The ‘Baskets’ ad that Clinton should follow up with: one about her SECOND-MENTIONED basket, and asking whether someone whose fiscal and regulatory policies and court and agency appointments would be orchestrated by the Mercers should have the support of those in that basket.
In an addendum I added today to this post of mine from yesterday, I argued that the visibility of Clinton’s illness may well prove a political blessing in disguise. I wrote:
And just to be sure y’all understand, [Kellyanne] Conway of course made no such promise [that Trump will release the last 10 years of his income tax returns]. Nor, of course, will she. But here’s the cool thing: the revelation of Clinton’s illness, revealed only because of she became noticeable ill in public, may well turn out to be fortuitous politically, for two reasons. One is that Clinton may now relax a bit about her health problems; they’re out in the open and most people not a big political consideration–all things considered, if you get my drift.
The other reason is that the news media and political punditry finally are catching on that their singular focus on this or that regarding Clinton and corresponding failure to drive home absolutely critical aspects of Trump’s business life, known and strongly suspected but unverifiable because of Trump’s extreme lack of transparency, hasn’t done the public any favors. Nor has it even done favors for these journalists’ and pundits’ “views,” since exposing and driving these things home surely would get a lot of “views” and maybe even go viral on Twitter and Facebook!
In any event, Clinton’s illness seems to have had the effect of finally, finally provoking the political news media into actually trying to educate the public about such things as that a key effect of Trump’s bankruptcies has been that he can’t borrow money from anyone other than Russian oligarchs and apparently has done that extensively. And that his Soho condo project involved extensive fraud that was under criminal investigation until he paid off civil plaintiffs who would have been witnesses in a criminal case. And that he engages in intense and very expensive efforts to destroy anyone who is about to reveal potentially criminal fraud (including bank fraud) on his part. And that he appears to have engaged in a quid pro quo with Florida AG Pam Bondi in which more than $175,000 was added to Bondi’s reelection campaign coffers courtesy of Trump’s financial machinations, in exchange for Bondi’s office’s decision not to pursue a lawsuit against Trump for serial fraud concerning Trump University and Trump Institute?
What’s unusual about these quid pro quos is that rather than seeking some favorable legislation or direct access to someone who can provide some favor like a special passport or a meeting with some policymaker about, say, policy, Trump’s quid pro quos involve buyoffs or harassment or intimidation for the purpose of keeping things, some of them illegal, some of them creating extreme conflicts of interest for a presidential contender, secret. This is both a gross manipulation of the civil and criminal legal system and of the public’s access to critical information about him in this election.
Clinton’s illness story superseded what had promised to be the big campaign story of the weekend: Her videotaped statement at a Friday night fundraiser in which she divided Trump supporters about evenly between two baskets, one filled with deplorables, the other with people who’ve been harmed by the modern economic trends and feel ignored by government.
Except it was only the Basket of Deplorables that received the attention, and most people probably have the impression that she didn’t describe or characterize the people in the other Basket. Trump, upset about the Clinton illness story overtaking the Basket of Deplorables one, quickly put out an ad showing Clinton at the fundraiser making that statement. He also, of course, did an over-the-top, sort of unintentionally comical-in-effect deep-umbrage thing at a campaign event yesterday in which the pot called the kettle unqualified to be president because of the disrespect the kettle had shown to a whole category of upstanding, native-born Americans: half of Trump’s supporters.
This morning, Greg Sargent reports, the Clinton campaign is up with its response, and it sounds terrific. He writes:
The Clinton campaign released a new ad this morning that shows Trump making that last claim, and then illustrates Trump’s own “low opinion” of Americans by recapping his attacks on a Mexican-American judge and on the Khan family; his ridicule of a disabled reporter; his sexist insults; and his dismissal of African American life as a smoldering hellscape of shameful failure. The story it tells is not only that Trump is bigoted towards these groups, but also that he’s cruel and abusive towards them:
But in a follow-up ad Clinton could take the Baskets issue and hit it out of the park, by showing a clip of her description of the Trump supporters in the second Basket. She then should tell the public about who actually is funding Trump and calling the shots. Yes; she should introduce the public to … the Mercers. And she should run this ad again and again in the Rust Belt and in Florida, the latter where there aren’t a lot of voters who are enthralled with hedge fund folks who made a killing after the financial-sector and real estate market crashes circa 2009-2012. Nor the fiscal and regulatory policies that these two Trump benefactors/puppeteers will.
In a second follow-up, Clinton should run quickly through her own list of domestic-policy proposals. And she should the public to give her a Democratic-controlled Senate and House in order to accomplish these.
Clinton’s near-singular focus on Trump’s danger to national security has effectively defaulted to him the domestic-policy as well as the my-opponent-is-corrupt factors. Yet these are huge in this election cycle.
