the win happen. But I can assure you that since Hillary has handily beaten Bernie and still doesn’t get any credit I think we can see that the problem is in the eye of the beholder.
Jim C.
@Omnes Omnibus:
A viable interpretation. You could be right. I happen to disagree and think it’s justification for Sanders catching fire and blindsighting her in hindsight, but it’s a valid disagreement so I won’t say anything further on it.
FlyingToaster
@Jim C.: Wrong.
Sanders is filling a tradition in the Democratic party: you might remember Eugene McCarthy. This is the candidate who goes out and gets the college kids to show up at a primary. There was no way that Clinton was going to be able to reach those kids this year; it’s been fantastic to have Sanders pulling them into politics.
Unlike you, kids (and these days, grandmas) go and read position papers for themselves. And the majority of Bernie’s supporters (79% at last polling) are planning to vote for Hillary. The other 21% are split between Paulite ratfuckers and natural Greens, and will split their votes between the Libertarians and Jill Stein. The Paulites were never going to vote for any Democrat, not even Webb.
Any primary challenger that inspires new people to show up is a good thing. The worst thing that can happen is a “coronation”. I may personally find Sanders annoying (since his ad buys in drive-time radio hit my “I got my masters 28 years ago; quit fucking lecturing me!” button), but he was hauling the Overton Window left, so good on him.
Betty Cracker
@Jim C.:
I disagree. The party is split between people who understand the magnitude of what PBO was able to accomplish despite near-treasonous levels of opposition and want to see that progress continue vs. people who are frustrated by the pace of change and want a dramatic break. Hillary rightly judged that the former group was larger than the latter.
C.S.
@Baud: He knows your in it for the long haul. He’s not going to waste his or your time. He has too much respect for you for that.
Elie
@Keith G:
I agree
Baud
@Omnes Omnibus: I agree.
dmbeaster
I like Hillary and believe most of the crap about her is just crap. I believe she is more liberal than Bill and expect her to be similar to Obama in many ways.
But she does not speak well off the cuff, which is a critical skill for a campaigner. She drives me nuts with that classic eff-up of saying “uh” or “eh” every 15 words or so. It is a horrible verbal tic common to many people, but something a trained politician should have purged from herself by now. She also has a flat vocal delivery in those circumstances, which also contributes to people not warming up to her. This is one minor aspect of her inability to project well while campaigning, but a good example.
aimai
@Bobby Thomson: He’s going to keep arguing it, though, because the one thing a guy like Jim C never is is wrong. At least in his own mind. Those millions of enthusiastic votes that Hillary has? That huge advantage that she supposedly has? All of that isn’t because of something she is doing right but because of some free floating “advantage” that she has that has nothign to do with her. Jeb bush could tell you allllll about that kind of natural advantage, and Mitt Romney too!
Elie
@aimai:
Totally… and on many of his other points of blindness also…
Baud
@Elie: She can do all that and still justifiably hate them.
boatboy_srq
@SFAW: @Bobby Thomson: A regular on Now Presenting Republicans. These days that’s proof enough. I will never understand the CPB’s lurch Rightward: they’re p!ssing off their strongest supports through pandering to listeners who are convinced that public dollars should never go to anything that doesn’t lob ordnance Over There or keep Those People in their place in the Homeland.
Trollhattan
@Jim C.:
If you say so, bro. Or instead of being an insufferable prick, you can elucidate this unsubstantiated proclamation.
Rex Everything
@Monala:
^Clinton in March, on Sanders’ support for the Sandinistas in the 80s.
Omnes Omnibus
@dmbeaster:
Obama does it. So did William F. Buckley.
Jim C.
@aimai:
It’s not dumb. It’s having the ability to see both the good and the BAD about the candidate YOU SUPPORT. Bolded for emphasis. I’m on Hillary’s side. I want her to win. Although that folks who have been after me in this thread make me wonder why. (Until I glance briefly at the thing that Trump has said in the last five minutes.) But my point remains that maybe the folks who think I’m the worst thing in the world for even suggesting that there might be something Hillary should work at improving should take a step back and get some fucking perspective. Gore ran away from Bill Clinton who had fantastic favorability ratings at the time. In retrospect, this was probably a bad move strategy wise.
It isn’t “childish” anymore than my opinion is “misogynist”. It’s a difference of opinion. Nothing more. Obama was the outsider when challenging Clinton…the massive, heavy underdog and she lost. With all the establishment support, with the popular ex-president support, with all the built in advantages she got trounced. Remember how she was supposed to be inevitable?
And again against Bernie, she started out playing the inevitability card and finally started fighting back. If Bernie had half the political skill Obama had who knows what would have happened?
This isn’t childish, misogynist or any other word you can think of. I’m not some rabid Hillary hater. I’m pointing out that in every election she’s ever run in Hillary has had MASSIVE advantages going in.
dmbeaster
@Elie:
Remember that “NPR” stands for “Nice Polite Republicans” and Moira Liason’s bs will be less troubling.
Jim C.
@Trollhattan:
Keeping tabs…insults thrown at me:
Misogynist
Chilidish
Insufferable prick
Insults I’ve used:
None
Won’t bother doing what you ask because you can read the rest of my posts for actual content if you like.
Trollhattan
O/T Re the Stanford rapist/swim-team bro getting off with the wristslap sentence, the apple evidently fell quite close to the tree.
Boo to the hoo.
aimai
For everyone bitching about how Hillary isn’t able to seduce the press I would like to point out that a) she knows better than anyone that the press is not willing to be seduced by the clintons. The press is always out to get them and, in fact, in the case of particular press specifically paid to do so. They can’t seduce someone ( a la John McCain’s barbecues) because the stories are bought and paid for before they are even written. B) The Obama’s grasped right away that they,too, were in for a rough ride with the press and they have very carefully held aloof where possible, and managed their coverage as much as possible. And Obama and Michelle still got horrible press coverage a lot of the time, especially during the general election.
Can we for once let our candidate try to run her campaign without carping and criticizing and explaining how much better we would do it if we were her? I get the urge to write better lines, or do something different. I suffer from backseat voter syndrome myself. But ulttimately she’s doing a damn fine job with the rough hand which is this crazy, mixed up, partisan, asshole country. Half the voters are nuts, a two thirds of the remainder are sensible and progressive, and some trailing third of that remaining half are absolute assholes convinced that no one but an old white socialist guy from Vermont can be pure enough for their votes. Bless her for being willing to stand out there, day after day, and receive the torrent of shit that she receives just for applying for a difficult job in order to get shat on day and after day if she gets in.
Trollhattan
@Jim C.:
Oh, you’re that other guy what done got banhammered.
Got it, bro.
Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class
@Cacti:
The list expands every time I hear it. It is impressive.
I made the mistake of talking to mom tonight – she gave me the trite old wingnut talking points of “draft dodgers shouldn’t get recognition”. I shut that shit down with the recitation of “Mitt Romney doing a bullshit Mormon mission in Provence”.
Monala
@Rex Everything: I Googled the quote. It’s from their Univision debate, and she was talking about his support for Castro in the 1980s. Even if she had been talking about the Sandinistas, I don’t get how opposing the evil committed by one side equals support for the other side.
Iowa Old Lady
OT: I interrupt our political brawling to say be sure to watch John Oliver from last night. He formed a debt collection company, bought $15 million worth of medical debt owed by 9000 people in Texas for $60K, and forgave it. I am in awe.
Jim C.
@dmbeaster:
Careful now.
Apparently even the mildest form of criticism of Hillary such as “not speaking well off the cuff” is a mortal sin with some here.
Baud
@Jim C.: She’s not Bill or Obama in terms of charisma, but I don’t see her as a bad retail politician. Her bigger issue is the long-standing hate that the right has directed against her.
smith
@dmbeaster: Really, the only polite ones left.
Cacti
@Rex Everything:
I thought it was about his fulsome praise of Fidel Castro.
Jim C.
@Betty Cracker:
An interpretation that I don’t object to.
I happen to think Hillary could have ended the primary quicker by being more aggressive with Bernie earlier, but I understand that there’s a good argument in the other direction and have no problem with anyone who thinks otherwise.
Iowa Old Lady
@Baud: She a competent hard-worker, which is worthy of respect and in short supply. We should be so lucky as to have that in every elected official.
aimai
@Jim C.:Misogyny isn’t a thing that you have to know you are doing, to have your opinions be based on it. Its pretty free floating, actually. People are trying to tell you that your so rational and above it all opinions are pretty much bog standard white male privilege, fairly typical and not, in fact, shared by millions of people who think about this candidate in quite another way. Asking me to see your statements as merely objective would be to dismiss millions of other people’s opinions, which are diametrically opposed to yours, as somehow subjective, foolish, incorrect. I won’t. I think your analysis of all her races are fundamentally wrong and, yes, childish. That’s my objective analysis, by the way. Its not an insult. Its an observation.
Renie
@lamh36: wow is there any question left in anyone’s mind that this guy is a bully and will do anything to anyone who hurts his ego. He’s proposing the stupidest strategy – specifically going after reporters? They’ve been his biggest fans so far. I hope they all began to rip him apart in the media.
Baud
@Iowa Old Lady: Absolutely. I also don’t want us to be dependent on once in a generation politicians.
Jim C.
@Baud:
And that’s a good counter-argument.
How much of her troubles connecting are her style personally and how much of it is ingrained in people listening to her from several decades of attacks creating a natural bias in the audience listening?
gwangung
@Jim C.: no, you keep on arguing as if there is such s thing as style points in politics. You either win or do not.
Your arguments rely on gradations of wins. Which does not match reality.
It’s simply a bad argument.
Renie
@Baud: He tried but your phone was busy.
