I always felt Bill Clinton was a better politician that Hillary, especially when trying to win over a hostile crowd. Yesterday he was in Prestonsburg, (eastern) KY campaigning for his wife and confronting a crowd of pissed of coal miners.
Instead of a litany of possible policies that may or may not be passed by Congress, Bill went to their heart and empathized with them by citing personal experience and examples.
And he was honest about what the role of a politician should be. Truthfully, I would feel more comfortable if Bill was in charge of any economic diversification of the coal fields than a Hillary type technocrat.
And as has been discussed, her comments (which no seasoned politico would have made, no matter how they could have been construed) hurt her in the WV primary and will hurt her in the Ky primary.
R
——-excerpt———
“He recalled a miner he had represented in Arkansas when he was fresh out of law school — “five-foot-six and weighed 96 pounds dripping wet because he was dying from black lung disease and they never would give him his benefits.” Clinton won the case, he said, “and all of a sudden, I had 100 clients.”…
Clinton also vowed that if he finds himself back in the White House as the spouse of the nation’s chief executive, he will make the concerns of coal country part of his portfolio….
And then he was finished. There were a few more jeers. But this time, the applause nearly drowned them out.”
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-takes-on-protesters-in-coal-country/2016/05/13
5a2715d2-1931-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html
○ Bill Clinton takes on protesters in coal country | WaPo |
What a weak candidate that needs her husband to portray himself as the power behind the throne. What a slap in the face to independent women.
○ Bill Clinton explains Hillary’s policy, defends Israel | Ynet News |
Interesting what Bill said about the Israeli war crimes in Gaza, Egypt’s president Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood …. and Hillary’s role in stopping the hostilities. LMAO, what a load of bunk!
PS HRC’s preference for Turkey, Egypt’s Morsi, Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood as gratitude for Qatar’s royal(ty) support for Bill’s Foundation.
And almost all the professional feminists can’t even see that championing a woman that rode on her husband’s coattails is regressive and not consistent with feminism.
○ Hillary Clinton Says Bill Clinton Would Be in Charge of the Economy After Election | TIME |
That’ll sell with all the doofuses that believe the better economy on the ’90s was WHC’s doing. Sort of like what Billmon has said about S-Chip that it got done despite HRC’s unhelpful interference.
HRC is using WJC to help her with a big win in Kentucky, but this could be short sighted. An economic czar? The dot-com bubble grew during Bill’s 2nd term and burst in 2000. Some older people remember that since it took some years to recuperate the losses. Also, the door is now open to discuss the many neoliberal policies of the 1990’s, such as NAFTA. I can already hear Trump parodying Ross Perot’s giant sucking sound while discussing WJC’s new economic role.
WJC didn’t deliver that big win in Kentucky tonight and now HRC is stuck with saddling him as her economic “czar”. I’m surprised seasoned politicians would make such a mistake. Those people in eastern Kentucky didn’t buy WJC’s economic magic or his Southern roots. HRC was trounced in that area and western KY didn’t like WJC’s message either. The Clinton’s worked hard in KY and had the inside track due to the Lundergan family connections. (Alison better not wrap herself around HRC too close or she’ll be in hot water next election.) It’s true that HRC was declared the unofficial winner tonight by Lundergan, but it was a very embarrassing win. I’m proud of those Democrats in KY for standing up to the establishment. Kentuckians have an independent streak and this primary was closed, as well.
good to hear, frankly I couldn’t look last night. I can’t believe this economic czar business – he’s a spouse and he’s talking about his portfolio. I mean, “just say no” or literacy, ok, but reviving the economy?
Not saddled with anything. May be the most authentic thing she and her campaign have said. But the announcement was premature. Necessitated by her inability to close the deal and make Bernie go away. (HRC had planned on and needed three months of down time after the primaries to recharge her batteries.) They were saving it for the general election if needed, but likely preferred to hold it back for her first big act as POTUS.
I noticed the split in KY last night. I’m not that familiar with it but know the general lay out. The small and large farms, small manufacturing, small town retail and the mts did not buy the Clinton’s message. The large, rich farms, financial, governmental and legal centers (with their associated service industry). That is telling.
