Clinton Says Margaret Thatcher Wasn’t Part of Britain’s Establishment Because She Was a Woman
Okay, what she actually said is that she can’t be part of the establishment, because she is a woman. Because by definition, women aren’t part of the establishment.
Shucks! No one told all those corporate folks who paid her $225,000 to hear her reminisce to them about how stressful it was to advise President Obama on whether he should approve the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound. (She revealed this tonight; this was what she told her audiences at those private audiences.) They paid good money to hear a future Democratic presidential nominee say this, thinking that she was a member of the establishment. They deserve a refund.
To be precise, here’s what she said:
I’ve got to just jump in here, because, honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who would characterize me—a woman running to be the first woman president—as exemplifying the establishment.
Honestly? No, Senator Sanders is not the only person who would characterize her—a woman running to be the first woman president—as exemplifying the establishment. Trust me on that.
Also: Just wondering how many of you who watched the debate think Clinton’s hyper/filibuster performance tonight was appealing?
Hillarys’ best argument was that she supported single payer health insurance. But like all DINO’s it is not the single payer insurance the people need or what Bernie is talking about which is Medicare expanded benefits and for all people.
For those who think it’s a mistake to tear down Clinton as we might get a republican. I would remind you that the policies that matter to the majority of people like jobs and opportunities’ for economic growth have been no better regardless of who was in the white house.
The Truth of the matter the economic policies of trade and economic growth have been the same from both parties. The result of these policies of the past 40 plus years is a doubling of the people living in poverty and our Nation going from a creditor to a debtor Nation.
I am pre selective on Sanders.
However, when Hillary speaks I think of lawyer jokes.
I heard that comment last night and just cringed. Really, playing the female card? Against a person everyone knows has not been an establishment person and have always been for the causes of women?
A real republican MO comment she gave there which totally undercuts her argument.
I don’t care about who she spoke to or how much money she was paid. I care that who ever is nominated can coat tail in a Blue Team Senate. If he or she does that it is mission accomplished for me. That done the house can vote for another 49 times to abolish ACA.
“. .the policies that matter to the majority of people like jobs and opportunities’ for economic growth have been no better regardless of who was in the white house.”
That is so utterly false, Beene, that it is obvious you have never actually looked at a piece of data on this subject in your life .. . . Or you’re really about five years old and don’t remember the 1980s, 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century. Go ahead: compare the jobs creation and median and lower quintiles incomes and poverty data during the George H.W. Bush years and the Bill Clinton years, and the GW Bush years and the Obama years. Basically, Democrats have had to mop up from the disastrous economies bequeathed by the Republicans.
And if you think Hillary’s a DINO, what is your thoughtful explanation of how she came to be ranked the 11th most liberal member of the Senate — yes, not as liberal as Sanders at the time, but to the left of Durbin, Mikulski, Pat Leahy, Joe Biden and, yes, Obama … and way, way, way to the left of the most liberal Republican by far at the time, Arlen Specter? Or your reasons for explaining away her efforts against strenuous Republican opposition to get a universal health insurance system passed, or the Children’s Health Insurance program, or her support for equal pay under the Lily Ledbetter Act, or a woman’s right to privacy to make choices about her own body, or her support for Dodd-Frank, which, imperfect or not, not one single Republican voted for.
This whole exercise in lurking and waiting for a quotation that can be grabbed out of its context is so . . . so Republican. It’s exactly what Republicans are doing right now, and it’s exactly, with a huge assist from the major national press, what they did quite successfully with tragic consequences, to Al Gore and his supposed “prevarications” that made him supposedly unreliable.
The debate over whether it is best to have Sanders coherent vision of where we would like to get as a society, or Clinton’s emphasis on moving in the same direction but with manageable steps — either in substance or in promoting electability — is a legitimate one. I listened to both of them Wednesday night and thought they were both impressive. I have been a fan of Sanders for a long time, and I’m very happy he decided to run. There’s a lot of nonsense being said about him, too.
But this process of lurking and waiting for some combination of words that can be used to attack either candidate’s character is a direct lift from the Republican playbook. Republicans try to get people to concentrate on the character of the candidates because they have nothing to offer as policy. When we play into it, as we almost always do — Gore too stiff, Kerry too French and not the hero he pretended to be, and now Clinton with negatives that didn’t exist among the public when Bill left office in 2001 and she was the most admired woman in the world — we play right into their hands. The Kochs chuckle every time they see another rip job supposedly from her own side about the person most likely to be the thing that can be.
Or maybe, Beene, you are, in fact a Republican, paid or unpaid, tasked with pretending to be a Bernie fan and reinforcing attacks like this?
urban:
It is called “self-destruction.” Something the Democrats are good at doing. We can seethe results in the failure to pass a more comprehensive PPACA and regulation for Wall Street.
