MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Who'd have guess this is the woman's touch, when she said she wouldn't sit around baking cookies?
Comments
This is a wonderful piece. I am going to send it to my son, and my friends who say they will reluctantly vote for Hillary. I want them to feel better about it.
I also like your title
Thanks, Pericles
by CVille Dem on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 10:34am
Have you asked them why they are reluctant to vote for Clinton? Have you listened to their responses with the idea that they may have legitimate concerns? Did anything they say make any sense to you?
by HSG on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 10:47am
Have you read the article? Did any of the good stuff about her make any sense to you?
by Ramona on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 1:27pm
He skimmed for negative phrases - staying on-task.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 1:30pm
To what specific critiques of Clinton have you listened?
by HSG on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 3:51pm
Thanks Ramona for asking. As PP notes, I more skimmed than read. It is quite long and Ezra Klein does not interest me. His recognition that Clinton voted for the Iraq War vote certainly stood out when I read it the first time and he deserves credit for not mincing words or trying to parse her pro-war vote. Some of his explanation made sense to me. I do think Clinton overthinks issues and qualifies her positions to a degree that causes people to doubt her. This is quite possibly because she listens to everybody in the room. Ultimately though, I think she's disliked and distrusted, not because she listens too much, but because her actions demonstrate a heightened self-regard that more popular politicians like Obama don't appear to have. I also would note that the people to whom she listens most closely have not been labor leaders and other progressives whose affinities I share.
Now let me ask you. Do you take articles that are critical of Clinton seriously. Does anything written by progressives who question her values and actions resonate with you or are we all just wildly off-base in your opinion?
by HSG on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 3:51pm
It stood out because you wanted it to stick out - you only look for the stinkbomb.
As noted, the AUMF was presented as required to get Hussein to comply with sanctions (which it did get him to do), a large number of Democratic leaders voted for it as well including your BFF John Kerry, as did 14 other UN Security COuncil members, and everyone felt betrayed that Bush lied in the end, not just Hillary.
http://www.dagblog.com/comment/225582#comment-225582
But go for the soundbite - that's you.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 8:55am
Speaking of listening: (If the shoe fits. . .)
by Ramona on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 1:41pm
Something like how women relate to Oprah and her guests - a lot of nodding in the audience.
Also, Joni Mitchell noted that when she tells problems to men, they want to do something about it, to somehow fix it - whereas women will listen and sympathize - "you poor dear" and that's it. A bit.generalized , but worth pointing out potential divergences in our behavior and expectations.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 2:36pm
Wow, that's pretty condescending. "Also, Joni Mitchell noted that when she tells problems to men, they want to do something about it, to somehow fix it - whereas women will listen and sympathize - "you poor dear" and that's it. "
Tell that to the women's movement. If that were true, there wouldn't have been a need for a women's movement.
by Ramona on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 3:17pm
She's Joni Effing Mitchell - if she says the way to enlightenment is sucking wheat germ through a snorkel, I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.
In any case, maybe I didn't express it/paraphrase it well, misspoke the context or perhaps she'll just piss you off anyway:
Anyway, she's a person I don't think of as "right" or "wrong" - she's speaking a perspective, impressions, and maybe tomorrow she'd say it the opposite, but whatever it is I think it's usually worth pondering over.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 4:13pm
Somehow I get the feeling Joni's a bit like Hillary, what with all these judgments following her around, though with a lot more self-confidence than Hillgirl has. (2nd Interview) Can you imagine what it's like to be Hillary and not have self-confidence? She overcompensates with determination and she's fucking smart, but it must be painful.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 4:39pm
Could she go through the rigors of a presidential campaign, especially against someone as nasty as Trump, after enduring a quarter of a century of ugly personal abuse against her without a healthy dose of self-confidence? I don't see how. That doesn't mean the years of attacks haven't taken a toll, but the thing I most admire about Hillary is her loyalty, her tenacity, her ability to just do the job, no matter what. We need that in a president.
by Ramona on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 6:32pm
Oh, I doubt it. It's just that Joni speaks more (well, not, but when she does she's maybe more open) and I see something akin tere and was thinking of how it plays internally and ex-. "Oh youre a mean old daddy, but I like you..." how Hillary will deal with Republicans?