R
Yes, it’s very telling. Too many Democrats doing well financially have forgotten the political philosophy of FDR. Why? Because the Democratic elites have forgotten this philosophy. Looking at the election in historical time: Abraham Lincoln “country” voted for Bernie; Mary Todd Lincoln “country” voted for Clinton.
Fayette County (Lexington) Bernie 45% Clinton 52.8%
LaRue County (Hodgenville) Bernie 51.6% Clinton 34.7%
With 100% reporting: Clinton win by .4%.
http://www.wlky.com/election-results
I wonder how many professional feminists there really are to hover around HRC? For the average person, HRC’s efforts to make this election a big accomplishment for women’s rights rings hollow for several reasons. The 1970’s ended over 35 years ago. Are there any “ERA” meetings and marches scheduled? I don’t see much. I’m sure there are conferences, but there are conferences for everything nowadays. Naturally, some older women will be excited, but much of their attention is focused on grandchildren, hobbies or working because they can’t afford to retire. Sadly, some of her potential supporters are no longer with us, because HRC is not that far from 70 years old!
Also, HRC has high untrustworthy ratings so people know she just wants the presidency for herself, not to advance women’s rights. HRC = the presidency is just a big dud.
maybe one step worse imo, some % of it is Bill pushing her for his third term [ok, Clinton supporters, you can step in now with expressions of how rude are the Sanders supporters].
Errol,
I think it is even more than Bill’s pushing her for his third term….he pushes her and she him. His first two terms were theirs, and they want a third.
She is the opposite of an independent woman. These two are so enmeshed that they are like a single orqanism.
It is almost like folie a deuX…-they believe that they are the Emperor/Empress of the globe/world.
yes, I would agree with that assessment, enmeshed, yes. I still can’t get over that Bill talked about his “portfolio” – that’s what cabinet officers have, not first spouses. wow!
OTOH we should run a blog pool on how much they will have enriched themselves at the term midpoint (like Bloomberg in NY, ultimately tripled his net worth)
Perhaps it should be called Celebrity feminism. Katy Perry, Kardashian, Meryl Streep, etc.
Woman that have done well professionally and financially and are now pushing on the equal pay envelope for themselves.
I think we must amend: that spouse of living ex prez or ex vp not be allowed to run. Here’s my plan: a few years after the amendment is introduced, Michelle runs for president …
Make it immediate family members. Parents, spouse, siblings, children. No more than two terms as POTUS and two terms as VPOTUS within forty-eight years. Thus, even if he were selected in 2000, GWB would have been gone by 2005 and another Bush wouldn’t be eligible for many years to come.
Also if John Doe serves two terms as POTUS, none of the other Does would be eligible for VPOTUS because are ineligible for POTUS.
VPOTUS must have the same rules as POTUS. but I see what you’re saying about children, yes say 5 terms or something, so children not completely ruled out. but I’d say, only 2 terms period or unlimited terms [if we want to go back to that] for prez, then immediate family members ruled out for, say 4 terms, 5 terms something, POTUS and V
I’m sticking with four terms maximum and that can only be obtained by starting at VPOTUS. I’d probably prefer to limit it to a combined total of three terms (VPOTUS and POTUS) for a family.
Don’t feel any inclination to be “fair” to legacy candidates. It’s two freaking unique jobs in the US and there are too many people that have the talent, education, skills, experience to do an excellent job for a handful of people, mostly second-rate to dominate these two jobs.
sorry, I meant 5 terms before a family member can run, not 5 terms total. Personally,
I would start with amending that spouses of living ex prezes are not eligible. I think children is a different category, not worth messing with especially since there’s major precedent for it.
whether the president has 2 terms or 3 or 4 or unlimited is something already amended, if ppl want to mess with that go ahead.
The kids of a two term POTUS can go for any job they want except one. That’s not a hardship and considering how much money is now bestowed on former presidents, the kids will all have a very privileged life.
As I was discussing in another thread, name recognition in elections is so powerful that pol kids already have a disproportionate advantage. And when a select few names dominate media, it makes it that much more difficult for those worthy of holding public office to break through.
I agree with the sentiment but not with the proposal. In fact I think the “Roosevelt Amendment” should be repealed and maybe the Constitution amended on that native born thing. I believe the public deserves maximum choice. This is like super-delegates deciding how you should vote.
How can voters have choice when political dynasties are allowed to flourish? They dominate the political party elites and then the money and MSM follows them and nobody else with the full knowledge that name recognition alone gets at least half the votes.
People don’t have to be sheeple! They have minds. They can think. The thought that he who has the most mindless TV ads wins is what brought us to this fraudulent point.
People are also lazy. Name recognition allows voters to skip the thinking part.
One of the most frequent google searches in SC right before that primary was “is Jeb Bush related to George Bush?”
Wasn’t that a state that voted overwhelmingly Clinton?
Let’s not go there. I’m sure all SC Democratic primary voters were fully informed and 74% just love HRC.
This article is dated, but the contradictions between independence and “damsel in distress” are discussed. Could this election be predicted by the number of radio stations that play both Helen Reddy and Tammy Wynette back-to-back? What an interesting concept.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/clintons-helen-reddytammy_b_79813.html
Reading about Helen Reddy made me think of one of my favorites.
A more appropriate title for this article is: “Protesters in coal country take on Bill Clinton”, but then it is the Washington Post. A little birdie told me that those counties in eastern Kentucky are Bernie country. We’ll see if those people are in sync with Babs.
Speaking to people after the WV primary. They voted for Sanders and could not imagine voting for HRC. One woman said Never.
R
I’ve heard that statement myself.
same here. and the reaction I saw in some pro Clinton diaries was interesting: they concluded that the people who said that were Rs who registered as D to defeat Clinton. Suggestion to Clinton campaign: get out of your bubble and look around at how people are hurting. and by that I don’t mean because it so hard to find good help these days.
I’m afraid HRC campaign has Romneyitis. It listens to itself and the narrative of its friends in the media. Truth is, there is a disconnect between the “knowledge” workers and the manual workers (to use a 10 yr old meme). The knowledge workers have done well, the others not so much. They are the wage earners who have been squeezed by stagnant wages and increasing costs.
Its a trite cliché, but like all clichés, there are elements of truth in them. HRC and supporters are the knowledge workers. Trump or not HRC are the manual workers. If the President was elected by raw vote count, it may not make a difference; but in an electoral system you have to look at each state. And in many states, the winners in today’s economy are segregated into urban enclaves or satellite communities; the rest of the state are the current losers or barely hanging ons. So for example, can HRC carry Penn based on Philadelphia, Pittsburg, a few smaller towns and lose the rest of the state? I don’t know enough about the state to comment but based on that Guardian map referenced in another thread; it looks fairly daunting.
R
Sanders has a positive appeal to the non HRC crowd. that’s where the dem party is missing the boat. Trump may appeal, but he offers no path forward except for vague rants – people see that, they would vote for someone who offers an actual way forward
How about we use “salaried and high compensation workers” and “non-salaried workers” instead of knowledge vs manual workers? All require a certain knowledge and skill-set and various degrees of physical exertion, and not all those “knowledge workers” are all that bright and know all that much.
It’s quite rare for the Electoral College to produce a different winner from the popular vote. (Didn’t even happen in 2000 if all the votes in FL had been counted.) Dismissing the popular vote over the past few decades in favor of the focus on the EC hasn’t done democracy any good.
Personally I think elections are not that influenced by the strategic/crossover voter; however, the concept of strategic/crossover voter is useful for spinmeisters when explaining why a candidate lost an election or won an election. Seriously examining crossover/strategic voting is reserved for political scientists. I found this link which addresses the issue.
http://www.polmeth.wustl.edu/files/polmeth/alvar99b.pdf
The bottom line is that there is very little crossover voting in general or primary elections regardless of open or closed primaries. The amount of strategic voting in primaries is small.
HRC supporters are living in a bubble if they think Rs are crossing over and voting for Sanders just to defeat Clinton. That does not mean that there are not Rs who are intentionally voting for Sanders. I know of some Rs who voted for Sanders because they didn’t like HRC or Trump.