Ezra Klein published an interesting piece on Hillary Clinton at Vox, plus a lengthy policy interview. He explored in some depth a question we’ve touched on occasionally here — the gendered aspects of campaigning vs. governing, or, more specifically, how a leadership style that’s focused on listening and coalition-building can be disadvantaged in a political system built around speaking and dominance. Klein:
One way of reading the Democratic primary is that it pitted an unusually pure male leadership style against an unusually pure female leadership style. Sanders is a great talker and a poor relationship builder. Clinton is a great relationship builder and a poor talker. In this case — the first time at the presidential level — the female leadership style won.
But that wasn’t how the primary was understood. Clinton’s endorsements left her excoriated as a tool of the establishment while Sanders’s speeches left people marveling at his political skills. Thus was her core political strength reframed as a weakness.
I want to be very clear here. I’m not saying that anyone who opposed Clinton was sexist. Nor am I saying Clinton should have won. What I’m saying is that presidential campaigns are built to showcase the stereotypically male trait of standing in front of a room speaking confidently — and in ways that are pretty deep, that’s what we expect out of our presidential candidates. Campaigns built on charismatic oration feel legitimate in a way that campaigns built on deep relationships do not.
But here’s the thing about the particular skills Clinton used to capture the Democratic nomination: They are very, very relevant to the work of governing. And they are particularly relevant to the way Clinton governs.
Klein goes on to explore how Clinton’s inclusive, listening-focused vs. oration-based leadership style can be effective on the one hand or lead to a paralyzing lack of clarity on the other. The whole thing is well worth a read, IMO.
Klein also published a lengthy interview with Clinton on policy. You can watch it below or read the transcript here.
Watch it — any random five-minute snippet of it, even — and try to imagine Donald Trump answering those types of questions in any detail at all. It is to laugh — he’s all hat and no cattle. But Trump can whip up a crowd!
Also, if you are masochistic enough to glance at the YouTube comments, which are infested with the Trumpenproletariat / Sanders dead-enders (I honestly can’t tell them apart on the topic of Clinton anymore), you’ll see an excellent illustration of the unique challenges Clinton faces as a politician.
One chief complaint is that she doesn’t answer Klein’s questions. But she does — with nuance and impressive detail! What she doesn’t do is answer with applause lines. Is that a failing?
In politics as currently constructed, it sure seems to be. President Obama is both an incredibly inspiring speaker and in command of the policy details — he’s the rare politician with the hat and the cattle. Could Clinton’s relationship-building skills compensate for her lack of oratory talent in a way that would make her just as effective a president as PBO has been? Maybe. I hope we get to find out.
Overall, I think the criticism of Clinton’s effectiveness on the stump is overblown. She may not be a natural at it, but she can give a good speech, and she’s damn good at debating and voter conversations. And when Klein asks Clinton herself why she thinks there’s a huge gap between public perceptions of her when she’s doing the job as senator or Secretary of State versus when she’s an office seeker, she cites the relentless negativity thrown her way.
She’s not wrong — the absolutely deranged hit piece from Maureen Dowd in the NYT this weekend is a classic example. There is still a level of discomfort about women seeking power, whether we want to admit it or not (just as PBO’s tenure exposed a lot of racism that was there all along). And the right-wing sleaze machine is real and deadly.
That said, one fascinating aspect of this most fascinating election season is that it will serve as a referendum on several questions of national character, not least of which is the relative importance of hats vs. cattle.
BGinCHI
Maureen Dowd should be recycled and made into something useful.
Like one of those foam things that keep a can of beer cold.
Major Major Major Major
Good post, Betty. I’ll have to check out the transcript.
Mnemosyne
I can’t read the article right now, but one of the covert criticisms of Obama has always been that he’s somehow “effeminate” because he started as a community organizer. That’s where the “Obama is gay!” and “Michelle is trans!” memes are getting belched up from.
So, just like Obama got hit with the full force of naked racism for being a black president after years of racist dogwhistles about the Democrats giving your stuff to Those People, Hillary is going to get the full force of sexist bullshit that they were having to merely dogwhistle about with Obama.
Gawd help us all.
MattF
One of the interesting things about Klein’s piece is his description of how he came to his conclusions. He had to start listening to the people he was asking questions of. D’oh.
negative 1
Only if you’re a democrat — Fiorina got the sloppy embrace from the press where everything she failed at was billed as strong point. If you think I’m wrong, try and imagine if HRC had Fiorina’s business record and how that would’ve been covered.
SteveinSC
“What she doesn’t do is answer with applause lines. Is that a failing?” Hillary generally gives a pretty lame stump speech. Yeah its a failing from the triangulating frump. But now Elizabeth Warren!–I’m Into the Gates of Hell with Her. And as far as hillary’s wall street friends: Jump you Fuckers!
dmsilev
It was an interesting read. I’m glad he brought up the point that Clinton’s style has the potential to be a weakness if it’s carried too far; the problem with being a perpetual listener is that if you’re not careful about choosing who you listen to, bad things can happen (c.f. the 2008 primary). Still, I’d much rather that than a Trumpian (or GW Bushian) “I govern from my gut” approach.
Corner Stone
Somewhere about a year ago HRC was still giving workman-like performances. Great content, well done but non-arousing delivery. Sometime in the least 3 or so months somebody gave her an Rx for a daily NFTG pill. HRC has markedly improved to the point where her delivery is as strong, forceful and on-point as her content.
IMO, the people who still lazily describe her as stiff or other similar adjectives are holding on to a trope that reinforces their comfortable fallback narrative.
Caphilldcne
Thank you for highlighting this. I really disliked Hillary’s decision to run for Senator. I thought she was jumping the line and was taking advantage of her status as First Lady. I was wrong. Hillary Clinton became THE leader on HIV issues in the Senate after Ted Kennedy passed away. She worked insanely hard to do so. (Contrast with Gillibrand who is good but not exceptional). She knows this subject inside and out. And it’s not the only issue she knows, just the one I’m most familiar with. She also was able to make deals across the aisle that advantaged her position, saving face for opponents, agreed to a few things people weren’t happy about but never losing the bottom line. She’ll be a very good, possibly great, President. One other thing – she has always had incredibly good staffing. No slackers! I can’t wait to vote for her as President.
negative 1
@MattF: That idea is kept in the Vox offices in a case marked “In Case of Emergency…”
Luthe
Studies have found that hedge funds and other investment related things do better with women leading them. Just sayin’.
(citations would be provided, but I’m on mobile during a coffee break)
aimai
@MattF: Yes, that Klein piece was very similar to Josh Marshall’ style in which a smug insider pretends for a moment to be confused by something and then explains this utterly obvious fact to the reader at great length and with many side pats on the back to himself.
aimai
@negative 1: I think a better way of looking at the Fiorina thing is that the press doesn’t have that hard a time puffing up capitalists, no matter how awful. And it also puffs up Republican women as a counterbalance to Democratic women. Its part of their contrarian attitude and an attempt to be “evenhanded” where being evenhanded means attacking the Democrats on their strengths (minorities, women) and praising the republicans for their failings (minorities, women).
negative 1
@Luthe: Studies have also found that cats and darts have outperformed fund managers on several occasions. I actually think investment firms truly are post-gender — they’re all soulless vampires, male and female.