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 10:06pm
I'd like to chime in here if I may. I'm pretty sure I know what Joni was talking about.
Example: I said to my former husband once that I was uneasy about a big trip we were going on when our kids were young. His (fix-it) response was: "Well don't go." Problem solved. (He knew I wanted to go he just didn't want to take the time or effort to talk it through)
I said the same words to my female mentor and friend and after helping me realize that my unease had to do with the children worrying about us returning (a fear I had about my parents growing up). She suggested giving each of them a shoe box and explaining that they should put something in it each day I was gone--a leaf from a walk or a picture they colored, and when I got home they could tell me about all the fun they had with their grandmas.
It helped me. They probably had no such fears, but it made all the difference in being able to leave without fear.
Bringing this on to Hillary, she will listen like a woman and then she, like the highly competent woman she is, TRULY will work at solving the actual problems, this doesn't make her manly, it just means she gets the big picture first.
Secondly, if Hillary isn't an example of profound self-confidence I don't know who is. All the shit she has had thrown her way would make any lesser person give up. Barack Obama is another highly self-confident person and it kept him from reacting out of spite (except the Correspondents Dinner -- LOL!)
i think she will keep a cool head. I personally can't wait for the debates. Donald's lack of knowledge alone .will be worth the price of admission!
by CVille Dem on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 11:49am
Lol, PP. Context is everything. Love what Joni said! You, not so much. ;)
by Ramona on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 6:04pm
With one or two exceptions, I do read closely and "listen" to the pro-Clinton commenters here. I understand the arguments of her supporters and frankly have looked closely for areas where we are in agreement. I have noted several in the past - pro-gun control, s-Chip, debt-free college. I have also read closely the various explanations and excuses put forth for her pro-Iraq war vote and her private email server among other things. I have credited them to the extent I believe they deserve credit and have explained why I find them wanting. I almost always note that I will vote for Clinton in the general election.
In return, I ask the Clinton supporters here can you legitimately say the same as I. Do you take seriously my posts and those of other pro-Sanders supporters here and elsewhere like Robert Reich? Do you read them with an eye to finding common ground and even challenging your own views or are you always looking for ways to impeach me and nitpick my arguments?
by HSG on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 3:58pm
Hal, let's take Bernie's press for single-payer healthcare. We have supplied several links noting the costs and the failure to pass in a small state like Vermont. We get tons of anti-Hillary rants, but no response on the nuts and bolts of policy. Did you ever read the problems we have with Sanders policy? We gave you our rationale.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 4:14pm
I don't think we're looking for ways to impeach you or nitpick your arguments. Let's get specific. I've explained my views on single payer in general, Sanders plan, and the idea of moving toward universal health care incrementally by building on the ACA. I don't think at anytime that I discussed health care I ever tried to impeach you nor did my views nitpick your arguments.
We've discussed Glass/Steagal a few times. We disagreed over the importance of Glass/Steagal and over Hillary's ideas to reign in Wall Street by expanding on Dodd/Frank. But how exactly did my expressing my views, and citing Krugman, that Hillary's plan was more comprehensive impeach you or nitpick your arguments?
