« Final Pre-Election Day Tidbits | Main | Meanwhile, back at the ranch... »

November 07, 2016

Comments

I'll be damned if I can explain the animus that HRC seems to inspire.

I'll leave it to the folks here who find her frankly despicable to explain it to us all.

I have FB friends who froth at the mouth at the mention of her name, but they can give no coherent reason why. I think it is a Pavlovian response from having spent years reading rightwing hate blogs. But that explanation begs the question of why they read the rightwing hate blogs--they must crave hate. They must WANT to hate. I don't have an explanation for that. These are people who are kind and nice in their relations with their acquaintances. They don;t seem inclined to hate people they know. They do have a pattern of marginalizing people they don't know, the standard rightwing crap about poor people being druggies, immigrants taking jobs, immigrants voting illegally, refugees imposing Sharia law on Detroit etc. IN other words the Hillary hate seems to be part of a more generalized vision of themselves as victims of Those Other People who are a threat to....something.

Well I openly love Hillary. I cried for happy when she was nominated, so I can't really explain the hatred. Your explanation seems pretty dead on.

Why would we bother.

The premise of the post is there can only possibly be one reason to dislike her. Because she is a woman.

And any other attempt at pointing out why is the Hillary hatred bubble that wont be discussed.

Discussion over.

What I and other Hillary supporters see, in contrast, is someone who could endure and get work done in the face of decades of brutal, slimy, ceaseless attacks. We see the toughest, most determined and self-controlled person in American politics, with a truly astounding strength of character

Yup, that looks like a pretty accurate description to me. And I would add that a lot of the work she would get done is good work: about poverty, women's and children's rights, and healthcare.

I don't know what others here might mean when they talk "about how Hillary is an obviously "terrible candidate" and Democrats should have nominated someone else", but I think that in the context of the fight with Trump they wish the Democratic candidate was less unpopular, so was a safer bet against the most dangerous candidate in recent history. You don't have to be "looking at Hillary Hatred and either buying into it, or else [they] think being hated should disqualify her" to want a candidate with fewer unfavourables in this particular election. But yes, for what it's worth, I think most of your analysis is correct, and that a lot of "Hillary Hatred" is, as well as bog-standard partisan monstering of the opposition, a strange, partly mysogynist, eruption from the collective unconscious.

You are dumb dumb dumb. We hate Hillary for the same reasons we hated John Dillinger, Jack the Ripper, Al Capone, Bernie Madoff. We hate her because she is so callous, abuses her power and gets away with it! Why? How? Has she made a pact with Satan??? How does she get away with crime after crime after crime?????

the toughest, most determined and self-controlled person in American politics, with a truly astounding strength of character.

It's interesting that pretty much the same could be said of Obama.**

In both cases, probably for the same reason: when you are the one breaking a major and highly visible barrier, you have to display those characteristics. Even if (see Jackie Robinson) that is not at all your actual personality. If you don't/can't behave that way, you don't survive.

** At least Clinton (probably) won't have to deal with accusations that she wasn't born here.

Iceland's recent PM was pretty explicitly feminist:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jóhanna_Sigurðardóttir

Though Iceland is about the size of a small town in population, so I'm not sure if that counts.

Satire? I hope?

I have FB friends who write stuff exactly like that. And I respond that the reason she 'gets away with it' is because she hasn't been charged with anything because she hasn't done anything to be charged with or convicted of. Typically people who say she has gotten away with it, don;t have any idea what crimes it is that she should have been charged with. Whne they do come up with something specific, it is something utterly ridiculous like murdering Vince Foster. Or its "emaisl" with no idea what they even think she did wrong with emails. Just something. Hate, first, come up with a justification for hating later.

Oh oh, troll alert.

While I agree with the thrust of the article, I'm not entirely convinced by the the 'terrible candidate' bit.
I think (with some reservations on foreign policy and excessive secrecy) that she will make a fine president, but there are quite legitimate criticisms to be made of her as a candidate.

And any other attempt at pointing out why is the Hillary hatred bubble that wont be discussed.

And yet, if you offered up an explanation, preferably one which avoided
- claims of criminality (not that I am accusing you, personally, of doing so in the past). Claims for which years of Congressional investigations have somehow failed to find evidence sufficient to convince a prosecutor to bring charges.
- attributing the hatred (which, as noted, started in the early 1990s) to things that she did years later, e.get. as Secretary of State.

If you did that, I think a lot of us would be interested. I know I would.

I can't speak for Republicans. But my reliably democratic mother who will be voting for Clinton strongly dislikes her.

Her reasons: First Lady isn't a real job. Using it as a resume item looks manipulative to her, and ties into her general dislike of women who ride their husbands coattails. Bill's constant philandering makes their marriage look even more cynical and political, which means in her mind that Hillary Clinton should be thought of as connected to Bill's politics, and partially responsible for them- what else could it mean to treat your time as First Lady as a resume item? And Bill Clinton bombed a lot of countries. Then Hillary Clinton became a Senator and supported the Iraq War up until it became unpopular, sending my brother to war where he very nearly died. Then she worked for Barack Obama and bombed more people.

So she views Hillary Clinton as a very generic Democratic hawk who used a cheap way to get ahead and into the public spotlight. My mother would have preferred virtually any other Democrat, and is taking solace in the chance that maybe age and unpopularity will convince Clinton not to run again in 2020. I doubt she's right about that.

But she'll vote Clinton because she's not stupid and can see what Trump is. And because she's been voting Denocratic since at least as long as I've been old enough to talk to her about it, and prefers the Democratic position to the Republican on virtually everything.

"Though Iceland is about the size of a small town in population, so I'm not sure if that counts."

Iceland should be an inspiration for us all. Jailing banksters, electing explicitly feminist PMs, having a huge statue of Santa taking a dump in the SagaMuseum, all that stuff.

The right has a bad case of vagina envy.

wj,

Interestingly, my hate for Hillary, as I recall, did not start that far back. In fact, I remember clearly thinking Bill screwed her in more ways than one. He took the longest shot item on his agenda, got her to run with it, and then kind of left her hanging out. Then basically blamed her for failing to get the initiative passed, while he took credit for whatever he could and fooled around in the WH. I remember hoping she made him pay the price for her embarrassment at the end of his term.