Splitting Image
I don’t know about it being the first time that the “female leadership style” won. Building relationships was practically the only way to get the nomination back in the days of smoke-filled rooms. Nixon won the ’68 nomination by barnstorming the country on behalf of dozens of Republicans, then calling in those favours. I don’t think anyone accused him of being a great talker. McGovern took the ’72 nomination by helping to write the new rules and then using them to his advantage to beat some much better speakers. Establishment candidate Ford held off Reagan in ’76 too. I’m not sure anyone has ever claimed that Michael Dukakis was a better speaker than Jesse Jackson, but he’s the one who ended up with the ’88 nomination.
I think organization and building relationships has beaten rhetoric and speaking ability plenty of times over the years, but it hasn’t been marked as a “female leadership style” unless the person organizing her way to victory was a woman. That said, I think it is true that Sanders and Clinton offered a pretty stark contrast between the two campaign styles, and that Clinton and Trump are offering an even bigger one.
amk
style over stuff. brits are now learning a bitter lesson. will murkans be smarter?
bystander
The latest meme on MSNBC is that Clinton has no charisma and is only “exciting” when she’s reflecting the aura of a Warren or an Obama, an aura perceptible to those in the know.
What amazes me is what a hatchet job has been done on her since she left State. The repubs got great cooperation from the MSM.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Caphilldcne:
She got more of my attention during her fight to get more federal money and action to rebuild Manhattan after 9/11 and help people in the aftermath. Yeah, she was doing what any sensible politician would say they would do. But she was doing actual work on it to make it happen in spite of the usual naysaying about how the country couldn’t afford it, why should rich NYC get so much money when rural Pennsylvania was attacked too, etc., etc.
Cheers,
Scott.
Ferd of the Nort
All hat no cattle vs lots of cattle with small hat.
Hats ain’t good eats.
Major Major Major Major
@aimai: Oh, you mean ‘the entirety of Vox’.
hovercraft
The fact that the media likes to report in sound bites, and rarely is willing to delve down into policy details when conducting interviews works to the advantage of ‘hat’ and disadvantage of ‘cattle’. Hillary gives informed nuanced speeches and interviews but tends to get very little coverage for them because they are boring. Drump says bombastic speeches and interviews and is barely challenged on his bullshit. This is for two reasons, the reporters lack any in depth knowledge of the issues themselves, journalists do not do their homework, so when the politician starts bullshitting then they don’t know enough (in many cases even basic knowledge) to challenge them. Drumps rallies are televised start to finish in case he says something provocative and then the talking heads come on to discuss his style and demeanor, with no time wasted on the substance of what he said unless he says something crazy. If Hillary is broadcast the analysis is about the number of attendees, their level of enthusiasm, there may be a glancing mention of the substance of the speech, but more time is wasted on her hair, how tired she looks, or her voice. The media is not serving us or our interests, only their own bottom line.
Fortunately for us Drump has been so insane and ignorant in his rants that Hillary is actually benefiting from his over exposure. This election is so far being seen as a referendum on the Donald, as long as that continues she and we will be just fine. Bernie can excite big crowds and make big promises, but at the end of the day democrats chose the candidate who inspired us with her knowledge of policy detail and plans that we believed to be feasible. Hillary is a different candidate from our last two democratic presidents, she is not as comfortable in front of a big crowd, but any time I have watched her in settings with small groups she has impressed me. Her campaign is focused on highlighting her strengths and so far it’s working for her.
As for her high negatives, over two decades of personal attacks on someone who does not appear to be comfortable talking about herself takes a toll. Ezra’s point about other politicians also being smeared, but they are not women who are held to a different standard, and the smearing was not on a national level and this consistent. No one can withstand the level of scrutiny she has endured without taking a hit. Too many useful idiots out there will ascribe to the where there is smoke nonsense.
But I am happy and proud to vote for my nominee, who has withstood it all and is now poised to be the First Woman President of this great nation.
Ruckus
It boils down to:
1. Do you want someone for president who can accomplish real needs?
2. Do you want someone who can stand in front of a crowd and sell anything.
3. Do you want someone who feeds your base fears and hatreds?
1 Is a politician like Clinton. Knows what needs to be done, has good ideas how to accomplish them or at least head in the direction of accomplishment, IOW make progress.
2 Is a politician who wants the job but doesn’t really care about doing the job but thinks they can.
3. An idealist. They don’t need to know how to do the job, they are going to redefine it.
4. The rarest of all, a blend of 1 and 2. That’s President Obama.
5. A fucking idiot. Knows that the job is so simple that any one can do it. Being that simple they know they can. Even though life has shown that they will absolutely fuck it up. Anyone can run under this guise but it takes money, either theirs or whomever they convince to give them some.
Barbara
@negative 1: Or as someone once said to me in a different context, the fact that the purposeful activity performed no worse than doing nothing is not a positive outcome. “I won’t do any worse trying than if you use random chance” is not an endorsement for investing with someone.
Betty Cracker
@aimai: Good point about the press puffing up capitalists and GOP women as cover against bias charges. Another factor may be that Fiorina is a woman who uses the traditionally masculine dominance leadership style — as did Thatcher, much more successfully (from a winning elections POV).
I don’t really know much about Fiorina’s performance at the corporate level (except that it seems to have been disastrous for the corporations she led), but when she speaks about it, it’s all about how she “beat the men at their own game.” There seems to be more respect from the type of folks who see leadership as a “man’s role” for women who take it on in the traditional masculine style, as opposed to women who approach it as a more cooperative, collaborative endeavor.
The Ancient Randonneur
I read this earlier today do thanks for posting it hard with the rest of the commentariat.
The most frequent I get asked about why I choose Clinton over Sanders I give them my version of the Trudeau Answer: It’s 2016. But, I often get a befuddled look so I usually then tell them that she is the best candidate. Quite frankly, I apply the standard to Sanders that is normally reserved for non-Causians and women: he isn’t perfect. In other words I refuse to vote for a Caucasian male when I have other choices among the Democrats. As a Causcasian male I am quite certain my voice has been heard since the beginning of the Republic and will continue to be heard. President Obama and Secretary Clinton are part of the wave of diversity we require in the highest offices of government so that all Americans can see they have a voice. My sincere hope is that we have an 8 year Clinton presidency followed by a new candidate following in her footsteps who will bring new and important representation to the White House. Maybe Julian Castro or Kamala Harris are the future? Maybe someone else I haven’t heard of yet.
Yes we can make an America for everybody. Yes we can.
Cat48
I haven’t listened to the policy part, but I enjoyed reading the listening part. I’m glad she listens to Bob Greenstein, who has labored for those in poverty. It never hurts to listen to people even if you have serious disagreements. It usually makes that person less hostile.
Meanwhile, looks like Theresa Mays will be the next Prime Minister in UK, by the end of Wednesday. Cameron just gave her his endorsement. Hugh Hewitt said if she won, he thought Hillary would win here. I have no idea why Hewitt thinks this, but it sounds good!
Caphilldcne
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
Exactly. She works her ass off to put it indelicately.
low-tech cyclist
@Caphilldcne:
I hate to nitpick this, but by the time Teddy passed away, Hillary had already been Secretary of State for several months.
JustRuss
Tunch would have made an awesome hegefund manager, in a Bernie-Madoff-I-got-your-money-kiss-it-goodbye kind of way.
Frankensteinbeck
And yet, Hillary won handily, and Trump’s style only worked on the heavily bigoted Republican base. Maybe Klein is revealing more about himself than the electorate. The crowds that scream enthusiasm at angry ranting are proving to be less in number than the mass who nod approvingly at intelligent conversation.