Elie
@Trollhattan:
Aint that the truth!
While I am not a Romney supporter in any way, I think its pretty naïve and arrogant to judge the relative ease or difficulty of managing any kind of campaign but particularly a national campaign! This guy has NO IDEA what is involved and the effort and skin it takes! That is not given to you — you have to work for it and sometimes fail at it one or more times. Its of course not everyone that wants to do it but to completely minimize any victory or effort — its just ignorant.
aimai
@Jim C.: Its not a mortal sin. But it also doesn’t happen to be true. Lots of people have said they enjoy hearing Hillary speak “off the cuff”–perhaps you don’t likeher flat midwestern accent? Perhaps you think she is too shrill, or too accomodating (didn’t put Bernie away fast enough for your taste) etc… etc…etc… but those are simply personal opinions which other people don’t share. Are we obligated to agree with you for fear of hurting your feelings?
Jim C.
@aimai:
It’s your SUBJECTIVE analysis.
Not your OBJECTIVE one. We all bring our own biases to the table when receiving any argument. You’ve decided that I’m a misogynist based on my expressed believe that Hillary is not a naturally gifted politician. That’s your right.
But I find it unconvincing and a lazy analysis with very little in the way of supporting evidence other than “I don’t like what your opinion”.
aimai
@Jim C.: Oh, wait, your analysis is objective but mine is subjective?
Omnes Omnibus
FWIW, I also think her campaign is going to be more freewheeling in going after Trump than it was in the intramural fight that is the primary.
Jim C.
@aimai:
Obliged to agree with me?
Of course not. Obliged to not assume the absolute worst and start namecalling at the first hint of the mildest of criticsims given that I’m a Hillary supporter?
Yeah, I think that’s a reasonable expectation.
I happen to think that Obama should have moved more aggressively early on in his first term and that he tried to hard to get bipartisan support that wasn’t going to happen also. Does that make me a racist?
Trollhattan
@aimai:
Careful, he’s compiling an enemies list. Wonder if Dan Schorr is on it?
smith
I think it’s worth pointing out that when thinking of Hillary as a presidential candidate, the easiest comparisons that come to mind are Obama and Bill, as those are the ones most closely associated with her. Very few politicians could withstand that comparison. I’ve heard a lot of politicians speak over the years and very few have been charismatic and most are downright dull. I don’t think Hillary is worse than average, and really, who cares if she’s competent and can win?
Baud
@aimai: FWIW, in terms of her style, her bigger issue is consistency. When she’s on, I think she’s stellar, but when she’s not, it also shows. Her range is wider than average IMHO, although I’m my book, she’s generally pretty good.
gwangung
@aimai: well obviously. It’s objective to call a politician who has lost only one campaign a poor campaigner.
hovercraft
O/T This asshole judge who sentenced a rapist to 6 months in jail instead of 10 years, because real time in prison would damage his life. There is a now recall effort. The victims statement is powerful
Jim C.
@aimai:
“We all bring our own biases to the table when receiving any argument.”
I include myself in the subject of “all people”. As in, yes, of course my own analysis are not purely and completely dispassionate and I bring a degree of my own subjectivity to the table. I’m Jim C. not Leonard Fucking Nemoy.
Seriously. Take a step back and maybe, just for a moment, stop assuming I’m a evil villainous hump and take the time to actually read a post of mine and understand it before criticizing.
? Martin
@Betty Cracker:
We can want all sorts of things. What’s important is recognizing what is achievable and what is not. I’ve yet to meet a Sanders supporter who believes that Sander’s policies are achievable – any of them. A Sanders presidency is a demonstration that leftist ideas are popular and nothing more. After being hit too many times with the ‘libtard’ stick, they can lord over their conservative bully, lip bleeding, and say that they are the better person. Nobody will be helped, nobody will be better off, but you get to say that your tribe has won – you get to take the shiny trophy home to your squalid home.
It’s not a better glorious future, but a deeply cynical one, where you’re willing to make the worse for the sole benefit of making a point. Only those in power can afford to do that. Only rich people burn money to make a point. Only those who have a surplus of social capital can throw away 4 years of achievement to prove that liberalism is popular.
Baud
@Omnes Omnibus: Yep. Although we are on pins and needles awaiting Sanders’ next steps, I think Hillary won a lot of admirers with her approach, including our blogfather’s.
Emma
@aimai: Oops. Did you forget? Us women are always subjective. We also shouldn’t bother our pretty little heads with math and science. Or philosophy. Or politics.
Feh.
Cacti
@Jim C.:
That’s where I think some of the baked in cultural sexism came into play. Hillary had to be careful to not look like she was “busting his balls”.
Considering some of the gendered insults the Berngressives were flinging in Nevada at a liberal stalwart like Barbara Boxer, I’d wager that sticking to issues-based critiques of Sanders was quite calculated.
Another male candidate could have lit into Sanders as a dictator-hugging, Marxist screwball with fewer negative repercussions.
Alexander
I know this is a sympathetic piece, and I say this without wanting to accept that this is an accurate characterisation, but still: I always wonder about this kind of comment. I mean, exactly how many human beings would not be “uneasy with the press and ungainly on the stump”, in any situation, let alone Clinton’s? Isn’t it just weird to be completely natural in such settings?
I get that failing to have a smooth relationship with the press and failing to be graceful on the stump may not endear one to the public. But it seems both bizarre and backwards that it might make one seem somehow inhuman.
And yet, I suppose I don’t doubt that there are people who regard an inability to be completely at ease in these kind of situations as just that: inhuman. People are hypocrites.
Jim C.
@Cacti:
An interesting argument. It’s in the same vein as the whole “Obama has to be EXTRA cool to avoid the ‘angry black man’ narrative”.
I do imagine that is part of the thinking that lead them to certain strategic approaches. (For both people.)
debbie
@Omnes Omnibus:
The only politician that speaks with no vocal tics is Ted Cruz. I’ll take the uhs and ahs without complaint, please.
Villago Delenda Est
@Baud: And she should, because it’s obvious the vermin of the Village hate her.
They destruction of the Village can not come too soon.
Jim C.
@Emma:
Repeating yet again, my own words, from the very post that you’re looking at.
“We all bring our own biases to the table when receiving any argument.”
It’s not a woman thing. A HUMAN thing. People – which to be redundant includes both male and female genders – are inherently subjective because our viewpoints are all shaped by the sum totality of what has made us the person we are whenever we encounter anything.
chopper
@aimai:
oh, his is subjective too, but his is right because reasons.
Monala
@Omnes Omnibus: I was thinking the same thing. For all of President Obama’s strengths as a public speaker, he has plenty of verbal tics.
Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class
The White House is neither confirming nor denying attendance. I think he’ll be there – the security infrastructure is in place, and Yum already has permanent metal detectors and is accustomed to moving this size crowd.
aimai
@Jim C.: I get it, somehow when someone points out that your analysis is misogynistic you think that is THE WORST INSULT EVER. Its not. Its just a straight up observation, based on analysis of the ways what you say is basically identical to the kinds of things that men often say about powerful women. I’ll go a little further and say that asking everyone to respect your right to tell us THE SAME FUCKING THING as tons of other guys have already told us as though it were unique, fascinating, ground breaking is just about worse than the misogyny.
I can’t stand this epicurean, aesthete, approach to politics and politicians. Who cares if Hillary Clinton doesn’t jiddle your pendulum or make your swoon? All she has to do is fucking win and then work her heart out for the god damned country. That’s all she’s asking to do: take our shit, win our votes, and then take our shit again for not being perfect. Who cares if she doesn’t do it in a way that thrills you?
Renie
@Jim C.: I don’t agree with your view of Hillary as a campaigner but I think you are receiving too much criticism for your opinion. And I also don’t see anything misogynistic in your remarks. I think there is a tendency for people to assume someone is anti-women if they don’t like Hillary. I’ve heard it alot in talking with people; they don’t like her or think she is capable cuz she’s a woman. But I try to realize that is not the reason for everyone who dislikes her. Most people I hear from go to the “I don’t trust her” issue. Which I believe is a result of the media slandering her for 25 years about bogus issues.
BTW we’ve had a lot of trolls lately and I appreciate your stating your pov without getting personal unlike the trolls.
Jim C.
@debbie:
Ted Cruz speaks with the vocal tic of non-verbally masturbating to himself with every word he speaks.
Villago Delenda Est
So I’ve got four minutes to edit my last comment, but I don’t have permission to.
FYWP. Just find a fire to die in.
? Martin
@Jim C.:
I think it’s impossible to judge her political gift having been the subject of so much misogynist (and other) abuse. She has no choice but to adopt a defensive position, to close herself off. Had she not, she never would have gotten this far. It’s unfair to then claim that she’s not more open.
I think that was part of Obama’s success – why he needed to run when he did. He couldn’t slowly ramp his profile or they’d work to destroy him. By coming in seemingly too early, we got him before the system broke him.
debbie
@Jim C.:
i guess that would explain all those pauses.
chopper
@Jim C.:
oh, we get it. your analysis has just a lil’ dash of subjectivity, it’s not like it’s purely and completely dispassionate. mostly objective tho, like totes 90+ percent.
her analysis is of course just straight-up subjective.
Jim C.
@Renie:
Thank you Renie. I appreciate your comment. I have no issues whatsoever with your disagreement and I think you’re quite right that the “I don’t trust her” is in large part a subconscious reaction on the behalf of a lot of people, even relatively high information people, due to a couple of decades worth of nothingburger scandals that people can’t really recall the details of but have left an “impression” for lack of a better word in the minds of a lot.
My parents are very committed Democrats in Idaho. Both campaigned hard for Larry LaRocco for Senate and have done so in various other campaigns in the past. Both were Bernie folks and both regret it now.