I remember thinking it was cool, but didn't effect me, that she got to run for the Senate herself, because by that time I was pretty sure she had more ambition than her husband so she should be the one running.

The stuff I hate her for is all much more recent, and are her actions not her sex.

I don't really see the Hillary hate as misogynistic. The Republican party hs used smears and lies as a primary campaign tactic for decades now. They do it for two reasons: fear and hate brought in people who had either previously voted Democrats (the Deep South) or previously didn't vote at all, and they need a distraction since they cannot run on their policy or legislative initiatives. So smearing and lying is what they do and they do it in every race against every Democrat. It's no different than there use of fear and hate of gay people, poor people, refugees, immigrants, whoever is handy. It's a tactic.

The tactic works because the MSN is complicit. A headline appeared on my AOL a few days ago: Clinton Email Scandal New Twist. That's a headline that convicts her without even saying what it is that she should be convicted of. The whole email witch hunt was covered that way and thet's why there was a witch hunt in the first pace: to get headlines that put the words "Clinton, email investigation scandal" out there over and over and over. Here's a link to an article which I think gives a good explanation for the Hilary hate:

http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/11/07/republicans-rely-on-truthiness-to-attack-clinton/

But my reliably democratic mother who will be voting for Clinton strongly dislikes her.

Her reasons: First Lady isn't a real job. Using it as a resume item looks manipulative to her, and ties into her general dislike of women who ride their husbands coattails. Bill's constant philandering makes their marriage look even more cynical and political, which means in her mind that Hillary Clinton should be thought of as connected to Bill's politics, and partially responsible for them- what else could it mean to treat your time as First Lady as a resume item? And Bill Clinton bombed a lot of countries. Then Hillary Clinton became a Senator and supported the Iraq War up until it became unpopular, sending my brother to war where he very nearly died. Then she worked for Barack Obama and bombed more people.

A couple of things here, and since you're speaking for your mother, it's hard for me to get too ferocious, but forgive me if I do,

A lot of friends I have, who are women, and are my age (or within 10 years either way, and I am 60), have very specific and different views about how women "should be". Some of this has to do with the professions they pursued. For example, many are lawyers. Some worked in private practice, some in legal publishing, and some at corporations. A nurse, who pursued a PhD, and is now a professor of nursing. There are librarians, artists, administrators, IT folks, etc. Lots of different people who began work at a time when women had new opportunities, but were also expected to take them - while having a family, in some cases - kids, marriage, etc,

A lot of the choices that people make in their own lives affect their opinions about other people, and I think that Hillary Clinton is an exaggerated object of that, especially for older women who have had to justify their own choices in a way that was somewhat different than many of their own mothers.

oddly enough, my personal take on HRC resembles that of Patrick's mother.

I was not in favor of her deep involvement with national policy while FLOTUS - the nation elected Bill, not Hilary. And I thought their subsequent move to NY and her run for Senate was transparently opportunistic.

Then, it turned out that she was a committed and hard-working Senator, and subsequently a committed and hard-working Secretary of State.

I don't agree with a lot of the policies she's promoted over the years, but I have also acquired a respect for her diligence, patience, and work ethic.

IMO she's a serious person, in it to do good.

It's worth noting that the tradition of people following their spouses or other family members into public service is a very long and creditable one.

"It's worth noting that the tradition of people following their spouses or other family members into public service is a very long and creditable one."

This strikes me as an important point of departure.

I don't see her as being in public life for public service. She has made a career of using her public service for extraordinary personal gain.

I think it turned out her ambition merged nicely with their greed.

I see her as a serious person, in it for her gain.

I was not in favor of her deep involvement with national policy while FLOTUS - the nation elected Bill, not Hilary. And I thought their subsequent move to NY and her run for Senate was transparently opportunistic.

I guess I never really resented her FLOTUS "role". It was clear that she had been an accomplished activist and lawyer, and that her marriage to someone devoted to public life left her in a situation where she needed to use those talents in a way that wasn't a constant conflict of interest (as law firm work would have been). Also, it's traditional to reside with one's spouse. A 1950's wife role was not what she was going to do, so having been given a policy project, which wasn't far removed from her prior interests, seemed reasonable to me.

It was clear by the end of Clinton's presidency that she was very popular among many Democrats. That's when many of my own friends talked about longing for her to run. By 2008, when she did run, though, I wasn't ready for her - partly because of the dynasty issue. Obama was such an amazing candidate. But Clinton's work for Obama, and her obvious willingness to step up convinced me that she would be great. I believe that, and hope that she can succeed, despite the Republican hate machine.

I think it turned out her ambition merged nicely with their greed.

The first time in history Republicans can't stand the fact that people make money. Clinton Rules require that the Clintons become St. Francis of Assisi. No problem being Trump, screwing your own workers, defrauding students, licensing your identity. All good!

It took me a long time to get over HRC's support for the war. I'm still not really over it. I wanted Bernie to be our candidate. I have a big fear that HRC will get us in deeper in Syria.

However given that Trump is the alternative and his approach to foreign affairs (what would Putin do?) is considerably worse...

It took me a long time to get over HRC's support for the war.

That was one reason why I preferred Obama. The Iraq war was a disaster. But I forgave Kerry, and I've forgiven her.

If I may ramble a bit...

My father used to tell a story about the test for officers candidate school. One question provided a detailed bill of materials, a topo map, and asked the question, "As an officer, how would you build a bridge over this small river?" Enough space was provided to allow for extremely detailed answers. The correct answer for OCS was, "Sargent, take these men and this pile of sh*t and build a bridge over the river. I'll be back in four hours."

Resentment of superior intelligence seems to be a general human thing. I say that as both someone who was for years the smartest person in the room and on the receiving end of that resentment, and as a manager who had to work like hell to defuse the resentment within groups. Yes, there's a whole lot more resentment when the smartest person is a woman. Generally, the only way to succeed is for the really smart person to become a resource for the group. "Yeah, she's a dork, but she's our dork and we're a better group because she's here."

