It Takes a Triangulator to Think This Is a Good Idea
— Greg Sargent, Washington Post, this evening
Why, of course it’s a good idea, in a campaign that should be based largely on the likelihood that if elected, Trump would serve as Paul Ryan’s and the Koch brothers’ puppet, to undermine that argument.
Sure, Ryan said last week that Trump has assured him that he would sign a Ryan- drafted budget bill. Sure, Trump has announced that he will return the federal bench to the Federalist Society. (Okay, he doesn’t know what the Federalist Society is, so he doesn’t know that that’s what he said. But Clinton knows. I think.)
And sure, it would be really nice if, say, Russ Feingold defeated Ron Johnson in the Wisconsin Senate race. But, hey, first things first.
And the first thing is to make sure that the five people who follow politics and don’t yet know what Trump said about that judge, and why, and that Republican pols are running far away from it, don’t enter that voting booth in November not knowing that the Republicans have distanced themselves from Trump’ statements about that judge.
They may enter the voting booth in November not knowing the specifics of what Trump and his mock University actually did, though, because far be it from the Clinton campaign to do a video showing quotes of the startlingly awful things Trump was having his employees do to people who were struggling financially.
Uh-uh. That has nothing at all to do with ethnicity, race, gender or religion, so it’s not worth putting together a video about it.
Only things that undermine rather than make clear what should be one of your key fiscal policy arguments are worth putting together a video about. Especially if you don’t think fiscal-policy arguments matter to voters, except the fiscal issues that are about one or another women’s issue. As Clinton clearly doesn’t.
This is a campaign run entirely on algorithms put into a computer. The algorithms are 1990s-vintage, though, and, well, you know. Garbage in, garbage out.
This is a really awful campaign. Clinton will win anyway. But so will all those Republicans who said they don’t like what Trump said about that judge. Or if a few of them do lose, it won’t be for lack of Clinton’s trying on their behalf.
Beverly Mann,
I think you have misread Donald Trump. He is not a puppet. He is The Donald. He spent the entire campaign season pouring scorn on the likes of the Koch Suckers and Paul Ryan and McConnell. The Donald doesn’t change unless such change serves the interests of The Donald.
The Koch Suckers have said they are going to sit out the Presidential. One of them even said earlier this year that in many ways HRH HRC is preferable to Trump. The Donald doesn’t forget.
Americans for Prosperity has launched an attack to defeat Renee Ellmers in NC. Trump came out and endorsed her. That endorsement has nothing at all to do with anything Ellmers has done politically and everything to do with Trump’s perfectly vain belief that he is, in fact, the head of a vanguard who can save Ellmers and others like her by a simple snap of The Donald’s fingers.
You, Amateur Socialist and others have a very keen grasp of the profound flaws and corruption at the heart of Clinton. She is another in a long line of truly odious politicians. But this election will not be about competing political policies or philosophies; it can’t be, simply because Trump has none. This election will be all about the #1 TV hit of the season, “The Donald” starring Donald Trump, vs. the reality of the noxious statements and beliefs that flow unfiltered from his blackened heart and withered soul.
Americans will not be led by an egotist who so unashamedly cares nothing about Americans and all about himself.
Predictions are cheap at least wrt this stuff so here’s mine: This odious move by AP et. al. to moot the CA and NJ primaries will end up being quite expensive to the Clinton campaign. It will contribute to an even greater perception by Sanders supporters that the process is rigged, unfair, prewired by elites etc.
She better hope she can capture those GOP “moderate” voters she’s so mad for.
Worst column yet.
Last time I looked, Clinton was not yet running against Trump(see above). And if she declared herself the winner and started running against Trump before the primaries today, you would skewer her for that.
Why not wait until the Clinton campaign is actually running against Trump until you attack her ads, like you attacked her with:
“(Okay, he doesn’t know what the Federalist Society is, so he doesn’t know that that’s what he said. But Clinton knows. I think.) ”
You have made me, a Sanders supporter, almost sympathetic to Clinton the last couple of months.
I thought it would take a Republican to do that.
