If Clinton chooses Hickenlooper as her running mate, I will not vote for her. I mean it. [Updated]
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was spotted being dropped off at Clinton’s home and remained there for about an hour, according to CNN and NBC News. A person familiar with that meeting confirmed that Warren did meet with Clinton.
The same networks reported that Clinton also met at her home with Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, whose name has been less prominent on Clinton’s list of potential running mates. Clinton also met with Hickenlooper while campaigning in Denver late last month, and he later told reporters that the vice presidential search “briefly” came up.
— Clinton meets with Warren, Castro, Hickenlooper as part of VP search, Abby Phillip and Ed O’Keefe
Time and again when asked by a reporter why she thinks so many people, including many Democrats and Dem-leaning Republicans, don’t trust her and don’t like her, Hillary Clinton offers her opinion that that is the result of a quarter-century of vicious attacks by Republicans. And again and again she claims that her vaunted toughness in defending herself against those Republican attacks will translate into toughness in fighting congressional Republicans on policy issues.
Neither claim is accurate, and both are part and parcel of the heart of Clinton’s campaign problems: That she has a long history of feigning cluelessness about what is so off-putting about her, and that one reason so many people don’t like or trust her is that she feigns cluelessness about what is so off-putting about her, or, worse, isn’t feigning cluelessness about the reason for a problematic public reaction to something about her or something she has said or done. Or even just the meaning of a term like “the establishment.” which, her protestation notwithstanding, is unrelated led to gender. And that she’s a triangulator and that, with the exception of traditional women’s issues, her progressive feints appear to be exactly that: feints.
For those who don’t know, although I assume Clinton does: Hickenlooper, who won reelection in 2014 by a hair to, um, this character, spent his entire first term as the ultimate triangulator. So eager was he to advertise his nonpartisanship (read: moderate-Republican leanings) that he appointed a Republican nobody trial-court judge known for his illiteracy in anything resembling actual law, including his state’s statutes in the main area of law specifically assigned to him to handle as a judge, to the state Supreme Court.
Colorado has an appalling method of judicial selection that gets high praise because the judges are selected initially not via election but instead by appointment of the governor. The problem is that a private committee, operating secretly, is charged with receiving bids for vacancies and then forwarding to the governor three names from which to choose.
But the three names become public (so to speak) only after they are announced as the three finalists; the names of the applicants are not publicly announced when they become applicants. And then there is a window of approximately three minutes (okay, I think it’s 15 days) before the governor must make the appointment. The blink-and-you’ll-miss-it time period is of course long enough for the three to get their supporters to weigh in, but unless you know the announcement of the three is coming, not long enough for anyone else to do so. Hickenlooper, provided with a choice between two Dems and this Republican-out-of-your-guess-is-as-good-as-mine, chose, to the dismay of many Dems, many progressives, and many victims of this judge’s stupidity, chose the latter.
In (I believe) the second election cycle after the appointment, the judge must run for “retention” by the voters—getting 60% (or some such figure) approval of the voters. For this (misnomered) justice, that election was the one in November 2014, the one in which Hickenlooper running for reelection topped the ballot for state offices. A state agency charged with contacting people (i.e., lawyers) who have had cases before the judges running for retention, and summarizing the statements, had reported about this Republican-out-of-your-guess-is-as-good-as-mine that many lawyers—some who had argued cases at the state Supreme Court since his appointment there and some who just had to try to deal with the opinions (such as they are) authored by this moron—that he was notably ignorant of the law and was either unable or unwilling to explain the bases for his opinions. The agency’s report assured readers, though, that the moron said he’s working on improving. Apparently, no one had noticed, though.
But Hickenlooper, who apparently also used other important appointments to advertise his nonpartisan (read: pro-business) cred, got a big look-at-me-I’m-not-really-a-Democrat-or-at-least-not-really-a-progressive chit. The problem, though, was that his triangulation damn-near cost him reelection.
Someone I know who badly wanted to see Hickenlooper’s Republican Supreme Court appointee denied retention, and who believed he could accomplish that by reporting certain specifics to high-profile journalists, instead made the very painful decision to not do that. The governor’s race was nip-and-tuck until the end. Anyone appointed by the alternative to Hickenlooper would be horrific. And highlighting the utter cravenness of Hickenlooper’s I’m-not-a-progressive-just-look-at-my-appointments tenure as governor conceivably could tip the balance toward the other guy in such a close election; progressives, whom Hickenlooper belatedly realized were sooo not pleased that some were considering not voting, and who late in the campaign he started frantically to court, could find it even harder to vote for this guy.
Which should be a lesson to Clinton and to the two people charged with drafting her Convention acceptance speech, and who want to try to explain what, specifically, their candidate means by her slogan “Stronger Together.” They want, they say, to convey what kind of country Clinton will try to mold as president.
That is incredibly weird, if you think about it. On virtually the eve of the Convention, this nominee is still debating between the candidate who will assuage her financial-industry donors—after all, who recommended Hickenlooper to her in the first place?— and, well, probably no one who won’t, notwithstanding her token among the VP-choice finalists.
What strikes me is the odd similarity between what Trump is doing and what Clinton is doing. Or, more accurately, the similarity between the reason for what each of these two respective nominees is doing. Trump went uber-base in his running mate choice in order to get some mega-donors to fund his campaign. For Clinton, the opposite is necessary in order to achieve that goal. I shouldn’t have succumbed to wishful thinking.