It's not whether we agree or disagree. We've discussed our disagreements to death and I'm not about to do it again another dozen times. I'm asking in what way our disagreements impeached you or nit picked your arguments.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 4:21pm
Look, if you'll just compromise by agreeing you backed the wrong candidate, we can all rally behind your mistake. It's simple.
by Michael Maiello on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 5:02pm
Wdll its not so simple since I don't want to rally behind such a corrupt tainted corporate tool, but I will support her as long as she doesnt open her big fibbing mouth and takes on a few more of Bernie's positions such as all of them. I just won't be encouraging anyone else to vote for her.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 5:30pm
I have frequently acknowledged areas where Sanders has fallen short. To the extent, I have argued Clinton supporters should admit they were wrong to back her, I retract that request. I do continue to urge them in the strongest terms to acknowledge specific areas where she has fallen short - such as her continued refusal to admit her private email server violated federal rules, her vote for war, and her pro-war tenure as Secretary of State.
by HSG on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 8:35am
And I'll continue to urge you to stop urging us repeatedly to think the way you think. Her email server issue is dead and buried. So is her "war" vote. She was not pro-war as S of S. No amount of repeating is going to make it so. All you manage to do is turn
usme away. It's frustrating to have to keep going over the same things months and months and months on end. Why bother? What's the point?by Ramona on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 9:12am
1. Email server issue -- It's not important to me. Never has been. I view any time the FBI spent on it as a waste of government resources. On this issue, your mileage may vary. It's been more important to you over the course of the primary than it ever was to your candidate.
2. There was a war in Iraq? When? Seriously, any Clinton supporter has long ago come to terms with this. I mean, it's certainly fine to have a "I will not vote for people who voted in favor of use of force back then" as a litmus test. I understand that. But it's not my litmus test. It wasn't when I voted for John Kerry and it isn't now.
3. I disagree with the formulation "pro-war tenure has Secretary of State." You state it as a fact, but I'd say reasonable people can disagree. Her views and posture seem to me in step with the larger Obama administration foreign policy. I understand that might not do much for you, if you think that Obama was also "pro-war."
From my own vantage, I am overall happy with the direction of foreign policy under Obama for two terms, and Clinton was a big part of that. Admittedly, this is over the low bar of Bush foreign policy, but I'd had a hard time characterizing Obama's foreign policy as "pro war."
by Michael Maiello on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 10:16am
Right.
Or in a more pedestrian way let me say nobody backed the wrong candidate. They're two compassionate ,dedicated, talented politicians (with the good and bad that implies) who want the same things for the country that we do . And that Donald Trump doesn't.
Thank God that Hillary/Bernie sacrificed 18 months of their life to run .We've learned a lot from them and they have learned a lot from each other.
No one needs to apologize for backing which ever we chose. And if we said some bad, maybe mistaken, things about the other guy, that's life.
by Flavius on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 10:02am
Seconded.
by Michael Maiello on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 10:16am
Here are a few quick examples.
1) Claiming for a year Clinton didn't violate federal regulations with her private email server because other Secretaries of State used a private email address is clearly nitpicking.
2) Claiming she didn't vote for war with Iraq when she voted for the "Authorization to Use Military Force Against Iraq" is nitpicking.
3) Claiming that Clinton didn't vote for the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill - when I never said she did and when she campaigned for Bill's reelection on the bill - is nitpicking.
4) Arguing that "free trade" hasn't cost America jobs because unemployment didn't rise immediately after NAFTA was signed is obviously nitpicking given we have seen employment in manufacturing plunge in 2000 and never recover.
5) Claiming that single-payer didn't work in Vermont when it works all over the world is nitpicking.
by HSG on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 8:48am
"we have seen employment in manufacturing plunge in 2000 and never recover " - so NAFTA passed in 1994, and 2000 signified what? What does the graph below mean to you? What do you think of the curve change in 2001?
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 11:16am
Yes, of course I asked them. And you know what? They sounded like they had memorized every speech Bernie ever gave (not hard since they are all the same speech).
Ties to corporations, speeches to big banks, thinks she's entitled. Doesn't REALLY care about health care because she wants to go slowly; wants $13 an hour rather than $15 minimum wage. Plus the usual Facebook chatter -- untrustworthy, out for herself, etc. The reason I sent this to them, as well as another article that documented the start of the "Hillary can't be trusted" meme by William Saffire is because they would always end up with something like, "she's just awful."