Both had kind of a “don’t trust her” attitude. So I understand how prevalent it can be.
Baud
In the end, it’s academic. She’s going to be our nominee. She has to win. And she shouldn’t start trying to radically alter her style at this point in time.
MJS
@Jim C.: Echoing gwangung, it’s an exceedingly bad argument. Is she Bill Clinton or Barack Obama? No. But she doesn’t have to be. She’s not only a significantly better campaigner than Trump, but she is light years better than all of the 17 or so Republicans who ran and got trampled by Trump. She also has the misfortune to be saddled with 100 politicians’ worth of (made-up) “scandals”. You want to see her crush it like Bill and the President? Go back and watch the hours of testimony she gave in front of the Benghazi committee. She served notice there that she was not going to be f’d with, and hasn’t been since.
chopper
@debbie:
and that’s because everything he says has been rehearsed in front of a mirror for hours a day.
Betty Cracker
In the linked article, Traister discusses the possibility that what we think of as standard political skills skews male and that we might want to broaden our concept of acceptable politicking. Could be she has a point…
aimai
@? Martin: This is more or less what I’m thinking. But I also think that Jim thinks he’s being criticized because he is criticizing her for not being a “naturally gifted politician” but I don’t care at all about this weird fantasy of his that this matters. I don’t care about the phrase in the slightest, or what he thinks about it. Hillary Clinton is a hard working politician who manages to get elected, and win her races. That is all I care about. This naturally gifted crap reminds me of when Michael Jordan and some commenters finally got sick and tired of hearing black sports figures described as “natural” athletes. They worked damned hard to do what they do. There wasn’t nothin’ natural about it. Hillary Clinton is a very SKILLED politician. Perhaps retail politics isn’t her forte or the camera doesn’t love her enough for Jim C’s delectation but she is a damned hard worker and very skillfull at what she does. If Jim can name another 60 year old woman who has won more votes than both the men in the race (than both Trump and Bernie) for the leadership of her party in the US he is at liberty to tell me who she is.
Kropadope
@Cacti:
Which dictator?
He’s a democratic socialist, not even a fully socialist candidate. But apparently he’s also a Marxist. How oddly specific, like anyone’s thinking is 100% dominated by the ideas and ideology of one single other.
terry chay
@Elie: Another example is how terrible Bernie’s campaign is at anything other than holding rallies and getting money, the latter is falling completely apart. They had a huge momentum with the “Anyone But Hillary” movement as well as a desire of most of the Democratic electorate wanting something further to the left, and they squandered it but good.
Whose going to remember Bernie for what he stood for and whose going to remember him as someone who screamed about superdelegates and closed primaries… or something?
Villago Delenda Est
@Jim C.: I don’t get why anyone has a “don’t trust her” attitude. She’s no more dishonest than any other garden variety politician, and her dishonesty, if any, is minuscule compared to the deserting coward or Drumpf. The “scandals” that have been conjured up around her are ridiculous. She made Draco Malfoy and the rest of the Sytherin gang look like idiots (admittedly, not a high bar) in the 11 hour hearing appearance.
You might disagree with her on some policy positions, and a general tendency towards miquetoast DLC leanings, but “don’t trust her”? I just don’t get it. She’s not going to use the launch codes to get revenge on someone who laughed at her makeup, unlike someone else I can see doing that.
Jim C.
@chopper:
You can have whatever opinion of me that you wish.
I’m happy with who I am as a person and don’t feel the need to bother defending myself any further. I don’t comment here often and perhaps that is part of the problem. I’m not a regular either commenting or reading the comments and I know how that can be a landmine.
So, whatever, feel free to consider me a raging misogynist for committing the mortal sin of thinking Hillary isn’t a great national politician and be content.
tybee
@Renie:
+1
aimai
@terry chay: Right. This is the way I look at it. For all Bernie and his fans poormouthing his chances, and trying to pretend that he had an enormous load to lift getting noticed, Bernie blew the chance that he had. He did better than he says he expected, but he did as well as anyone does in a two person race and he still lost.
chopper
@MJS:
exactly. besides which, both of those guys have their flaws other than retail politics or speechifying.
Omnes Omnibus
@Jim C.: You fucking bastard.
Renie
@Trollhattan: I saw that. That is outrightly DISGUSTING. The father is as much as a pig as the son. Not too hard to see why the kid acted the way he did growing up with someone who has that type of attitude.
Emma
@Jim C.: But you insist yours are objective, especially in comparison with Aimai’s. Why should we accept such a statement?
I had a professor like you in college. Everything he said was logical, academic, reasonable. Students battered their heads against the objective wall while from behind he was throwing poisoned darts at everyone. Since he was one of the department’s biggest “stars” sooner or later you had to sit down in that small room and try to argue with him. It was utter and complete frustration because he knew better because he was objective, you see, and if we could just relinquish our own opinions, it would all work out for the best.
I would rather deal with a serial killer.
aimai
@Villago Delenda Est: This is what I say when people bring up the “I don’t trust her” thing. I say “Look, she was in the Senate for two terms, ran a presidential campaign and was so well respected afterwards that her opponent chose her to be his SOS, then ran the SOS office for four years. These are all jobs where your word is your bond. If you lie to people, they won’t negotiate with you and they won’t vote for you and they won’t appoint you to things. If anything her entire history in public life shows that the people who deal with her every day trust her very much.”
chopper
@Villago Delenda Est:
almost three decades of media-driven clinton hatred tends to rub off on almost everyone after a while. less so if you think critically about it.
Jim C.
@Villago Delenda Est:
I think a part of it was the “third way” style of politicing that the Clintons (both genders) have practiced over their careers. A large part of their strategy was based on moving to the center, adopting certain Republican ideas, etc. That creates concerns from the left that she’ll “sell out” liberal principles. And of course there’s that avalanche of BS from the right.
I don’t think the third way criticisms are wholly without merit but I do I happen to think that, in the words of Charles Pierce, enough of Hillary’s heart are in enough of the right places.
I might wish she’d be further to the left in some areas like foreign policy or a better orator or a few other things, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t think she’d make a fine president and is 10,000% preferable to the alternative for picking Supreme Court justices.
Jack the Second
Has anyone asked the all-important question, is Jim C. going to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election?
As long as the answer is “yes” … I’ll take it. A reluctant, vaguely uncomfortable (whether from some slight misogyny or a belief in the noise the right-wing has been spewing about the Clintons for longer than some of us have been alive or a slight sadness that she isn’t as progressive or free from sin as your personal platonic ideal of a politician) vote for Hillary Clinton counts the same as an enthusiastic vote in the final tally.
If the answer is “no”… well, that’s too bad. This election is going to be a cathartic one. I think we could lose a half million registered Democrats, easy, who can’t stand to vote for a woman, especially Hillary Clinton (who is literally *the* feminist most of these fellows grew up calling a “feminazi”). When she is elected and re-elected, we might lose them permanently, whether to the Republican Party or a third party or to “no party affiliation”. And that’s OK. I don’t think losing the misogynists from the party will hurt nearly as bad as losing the Southern Democrats, electorally, and we’ll be better for it. Maybe the next time we’re in power, we’ll finally be able to jettison the Hyde Amendment. Maybe we’ll be able to get the ERA ratified.
But — and I say this as a straight, cis-gendered, well-to-do, land-owning white male, so cum grano salis — I’m perfectly happy to keep the merely “reluctant” in the Party. It’d be nice if all of us were free of hidden prejudices, whether on account of race, sex, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or number of Star Wars t-shirts owned, but being able to overcome your prejudicial conditioning and act rationally and treat others equally and with the respect they deserve is a big step. By doing the right thing and voting for a smart, competent, moral, and caring leader like Hillary Clinton over a gibbering idiot like Trump, they are going to protect the progressive advances of the last century, enable the further advances of the next century, normalize equality of the sexes, and put a lot of liberal asses on judicial benches.
So as long as Jim C. isn’t the sort of naked misogynist whose preference order is Sanders > Trump > Clinton, I’m happy to call him a fellow Democrat.
aimai
@Jim C.: Christ, call the waaaambulance. You are entitled to your opinion, no one said you weren’t. But it wasn’t a stellar political analysis that blew us all away with its unique insight. It was just a tired retread of shit that guys say all the time about people like Hillary. And people rejected it. They thought it was tired, and insufficient, and uninteresting, and largely untrue. If you have reached an advanced age, like I have, and you have never had your argument rejected before as puerile or insufficient, you have been very lucky.
chopper
@Jim C.:
i never said anything about misogyny. you do seem to have a double standard regarding the inherent veracity of your opinions vs others’. i’m sure however that many women, having dealt with this same shtick from men all their lives, are likely to call it out that way.
Jim C.
@aimai:
Cool story bro.
Jim C.
@Jack the Second:
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
aimai
@Jack the Second: Ok, well said. But no one is arguing about who they are going to vote for, are they? This is just a discussion among friends. Acrimonious, sure, but why not?
Omnes Omnibus
@Jack the Second: He started out his first comment by saying that he supported her.
aimai
@Jim C.: You are using that trope wrong.
Jim C.
@Jack the Second:
Expressly stated that I’m a Hillary backer about a dozen times, ahead of all candidates including Bernie.
I’m just a Hillary backer with the apparently sinful opinion that she could be better as a campaigner.
Robert Sneddon
@gwangung: Clinton 2016 is going into the books as an example of an establishment primary candidate campaign done right, alongside Obama’s insurgent campaign of 2008.