But neither Clinton nor her speechwriters need wonder any longer why so many people don’t like or trust her. Nor what she can do about it. She’s answered the first question, just fine. And the second question answers itself, although she still thinks banalities, constant idiotic playacting, looking for a slogan that will fly, and of course triangulation dog whistles, are the way to go. If at first you don’t succeed, ….
The encouraging news if she chooses Hickenlooper, I guess, is that she may not have him help select her judicial nominees. Although you never know.
UPDATE: Oh, stop. Just stop, all of you in the comments thread who are excoriating me and think I will continue to be angry enough to actually not vote for Clinton.
Look. There really is no choice, in my opinion. There just isn’t.
I meant it when I wrote the post, yes. But since then I watched Clinton’s video address to the Netroots convention, and I feel about it much the same as I did her comments to us Sanders supporters on Tuesday during her joint with him. I think it would be hard not to watch that video and not see it as sincere.
But if I’m wrong, there’s still no choice. Not for me.
I wish Clinton would step back and ditch her standard persona and truly be the person she is in that video. But doing that would require moving away from many of the people who have her ear and whom she relies so much on for political advice. It also would require her to decide finally that the candidate she says in that video that really is is the candidate she truly is now.
As for Hickenlooper, I think now maybe she really didn’t know much about what transpired in his first term. But if so, it really should be a warning to her that before she just accepts advice from someone who has the ability, the access, to give it to her, she should speak with some actual progressives who know about the person she’s considering or the issue she’s being lobbied about.
If she does pick Hickenlooper as her running mate, it will be a decision that runs contrary to her statements in that video about who she now is as a candidate, which I interpret as something beyond the two main issues she spoke about in it. But if she does, I will vote for her anyway because I don’t think I have the option not to.
Update added 7/17 at 4:21 pm.
But why is it so many people DO like her? Especially so many people of color? Maybe they are self-hating ethnic groups who vote against their own interests.
This post is being entered into the competition for the Pauline Kael Award.
The problem with your Kael analogy is that the reporters who keep asking her that question, and the pundits and reporters who mention it, are relying upon polls taken not by Pauline Kael but by longtime professional pollsters highly paid by mainstream news organizations and by the Democratic Party. Unless these pollsters are polling just their friends and acquaintances, more voters really DO not like and trust her than do.
There’s no question that Clinton has millions of supporters. But since millions of voters, including a substantial number of Dems and Dem-leaning independents, really do not like or trust her, and since that fact could determine the outcome of the election, that is the more important fact, which is why so many political journalists mention it.
You can just say Benghazi, Whitewater, emails (which lacked critical markings), etc. and get it out of your system as most Republicans might and do quite regularly. I hope we do end up with Trump as I will tell you about it as often as you raise an argument to Trump, his minions, and the Repubs.
as a former member of the NAACP I could hazard an answer to your question. But I shouldn’t.
as for Hillary, the only reason I would consider voting for her is all the people who say ugly things about her.
that does not include Beverly, who appears to be as frustrated with the Democratic candidate(s?) as I am.
I just don’t understand the lack of trust issue. You cannot trust any politician, just like YOU CANNOT PETITION THE LORD IN PRAYER.
But you WILL vote for Clinton if the Veep is somebody else??? And a Veep nomination short of Sarah Palin means nothing. You’re getting hot and bothered by the possibility of a neolib Dem nominee choosing a neolib Veep? And this bothers you WHY???
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man…
and the trouble with logic is that people think they are being logical when they are only ignoring the facts, or at least the propositions at issue.
I am going to guess that Beverly is not objecting to Hickenlooper because he is a neolib per se, but because he has demonstrated a level of incompetence and personal irresponsibility if not immorality.
of course i could be wrong about that… i don’t always understand just what Beverly means. but watch out for that “logic” stuff. it is almost always self-delusion.
Clintons both Bill and Hill have no convictions.
I see 4 more years of main line democrat anti progressiveness the same way Brits saw “remain”.
Add republican righteous abuse and Hillary has the same chances that Cleveland has of winning the NBA next year.
You hit it.
Think “unsound” and “invalid” in terms of logic.
I too, will not vote for her if she chooses Hickenlooper. But, then again, I wouldn’t vote for her if she was running unopposed. She’s a liar, untrustworthy and a neo-con. They have one of those on the GOP ticket. Who needs another?
A comment: When you substitute “The Donald” for “her” in the question you ask — “But why is it so many people DO like her?” – you (“one”) see immediately why that’s not much of a basis to support or defend a candidate; nor does it answer the question why so many people don’t like her. And, in the case of The Donald, I argue all the time that his supporters, while not “self-hating ___________,” really are voting against their own interests — a limo-riding billionaire is the favorite of working-class whites?
There is ample reason not to trust either Clinton. There is abundant reason to fear The Donald being allowed anywhere near the White House, and an absolute duty, if one loves this country, to see he doesn’t.
All discussion of Clinton’s virtue versus her corruption is a complete distraction from the only issue that now matters: Clinton vs. Trump. It vexes me no end that people fail to comprehend the totality of the disaster his election would mean to the Republic.
Take ISIS. It is a cancerous ideology spreading everywhere, rather than a threatening military presence nearly anywhere — they are on the run in their “Islamic State.” Declare war on them? Invade? It’s like smashing a droplet of mercury with a hammer. The Donald wakes up every morning hoping for MORE terroristic attacks in the hope of securing his election. He has zero concern for the victims; he is solely concerned with himself — on every issue, at any time, in all circumstances.