If you look at HRC and her serving the 3rd term for Obama it is easy to see why we have no jobs or economy. That scares me…If you look at Trump and his angst and inability to see or care about what and how a president should act. That scares me…If you look at BS and how we are all going to pay for all the free stuff. That scares me…The election is becoming marginalized as political entertainment and the presidency is becoming more a figure head as king or queen rather than a serious leader…The oligarchs are still winning in the new world oder and in the globalized economy that sees no borders. Forget the Mexicans, forget the left coast, forget the right coast, forget the news entertainment. We are changing as a country faster than anybody can possibly keep up with and it is not all for the good that America use to stand for…
“It’s a big club. And you’re not in it!” – George Carlin RIP
(if you type that into the google you can see the brilliant context of that line in his larger point fyi)
The intercept provides today’s state of play here: https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/
Money quote:
“This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization – incredibly – conceals. ”
quite so.
AS,
This is simply total bs on your part. No one gives a damn about the AP’s declaration.
Bev,
Hillary is going to have to hit Trump on all fronts with all guns blazing. Yes, she should pound on the economic policy agenda, but indeed Trump is not remotely tied to it and will change his views by the minute on it as he sees fit.
Polling shows that what drives his followers the most is racism and bigotry. This is both his strength and his great weakness. All those Latinos out there who are not all that attuned to economic policy discussions are very attuned to the negative junk Trump says about them. This latest about the judge is just astoundingly stupid on his part.
I see nothing wrong with this ad. Pound him on his racism and corruption and pound him hard.
I agree Barkley.
I don’t know how anyone can say that Hillary is not already running against The Donald. Not only does she mention him every day on the trail but she called him out on foreign policy just a few days ago and she has unleashed the ad Beverly referred to. That is a political campaign unfolding.
If no one gives a damn about the AP “pronouncing” that HRC has the delegates she needs to win, why has that story appeared everywhere this morning? Amateur Socialist is right: it’s a big club, and we’re not in it. Institutions, such as the media and the political and economic establishment, have enormous power to sway, convince and mold public opinion. Indeed, their truest purpose is to maintain the status quo. Who can deny that, since 2008, HRH HRC has been The Anointed One? That has been the public narrative for 8 years, established and maintained by the elites.
It is a very big deal when the popular (of the people) democratic process is not allowed to play out, i.e., when the elites play their roles and pronounce winners and losers. It completely marginalizes those who have not yet had their say on who they want to represent them. These are precisely the same forces that Bernie has challenged for the last 16 months. It’s not surprising that these powerful forces have been challenging him all along the way.
“If no one gives a damn about the AP “pronouncing” that HRC has the delegates she needs to win, why has that story appeared everywhere this morning?”
It is called the Associated Press for a reason. And we are talking about voters, not the media.
I would say that more Clinton voters will be discouraged from voting because of this “AP Call” than Sanders voters. In states with large minority populations, Clinton has beaten Sanders by more than double digits with voters who live in households making less than $50K. These people will, for the most part, need to give up some income in order to vote. Why do so if Clinton has “already won”?
In the long run, it is just a stupid story that means nothing. I doubt that it has any effect on anyone’s vote.
EMichael,
You miss the point. Yes, it is the Associated Press – one news source that every other news source is quoting. It can only be said with certainty that HRC is the nominee when the votes are counted; and let’s not even bother getting into a debate about superdelegates, which the AP has folded into their calculations, and which is about as profoundly undemocratic an ingredient as you can get. To “pronounce” winners before the votes are counted is cynical and dismissive – a cynical, subversive view of democracy, and dismissive of all those citizens who have effectively been told by the elites “don’t bother, we decide.” Citizens all over the world are sick and tired of being told, “don’t bother, we are in charge.”
Citizens all over the world are sick and tired of being told, “don’t bother, we are in charge.”
========
Which is exactly the situation that “Clinton will win anyway” is ignoring. I’ve seen this happen twice in the past six years in Massachusetts with Coakley, particularly in the senate campaign (Baker was well known with a lot of positives and a previous gubernatorial run under his belt so it’s probably not as comparable, he was a “serious” candidate compared to Scott Brown who was definitively in the all hat no cattle category).
Clinton is not in a situation where she has already won the election. She can lose it, and she might lose it, and some people would do well to contingency plan the situation where she does lose it.