Hillary Clinton is trying to pull off the hardest trick of all: win the top management job (where she's managing managers) while not covering up that she's the smartest person in the room, with a better command of the details, etc. That she's about to do it is amazing.

The success of her Presidency, though, will be determined by whether she can let go of being the smartest person in order to be the best manager of smart people. I admit that I'm not confident about that, and it has nothing to do with her sex.

The stuff I hate her for is all much more recent, and are her actions not her sex.

Thanks, Marty. Care to share a couple of bullet items on those causes? Please -- I really was serious when I said I would be interested.

"think it turned out her ambition merged nicely with their greed."

well, the clintons certainly do like to make money.

what I don't see is how that makes them, in any way, unusual. specifically, I don't see how that makes them different in any way from people who you, personally, have frequently been very happy to defend.

"Clinton rules" is a reality. they are held to a different bar than anyone else imaginable.

that's the thing that I don't get.

Oh hell, if Sanders has won the primary, think how this malignant Republican crew of lying scum would be going after him.

He'd be Bernie Gulag Fagin Shylock the Merchant of Menace Stalin. It doesn't take too long for David Bossie, Roger Stone to fire up the hate machine to ruin people.

And his Jew, b*tch, c*nt, lesbian, socialist wife would have been on the horror show ride of her life at the hands of these thugs.

We'd have political ads running daily intimating darkly that shadowy, hooked-nosed pick pockets would be emptying our bank accounts and imposing a Rothschild world system of usury.

Then Marty would come in and explain daintily that he had only turned on Sanders recently for his mention of being a little tougher on Israel and what that has to do with any of this other rancid killing hate escapes him.

Spare me this sh*t. I know these people.

I was not in favor of her deep involvement with national policy while FLOTUS - the nation elected Bill, not Hilary.

Russell, do you even realize how silly that sounds? Yes, the nation (albeit not with my vote) elected Bill Clinton. But Presidents routinely and necessarily pick others to draft and implement national policy. The fact that, in Hilary Clinton's case, the person he picked happened to be married to him is kinda irrelevant.

At best, you are (pardon me, but it seems quite possible) making the rather sexist assumption that the First Lady should restrict herself to First Lady stuff, and not be allowed to do what any other woman not married to the President could do. What other reason is there not to have her involved?

The Clintons are held to a different standard. Just look at how the media fell for Comey's announcement about more emails--and compare that to the coverage of Trump's upcoming RICO trail (what coverage?), the court order to pay his creditors (what coverage?), his upcoming appearance as a material witness in a fraud trail (what coverage?), his missing taxes (just imagine how HRC's taxes would have been covered if she had not been forthcoming with them), the fine from the IRS for misusing his foundation money (what coverage/) and so on. Or the contrasting charities: Trump claimed that she was using her charity for pay-for-play and his remarks got repeated and immediately became an article of faith in teh rightwing media. A couple of reporters for AP tried to earn some stripes for themselves by "proving" that she was abusing her foundation; the fact that they found nothing didn;t stop them from getting a story published which implied nefarious behavior.

If it hadn't been for that Newsweek reporter who found real dirt, tons of it including pay-for-play in the Trump Foundation, teh narrative on HRC's foundation would have been the same as for the emails: a non-issue turned into a scandal and a smear.

The sad thing is that the kind of work done by the Newsweek reporter is rare.

"What other reason is there not to have her involved?"

Because I didn't vote for her, I voted for Bill.

Because other people who the President might enlist to draft and implement policy aren't going to bed with him or her. Or, shouldn't be.

I absolutely think that the spouse of an executive - whether political, corporate, whatever - engaging in substantive decision making should be held to much closer scrutiny than any other person of the same gender would.

There is nothing sexist about it, because I'd feel the same way if the genders were reversed. Should Clinton win, I would not want Bill getting hands-on with national policy.

I voted for Hilary this time around, not for him.

Ask yourself what you would think as a hypothetical investor in (for example) Google if it emerged that CEO Sundar Pichai was tasking his wife Anjali with major strategic planning initiatives.

To follow up on the "politicians getting rich" thing, feast your eyes on this.

https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_in_Net_Worth_of_U.S._Senators_and_Representatives_(Personal_Gain_Index)

I completely agree that the tendency of national office holders to - quel surprise - find themselves stinking rich is less than seemly.

I don't understand what makes HRC uniquely bad.

She seems kind of middle of the road to me.

I really, REALLY don't want Bill Clinton getting hands on with policy if/when Hillary Clinton wins office. We have term limits. It may not be a technical violation for a former President to get in close with an incoming President and take on a policy role, but its certainly against the spirit of the rule, and I'm old fashioned enough to care.

I wrote a long response and my session expired , whatever that means, so that masterpiece of saliva filled invective is lost. No it wasn't like that.

Second version. The fact that there is a lot of misogyny in many Clinton critics doesn't mean all harsh criticism is therefore misogynistic. Also, Clinton is not Hermione Granger. She didn't do her homework on Iraq-- in fact she didn't read the classified national intelligence estimate. There is something a little ironic about antiwar supporters in 2003 daydreaming about a Clinton presidency.

She didn't do her homework on Libya. Her "we came we saw he died hahaha" moment on Gadaffi's death would be famous among liberals if a well known Republican had said it. It was creepy in the same way Bush's carrier landing was--some bureaucrat far from the battlefield pretending to be Caesar. Libya didn't turn out well.

The Clintons have made a lot of money in the way it seems to be done in DC, with politics and taking money once out of office and sometimes in office going hard in hand, I suppose it's legal. Google Nathan Robinson for a critical Clinton voting lefty view on the Foundation.

The idea that Clinton is smart and always right does fit into the stereotype of the liberal technocrat ( policy wonk is the preferred term now) who thinks he or she is smarter than everyone else. Hermione was, but that was fiction. Robert McNamara is the real life version in foreign policy. Thinking of Clinton as Hermione reminds me of the conservative I remember who compared Dubya to Aragorn.