I’m no ones shill; which we can not say about you.
As I have said before if Clinton is the democratic choice, I will vote for a real republican.
I was first on this site to post my support for Bernie, with a yard sign to go with my hope for Bernie.
urban legend, says Hillary ” Bill left office in 2001 and she was the most admired woman in the world”
Was that for her skills in cattle futures or some land deal in Ark.
Repeating myself would rather have a blow hard as someone who revises history to suit their present position.
Beene, truth be told, there was a moment during the debate last night when I stunned myself by saying, “If she gets the nomination, I won’t vote for her in November.”
I had to smile at myself for that, recalling that my father, who despised Richard Nixon but also despised Joe Kennedy–and that pere Kennedy bought the nomination for his son (or so my parents thought)–told me that at one point in the fall of 1960 he had decided to vote for Nixon. I don’t know what prompted that, but the decision of course lasted a few days, none of them election day. My father, like my mother–who felt the same as my father about Nixon and Joe Kennedy–voted for Kennedy. Neither would have been caught dead not voting against Richard Nixon. (Literally; both my parents were from Chicagah!)
And no matter what, if Clinton wins the nomination, I’ll vote for her in November. I think.
(Joking. I will. Like father, like daughter. There’s no other choice.)
Author: urban legend
Comment:
“. .the policies that matter to the majority of people like jobs and opportunities’ for economic growth have been no better regardless of who was in the white house.”Beene
“That is so utterly false, Beene, that it is obvious you have never actually looked at a piece of data on this subject in your life .. . . Or you’re really about five years old and don’t remember the 1980s, 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century. Go ahead: compare the jobs creation and median and lower quintiles incomes and poverty data during the George H.W. Bush years and the Bill Clinton years, and the GW Bush years and the Obama years. Basically, Democrats have had to mop up from the disastrous economies bequeathed by the Republicans.” urban legend
If interested in service job which replaced dependable employment Clinton did create jobs. Still does not change the fact that since 1970 the free trade policies supported both parties have doubled the number of American living in poverty (see page 15 pdf below).
Under Clinton administration we had Nafta, where we traded good paying jobs for service jobs.
The Poverty and Inequality Report 2014 – Stanford University
web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/sotu/SOTU_2014_CPI.pdf – Cached – Similar pages
urban legend, can you remind me who said something like if you elect either of these gentlemen you will hear a great sucking sound of jobs?
Beverly Mann, I’m still angry that Nixon was not jailed. Perhaps this is why we have a class today that seems live above the laws that the majority have to live with.
Beene:
Urban is mostly correct. This is similar to reading Faux News and their nonsense except it is on AB.
nay, I supported what I have written from history I did not write. Faux News is usually just babble from talking heads, chamber of commerce, or hype from one of the party think tanks.
Run, I do usually end up voting for the hype of jobs and economic growth that the democratic party is usually selling. But have failed to see either happen with the last two elected.
The only saving grace of Obama is the health care bill which seems to have corrected health Insures from dropping the insured when they need the insurance and may have eliminated health insures from deny coverage to those with previous health conditions.
Beene, there are huge differences between McCain or Romney and Obama in what would have happened and what has happened. Obama appointed two Supreme Court justices–and also a slew of federal appellate and trial judges, of varying degrees of basic competence and absence of malevolence, but on the whole far, far better than the Republican appointees.
There’s also Dodd-Frank and its Consumer Finance Protection Agency, and environmental and climate issues. And if you think the 2009 stimulus law and that auto-industry bailout haven’t mattered to a whole lot of people, you’re wrong.
And there’s so, so, so much that goes on behind the scenes.
I’ve never understood this there-no-difference-between-the-parties canard. It clearly isn’t true.
Beverly, Consumer Finance Protection Agency, was a Warren produced item which the administration opposed, and like Dodd-Frank really lacks teeth for enforcement or support for enforcement.
I really did not read much about the stimulus law or auto-bailout, so cannot say if this was only supported by one party.
The courts have little interest to me as they have little effect on trade or jobs. Plus the congress can over ride the courts if they want too. A good example of that is in senescing guide lines.
I will agree there are social issues which do separate the two parties. But these do not change the major issues of trade and jobs, which effect the lives of all; which is supported by both parties.
Don’t feed thje Beene!!!
Beene, it is irrelevant whether Obama opposed the Consumer Finance Protection agency. It was Democrats who proposed it and passed it. Obama’s done a lot of stupid stuff trying to show his bipartisan bona fides, including regurgitating Republican talking points about Social Security in the 2008 campaign, which the allegedly non-progressive Hillary immediately pounced on and caused him to backtrack immediately.