And in Massachusetts there is basically no Republican party. It almost completely does not exist, for a majority of elections they can’t even field a candidate, but it wasn’t even particularly close with Scott Brown (a senator from a party that had two or three members in the MA senate whose chief accomplishment was cosponsoring the at the time annual sales tax holiday bill).
The demographics may tell Clinton that she cannot lose and she is already running a victory lap as the only serious candidate left. If she believes that, she needs to think again.
MS,
Take out the superdelegates.
Then try again.
More people voted for Clinton by a large margin.
Now talk about the undemocratic system.
However, please don’t talk about closed primaries. If you are a progressive and registered as an independent you are too stupid to vote.
All those 4.5 million or so Californians who fought through their discouragement by the AP article and voted kind of suggest the dialogue in this post and comment thread is stupid as shit, don’t they? Clinton has won almost 60% of the popular vote so far in all the primaries, and now has a delegate lead over 800. Tonight, so far, she is leading in the popular vote 1.7 million to about 1 million.
Doesn’t look like a terrible campaign to me.
One thing that has bothered me quite a bit about the persistent hostility of so many Sanders supporters to Clinton is their casual dismissal of the opinions and wishes of minority voters, who have chosen her by overwhelming numbers. It reeks of a sense of privilege.
Here’s the problem with thinking that since most of Trump’s followers are driven by racism and bigotry: It’s true, but that’s because such a large percentage of his followers are in the South or in Texas or Arizona.
I’ve said many times her at AB that “Build the wall” and “Bar Muslims from entering the country” is not nearly as important to Rust Belt, swing-state, blue-collar voters as direct economic issues such as trade policy and offshoring and supply-side fiscal policy.
I don’t GET this idea that most people don’t know what Trump’s said, what he’s campaigned on. And don’t understand who exactly the target of these ads is. Any Republican or Republican-leaning independent whom Trump’s racist and xenophobic campaign would cause to vote for Clinton or to not vote for president will do without permission from Paul Ryan or whoever.
And anyone who’s concerned about plant closures in the Rust Belt and spiraling inequality and stagnant wages would, I would think, be interested in learning what the Republicans in Congress have planned that Trump is indicating he will sign off on. This ad makes those folk look like the good guys.
It’s counterproductive. Unlikely to gain votes of the targets voters, and could help throw away the chance to gain votes of blue-collar voters who think Trump would be different than the Republican establishment once in office.
EMichael,
An election process that sets aside a substantial number of delegates, of whatever stripe, for insiders is, by definition, undemocratic. The last I checked democracy is not defined as “one man, one vote — plus the elite to ensure the election proceeds as we deem it should.”
Urban Legend,
The persistent hostility of so many Sanders supporters to Clinton is the result simply of paying attention to the persistent habits, beliefs and actions of the Clinton Dynasty. As for me, I will never forget that Bill, during the Lewinsky fiasco, went on national TV, pointed his finger at me, screwed up his best well-rehearsed look of moral outrage and said, “I have never had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” The facts, as it turns out, are that he had coerced an intern into a blowjob in the Oval Office, and his wife, our next President, ardent defender of women’s rights everywhere, defended him, for her and their political future.
A people who knowingly elects liars and hypocrites to represent them deserve what they get – and lose all subsequent rights to object when those leaders lie and play the two-faced game.
Welcome to the next Clinton administration, where all of us will pay the price for all of their moral corruption. Unless you’re prepared to argue that Americans are morally corrupt, and thus deserve what they get with her, her election is the exemplar of unrepresentative democracy.
Lewinsky?
imbecilic Unless of course you believe that every woman who has been cheated on by her husband is responsible for his lying about it.
Further,
” For the record: Whitewater was a nothingburger. Travelgate was a nothingburger. Troopergate was a nothingburger. Filegate was a nothingburger. The Vince Foster murder conspiracy theories were a nothingburger. Monica Lewinsky was Bill’s problem, not Hillary’s. Benghazi was a tragedy, but entirely non-scandalous. The Goldman Sachs speeches were probably a bad idea, but otherwise a nothingburger. Emailgate revealed some poor judgment, but we’ve now seen all the emails and it’s pretty obviously a nothingburger. Humagate is a nothingburger. Foundationgate is a nothingburger.