I discussed their concerns and told them mine as well. I just wanted them to see something about the human side of her to give them a way to look at her as a person. I thought this article would help.
by CVille Dem on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 5:59pm
Thank you for listening to your son and others who have a different view. Did/do any of their/our concerns seem legit to you?
by HSG on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 8:37am
Yeah, he wanted his allowance increased and to be able to stay out later.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 11:47am
You are welcome for thanking me for listening to my son and friends. In answer to your question,
In Short:
No.
In Long:
All Bernie/Trump/GOP-driven nonsense and Facebook rantings.
by CVille Dem on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 11:57am
Excellent analysis. Thx for posting this.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 10:39am
In this "wonderful piece" which PP cites with great approval, Klein writes: "Clinton’s great mistake, her vote for the Iraq War, is an object lesson in the dangers of listening to the wrong people."
So Clinton supporters when you say Clinton didn't vote for war and Klein says she did, who's wrong?
by HSG on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 10:52am
Klein is wrong. Just like those who say Clinton voted for the 1994 crime bill are wrong.
You might look into Jill Stein or Larry Johnson as an alternative for you since you obviously hate Hillary.
You might also benefit from this article on why Bernie lost the Black vote.
http://fusion.net/story/323539/how-bernie-sanders-lost-black-voters/
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 11:22am
I'm trying to find "How the Grinch Stole the Convention" on NetFlix, but not sure it's out yet...
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 1:04pm
If Bernie were the nominee and I said I would vote for Bernie but had a negative reaction to every positive comment about Bernie, I would look for an alternative candidate. I might even stay home. I would justify my action by saying that I lived in a red state or a blue state so my vote didn't matter anyway. I would not be schizophrenic by repeatedly saying that Bernie was a scumbag but I will vote for him despite my repeated attacks on his character. I would man up and admit that I could not vote for Bernie.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 12:49pm
Meanwhile will put the Iraq summary on speed-dial:
http://www.dagblog.com/comment/225582#comment-225582
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 1:05pm
then there is the Hillary Clinton described to me by people who have worked with her, people I admire, people who understand Washington in ways I never will. Their Hillary Clinton is spoken of in superlatives: brilliant, funny, thoughtful, effective. She inspires a rare loyalty in ex-staff, and an unusual protectiveness even among former foes.
This is one of the reasons I support Hillary. We can't really know these people. We can look at their policy or their actions over the years. We see their public face. But we don't sit down to chat with Hillary, Sanders, Trump. Cruz etc. Virtually every report from everyone that has ever worked with Hillary loves her. As the article states, they speak of her in superlatives. She receives a level of praise from staffers that no other politician seems to get. It's not the only thing or even the most important thing but the accolades she gets from those who worked with her and know her intimately is significant.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 3:58pm
"They go around complimenting you on your new shoes, tell you you're not going bald. Do you think they really care? You're the boss. They're scared of you. They have to kiss your ass and laugh at your stupid jokes."
Carmela to Tony. http://www.hbo.com/the-sopranos/episodes/5/56-all-happy-families/synopsi...
by HSG on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 4:03pm
Why doesn't that seem to work for Sanders? Virtually every report from every group or person that has tried to work with Sanders didn't like him, thought he was uncooperative, uninterested in their concerns, and self centered. The people who know him the best, who know him for more than his public face don't like him.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 4:30pm
Are you auditioning for Maureen Dowd's job?
by Michael Maiello on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 5:00pm
Getting loyalty from ex-staffers is huge. Why? Because she had previously been their boss, and if she made them feel the way the boss in your condescending quote, they would NOT be so nice as ex-staffers.
by CVille Dem on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 5:49pm
I hope that Klein's vision of a Clinton presidency comes true, but as I read this piece, I kept thinking of Bill Taft. He campaigned as a friendly, competent, pragmatic, unifier, and he was all these things, but he couldn't communicate with the press, scandals stuck to him like glue, and he failed to adapt to the populist fervor taking over the country. His detailed policies accomplished little, he was wildly unpopular, his reelection campaign failed miserably, and he presided over the worst Republican route since the party's founding.