When I see commenters here & elsewhere talking about how Hillary is an obviously "terrible candidate" and Democrats should have nominated someone else, it seems to me they're looking at Hillary Hatred and either buying into it, or else they think being hated should disqualify her.

I'll echo GftNC's guarded and Nigel's less-guarded questioning of this. For me, the reason this particular point is so irksome is that establishment Democrats have made "electability" a pillar of faith - yet this cycle, when it came time to pick their insider favorite or not, "electability" went out the window and it was suddenly all and only about "qualifications". I'm keenly aware that "electability" always was first and foremost Iron Law of Institutions BS, but the blatancy of the establishment's self-serving flexibility is more than a little off-putting, especially since they didn't bother reducing their output of pious moralizing even a little.

Fair or not, Clinton was and is a pile of vulnerabilities and traps for herself. If an organization touts pragmatism above ideology while lecturing all and sundry that the most important thing is to see the other party beaten, it behooves them to take seriously the unpopularity of a potential candidate, even if they love that candidate to death, rather than trying to convince anyone who'll listen that said unpopularity just proves how great a candidate they are. If you're going to claim your foremost goal is winning rather than having your candidate in particular win (which the establishment Dems have, at tedious length), then complaining about "fairness" of perceptions is not just meaningless, but explicitly contradicting everything you're saying out of the other side of your mouth.

The problem with all this is that Bill Clinton also seems to be very deeply hated on the Right. I mean, he's not even running for president and he's been routinely portrayed as a vicious, corrupt rapist.

So while misogyny surely plays a part, it seems unlikely to be the main cause. (There may be a "Lady Macbeth" element in which she's suspected to be the mastermind behind some of the worst of the made-up crimes.) But whatever explains the hatred of her ought to explain the hatred of him. They do seem closely connected.

Notably, she was quite popular nationally when she was a senator and for a while as Secretary of State. As was he until quite recently. The GOP hate machine has just swung back from Obama to them, and it is pretty effective at convincing people that it's targets are hateful.

Patrick, my parents have explicitly cited the opposite sentiment of your 8:52 as a reason they'll be voting for HRC. I've heard it elsewhere as well. It's not the sort of thing I'd expect any poll to be able to suss out unambiguously, but I'd really, really be curious as to how much of HRC's support is foremost a desire for a third term for WJC.

--

Also, as usual, I'll just underscore DJ's 8:53. Not any of it in particular; the whole thing, all at once.

"Clinton Rules" certainly exist, as Michelle stands on stage with Bill talking about what a horrible sexist pervert Trump is while Beyoncé wanders around nude on stage. He being the only one actually caught having an affair with an intern down the hall from his wife.

Every thing that the Clintons have done to leverage their time in office, while in office, to enrich themselves would be considered completely unethical and potentially illegal for any.one.else.

Do you know why I hate her? Because she doesn't even deny it, she smiles and all the self righteous people who complained for decades about too much money in politics and a revolving door and lobbyists make excuses for her.

Which reinforces her feeling of being untouchable.

Trump thinks he can stand in the middle of 5th avenue and shoot someone? He has nothing on them.

She can use the office of Secretary of State to reward people for giving her husband a million dollars and what, shrugs?

Barry Bonds got convicted for lying to Congress about taking PED's, PED's. And she can lie to Congress and the FBI doesn't do a thing. She can destroy emails that are under subpoena by Congress. She can destroy hardware whose contents are evidence in an investigation. More than that, she can just declare that the investigation just isn't worth bothering with and everyone should just "move on" while everyone that worked for her gets immunity.

Not one of those things isn't a fact. But, for Hillary, its otay.

And before one person points out something Trump did or didn't do, I don't care. The tu quoque is tiresome. He is bad. The question isn't whether she is better or worse than Trump. It is why do I hate her.

I hate her because over the last ten years she has used her position to perform every despicable act a person can to enrich herself, flout the law, and get away with it.

The idea that Clinton is smart and always right does fit into the stereotype of the liberal technocrat ( policy wonk is the preferred term now) who thinks he or she is smarter than everyone else.

Except that it's often true. Yes, smart people make mistakes, sometimes fatal. But the perfect don't usually get elected, now do they? They pretty much don't even run. Wait, I don't think I even know any of them.

Ask yourself what you would think as a hypothetical investor in (for example) Google if it emerged that CEO Sundar Pichai was tasking his wife Anjali with major strategic planning initiatives.

IF the lady was an experienced IT professional, i.e. someone with decent qualifications (exclusive of her marriage) for the task, I wouldn't have a problem with it. And given the number of IT folks who marry each other (possibly because it ups the chance of having a meaningful conversation about work over dinner - I certainly find it a help not to have to stop to give background on everything), that doesn't seem impossible.

I would have a problem with a President nominating his/her spouse to a permanent position (e.g. the Supreme Court). But simply putting together a policy and its implementation? Nope, no problem at all.

When I see commenters here & elsewhere talking about how Hillary is an obviously "terrible candidate" and Democrats should have nominated someone else, it seems to me they're looking at Hillary Hatred and either buying into it, or else they think being hated should disqualify her.

Gotta go with the various responses to this. I guess it depends on exactly what is meant by "terrible candidate." If it is used to mean "someone who can't get elected" or "someone who shouldn't get elected", then no it's wrong.

But if it just means "someone who is bad at the process of campaigning"? I'd say that is a fair take on Hilary. She simply isn't good at campaigning. She has learned how to do it adequately, but it visibly isn't her strong suit.

I am surprised we've gotten this far without anyone citing the "vast right-wing conspiracy".

The Arkansas Project did exist.
It was well funded, and employed several professional propagandists as well as enthusiastic amateurs.
The Republican Party noted its "accomplishments", and some fraction of GOP pols adopted the tactics.

HRC (and WJC) have been consistently, deliberately smeared by one or another professionally-conducted campaign of innuendo, half-truths, and outright lies since at least 1990. After thirty-five years of dishonest propaganda, it's not suprising that a large fraction of Americans have internalized the message to a greater or lesser degree.

destroy hardware

Better re-check this "fact", Marty.

I really, REALLY don't want Bill Clinton getting hands on with policy if/when Hillary Clinton wins office.