Bottom line: Don’t let Donald Trump or the press or anyone else convince you that Hillary Clinton is “dogged by scandal” or “works under a constant cloud of controversy” or whatever the nonsense of the day is. That constant cloud is the very deliberate invention of lowlifes in Arkansas; well-heeled conservative cranks; the Republican Party; and far too often a gullible and compliant press. Like anybody who’s been in politics for 40 years, Hillary has some things she should have handled better, but that’s about it. The plain fact is that there’s no serious scandal on her record. There’s no evidence that she’s ever sold out to Wall Street. There’s no corruption, intrigue, or deceit. And if anything, she’s too honest on a policy level. She could stand to promise people a bit of free stuff now and then.”
Bill Clinton, as President of the United States, went on national TV, looked us all squarely in the eye, and lied – lied to you, lied to me, lied to the nation. (Or maybe he didn’t lie; I guess it revolves on what the definition of “is” is, eh? Oops, I used the word is — should I define it for you?)
Hillary Clinton, the next President of the United States – the first female, the apotheosis of the feminist project, breaker of glass ceilings, founding member of the Madeline Albright Brigade, hero to the sisterhood – sold out a 26-year-old sister, a powerless intern sexually harassed and coerced into a blow job in the Oval Office by the President of the United States, for her own political purposes. We’re not talking about some Tammy Wynette standing by her man. It’s a little more substantial than just another woman being cheated on by her husband.
If that doesn’t trouble you, if you want to defend such behavior, then your cynicism knows no bounds, and you deserve what you get.
Explain to me how she sold her out.
EMichael
You must be kidding me… If she were your daughter, would you ask the same inane question?
From Lewinsky herself, published in The Guardian:
“Five days after the FBI sting, Lewinsky was outed by the online gossip site the Drudge Report, under the headline: “A White House intern carried on a sexual affair with the President of the United States!” Bill Clinton called her a liar, denying he had had “sexual relations” with “that woman”. Lewinsky, who has often said she’d “do anything to have my anonymity back”, was forced to testify before a grand jury. The 3,000-page Starr report, which included mortifying details of their nine sexual encounters, was released to the world.
‘It was a very desolate 10 years for me. I was really floundering. I could not find my way.’
“That people could read the transcripts was horrific enough,” Lewinsky said in her TED talk, “but a few weeks later the audio tapes [the telephone calls Tripp secretly recorded] were aired on TV, and significant portions made available online. The public humiliation was excruciating. Life was almost unbearable.”
“I felt like every layer of my skin and my identity were ripped off of me in ’98 and ’99,” she tells me now. “It’s a skinning of sorts. You feel incredibly raw and frightened. But I also feel like the shame sticks to you like tar.”
She never attempted suicide, she says, “but I came very close”.
“You worked out how you’d do it?” I ask.
“Yes,” she says. “I think some young people don’t see suicide as an ending, but as a reset.”
Back then, the world basically saw Lewinsky as the predator. Late-night talk show hosts routinely made misogynistic jokes, with Jay Leno among the cruellest: “Monica Lewinsky has gained back all the weight she lost last year. [She’s] considering having her jaw wired shut but then, nah, she didn’t want to give up her sex life.” And so on.
In February 1998, the feminist writer Nancy Friday was asked by the New York Observer to speculate on Lewinsky’s future. “She can rent out her mouth,” she replied.
I hope those mainstream voices wouldn’t treat Lewinsky quite this badly if the scandal broke today. Nowadays most people understand those jokes to be slut-shaming, punching down, don’t they?
“I hope so,” Lewinsky says. “I don’t know.”
A lot of vicious things that happen online to women do happen at the hands of men, but women are not immune to misogyny. Either way, misogyny is still thriving. When the Guardian began researching the online harassment of its own writers, they discovered something bleak: of the 10 contributors who receive the most abuse in the comment threads, eight are women – five white, three non-white – and the other two are black men. Overall, women Guardian writers get more abuse than men, regardless of what they write about, but especially when they write about rape and feminism. I noticed something similar during my two years interviewing publicly shamed people. When a man is shamed, it’s usually, “I’m going to get you fired.” When a woman is shamed it’s, “I’m going to rape you and get you fired.”