She only had to win by one delegate to be the Democratic Party candidate in the general election in November, she’s been on track to win the nomination by a comparative landslide since the second Super Tuesday. What’s impressed me most about her this time around is that she learned from 2008 when she came close but faced a remarkable opponent who did everything to her back then that she’s done to Senator Sanders this time around, like understanding the rules of each and every contest and keeping the delegate count uppermost in her thinking at all times. No shiny distractions like mass rallies that don’t get votes and delegates, no spectacular newsworthy events like foreign trips that don’t get votes and delegates, making personal connections with Dem insiders that get super delegates, that’s the way to win the nomination.
Jim C.
@aimai:
“but why not”
Because you shouldn’t be a dick to the people on your own side and assume they’re awful without a bit more in the way of evidence. This thread has been a magnificent reminder of why I don’t comment here.
Fair Economist
The business of Hillary being a “bad speaker/campaigner” is the result of decades of the Right-Wing Wurlitzer and will not survive contact with the reality of Hillary campaigning. When people actually see and listen to her, she gets broad accolades and impresses the heck out of people – see the debates, the Benghazi hearings, and now the Trump evisceration (likely the first of many.) She’s funny, warm, caring, consistent, and above all really, really, really knows her stuff. I am really looking forward to the fall debates because she’ll be *killer*.
hovercraft
@aimai:
It’s funny how these people keep saying how lousy she is at this, yet she keeps winning. The last week all they keep saying is what if she loses CA, what does that mean? It means she lost a battle and won the war, which last time I checked was the objective. In politics there are no extra points for style. Bush became president in 2000 end of story, it was ugly and we complained. She is running a competent campaign and she is winning. Is she as inspirational as Obama? No but she is in her own way insipiring women and girls everywhere to reach for the sky. As a woman I am proud to vote for her.
Renie
@Villago Delenda Est: How can you not get it? The media has been creating ridiculous scandals about her and Bill since he was president, FauxNews has been spewing crap about her since FauxNews began in 1996. Just look at the crap Maureen Dowd writes in NYT. Too many people believe all this and repeat the mantra “Hillary can’t be trusted”. The latest is because she hasn’t given a press conference. Its fricking unbelievable the amount of garbage they say about her. This is also why she is careful in public about what she says and why she is not overly friendly with the media. People are low info and believe nonsense.
Jim C.
@Emma:
“I would rather deal with a serial killer.”
Perspective.
terry chay
@Jim C.: If you said she’s a worse campaigner than her husband or Obama nobody would disagree with you since that is obvious in gut as well as fact (Husband won the presidency twice and Obama beat her head-to-head).
I think you go beyond that when you say she’s a “bad campaigner.” A statement like that should be compared to the average and the burden of proof is on you because the only campaign she’s lost has been against Barack Obama in 2008, probably one of the best politicians in generations…and that just barely.
For instance, one might argue (and you do) that she should have wiped the floor with Bernie Sanders. In counter, I’d argue she did—beating someone more clearly than she was beat in 2008 and also by just enough (not going negative) which is why so many of Bernie voters will support her candidacy in the general (at least relative to Hillary PUMA’s in 2008 at this point in time). Furthermore, I believe that it was by design. Bernie sucked the air of the “Anyone But Hillary” segment which might have been taken up by someone more effective to the actual “win the delegates” bean counting. (Bernie is a more effective fundraiser, I’ll grant, though that’s probably not Bernie so much as the team of people who coalesced around him as someone more liberal than Hillary.) Finally, one does not get to choose one’s opponent, conspiracy theories about DWS notwithstanding, so a beat down is a beat-down.
Yes she’s pretty effectively beating Donald Trump with a 70% estimated chance of winning so early in the race (a 70% that takes into account Dukakis-like swings in popularity). But Donald Trump is not as bad a campaigner as you make out, having effectively destroyed a dozen others vying for that party’s nomination. When you look at her foreign policy speech last week, all you have to do is ask if Bernie Sanders could have made that speech to realize that the answer is no (both in temperament and argument). It is a brillaint attack line that frames “the Donald” in a manner that is a catch-22 for his campaign and one that could have only be done by a handful of people, none of whom (other than Biden) were in a position to run for nomination.
Sure if Obama or Bill Clinton gave it, it’d have been more effective, but they’re not running for president and we’ve already granted out that they’re not just “better campaigners,” but almost legendary.
lollipopguild
@Renie: Obama is trying to decide if he should use the heart attack machine on you or the Black Helicopters or just Area 51 your ass. He will let you know.
Tom Q
Let me start by saying I don’t think there’s any need to accuse Jim C. of misogyny for the simple holding of an opinion about Hillary’s campaign abilities.
But I do think his characterization of her as awful is way over the top. As others have said, of course she’s not in the class of Barack or Bill (or JFK and FDR — Democrats have been almost obscenely blessed with charismatic presidents in the past 80 years, compared to Republicans). But I’ve seen her give very strong speeches (her “18 million cracks” speech, and the convention endorsement of Obama), and observed her in many other settings where she’s been very effective (on talk shows, in small gatherings). Yes, ideally, you get a supernova candidate every time, but none were available this year (I think Sanders would have worn far more poorly over time), and I can’t really think of any on the Dem or GOP bench right now, though I’m willing to be surprised.
And I don’t think you can just dismiss her electoral success to date, The match-up with Lazio, when the NY media was similarly presenting her as the ice queen-bitch, was thought to be a close race much of the way, but she ended up leaving him in the dust. When she took her 2008 loss in IA, I thought she’d prove to have a glass jaw, and would end up dropping out by March; instead, she rebounded to score far more victories than I imagined, those against one of the best candidates I’ve ever seen. I was MORE impressed with her by the end of the campaign than I was at the beginning.
And I think the way she’s run this year — resisting the bait to go feral on Sanders, playing the Obama game of slow and steady wins the race — confirms that faith. I think, if anything, she’s a bit UNDER-appreciated as a candidate at this point; I’m thinking by October a lot of Dems will end up surprised by how happy they are to vote for her.
Anne Laurie
@? Martin:
Good point (and one I think Sen. Obama was well aware of). Another four-year cycle of Tony-Rezco-Rev.-Wright-Saul-Alinsky-America’s-just-not-ready-to-elect-the-son-of-a-Kenyan “objective observations” from The Media, and Barack Obama would’ve been labelled as just another novelty act who would never be accepted by “real” American voters. There have been plenty of Very Serious People, ever since 2008, whining that if only we’d given them a chance to “vet” President Obama, surely politics would be less stressful today…
Renie
I don’t get a lot of chances to comment since threads are over by the time I read them but I do find it sad how people have attacked Jim for stating an opinion. Maybe there’s a back story about Jim I’m unaware of and people have old grudges. I don’t know. But he says he rarely comments so why the animosity towards him? We all want Hillary to win. That’s our goal. He thinks she is not a great campaigner. Fair enough; that’s his opinion. It doesn’t mean he hates women. Believe me, I’m old enough and have worked in corporate and legal firms in NYC to recognize misogyny, and in my opinion, nothing he said equals that.
Can’t we all just give each other a chance to express points of view without worrying someone is going to read something into it that’s not there? We have enough b.s. with BIP and Retching Up. Let’s not chase away lurkers who want to add their comments. WIthout them the community becomes a bubble of the same people saying the same stuff and no one grows from that.
Ok, just my 2 cents. Flame Away; I’m like Hillary I can take it!!
And Baud your phone is ringing, Obama on line 2.
Ruckus
@aimai:
LOL
Nice. Now I don’t need to post a rebuttal to Jim C.
Ruckus
@Tilda Swinton’s Bald Cap:
I think this comment is funny but I don’t know why.
Why?
Jim C.
@terry chay:
Thanks for the thoughtful response Terry. I’ll try and respond point by point.
I understand your comment on the “burden of proof” thing and I do think I’ve supplied some proof, but understand that it’s unconvincing to a lot of folks. I don’t mind that. But my arguments are:
1. The campaigns she’s won have had the deck significantly stacked in her favor. This, I do regard as a fact. I can’t think of a single campaign that she’s ever been in where she’s been considered the underdog. Can you?
2. The campaigns she has had have been closer than I think they should have given the entrenched advantages. People forget that Obama was a half-term black Senator, Lazio was a Republican running for the Senate in New York where Bill Clinton was hugely popular etc. This might be a point where people disagree.
3. Given this, she’s either lost or had tough battles in elections she should have cruised in.
I’m a bit fan of sports and one of the things that advanced statistics tell us is that it isn’t just the win/loss record that matters. It’s things like SOS and average margin of victory, etc. I have zero problem with people disagreeing with my premise, but I don’t think it’s completely unreasonable either.
Take Bernie as an example. I think there’s some recency bias in play here. Prior to 2008, primary campaigns that dragged on this long had been non-existent for decades. Yes, she’s going to beat him comfortably. But her predecessors tended to have the nomination well wrapped up and on cruise control and switched to general election mode months previous. Possibly this is the result of the changing nature of primaries. But it IS true that the last couple of serious primaries have been serious aberrations given how long they’ve dragged on.
With regards to Donald Trump…I do think he’s as bad and WORSE as a campaigner as I make him out to be. But the GOP base is utterly insane and our national media is completely broken. Trump is completely undisciplined with his speaking (Biden on MEGA steroids) and a fantastic racist. He’s a total liar and sites like Politifact state this.
He hasn’t gotten to where he is because he’s a good politician. He’s gotten to where he is because the GOP is in shambles and so is the media.
Keith G
Fuck me raw….this has turned into a screechy little thread.
PatrickG
@Renie:
Trolls tend to poison the environment in general. It’s one of their main goals. I think the response to Jim C. is probably heightened by that.
I mean, we don’t really know he’s not a sockpuppet, now do we? Better nuke him from orbit — it’s the only way to be sure.