I make this parallel hesitantly. There are so many differences that I cannot predict that Hillary Clinton will become like Taft, and I also don't trust my own judgment about her, but I do fear that she will be, like Taft, a deeply unpopular politician who comes to office at the wrong time and pulls her party down with her. Unfortunately, this piece by Klein does not reassure me.
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 10:52pm
She won't gain that kind of weight.
by Michael Maiello on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 11:46pm
I can't argue with that. We just don't know what will happen if elected. I think a large part of that will be determined by what happens in the senate and house elections. Bill too, for all his reputed political ability to charm he has been a loose cannon far too often in the past.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 11:59pm
Hee hee - Ronald Reagan, the "Great Communicator", held only 46 press conferences over 8 years. Obama has done him slightly better at 61 solo press conferences. I'm just so worried that Hillary won't talk enough to the press...
If you listen at all to Republicans, every Democrat since the time of Gingrich has been akin to Josef Stalin. Obama has been "deeply unpopular" to them for no reason other than he exists. For the left, it's hard to see why he would be popular other than his avoidance of confrontation.
The Democrats have already chosen the "congenital liar" as nominee. She attracts scandals, for sure, but Hal's comparison of Kerry vs. Clinton is instructive - Kerry voted for the Iraq AUMF as well, and his stint as SoS has a no-fly zone and cooperation with a (largely successful as of late) ground effort using allies, the same as Hillary discusses continuing, and carries out much the same Middle East policy aside from Libya on her watch, yet to Hal Hillary is a total war neocon while Kerry's a professional. He probably likes Obama better as well, even though he was her boss so had to sign off on every major action if he wasn't indeed the author.
Obama's been a go-it-alone kind of guy, with little up-pull on the party as a whole. The Clintons are Democrats with a big tent, nationwide - we're already seing that with her pivot to the generals and putting written-off states into play. I only see a huge plus with building party excitement & numbers over the presumably 8 next years. "Pull the party down"? No fucking way. Hell, look at how nice she's treating Bernie's gang. She even hired Bernie's youth outreach head - think that's an empty move?
I also don't see Hillary as slow to populist fervor. She was the one to push healthcare hard, after all (including the S-Chip bit after Hillarycare failed, plus made it forefront in 2008 when it was far from Gore & Kerry's main topic). She installed rights for gay personnel at State before any other branch of government did. While her approach to security & defense is much more studied, as well as marijuana, it's not like she has any problem expressing needs for reform in wages (oh noes, she started at $12 instead of $15), taxation of corporations, the student loan business, and yes, even regulation of Wall Street. Elizabeth Warren is quite conservative but people treat her as a progressive because she makes some sharp attacks on Wall Street - even though we're also talking sound policy based on restoring competition and effective taxation, not destroying business. I keep laughing at the supposed competition between the 2, the idea that Hillary's too full of herself to allow an outspoken Warren by her side.
Okay, get Hillary someone to write better soundbites for consumption - all will be well.
So much concern, so little time. To be fair, Hillary's wasted a lot of energy focusing on black and Hispanic voters, since populists don't much care about their issues - in fact building a wall is about as populist as you can get. If it weren't that the Hispanic numbers are rising she'd be doomed. But I guess she isn't.
And historically she's always championed the rich - except a career built on poverty programs and supporting rural families and such. Will be very difficult for her to enthuse the rural left-behind areas that supported Bernie so much. Not. As the article notes, she listens and then remembers and acts. Her constituents in upstate New York were happy with her. I expect much more attention to the "forgotten America" than others might provide. Including women - I can't compare how much Bill Taft did for that group, though " "I am not in favor of suffrage for women until I can be convinced that all the women desire it; and when they desire it I am in favor of giving it." gives me an idea he wasn't on the leading edge of any causes.
