Would this lengthy statement by Clinton about millennials, make millenials MORE, rather than LESS, likely to vote for her?
Here’s the article, by Yahoo News’ Michael Walsh, titled “#basementdwellers — The actual words and spin on Hillary Clinton’s remarks about Bernie Sanders supporters.”
Clinton should run the video clip on her campaign’s website.
And I say that as a virulent Bernie supporter who remains angry recalling some of Clinton’s public statements during the primary campaign—including some she made at debates with Bernie—and who laughs at Paul Krugman each time he claims that Clinton has run a decent campaign and has appeared appealing throughout her campaign, and (weirdly) that a good reason to vote for her is how poised she remained throughout that 11-hour Congressional Benghazi Committee hearing in defending herself when she had no choice but to be there and do so.
Whatever, Prof. Krugman. You’re completely right about the outrageous mainstream-media obsession with Clinton’s emails, the appalling AP report in late August and other mainstream (e.g., the NYT’s) coverage of that, and the failure to give Trump’s business-related-and-pay-to–assure-the-friendship-of-a-state-AG scandals. But, seriously, Clinton has run a really off-kilter, out-of-touch (literally as well as figuratively) campaign. But it’s not at all too late to make up for lost time.
I’m most definitely absolutely completely and thoroughly with her now, as is Bernie. And I wish she’d take my advice (including in this post, but, wayyy more important, in other recent ones) about how to nail this election down.
____
UPDATE: Hey! Bernie’s back in the spotlight! For HER!
Yayyyy. (Luv ya, Bernie.)
Added 10/2 at 12:27 p.m.
Maybe Krugman means shes doing well as can be expected considering shes an awful candidate .
On the other hand Krugman is awful himself so consider the source I guess.
Nope. He’s a huge fan of hers.
I used to absolutely love Krugman, but there are things he said about Bernie during the primary season that changed that. I like him, a lot, again, but he misreads important reasons for Clinton’s lack of appeal among so many Dems and Dem-leaners. Bigly.
Of course he’s a fan ,he is on the payroll , that was obvious in the primary. Thats why no one is listening to him that hasn’t already decided to vote team Killary.
He’s on the payroll? And you know this, how, exactly?
He never missed a chance to take a shot at ideas of the Sanders campaign ,meanwhile constantly fellating HRC in a nauseating fashion.
Not drawing a paycheck…… yet , but transparent in angling for one.
Angling for a position maybe, but not a paycheck as such. Between his earnings as a columnist from the NYT, his possibilities for paid speeches and totally comped trips around the world to deliver speeches (the international academic circuit is pretty sweet for the top members), he would be taking a huge temporary pay cut going to work for the government and subjecting himself to outside income limits.
Would he trade what he has now to be head of the CEA? Don’t think so, name three past ones. And Stiglitz has the inside track for any of those top spots anyway.
Look you can love Bernie without having to insist that his economic plans ever added up in a real world way. And I did and they didn’t. Krugman is an economic realist. Maybe his ILSM or whatever isn’t intellectually satisfying to some. But mostly his arithmetic has been right on. That he and Hillary agree on the right way to interpret a four function calculator doesn’t make him a fellator.
I doubt that Krigman is on her payroll and distinctly unsure whether he wants to be or whether she would have him. I do know that if he did not blow the place up I would like to see him occupy a prominent economic position in a Hillary administration. He is wedded to orthodoxy as much as most economists but he still thinks better than most
I find it interesting that liberals make such a big deal out of personality. I find HIllary to be solidly in the political lineage of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama. She doesn’t have the personal charisma of her husband or Obama, but she is at least a good a candidate as Gore and Kerry.
She has raised lots of money, has many of the Obama team on her campaign, is well prepared.
On the other hand, Trump lost over $900 million in one year, but he apparently is a genius.
What in HEAVEN’S NAME makes you think that our complaint with Clinton is her personality, rather than the specifics of things she said during the primary season, and her decision beginning the day after the California primary to direct her campaign toward moderate Republicans–taking a brief break from that only during the week of the Convention–and her silly failure to take five weeks off the campaign trail beginning a few days after the Convention, including the two-week period after the release of those emails in late Aug. that the press was obsessively painting, erroneously, as showing pay-to-play between the Clinton Foundation and the State Dept.?
Lordy, man. You have your head buried deeply in the sand.