Ruckus
@sempronia:
I’d be up for something Wed evening, especially in Old Town. (everything in OT is walking distance – I live there!) Just someplace not all that loud. Suggestions?
chopper
@Jim C.:
I guess not everyone can be almost but not quite 100% objective like you.
Jim C.
@Tom Q:
I think a large part of this thread has resulted of a single very poor choice of wording in my very first post.
I used the word “awful”. I imagine the response might not have been so heated if I had chosen the wording “sub-par” or “below average”.
Jim C.
@chopper:
I don’t even know what your last comment is in response to.
burnspbesq
@Jim C.:
Your critique of Clinton sounds like blaming Kyrie for not being Steph.
Kathleen
@Elie: NPR’s headline story on an afternoon news slot the day she gave her foreign policy speech was something like “Clinton lashes out at Trump but Republicans thinks her private email server is Satanic so both sides”.
An Moron Liesalot is insufferable.
sempronia
@Mary G: Sorry to hear you’re indisposed! (If we manage to meet up,) we will miss you.
Jim C.
@burnspbesq:
Nice simile!
I suppose I could be doing that to a certain extent. But, on the other hand, if you’re playing in the NBA finals you’re judged by a different standard than if you’re competing for one of the 24 different spots in the All-Star game.
aimai
@Jim C.: No one is being a dick to you. No one is being supernaturally awful to you. Pointing out that your analysis is trite, uninteresting, and sexist is not the end of the world and its not the worst thing that gets said to anyone, ever, on a blog. I just can’t even with this level of whininess. I’m sure you are a very nice person, so what? Your analysis still sucks, and is trite, and sexist. I like Hillary Clinton as a candidate and a campaigner. I think she has done an incredible job and I think the tendency of (some) Democratic/Progressive/Liberal men to offer up their insights into how she coulda/shoulda/woulda done better if she could only have been put together by a committee of men like them is just beyond ridiculous. She’s a damned good politician and she is going to be the first woman President of this country. And she is going to have done it dancing backwards and in heels. And there are always going to be little men sitting criticizing her. Because there always are.
terry chay
@Jim C.: I’d say 90% or higher is related to being ingrained. That’s why there’s such a big disconnect, time and time again, between impressions of people before and after they meet her or go to her rallies, etc. And that’s why BernieOrBusters and Republicans underestimate her in the general.
The reality is she’s pretty formidable. The easiest way to see that is notice the respect Obama gave her in 2008 and is still giving her today. Or the respect people like Joe Biden gives her by not running against her. They must have looked into it and realized they were going to lose.
To me, the most impressive thing is how much she seemed to have learned from 2008. It’s rare to see someone run for presidential nomination, fail, and come out a better human being from it (vs. Bernie Sanders, John Edwards, Gary Hart, Joe McCarthy, the “deep bench” of the Republican primary 2016…).
To be a little mysogonist, I think it’s because she’s a woman. She knows the deck is stacked that way and if she complained about it she’d have gotten nowhere. I’m constantly missing obvious-in-hindsight observations that my partner sees that I honestly can say it’s because I have a penis.
aimai
@Jim C.: That is true, but of course your “average” or “par” would not include any other comperable female politicians running in comperable races, so that wouldn’t make any sense.
patroclus
AP declares it for Clinton!! Before New Jersey!
Uh, for the record, I’m with jim c on the “not a very good campaigner” argument. But she’s been getting better! And there are other things that she does exceptionally well. The sarcastic put-downs of Trump were well done; the Benghazi hearing was well done; the acclamation motion she made in 2008 was very well done. So long as she’s good enough to win, I’m fine with it. She’s likable enough, as far as I’m concerned.
MJS
@Jim C.: Who do you consider “average”, if Hillary is below average? What is “par” for campaigning? Finally, in a comment a little further up, you say that her previous campaign’s were “stacked in her favor.” I really don’t think you’ve been paying attention to the news since oh, about 1992. If you had been, you’d know that whenever the topic is Hillary, there’s something stacked, but it’s almost invariably not in her favor. Here’s what you should do – have a news network and thousands of AM radio outlets rip you to shreds day in, day out, for decades. Then go out and say you’re going to run for office. Get back to us with how well you do.
I personally see no misogyny in your posts. Just really, really shallow analysis.
amk
@Brachiator: your constant concern is duly noted.
Jeffro
Just a quick note here: just cannot believe that President Obama is *only* at 53% approval right now. What short memories…
Jack the Second
@Jim C.: Hah, I missed the expressed support amid all the reciminations and accusations. Happy to have you on board!
I understand not wanting to be attacked for expressing slightly discordant opinions, but this is Internet. :-) Have you seen the ad hominems thrown around during a pancakes versus waffles thread? Just be glad you’re not getting SWATed for having the gall to suggest that — while pancakes are clearly better — waffles do have some redeeming characteristics.
I personally subscribe to the old campaigners trick called “quitting while you’re ahead”. Once someone has said they’re voting for you (or the candidate you are campaigning on behalf of) your goal is to get out of there as quickly as possible, before you or they say something that changes that.
Chris
@Monala:
I was prepared to be pissed at that quote if aimed at the Sandinistas. Aimed at Castro, not so much. So thanks for clearing that up.
Jim C.
@terry chay:
I absolutely do think she’s going to win the general election, but I think the respect angle of your argument is a false premise.
You can respect somebody and still think they’re bad at something. I respect my dad more than words can express, but I think he’s bad at Rocket League. (Video game reference in case that reference isn’t clear to everyone and to spare the Googling need.) Doesn’t mean that I don’t think he’s fantastic at stock trading. Being bad at one thing doesn’t mean you are not worthy of respect or bad at everything. I think Hillary isn’t the best campaigner, but I also think she absolutely obliterated the GOP on the Benghazi crap.
You present one example of why, for example, Joe Biden is choosing not to run against her.
Another might be that he’s 73 years old and his son died, or he’s ran repeatedly before and been unsuccessful, or the party asked him not to because the establishment had already coalesced behind her, or Obama asked him not to because he promised Hillary, etc. There are a lot of different reasons Joe might have decided not to run. The one you gave is valid. Others are too.
I think Hillary is going to mop the floor with Trump. But I also think we’ve been blessed this cycle with a whole lot of advantages.
SFAW
@Jim C.:
Since I have limited literacy skills, and am unwilling to pore over every one of your 287 comments, on the off-chance that you answered me, I’ll bring up the question I asked in #63 again, in the fervent hope that it is deemed worthy of a helpful response:
Jim C.
@Jack the Second:
Hah!
True enough. But I’m not that petty. I’m not about to let a bad confrontation with some other supporters of a candidate that I back change my vote…no matter how tempting. (Joking of course in case it needs to be said. Not even remotely tempted. I vote on the candidate stances on the issues, not on blog comments.)
I’m happy to report that I do not have a strong opinion on the pancakes vs. waffles debate.
Ruckus
@Emma:
We had the same professor. Didn’t matter what position you took, he’d argue with you. If you agreed with him, he’d argue with you.
Tom Q
@Jim C.: ” But her predecessors tended to have the nomination well wrapped up and on cruise control and switched to general election mode months previous. Possibly this is the result of the changing nature of primaries. But it IS true that the last couple of serious primaries have been serious aberrations given how long they’ve dragged on.”
I think the strict proportional delegate system has had something to do with extending the season. As many have pointed out, were Dems using a winner-take-all system, or even a modified one (say, WTA at 60%), Hillary would have put it away long ago. The proportional system creates a bit of an optical illusion: a trailing candidate seeing he or she is only 100, 200, 300 delegates behind feels like the gap is bridgeable. But in reality they’re way further behind than they think, because the strictures that prevented their opponent from pulling away are what’s going to make it impossible for them to catch up (as it is for Sanders now, and has been since March or April). But a lot of people just won’t see that, because math has never been a good American subject.
Also: Sanders’ apparent infinite money supply (till just this month) has played a huge part in his unwillingness to see that reality. Campaign pros financing candidates would have pulled the plug long ago based on this math, but Sanders gets his funding from (really not meaning to be offensive) people with less realistic assessments. Bill Bradley might have stuck it till the end if he’d had so much ready cash.
Also also: the idea that primary campaigns end quickly is a somewhat recent phenomenon. When Paul Tsongas dropped out in March ’92, it was a shock — primaries had never ended that early (in every cycle previous, serious voting had gone on through June, though Dukakis was pretty set after NY in April). It’s true that both 2000 and 2004 aborted fairly quickly, but thinking of that as Normal is putting a bit too much stock in the-last-few-times as precedent.
terry chay
@Villago Delenda Est: I believe he’s saying his parents “don’t trust her” not that he, himself, doesn’t. As for why they don’t, despite being reliable democrats in a red state, well that’s pretty obvious isn’t it? (Decades of smearing have even democrats believing it.)
Ampersand
I’d just like to express support for the whole “Can we please not bash everyone who has the audacity to insist that a candidate is not perfect” thing. I don’t like Hillary, but I’m certainly trying to get my friends to vote for her…and if I responded to every tiny criticism with accusations of misogyny, well, I don’t think it’d be an effective strategy. I realize that we’re going up against a guy who has a perpetual case of foot-in-mouth disease, but these races are usually closer than we think, and I don’t think we should be writing off large chunks of the electorate just yet. “Screw you, we don’t need your votes!” may not be the best response. In high-turnout elections, our party tends to win, so we shouldn’t be doing anything that would alienate our fellow voters.
Is that asking for special treatment? Is it expecting a candidate to magically inspire us? No, it’s just a request to show a little civility, and to admit that the candidate isn’t perfect.