Iowa Old Lady
@The Ancient Randonneur: Mr IOL says if he can’t decide between two candidates, he goes for the woman or minority on the grounds that they had to be better to be there at all.
Barbara
@Frankensteinbeck: From what I understand, Hillary’s North Carolina event had overflow attendance, whereas Trump’s was half empty. Maybe it was because PBO was there, but be that as it may, Trump’s followers may be loud but volume is not a synonym for majority.
Ruckus
@Ruckus:
Number 5 also takes an ability to spew a huge load of bullshit, primarily because that’s all they have.
smedley the uncertain
@Corner Stone: NFTG? Unable to locate in the Lexicon.
MattF
@smedley the uncertain: No Fs To Give.
Betty Cracker
@Frankensteinbeck: To be fair to Klein, he mostly compared Clinton’s style to Sanders’. I brought Trump into it because a) Sanders is done, and b) Trump is an even better illustration of style over substance.
Frankensteinbeck
@Betty Cracker:
I am going to put in a vote for ‘because they knew Fiorina wouldn’t win.’ There is a serious section of the population who don’t seem bigoted as long as the minority stays a sidekick, but flip their shit when it looks like that minority might be in charge.
negative 1
@Betty Cracker: How didn’t HRC “beat the men at their own game”? She rolled the Benghazi commission and made a joke out of Trey Gowdy — then she gets called ‘shrill’. More than almost any other democratic politician I can name she has called out republican demogoguery and used it as a campaign point, which to me fits the ‘dominance’ leadership style, or at least I’d argue certainly would if she was a republican. On the other side, they liked Condoleeza Rice and she always seemed like the most collaborative person in the Bush cabinet by a factor of 10.
At the end of the day, It’s OK If You’re A Republican, and not if you’re a democrat.
NorthLeft12
I foolishly followed the link to Ms. Dowd’s execrable column, and read it in all its glory. It appears to be a case study in personal fixation. I found this definition within one of the sources [alright, it was Wikipedia] that seems to fit the bill;
Someone please stop Ms. Dowd from publicizing her neuroses.
SiubhanDuinne
@Corner Stone:
More or less right when it became mathematically obvious that she would be the nominee (I’m not implying causation, but it’s interesting correlation)..
Juju
@hovercraft: I agree with you 100%, and I will add that if Secratary Clinton were male, all of the perceived weaknesses of her style would be called b.s. Any male politician would be called the whole package if he had HRC’s political and campaigning skills.
KG
Campaigning and governing require to fairly different skill sets. Some people are really good at one and really bad at the other. Some are decent at both, and very rarely, some are very good at both. In the pre-primary days where nominees were actually chosen at the conventions, the skill sets were much more in line with each other. Back then, when all delegates were basically super delegates, it was about building the relationships necessary to get those delegates to vote for you at the convention. But with primaries and mass media, campaigning today is about giving speeches and convincing large numbers of people to vote for you.
I think Clinton will make a decent president, definitely better than Trump could ever be. But I also suspect that if the GOP holds Congress (or even one house of Congress), that they will do what they did to Bill Clinton and to Obama – which is continually throw shit and block policy that is to the left of the mythical Reagan.
bystander
Just read some really bad news. Evan Bayh is reportedly going to run for the Senate again. What next? Scalia resurrects?
Brachiator
This is true. But Clinton’s campaign style could still be problematic. I found her to be more “powerful” in her dynamic Benghazi testimony. Of course, she also have been more tired.
I also find the speaking style of SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon to be more forceful, and she comes across as a stronger leader than David Cameron.
Not knowing German, I can’t parse the style of someone like Angela Merkel.
There is a bit of irony, though, in the drama here over the possibility of electing a woman president while the Brits appear to be moving to have Theresa May become prime minister with a bit of a mess, but not much fuss.
Ella in New Mexico
@negative 1:
Republican women tend to,support and spout the views of the dominant White Male Protected Class. So of course they’re seen as more legit in Conventional Wisdom circles.
It’s also why Hilary Clinton veered right early in her career, and supported a more hawkish stance on a lot of defense and foreign policy issues. I’m glad she’s in NFTG land right now, because it has made her a more nuanced and complex candidate.
They’re just gonna have to suck it up in mainstream media gabfest land.
Olivia
As a child becoming interested in politics and governing, I could never understand why people would think that the best campaigner would be the best to govern. They are totally different skills. I would ask teachers about this and I never got a reasonable explanation of why anyone would think that way. Someone told me once that it’s the only way it can be done.
KG
@bystander: Bayh should at least put the seat in play, no? That should be seen as a net positive for the Democrats. I mean, unless you want this guy to be a Senator.
Major Major Major Major
I just read the Dowd piece. “Dancing with the Arkansas devil in the pale moonlight”, really?
dmsilev
Somewhat off topic, I’d like to congratulate the NYT for winning this week’s Understatement Award with this bit of teaser text on their front page:
Brachiator
@Betty Cracker: Also, with Trump, shouldn’t it be “all hair and no cattle?”
Just sayin’
KG
@bystander: That should put the seat in play, at least, right? And that’s got to be a net positive for the Democrats. Unless you want this guy as a Senator.
(sorry for potential double post)
Matt McIrvin
Hillary Clinton seems to do her rhetorical best with face-to-face opposition: Trey Gowdy, debates in general. She’s a better scrapper than a stumper. That tendency to shine in a conflict doesn’t strike me as stereotypically feminine at all, though in reality a lot of women are great at it.
MattF
@KG: Yeah, druther have Schumer as Senate Majority Leader then McConnell.
Caphilldcne
@low-tech cyclist: @low-tech cyclist:
Just checked my dates and you’re right. Let’s put it this way. During the (difficult) 2006 Ryan White reauthorization she played an essential role in finalizing the bill and working across the aisle (Hatch and Coburn and Enzi were the Rs) with Ted’s leadership and then laid the groundwork for completion of the 2009 reauthorization (and much thanks to Harkin/Mikulski/Murray). There has not been quite the same leadership/champion on the Senate side since she left. For awhile she really did lead that work.
Ruckus
@Frankensteinbeck:
I use various levels of bigotry to identify this type of person.
1. Overt bigots like a KKK member.
2. Less than overt, they have hate as a primary motivator but they are silent to all but friends.
3. Neutral, they won’t stand in the way of someone different and probably use the “I like so and so because they are a good running back.” concept but they see anyone different as lessor in some way.
4. Unaccepting, they don’t like people different, but they won’t stand in their way, they actually know some people in the bigoted group. maybe are friends.
Matt McIrvin
@Frankensteinbeck: Yes. The Fiorina boom was fleeting and she never even got as close to being the Republican front-runner as Ben Carson. There was an idea that she could hit Hillary Clinton with nasty gendered attacks that the men couldn’t.
smedley the uncertain
@MattF: Thanks
Amir Khalid
@KG:
My own suspicion is that Hillary will prove to be an underrated president: Her policy wonkery and consensus-building won’t be flashy, but she’ll get more done than is immediately apparent.
El Caganer
@Major Major Major Major: That’s the icing on the cake of her special brand of awfulness: she thinks she’s a much better, much more clever writer than she in fact is.
Ruckus
@Juju:
It’s the glass ceiling. To rise above it one has to be not as good, not a little bit better, but massively better.
peach flavored shampoo
More like “All Spittle and No Cat”.