“I’ve hardly made a secret here at AB of my near-virulent distaste for Hillary Clinton and, these days, Bill Clinton. I’m, suffice it to say, not a shill for her. I really, really dislike her personality.” http://angrybearblog.strategydemo.com/2016/08/washington-post-columnist-richard-cohen-gets-it-right-about-the-clinton-foundation-in-my-opinion.html
Hell, YES. I really, really disliked her go-to sleight-of-hand technique by which she would misrepresent facts such as that Denmark has a capitalist, not a socialist, economic system–and a very vibrant and successful one; her borrowing of classic Republican lines like, “I want to RAISE incomes, NOT lower incomes, so, trust me, I won’t fund a paid guaranteed medical and family leave program by adding $1.50/wk to FICA taxes as Bernie would; and cutesy “Bernie said I’m shouting cuz I’m a woman” and downright-bizarre “I’m not a member of the ESTABLISHMENT cuz I’m a women” line.
But what angered me most–and that’s saying a lot–was her repeated misrepresentations that Sanders’ Medicare-for-All plan would be paid for through additional taxes that WOULD NOT REPLACE private-insurance premiums and co-pays and deductables.
And then there was fab moment when she said-via-sleight-of-hand that VT provides the largest number of guns used in NY state crimes.
And other things, too. Including her phone calls to Republican donors, beginning the very morning after the CA primary.
Not sure where the line is drawn between personality and statements and actions. But I couldn’t care less that she’s cold and stiff and the like–unquestionably traits that fall on the side of the line marked “Personality.”
By the way, the first website link on this site, Naked Capitalism, now will not publish my comments. I had written about their overwhelming preponderance of anti Hillary links versus anti Trump links on their daily Links and Water Cooler posts. Lambert Strether in particular seems to have an almost pathological hatred of Hillary.
I also had an extended email conversation with a Naked Capitalism staffer named Susan Webber about the Trump tilt of Naked Capitalism. Her main point was to claim that they were leftists, not liberals.
I guess I should be grateful that my comments hit the mark, enough to be censored.
Yves Smith, the proprietor of Naked Capitalism, is a friend of this blog. But her politics and her methods are her own and are significantly to the left and more ‘pure’ than the more pragmatic version that AB runs to.
Another way to put it is that Yves doesn’t suffer fools well, and reserves to herself the right to define ‘fools’. And it is her right – her house, her rules. Mostly we are happy to have her send traffic our way.
Well stated Bruce. Susan also has a lot of traffic as one of the go to blogs.
Just want to say that Susan and Lambert both have linked to a good number of my posts–many in this past year–and Susan has republished a few of them at NC. I’m really grateful to them both for that.
I’m an absolute no-name, and do spent a lot of time posting here in order to make points that I think are important but that, to my knowledge, no one else has made, at least not with the emphasis I put to them. As regular readers know, I very often begin my posts with a paragraph-or-two quote from some pundit or from a news article, and take that ball and run one way or the other with it, either adding my thoughts favorably or (hopefully) deconstructing the quote.
I do see some of my points picked up in the larger media, or so it seems to me; I flatter myself by thinking that I played a role. That happens because blogs with larger followings than AB do blog-post title rolls in the left or right margins. Naked Capitalism is among them. And I really appreciate it.
Susan and Lambert and I were on the same side during the primaries, but I now am obsessed with seeing Clinton win (largely because I’m obsessed with the makeup of the federal bench at every level, because I know the intricate specifics of how much that matters and to whom it matters most–one way or the other, if you get my drift. But Naked Capitalism continues to run the titles of ALL AB posts, mine included, on its blogroll, and so my posts frantically suggesting ways for Clinton to gain support from real progressives–especially millennials–who have been planning to vote for Johnson or Stein, or not vote–get more views than they would with NC.
And BTW–today’s the First Monday in October. Y’all know what THAT means. Right?
“Naked Capitalism staffer named Susan Webber” –
LoL!
Susan Webber is the owner of Naked Capitalism, “Yves” is just her pen name. It is also possible your email address is not getting through her filtering system as her site has been under DDoS attack constantly for the past year or more.
Bottom line, Trump and Hillary are possibly the two worst Presidential Candidates in this U.S. History.
True . . .
After posting the comment about Naked Capitalism, I contacted Susan Webber/Yves Smith about the comments blacklist. Susan tells me that it was inadverdent, and my comment was restored.