Here’s what I don’t get: those of us who were Bernie supporters are constantly being told to grow up, compromise, stop being purists, etc. And yet, any tiny disagreement with Hillary results in what basically amounts to purging (driven by her supporters, not her, just to be clear). Some of you need to be more like Hillary and work on your compromising.
Jim C.
@SFAW:
I’m sorry if I missed a response. There have been a lot of comments that I’ve been trying to keep up with reply wise.
Finishing the primary quickly accomplishes a number of things.
Fundraising without splitting the donor base’s donations (making people choose which primary person they donate to which means more ammo shot at the real enemy vs. ads aimed at other Democrats), consolidating and unifying the party early, being able to spend on ads to influence the course of the other primary without needing to save the funds to win your own primary, enforcing the narrative of a party that’s all on the same page vs. the other guys being in disarray, etc.
Jim C.
@terry chay:
Re: your reply to Villago
That’s exactly what I was saying. Thank you. I think, as Charles Pierce said, that enough of Hillary’s heart is in enough of the right places. There are a few things I would change but you never get a candidate you agree with 100%. I’ll take the 80% and be happy.
patroclus
@Tom Q: The paradigm has shifted – with crowdfunding and the ability to raise lots of money on-line, insurgents in the Democratic primary now have the ability to last the entire season because they aren’t forced to drop out early due to their big-money backers telling them to. Obama-Clinton proved this in 2008 and Sanders took advantage of the new system. Under the old system, Sanders would have been forced to drop out after Illinois, and certainly after NY and Pennsylvania. Under the new system, he made it all the way to California. It wasn’t Clinton’s bad campaigning that allowed for it, it was the 21st century system.
But Clinton just clinched!!!!!!! I don’t think you guys realize this yet.
Jim C.
@Tom Q:
To add to your comment, I think Obama to a major extent (and to a FARRRR lesser extent Ron Paul) also helped create a blueprint on how to exploit a smaller, more enthusiastic base in caucus states in order to extent a primary campaign’s viability.
Villago Delenda Est
@Renie: Oh, I understand all that…I just don’t get how people allow themselves to be so obviously led to a conclusion that relies on obvious falsehoods to be valid.
burnspbesq
OT: good f’in grief.
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/06/06/rep-king-proposes-to-bar-transgender-bathroom-use-in-u-s-capitol/
Villago Delenda Est
@Jim C.: Oh, I wasn’t doubting your stand…I was questioning why your parents (and many more) have that attitude. I don’t think the “Hillary can’t be trusted!” meme holds up to much scrutiny, unless you just hate Democrats in general, in which case all bets are off. Your parents (and a lot of other Dems) should demonstrate more critical thinking skills, but then again Adlai Stevenson nailed it over 60 years ago.
sempronia
@Ruckus and @dmsilev: Here are a few suggestions, with the caveat that I’ve tried none of them. But they’re open late, serve real food, and look like they’re used to groups hanging out for a bit: Lucky Baldwins, Kings Row Gastropub, or Edwin Mills (the old Equator). Copa Vida is a coffee shop that has a lot of seating but no real food. Do you have places in mind? Clearly I don’t get out much.
Villago Delenda Est
@burnspbesq: What.a.idiot. He makes the other Rep. King look sane.
Ruckus
@hovercraft:
I am not a woman. There are some on this blog you can ask for conformation.
I am proud to vote for her.
She is a good politician. That’s what she needs to be to do this job we are hiring her for. This concept that she is not trustworthy or she doesn’t yell loud enough or talk smooth enough or whatever is bullshit. We are not hiring her for a beauty queen or a newscaster or a comedian or a plumber. We are hiring her for president, the person in charge of running the government. Will she do a good job? As it’s the only job really like this in the country we won’t know till she does it. Can she do a good job? No reason not to think so. She has more experience than most anyone else, including the person she’s trying to follow. She doesn’t rattle easy, we’ve seen that. She works well with others and she proved that by being Madam Secretary for 4 yrs. She is ready, she is worthy and I am proud to vote for her.
terry chay
@Jim C.: Get a thicker skin, dude.
(For me, personally, I don’t think you’re a misogynist (and I have not called you by this or any other name) — at least no more so than me — but I feel the argument you made that she is a “bad campaigner” comes from a misogynist understanding of Hillary and what a woman winning a campaign entails. OTOH, I feel that it’s impossible to view Hillary’s campaign divorced from the lens of gender bias. I felt that when it was Hillary PUMAs then and I feel about it when its BernieOrBusters today, cuts both ways as it were.)
Villago Delenda Est
@Ruckus: We’re definitely not hiring her to be a newscaster; we expect her to demonstrate the ability to think.
burnspbesq
Also OT: looks like there will be an attempt to recall the Stanford rape case judge.
Jim C.
@Villago Delenda Est:
Chalk it up to one of the only really decent moves in the GOP playbook. They do know how to pile the BS on.
Decades of manufactured and made-up scandals and attacks have left…I dunno…a general miasma around Hillary that predisposes accusations to stick. It’s like the email thing. Once you dig into it, there’s not much there really. But there’s just enough to let it hang around.
Compare the Clintons vs. the Obamas. The Obamas also got attacked constantly but they seldom really gave any sort thing to latch onto. They were as pure as the metaphorical virgin’s sheets at not giving the enemy ammo to fire. Partially because they knew that they would HAVE to be because of skin color. But it truly is remarkable how scandal free their entire eight years has been.
With the Clintons there was always some little, tiny, who-gives-a-shit-but-it-adds to the GOP narrative that they’re dirty thing that you forget the details about over time. Like rending the Lincoln bedroom out to campaign donors thing. I’m sure if I researched and looked into it I’d find a larger, broader context thing but for the life of me I can’t remember the details now.
My parents are about as committed as democrats as you could possibly want. Whenever I pressed them on the “but why don’t you like Hillary?” thing they never really could enunciate in any sort of coherent fashion. They just have this impression that’s been left.
Renie
@Villago Delenda Est: Maybe cuz they’re stupid? LOL I don’t know it amazes me too. I got one at work and another across the street. There’s no talking to them.
terry chay
@Jim C: I don’t know if that came off as harsh, I don’t mean it that way. I just wanted you to know that writing about politics on the internet is going to earn you some pretty passionate disagreements and you shouldn’t take it personally. :-) The cynical me would say if a few commenters calling you misogynist is enough to scare you away, it should at least give you some appreciation for what Secretary Clinton has gone through for the last two decades. :-D
Since you are supporting Hillary, albeit with some reservations, I wanted to mention you’re going to be very impressed with her campaign in the general and her presidency. I wish I could have the fortunate view as you do right now—it’d be like going to see a movie thinking it’s going to suck and then getting blown away.
So good.
Jim C.
@terry chay:
Thicker skin? Proof of thin skin needed.
I’ve stuck around through 250ish posts and not once lashed out at anybody and stayed polite and issue-based in my responses throughout. Pointing out that personal attacks are happening and that the people you’re debating with are being forced to resort to them isn’t the same thing as losing your cool or being offended.
If anything I’d describe my mood right now as being rather cynically unsurprised.
Edit: Nevermind. See your followup.
Scared away wouldn’t be how I would describe it. Rather…we all have a limited amount of time during any given day and I prefer spending it responding to smart people who have intelligent things to say rather than wasting my time responding to pointlessness.
Your stuff is good and no issues.
Keith G
@Villago Delenda Est:
Two things about this as this is something that has been said various times by some folks:
First, the caparison to Trump is of questionable value. I believe that I am a better dinner host/bar tender than Bill Cosby, but I still may be lacking in a few skills.
Second, while I think that she is of average political trustworthiness, she has done things to harm her cause with others who have not been as much of a Clinton supporter as I have been. I am not going to reiterate a Googlable list, but I will touch at the last stop. The State Department’s IG report both directly and indirectly questions the honesty of the Clinton regime at State with regards to the server issue.
It was a stupid set of decisions to set it up and the various explanations and dodges afterward were even more stupid. I do hope that this is the last such incident that HRC will treat us to, but even as a supporter, I am not certain it will be.
I am sure that this does not disqualify her as a president, but that is because I am comfortable with hypocrisy – since I would be quite certain the same actions would disqualify a Republican candidate.
Ruckus
@sempronia:
Some depends on how many of us there are. With only 3 so far, pretty much anyplace would do. Your first 2 have outdoor seating and are not too loud. Never been inside any of them but have walked by Kings Row and Lucky Baldwins and they are not bad.
I’ll email Anne L and see if she’ll post a meet up thread.
Jim C.
@Keith G:
Yeah, that’s exactly the point I was trying to make. The email thing is just one of those self-inflicted wounds that makes her vulnerable and opens the door for attacks to be fired and to land.
I don’t think it’s that big of a deal in the big scheme of things. Hell, the intelligence services have to be petrified about giving intelligence briefings to Drumpf, but she just should have protected herself better, particularly given the decades of attacks she’s had.
“How did she not see this coming?” (Wife question.)
Ruckus
@Villago Delenda Est:
LOL!
Ruckus
@Villago Delenda Est:
FYWP
LOL
Rex Everything
@Monala: She was responding to Sanders’ statement about both (for the sake of brevity I made reference only to Nicaragua). Coupled with her admiration of Kissinger it was, in my judgment anyway, a pretty appalling display. Your mileage may vary I guess.
SFAW
@Jim C.:
OK, here’s the question, again, because I have no idea to what you were responding:
The question was asked in response to your statement that, in effect, Hillary should have crushed Bernie early on. I am asking, and have asked, HOW EXACTLY WOULD HILLARY HAVE CRUSHED BERNIE EARLY ON?
NOT “What are the benefits to Hillary having a clear field?” I think I can pretty much figure those out without you ‘splaining me.
A Ghost To Most
That was a long excellent read.