I've gone one step farther, and said that I don't want Bill living in Washington. He's a former President, with a library to oversee and a foundation that's doing good work that's headquartered in NY. Stay the hell away from Washington -- nothing good can come from you being there.

Sapient, the post compares Clinton to Hermione as the smart nerd who is hated because she studies and always has the right answer. The reality is that policy wonks like McNamara probably don't know as much as they claim and their answers are often wrong. In Clinton's case she ran as a foreign policy expert among other things and yet she didn't read the NIE and was spectacularly wrong. The myth and the reality of the policy wonk are often quite different, but liberals often cling to it in cases where the evidence doesn't fit.

NV-- I agree that the self described pragmatists of the Democratic Party are often not pragmatic in reality. Or they are, but not in the way they claim to mean. As you say, for the apparatchiks in the party it was the Iron law of institutions at work.

IF the lady was an experienced IT professional, i.e. someone with decent qualifications (exclusive of her marriage) for the task, I wouldn't have a problem with it

I would. Lady or man, the gender is not relevant to me.

In my mind, it has to do with transparency and accountability. Spouses - or really any family members - stay out of professional or public business.

Just a difference of opinion.

Arggh!

can somebody help a brother out?

i ned an italiendo.

Done. wj

The Clintons...both of them, were seen as illegitimate from the get go, as St. Ronnie had set the stage for a permanent GOP ascendancy. The Clintons didn't help their cause any by repeatedly stepping in doo-doo at a minor level.

The wingnut fangs were out from the beginning.

As to policy, the Left has been highly critical of the both of them from a policy standpoint...both foreign and domestic. But of course, the the Marty's of the world know more about the Left than leftist do...go figure.

As a Bernie supporter, I have always looked back on Clinton's Iraq war vote as an act of political cowardice (after all, both NY Senators voted "yes", and a "no" vote would have most likely meant political suicide in the state where 9/11 took place) or worse, a mistake.

I voted for her, and I wish her well. But I will be highly outspoken on any tack she takes that I disagree with, esp. wrt foreign policy (Syrian no-fly zone....are you 'effing kidding me?).

But the Republican Party is way worse. What can you say about a political organization that actively HATES workers? That promotes the idea that poverty is the result of personal moral failure. What 'effing outrageous moral hypocrisy.

Collectively/institutionally (not individually) they are in the thrall of free market extremism, they are racist, they are xenophobic, and they are lickspittle for the rich.

Collectively, they aspire to implement public policies that are widely at variance from what is good for our country....and I say this through gritted teeth.

That they might fall on each other and tear their 'effingly smug party apart is an outcome I devoutly desire to see.

NV: ...the blatancy of the establishment's self-serving flexibility...

What counts as The Establishment, NV? I mean, how many of the primary voters who voted for her do you consider part of The Establishment? How many of them do you consider mindless dupes of The Establishment?

As for yours and Donald's sincere (and honorable, but not infallible) judgements that Bosnia was theater and Libya was a disaster, none of us can say with Trumpian certainty what the result of any alternative policy would have been -- except that lots of death and destruction would have been features of it no matter what.

--TP

I'm keenly aware that "electability" always was first and foremost Iron Law of Institutions BS

NV,
I may be wrong here, but I believe this take on the Iron Law of Institutions is mistaken. The nomination of Clinton in lieu of (let's just assume for now) a "more electable" Sanders is well nigh a perfect prediction of the workings of the Iron Law's postulates.

"Every thing that the Clintons have done to leverage their time in office, while in office, to enrich themselves would be considered completely unethical and potentially illegal for any.one.else."

with respect, I have to say that as far as I can tell everything the Clintons have done, in or out of office, to enrich themselves is dead normal.

this isn't a tu quoque thing because I'm not saying "your guy does it too". I'm saying it's the norm, and the Clintons are far from the worst offenders.

national office holders are highly visible people, and there are about 10 million ways for highly visible people to turn their visibiliy into money.

I'd like all of that crap to stop, because I think it's corrupting.

Sadly, I'm not the king.

If you're gonna insist on this kind of standard, you have to require it for everyone.

The more important issue than the Clinton's self enrichment is Citizens United. Republicans are for it, Democrats against. That's all we actually need to know about the issue. The worst Democrat is going to be better on this score than the best Republican, no matter their personal fundraising history.

I'm not sure if this is helpful, but I'll speak as someone who was not convinced by Hillary when she ran against Obama but am now. I put a lot of weight on Brad DeLong's complaint about her back then
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001600.html

(which he has since revised,
http://www.bradford-delong.com/2015/04/endorsing-hillary-rodham-clinton.html)

I'm used to people not changing. I find it especially true for men, as they get older, they seem to, as far as I can tell, hunker down and just refuse to move. HRC is someone who has, I think, been able to change. As DeLong writes

At this point, she has been a successful Secretary of State, ran an almost-good-enough presidential nomination campaign, and been an effective Senator. And she was an ineffective policy-development presidential assistant back in 1993-1994. That's more experience in more different roles with more success than Barack Obama had had, than George W. Bush had had, than Ronald Reagan had had, than Jimmy Carter had had, and than John F. Kennedy had had when they faced the electorate. That's successful experience in more different roles than Bill Clinton had had. And it's about equal in variety--and greater in success--than George H.W. Bush had had.

And it's vastly more than the Republican candidate will have, whoever he may be.

The only thing that could keep me from putting her at the very top would be if she has not reflected on and determined to avoid what made her so unsuccessful as health-care policy-development czar in 1993-1994.

But I know she has.

The concern about Bill's role in the administration is more male BS. If you haven't noticed, Bill's been looking a little frail, and been prone to go off message. Of course, Hillary, not having the intestinal fortitude that we males have, is just going to let him run roughshod. It's a pretty sexist complaint when you unpack it.