And of course if we listened to the press in Washington, Bill Clinton would have been the most disastrous president ever, but he left office with overwhelming popularity from people who mattered. Hillary's not Bill, but she's still "likeable enough" - what seemed like a thoroughly dickish comment at the time, but somehow seems defining at this point. She'll build up her base. And still, I'd rather do shots with her than beer or near-beer with Bush or Obama, and in the morning she'll still be able to function.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 1:21am
Oh yeah, the rural left-behind areas that supported Bernie so much. Like West Virginia where 40% of Sanders voters said they planned to vote for Trump in the general. According to exit polls, which Sanders voters have told us repeatedly are so flawlessly accurate.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 1:38am
I'm not going by exit polls - I'm going by closed primary results such as in PA where Bernie took 44% of the vote (min 40% whether urban or rural), Michigan where he won by a sliver but carried all but 10 districts with a virtual tie in 4 of those, New York where he won in all but 12 districts with virtual ties in 3.
He took the closed primary in Oregon by 14%, and his 7% loss in California wasn't too bad, getting 2.4 million votes.
I'm making the assumption that like the anecdotes of non-London disgruntled in Brexit where the prosperity of the EU is passing them by, I'd guess that much of this is protest vote rather than any grand allegiance to Bernie, but I also think it's an opportunity to grow the base by paying attention to what people are unhappy about and seeing what's easy to resolve/low hanging fruit. And that "growing the base" means helping enthuse state contests and Congressional votes as well. Not just voting season attention, but issues while governing. Sure, some of these folks will never warm to Hillary, or even the Democratic Party, but as you've noted, most of these still will likely vote for Hillary, and others can likely be brought into the fold (brought to heel?) with a little effort. People often don't take that much to please.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 7:14am
PP, it's not about how often you speak to the press; it's about political instinct, charisma, and effective communication. Dismissing these talents as a knack for "soundbites" misses the point.
by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 10:42am
Sure, and probably the accepted wisdom is that Hillary has no charisma and no effective communication, ignoring that she seems to do something right to keep getting votes despite overwhelmingly negative press.
The point of Klein's column seems to be that she has these talents, but they're not how a male would do it and they're vastly different than what we tend to expect from our politicians, though if it's doing shots with the opposition, perhaps not that different from olden times.
It's funny that Trump will use blatantly anti-semitic and sexist and racist speech & symbolism, along with other types of grossly offensive behavior and scandalously documented unethical behavior like his bankruptcies and training scams, but those gross sins will come up more or less equal to "may have included 13 classified docs in thousands of emails" requiring a year-long investigation. Both Bernie & Trump withheld most to all of their income tax records, something that candidates almost invariably release, yet Hillary will be the one with a "penchant for secrecy".
I don't think it's just Hillary - I think it's part of our culture. Whatever the excuses, Colin Powell could have had his own email server and people would have just said, "he probably needs it, what a fine upstanding guy", ignoring his coverup of My Lai and 2003 UN speech and whatever. We just like those male father figures. We're patsies.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 11:05am
Who said she had no charisma or effective communication? She has far more than I do, more than anyone here, more than most politicians. She has enough to win the presidential election--at least against Trump. But the presidency is a high bar. The most popular and effective presidents have been off the charts in terms of charisma and communication. My fear is that Hillary is at the low end of the spectrum when compared to other presidents--more like Bill Taft than Theodore Roosevelt.
by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 12:00pm
Regarding charisma and effective communication, you wrote: “She has far more than I do, more than anyone here, more than most politicians.” You then followed that statement with: “My fear is that Hillary is at the low end of the spectrum when compared to other presidents …” Can you square that circle for me? Because if you're saying that while she surpasses most, she lags behind a few, then I have to wonder if the bar you're setting is reasonable.