Major Major Major Major
@Amir Khalid: I could see that. It’s amazing what you can do when you know the details, especially as the executive.
Ruckus
@Brachiator:
They broke that glass ceiling long ago.
VOR
@dmsilev: Oklahoma Guv Mary Fallin says Trump “has tried to campaign as a racial healer. I think that has been part of his message.” She said that with a straight face. Trump. Racial Healer.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@Corner Stone:
Obama was the early adopter of the NFLTG attitude starting last year, and when his approval numbers started rising it seems to have provided some inspiration, including, weirdly, to Lindsay Graham.
Barbara
@Splitting Image: To your larger point, would someone have called Romney’s leadership skills “feminine”? Because he sure wasn’t a dynamic speaker, and when he was governor (when he was still a sane Republican) he basically governed by consensus and emphasizing his ability to solve problems. In reality, I believe that Clinton’s presumed rhetorical deficiencies relate a lot to the way we react to female voices, and not just what is being said or the style in which it is said.
Amir Khalid
@VOR:
I’ll have some of what she’s smoking.
Brachiator
@Amir Khalid:
We will have had three Democratic Party presidents who had to deal with a Republican Congress which has raised obstructionism to an art form. It’s going to be tough, but I look forward to seeing how Clinton deals with it.
aimai
@Barbara: Romney did not govern “by consensus” although he may have presented himself as a non nonsense problem solver in order to get over on the morons who like to ticket split in MA. He was opposed in nearly everything by the democratic state representatives and he signed only what he had to, and tried not to sign things he didn’t want to. He also bought all his government computers so he could destroy the hard drives and prevent anyone from seeing his government emails.
Its such a weird distinction–governing by consensus isn’t a “feminine” strategy as in “associated with females” its a typical governing strategy when the person involved doesn’t have enough power to do what he wants to do, or needs to impress people who think he needs to make compromises.
SenyorDave
@VOR: : Oklahoma Guv Mary Fallin says Trump “has tried to campaign as a racial healer. I think that has been part of his message.” She said that with a straight face. Trump. Racial Healer.
Hey, Trump has tried to get the kkk, Aryan nation, and the neo-nazis together, but its tough. But you must admit that they certainly agree that Trump is the perfect candidate. Obviously, Fallin is giving him an A for effort.
Bobby Thomson
@Major Major Major Major: Yglesias skips the coy pretense of confusion, but yeah.
Frank Wilhoit
Disjoint styles –> disjoint audiences –> no coexistence.
rikyrah
Hillary actually wants to do THE WORK of being President. The rest of them running in 2016, Democrats and Republicans just wanted TO BE President.
Betty Cracker
@negative 1: No doubt there’s a huge amount of IOKIYAR in there. But remember that Clinton was far more combative in her first Benghazi grilling, and she didn’t get stellar reviews for it. Wingnuts are still wailing about her “What difference does it make?” comment — a moment where she expressed entirely understandable and appropriate frustration and contempt for the way the absurd kangaroo court before her focused on irrelevant minutiae in a gotcha bid.
That might have been hailed as a “Have you no decency, sir?” moment had she been a man. Instead, it was spun as Clinton being cold-hearted and indifferent to the fate of the Americans who died. In the hearing that won her major plaudits, she was calm and cool throughout. In a way that President Obama surely recognizes, it is politically dangerous for Clinton to show anger.
KG
@VOR:
Well, there was a time that the way you healed infections was by amputation, so…
japa21
I have been amazed at how Clinton has been described as an awful speaker and Sanders was great on the stump. I find Clinton much easier to listen to than Sanders.
Of course, that is probably because I prefer to listen to someone who knows what they are talking about rather than someone who (apparently) only knows how to be angry.
Brachiator
Meanwhile, in another part of the forest.
The Brits have changed prime ministers and the GOP still won’t vote on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.
TriassicSands
I stopped reading Dowd many years ago, so I haven’t followed her opinions regarding HRC, other than to be aware that she really hates Clinton.
Does anyone know why Dowd hates Clinton so much? Is it just jealousy — that Clinton is a woman who has been very successful? Or did something happen between them that set Dowd off? Or is it just that she hates Bill and can’t draw a line between the man and the woman?
Dowd has always struck me as a petty, superficial nasty piece of work. Is there a chance she will actually vote for Trump? Or will she ignore the implications of a Trump Supreme Court versus one with Clinton appointments and stay home on election day? Is she just too pure to dirty her hands by voting for someone who is a worse criminal than Al Capone?
PS — I read the Dowd column in question and it immediately reminded me why I quit reading her long ago.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@bystander: If it helps Team D win the Senate, I say “welcome aboard!”
TheHill:
More Ds is better than fewer…
Cheers,
Scott.
Betty Cracker
@Splitting Image: Good point about the smoke-filled rooms, etc. But wasn’t the backroom dealing done there often an exercise in dominance politics rather than cooperation and consensus building? LBJ (preemptive Raven: Fuck LBJ!) was the master of this, from what I’ve read: He was good at back-slapping and winning pissing contests. It was less about consensus building than bending opponents to his will to create a bloc.
Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporatist Shill
And here in the People’s Democratic Soc!alist Democratic Kenyan Shariah Republic of Louisville, we just had a “Break White Silence, Black Lives Matter” protest in front of LMPD headquarters, that was attended about 80% by a mixed gender, mixed age white crowd. It was enthusiastic, peaceful and hopeful, encouraging white people to speak out.
I approve – whites NEED to get engaged in this.
Immanentize
Thanks, Betty. There are so many leadership qualities that seem gendered —
The one pointed out here is described by the Harvard Higher Education management gurus as the difference between a “Knower” v versus a “Learner.” The Learner can know as much or more than anyone else, and will act on that knowledge, but always seeks further input to improve decision outcomes. The Knower creates power structures by asserting knowledge dominence even when they do not possess superior knowledge. Women tend by experience and trading toward learner while men are heavily rewarded for being knowers (not all men! Not all women!!). The Learner seeks group understanding of task while the Knpwer tends toward decision obedience as a measure of success. Of course every great leader needs to be both from time to time. In my experience — and certainly in my current messed up job position – knowers can rarely act like learners except when faking their consensus bona fides. Knowers substitute decision making authority with leadership.
Yes I’m at an organizational leadership conference right now, why do you ask?
Blueskies
@Barbara: It may well be that “the way we react to female voices” explains some of the reaction to Sec. Clinton, yet few seem to have trouble with Sen. Warren’s voice (or more generally, her delivery style). I’m obviously only speaking for myself, but I can’t take more than 30 seconds of listening to Sec. Clinton, and I’m a big supporter.
My fondest hope is that she’ll be quietly hyper-competent. I am confident of her competency. I don’t think the press and the freaks-of-the-right will allow her to be quiet.
El Caganer
@Brachiator: King Charles will be winding up his reign before that happens.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
Finally reading through the article, the juxtaposition of Hillary’s listening face and Bernie’s shouty wagging finger face couldn’t be more stark. Bernie walks away when confronted. He’s comfortable as a party of one, and she’s comfortable being in a party of many.
Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporatist Shill
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
Cue the purity progressive wails about evil blue dogs…
hovercraft
@Betty Cracker:
The “what difference” moment is typical of the medias desire to cover controversy rather than substance. They find actual information and the recitation of facts boring. This is something she will have to accept as president. Remember the press conference where Obama said that the policeman acted stupidly was about the ACA, he spent an hour discussing the law and the last question from April Ryan was about Skip Gates getting arrested on his front porch. All the coverage afterwards was about that, to the point that he had to have a ‘beer summit’. And then they turned around and blamed him for not explaining the ACA to the American people.
aimai
@TriassicSands: I’m sure Dowd never votes. She lives in NY so she lets other people do the voting for her. I think Dowd is really angry and disapointed that she didn’t “have it all” and end up half of a power couple, like Bill and Hillary. She had earlier stages of life when she seemed powerful, had her column, partied with the right people. But the men her class married younger women with even more power/glamor potential, or trophy wives, and she lost that little competition. She hates Hillary because Hillary is one tiny class rank up from her (Dowd’s father was a Policeman, IIRC) and parlayed that into a Law Degree (tedious and bourgeois) and married into politics and ended up first lady and now, perhaps, president. That must be like a finger to the eye and a punch in the face, every day, to Dowd. She’s not a real journalist and so she doesn’t have her writing to fall back on. Its all about gossip and social position, and she simply doesn’t have a social position in washington at this point.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporatist Shill:
This. Woke white people unite! It’s really white people work that’s required now.
aimai
@Blueskies: That’s funny–because before Warren got into the Senate, when she was running, everyone I spoke to here in MA, to a man, told me he couldn’t stand her speaking voice. Hillary is right–once she’s in power a whole lot of the wandering criticism will die down.
Amir Khalid
@TriassicSands:
Well, I don’t know how plausible this is; let alone if it’s true; but a theory was mentioned here yesterday that she bears a grudge against the Clintons because Bill refused to fuck her. (It seems more likely to me that MoDo tried to flirt with him and he shut her down cold.)
Seanly
Isn’t every Maureen Dowd editorial either a hit piece or deranged at least when a Democrat is involved?
When will more of these idiot pundits follow Novak & Broder to their dirt naps?
Immanentize
@Blueskies:
Oh contraire! When Senator Warren was running against Scott Nrown a HUGE deal was made about how hectoring and schoolmarmish she spoke. That was why Brown never missed a chance to snidely call her ‘Professor.’ Less of that today, but if she were running, it would be the same. Trump goes there sometimes after “Kooky”and “Pocahantes.”
trollhattan
@Matt McIrvin:
They loved the sneering, mean-girl, tight outfit edition of Fiorina (quite different from her senator wannabe persona) specifically as a surface-to-Hillary missile. She would have been a tougher match than Trump will prove to be.
Ian
@bystander:
Well not great news, having Bayh and Donnelly holding both of Indiana’s senate seats would be a pretty good middle finger to the Republicans.
Even if Bayh only voted with us half the time (which was the case before) it would still be better than a rethuglican.
Betty Cracker
@Seanly: I’ve been reading Dowd for years, and even by her standards, this week’s column was truly deranged. Even the most Broder-worshipping, blinkered Villager of an editor should have realized it was time for an intervention.
aimai
@Immanentize: My comment saying the same thing is in moderation! Great minds!
@Blueskies: That’s funny–because before Warren got into the Senate, when she was running, everyone I spoke to here in MA, to a man, told me he couldn’t stand her speaking voice. Hillary is right–once she’s in power a whole lot of the wandering criticism will die down.
Major Major Major Major
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: Agreed.
Although I saw an utterly incomprehensible piece linked on Facebook the other day telling me that in order to be engaged in the conversation, white people need to forget–nay, destroy!–their whiteness, and the fact that I couldn’t make heads or tails of the argument meant that critical theory was working.
jl
I don’t think the differences between Clinton and Sanders had much to do with gender. Ask Ms. Warren.about it.
raven
@Betty Cracker: thanks!
Doug!
Very interesting points. And worth noting that the most powerful woman in the history of American politics (for now, not once HIllary gets in) is an even worse talker and even better builder of relationships. I’m talking about Nancy Pelosi.
Jibeaux
That was a long read, but I thought a pretty good, and fair one. I do not want to get a drink with Mitch McConnell. If HRC is willing to fall on that sword for the good of the country, she’s the most patriotic gahtdambed woman in this country.
Immanentize
@aimai: I am honored to have my name paired with yours in thoughts. I hope all is well with you?
Corner Stone
@Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporatist Shill:
I can’t stand Evan Bayh, and despise almost all of his approach to governance and party. He will be a constant thorn in the side of all D’s who ask for even the most incremental of progress. I can’t wait to lustily and heartily boo Senator Bayh’s (D) return to the Senate.
ThresherK
@Betty Cracker: I’ve had a Bernster share that bowl of offal with me on FB saying “It proves something about Hillary”.
Corner Stone
@aimai:
(emphasis mine)
Hmmm, pleeze to tell usz moar…
opiejeanne
@Barbara: I think a lot of Hillary’s perceived problem is really just Mommy Issues. She reminds them of their mom who nagged them to do their homework, take out the trash, drove them to dance/piano lessons/soccer practice, etc. I’m pretty damned sure that’s what it is with my youngest and her love of Bernie/dislike of Hillary. Bernie won’t nag them or drag them to practice or make them go to school when they just don’t feel like going.
Elizabeth Warren reminds me of my favorite and dearly beloved aunt.
Jack the Second
Evan Bayh, Andrew Cuomo, Mitt Romney, George W Bush, John Quincy Adams. Why do we like political dynasties, again?
aimai
@Immanentize: Stress fracture in foot is not healing. Very grumpy! Also youngest daughter has gone off to study stuff for four weeks at a pre-college program. I am wandering around feeling utterly lost since, as it turns out, she is my best friend and also extremely funny. When I want to tell a joke, or hear a joke, I keep turning around to find her but she’s gone. Admittedly temporarily, but still.
aimai
@Jack the Second: John Quincy Adams was damned good at his job (s). No reason to stick him in that galley.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@TriassicSands: She kinda lays it out in this piece from 2015.
There’s probably no need to read it – it’s just a list of nearly every RWNJ talking point since Whitewater.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class
The funniest shit EVAR
JustRuss
@MattF: I think you’re a little hard on Klein. He’s questioning the Established Narrative, so saying “Hey, let’s listen to people who actually deal with her” is a good approach. On the other hand:
Well yeah she believes it. Who doesn’t?
cokane
Clinton’s political skills will definitely shine in those fall debates. She’s never been the inspiring speech-giver. But that wont matter I suspect. People will remember the debates, if Trump’s campaign even has a pulse by then.
aimai
@opiejeanne:
When we talk about how Bernie or Hillary is perceived we have to realize we are talking about utterly different populations. Everyone has an opinion about Hillary. She’s been on the public stage, and attacked in public by all the media, for decades. If you are a Hillary supporter you may like her, or love her, she may remind you of your mother or a competent teacher or whatever. But if you are on the opposite side all those associations are poison, and have been poisoned for you, already. So you are never going to change your mind about her.
Bernie is a relative newcomer and the only people paying attention to him are his own fans. Of course they love his Brooklyn growl (I do too!) and of course they love his hectoring style. He’s not hectoring THEM, he’s criticizing everyone else.
This contrasts to the people who talk about Hillary coming across as an angry schoolmarm, who experience it as directed at themselves. I don’t, because I don’t find Hillary is lecturing me at all. I do find bernie to be lecturing me, since I don’t agree with all of his prescriptions and he and his followers attack people like me as insufficiently progressive for polite society.