Thanks to
Thanks to Bruce, Dan and Woodrow for their responses. I appreciate Naked Capitalism for their links and economics posts, I just fundamentally disagree with their political strategy.
Sec. Clinton’s comments were definitely taken out of context.
Of more importance are the (frankly, unrealistic) expectations of these recent graduates. In 2009, 70% of high school graduates went to college.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/business/fewer-us-high-school-graduates-opt-for-college.html
About 78% graduated High School on time.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/Indicator_COI/coe_coi_2014_05.pdf
That means that, at a minimum, 10% of people who went to college are of below-average intellect. Why are such people even going to college in the first place?
The six-year college graduation rate is only 60%.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40
That is both a Good Thing (for society) and a Bad Thing (for the people who spent the money and did not graduate). But we’re still seeing one third of our young people getting a four-year college degree.
So there is a lot of competition out there for college graduates.
College traditionally wasn’t just a Trade School. It had multiple functions, particularly when it was primarily reserved for the upper class and upper middle class. Nobody really thought it was a waste when Lord Fondlebottom’s kid got admitted to his dad’s School at Oxford, even if Young Fondlebottom didn’t have two braincells to rub together. And the same when the children of Gilded Age Industrialist Grabbucks were sent off to get their “Gentleman’s C” or their “MRS degree” depending. College then was a ticket that was as much social as having anything to do with the skills needed to run an estate or even a major enterprise.
And much the same is true today for the elites. There is always an undergrad school that will take the dumbest rich kid who can make tuition and for that matter you can find a school to issue that same sad sack his MBA or even JD (for example nobody thinks GWB got into Harvard Business on either his innate smarts or his Yale UG record). For them it never was and still isn’t about being of “above-average” or “below-average intellect”. It always was and largely still is a matter of getting the right credentials, academic and social, to take your place in economic society.
So to that degree the game is rigged. Without the right credential you WON’T GET HIRED TO MANAGEMENT TRACKS. These days if you don’t have at least two years of college you WON’T GET HIRED TO WHITE COLLAR JOBS. And from where I sit all too many of current efforts to poo-poo mass attendence of college are based on the desire to retain renumerative career tracks for the deserving. Which includes 100% of kids of the wealthy.
The rules of this game were not set by the families of those who struggle to get their kids into and through college, often because the kids are working two jobs besides being a ‘full time’ student. They were set by those who demand a certain type of credential, and one that is universally available to those with the means to pay for it. And so it has always been. One sub-text of the movie Animal House is that in the 60s there were ‘liberal arts’ colleges whose main purpose was to keep rich kids who had flunked out of Ivies and then second tier schools from getting drafted. There was always SOME school that would take a kid who could pay full freight and nobody was much worried as long as the College Bursar was happy. Intellect had little to do with it, not getting your ass shot off had a lot to do with it if you were a guy, and if you were an upper class ‘girl’ associating with the right ‘boys’ from ‘good’ families was more important than gaining those vital STEM skills.
We live in a society where success is enabled (if not guaranteed) by initial credentials. Credentials that are defined as having the right number of college courses. Even as most people would admit that for most professions and jobs the actual skills you learn in school, even in what would seem to be specialized skill type programs like your typical finance MBA have little to nothing to do with your future success. I mean how many MBAs REALLY use the calculus they had to learn for that required Econ course?
The problem is not that so few people manage to get through college on schedule as much as a class based system that makes credentialling both necessary and easy for the ‘right’ people and difficult to impossible for the ‘undeserving’.
And there is not a lot of competition out there for college graduates. Unless you are the right graduate. Instead the key is what it has always been, except now they call it “networking” and pretend it is an ability based skill rather than what most of it was and still is “It is not WHAT you know, it is WHO you know”.
Perhaps I misspoke. When I wrote, “there is a lot of competition out there for college graduates,” I meant that they face a lot of competition, not that companies were competing to hire them.
Their expectations for employment are based on a time when far fewer people got a college degree.
The reality is that you either treat your college education like a trade school where you can learn skills employers want to pay for, or don’t expect employers to pay you much just because you have a college degree. You may have a college degree, but to an employer, you are still unskilled labor and can expect to be paid as such until you are not.
Regarding who has been the worst prez candidate in US history, well, Trump might well be, but is Hillary really worse than her old mentor, Barry Goldwater, or such other pills as Warren G. Harding, or James Buchanan, or Andrew Jacskon, or Aaron Burr?