Jim C.
@SFAW:
Apologies again. Misread. For some reason I thought you asked “what” would have been accomplished. I’m sorry.
As to how…by burying him early. An avalanche of ads in the early states, not handling him with kid gloves and assuming his campaign was a joke that would go away quickly, that he wasn’t really serious about running but was just there to “keep her honest” or “drag her to the left”. Essentially by going after him, and going after him HARD from the get go.
Early on Bernie had nothing going for him, but she gave him breathing room.
IMO she took the same “inevitability” stance that hurt her the last time rather than overspending, overattacking, essentially carpet bombing early on to clear the field before the Feel the Bern could take root.
The natural question might be “wouldn’t that create resentment”? My opinion would be that it wouldn’t have done so outside of Vermont if she went hard enough, aggressively enough before Sanders got any sort of momentum.
Edit: You apparently did figure out what I was responding to. I was responding to “what”.
sinnedbackwards
@smith: Maybe also that many of the press – particularly the tv media – work for corporations with an adverse financial interest to Clinton’s political success?
It’s amusing that the Murdoch empire may have the largest positive stake in a Hillary presidency, in the sense that any policies she pushes through to rein in corporations will be more than compensated by their profit model of raising the rabble.
Corporations are not people.
Money is not speech.
Pass it on.
terry chay
@Jim C.: To this I just want to point out two things (I’m not granting the others but I don’t feel the need to respond to them since I can see where you are coming from).
I’d argue that if the candidate had been anyone but Bernie Sanders they likely would have dropped out after New York and certainly after the rest of the mid-Atlantic swung like that. He was basically mathematically eliminated then and has refused to admit it. A rational campaigner would have ended it there so as to avoid retiring a large debt load.
To not crap all over Bernie, the way he ran the campaign (as a donation machine, not grift for most of them at least), means that he owes his base to at least stay in until CA. So he does. I think he could have run things differently in the meantime, but I’m not some 74 years old with have stadiums-full of adoring white people and birds and shit landing on my podium, so whom am I to say I wouldn’t be a little crazy-stupid by this point in my campaign?
It’s exactly this sort of liberal-bias that made people like Nate Silver say Trump was going to lose when their own models were predicting he was going to win the nomination running away. To be able to evaluate Trump’s viability for the republican nomination, you need to stop thinking like a liberal voter and start thinking like a republican one, who has been voting on things like “evangelical christian family values” for a divorced hollywood actor over a devout baptist for the last 36 years. If you can your mind around that mindset, you’d see why the models predicted the Trump win without you having to go all “The Party Decides” to contort your view that people will eventually rationally vote on a more electable candidate.
(BTW, as a bonus, I actually don’t think Biden is that undisciplined in his speaking. He’s certainly more disciplined than Senator Sanders. However, he’s maybe isn’t as good as Hillary or Obama. Then again, I don’t think it matters much to him. Part of his indiscipline is by choice. Here’s an oldie-but-goodie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjsxQy0xYUs )
Rex Everything
@Chris: It was really aimed at both. Clinton was responding to Sanders’ answer to Univision’s question about his support for Latin American leftists. There is a context and a history for this stuff; Clinton’s language places her firmly on the side of the Reagan White House. Far from the only time.
To recap: Monala raised the question of whether Clinton, during her primary campaign, was ever offensive beyond “having a shrill voice.” Given the Kissinger praise, the Nancy Reagan revisionism, the Wall Street effusions, and this, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that yeah, she was.
burnspbesq
AP apparently re-canvassed a bunch of previously uncommitted supers today, and enough of them committed to Clinton that she now has >2,383.
The Berniacs are stroking out all over FB.
SFAW
@Jim C.:
I think you’re being either overly optimistic or somewhat naive. Bernie had almost zero press coverage early on, but was still drawing large crowds. Hillary has been a more-or-less known quantity for NN years, so blanketing the airwaves would have achieved … probably not a great ROI.
I agree that she appeared to be taking the nom for granted, but even if she had not, it is not clear that going negative on Bernie would have worked all that well. I would imagine she or her staff came to the conclusion that going negative on Bernie would have turned him into a latter-day Gene McCarthy or Ralph Nader, and we know how well those years turned out for the Dems. And “allowing” (so to speak) Bernie to raise the issues he did gave her the opportunity to see how they played, and adopt whichever ones were/are best suited for the General.
As far as the “outside of Vermont” — here I DO think you’re being naive. He’s done pretty well in plenty of other non-New-England states, a lot of them while he was being actively ignored by the MSM.
Jim C.
@terry chay:
With regards to Biden – I admit to just going with a convenient narrative because it would be readily understandable to people reading. The whole “Biden has foot-in-mouth disease” is something that just about everybody believes so it’s a convenient example to use when giving an example of an undisciplined campaigner. Exaggerated? Probably. A reference that anybody reading would immediately know what I’m talking about? Definitely.
And yes, Bernie is a fanatical, delusional, old nutcase. (Good lord…am I about to get 100 people chiming in about how ageist I am? I’ll risk it. Allow me to also state in advance that, nut or not, his instincts to push a lot further, a lot faster, touch a warm spot in my cold, cynical heart) He been eliminated for a while now. On the other hand, Hillary hung in long after she had been eliminated back in 2008. My issue is not that she hasn’t forced him how by now, but that she allowed him to get a foothold to begin with and didn’t stamp on him very early on.
Re:: Trump
Like John Marshall, I never bought into the “Trump doesn’t have a prayer” thing and for the same reasoning as him…I was watching the polls. But him winning the GOP primary doesn’t invalidate my argument that he’s a shitty campaigner/politician because you didn’t directly address it. I said he won the GOP because that party, it’s base, and the media, is broken. That he gets laughed out of a functioning party. I still think he does.
30 years ago, hell, 20 years ago…does Donald Trump win his party’s nomination? Heck, I doubt he wins it even 10 years ago.
SFAW
@Jim C.:
Yeah, amazing, innit?
terry chay
@Jim C.:
And this is why you shouldn’t be here because clearly waffles are objectively better than pancakes! You’re probably a paid troll of the PIC (pancake industrial complex)! :-D
Ruckus
@Keith G:
Have you ever taken over a job from another person in a medium to large company/organization? When I have there was an orientation on procedures and just plain how things are done here. Her predecessors did the same thing that she did, which was have an email server that was for non classified communications, mainly because the department computers were almost useless for everyday work. We know this because one of our front pagers here has had to use the same/similar federal system for his work. We know this because her predecessors (republicans!) said the same thing. When she left the cabinet the law was changed so that now that can not be done. And Secretary Kerry does not do so.
It wasn’t illegal, she isn’t going to be indited and tried. It wasn’t even stupid on her part, that was the way things were done. Are there regulations that say she shouldn’t have done that? Yes. But there was a regulation that when I traveled for my last job I could spend no more than $12/day for food. I traveled for 11 yrs, about 30 weeks a year and I can tell you that you can not eat on the road for $12/day. And that for 11 yrs I never did. And I turned in an expense report every week and never once got called on it. No law but a company regulation that meant I could be fired and have to reimburse the company. And it never happened because it was crap and everyone knew it. Same as the email thing.
Jim C.
@SFAW:
I don’t think it’s naive on the outside Vermont thing. Once he got broader recognition and attention, of course his appeal wasn’t limited to just Vermont but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have been if she had stomped on him hard and early.
My criticism was on not stopping that before it happened. Not ANTICIPATING the issue and proactively addressing it.
Yes, going negative early and hard may have turned Bernie into a Nader. On the other hand, you could make just the opposite argument that giving him a national platform has turned him into a Nader. Would he be in the position to play Nader spoiler if he had remained a little known Senator from a tiny, 98% white state or did he become empowered to assume that role by being allowed to get a national voice?
Jim C.
@terry chay:
If the PIC is willing to pay me to shill for them I have to admit that I’d ask “how much”.
Jim C.
@SFAW:
Apparently.
SFAW
@terry chay:
Why bring this up? Are you trying to tell me that there are “persons” who believe otherwise? [Sound of me having a cardiac “event.” Followed by a thud.]
Keith G
Ooops.
terry chay
@burnspbesq: It’d be nice to see a thread on this. I have some opinions, but would like to see what Baud thinks about it. Might be a good boost to his campaign.
Jack the Second
@Jim C.: I just don’t think a cash cannon would have been effective against Sanders. His entire schtick was the anti-establishment underdog. Clinton carpet-bombing Sanders would have just played to that and helped him raise even more money and rile his crowds up further.
Playing it easy and debating him on policy left Sanders with no where to go but “trickery” and “rigged”, which won a lot of people over to Clinton at the end.
terry chay
@Jim C.:
It’s because you haven’t said anything against waffles. You do that and you’re toast! (Puns? We don’t need no steekin’ puns.)
Renie
@Ruckus: The email issue is a perfect example of the nonsense the GOP has been saying about Hillary for 25 years. There is nothing there but they will still investigate it, talk about it over and over again, and then the media picks up on it, each wire service repeats the same thing and on it goes. Times this by 25 years of b.s. and that’s how people have this ridiculous opinions of Hillary that are not based on facts. This alone shows how much inner strength and character Hillary has. Not even President Obama has been put through it as much as she has since it started in the 1990s with her. The fact that she is still standing shows she is qualified to be President.
Jim C.
Hey all.
Thanks to everyone who’s been debating with me. Seriously. Everyone.
But I’m tired now and want to play the Witcher 3 Blood and Wine expansion. Agree to disagree on all non-settled points.
Keith G
@Ruckus: The report indicates that, if not on day one then eventually the policy did change, those policy changes were made known, those new guidelines were enforced – but just not at the top ‘o the pyramid. And, some of those policy changes had the SoS’s signature on them.