Clinton’s relation to the truth is slippery. The Donald doesn’t know what truth means. He lies more often and with greater ease than a born-again Christian prays. The Donald IS the truth. The Donald IS God. The Donald IS his religion.
At least HRC understands how the government works; in fact she is an expert on the subject. The Donald has less understanding of the government than a semi-educated fifth grader. To him the Constitution of the United States is an irrelevant mystery. If elected the Constitution would mean in his fevered brain whatever he wants it to mean.
The Donald’s favorite form of communication is the tweet (and the rambling, incoherent, ego-driven rally). Remove “sad” and “disgraceful” from his lexicon and it is halved.
Randall Pinkett won “The Apprentice” and a job with Trump. He walked in his first morning and found Trump “methodically working through a foot-high stack of magazines and newspapers on his desk. Each item in the stack had a Post-it note; and Trump took an item off the top of the stack, put it on his desk and opened it at the Post-it note. He read the relevant article then put it to the side. Disconcertingly, this ritual continued throughout their half-hour meeting in early 2006.”
“So I’m wondering,” Pinkett says, “is this guy reading current trends in real estate, is he reading stock market coverage, is he reading about global business? I lean over as we’re talking and I realize everything he’s looking at is an article about himself. In fact at several points in the conversation Donald got so excited about what he was reading about himself that he would pick up the magazine and hold it up to me and say, ‘Look Randal, do you see that The Apprentice was number one in the ratings last week, isn’t that great?’
“Apparently somebody’s job responsibility is to find all this stuff and to organize it for him to read. I can only conclude that Donald loves reading about Donald.” Is there any reason to believe he wouldn’t do the same in the WH?
He is a menace to the Republic, a five-alarm fire that requires the attention of everyone to defeat him.
I agree. See the update to my post.
I have no choice but to vote for Clinton. None at all. But I want so much to do it a little bit happily. By which I mean ….
As I said in my update, her video message to the Netroots convention, which I watched today, gives me some genuine hope. She seems there to have chosen now to be a genuinely different candidate. I think maybe she now genuinely wants to be a progressive president.
But if not, I’ll still vote for her.
Too late and the damage has been done. Hopefully, HRC can still pull it out.
Half the country hates Clinton because they view all of the “scandals” over the last 25 years as the absolute truth.
Then we’ve got the non “neo-liberal” Democrats(their term) who have spent the last couple of decades sitting largely on the sideline and bitching about neo liberal policies that the Dem party has adopted(according to them) and just like to bitch at anyone who is not named Bernie Sanders.
Course, like Sanders, their political IQ is in single digits and they somehow seem to like the idea of cutting off their noses to spite their face because it preserves some moral purity they believe they own.
And people wonder why the polls show what they show.
Clintons have no convictions.
If Hillary knows how the DC cabal works, how come she says she will overturn citizens’ united her first 30 days………..
People who support Clinton cannot see how the peeps in UK should be allowed to shoot EU in the foot.
To quote Kipling: “Tommy sees”.
You read too quickly. She did not say she would overrule it in the first 30 days but that within 30 days she would introduce a constitutional amendment to repeal it.
Does it deserve to be repealed? Is it high on her agenda to repeal it? Would Trump ever even introduce a constitutional amendment to repeal it? Does Trump even know what Citizens United is, or what the amendment process is, or what the Constitution is? Would he ever even read the Constitution if he knew that his name doesn’t appear in it?
Most people don’t follow politics in detail — in a busy life, job, family, necessary tasks of life (like dealing with health insurance companies, telecom companies, 401(k) plans, all the stuff that is privatized and relatively unregulated in the U.S. because citizens are so much freer if they get to go one-on-one against big corporations) leave too little time for serious interaction with politics. Add to that the way politics is presented both as tribalism (Democrats are inclusive, Republicans are moral!) and as plays about personalities.
So a lot of people will defend every aspect of their party’s choice. Campaigns that focus on personality reinforce the “he/she has my values” with relatively little reference to anything that the candidate has actually done.
Clinton claims the mantle of Democrat and of non-white-male option. I know people who really love her, but when asked what she’s actually done, can’t get beyond the cv and the speech in Beijing about women. For party Democrats, it’s being part of a group.
Bernie, Hillary, and the Ghost of Ernst Thalmann
Harold Meyerson July 13, 2016
In the last years of the Weimar Republic, the real menace to Germany, Thälmann argued, wasn’t the Nazis but the Communists’ center-left, and more successful, rival for the backing of German workers: the Social Democrats. The SDs, he said, were actually “social fascists,” never mind that they were a deeply democratic party without so much as a tinge of fascism in their theory and practice. But as the Communists’ rival for the support of the German working class, the SDs became the chief target of the Communists’ campaigns.
Thälmannism, then, is the inability (be it duplicitous, willful, fanatical, or just plain stupid) to distinguish between, on the one hand, a rival political tendency that has made the compromises inherent to governance and, on the other hand, fascism. And dispelling that inability is precisely what Bernie Sanders will be doing between now and November.
I’m neither equating Donald Trump with Hitler nor saying he’s fascist in the classic sense. Trump has no organized private army of thugs to attack and intimidate his rivals, as both Hitler and Mussolini did. But Trump’s racist, xenophobic, and nationalist appeals; his division of the nation into valorous and victimized native-born whites and menacing non-white interlopers; his constant employment of some Big Lies and many Little ones; and his scant regard for civil liberties make him the closest thing to a fascist of any major party presidential nominee in our history.
