Dealing the Woman’s Card—Clinton’s. And Mine. And Dealing the Man’s Card—Bernie Sanders’s. And Donald Trump’s.
There are limits to the analogy between Clinton’s 2008 primary contest with Obama and Sanders’s primary contest now with her. Clinton doesn’t get that. But she needs to figure it out because the differences matter.
— There are limits to the analogy between Clinton’s 2008 primary contest with Obama and Sanders’s primary contest now with her. Clinton doesn’t get that. But she needs to figure it out because the differences matter., Me, Angry Bear, yesterday
Later yesterday I posted a short follow-up, saying:
When I wrote this post today I wasn’t aware of this piece by Jonathan Cohn (a longtime favorite of mine, dating to his time at The New Republic). It was published early this morning but I just learned of it (h/t Paul Waldman). But it makes the same key point that I do in mine.
Which is that Sanders supporters will know that their vote for Clinton in November will mean something much more than just a vote for Clinton or a vote against Trump. Most of us will be out en force on election day, voting not because of Clinton but because of Sanders. And voting, really, not for Clinton but for Sanders. As well as for progressives in the down-ballot contests.
The movement has taken hold.
Which managed to garner some attention to my first post, since I’d linked to it, and spurred the following in the comments thread to it this morning:
April 28, 2016 7:57 am
People if you take nothing else from the above article. Except that change is possible if you help Bernie and Warren when they ask for help for explicit people; reform of the democratic party is possible.
If you believe that the common belongs to the nation and those who benefit should be taxed according to assistance they have received as a member of this nation. But, dino’s like the Clintons’ or Obama are no better than having a republican, as the goal is not the common good.
April 28, 2016 9:26 am
” But, dino’s like the Clintons’ or Obama are no better than having a republician, as the goal is not the common good.”
It is hard to imagine the stupidity required to write that sentence.
Prompting this lengthy comment from me:
You know what’s sort of funny to me about this thread? I had forgotten this until this weeks’ Woman’s Card contretemps—specifically Clinton’s “Deal me in” response to Trump—reminded me of it. Clinton responded with something like “If equal pay, and guaranteed paid family leave, and affordable preschool, and women’s healthcare are playing the Woman’s Card, deal me in.” Ah; then I remembered the moment when I concluded that Clinton really DOESN’T have a core, or much of one anyway: When at the first debate last fall, after Sanders mentioned his proposal to tax everyone’s income at (I think) $1.54/a week (it was well less than $2.00) to pay for guaranteed paid medical and family leave, Clinton used, for the first of many times during the fall and very early this year, her rebuttal line that she wants to raise middle-class incomes, not lower them.
Until that moment I had thought that the one thing that really WAS her core politically was the panoply of traditional women’s issues, including guaranteed paid family leave. Guess I was wrong about that, I said to myself. So, apparently, did a good swath of other progressives.
She was raked over the coals for that—a stunning, dumbfounding comment from a Democratic candidate for president—yet she kept repeating it until the polls showed Sanders effectively even with her in Iowa and leading her in New Hampshire. I remember the dismay and anger from commentators and others. Several pointed out that that comment was straight from the Republican Party playbook. And that apparently Clinton thinks FDR and LBJ wanted to lower incomes because, well … Social Security and Medicare.
Clinton thinks her problem in not being a natural politician is simply that she’s cold and stiff in her physical presence and speaking style. She doesn’t recognize—and either do her campaign folks her feed her these sound bite lines she adopts—that her biggest problem, by far, is fondness for sound bites that are actually appalling. Her husband raised taxes. Guess he wanted to lower incomes rather than raise them.
I’ve debated here in AB threads several times with people who disagree with me that Clinton simply is not very bright. That she’s so fond of this kind of thing—the asinine, self-defeating sound bites and sleights of hand that have been a hallmark of her campaign—is what I’m talking about.
NYT columnist Charles Blow has a good column today in which he calls Clinton a waffling contrivance. Perfect!
But all that said, the bottom line is that EMichael is, extremely obviously, exactly right. Why would anyone who is appalled by Citizens United and the Voting Rights Act opinion—two Supreme Court opinions that, unlike most of their other truly awful ones, most ARE aware of—think the outcome of the election between Trump and Clinton doesn’t matter?
I know that most people have no clue that most of the really important stuff that happens in federal courts happens at the district court (trial court) and circuit court (appellate court) levels. Much less do they know the genuinely appalling effect of the complete takeover of the entire civil and criminal justice systems, state and federal, by the Conservative Legal Movement. Even less do they know the extraordinary breadth and reach of what this has affected.
Nor do they know that, finally—finally—in the last three years, thanks mostly to the decision by Harry Reid to kill the filibuster for circuit and district court nominees, the makeup of those courts has changed significantly and VERY meaningfully.
So, yeah, I repeat what EMichael said:
“”But, dino’s like the Clintons’ or Obama are no better than having a republician, as the goal is not the common good.”
“It is hard to imagine the stupidity required to write that sentence.”
I’m a Card Carrying Woman, but I prefer Sanders’s Man’s Card to Clinton’s Woman’s Card. And Clinton’s Woman’s Card to this: Trump’s fiscal, healthcare and environmental positions will be drafted by the Club for Growth and the Koch brothers’-sponsored so-called think tanks and lobbyists. Just as his actual policy proposals published on his campaign’s website were.
UPDATE: Greg Sargent has an up-to-date summary of efforts at a Clinton/Sanders rapprochement.
And Alexandra Petri discusses her own Woman’s Card. Hilariously.