With statistics like these, it’s no surprise that many consider this an ideological issue – that the focus should be on combatting the misogynistic, racist abuse committed by men. But Lewinsky doesn’t see it that way. “A lot of vicious things that happen online to women and minorities do happen at the hands of men,” she says, “but they also happen at the hands of women. Women are not immune to misogyny.”
“That happened to you,” I say. “With people like Nancy Friday. You found yourself being attacked by ideologues.”
“Yes,” Lewinsky says. “I think it’s fair to say that whatever mistakes I made, I was hung out to dry by a lot of people – by a lot of the feminists who had loud voices. I wish it had been handled differently. It was very scary and very confusing to be a young woman thrust on to the world stage and not belonging to any group. I didn’t belong to anybody.”
Do you remember Hillary coming to her defense? Neither do I. That great feminist hero… Egads, man, get serious.
And Ken Starr was the prosecutor?
Come out from behind the skirts of your “Ken Starr” crap and deny the truth of what I said.
What contemptible moral cowardice. No wonder you support her. You’re as mealy-mouthed as she is.
ms 57:
Are you a Republican plant of some type here investing in scatology trying to find a fresh side to old news? is the 57 your birth age?
We have a nation slowly sinking into poverty and you wish to spend time thinking about a lewd act by someone who is not running for the presidency to indict a person who is running. It is past and it is over. The growing segment of society which has surpassed baby boomers, the millenials have little knowledge of this event.
and than we get to us old farts. Maybe age has made us forget the ridiculous maneuvers of a Republican Congress and a chosen special prosecutor who went out of his way to malign many and prosecute other people who had little to do so he could rest in his fame as having prosecuted a president. And today, Starr as a Pres of Baylor who supposedly led the self righteous attack on a flawed president does pretty much the same thing by condoning a rape . Here he is after being thanked for saving Baylor from a rape case by wealthy Baylor Alumni. What was he thanked for? “his “integrity, leadership, character” and “exceptional care for students and their well-being.”
Here is Ken’s statement:
“The judge, who was formerly best known as the driving force behind the investigation into President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, has repeatedly said that he didn’t know about any rape allegations until the Texas Monthly report last fall. However, when confronted by a reporter on Friday with an email a rape victim had sent him with the subject, ‘I Was Raped at Baylor,’ Starr was completely flustered. He offered three separate answers to the questions, the first being, ‘I honestly may have. I’m not denying that I saw it.’” http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2016/06/06/3784960/thank-you-ken-starr-baylor-rape-scandal/
What does those last two sentences sound like to you? Look at the grin on your hero’s face. He escaped and the woman who had no choice in the matter is still around.
Over 50% of the baby boomer generation do not remember or barely recall Lewinsky or the affair. Yeah it happened and a Republican Congress was not interested in the truth and neither was Starr. They had their eyes set on indicting a President the same as you are only interested in indicting a potential President. We never got the truth as it was convoluted by a fame seeking prosecutor. Benghazi was a joke. Keep fishing on the emails, something will turn up. etc. Bernie is not going to happen unfortunately and I am not going to settle on Trump.
Spare me your bravado and self righteousness. It wears thin.
Run 75441
A very strange and warped response: No one remembers; therefore, it doesn’t matter. That’s the whole point of history, friend – to remember, because it matters. Those who don’t remember it are condemned to repeat it – condemned.
I did not mention Ken Starr, your amigo did. Ken Starr has nothing to do with the moral corruption of Bill and Hillary Clinton, which was the direct subject of my comments. You can discuss Ken Starr or historical amnesia all you want — it has nothing to do whatsoever with my comments.
You rise to the defense of former President Bill Clinton, who 1) knowingly, consciously, purposely lied straight to the face of the nation, and who 2) coerced an intern into a blowjob in the Oval Office – the legal definition of sexual harassment — which the next President of the United States, the wife of the former President of the United States, who daily brags about her credentials as a feminist, whose campaign has been run on the idea she would be the first woman blah blah blah, aided and abetted her husband in getting away with, all to serve their own political objectives. Yet, none of that offends you; rather, you are offended by my “bravado and self-righteousness.” I’ll tell you, it’d take a PhD in Scatology with extensive post-doc experience to dig your way out of that pile of shit.