It is really quite a clear discussion of the issue. And yes, no laws were broken, but is that the evasion that we wish to hear from our presidents? God, I hope not…even though it is common enough, I still hate it. Important policy guidelines were knowingly side-stepped or evaded. That is the bottom line.
If that SoS were a Republican, much spittle would have been flecked hereabouts.
SFAW
@Jim C.:
Obviously. But you’re still wrong. Hillary could not have “stomped” him, early on, unless perhaps she went heavily negative. And it is pretty likely that doing so would not have had the effect you appear to desire.
I wasn’t aware that it was within Hillary’s (or anyone else’s) power to “allow” or not “allow” Sanders to have a national voice. And who cares about the demographics of Vermont? Because of the (heretofore ineffectual) seeds sown by Occupy Wall Street, combined with Elizabeth Warren’s various populist causes, Sanders was going to have a national platform. Sanders tapped into the left-side economic angst in much the same way that Deadbeat Donnie has tapped into the xenophobia and racism on the right side. And we saw how well the RNC stomped on Trump.
Wishing/dreaming that Hillary could have stomped Bernie is the stuff of unicorns.
SFAW
@Keith G:
Hereabouts meaning Balloon Juice? Right.
Please let me know when Balloon Juice starts issuing subpoenas, or when it controls some large media outlets from which to try to destroy the career of any Republican.
terry chay
@Jim C.:
Whereas I say he won the way he had to given who he is. If you asked for me for odds on him winning the republican nomination without seeing any poll numbers (say 2 years ago), I’d have given you 5:1. The fact that he was able to shellack a field of dozen-plus well-funded opponents is impressive. Of course we both agree that this won’t translate to squat in the general. It’s probably because his opponents were looking to the general (the were at least looking to the point that the field thinned down enough to be a two-person contest) were why they were so ill-positioned to kill him off.
I’ll give you an example about how I didn’t acknowledge the republican/authoritarian mindset. I thought in January that he’d win but it’d be close because his negatives were so high. That’s not acknowledging the mindset. Once he was firmly ahead, the momentum would increase because that mindset wants it to be over so they can get behind a candidate (even one as toxic as him), whereas a liberal mindset (take John Cole circa early 2016 as an example) wanted to see Bernie run and supported him just to push Hillary to the left.
terry chay
@SFAW: Anyone who believes pancakes are better than waffles are being subjective.
Groucho48
@aimai:
In The Boys of Summer, by Roger Kahn, an excellent book which follows the Dodgers through their 1955 World Series win, there is a brief section where he mentions to one of the players how lucky he was to have such a perfect swing. The guy glares at him for a second then takes Kahn down to his basement. In a corner was a baseball on a string. The guy tells Kahn that every day since he was a teen-ager he would take a couple hundred swings at that ball (some number like that, it’s been a while) That’s in addition to all the other training and practicing he did. Every day for 25 years. On the road, during the off-season, late in the dog days of summer,, years when the Dodgers were out of contention early. He would swing at a ball on a string and focus on the technique of his swing.
I can see Hillary Clinton doing the politician’s version of that, day in and day out, for decades. Compared to Bill Clinton, or Obama, her swing isn’t as smooth. But, compared to every other Presidential contender going back to Reagan, who also had a smooth swing, Clinton stands up very well.
Remember, after the first Dem debate how SHOCKED the media was at how well she did? I mean they actually praised her for 3, maybe 4, days, before they went back to their usual negative nitpicking. Same thing after her marvelous appearance in front of the Benghazi witch-hunt. The media was again surprised and amazed she not only survived but triumphed.
SFAW
@terry chay:
Fortunately, you are 1000 percent objective, and can set those losers straight.
Ruckus
@Keith G:
Really how else would you expect anyone to act? No laws were broken. Laws are how we as a society tell that things are bad and shouldn’t be done. Is there some secret set of rules that some have to follow to be pure enough to meet our demands? Because I don’t think very many people in the world would be able to live up to secret codes that we make up in our heads about how someone should act at all times, especially with precedent set differently.
Look at it another way, no one, not one single person that I’ve heard of has complained about her predecessors doing exactly the same thing. So what is is about Hillary Clinton doing this is wrong? It’s not a female thing, one of her predecessors is female and black and she gets a pass and from the republicans who seem to hate both of those groups of people.
I just don’t see how this is wrong or stupid. It would be to try it today sure. But that’s not what she is being accused of.
nutella
Jesus, no wonder she hates the press. Here they whine that she doesn’t talk to them.
And here she’s got two major policy announcements and they don’t cover them.
What are those people expecting from the candidate? Obviously not news! Reporters don’t do news any more.
Chris
@Rex Everything:
Then I guess I’m both with her and against her on that one.
Keith G
@Ruckus:
Really?
You are going to dumb down civilization to that definition? There are a hell of a lot of bad behaviors that are not encoded in law.
The governmental division that HRC worked for said in essence, “This is the way that you (the government employees who work here) are to behave on this issue.”
A “Do as i say, not as i do” modus operandi is off-putting to some and a bit of a hazard warning to other.
Keith G
@Ruckus: One more thing…
She is not anyone. She is an accomplished political leader and whip smart. She has been focused be becoming president since at least 2001. She has been aware that she is, and has been, carrying around a huge bullseye thanks to the vast Right-winged conspiracy. To be seemingly so lacking in self awareness is rather astounding..and that’s is if I give her the benefit of the doubt – which is what I am doing.
I firmly subscribe to: “To whom much [power] is given, much is expected.”
I would expect anyone to acknowledge that.
Miss Bianca
@Jack the Second: Pancakes have been judged better than waffles? Wait, in which universe?
Groucho48
I don’t think anyone in the history of the country had expressed any interest in how SoS handle their correspondence. In the years of written communications, did SoS take those documents home? Do you know without googling? Did they ever have top secret memos in their briefcases as they traveled about? Even overseas? Did they ever take home regular paperwork that was later determined to be top secret? if so, did they face any consequences?
And, as the IG report made clear, the actual State Department set-up was a primitive, awkward, fragmented, unsecure mess. Clinton probably spent an hour trying to deal with it and told staffers…can’t we come up with something actually usable? And, they suggested, or she asked them, if the hardened server her husband had been using would work and they said sure, so, that’s what they did. She, and they, probably considered it a routine technical issue that was no big deal and made doing her job simpler and easier. The server had security measures in place and was regularly updated. There was Secret Service on the premises 24/7.
The Benghazi investigation had some of the same emails that were later declared to be top secret on their non-top secret authorized server. When that was pointed out, they basically said…Oops! Look! Over there! And, the media did. They weren’t Clintons, so, no big deal.
dww44
@Cacti: This.
Ruckus
@Keith G:
So I was correct,there is a secret code of conduct that some of us have to follow and others don’t. Some of us are more or less special that the rest. I call bullshit.
We are a nation of laws, not a nation of secret codes of conduct. We have laws in all kinds of forms. I worked in the section of laws, we called them rules, in professional sports. Writing them and enforcing them. Our rules were all we had to go by to conduct our sporting events. Our laws are the same in our society. My business, after the professional sports job was ruined by the recession. I’d like to blame all the MOU who fucked me, you and everyone but themselves over and I can, but I can’t see many of them going to jail, because while what they did was, IMO, morally wrong and cost me everything, what they did was not illegal. I think it should be and probably you do also, but it wasn’t. So I’ve got nothing, along with millions of my fellow suffers. Sometimes shit is just shit and we have to accept it and work to change it. That’s all we’ve got. Laws and change for the better. We don’t do masonic rites or burn things or have religious tests, we have laws. That’s all there is. You certainly have the right to judge for yourself if a candidate is worthy of your vote, because your vote is not just important, it’s vital. But you don’t get to create laws or codes of conduct on your own. We elect people to do that. We could elect you or me to do that. But even then you have to get others to go along and agree with you.
And I’m out of this discussion.
dww44
@Tom Q: Yep, there’s a reason for this:
A party which looks forward versus a backwards leaning, negative, glass half empty party is by its very nature going to produce the more gifted often charismatic leaders, including LBJ. In the very early 90’s, before Bill’s first election I had a new boss whose roots were in Arkansas. When asked to comment about the prospects of the then rising political star Bill Clinton, he almost always segwayed to Hillary and said he was actually more impressed with her. This was a branch office of a national financial services firm and I and 2 other women were the only Democratic voters EVER.
xian
@Jim C.: your sense of proportion is out of whack
xian
@D58826: not everyone hears Obama as we do. Some find him professorial, haughty, and cold.
xian
@aimai: a to the men
Chris
@Tom Q:
Republicans remain the party of the elites (see also “Washington is wired for Republicans”), which means that Democrats pretty much have to run better candidates in order to win. If we nominate a Dubya, the media isn’t going to handwave away his glaring flaws and write fawning “but that makes people want to have a beer with him!” opinion pieces trying to turn them into strengths. If we nominate a Trump, the media isn’t going to be afraid to call him on all his bullshit. Our candidate needs to be better than whoever the Republicans put in front of him or her just to make it an even chance, never mind win.
The Republican/Democrat double standard isn’t something at the same level as the male/female or white/black one, but it’s a thing nonetheless. I don’t know how long it’s been this way, but certainly since 1980.
Uncle Cosmo
@dmbeaster:
FTFY.
What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?
@Elie: Moira Liasson is the Queen of Democrats are always in disarray. She’s a centrist Republican and always has been. There are a lot of them out there still clinging by a last, fraying string to a party that has abandoned them completely, out of team loyalty. They can’t join team D because that is unthinkable. Trump is unthinkable for them too, but their default is to always knock team D down a peg.