If she were my friend, I'd probably ask her 'why put yourself through this?' I anticipate at least 4 and possibly 8 more years of being disrespected, insulted, lied about. Obama was 'uppity' when he put his feet up on the desk, and 'talking down' to everyone when explained things, I can't imagine what fresh new hell will be in store for Hillary and us after the State of the Union or the first press conference, or even the turkey pardoning. It's not going to let up, and if Hillary ever loses her temper, or gets caught yelling at an aide ('She's hysterical, I knew she would be') we are going to be treated to a month's worth of wall to wall coverage and learn a whole lot of ways to allude to menopause. Embarrassment about the n word kept it from being deployed against Obama too often, but the b and c words are going to get a work out.

Furthermore, no one, on the right or the left, is going to give her a break, because the only way she could have become president is to bring in a resume the length she has, which will then give everyone something to sink their teeth into. Of course, that resume is a necessary (but in no ways sufficient) requirement for her to get where she has gotten. I mean, take Obama's resume before becoming the Dem nominee. Now imagine if it were a woman. Is anyone here going to suggest that a serious presidential run would even be remotely possible?

IMO, she's definitely what the country needs. It's just I wouldn't wish the abuse she's going to get on my worst enemy.

bp - you seem to be taking that statement backwards. The centerist officials, staffers, and PR flaks (which is what I mean by "establishment", TP - professional Democrats and high-volume amateur mouthpieces dedicated to that faction's agenda) have for years used "electability" as a club to fend off other factions. This cycle, as you note, abandoning that "principle" is entirely in keeping with ILoI predictions. Which was my point: "electability" was loudly flaunted as principled pragmatism not just for the good of the party, but absolutely imperative for the party's survival as a significant force... right up until it was summarily swept under the rug for being inconvenient to establishmentarians.

Thank you, Joel Hanes.

There were meetings among right-wing operatives long before any of Clinton's peccadillos became evident in which they decided to insert the shiv in the b*tch, just as McConnell and company met within days of Obama's election to decide to stymie all governance by Democrats and their Kenyan leader.

It's fact, so not amenable to Marty's empathy.

I also agree with Michael Cain and others that Bill Clinton, as unrealistic as this is, needs to be shut down, just as it was in retrospect ridiculous that Yoko Ono could pipe up from her cot from the corner of the studio at Abbey Road and lend chord progression advice to the two or three greatest song writers in the world.

I don't have a problem with back channel but somehow transparent advice from Bill to Hillary, because of his experience, just as I have no problem with Hillary seeking out Colin Powell's or George W. Bush's or Barack Obama's counsel, but I fear the Republican Party's operative no good faith stance will be to isolate and hamstring the President of the United States from all governing avenues, in which case I believe in radical street level measures.

My problem with Hillary is that she tends to tack rightwards when in doubt. It was a problem with Obama too on too many policy issues when he hoped to win some GOPster votes for the sake of bipartisanship. We have to be thankful that the GOP rejected any offer on that. With Obama it was a vain attempt to be nice, with H.Clinton it will be a mix of triangulation and actual belief. I will not go as far as "Only Nixon could go to China and only a Democrat can destroy the New Deal" but, if the GOP could put pragmatism over guts, the erosion would speed up under an HRC presidency not slow down. Obama's "Grand Bargain" was a very bad idea, Clinton is likely to be worse. And I hate the idea that all what stands against the possibly fatal weakening of the social contract is the visceral reaction of the GOP: "It is supposed to be US that screws the common scum. We will not allow any Demon Rat to do it for us!"*.
And yes, I think Clinton went 'left' during the campaign for purely tactical reasons and will go back to 'centrism' (GOP light) at the first opportunity.
I do not think she does it for personal gain but because she has bought into the idea of it being necessary. And imo she totally lacks the sadistic glee of the leading GOPsters and their backers for whom the screwing part is at least as important (and imo actually even more) than the material benefits they expect from it.

*I think this is a major part explaining the hatred: not only was the power they feel entitled to taken from them but the takers tried/try to do the fun part without even considering it as fun.

Curt Schilling is a hater and was a great pitcher in the game I love.

F8ck him.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/11/07/breitbart-s-curt-schilling-praises-photo-man-advocating-lynching-journalists/214377

He wants violence, he will get it. You encourage violence, it will show up on your doorstep soon.

That went for the Symbionese Liberation Army 45 years ago and it applies to Schilling and company.

Journalists should carry weaponry when seeking his thoughts on current events and be ready to pull the trigger at the sign of any false move.

Those big guys faint at the sight of their own plasma soaking the carpet.

Marty might want to chime in on his empathy for the bleeding foot or maybe his splitter.

F*ck him and hurt him.

You don't see Sandy Koufax threatening violence on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

Stop this now, Republicans, win or lose, or you will reap the whirlwind in the thorn bush.

Hartmut wins.

HRC (and WJC) have been consistently, deliberately smeared by one or another professionally-conducted campaign of innuendo, half-truths, and outright lies since at least 1990. After thirty-five years of dishonest propaganda, it's not suprising that a large fraction of Americans have internalized the message to a greater or lesser degree.

This is actually the best response to the Hillary hate question (by joel hanes). It's unfortunate that even as public as this hate campaign has been, so many people have fallen for it.

i say it all the time, so i'll say it again: Hating the Clintons is a religion. it's built on faith and sustains itself with confirmation bias.

years and years of acrid smoke has convinced people there must be a fire. but if you look closely, you can see the GOP-brand™ smoke machines in the center of every reported fire and you can see the guys in the GOP-brand™ firefighters jackets manning those machines. it's just a show for the faithful: puts butts in the seats and dollars in the coffers.

emails!

I doubt there are any death threats aimed at Americans or those Others, the Republicans, in Clinton emails, though I'll bet the late David Bossie and his empathizer Marty could anagram plenty for us.

No, for that, we go LIVE to any old Trump rally, which merely mimics in large type, nearly every major and Republican political rally of the past 25 years, where armed filth are tolerated and the hate they plan to enforce with the NRA's blessing is in full display:

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/795815058697814016/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Can't watch this today.

If Clinton wins, I beseech (rhymes with impeach, so does that count?) her to extend a sweeping and gracious gesture to all who wish her dead or destroyed and try to carry that thru to Inauguration Day.

Go directly to their gerrymandered districts and walk among them and start a dialogue. Forgo obvious Secret Service protection.