The distinction you wish to make between those two black-hearted self-serving professional pols – the one who is not running for the presidency and the one who is – is a distinction the Clintons themselves have never made, either back in 1992, when Bill told us how wonderful it would be to get “two for the price of one,” or in 2016, when Hillary promised she would put Bill in charge of ramping up the economy.
I’m not a Republican. I am a self-respecting American who despises moral corruption in political leaders, both of whom, in this case, are named Clinton – one a bald-faced liar, the other a bald-faced hypocrite.
Those who defend such base moral corruption are themselves morally corrupt – and deserve what they get. If you are offended, tough — sit on it and stew.
ms 57:
Not defending anything or anyone as much as picking you apart. What does offends me is you have no alternatives to HRC today. Unless something traumatic happens between now and the convention, HRC is the candidate and no amount of stomping your feet, waving your arms, and taking a quasi-moralistic stance in response is going to change it. You are quite ready to sink a nation into a Trump and Republicans abyss because of your dislike and I am sure you have a similar moral message to spew out to people as a bromide if it did happen. I am not ready to take the plunge with you because of a dislike. Sanders the politician did not make his case well enough to garner the popular vote even with the millennial cohort or for that matter the super delegates, end of story.
Going forward what is your plan? To become part of the process or just fume on the sidelines?
Sanders did indeed win the popular vote among millennials. And that is despite that hundreds of thousands of them who wanted to vote in NY’s Dem primary were not able to do so because unbeknownst to them they would have to have registered as a Dem six months–SIX MONTHS–before the primary. And despite that something similar happened on Tuesday in the California primary: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/37325-stealing-California
That said, yes, Clinton is what we have–along with very substantial input from Sanders, in the campaign and as a senator afterward. You know the old saying, “Cutting off your nose to spite your face”? It’s suicide to not vote for Clinton.
And here’s another, related thing: Deciding to not vote, especially in a swing state, is effectively dismissing the profound and deep impact the Sanders campaign has had on national policy dialog, on what Dem candidates–from Clinton on down–will be campaigning on, and on the DNC itself.
That’s just stupid, in my opinion.
Bev:
If you read my comment on the Millennials, the largest cohort, the 60-40 split of them was still not enough to sway the popular vote to Sanders (my point). I do not make the rules and one could win a primary in some states and lose the delegates in the caucus. It is a strange mix. In Michigan you can not vote a straight ticket any more. I am sure Bernie will get some planks in the DEM platform.
Yes, I think Sanders’s supporters will have some good reasons to vote for Clinton, in addition to just voting against Trump.
There’s definitely been progress in the last 48 hrs. For me, a really big thing–although it wasn’t much noticed in the media–was that in her celebration speech in Brooklyn on Tuesday night she mentioned universal healthcare coverage. I didn’t see the speech, but I read that quote in an article about the speech.
You guys really have a burr under your saddle about defending this creature, don’t you? You don’t pick apart my comments as much as jump from one lily pad to the next doing back flips to defend a truly corrupt politician. Be my guest.
The election of Clinton is a fait accompli; it is already accomplished, as is, I hope to high heaven, a democratic wave election. It will bring me no end of happiness if I read the morning after that among those defeated are Blount, McCain, Toomey and Grassley. Your anxiety about the election is entirely misplaced, but you, like she, should fall down on your knees and thank god that she has Trump as an opponent. Any other Republican opponent and she would be toast. Americans know a monster when they see one.
As to falling in line to support her, forget it. I’ve watched her for 16 years. She doesn’t deserve my support. She has earned every bit of my animus.
I cannot imagine any woman in the entire world rushing to the defense of another woman who screwed her husband. Or anyone thinking that such a defense was something that should have happened.
This is beyond silly. You have built a immense straw man, er straw person, that has no justification at all.
You got that “A” firmly attached to the wrong person’s chest.
well,
i was born after Freud made sex okay and ended the Victorian age. and I have been a feminist since before the word was invented.
but that includes expecting women to be responsible for their own choices.
Lewinsky was not coerced. And of course Clinton lied.
There are aspects of the whole affair that make me think less of Clinton, but men and women seem to do this to each other whatever I think of them.
The fact that this was made a “scandal” was pure nasty politics.
The fact that some regard it as one more proof that men who have sex with women are morally depraved is just evidence that Freud must have been wrong.
But to blame Hillary for it takes a deeply twisted mind.
It would have been nice if Clinton simply refused to comment about it. Apparently, initially she believed that Lewinsky was making it up, but even then she should have just said nothing until things became clear one way or the other. And once they became clear she should have … I don’t know.
Hillary Clinton isn’t responsible for what her husband did, and I don’t think any sane person would think otherwise. And, yes, it was consensual. But Bill Clinton used her badly, manipulated her, took emotional advantage of this woman who was in her early or mid-twenties, using his position as president to do that. Not Hillary’s fault, but neither was it something she handled all that well, in my opinion.
Beverly
there was something Bill said in passing that made me think he was “using” her. hardly uncommon… for either sex. but i don’t like him for that. then I am old fashioned.
but as for her being “only” 24. men get drafted at 18, and i think women can vote at 18. it’s true that young women are as stupid as young men, and old men, and old women, but at some point we have to let them do what they do and take the consequences.
as an old man i can tell you that a 50 year old man doesn’t stand a chance against a 20 year old woman.
Honestly Dale. That last sentence made me cringe more than anything I’ve ever read on here.
You know that’s the same argument the enforcers use in Saudi Arabia right?
I don’t think there is any need to revisit the pathetic Starr inquiry wrt Clinton’s fitness for office. There are many more burdensome and recent errors in judgement. Honestly.
None of which is going to stop Trump from doing it. Or it being effective for that matter.
This is completely unrelated to this thread but because I don’t know how to post it otherwise, I’ll refer you to it. Very interesting non-technical piece on poverty/tax policy/social spending, for those who missed it.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/10/29/proven-way-reduce-poverty/KSMVN9DUaOILiA2I7TTOXO/story.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Vox%20Sentences%206/9/16&utm_term=Vox%20Newsletter%20All
ms 57:
You can run these points on the open thread too. You will catch less grief then.
It frustrated me. The author didn’t seem to consider that another way to decrease poverty is to increase wages. It might also help with the labor participation rate so you get a twofer.
Not enough jobs for young people and recent grads? Incentivize retirement of boomers by making retirement pay more.
I didn’t see him draw that distinction with other countries when comparing poverty rates either.
am soc
it was supposed to be a joke.
but i suspect i live in a different world than you do.
Am Soc re MS 57
actually he did consider it in the context of referring to European anti poverty programs… even with better wages etc no country has been able to get end poverty just by getting everyone a job at better wages.
similar with increasing SS benefits. but there is the problem of paying for it. i think workers would be smart to pay more into SS so they could have a larger pension or quit work while they can still walk, but I think it would destroy Social Security to “tax the rich” to pay for expanded SS. one needs to be careful how one goes about reducing poverty.
am soc
without knowing why you cringe it is dangerous for me to comment further…
but this is not Saudi Arabia. This is 20th/21st century America. women are liberated. they “just wanna have fun.” and probably you have never heard of the hordes of women who go to Washington looking for a powerful man to marry. sometimes this turns out bad for them…
oh, since your note was addressed to me
i don’t see any reason to revisit the Starr inquiriy either.
except to remind ourselves how nasty politics is, and how hypocritical we are about sex in this country.
just for the record, because i am a silly person, i wrote a long brief on the subject of sex and lies in case Clinton’s lawyers could use it. of course they didn’t need it… we are not at the stage where prosecuting a man for lying about sex, or threatening a woman with jail unless she tells about having sex with a man… is considered an invasion of privacy and a violation of the fifth amendment.
smile:
I’ve got no use for women, a true one may never be found.
They’ll stick by a man for his money
And when it’s gone, they turn him down.
They’re all alike at the bottom, selfish and gasping for all.
They’ll stand by a man while he’s winning
And laugh in his face when he falls.
(moral, if you need one: it’s not that women are as bad as men. it’s that men are as bad as women when it comes to blaming the other.)