by barefooted on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 1:03pm
44 presidents out of hundreds of millions of past and present citizens is a pretty rarified field, no? Even the least popular presidents still had to be pretty damn charismatic to get elected. Taft was plenty charismatic, but he was still at the bottom of the pack.
by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 2:10pm
Hillary isn't Taft, she isn't Bill, she isn't Obama. She's an accomplished woman in her own right, a factor overlooked by the pundits who keep wanting to corral her and put her into a pen with males who are so far removed there are miles and miles and miles of differences between them.
What Hillary has going for her, the thing men don't seem to recognize, is the feminist factor. Women like me are energized and ready to roll. We've got her back because we know she has ours. With everything the Republicans throw at women--with no signs of ever easing up--our choice is natural. We're going with Hillary and we're going with guns blazing. You ain't seen nothin' yet.
We expect heavy pushback, but that's nothing new for us. We've been dealing with pushback all our lives. The impact of a woman president can't be overlooked. It's our chance and Hillary is our choice.
by Ramona on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 8:16am
So you can't identify one area where you think Clinton carpers, like me, have expressed legitimate concerns?
by HSG on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 8:40am
I've identified foreign policy as an area of some concern, even if some deeper explanations and insight from some in-depth article a while back (waPo? Atlantic?). What is this, you need a bit of muckroll from each and every person to feel better, a little bit of stink on Hillary to satisfy just what? no, she ain't jesus, unlike Bernie. what specifically is your point?
Hey, I like the bands Franz Ferdinand and Hole, but I can't tell you which is my least favorite song.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 8:50am
Mona, all presidents (and presidential candidates) get compared to their predecessors, especially when they have been in their predecessors' administrations. Remember how hard Al Gore fought to distance himself from Bill? Hillary is in a unique position because she would be the first woman president and because she was married to a former president, but she is not so unique that we cannot assess her by comparing her to her predecessors.
It's wonderful that women support Hillary. Passionate feminists are crucial to getting her elected. But that support will not make her a good president. That's something she has to do on her own.
by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 10:35am
Until Obama, the comparisons have all been white guys. When it is not a white guy, standards change. Obama had to show papers to prove he was legitimate. Trump and the media forced Obama to produce a long form birth certificate. The Governor of Arizona felt free to wave her finger in Obama's face. Obama was called a liar during a SOTU address. The scrutiny Obama faced was different.
Neither Obama of Hillary would be accepted if they were as dumb as Trump. There is a double standard. Blacks were acutely aware of the difference in how Obama was treated. Women see attacks on Hillary that are much different than the benign interviews Sanders received.
Presidential candidates how be put through the wringer. The wringer is tighter for some than for others.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 11:00am
One difference is that women are often harsher judges of other women than men, whereas blacks and other ethnic groups tend to be self-supportive to a large extent. So there's quite a bit of confirmation bias - "see, other women think she's this way too, so it's not just sexism..."
Though asking to see Obama's ID is classic race-bait. Surprised they didn't ask him to pose spread-eagled against a cop car.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 11:09am
Here's how men judge different than women. It's the Movies!
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/12/the_growing_gender_divide_over_ghostbust...
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 07/13/2016 - 3:45am
Sure there are different ways of thinking between men and women, but it's more than that. Misogyny is everywhere, just as racism is everywhere. Even among the people who think they aren't sexist or they aren't racist. Send out resumes with only the name changed. The same resume with a woman's name or a man's name or a black sounding name or a white sounding name and the response rate differs. The white names gets more positive responses or the male gets more positive responses. It's often an unconscious response or semi-conscious response, unexamined belief structures from childhood. There's been study after study and that bias simply exists. Straight white male is simply the lowest difficulty setting there is. We should face and acknowledge that reality.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 07/13/2016 - 4:53am