The events of last weekend, billed as bad for Clinton, could turn out to be lemonade for her. If she chooses to try to make it that.
____
UPDATE: I just posted this comment regarding Clinton’s health and her initial failure to disclose the pneumonia in response to a reader’s comment:
I’m not so sure that she was required to disclose her pneumonia. It appeared on Friday, when it was diagnosed, that it was just garden-variety walking pneumonia, and it still appears that way.
Clinton responded today to Axelrod’s tweet–the one that prompted Conway’s agreement tweet–by saying that she didn’t report the pneumonia because she didn’t think it was particularly notable. I agreed with Axelrod’s general comment about Clinton’s excessive secretiveness, but not really its application to her failure to disclose her pneumonia until her illness on Sunday.
The pneumonia apparently was only incidental to her Sunday illness, which apparently was caused by a chronic problem with dehydration. The combination of the antibiotic, antihistamines and, possibly, slight fever from the pneumonia, coupled with the humidity, the sun and the temperature of about 80 degrees–she was wearing a high-necked blouse and a pantsuit jacket–triggered an episode of symptoms of (I guess) severe dehydration. Her husband said this had occurred on rare occasions over a period of several decades. She herself said it’s something she’s aware of and is able to avoid most of the time. So the real health issue is that, not the walking pneumonia.
So how many of you think Donald Trump is in perfect health? Just askin’.
Added 9/13 at 3:32 p.m.
Once again she shot herself in the foot by failing to disclose her illness and now even I do not believe she is otherwise in good health and I have been on her side for a long time. As to the deplorables comment, I can understand why people hate Hillary, but I can not understand why anyone would support Trump unless they are a deplorable or a moron. Giving the average, non college educated, older, white guys and the women who are stuck with them their due, I think only about half of them are morons. Conventional wisdom says do not insult the voters, but my goodness, no moral person should be afraid to call out the racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, unAmerican, nature of the smarter part of Trump’s support and I hope Hillary is well enough to double down on it.
I’m not so sure that she was required to disclose her pneumonia. It appeared on Friday, when it was diagnosed, that it was just garden-variety walking pneumonia, and it still appears that way.
Clinton responded today to Axelrod’s tweet–the one that prompted Conway’s agreement tweet–by saying that she didn’t report the pneumonia because she didn’t think it was particularly notable. I agreed with Axelrod’s general comment about Clinton’s excessive secretiveness, but not really its application to her failure to disclose her pneumonia until her illness on Sunday.
The pneumonia apparently was only incidental to her Sunday illness, which apparently was caused by a chronic problem with dehydration. The combination of the antibiotic, antihistamines and, possibly, slight fever from the pneumonia, coupled with the humidity, the sun and the temperature of about 80 degrees–she was wearing a high-necked blouse and a pantsuit jacket–triggered an episode of symptoms of (I guess) severe dehydration. Her husband said this had occurred on rare occasions over a period of several decades. She herself said it’s something she’s aware of and is able to avoid most of the time. So the real health issue is that, not the walking pneumonia.
“. . . Clinton should run quickly through her own list of domestic-policy proposals. And she should the public to give her a Democratic-controlled Senate and House in order to accomplish these.”
Absolutely, and the DNC, DSCC and DCCC should be running massive flights of commercials showing what the Democrats propose to do if they have a majority in the House and Senate, how Republicans have blocked similar proposals from Obama soley and entirely due to political partisdanship, and how there is no such thing as a moderate Republican because on the most importrnt issues they will vote in lock-step with what the Tea Party and a corporate lobbyist named Grove Norquist demand.
But no, the DNC et al seem to think an atomistic approach is the only one, even though the commercials that would severely weaken the Republican Party up and down the ticket practically write themselves.
Oooooo. You’ve hit upon a major pet peeve of mine. It makes me want to tear my hair out.
Why such stupidity? I have no idea.
Clinton’s intent is to scam US on her health like the rest of her shifts.
UL,
Most of what (DNC clones) democrats say is a lie.
BM,
If she cannot follow the instructions of a MD, taking a complex mix of drugs implies certain rules, she cannot have the nuclear trigger. I think the diagnosis is much worse than a little ‘walking pneumonia’, I see sociopathy going on as well as hidden medical issues.
Nixon in a pantsuit.
Wow. What makes you think she didn’t take the medications as prescribed?
And I won’t even ask why you think it has some implication for whether she or instead Donald Trump should have control over the nuclear code.
Ah, Ilsm. CDS much?