Yet a minority of Sanders’s supporters fail to grasp the threat that a Trump presidency poses to the nation—to immigrants, to minorities, to workers, and even to the left and to themselves. I doubt more than a handful will actually vote for Trump, but Jill Stein and even Gary Johnson will win some of the Sanders diehards’ votes (though for voters, moving from Medicare-for-All Sanders to Medicare-for-None Johnson requires either extraordinary ideological footwork or simple brain death). In states where the race between Clinton and Trump is close, however, a Sanders diehard’s vote for Stein or Johnson, or a refusal to vote at all, is in effect a vote for Trump.
[Couldn’t have said it better myself. :-)]
Read Umberto eco on fascism and tell me Trump is not a fascist,
I’ve never understood why the left was responsible in the Weimar Republic for Nazism’s getting power, while the more centrist party’s accommodations were regarded as opposing it. What I couldn’t have said better myself: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/louis-proyect-misusing-german-history-to-scare-up-votes-for-hillary-clinton.html
At least HRC understands how the government works; in fact she is an expert on the subject. The Donald has less understanding of the government than a semi-educated fifth grader.
That is exactly what makes her more dangerous than The Donald. Her policies are much more likely to be implemented – and that, my friend, is the real danger to this country.
I’ll vote for the ineffective big mouth over the effective war-monger every time.
Voting for Ms. Goldman Sachs vs the Right wing idiot. Choices Choices Choices
Denis Drew and Nihil Obstet,
Thanks for the articles.
It’s been fun watching folks (not you guys) baffled by the rise of Trump trying to find just where he fits into the history of demagoguery (what a fine group to be included in!). The bafflement continues because Trump is sui generis and ahistorical.
All the examples usually offered, from WJ Bryant to Hitler/Mussolini to GC Wallace, et al – emerged from a political movement of one kind or another – Populist, Nationalist/Socialist, Democratic Dixiecrats. Trump is not a political but a cultural phenomenon that has infected politics. What is Trumpism? The Donald! He has no political ideology or history or party to emerge from, no real commitment to represent anyone’s interests other than his own. His political methodology is not pamphleteering or writing books or even the simplest and most essential political need – organization. He tweets. No other demagogue in history was so vulnerable to being snuffed out as he is; all that needs to be done is for Twitter to cancel his account. What would he do? He cannot articulate any reason to vote for him, can’t put a simple sentence together, can’t write. It’s just “hey folks: be fearful, I hate them, too, let me take care of it.” If he had never had a successful TV show, or never dedicated himself heart and soul 30 years ago to be at the center of everything, where would he be today? His only genius – and that includes his business acumen – is self-promotion. He is best understood from a psychological perspective: a truly warped thing who never completed the transformation from childhood to adulthood and still insists on trying on one role after role after role, as a teen does, and demanding on being the center of attention – and throwing tantrums when he isn’t — as a two-year old does.
The only historical antecedent I can think of is Nero.
I think he’s a sociopath and a psychopath.
Trump just said the other day that he wants to declare war on ISIS. Isn’t he also a warmonger?
Vote for anyone you want to. Just don’t moan about what you get. This isn’t a game, brother. Your life is not just a toy to be played with in a national sand box. And it cannot be said of anyone, of whatever stripe, who has the power of the US Presidency in his hands – including the Black Box with the nuclear codes – that he is ineffective.
You won’t vote for Hillary because you hate her. Fine. But what are you for, brother? Tell me what you want to build, man, not just who you want to destroy.
Your title is, “If Clinton chooses Hickenlooper as her running mate, I will not vote for her. I mean it.” Why this self-absorption? Why not a piece with the title “If Clinton chooses Hickenlooper as her running mate, the country will be better off if Trump wins”. Isn’t that the practical meaning of your views?
Dennis, I totally disagree. The SPD had a principled, and understandable stance. And per respondents to my initial comment, ‘logic’ or whatever, it looks like Beverly’s not going to answer.
Nobody has seen anything from Clinton not filtered through a hostile media since the 2008 election. Even then, having left the Senate widely praised with a 90+% voting record from Americans for Democratic Action — close to Brernie’s — and having been re-elected to the Senate by 70% of those gullible New Yorkers, she was trashed mercilessly in the most misogynistic terms possible by none other than NBC. The dislike is skin deep, because there is little to support it.
This blog demonstrates the power of the right wing media to set the agenda, even among those who think they are immune. I wonder how many believed, and maybe still believe, that Al Gore said he invented the Internet and generally had a problem with the truth? Funny how that canard keeps getting attached to Democrats to the benefit of shell-game-playing Republicans in Presidential elections. And all because Bill did, in fact, initially lie about having a sexual affair like 100.00000% of people of both sexes do when they are first caught.
Yup, the rightwing media fabricated that thing attributed to her at the first debate about Denmark not being a capitalist country. And later, that Sanders’ healthcare plan would allow Republican governors to refuse to implement it, and that the taxes to support it would be in addition to rather than instead of insurance premiums. And that the only expenses that matter in determining net incomes is money paid in taxes. And that she can’t possibly be considered part of the establishment because she’s a woman candidate for president.
Stop. All of you. Just stop. I’ve updated the post. Read the update.