Let's find out what their response is regardless of its extremity.

I also implore (because I am willing to deplore when needed. Right kids?) her to NOT take her supporters in all of the communities of this country for granted who have been terrorized by this election, as they have been taken too often by the Democratic Party in past cycles, and I'm speaking domestically.

But I also want her to acknowledge as well the grave concerns of those who differ with her on her past foreign policy actions and who expect a refined approach this time around.

If Trump wins, I expect to be identified as the enemy, just like always happens with these lot, but it will be horrifically worse.

There can be no credible backing off or apology from their malign rhetoric and violent actions during this awful year, so I plan to live up to their image of me, and then some.

It won't take the form of pointless blogging.

I depend too much on only one Amendment to the Constitution. I'm hankering to try out that other one that has brought so many so close to ruining the country.

It seems to work.

Michael cain,

One question provided a detailed bill of materials, a topo map, and asked the question, "As an officer, how would you build a bridge over this small river?" Enough space was provided to allow for extremely detailed answers. The correct answer for OCS was, "Sargent, take these men and this pile of sh*t and build a bridge over the river. I'll be back in four hours."

Really? That seems like a terrible answer that totally abdicates leadership's responsibilities. I'd reject anyone who gave it.

Maybe someone has mentioned this before, but is part of the problem people have with the Clintons getting rich that they weren't rich to begin with? No one cares if Richie Rich Bush makes a bunch of money on his name. He deserves it, sort of like royalty, anointed by pedigree so long ago.

Boomtown, I think you are missing the point. Which is that a leader is expected to set goals and objectives. And to then have the good sense to NOT micromanage the experienced technical experts as they get the job done.

Anyone here who has experience being micromanaged, especially by a boss with minimal training and experience in the field, can doubtless relate.

years and years of acrid smoke has convinced people there must be a fire. but if you look closely, you can see the GOP-brand™ smoke machines in the center of every reported fire and you can see the guys in the GOP-brand™ firefighters jackets manning those machines.

This is very true. In "The Power of Nightmares", a very interesting (though controversial) 3-part documentary on the rise of Al-Quaeda and its relationship to American neoconservatism, IIRC some of the very GOP operatives who confected some of the smoke (like Vince Foster's murder) own up to it.

"I'd reject it"

Well, Alec Guinness, in the "The Bridge On The River Kwai" took the exact opposite and extremely detailed, to his addled mind, responsible leadership approach, and look what happened to him and his bridge:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRHVMi3LxZE

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/11/how-and-why-to-report-men-with-guns-at.html

Every right-wing weapon that shows up at a polling place should be countered by ten big honking weapons carried openly by swarthy Clinton supporters very nearby, as in, in their faces.

Won't happen of course.

Do we know why?

wj,

Is "boomtown" me?

Well, if the sergeant is an expert at throwing together bridges from a pile of junk then fine. But if he doesn't know any more than I do then it's unreasonable to leave it to him. It's not micromanaging to help figure out what to do.

Being micromanaged is unpleasant, I agree, and bosses should avoid doing it. But I've also seen too many bosses who think it's heroic to "set goals" that are impossible, and refuse to listen to objections, offer advice, or help in any way. That's not leadership.

Back to the main topic.

I certainly don't hate Hillary. But there are things about the whole family that rub me the wrong way, and I don't think misogyny is the reason.

For one thing, the Clintons seem to me excessively greedy and entitled, even by the standards of successful former politicians. I recall when Chelsea got a $600K job as a rookie newscaster. That grated. So do the $225K speeches, and 3-4 million dollar/yr job - whatever it was - that Bill got at Laureate U.

Sorry, that kind of thing is irritating.

So do the $225K speeches

what's the going rate for a speech from a former Senator + First Lady + SecState ?

Condi Rice gets $150K, and she was part of W's fail-a-thon.

byomtov,

Maybe it was the seemingly crass way they went about it, or at least first Bill and then Hillary?

Bill & Hillary are sui genersis in a lot of ways, this being one of them it seems.

Well, if the sergeant is an expert at throwing together bridges from a pile of junk then fine. But if he doesn't know any more than I do then it's unreasonable to leave it to him. It's not micromanaging to help figure out what to do.

It's largely a matter of how our military is structured. NCOs are professional managers. Commissioned officers are executives, and at the lowest ranks they typically have far less relevant experience than even the junior enlisted personnel, as well as very broad sets of responsibilities (which they may or may not be trained for). Even if the officer was previously an NCO, they don't necessarily have experience with the particular tasks that the NCO does, whereas that's normally the NCO's job. It may sound pompous and aloof to set a task and walk away, but it's how we've structured our military - a professional NCO Corps, and an Officer Corps primarily staffed at the low levels by inexperienced college graduates.

(Ideally, a junior officer in an executive role understands they're inexperienced and listen to their senior NCOs before making decisions, as well. It doesn't always happen, but that's the theory of how it's supposed to work.)

Cleek,

Paying Rice $150K is also ridiculous.

I mean, WTF is going on?

byomtov, yup #%$¥& autocorrect!

The (not unreasonable) assumption in the military is that the NCOs always know more about how to do things than the junior officers. A lieutenant will have been around for 3 years tops; a Sargeant for at least double that, maybe 3-4 times. It Is possible to get a junior officer who actually does know something useful. But (mustangs excepted) that's definitely not the way to bet.

I mean, WTF is going on?

companies want big-name speakers for their events, and they pay what speakers ask.

Cleek, that's just supply and demand (with, in some cases, a supply of one). How dreadfully . . . capitalist.

It may sound pompous and aloof to set a task and walk away, but it's how we've structured our military - a professional NCO Corps, and an Officer Corps primarily staffed at the low levels by inexperienced college graduates.

Actually it's just a matter of the military preserving the traditional division of labor between the nobility/aristocrats and the masses. Some day a brilliant innovator may come up with a better paradigm. But so far, everybody is sticking with what is known to work.

So do the $225K speeches

IMO the extremely porous boundary between great big piles of money and positions of public responsibility smells. All of it.