Oh…ok!! That makes sense 🙂
Clinton got re-elected in New York with almost a 70% majority, and in 2010 was up 60% to 30% in her approval/disapproval rating. What happened since then? Only Benghazi and arising from that, Republican oppo research turned up an email arrangement that had been used before in State by high-level professionals and which avoided a cumbersome process of signing in and out personal and non-classified business accounts when both types of emails could come at any hour of the night and day. It certainly would have seemed at the time to be the smartest solution. But it was complicated enough that it could be made to sound fishy, and sneaky, and selfish and arrogant, especially with compliant bureaucrats who see nothing weird about retroactive classification of information that is already in the public domain.
A few people are big heroes in Republican oppo research world for figuring out how to tear down Clinton’s reputation with these purely manufactured “scandals.” They threw them up the wall, and induced the mainstream press to make them stick. It’s as simple as that.
Hillary’s “deplorables comment” doesn’t sound like “racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, unAmerican” — instead it comes on more like “the average, non college educated, older, white guys [that’s Teamsters to taxis me] and the women who are stuck with them” …
… to …
… the average, non college educated, older, white guys [that’s Teamsters to taxis me] and their women.
Truly stupid and possibly election losing when these are just the people whom you are supposed to be wearing yourself out over trying teach to vote in their own interest.
A good part of what’s the matter with Kansas is that our academic liberals not taking these people seriously as people. Obama’s quip about their unhappiness with their economic situation leading the “get into guns and religion” is the identical (shockingly condescending to me) kind of out-of-touchness.
I’m starting to read FDR’s fireside radio chats. First one, he is mapping out the ins and outs of the banking system to a much less sophisticated audience than today’s. Harry Truman complained to Adlai Stevenson that he had to get in touch with the man in the street. Today’s Clintons and Obama are made out of the same Adlai out-of-touch …
Maybe if the Adlais of our day were in touch with real day-to-day economic problems they would be out selling to today’s more sophisticated audience that the huge gap in the American economic and political fabric is the complete drop out of labor unions.
Latest idea on that (Denis’ fireside chat — which is the same every time :-]): there is actually no deterrent and no recourse to firing organizers or joiners under current law. Even forcing re-hiring at double the salary and lifetime employment would still accomplish nothing at all towards setting up a collective bargaining unit. The NLRB should be empowered to mandate a certification election when there is a finding of muscling organizers and joiners aside.
And of course make union-busting a felony of course (latter can be done at state level). Right now the penalties aren’t even as realistic as the FBI warning we get before watching a movie. Under that, at least if you go to a theater and take a movie in the movie you can get a couple of federal years. There isn’t even any deterrent of any kind for blocking a union election: punitive (jail) or restorative (mandate election); totally lawless environment..
“Maybe if the Adlais of our day were in touch with real day-to-day economic problems they would be out selling to today’s more sophisticated audience that the huge gap in the American economic and political fabric is the complete drop out of labor unions.”
Golly. I have a PhD in a STEM field and have been a university professor for 30 years. I thought I was pretty sophisticated. But I guess I’m not, because I’ve known for a long time that the decline of labor unions is a major factor in the decline of our economy (workers are the job creators), and I’ve never found that insight hard to come by.
But seriously, it’s the alt-right that Clinton was referring to, and I seriously doubt you’d find many in that “sophisticated” lot who would argue for strong unions.
And Denis, identifying problems is the easy part. Solving them is the hard part. What do you see as a realistic path to restoring unions in 21st century America? Do you really believe smarmy attacks on educated Americans is part of that path?
Joel,
Do you have any idea at all how rare it is for anyone of your “ilk” to say the words “labor union” out loud?
Obama? Hill? B-E-R-N-I-E ?! Warren? Biden? DeLong? Thoma? K-R-U-G-M-A-N ?! Baker? Bernstein? Noah? even Robert Reich, former labor secretary and as committed a progressive as you can find?!!! Konczal? Drum? Ezra? Yglesias? Angry Bear? Naked Capitalism?
The list is endless — the mention is almost never. The road back couldn’t be more open and inviting.
The same means needed to put the Crips and the Bloods back to work stacking shelves and driving taxi cabs: make something a felony that is not even a ticket now: union busting. (Only way you will ever stop the Chicago shoot-em-ups.)
Any progressive state (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, MD, NY) should have no trouble making union busting a felony. States can add to federal protections — not subtract.
At the federal level the NLRB needs to be able to mandate beatification elections when a finding of firing organizers or joiners is made. That is on the back burner until we change the culture to put the right kind of reps in DC. That will happen after we protect organizing in the states.
Nobody thinks outside of the frame of reference of no unions that we live in — when every problem we have just about is caused by no unions. so when are all the progressives going to start thinking outside the frame of reference they are accustomed to living in — AND START SHOUTING AND SCREAMING ABOUT THE RE-STORED UNION DENSITY THEY WANT (should want — if they ever thought about it out loud) TO LIVE IN?