I guess what I’m arguing is there’s no independent vantage point from which Hillary or Bernie cna be assessed. ITs all about who is listening, and what their prior relationship with democrats, or with the speaker as a political figure, is.
trollhattan
@Corner Stone:
Having attended one of her events (making me an expert, damnit) I know that long-form Hillary is a vastly better speaker than soundbite Hillary, the reasons for that I’ll leave for later. She modulates tone, pace and volume and seems to do so on the fly in response to the crowd. All of which surprised me, as I went with a different perception.
PBO has had quite the impact on our expectations for presidential oratory. Hillary is no PBO. Nor is anybody else.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class: “dissolve the bonds” – well done!
:-)
Cheers,
Scott.
JPL
@cokane: He won’t debate.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@cokane: Assuming there will be a debate. I still think Trump will find some way to weasel out of them.
“Hey! George Washington didn’t have any televised debates! Why should I!! I’ve got better things to do than stand around with Crooked Hillary™!!1”
Cheers,
Scott.
Immanentize
@raven: but wasn’t he a silver star war hero? I keed!
Mnemosyne
@Betty Cracker:
This. Most of the successful Republican women buy whole-hog into the idea of male dominance. Look at Joni Ernst, who touts her hog castration ability as proof that she can play with the big boys.
Overall, I think Democrats are more likely to prefer consensus-building abilities like Obama’s and Hillary’s and are less likely to see them as specifically feminine, but conservatives do see them as feminine and therefore bad.
Ruviana
@Seanly: MoDo is two-and-a-half weeks older than I am so maybe she could just retire rather than take a dirt nap? I think Scalia and Novack were both near 80.
Spider-Dan
@bystander: Evan Bayh is running for Senate again? For which party?
In all seriousness, I’d rather have Evan Bayh than Scott Brown. It’s true that Bayh, Lieberman, Nelson, et al are the reason why the ACA has no public option, but it’s equally true that without them, the ACA would have to have been passed through reconciliation (which would mean it would have to be reauthorized by Congress in 2020, or automatically sunset).
Shell
Not sure how Ben Franklin would take the modern Tea Party
Mnemosyne
@Betty Cracker:
Also, too, one of the most famous anecdotes about Thatcher is when she was sarcastically “congratulated” for being the best man on her team, and she shot back, “That’s one more than you’ve got on yours!” So there was definitely a sense that Thatcher was operating as an honorary man in the political world.
cokane
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: @JPL: This is a mistaken analysis. Trump, probably accurately, thinks he won the Republican nomination based on his debate performances. Obviously the general election audience is different though.
These debates have already been pre agreed by the bipartisan debate commission thingy too. Seems incredibly unlikely he would back out. He’s also most likely to be down in the polls at that stage, the only way to “shake up” the race will be to debate and make news.
trollhattan
@Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class:
Beauty. Let us savor.
The $cientology angle isn’t far-fetched because they share a commonality with objectivism in the claim to be so profound and deep as to require a lifetime (or a billion years, depending) to master or even comprehend. “I’d say more, but you just wouldn’t understand.”
Mnemosyne
@aimai:
The only way to heal a stress fracture is to STAY OFF IT! My mom refused to stop walking on hers and eventually had to get surgery. Sit down!
trollhattan
@Shell:
Much brandy would be required. He’d mock them to their faces and they’d assume it was oulde-fashioned complements.
Corner Stone
@cokane:
What campaign? It’s just Trump. With Manafort and Ivanka desperately changing Trumps’ Twitter password multiple times a day.
Lolis
@Doug!:
I saw Nancy Pelosi speak at UT Austin and she was incredibly good. She was very warm and witty, in addition to being intelligent and shrewd. Someone asked her if Paul Ryan would become Speaker since he was acting like he wouldn’t at that time. She said of course he would, nobody would turn down being second in line to the presidency. She was right.
Immanentize
@aimai: I am sorry Bout the foot. I broke a big toe and damn if it doesn’t take forever to heal!!! Meanwhile, my son, now 15 turns out to be my rant humor confidante as well. I am week 2 away and I miss him somthin’ awful. And of course he is terrible at phone or text with Dad. Ah mortality!
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@Major Major Major Major:
LOL. Having been a political science/social thought major in the 70s, I understand exactly what this means.
ThresherK
@Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class: Didn’t this idea suck enough the first time, when the Ghosts of Founders Past visite Michael Moore?
Betty Cracker
@JPL & @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: He’ll debate, and not because refusal to do so would be such a chicken-shit move that it would destroy his campaign, although that’s true. He’ll debate because he’s such a gigantic narcissist asshole that he believes he’ll win easily.
cmorenc
@KG:
To be fair, it took at least Obama’s first two years in office, and arguably his entire first term, for his governing skills to catch up with his campaign skills. IMHO if Obama had the finely developed governing skills he has displayed the last couple of years in his first two years in office, he likely would have avoided some egregious misreads and tactical mistakes (e.g. not recognizing soon enough the extent the GOP was cynically intent on deliberate sabotage and noncooperation with his administration, and trusting the likes of Tim Geithner to guide his approach to solving the banking crisis).
One of the real tragedies of his first two years (other than being afflicted with traitorous assholes like Joe Lieberman in the nominal Democratic Senate majority) was the death of Ted Kennedy – if Kennedy had been healthy Obama’s first couple of years, Kennedy had the standing and skills (both with his senate colleagues and with managing public perception) that he could have helped Obama mightily in better navigating the political shoals in passing the ACA without ceding so much ground for the GOP to spew deception and disinformation about it. Kennedy would have been onto the game McConnell and the GOP were playing with Obama from the get-go, and helped wise up Obama sooner about that.
trollhattan
@Mnemosyne:
Best practice is to lightly tug upward on the leash while giving the “sit” command.
Corner Stone
Asshole pundits still giving Trump the, “This is his chance to show he is a serious candidate” bullshit. As we wait to hear Trump speak at a rally.
Major Major Major Major
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: Can you explain pleeeeease? Or am I unworthy?
cokane
@Corner Stone: that shit’s going to keep going until election day. there’s too much perverse incentive to have a close competitive race. And his current campaign just wont do that.
Juju
@Ruckus: Glass ceiling, double standard, Clinton rules, Obama rules, whatever you want to call it is fine with me.
Barb2
This discussion is great!!!
I’m bookmarking it to read it again. I’m sure I missed some nuggets of wisdom.
ruemara
@SteveinSC: what in the ever loving fuck are you babbling about?
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Betty Cracker: It would hurt him among normal voters to drop out, but I think he’ll do it anyway. He was afraid of Megyn Kelly of Fox for crying out loud. He’ll find a way to avoid debating Hillary – he knows he’d lose a debate with her. He’s a coward..
But we’ll see.
Cheers,
Scott.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@Major Major Major Major:
Imagine the setting – a large liberal northeastern university in the 70s, smart, overwhelmingly white middle class kids discovering mind altering drugs and a new vocabulary and intellectual framework to dissect and disembowel mundane, middle class white suburban reality we unquestioningly grew up with, but felt alienated from. Marxist critical theory taught by our ivory tower professors gave us suburban white kids something to be insufferable and inscrutable about with friends and family during our summer vacations.
Frankensteinbeck
@Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class:
Tea Partiers define ‘liberty’ as their right to shit on other people.
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
If he does refuse to debate, his poll numbers will plummet – no matter how bad they were already. His base specifically hates that kind of show of weakness.
different-church-lady
“I reject your ‘reality’ and replace it with SUBSTANCE.”
aimai
@Mnemosyne: Now you tell me! I wish the doctor had told me the same thing. I stumped around in my boot for three weeks and it just came off. But today I’m thinking its not healed. I’m putting off calling the guy because…well, because! But now you are making me feel like I’d better get in and see him again. bloody hell.
aimai
@cmorenc: This is very, very, true.
opiejeanne
@aimai: Yes, I think for many others this is true, and I feel the same way as you do about Hillary’s style vs Bernie’s finger-wagging lecturing.
In my youngest’s case though, she is unaware of how Hillary has been treated in the past, unaware that every negative she has heard about her is from Republican talking points. This daughter is 33, has voted for Democrats across the board but when Bernie appeared she was suddenly all for him and rabidly against anyone who dared to challenge him, not that she could even name O’Malley as one of the candidates. She says she doesn’t trust Hillary.; when I asked her to define this distrust, what it was that she doesn’t trust Hillary to do, her answer was about as helpful as Bernie’s answers in the NYDN interview when asked about breaking up the banks, and she reacted in similar fashion by storming out. She is somewhat typical of many younger voters I’ve talked to over the course of this campaign.
She is so unaware of current political reality that two days ago she said that Bernie is going to “fight on” to the convention, after asking if he was still running. In her case, Hillary is my surrogate (she is having to be nice to me because she has noticed that we are breaking our necks to make her wedding and reception this Saturday a rip-roaring success, and I’ve heard “I love you” more in the past month more often than in the past 10 years. No idea who Bernie represents to her, not her dad or either grandpa, or even an uncle. I have never understood the devotion of so many young people to the cranky old geezer.
What she hasn’t yet grasped but soon will is that the future of women’s health is really dependent on Hillary being elected. I am more than a little disgusted with Bernie endorsing a “progressive” who is not pro-choice over a Democrat who is, which is a signal that either women’s health issues are of little concern to him or he has no understanding of how important they really are.
Mnemosyne
@aimai:
I love when doctors give bad instructions (not). Dude, you’re supposed to be the expert, not me!
Stress fractures are painful AND take forever to heal, so it’s definitely worth getting it checked out.
Major Major Major Major
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: Ah, one of those.
We touched on some critical theory in grad school. It seemed alright, well-meaning enough, but it had misidentified the villains, at least for our purposes.
different-church-lady
@opiejeanne:
1) Hates “the establishment”
2) Free college
3) Cliff Notes socialism
If you’re a newly-fledged adult, he aligns perfectly with your worldview.
Immanentize
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: are you a classmate of mine?!
Juju
@TriassicSands: One could replace Dowd with Mitchell as in Andrea Mitchell, and your comments would still be accurate.
Ruckus
@Shell:
I bet Ben would start by laughing his ass off and then by asking a simple question “Are you fucking kidding?”
Rand Careaga
@opiejeanne:
An acquaintance of mine mentioned that half a year he regarded the prospect of a Clinton presidency with dismay: “Great. Stern Mom in the White House. Like we need that.” Now that the alternative appears to be Violent Abusive Bipolar Dad in the White House, he’s cool with Stern Mom: “We need that!”
Paul in KY
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: We will shame him into debating. Shouldn’t be that hard to do.
1,000 Flouncing Lurkers (was fidelioscabinet)
@aimai: One theory I’ve heard was that Dowd got her column (and she was pretty young at the time, without having displayed the sort of consistent talent that supports such a slot) because Sulzberger thought she was hot.
That may be unfair to the quality of her work at that time, as well as to Sulzberger’s efforts to bring forward new female talent at the Times. But given her performance over the years, it’s hard to resist such a conclusion.
Regrettably, as she has aged, she has not developed the analytical and expressive skills and insight that would make up for not being a cute redhead in her twenties any more.
slag
@MattF: I totally get this reaction, having had it many times myself. But I’m really trying to be more appreciative of the fact that learning, in whatever form, is a serious process. And anytime someone embarks on that process, they deserve congratulations. No matter how basic or obvious the eventual outcome seems.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@Immanentize:
UMass?
Ruckus
@Mnemosyne:
Most conservatives are looking for a leader. They aren’t sure what an actual leader looks like, they don’t seem to end up in situations were real leaders rise to the top, but that’s what they want. They are followers. Everything runs from that. They want stability (no change!) because that means the people they think are leaders, who by the way are also followers, can lead them, and they are comfortable with the road and can follow with little thought.
Liberals like change, some like it so much that they want change for it’s own sake but that’s a side issue. We like seeing things get better, we like seeing things get better for everyone. It means progress is being made. Sure we like things being better for us but we don’t want exclusion to get there. This is not to say that we don’t like leaders, we do. But we understand the difference between a real leader and a person who just marches at the head of the parade. President Obama is a real leader. I know raven won’t like this but LBJ was a leader. A real one, not necessarily a good one but a leader none the less. (Raven – I agree with you, Fuck LBJ) A real leader has substance, is leading you somewhere, for a good reason. A fake leader has followers but no positive direction.
Paul in KY
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: Sounds great, comrade!
Monala
@VOR: I think she means it. There are some white people who have this perception that the reason there is conflict between the races is because Mexicans are drug dealers, Muslims are terrorists, and African-Americans are thugs, etc. If someone like Trump comes along and calls out these things with no dog-whistles, then some Mexicans/Muslims/blacks will straighten up and fly right, and the rest will realize that they no longer have any excuses. And thus, racial harmony will reign. QED.
/sigh
Miss Bianca
@Ruckus: The Ben Franklin in *my* brain says, “Surely you fucking jest”.
Ruckus
@trollhattan:
A number of them have, when they got to the end of that road, figured out that they had been had. It’s a long and convoluted road for that very reason.
Ruckus
@Miss Bianca:
He, and most likely you as well, are more attuned to the nuance of speaking a couple hundred years ago. I go for pith.
louc
@trollhattan: I went to an event of hers back when she was a senator because my DH was a Clinton administration alumn and he was invited. Granted, this was a smallish group, maybe 300 or 400 max, but I thought her style was great. She was very conversational and showed personality and wit.
But “soundbite” Hillary just grates on the ears. I wonder if news outlets just pick out the excerpts that sound the worst?
Miss Bianca
(my emphasis)
Wow. Gee. OK, Ezra. I know you’re trying to help and all, but *really*? It really hadn’t occurred to you before that maybe this wasn’t bs? I guess expressed attitudes like this just goes to show how deeply embedded Clinton Derangement Syndrome is in the media, when even an Ezra Klein finds the tactics that led to a successful campaign and a successful tenure as senator frm NY might not be bullshit, after all! Stop the presses – no, really. Just stop.the.presses.
Miss Bianca
@Ruckus: hey, we both embedded “fucking” in our fantasy Ben Franklin’s mind. That’s got to count for something – tho’ what, I don’t know.
Ruckus
@Juju:
Glass ceiling was the accepted term for a long time. It gets pushed around with someone’s name attached, like it’s their fault rather than a general societal problem. Clinton rules is the latest incarnation. Doesn’t change the basic concept of you can’t go there because, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. It’s bigotry, plain and simple. One isn’t worthy because they are black, female, young, old, don’t have an Ivy education, just not one of us (pick your reason or all of them) so you aren’t going to advance.
Ruckus
@Miss Bianca:
It means we both understand how fucking stupid the tea party is and that a reasonable person over 200 yrs ago would understand the same thing. Most likely more so as he had lived with the first iteration and would probably be pissed that they so totally misunderstood the entire premise.
trollhattan
@louc:
I think that’s largely what is occurring. Her voice doesn’t throttle up to loud especially well, especially in comparison to a speaker like Obama, and that’s what compromises most of her sound bites. Editors and directors are making these decisions.
Major Major Major Major
@Miss Bianca: ugh. Seriously?
sunny raines
failing – no. condemnation of a mindless electorate – absolutely!
Carl W
@Miss Bianca: The Ben Franklin in my mind says, “What? Sorry, didn’t hear the question. I was too distracted reading about the Large Hadron Collider on this smartphone.”
Miss Bianca
@Carl W: I’m loving it. Ben Franklin is the Founding Father who I can see adjusting most easily and eagerly to modern-day life, and somehow this exercise of putting him there delights me.
@Major Major Major Major: You mean, did he really say that? I shit you not. we read Ezra Klein so you don’t have to. ; )
Keith G
When I saw the lede, I was a bit reluctant to click as I figured there would be more than a few folks taking lazy swipes at Ezra Klein and VOX. I see that this is mostly not the case and I am heartened. Progress is being made here.
Klein and Vox put out a lot of good stuff and they are one of the few shops regularly taking deep dives into policy and practice. Sometimes I agree with their conclusions and sometimes I do not (and on a few occasions I wondered if they were suffering from some kind of cerebral trauma). Nonetheless, I value the experience of observing as they react to an issue and then as they go on to explore the issue even further.
They put out a weekly podcast, “The Weeds” which contains very interesting policy-centric discussions.
The Lodger
@Miss Bianca: If you’re interested in a webcomic featuring Ben Franklin in the modern world, check out A Girl and Her Fed and start at the beginning. It’s got cyborgs, politics, a snarky talking koala… really, what’s not to like?
NotMax
<blockquote.Campaigns built on charismatic oration feel legitimateWilliam Jennings Bryan.
Legitimately nominated 3 times.
Legitimately lost 3 times.
Miss Bianca
@The Lodger: oh, you know, I have read that one but completely forgot about it! Thanks for the reminder!
NotMax
Coding burp. Fix.
Keith G
@Rand Careaga: With upwards of 130,000,000 voters, I am sure that there are “Mommy Issues” bouncing around. About 60 million of those voters will not vote for a Democrat No. Matter. What. The next 10 million are important and a lot of them, if they are persuaded to vote, will more likely vote for Democrats.
Hillary can get those voters, and if she does, she wins. Some I talk to do not have Mommy Issues as mush as they that think she can be disingenuous. It dose not make them like Trump. They just have to be brought to a point where they decide to live with a (as they see it) flawed Hillary, or they get new information that allows them to discount what they already perceive.
Ruckus
@NotMax:
Is is funny isn’t it that many people don’t care if someone might do a good job, they just want to feel good about someone and use one of the least useful metrics to measure possible job performance. On the other hand I heard Kerry’s concession speech on election night and my first reaction was “Where has this guy been the entire campaign?” I don’t need to be moved, like JFK or President Obama move you but I’d like to know that there is some substance. JFK and Obama give you both. Clinton gives me substance, and that is far better than just soaring rhetoric for this job.
Mr. Mack
@Keith G: I’m getting older and forget things…but I was a daily reader/commentor on his first blog, and I found him sharp and funny and he seemed to do his homework. I don’t always agree with his analysis, but he is far from lazy, and I’d be fine if every journalist were measured against him.
NorthLeft12
@Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class: Sounds like the Making of In Search of Liberty, will make a great film……in the comedy/farce class.
I am becoming even more sceptical of any right wing conspiracy as the evidence continues to mount that these clowns seem to be cornering the market on ineptness and incompetence.
Ruckus
@NorthLeft12:
Well they do want to go back to the days of do nothing, blatant bigotry, religious purity tests….. I think they may have already cornered that market.
Miss Bianca
@NorthLeft12: Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
BethanyAnne
The Vox article talks about listening. Really listening is such a rare talent, and it’s apparent that Hillary does it.
I lived in Berkeley for 5 of my 10 years in Northern CA. I’m an atheist, but I went to the Unitarian church there – a church where atheists feel comfortable is *so* Berkeley. Anyway, what I mostly did there was participate in a group called Numinous. It’s a small group ministry, 5 to 10 people on a normal night. We would go around the circle, talking about our lives. You take the time you need, but be mindful of the time you are taking. Everyone not talking listens. No cross talk, ever. No talking about the circle talk after the circle. Everything held in confidence after. We reserved the right to intervene if you were talking about suicide, but that’s it.
It was … amazing. I’ve never had a space like that, and I never will again. You could say things in Numinous that surprised yourself. It ended up being a space where you could speak without fear of being judged, and self censoring. It also was the best practice in listening ever. I learned to listen there. To truly listen without trying to think about how the person might be presenting something, or about what I was going to say. I guess that’s another lefty / hippy / Berkeley thing. To make listening into a spiritual practice. But it’s changed who I am, and it’s helped me in all of my life.
I liked that Vox article, thanks for sharing. I hadn’t heard that about Hillary before.
Betty Cracker
@Keith G: I like Klein and Vox too. Don’t always agree with what’s published there, but the quality is generally good, IMO.
EthylEster
@Corner Stone: no, they are on to complaining about her voice now. ;+o
EthylEster
@aimai: I think Josh Marshall is a zillion times worse than I’ve ever seen young Ezra be. But I don’t read him nearly as much so maybe that’s why. TPM was the first news website I ever read and I got in the habit of visiting the site daily. Now I often come away with one big impression: JM is a self-absorbed guy who has no idea of how self-absorbed he is. I rarely find anything useful in what he writes. And his style…ugh…it makes my skin crawl. I think we agree on that.
JimV
I shouldn’t say this, but now that nobody is looking:
“… a leadership style that’s focused on listening and coalition-building can be disadvantaged in a political system built around speaking and dominance …”
In “Mad Max: Fury Road” all that could have been expressed in a glint of Charlise Theron’s eyes. Had she said it, it would have been “listening and compromising can seem weak compared to bluster”, or something like that.
I know, critics everywhere, but that was a weak effort, unworthy of the proud name of Cracker.
workworkwork
@opiejeanne: The cool aunt, the one who shares a joint with you if you ask.
Fred
This article is BS. Style?
TPP vs JOBS
Wallstreet vs Mainstreet and economic justice
Universal healthcare vs Same old big insurance rip off and run around
Real education vs Life long debt
It’s not that Bernie doesn’t make friends and Hillary does. It’s who they make friends with. Bernie sounds more believable because he tells the truth. Hillary? She had ALL the advantages going in and still almost lost it again to an old hippie with bad hair, ill fitting suits and the naive idea that people are more important than corporations.
So the real question is, will Hillary learn the lesson she needs to win and govern for the people or will she run as a corporate shill and lose to the reincarnation of Moussolini?
gwangung
@Fred:
No, he makes people (and primarily white people at that) THINK he’s telling the truth. Not the same thing.
J R in WV
@bystander:
The MSM is owned buy Republicans, who tell their reporting minions what to say about their friends AND their enemies.
Go figure?!? How can the country survive with the means of mass communications owned by one side, and the other side depends on the goodness/kindness of others. Like Blanch…