You need to examine yourself if you don’t realize that the objective today must be to get every possible Republican out of office, whether the opponent is in some ways a DINO or not. All Democrats will vote for some things — like a minimum wage increase — that no Republican will vote for. What matters, as Bernie himself recognizes, is that turnout is everything. Continuing to be ready to pounce on some wording that can be used to rip Clinton and you depress turnout. That hurts Democrats, period.
Urban, we agree on the majority of what you posted above.
But not that any democrat is a better choice, and the study decline of the number of people voting would seem to support my position.
Plus, I want anyone who would vote for Clinton to know what they are voting for.
Beverly,
You and Benie are right that Hillary is part of at least some establishment, if most a Dem party one that has close links to Wall Street. She is facing a lot of gender discrimination in this race (look at all those people dissing her for being too aggressive and harsh when they do not do so for all those off-the-wall male candidates), but she is pretty establishment. That said, this does not mean that it is impossible for her to fight the establishment. On that count, see FDR.
However, regarding Maggie Thatcher, she was not establishment, at least not before she had served as PM for some time. However, this only marginally had to do with her gender. The establishment of the Tory Party in UK in the 70s was “wet,” sort of social democratic or like our now dead “liberal Republicans,” very much supporting lots of social welfare programs, just as they had been doing since the time of Disraeli in the 19th century.
She represented the new hard right that was heavily influenced by the Goldwater-Reagan minimal governmnet movement in the US and the likes of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. In 1979 this was most definitely anti-establishment in the UK Tory Party, although due to her long reign as PM, they now have a major seat at the table and have joined that establishment, at least to some extent, although Cameron, the current Tory PM, is not of their faction.
Good point about Thatcher, Barkley. Her strain of Conservative was anti-establishment even against the mainstream of her own party in 1979. But she was elected Conservative Party leader by her fellow Party ministers, which is different than a popular vote, and that’s really what I meant.
About Clinton, I’m at a loss to understand why she and several of her surrogates, including those who appear with her onstage, keep saying that the real revolution would be to elect a woman president. That’s expressly what Debbie Stabenow said onstage with Clinton on Friday, and I think also what Madeleine Albright said at another event with Clinton on Friday.
They might think it’s cute to keep redefining words like “progressive,” establishment” and “revolution,” but what it actually does is announce that Clinton thinks what matters most—beyond anything related to economics—is to break the gender glass ceiling for the presidency. Especially “establishment” and “revolution.” A huge problem in the way she’s campaigned is that she signals that doesn’t understand what these words mean and doesn’t understand that most women know well that the election of a woman as president won’t per se change anything at all in their own lives. It’s not happenstance that nearly all of her supporters who think breaking this particular glass ceiling is the most important thing there is, and is the very definition of “progressive” irrespective of the woman’s policy proposals, are not just older but also financially secure. To them, it’s the most important thing, because they can afford financially for it to be the most important thing.
Then there is the really silly claim, inferential but pretty darn clear, that if Elizabeth Warren were running, she (Warren) would face extensive sexism. Clinton and her campaign manager last week, just before Thursday’s debate, began pushing a claim that Sanders’ attack on Clinton as not a progressive was sexist. That claim is just baffling. And a male writer on Slate who supports Clinton wrote—and I bet he’s not alone—that Sanders decided to run so that he could be the male option, and said this also about Obama’s decision to run in 2008. It’s paranoid. And as a tactic, stupifyingly counterproductive, I’m sure.
As for Sanders, her made clear in late 2014 that he would run only if it became clear that no one else from the progressive wing of the party would run. Clearly, he had in mind Warren.
Why in heaven’s name she’s been campaigning with these baby boomer women governors and senators, and elderly feminist icons and such, would be beyond my understanding except that it’s just so clear that she lacks the psychological capacity to get that the ‘90s were a long time ago. Tone-deafness doesn’t even begin to describe it accurately.
Say what you will about Hillary Clinton, but she gave an amazingly strong interview with Rachel Maddow this evening. I have my own grave reservations regarding another Clinton in the White House. Something along the lines of H.C. turning out to be a reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher. That said, I can’t shake the felling that Sanders hasn’t enough of a team that can be identified to help him run the country, and on the other hand Clinton’s team may be one that should be retired before it does any grave danger to progressive Democratic ideology. People like Rahm Emanuel come to mind. So its a choice between two people with less than a compelling presentation. Sanders for what he appears to be and Clinton for the differences between what she says she is and what she can be seen to have been. So what’s a voter that isn’t really wealthy or who isn’t brain dead to do? What Democrat lurks in the wings that would be better than either Clinton or Sanders?
In any event either Clinton or Sanders is the better choice when compared to the dismal assortment being offered by the GOP. God they make the worst Democrat look like a political savior.
Clinton is never getting my vote.
Worse, I will absatin from any support to any democrat if she is top of ticket.
Enough dirt swirling.
I agree with Beene, further Clinton is a Netanyahu client.