Forget it. I read your update. Mighty big of you. Its the original post that really shows your true colors. Petulant and stupid. And its troubling because I don’t think you are a stupid person. And I hear and see this sort of hysterical reaction to Clinton constantly from Sanders supporters. And to them I say, just stop. It isn’t funny. It isn’t cute. And it is damaging and you just keep doing it oblivious to damage that it causes. You might think that you are schooling the candidate. Instead you are displaying a very unfortunate aspect of your personality.
Just guessing here, but might you be a Clinton campaign worker? Someone on the team that hasn’t done all that well in schooling the candidate?
It is hard to see how Hickenlooper would bring anything of value. No national reputation, turns off progressives — when driving turnout requires all the energetic people to be on board — name made for constant late-night jokes. My favorite candidates (for the day) are Javier Becerra, who can really kick ass, and Tom Perez, the source of most of the good stuff Obama is doing at the end of his run, and who can make the progressive case persuasively with a sense of humor. Warren could work, too, if she can be allowed as VP to be as strong an advocate as she can be in Senate.
What I hope she understands about the Bernie people is that many are the most active base of the party. They probably did as much as anybody in the thankless street work to get Obama elected in 2008.
Yeah, I like both of your choices, but neither one is in the running, apparently. Becerra might be a bit too controversial, though, and that wouldn’t be good, either.
All right, everybody. If you don’t agree with me, you are a bad, stupid person, doing great damage to all that is good and right. You are self-important, petulant, naif, ignorant . . . and there’s a much longer list of appropriate descriptions that all apply to you. What you obviously are not, is someone trying to figure out the best response to very difficult times. I know this about you.
If the rest of us didn’t have to go down with those of you refusing to vote for Hillary, I’d wish Trump would win just for the sheer fun of watching you all simmering in the stew pot you are trying to make. You’d be waiting for the phoenix to rise I suppose. If it did it would simply be looking down at you all being cooked. Did the 2010 mid terms really tell the tale? I hope not.
Wow. Havin’ a good day?
The question about seeing Hickenlooper is rightly troubling. I can’t say I took it very seriously (not your post) when I heard it – I thought she was doing it out of a political necessity to smooth the path in CO. I don’t think anyone truly knows what the meeting was about, but if she was vetting him about the Veep slot it’s troubling.
Many here resent the idea that HRC might still be deeply troubling to lots of people when contemplating her in the WH. When she meets with someone like Hickenlooper and it is reported she is considering him for her Veep, the immediate thought for many of us is it’s deja vu all over again. Just who is she? Is she the candidate we see in the Netroots video or is she the child of Wall Street? Where is she going? What is she thinking? Just what are her roots? Just who does she represent? Is she a progressive? Is she triangulating? Is she just stringing us all along until the election? And to what end? If these perfectly valid questions still exist, as they certainly do in my mind, it’s evidence of a basic flaw of hers as either a failure to communicate clearly or a lack of forthrightness. Can anyone say they don’t know what Bernie stands for, or Paul Ryan? Is Trump a mystery? Is Obama? Why do the open questions exist, why can’t we say the same about her? Why can’t we say with certainty what she stands for and what she intends to do? It is deeply, deeply troubling.
I personally don’t think it’s helpful to continue to undermine HRC in the run up to the election as it diverts attention from the obscenity that Trump is – which you recognize when you say you’ll vote for her regardless. But the reaction you have received is completely out of proportion to the comments you made, the bulk of which concerns the questions about the judge. Given Hickenlooper’s actions in the case, it is perfectly appropriate then to wonder out loud what the hell is she doing, and if she is really contemplating him as Veep, oh crap, here we go again.
I think someone said your comments were stupid (while acknowledging that you are not). I personally don’t see a bit of stupidity in them. Rather, they are the comments of someone who obviously watches politics closely and simply doesn’t trust HRC – a distrust that cannot be explained away simply by restating “vast right-wing conspiracy” over and over again.
Not Trump in ’16!
Thanks for that, ms 57. If she really is contemplating Hickenlooper as her running mate, then maybe the attention it’s getting on the Web–there’s a Reddit thread on it, to my surprise–will get back to her somehow and let her know what progressives familiar with Hickenlooper think of him. She might not know.
That actually was my intent, along with expressing my dismay and revulsion. And if somehow it does reach her, then rather than undermining her it would do the opposite.
I do wish she’d expand the circle of people whom she consults.
I guess this is the point at which I draw your collective attention to “deja vu all over again,” but then I realized that it’s more like the Bill Murray movie, “Ground Hog Day.” What ever, here it is, the comment that just keeps on coming on.
“The conversation is beginning to remind me of the Yogi Berra quote, “It’s deja vu all over again.” Here’s a comment I wrote two days ago under Kimmel’s post regarding Clinton’s Judgement.
““On Teflon Clintons: one rule for the oligarchs.”
You see. That comment is part of the mythology of the political class. It flies in the face of reality. The Clintons are not great leaders by any stretch of my imagination, but neither have they been free from constant and exaggerated criticisms of who they are and what they do. One simple fact is that they seem to receive too much money, all apparently legal, for simply being within the political class. And near to the top of the class at that. But someone is always suggesting that they smell a rat in regards to what the Clintons are up to. And now there have been so many accusations of evil doing that we can’t seem to separate out the fact from the fiction. Look at Trump. He goes around screaming “Crooked Hilary” and hardly gets called out for his obvious projection. Who has been more crooked in his business dealings, in the colloquial sense of the term, than Trump or don’t we count his multiple bankruptcies and long lists of unpaid creditors?
As I noted previously, no one has yet been able to get a proper indictment against her, or him for that matter. Not that the Republicans haven’t tried. What was that ridiculous showboat of a Committee investigation all about? Was it really the Libyan incident that was being investigated? Too much bullshit is being passed around and it is thinning out any legitimate critique of what the woman brings to the political table. On the other hand, who would be any better choice? How about Ted Cruz. Marco Rubio? As the President? Really?? Carly Fiorino, there’s a winner for the White House. You see. You have to see any candidate within the context of who else is available for the job.
It fits right in under this thread from Run entitled Wallowing. So I’m posting a verbatim copy of a comment amongst a long list of virtual copies of comments on a subject that seems to go on endlessly in spite of the recognition that the subject matter is a repetition of unsubstantiated accusations against a politician that no one seems to like, but for reasons that no one is able to state clearly and with supporting documentation of those reasons. This is something like that Winston Churchill quote describing the difficulty of identifying Russia’s reasons for something or other. You know, riddles, enigmas and its all a mystery. She’s guilty!! I know it!! I can tell by the look in her eyes!!”
See? There’s no need to keep repeating ourselves over the very same arguments, especially given the limited objectivity being brought to the discussion. I recommend that the next time one of the “posters” thinks to bring up the Hillary is a dragon lady meme, that person should instead read the most recent post from Ed Lambert and spend the time constructing a reply to that piece. Ed deals only with measurable phenomenon. A nice change of pace.
Do you find it odd that the Clinton campaign hasn’t responded to Trump’s Crooked Hillary meme with a barrage of ads and comments listing one after another after another of Trump’s scams and frauds and skipping out on paying bills and investors and partners, and obtaining bank loans based on fraudulent representations? I sure do.
No, I do not think it is odd to ignore a sociopath and a little person. He is a fascist.
I assume you’ve been paying some attention to Elizabeth Warren’s comments.
Which ones, Jack? I don’t know of any in the last few days.
What’s “crooked” about a company’s going bankrupt? GM went bankrupt, and Obama supported that.
I’m not talking about the bankruptcies, Warren. They’re the least of it.
Goog;le her and you’ll find all kinds of snarky and pointed criticisms in the last 24 hours.
As Monty Python would say, “And now for something completely different…”
Wanted to make sure you saw this.
“Do you find it odd that the Clinton campaign hasn’t responded to Trump’s Crooked Hillary meme with a barrage of ads and comments listing one after another after another of Trump’s” ….
You are not getting the dembot mailers that populate my spam folder.
I do not read Billary past the headline, no deeper than her clones.
“Know Thine Enemy” — Arm yourself with knowledge.
Living with the enemy.
“I do not read”
We all knew that.
Several valiant tries.
At this point is is obvious that, however valiant, they are worthless.
The right wing media’s attacks for 25 years combined with the disappointment of some Sanders supporters has made normal conversation an impossibility.
And it will be that way for at least the next four years regardless of who wins the Presidency.
“Hillary Clinton Has No One to Blame but Herself”
Thanks for supporting righteousness. As you point out above, anyone who disagrees with you has an IQ in the single digits. What they say is completely outside the realm of normal conversation. I applaud your refusal to incorporate the normal in your conversation.
In current political discussions, history has become more flexible than even Orwell imagined.
Do not create straw men for me. Despicable habit.
I’ll vote Clinton, but having watched and listened to Trump I find the prospect of him being President less alarming than many here do. The Republicans nominating him gave Democrats a gift, but I expect that he would end up far more conventional if he were to actually win than many fear. Of course he would be close to a conventional Republican, which is why I vote Democratic, but he’d probably be a better President than Cruz would have been or probably Rubio too.
141 Things Donald Trump Has Said and Done That Make Him Unfit to Be President
How many times has Donald Trump disqualified himself from holding the most powerful job in the world? You be the judge.
jeebus. the apologists sure have a lot of axes to grind in this post don’t they.
“The Art of the Deal” ghostwriter said an hour ago, “I put lipstick on a pig” and “I think Trump’s a sociopath” and “I think if Trump was given the nuclear codes it would mean the end of civilization.”
Trump has no experience ending civilizations.
Clinton however has Libya, Ukraine etc…….
I don’t read BS, and I hear the blither from “she who must be listened to.”
First, the comment on ending civilizations did not come from me but from Trump’s ghostwriter, who worked up close and personal on the project and thus has infinitely more insight into the mind of that monster than you or me.
Second, the civilizations of Libya and Ukraine are not dead.
Third, to withdraw the nuclear umbrella from South Korea and Japan, as he has said with perfect ignorance, is to completely destabilize the whole of East Asia, and set China (and North Korea) on a military collision path with both South Korea and Japan — and if you want to know what a militaristic Japan looks like, pick up a book on WW II; and if you wanted to pursue that line of research, there are centuries of history to explore of Chinese and/or Japanese military conquest and domination.
To suggest that HRC, in all her neo-con manifestations, is more dangerous than Trump would be with his hands on the nuclear trigger is simply absurd, an argument rooted in a visceral hatred of HRC rather than a rational analysis.
Obama is destabilizing both East Europe and North Asia deploying military assets designed to defeat rather than deter.
However, does nuclear deterrence work to assure stability?
Japan PM Abe is pushing for militarism and stimulus in war industry, over at Ritholtz’ Big Picture Kotok thinks Japan war spending will rise to 2.5 from 1% of GDP. An investment boom in arms spending to be invested into.
Trump is not dumb, he is applying Antonin Rapoport’s conclusions about the illogic and immorality of “deterrence”.
I concur with Rapoport having lived defense and offense for a time. The nuclear umbrellas or what ever term is used to hide the hideous are utterly immoral. The idea that US is so worthy as to destroy the world if it loses is insane. To excuse the unthinkable to keep China and Japan apart is not moral.
US has installed a THAAD radar to cue intercepts incoming on Japan to “protect” US forces in Korea and Japan, US is sending another THAAAD radar to Korea. If the things ever work or the interceptors ever go off.
THAAD is designed to defeat NK version of deterrence therefore THAAD is destabilizing.
Only one of my uncles served in the Pacific the rest were in the ETO.
US is already rearming the equally horrid fascists in Europe.
Nuclear deterrence has deterred nuclear attacks — and out and out wars — by major state actors since 1945. That’s 70 years without any of the major powers having gone to war. If you can find an equally long period free of such international wars, I’d like to know when it was.
Trump is about as ignorant as you can get in any and all spheres of knowledge essential to occupy the oval Office: military, diplomatic, economic, constitutional and political. He has no interest in any of those subjects — and is proud of it. As the perfect representative of the reactionary right-wing in this country he has perfect scorn for science and any and all other intellectual endeavor you can name.
If you want to vote for Trump, be my guest. You will then be able to proudly assume your place in the ranks of the 20% of the yahoos in the country he see him as an avenging angel.
What does he stand for? Don’t tell me what he is against — what is he for? Out of what American tradition does he rise? What are his virtues?
Donald Trump, that limo-riding populist poseur, that narcissist interested in one thing and one thing only — himself, that ignoramus who eschews policy for instinct, is the greatest menace to the Republic ever to be nominated for the presidency by a major party. And I pity all those who ignorantly lust for an authoritarian to “take our country back” even if it means losing the country in the process.
“The atomic bomb made the prospect of future war unendurable. It has led us up those last few steps to the mountain pass; and beyond there is a different country.”
Nuclear deterrence has kept us out of that country.
you may well be right about all of that, but do not discount what ilsm is saying
non nuclear war may be leading us to … an islamic state? and certainly vietnam and other “small” wars that do US no credit morally
and while Hillary may be right to leave it to the professionals to manage the economy, leaving the professionals unregulated is leading to an ugly predatory “business model” which will ultimately not only harm “the poor” but turn America into some place where “prosperity” is impossible even for honest businessmen.
i don’t have any answers. but i know that “rationality” and “morality” are not things you can count on when dealing with humans.
I do not agree about US deterrence I think militarized NATO was unnecessary in 1985 as it is today. It posed more threat to inconvenient* nationalist movements in its zone.
Russia was bleed white in 1945. Deterrence was RAND humbug to sell trillions and trillions in nuclear weaponry to destroy the world. The other trillions in conventional arms was unwarranted influence to go along with having a vague notion of a trip wire, another band of humbug supporting trillions for tanks and ships.
Think deterrence and then think why is US arming up in East Europe, and putting in missile defenses?
European Reassurance Initiative (ERA) a rotating armored brigade to add to the US’ 3 or 4 already in NATO. Another $4b a year in overseas contingency plunder.
Add to your thought exercise about deterrence: the US (Obama/Clinton/PNAC) is pursuing a missile defense (European Phased Approach: Aegis ashore in Rumania and Poland which is cheaper than THAAD radars) as a first step toward first nuclear strike, something even W and Cheney did not pursue. Then add a trillion for the pentagon’s new nukes.
What is US deterring in East Europe?
Does deterrence matter when one side plans on first strike?
US has not attacked a nuclear armed nation, until US gets them covered by THAAD.
Deterrence along with the rest of US post WW II military strategies flaunts just war doctrine.
Now you tell me with a perfectly straight face that, in your opinion, Obama is preparing to start a nuclear war.
I’d sooner talk to a schizophrenic about the nature of God than continue this discussion.
I understand why you’d vote for Trump.
You are absolutely right to say “that “rationality” and “morality” are not things you can count on when dealing with humans.” That is particularly true when dealing with the actions of nation-states, which always seem to justify their murderous adventures (in which it’s always someone else who dies) by appealing to reason and morality.
I think your fears of an Islamic State – the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” – are unfounded. It’s not the establishment of such a state that plagues us, but the ideology behind the dream of establishing one – an ideology that is fed on a daily basis by the actions of the Western powers which seem intent on killing Muslims.
The proxy wars fought between 1945 and 1992 were murderous. The ultimate – and ultimately immoral – justification for it being “better them than me.” But even those crimes are nothing, absolutely nothing when put on the scales of human suffering and compared to the carnage and destruction that result when major powers go at it. The Napoleonic Wars, WW I, WW II… And if one’s perverse, diabolical desire is to see the end of the world as we know it, then by all means destabilize the balance that has kept them from going at it for the last 70 years and once again set them loose to go to war with nuclear weapons. In that case History Trumps Hope – and you can kiss your keister goodbye. Permanently. Nothing, not even global climate change, is more certain to lead to the death of hundreds of million – billions – of people.
We Americans, we Westerners, have been beguiled into thinking that what we have will always be, as if history really has ended. It is perfect folly. What we have needs to be defended and endlessly fought for, struggled for. Now we face the reactionary tribes pouring out of the hills who have rallied behind Trump; they perfectly reflect him; he perfectly represents them.
Who are they and what do they want? Read the GOP party platform, brother. If it’s not a full-frontal assault on the very nature of Constitutional government I don’t know what is. And a mendacious, sociopathic, uneducated narcissist now commands them.
If you want to really know what Trump is:
“Now you tell me with a perfectly straight face that, in your opinion, Obama is preparing to start a nuclear war.”
Of course not.
No Obama is putting together the very expensive, highly profitable, inept pieces to do a first strike because it will bankrupt the US and make it a safer place for billionaires.
Hoooodadunkit!! The mule party politician who ran on not voting for AUMF would still be sending US troops to Iraq and Afghanistan 8 years later.
I rather think Obama is squandering your tax money for the military industry complex.
Like all his predecessors except Ike and Carter.
In one breath you say it:
“Does deterrence matter when one side plans on first strike? US has not attacked a nuclear armed nation, until US gets them covered by THAAD.”
In the next you deny it.
As I said, I understand why you’d vote for Trump.
No more of this, brother.
On the prospects of nuclear war — here’s an NY Times report on Obama’s proposals for updating America’s nuclear arsenal: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/science/as-us-modernizes-nuclear-weapons-smaller-leaves-some-uneasy.html
This is one of the most self-conscious even-handed report on the proposals. Those who find the NYT as predictably pro-PTB with a definite touch of gung-ho militarism are likely to be more convinced by those who find the proposals outrageously expensive (a $trillion over 30 years) and very dangerous. The concern that making “usable” nuclear weapons raises the possibility of nuclear war is explained here: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/01/12/does-obamas-nuclear-modernization-make-unthinkable-thinkable
While none of us knows what Obama really thinks, it is not unreasonable to be concerned that his policy is making nuclear war more possible.
It is perfectly reasonable – and troubling — to say Obama’s policies are making nuclear war more possible.
It is another thing entirely to suggest the deployment of weapon systems in South Korea and Eastern Europe – with requests and approvals to deploy those systems coming from those very states – is being done in preparation of launching a first strike.
And it is utterly appalling to contemplate a person as unstable and uneducated as Trump with access to the nuclear codes and the unchecked liberty to launch them as he sees fit.
just to clarify:
it is not AN islamic state that i fear.
it is THE islamic state. the one killing people all over the world and making the necessary “defense” to them possible… inevitable… the defense that will destroy any possibility of what we used to call freedom.
and i am sorry if that last word sound terribly right wing. it’s a sign of the times.
Of course, I referred to THE Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, not AN Islamic state. The “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” is not a serious military threat (they are in fact in serious trouble as a military force) – except to all the vulnerable populations lying within the sphere of their military power. It is the ideology that animates both ISIS and the terrorists carrying out these attacks that is the true danger. So the question becomes how to defeat an idea?
It’s worth noting that many, if not the majority, of terrorist attacks are directed at other Muslim states. It’s also worth noting that traffic accidents in the US last year caused more death than terrorist attacks by a factor of @ 30:1. Terrorist attacks are designed to sow fear and undermine values and institutions. When you have “leaders” who prey on people’s fear for their own self-serving political interests, they become indirect accomplices to terrorists. The result? We begin to talk about the threat to freedom, which justifies any governmental action, up to and including banning entry to the country of any one of 1.6 billion Muslims around the world, which does nothing but boost the case by Islamists that the West is hostile to Muslims.
Courage is a virtue. Reason is a virtue. Honesty is a virtue. They are the sources of true strength, not the loud-mouthed proclamations by the breast-beating bigoted hyenas of the reactionary right.
If you want to stop terrorism, stop terrorizing. (Just as if you want to neutralize Black Lives Matter, stop killing innocent black folks.)
and of course i was referring to the “idea” of IS as well. an idea that creates a reality. and just possibly an idea that was created by American foreign policy, which may imagine it is rational. which i think may be what islm has been trying to tell you.
i am as afraid of Trump, the idea, as you are. but unless sane people can get ahold of american foreign and domestic policy…. and they never have… we are going to be in for a brave new world we won’t like
“In the next you deny it.
As I said, I understand why you’d vote for Trump.
No more of this, brother.”
I’d vote for Trump bc he is refreshing.
The whole point of my discussion on deterrence is go read Through the Looking Glass.
Nuckear deterrence is both illogical and immoral.
As Rapaport concluded and I have observed over the years.
Finally, of course the US is spending trillions to not use nukes!
Lewis Carrol could not make this up.
Disarmament is the answer, but no money for K St.
The trillion in new nuke stuff over 30 years is about $30B per year, added to the baseline $140B a year or substituting in that welfare stream for the military industry complex.
The stuff includes a lot of “infrastructure” like communications stuff some of which still use those 5 inch floppies. And it is hard to find FORTRAN programmers to keep the 8 bit stuff running.
Nukes and their overhead are complex, expensive and scary in terms of quality breeches that could be big mistakes.
Too bad Hitler isn’t on the ballot. Then you could vote for someone really, really, really, really refreshing.
You sound like an advertisement for Coca-Cola. You sound like a panelist on Fox News. Congratulations.
I would prefer Hitler to Clinton.
Your comment displays either stunning historical ignorance or superficial hyperbole. Neither is very flattering.
Right at home on Fox News. Right at home in Trump’s camp. You must be so proud! Finally — what a relief! — a tribe you can belong to, a home, no more wandering in the desert, eh?