That said, $225K is, amazingly enough, not out of line for speeches-for-hire by public figures. It's in the big leagues for sure, but far from exceptional.

I have no idea what makes a one-hour-or-less speech by anybody worth a quarter of a million dollars, but apparently it's a thing.

The wit & wisdom of Sarah Fncking Palin, yours for the low low price of $100,000.....

Actually it's just a matter of the military preserving the traditional division of labor between the nobility/aristocrats and the masses.

Yup. The class resentment between enlisted personnel and commissioned personnel makes this very clear; even if a lot of people don't recognize it as class resentment, it's very, very real. As someone who enlisted to commission before getting physically broken and riding out my contract as enlisted, this was very painfully obvious (it helped that my best friend, another broken OC, managed to get back to OCS despite the dramatically tightening standards after we were reclassed, but even w/o their perspective it was really glaring).

wj, nv, others,

OK. I give on the military example.

But in civilian life, at least in business environments I've worked in, that's a BS way of doing things.

If the boss tells you the product has to be ready by Dec. 31, he better be able to tell you why that's realistic, and provide resources and ideas that will help. Pounding his chest and saying, "Just get it done," is not helpful.

Chelsea Clinton didn't get 600K. That's one of those rightwing lies that has been debunked in Snopes.

Snopes says she have a 600k contract-- they debunk something else.

http://www.snopes.com/chelsea-clinton-made-900000-working-for-her-parents/

I think it's great that Chelsea made big bucks working for her parents. That way, she pays taxes on the money. If she just waited to inherit it, it might be a different story. So by all means, pay her a salary, a BIG salary.

For one thing, the Clintons seem to me excessively greedy and entitled, even by the standards of successful former politicians.

You know what? America is full of rich lawyers, and I'm guessing that their graduating year from Yale Law school is now full of millionaires, few of whom have the chance and the intention to do the good to e.g. the poor that HRC has. Also, those couture Ralph Lauren pantsuits aren't going to buy themselves. Their now net worth could have let them kick back and enjoy the spoils; she's not doing that.

And not just the poor, or women's and children's health and rights, but also and maybe most importantly climate change!

Maybe she can save The Donald's golf course.

That was a bold statement.

wj,

It was NBC. Check the Snopes link.

Thank you Donald. I read that a long time ago so I guess I remembered wrong.

http://billmoyers.com/story/last-night-3/#.WBbcZQzdLJu.twitter

Bill Moyers' take. He blames the media, and I think he has a point.

Now I voted for her, but I feel it is the strangely the most horrible vote and most necessary vote I've ever cast. Trump would be a horrible risk.

The Clintons are one of the deepest products of tribal politics so it is almost impossible to talk about them without invoking the protections of your side.

From my perspective the problem with the Clintons is the classic "the shocking part is what's legal". They have always been very lawyerly in how they institutionalize corrupt practices. It is a breadth and depth issue. I'm sure all sorts of politicians do individual things just as corrupt (but technically legal), but the Clintons do it big.

I would love to see the following things analyzed and explained using a classic progressive understanding of how money works in politics, but it is impossible because once you say "Clinton" the entire Democratic Party goes into battered spouse defense mode.

I’ve never heard a good non-corrupt explanation for how commodities trader and Clinton Foundation donor Rajiv Fernando got Clinton’s office to successfully push him onto the arms control oriented and top-secret clearance requiring International Security Advisory Board. Was it prosecutably illegal? I don’t care, I’d like to see a good explanation.

I’ve never seen a good explanation of why Sidney Blumenthal was getting $10,000 per month as a staff member of the Clinton Foundation while he was also pulling in about $200,000 a year doing unspecificed ‘consulting’ with Media Matters entities for multiple years–just another case of how being a Clinton loyalist can make you fantastically rich. Is it technically illegal? I don’t care, I’d like to hear a good explanation.

It isn’t remotely clear why the Saudi government was giving tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. I’m sure Clinton’s lawyers have reviewed it all to make sure it technically doesn’t break any laws, but Congress writes the corruption laws…

So, just as a start can I get a good non-corrupt explanation for Fernado?

So, just as a start can I get a good non-corrupt explanation for Fernado?

Everybody does it?

the Clintons do it big

Compared to who?

Compared to about 95% of Democratic Party politicians.

Are we only talking about (D)'s?

Is it that the Clintons do it particularly big? Or that they don't generally manage the hide it as well as others?

I'm not sure why the Blumenthal situation requires any explanation. You say it's technically legal (actually you said illegal but I believe you meant legal). Under what theory would it be illegal at all for Blumenthal do earn money from Media Matters and the Clinton Foundation?

Anyone who favored Clinton over Sanders on electability grounds was 100% right to do so, and I say this as someone who voted for Sanders in the primary.

He turned out to deal poorly with challenges from people very unlike himself. He learned to do better, and would presumably have done so in the general campaign. But Clinton has nothing to learn about challenges, however weird, brutal, and detached from reality. Sanders' campaign against Trump would have been littered with more lapses and bouts of recovery, while Clinton had none.

Further, a basic fact of American life now is that the Republican Party owns the majority of the while male vote. Not all white men fall for Republican lies, but a majority do. Clinton started off the campaign already popular with lots of the people who make up the Democratic basic - white women, African-American men and women, Latin@ men and women, and so on. Sanders clearly bears none of them ill wishes or anything like that, but he hasn't had to know a whole lot about their various particular needs and wishes, particularly ones that don't really boil down to economics. Clinton came in able to build on existing strengths.

For all the talk of her negatives, she's been able to inspire massive participation, including in the vital, structural get-out-the-vote stuff. That's electability in a nutshell. and it was foreseeable - and foreseen, by people with better judgment than me - at the time.

I’ve never heard a good non-corrupt explanation for how commodities trader and Clinton Foundation donor Rajiv Fernando got Clinton’s office to successfully push him onto the arms control oriented and top-secret clearance requiring International Security Advisory Board. Was it prosecutably illegal? I don’t care, I’d like to see a good explanation.

From Sid Blumenthal's mouth to your ears.

Took maybe 5 seconds to find on the inter-tubes.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad