Yesterday would have been a good day to do some political blogging. Unfortunately, I was busy working on the imminent launch of our new site for the Washington Monthly, including the digital version of our new June/July/August issue of the magazine.
I’m tired now. Too tired to write anything good.
I do want to congratulate Hillary Clinton on winning the Democratic nomination. I think we should all take a moment to reflect on the milestone that was reached here, with this country having a woman as the presidential nominee of a major party for the first time ever.
In a way, Clinton made this seem natural and almost inevitable, but that shouldn’t detract from its novelty or the progress it represents.
She sure got gifted with a hell of an opponent in Donald Trump, didn’t she? What a wreck that dude is!
The distinction between the left and the right in this country could not be more stark tonight. Watching Fox News is a strange experience. It’s like watching people do commentary at their own funerals.
This is why it was necessary for Senator Sanders to carry his campaign through to the end.
Yeah. He’s got a big pile of delegates, some good representation on the power committees, and he’s got a seat at the table.
Progressives have made some major strides.
Kevin Drum had an interesting analogy: most consequential insurgent presidential campaign since Reagan in 1976?
Only if we keep fighting.
Golwater ’64 became
Reagan ’68 became
Reagan ’76
became Reagan ’80
I have my doubts.
Why? Give the powerful wave of support from what is now the largest generation of Americans (millenials), isn’t it likely that wave continues to roll forward?
This I don’t get.
The Clintons strangle progressives to death. I remain unclear why anyone thinks we have won anything.
In any case the concern trolling about Bernie has been a case study hypocrisy.
The person claiming that “The Clintons strangle progressives to death” is complaining others are participating in concern trolling.
If we keep our movement together, we retake the Senate majority in November. Who would take the gavel of the Senate Budget Committee? Bernie. The only thing that could deprive Senator Sanders the Budget chairmanship is our movement fracturing.
Let’s keep our heads, shall we?
You were for Bernie?
Must have missed that.
Regarding progressives and Clinton, ask Mary Wright Edelman.
You’re unresponsive to the fact that we’re about to win Bernie the Budget Chairmanship if we keep our Movement together. Why?
Wielding Edelman as a shibboleth is enormously tiresome. Hillary is running on increasing our investments in social welfare programs. History did not end in 1997.
She defended welfare reform in 2008.
But this is about poor people – so I guess it is tiresome.
Hillary is running on increasing our investments in social welfare programs. History did not end in 1997.
Yes, but there’s a really decent chance that Hillary won’t enact the policies of Eugene Debbs, so we might as well say fuck it and vote Trump.
Tweet and response tweet
Had the primary not been rigged in multiple ways, I could accept the loss graciously enough. As it is, it feels a lot like a few prior elections.
mmmmm, bile for dinner (again)!
Not in 1972 and not this year. But the gloaters remain as short-sighted and ignorant as ever.
Joan Walsh, December 2014:
http://www.thenation.com/article/whos-ready-hillary/
“…if Clinton gets a genuine primary challenger from her left, so be it. Senator Bernie Sanders could run an inspiring campaign, and I might even vote for him. I’m more skeptical of the efforts to draft Senator Elizabeth Warren, who I think could play a huge role in the Senate, but would only break progressive hearts–witness the disappointment over her support for Israel and new military moves in Iraq–and waste her time with a presidential campaign. (I’m distinguishing here between a genuine, sincere challenge from Warren and a desperate “anybody but Hillary” draft-Warren campaign from the left.)…
…I recoil at the Hillary hate because it seems so gendered. I don’t mean to accuse my Clinton-critical colleagues of sexism, exactly. It’s just that, in my own experience, it’s never enough for critics of a female leader to say that she isn’t qualified, or that she’s the wrong choice, or that she’s made this or that mistake. A woman has to be described as the absolute worst, and she has to be destroyed.
Whether from the left or the right–and there’s remarkable overlap in the story lines offered by Clinton-haters across the political spectrum–headlines that blare Stop Hillary! always make me think they’re talking about Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. They depict Clinton as not merely a bad choice, but a dangerous one. There are valid policy reasons to oppose a Clinton candidacy. It’s too bad so much of the rhetoric and imagery used against her traffics in an unconscious discomfort with the power of women.”
Iraq.
Syria.
Welfare Reform.
Nafta.
Two faced on trade policy
Wall Street.
Clinton defenders raise gender like a reflex to avoid the truth: this was about policy.
Ideology.
Not gender
fladem, it’s the rabid, fact-twisting intensity of the hatred of the Clintons with which we disagree.
Hillary’s ideology doesn’t match mine. But I’m willing to see her and her campaign for what they are. I’m not interested in spinning straw and strafing it with flamethrowers.
Your listing of actual events is a strawman?? Must be another word that has NO meaning.
We could have a discussion on each of the bill of particulars fladem offers. That you think titles of events/issues comprise dispositive discussions of them, or that this brief list provides a fair reading of Hillary’s campaign or her record, is revealing.
You always seek to make it about personalities, not policies.
I stated very clearly that we could have a discussion on each of the bill of particulars fladem listed. I thirst to talk about policies. You may have noticed.
That’s what bothers me so much about much of the rhetoric offered. It’s heavily dependent on personal animus.
For example, trade. Hillary opposes the TPP as negotiated. What does the typical opponent of Hillary do with that? “She’s lying.”
For example, foreign policy. Hillary supports the Iran nuclear deal. What does the typical opponent of Hillary do with that? “She’s lying.”
Look at the platform Hillary is running on. It’s highly progressive, across the damn board. What does the typical opponent of Hillary do with that? “She’s lying.”
Let’s talk policy.
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-pushes-colombia-free-trade-agreement-latest-email-dump-232606
8
State has locked up all her e-mails on the subject of TPP until after the election. There was a FOI filed last yr from International Business Times.
The TPP wasn’t close to being fully negotiated when Clinton left the State Department in 2012. Her emails wouldn’t be conclusive of anything.
The agreement is in Congressional hands. Hillary’s opposition to the deal makes it more likely that Congress will reject it. If Congress doesn’t ratify it, it won’t be implemented.
I wasn’t supportive of the Colombia agreement. But I mean, for fuck’s sake, read the story.
From the reporting:
“During her 2008 presidential run, Clinton said she opposed the deal because “I am very concerned about the history of violence against trade unionists in Colombia.” She later declared, “I oppose the deal. I have spoken out against the deal, I will vote against the deal, and I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.”
…
One of the 2011 emails from Clinton to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and Clinton aide Robert Hormats has a subject line “Sandy Levin” — a reference to the Democratic congressman who serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees U.S. trade policy. In the email detailing her call with Levin, she said the Michigan lawmaker “appreciates the changes that have been made, the national security arguments and Santos’s reforms” — the latter presumably a reference to Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos.”
You, and Sirota, are laying a charge poorly supported by the facts. These highly character-based attacks, over and over, become less and less persuasive to me.
I’m sure Donald Trump’s trade policies would be so great, you wouldn’t believe how great, we’d get sick of how great they would be. He cares about Latin Americans, right?
And TTIP is still on her campaign page’s to-do list.
Please share the link to her campaign page, the text of this particular part of her to-do list, and your interpretation of that policy plank.
I went there and found it once; you can too, if it has not been edited. Or, alternatively, link me to a public statement of hers that even mentions it.
Cause Google is coming up blank for me.
Best I could find was this quote….”Can you make it go away?”– John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman
A compendium of her statements does not include it…http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-pushes-colombia-free-trade-agreement-latest-email-dump-232606
8
You mean like this?
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/02/voting_for_bernie_sanders_is_a_feminist_act.h
tml
This deserves a long discussion on how tribes need one word signals to identify. Right wing media has fined tuned this, so when republicans meet it takes one word signals to start self affirming conversations. Shout ‘Benghazi!’ and they fall all over themselves to join in.
So listing ‘Iraq’ in this context is supposed to bring memories of Clinton ineptitude. But for me, not being ‘of the tribe’, it brings memories of Bush screwing the pooch. I’m not part of the tribe, so I lose the signal.
These signifiers have existed forever, but that the two best current practitioners are republicans and Online Sanders supporters is interesting. It’s not the only similar rhetorical tactic. Projection, being insulting but accusing opponents of being uncivil, being most comfortable speaking to themselves, having the only opinion that matters, dismissing, trashing a thread with pictures so it’s hard to read others, it goes on and on.
It’s all interesting, but the purpose is common. Dismiss those that are not of the group, and don’t recognize the signifiers.
.
Signifiers serve to contextualize. EVERYONE uses them. It puts the event in its setting, allowing it to take complex meaning .
You think Benghazi is not a signifier for Dems, too? You just proved it is.
Signifiers can be used to create factually false but self-enforcing beliefs among the members of the tribe.
Like Benghazi.
Like Whitewater.
Like TPP.
Like Iran.
Like “neoliberal”.
Like “Goldwater Girl.”
Yes, they do.
These people have been patting themselves on the back for almost a year now. Meanwhile Trump has so far eventually won every confrontation…with candidates opposing him for the nomination, with the media and with the RatPublican Party…that came his way.
The mechanism in that .gif above? I could easily be altered to be used as either a masturbation tool or a spanker.
Two conventions from now? We’ll see what the polls say.
November? We’ll see what the voters say.
If the DemRats keep on denigrating Trump’s undeniable power with a large segment of the population and telling themselves what saints they are for having nominated a right-centrist female thet are quite likely to get their asses handed to them in November despite all the efforts of the PermaGov-owned media to make Trump look silly.
He is not silly. He’s dangerous!!!
Get that into your heads, leftiness scum!!!
Attack, attack, attack!!! Real attacks, not just looking down your noses at how crude he is. Yes, he is crude. So was Hitler, so were the people who elected him and so are the people that support Trump. Lording it over them just makes them mad. Someone a common touch on the level of JFK/RFK would have a good shot at taking Trump down. Hard!!!
Hillary has all the common touch of a high-levell bureaucrat. Trump is licking his lips right now.
Watch.
And…WTFU!!!
AG
I’m genuinely sorry to hear that.
I’m a huge fan of Klein and her brilliant, fearless, groundbreaking work — I’m sorry she’s not getting anything from this historic moment. (Of course the argument could be made that the fact it feels so humdrum and de rigueur itself represents a kind of victory.)
“I should feel a thrill right now. I grieve that I don’t.”
I dare you to say that and keep a straight face. That’s not real emotion, that’s a rhetorical pose.
No matter where you go, there is always a bitter, angry, nasty person who wants to take a poop on the new carpet.
.
Yep. That’s just what I thought too.
I’m agreeing with the comment that Klein’s statement, “I grieve that I don’t” is a “rhetorical pose.”
You know some people are better at phrases.
Are you saying that a professional writer is ill-equipped to form phrases? Your comment is like a stab wound to my heart. It tears at the very fabric of my soul.
Enjoying the rich opportunities for satire on this thread.
Life is high school.
The back of one hand pressed, trembling, to her forehead as she sinks onto the chaise longue, one small, bitter tear trickling slowly down her pallid cheek….
It feels humdrum to me. This has nothing to do with being a Bernie supporter. To me as a guy, its almost a non event. Of COURSE a woman can be the nominee. No reason she can’t win. So its weird to think of this as a glass ceiling break.
Well, the fact that it has never happened suggests that it is exceedingly difficult for a woman to achieve, no?
This is just perfect.
Thank you. I assure you the phrasing was intentional.
Knowing you, I don’t doubt it.
Clinton defends welfare reform, which has as its target poor women, and particularly women of color.
Maybe that’s why Klein feels that way. She has seen the betrayal before.
I thought Ms Klein is Canadian….
I may be wrong but I think she has dual citizenship. Her parents were Americans who left for a new start in Canada during the Vietnam war. Course they could have renounced their citizenship when/if they became Canadian.
If the primary was rigged then it would have also been rigged against Biden, O’Malley, etc right? Everyone knew the rules going in so I’m not sure what this is about.
If Bernie had won more votes in more states he would have been the winner tonight. He just fell short of winning a race that was never expected to be competitive. That’s what makes it bitter.
You don’t think that AP and the major networks announcing on primary morning that the primary was meaningless and would have not effect didn’t have an effect on the results?
Not sure how to respond to that. Anyone with functioning eyes and a brain knew that it was “over” well before last night, yet many supporters nonetheless voted for their preferred candidates (Trump is still winning primaries, isn’t he?). People who weren’t aware of that seem unlikely to me to have been swayed by an AP report. In any event, I don’t think it shifts a few hundred thousand votes in CA, if that’s what this is getting at, nor do I think it’s necessarily correct to assume that any impact disproportionately affected a particular candidate’s supporters.
As in, how? As in the electorate was more informed when they went to the polls? That fewer people believed that they were voting for president instead of for delegates at a convention?
As in why vote if it can have no effect?
This is different from saying that HRC will probably win or the presumptive nominee. Whatever network I watched in the morning said that the Virgin Islands put her over and it was impossible for sanders to win as opposed to improbable. Those 650,000 new voters might go for a long shot but why bother with an impossible shot? Not to mention Steven D’s reports of massive disenfranchisement.
An effect? Sure. An effect that would alter the outcome of the race? No.
Bernie didn’t lead in a single poll in California. At best, he was going to split the delegates there about 50-50, in which case she’d still have secured the necessary delegates to win a majority of the vote and pledged delegates in the primaries.
And that was if the online pollsters were right. Everybody latched onto those polls because they showed a close race.
Apparently nobody noticed the SurveyUSA poll. Understandably, perhaps, as it didn’t make for the sexy story. Because the SurveyUSA said the whole time Bernie was going to get blown out. Turned out they were right. That’s why they get heavier weighting in models like Silver’s.
She won primarily on the backs of early voters who were unaffected by the AP story.
SUSA wasn’t right. It takes days for California to count.
Still, I find the idea Sanders lost because of voter suppression WITH ONE EXCEPTION difficult to take seriously.
The exception: Iowa. I think but for the long lines and bad planning Bernie would have won. This is based on personal experience and direct testimony for others.
Well, it was rigged to the extent that Biden couldn’t even get into the race and the doors to big money that O’Malley needed were closed and the MSM ignored him. Neither of them are likely to have been the ’16 Obama to Clinton, but Clinton wasn’t going to take any chances on that either of them could have bested her.
Maybe Bernie did win more votes. We’ll have to wait for that research to be completed and that book written. Although, even from a distance, it has been less difficult to election shenanigans in this primary than were apparent in real time in the 1972 and 2000 general election.
maybe bernie won more votes? in what universe? did you see how many votes he got in the nd caucus compared to how many votes were cast in sd? did you pay attention when wa primary had hundreds of thousands more votes cast for clinton than were cast for bernie in the caucus that selected the delegates? the level of stupid. it kills me.
In your view, how were the primaries rigged? And to whose benefit? (After all, Clinton got a few million more total votes, won more states, won more pledged delegates, etc.)
Everything you wrote about Clinton is wtong. The irrefutable proof is in Marie3’s comment above. Anyone can see that.
350 people voted in the North Dakota (population 730000) caucuses yesterday.
For comparison, 50000 people voted in the South Dakota (population 850000) primaries.
North Dakota was a caucus, like Iowa.
Hence the smaller numbers compared to an actual voting primary where you go vote and are done in a few moments.
I’m highlighting that distinction.
Yes. And? Didn’t Clinton end up with millions more votes than Sanders?
“Watching Fox News is a strange experience. It’s like watching people do commentary at their own funerals.”
Very interesting. BooMan, since I refuse to go anywhere near Fox, can you elaborate? (Or, can somebody else elaborate since our host is probably tired from all his noble efforts over at the magazine?)
In other news, the Trump stuff over the last week or so is really interesting. I’m beginning to think that he’s literally just so stupid that he doesn’t understand that the general election isn’t just a straight trajectory from his primary victory (and the totally unlikely set of convergent circumstances that led to it).
Bernie’s speech begins around 2:20:00-
And freaking Hillary is going to have to deal with this: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-north-korea-restarts-plutonium-production-nuclear-bombs-0305
46875.html
Who is she going to bribe? Or will she just have the news media deny it? Maybe G-S wants to float bonds to finance them and Hillary will sanction it?
Maybe we will be lucky and Obama will destroy these facilities before the Big Shill takes office.
it seems like they do this every couple years, I think China slapped them down last time
Bad for business. Corporations are taking over there,too.
what does that have to do with N. Korea resuming their nuclear program?
Please go to North Korea yourself to deal with it. Your diplomatic skills, especially your nuanced phrasing of complicated issues, are widely known and admired.
I’d go in a B-52, so I think you are being facetious.
Are American songwriters up to the task of creating a songbook for America’s first modern era female leader. The Brits did a bang up job!
Like this?
https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcXi-VYy_Yw
Or this?
https:
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t4-zDem1Sk
I’m sure this will be quite profitable for David.
Too much truth in that tweet for you?
easy money. that’s all.
You understand that profiting from rage is not just a right-wing thing, right?
yeah Sirota & Greenwald will have lots of clicks for a while since everyone basically tunes them out about the President at this point
I wouldn’t lump those two together. Greenwald is an actual journalist. Sirota’s just a overly-emotional child.
I find that to be a stretch but everyone has their point of view
Yeah, if only we could vote for a candidate with real integrity and consistency.
Y’know, like John Edwards.
Oh, Drew, that one drew blood.
Too much truth for marie3, I fear.
hope you were working the CA primary yesterday. I knew the haters-for-Hillary couldn’t resist piling on (your comment above). Now what will they do with their bitterness (or, wonder if they’re off the payroll already).
OTOH Sanders and Obama meeting is great news, maybe Obama will help preserve some of his legacy, also Convention appointments. We’re not going anywhere as a few stated on previous thread
O, along with all the Democratic elites, want the same thing now that they’ve wanted for months and that’s for Bernie to get out of the race because he’s hurting brand big D by revealing what it’s become.
Obama put that incompetent woman at State and has paved the way for her to replace him. That will be his legacy.
The “haters-for-Hillary” can now spend the next five months basking in Boo’s daily Trump-dump piece (assuming Trump doesn’t do a runner) and continue bullying anyone that dares to speak the truth about their idol.
Not that truth-tellers will bother to post much after the convention because at the presidential level the most important election this year was in the primary. We tend to speak loudest before the die is cast and then have to sit back and watch what was easily foretold to unfold. Not much different from the 1972 and 2000 general elections and Iraq War Resolution. (Would add the military adventures in Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria as well.) What does piss off those like me is that those that took so much personal pride in winning never own the outcome. How many HRC supporters now gloat over the failed Libyan state? Not that they can cite anything that HRC has done and supports that gives them the warm fuzzies.
Haters for Hillary? Give me a break.
It turns out thAt people can look at the record and draw different conclusions than you do. That does not make them haters.
As far as your contempt for Booman goes, why return here if he bothers you so much?
Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit is it?
Do you have any clue as to why put the term “haters-for-Hillary” in quotes? I tend to prefer terms such as lIKErs and Bushies when referring to those that seem blinded by a personality or celebrity instead of how such people act towards others. Mostly because “haters for …” is how most express themselves. Or have you already forgotten how much hate the Bushies dished out for those that for rational and articulated reasons opposed the public policies of their idol? “Killing the messenger” is cheap and thoughtless and as popular among Democratic partisans as it is among Republicans, tea-baggers, CPACers, etc.
Why here? Because it allowed for various opinions and discourse without irrational rancor until rather recently.
“…irrational rancor…”.
Gee, why has that followed you around recently?
It’s quite unfair, and representative of our rigged system, that other people get to have different opinions from yours. Will no one rid you of these troublesome Frog Ponders?
It’s called projection. And I have never seen a more professional practitioner.
Ever.
.
Oh, I remember well the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks and the for-us-or-against-us poison that we were all subjected to.
Your quotation marks (“haters for Hillary”) didn’t mean a lot to me. Enclosing words in quotation marks like that only works to convey sarcasm or irony if that differs from the overall tone of the passage.
And I haven’t got a clue about the meaning of some of your other acronyms, such as “lIKErs” and “CPACers”. I realize that some people really like to use that sort of stuff, but I don’t.
I never commented on this blog until a few months ago, and I haven’t noticed an increase in, as you put it, “irrational rancor”. Lots of sarcastic/ironic remarks, of course, including both yours and mine.
“I never commented on this blog until a few months ago, and I haven’t noticed an increase in, as you put it, ‘irrational rancor’.”
I’ve been reading and commenting on this blog or over eight years, and I sure have noticed it. There has of course always been plenty of difference of opinion here, but a lot more congeniality and civility until the 2016 campaign got under way.
I think the congeniality was largely due to the thoughtful tone set by our moderator, as well as the genuine desire of most commenters to have actual conversations about issues, and even the particular technology of this blog, which allows for fairly extended discussions.
But it’s also important that we shared a lot of common ground — all of us were against Bush and most of us ranged from extremely to at least somewhat positive about Obama.
Now, if you recall, in 2008, ust when I came aboard, Obama was running a spirited and ultimately victorious campaign against … Hillary Clinton. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there was no great admiration for the Clintons on this blog … until recently.
Ultimately, the change came about because of differing reactions to Obama’s support for Hillary’s latest presidential bid, or to Sanders’s challenge to Hillary, as well as because of an influx of new commenters who support Hillary.
These frictions have resulted in a style of interaction that may well be termed “irrational rancor”. To me it has appeared that the pro-Sanders people have mainly attacked Hillary, on a policy basis, whereas the pro-Hillary people have tended to trivialize and demonize Sanders supporters even more than they have attacked Sanders himself.
the preferred (i.e., to Gore) outcome would have been in the more-important 2000 primary.
It was my impression that it was Sanders who requested a meeting with the president. What do you suppose happened? Obama snapped his fingers and Sanders came running with his tail between his legs? ‘
You could spend the next 5 months Photoshopping this. Put devil horns on them or something else subtle.
Why would I want to photoshop a picture that speaks a thousand words all on its own?
Contrary to your opinion of me, I have been known to chastise people that do cheap things like add devil horns to pictures of HRC, Obama, and others. Don’t much like it when Democrats did similar stunts to denigrate Bush/Cheney, but didn’t bother to chastise them because then they would only have called me a “Bush lover.”
But just for you and all the newly minted “Bush lovers” at the Pond, have another authentic photo:
This is like one of those Republican sites posting pictures of Obama wearing something African as proof he’s really from Kenya. Yeah, Hillary is nice to Republicans in person. That’s what politicians do, especially ones who have spent a lot of time in South. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
It’s strange that someone would think this would resonate. Clinton was First Lady for 8 years, then a senator, then SoS for 4 years. She has been in the spot light for 26+ years. She has had her picture taken with EVERYONE. Hugged thousands, laughed with hundreds of thousands.
The mental processes of human beings are inexplicable.
.
“newly minted ‘Bush lovers'”
Good Gawd.
Please let us know what the photo is. Context. I think we’ve all seen those photos in which all living US ex-presidents pose with the sitting president. They all smile and shake hands, kind of like in those staged photos when the US president means some foreign head of state.
I don’t have an opinion of you, Marie3. I do have an opinion of your prose, just as you have an opinion of mine. In that sense, we presently do not belong to a mutual admiration society. It is possible that that will change.
MEETS some foreign head of state. aargh.
So easy to yank your chain.
Please feel free to post the pictures of Jacqueline Kennedy and Lady Bird Johnson canoodling with former Presidents Nixon and Ford.
So, no contrary to your assertion, it hasn’t been common practice for politicians of the opposing party to become buds with a former president. They’re cordial at best at public functions.
See, this is the kind of trivial level of discussion I’m talking about. That is not just some random picture of two people who happen to be acquainted. Rather, it illustrates in a deeply concrete manner what could be more fully understood with the help of a little research: that the rise of the Clintons has been inseparable from their connections with the Bush forces. Jackson Stephens and all that.
http://articles.philly.com/1993-01-17/news/25959645_1_worthen-bank-stephens-family-bill-clinton
May she draw up her kill lists wisely.
First, kill all the economists.
I would really hate to get nailed by a drone going home from a brew pub.
Congratulations to Hillary.
Congratulations to Sanders for his decisive wins in Montana and South Dakota. The wins in these two states, which have always been key to any democratic wins in Presidential general elections, show how necessary it is for the super delegates to wait until the convention before committing.
Throughout this race, Sanders is the only democratic candidate that has shown the ability to bring out the key demographic, by winning where that demographic dominates. With wins in Montana, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, and West Viginia, Sanders has shown his strength in the only voters that should count.
Clinton, through her barely squeezing by in unimportant states like California, New York, Florida, New Jersey, and Ohio, has only shown that she appeals to the type of democratic voter who is completely uninformed on the issues, and is only willing to vote for whom their church says is acceptable. These wins also show the corruption and voter suppression that Clinton worshippers are capable of.
It is only appropriate that the super delegates now ignore the voters that supported the neoliberal cheater, Hillery Clinton. Those particular Clinton demographics have constantly shown the inability to discern what is actually good for them, so it only makes sense that the superior demographic that Sanders represents,, the only one that actually pays attention, show them the way to true freedom from their oppressors.
Montana and North Dakota have shown the way. Let’s bring our Democratic Party back from the brink of being dominated by those people, and let the true demographic rise ascendent again.
Are you listening, super Delegates?
.
Well-executed Swiftian satire.
Well nalbar, after months of enduring the goings-on around here, this comment had to be cathartic.
Well, it got me a 0 from the only demographic that matters on Booman Tribune. At least that’s what they tell themselves in the fever dream they consider reality.
.
.
You forgot Oklahoma.
Poster child.
You.
Best loser you ever saw, but I am the worst winner you will ever run into. Once, after a win at rally cross, I mooned an opponent. And he was a friend. If you talk shit before, you better back it up during.
Winners talk, losers walk. It’s the American way.
.
What a shame.
Don’t talk shit, it’s all friendly. Talk shit, you’ll get payback.
There is NO shame in that. However, I can see how shit talkers might want everyone who wins to be quiet. That way they are the only ones talking.
I’ll say it again;
When you have a cracker to your left, a southern belle who wants to rebuild Tara on your right, a grifter in front of you, and two people behind you shouting to burn it all down,
then you’re the mark.
.
If Hillary wins in November, and gets 2 terms, there will be an entire swath of American children like Peanut, who will enter the voting booth for the first time at 18, having only known a Black man and a woman as President. How that group will see the world is vastly different than people just 10 years older than them.
Precisely.
Al Giordano wow. Ok, sure, run for office, why not, but I remember some of the things he said about the Clintons eight years ago, so this has been an, uh…interesting turnaround.
Hasn’t it? I am sure he is getting ready to cheer for our coming adventures in his beloved Latin America.
Or maybe he can’t bear to watch and that’s why he wants to move back to Vt.
I just can’t wait ’til we move past the boring ‘Look how bad Trump is!’ and mindless ‘This time Clinton really won, for reals, really!’ posts and start talking about what both things mean for the Democratic Party, and the country, moving forward.
Guess the next shock will be her appointments. Gonna love seeing the embrace those enjoy from our members.
I nominate Victoria Nuland for Sec of State. Anybody top that? Must be a reasonable chance of occurring…
Do you think anyone will be shocked? Despite her reputation, Clinton (to her credit, I think) is quite clear about who she is. Many Democrats–hell, many ‘progressives’–supported her overt embrace of Kissinger and Wall Street; nothing will shock them.
What I’d like to read is an analysis of what this means for the future of the parties. Clinton is pretty explicitly small-c conservative–her goal is to conserve previous gains, and to maintain the current political/economic system, with some tweaks and improvements. That’s an excellent thing, in many ways … for a conservative party. But she’s the leader of the ‘liberal’ party. And the ‘conservative’ party is a ravening gang of idiocratic dupes and deluded racists.
Where does this leave the country, when one major party is conservative and the other is rabid? I’ve read a lot of huffery about change coming from the down-ballot races, but that strikes me as nonsense. Why would progressive change emerge from the base of a conservative party? Might as well expect libertarian change to come from the roots of the Republican Party. That’s not who they are.
So what happens next?
Tweaks and improvements = progress. It does not equal the status quo.
For example, the ACA provided tweaks and improvements on the American health care system. It is unpopular, in part because it benefited low-income Americans at the expense of higher-income Americans. There is no remaining political room to pass single payer health care at the moment, which would be a broader set of tweaks and improvements, but would be thrashed by Congress and would fail to pass. It’ll happen someday; it won’t happen this decade.
Much of our problems understanding each other’s views are conceptional and definitional, and having different understandings of political realities.
Depends, obviously, on the tweak and improvements. They can = regress, too.
Was the ACA progressive or regressive?
Progressive. But running to maintain the ACA instead of to move the ball forward is, pretty much definitionally, not progressive. It’s not regressive, either. It’s conservative.
No, it’s not. Every conservative wants to remove the ACA. THAT is conservative. And it’s ridiculous to believe, if Clinton has a Democratic congress, she won’t ‘move the ball’ on the ACA.
Good Gawd, it burns.
.
Much of our problems understanding each other’s views are conceptional and definitional, and having different understandings of political realities.
Oh, I’m pretty sure I understand your views. And when I get confused, I go to church and ask my pastor what to do.
.
Clearly, reading your comments here, you are extremely wise. And very serious.
As I’ve pointed out before, the guy’s a legend in his own mind.
So much for that ‘rancor comes mainly from Clinton supporters’ post you just did, huh?
.
You reap what you sew.
Just so everyone knows that one was BS.
.
Believe me, everyone knows which one was BS.
Yes, it is. Steggles had this precisely correct.
Words have meanings.
“Progressive” is a word. So is “progress”.
“Regressive” is a word. So is “regress”.
“Conservative” is a word. So is “conserve”.
You could look them up!
Unfortunately, they don’t always mean what they seem to mean at first glance. The only thing conservatives want to conserve is their own power. In the last few decades they have not hesitated to use increasingly more RADICAL means to do this, even to the point of destabilizing our political system and approximating a banana republic.
Meanwhile, progressives like Warren and Sanders are trying to CONSERVE hard-won constitutional rights gained by the middle classes and the underprivileged over the past 85 years.
railing against widespread usage of “conservative” for radicals who are anything but “conservative” (see, e.g., again, the oxymoronic “conservatives against conservation”, which is a core tenet of modern so-called “conservatism”), I’m not going to dispute your first point. The common use of “conservative/-ism” in our discourse is utterly false advertising. In this I’m being completely consistent.
And of course, using the actual meanings of words, Sanders and Warren are “conservative” re: historic gains, while simultaneously pushing for progress beyond the existing status quo. No contradiction or conflict there.
So yes, words are often used as though they don’t mean what they do mean. And our ability to communicate meaningfully is degraded in the process. (Lots of evidence of that around here these days, though not just here, of course.)
But of course, first and foremost, the comment was a response to the disputation with steggles, who got it exactly right, using “progressive”, “conservative”, and “regressive” to mean what they actually mean. How silly to then dispute that!
Just to clarify, it was meant as a general observation, not a criticism of either of you.
Semantics. The last vestige of a failed argument.
The US Conservative party wants to repeal the ACA.
The US Liberal party wants to, at the very least, maintain the ACA. And just as a heads-up, the ACA still isn’t fully operational in all 50 states.
But sure. The ACA is definitely conservative now, and until we have single payer, the ACA will remain conservative, meaning we might as well go and elect Trump president, because he’s a Conservative!
Semantics sure are fun!
meanings (and then applying those meanings) is “semantics”.
Talk about “The last vestige of a failed argument”!
Using meanings that mean one thing specifically to you, that have different meanings to other people, and then making an entire argument out of it, is semantics.
I mean, you can look that up in a dictionary, or since you clearly have access to the internets, google, would clarify that pretty quickly.
In the very post I’m addressing here (!) you ignore the definition and…wait for it…meaning…of conservative that is used almost universally here in the United States when having political arguments.
So, we’re left with two meanings, in regards to the ACA.
Your meaning, which is that the ACA was progressive right up until it was passed, at which case it immediately became conservative. Yet this ignores the fact that the ACA isn’t in effect everywhere, especially states where Medicaid hasn’t been expanded. So, even using your meaning, the ACA isn’t conservative, because it still has to be enacted fully within the United States, so supporting the ACA isn’t conservative, since it requires…moving forward. You know, making progress.
My meaning, which is how almost everyone rooted in observable reality discussing US politics uses conservative, is that the Republican party is the “conservative” party. Sure, you could go further and say lunatic, deranged, delusional, or even regressive, but let’s be clear that almost everyone defines the Republican party as conservatives as a general way to describe the party. In that case, considering that the Republican party wants to repeal the ACA, makes the ACA ipso facto not conservative.
So, anyway you ascribe meaning to the ACA, whether by your specific definition, or the definition of almost everyone else who discusses politics in the United States, the ACA is not conservative.
You are relying on semantics for your entire argument – that by your definition, the ACA is conservative. And even there, your argument fails, as supporting the ACA still requires moving forward…progress…and not just standing still or maintaining the status quo.
Thanks for chance to clarify how your argument is not only based on semantics, but incorrect based on your own personal definition of conservative.
it’s way too tiresome to respond to all of them.
Read other replies this thread — they cover most of it.
I’ll just add that when you start saying things like “the ACA was progressive”, “became conservative”, “isn’t conservative”, “by your [idiotic emphasis yours!] definition, the ACA is conservative” — insanely ascribing that nonsense to me (i.e., “your meaning”) — you’ve clearly lost the thread. Suggest you go back and review from steggles’ post that started this sub-thread (and the reply to it that prompted my initial comment) and try to figure out what it’s actually about, and where you veered so very far off.
Or not. I don’t really care.
As for your triumphalist final sentence with its bizarrely mis-guided declaration of victory . . . that was hilarious; thanks for the belly laugh, at least.
Christ almighty, your writing would be much easier to understand without the parentheses. Parentheses are used to clarify or offer an aside – neither of which should be necessary when trying to eek out one point.
Try harder.
Hillary is not running on merely preserving the ACA; she’s running on improving it. The definition even fails on your highly misleading terms.
There is a common understanding in the U.S. of what the “conservative movement” wishes to achieve. Preserving the ACA is not among the things conservatives wish to achieve.
re:
At least arguably true, but irrelevant to what’s in dispute here. Suggest you re-read the post I initially replied to, and my response to it (which didn’t depend on whether Hillary wants to “merely preserve” or “improve” ACA!). (Note also my original subject line, still there just up above.) The issue is this: Steggles employed the terms “progressive”, “regressive”, “conservative” (or variations thereof) with COMPLETE accuracy wrt the actual meaning of those words.
Ridiculously, somebody (don’t even remember now who, doesn’t matter) disputed that perfectly accurate and precise usage. That’s what I contested.
As for
see previous replies this thread. Your “scare quotes” around “conservative movement” were well chosen. But why did you forget them around “conservatives”?
I didn’t intend the quotes around conservative movement as scare quotes. I intended them to clarify the discussion.
Leaning on the dictionary definition of conservative at a time when the conservative movement in the U.S. is wholly divorced from that dictionary definition of the word strikes me as evasive, pedantic, and not a little insulting.
The attempts here to define Hillary’s campaign as “conservative” have been meant to disparage her. Do you wish to pretend otherwise?
Like the federal role in privatizing public education…another of my issues.
That is, Romney campaigned on improving things. McCain did. Trump does, too. Everyone does. Obama ran on transformative improvements, not tweaks. But Clinton is running explicitly on tweaks, don’t you agree?
(And I don’t mean ‘status quo’ as in ‘not a single thing changes’; nobody runs on that, ever.)
I agree with you about different understandings of political realities, though I’d add ‘and possibilities.’
The ACA is transformative. Dodd-Frank is transformative. The running of the Federal Agencies under the Obama Administration has been transformative. The Supreme Court is about to undergo a wholesale transformation.
If we can’t agree on these things, and know that this is far from a full chronicling of the transformations of the last eight years, we’ll just go talking past each other forever.
It’s not even useful talking about the Clinton agenda if we can’t agree on the Obama agenda.
Again, I agree that we’re talking past each other. I’m not sure how to come to an agreement, though. The ACA is an improvement. Dodd-Frank is an improvement. (The Supreme Court, we’ll see–I pray you’re right.) But to my mind, they’re not transformative.
How would you measure ‘transformative?’ Does it just mean ‘a really good improvement?’
OK, let me re-post this as my evidence that the ACA is more than an improvement, and that it has been transformative.
The financial viability of Medicare has been significantly improved:
http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicare-is-not-bankrupt
This improvement in Medicare’s prospects are related to the bending of the health care cost curve:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/09/22/new-data-show-slow-health-care-cost-growth-continuing
The uninsured rate has dropped by over six percentage points in less than four years…
http://www.gallup.com/poll/190484/uninsured-rate-lowest-eight-year-trend.aspx
…and is down most among Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans.
Each of these trends would be more significant if two dozen GOP-controlled States had not made their foolish decisions to refuse Medicaid eligibility expansions, as enabled by Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling in the Burwell case.
The division between Stupid States and the others is true of health care access and other quality markers as well, as shown by many of the charts here:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/dec/changing-landscape
Among the factors which have improved acute health care quality and reduced costs has been the ACA’s regulations of Hospital re-admissions. Providers are financially penalized when their discharge decisions lead to an unacceptably high rate of re-admissions. These regulations have led to a real decrease in re-admissions in the U.S.:
http://www.americansentinel.edu/blog/2016/03/01/readmissions-reduction-effort-where-are-we-now/
It’s often said that the ACA is a corrupt deliverer of profits to the private health insurance companies. While insurers have increased their number of customers, the many regulations of private plans, from required issue to medical loss ratio, have caused the insurers to lose overall profits:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/health-laws-strains-show-1446423498
Regarding the transformative aspects of Dodd-Frank, the Law has already helped create the voluntary breakup of financial institutions…
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/01/good-news-under-dodd-frank-pressures-big
…and appears ready to compel the breakup of more:
http://fusion.net/story/291464/hillary-clinton-break-up-banks-living-wills/
And there are many exciting actions which are being taken by the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau:
http://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/
I’m particularly gratified that the ending of payday debt traps is on the verge, and Congress is powerless to stop it. Perhaps a member of the Judiciary who is a member of the Federalist Society will be found to block CPFB’s implementations; otherwise it’s happening.
These are not comprehensive lists of the good-to-great outcomes. If I wasn’t exhausted after a long week, I’d give you more.
“Why would progressive change emerge from the base of a conservative party?”
Of course I see your point. But, just speaking theoretically, now — the answer is that American parties are not rigidly controlled from the top down, except financially, and that effective change must come about within the two-party system. Look at the Republicans. (And if they are now on the path to seldfdestruction, well, that’s their prerogative.)
And, to be specific, because of the movement Bernie Sanders has started, and which I believe is not over but just getting started, and is not financially dependent on said conservative party, but will be in a position to primary their ass.
Gary Gensler might pop up in an economic position.
All these maybes have a ton of weight hanging on them.
Trump might become the worst President ever. There’s much less weight hanging on that claim.
You think unlikely? Well, that is the game…
John Podesta for Sec of Education? Not high profile enough? It is a long time interest of his.
Wow, he found Duncan for Obama…
Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy? Too female heavy?
My county went for Sander by a large margin in a state he lost. At 4 a.m. I woke up thinking: I have to congratulate the enthusiastic Sander supporters here and try to keep them engaged, moving from anti-Hilary to pro-Democrat. In looking at some raw numbers I found that the combined primary presidential vote was more than in other contests for folks running unopposed. My concern is that Sanders voters just went and voted for him without considering the other Democratic candidates on the ballot. And since I have control over the email blasts, in the wee morning I composed a congratulatory letter to all for voting, praising the Sanders folks, and requesting their continued involvement in the forthcoming delegate selection process. I say this not to praise myself but to emphasize that it’s time to start moving on, to coalesce around our nominee, and to be sure that down-ballot contests go Blue with the support of folks who have only been engaged so far with the shiny big presidential primary. There is much work to be done!
Time to put rancor aside and join forces to completely crush Il Duce and his enablers, the Republican Party.
Would you ever stand up to a Clinton Administration waging war for corporate wealth? Or should we get behind her next war?
Hypothetical questions, but my answers are yes and no. Let’s first get her elected and then consider responses to her actual actions as president.
Like with Bush Jr, it’ll most probably be a wee bit too late if she already has the power.
The time for ensuring the checks and balances is not when they are pushing for more military operations in some foreign land. It’s beforehand so we know we have the power if needed.
Too bad we reduced this question to Hillary might go there and trump, cause we know little pauly isn’t gonna stop her if she goes there.
I agree, for some its too bad the question is reduced to Clinton or Trump. But this question has a pretty easy answer doesn’t it? In fact, I like this question. Better Clinton v. Trump than, say, Clinton v. Kasich, where the dem’s have a tougher row to hoe. And I always thought Clintonwould be a better general election candidate that Sanders, with policies more in tune with the general electorate. (She does not campaign on raising everyone’s taxes, for instance.)
(BTW, interesting how many prefer to call her “Hillary”, but the guy is “Trump”. A bit of subtle misogyny at work IMO, but I digress.)
As for checks and balances, they are provided by congress and the supreme court. I don’t think you are hoping for a Republican congress to continue checking presidential power, are you? I’m not. I’m hoping for a democratic landslide all the way down to dogcatcher. On the other hand, I’m not as worried about a Clinton presidency as you seem to be. I don’t think she’ll be anywhere near as bad a president as some here think.
I use Hillary to distinguish from Bill, same as I say Bush Sr and Bush Jr, adds clarification as to exactly whom I am posting about.
And he is trump to me, no capital earned yet.
They only “check” on foreign policy is congress, and they have punted since 9-11.
I don’t foresee a democratic take over of the house, can HOPE but am realistic. The take over of the senate isn’t guaranteed, but I feel better about that prospect.
Republicans have shown no backbone in actually opposing unadvised foreign adventure, except for the sound bites they feed to the MSM.
Dave Zirin at The Nation Andrew Cuomo Would Have Blacklisted Muhammad Ali
Governor Cuomo’s executive action to create a blacklist of those who stand with the Palestinian people would have undoubtedly caught Muhammad Ali in its web.
A hundred years earlier, he would have been like Bull Connor.
Well, progressives opposing Clinton have suggested certain outcomes for the next four years. I’ve been pointing out her LIFELONG record of embracing US empire-building, regime change, nation-building (although that term never was reality-based). Wars. Really simple. I’ve had liberals tell me that there are no Nazis in the coup regime we put in Ukraine (because Obama would never align the country with Nazis). No one sees the linkage between our Sunni allies and ISIS, or for that matter, the linkage between the US and ISIS.
So what happens next year with the continuation of hostilities in Afghanistan? What happens in Syria? Boots on the ground in Libya?
What will the liberals say in four years when a generation of college students are still in debt? Or when the difference between the rich and poor grows under a Clinton administration?
The side effects of a Clinton win will be the further erosion of American liberalism from anti-war positions, further erosion of what could be described as today’s equivalent of ancient Egypt’s priest/government official class from the what used to be the middle class.
This is not a sudden event. It’s been a slow evolution of American society to separate the haves from the havenots. There are the ultra-rich, but really, they have always been motivated by greed and power. The ultra-rich have always had a morality that allows for others’ suffering and death. It’s now easier than ever for the mainstream media to do its job in maintaining the inequalities by propagandizing and censoring.
But people who consider themselves “liberal” are now willing to go along with the program. And because they go along, they have to buy into the lie and deny truth. And when you point it out it enrages them.
Russ Bellant wrote an article a couple years ago for The Nation about the Nazis in the Ukraine coup. Bellant had written a book in the early nineties called “Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party”. It was a political telling of how the Republicans have used fascists in ethnic communities in the US as political tools to push politics to the right, and as such worked well as a companion book to Christopher Simpson’s “Blowback.”
But the same Nazis and fascists, the same government programs, the same NGOs being used in the 90s by the Republicans are being used today by our evolved Democratic Party to advance pro-fascist governments.
It was pretty easy forty years ago to recognize that the Republicans were fascists. Kissinger begat Allende and Allende not only embraced torture and murder but also Nazi fashion. But now the truth of the matter is that our probable next President enjoys the praise of Kissinger. But then she’s a leader, and she’s always going to be a step ahead of her followers.
So I see two things: 1.) the Democratic Party now embracing fascism, and 2.) its apologists rationalizing it.
“The side effects of a Clinton win will be the further erosion of American liberalism from anti-war positions, further erosion of what could be described as today’s equivalent of ancient Egypt’s priest/government official class from the what used to be the middle class.”
Ok then.
Go vote for Trump.
You know, to Make America Great Again.
The viable choice for the Presidency will be between Clinton and Trump. Your desire to prioritize the theoretical defense of the ideology of the Democratic Party over the very real defense of America and the world from a racist, sexist demagogue with no impulse control is disappointing.
If you’re disapponted with the viable choices, join the crowd. Helping organize effective pressure to help best leverage Clinton’s policy choices as President, and helping organize effectively to create better options for our next Presidential nominee, would be good uses of our time.
I’ll offer this: pressuring Clinton and becoming a trustworthy partner in vetting and supporting our next best POTUS nominee will not be achieved by labeling Hillary a fascist and unmatchable warmonger. This persistent claim of yours will continually marginalize you and other like-minded liberals, because it’s outlandishly untrue and will cause distrust from too many in our movement.