Oops, She Did it Again

    bernie-hillaryHillary Clinton's kindler gentler Presidential campaign grinds on.  It's been a few weeks since the first (and so far only) Democratic debate where she enjoyed her finest hour in this election cycle thanks in no small measure to Bernie Sanders.  She has returned the favor by shamelessly and dishonestly playing gender and race cards against him.

    Nine days after the October 13 debate, Clinton told the Democratic National Women's Committee Forum "I’ve been told to stop, and I quote, ‘shouting’ about gun violence. Well, first of all, I’m not shouting. It’s just when women talk, some people think we’re shouting.”   Clinton was referring directly to Bernie Sanders remark that “[a]ll the shouting in the world is not going to do what I would hope all of us want, and that is keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have those guns and end this horrible violence.”

    Obviously, Sanders was not literally criticizing Clinton for "shouting".   He used the term metaphorically to mean refusing to compromise on the issue.  Those watching the debate or reading Sanders' words after the fact did not hear any sexism and no commentators remarked upon it.  Moreover, Sanders has on many previous occasions described dogmatism on this issue as "shouting" or "screaming" or "yelling" or "raising our voices"

    Within a few days, however, Clinton and her team, which includes "hitman" David Brock, seized upon the exchange and decided it could be used potently, albeit falsely, to portray Sanders as a chauvinist.  With the help of reliable media allies Amanda Marcotte at Salon and Emily Crockett at Vox, Clinton succeeded in putting Sanders on the defensive even though he did nothing wrong.

    Recognizing that calling Bernie - a feminist and reproductive rights hero - sexist might be viewed as overreaching, Marcotte and Crockett instead praised Clinton for triggering a conversation about how many men (not necessarily Bernie) perceive women as shouting just for speaking up - a conversation, needless to say, Sanders can't win.  Clinton herself stopped just short of accusing the women's movement champion of misogyny.  When asked in New Hampshire whether she would call Sanders sexist, she "shrugged, smiled, and sidestepped the question. 'I said what I had to say about it.”

    This week, with the smoke from her sexist smear clearing, Clinton played the race card.  Speaking to a South Carolina NAACP chapter, she said: “There are some who say that this [gun violence] is an urban problem. Sometimes what they mean by that is:  It’s a black problem. But it’s not. It’s not black, it’s not urban. It’s a deep, profound challenge to who we are.”

    Again Clinton profoundly and willfully misrepresented Sanders comments at the first debate.  Defending his votes against the Brady Bill and permitting products liability lawsuits against gun makers and distributors, Sanders correctly noted his "rural" state constituents were pro-gun.  There's simply no way to square that statement with Clinton's implication that Sanders dismisses gun violence as a black problem.

    Notwithstanding his less than stellar voting history on guns, Sanders has a much better overall record on racial justice matters than Clinton.  Black Lives Matter offshoot Campaign Zero recognized this in August by assigning him far better grades than Clinton.  Since then, Sanders has only improved his standing among civil rights and criminal justice activists by calling for an end to the federal war on pot.

    Of course Clinton knows all this just as she knows full well that Sanders is neither sexist nor racist.  What makes her latest smears truly despicable is that in 2008 she used nearly identical language to that for which she now attacks Sanders.

    In her first campaign for President, then Senator Clinton called for a respectful back and forth on proposed gun control laws.

    I respect the 2nd Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns. But I also believe that most lawful gun owners whom I have spoken with for many years across our country also want to be sure that we keep those guns out of the wrong hands. And as president, I will work to try to bridge this divide, which I think has been polarizing and, frankly, doesn’t reflect the common sense of the American people.”

    Before the Nevada caucus, Hillary Clinton explained her recently announced opposition to a national gun registry, which she had previously supported, by saying “I don't want the federal government preempting states and cities like New York that have very specific problems."

    Justifying different laws for urban and rural regions, she noted at a debate in Philadelphia,“we have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana."

    Not so long ago, when she thought it served her political interests, Clinton called for a respectful dialogue with gun rights advocates.  She opposed mandatory gun registration.  She defended different approaches in rural and urban regions.  Now, Bernie Sanders is sexist and racist for saying the same things.

    Topics: 

    Comments

    We've been over this already so I'll just leave you with this.


    Great link, Ramona. Thank you so much.


    Yes, every now and then we need some balance.  :)


    Well, this segues nicely from Hal's LGBT post - men are often dicks to women or dicks in general, so we still have need for dick-free zones. Men often don't understand why or pick up those queues. I had a talk with a San Francisco exec and ended up suggesting she take a plaster dick to meetings so when she wanted to speak and receive proper consideration for her views, she could place the dick-of-attention in front of her seat, something like a more effective gavel. Last I heard she was going to try selling these.

    Yes, let us please delve into the white male psyche - so much more productive than a content-based discussion on the best solutions to our nation's problems and which candidate's words and deeds demonstrate a true commitment to pursue them.


    And yet you titled your piece, "Oops, She Did It Again".


    To be fair, Britney Spears has a few times entered my white male psyche, but this is not that kind of site.


    Hmmm, now I've got a weird Jibjab image of HIllary in Catholic school attire doing "Hit me baby one more time..." Where's my reset button?


    What Hal says he's doing and what he's actually doing are usually distinct.

    Here he's only talking all about personalities, playing the gender and race card, not about issues. And it's to push the spin that Hillary played the gender and race cards - not to debate whether she did.

    In short, it's simply a campaign tactic - worked with Bill's "fairy tale" comment *ABOUT OBAMA'S 2003 IRAQ SPEECH* which was transformed into a slur against his whole campaign for president, and thus against a black man running for president, and thus a racist comment. Wind that one back:

    On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, former President Bill Clinton criticized the media for not pressing Barack Obama more fully on Iraq, and accused the Illinois senator of shifting his position to reflect changing attitudes on the war.

    “It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, ‘Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn’t know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war,” Clinton said at a campaign stop in Hanover, New Hampshire.

    “And you took that speech you’re now running on off your Web site in 2004. And there’s no difference in your voting record and Hillary’s ever since.”

    He added, “Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

    Note - that's from an article *CRITICAL* of Bill. And that worked so successfully - she's "KNOWN" for racially divisive comments - Hal and others would like to play it one more time. The same thing was done with Susan Rice - she said the day of Benghazi something like "we think it started with a video protest but got commandeered by an armed militia/terrorist/Al Qaeda-like types, but we're still investigating". The Republicans turned it into "it started with a video protest" only, and then said she was lying and covered up Al Qaeda involvement. And a lie or framing repeated over and over takes legs, especially if jackoffs at the NY Times or WaPo or CNN repeat it or let someone repeat it without real-time correction. And then they extend it to HIllary and others. Watch the GOP debates, and they say outrageous things because they get away with it - that's how they win.

    So back to Hillary's digs. First, it's a big deal that she didn't name Bernie - both because she's not demonizing him, and she's trying to make a more generalized point. Second, if Bernie fits in the criticism, well, maybe he should consider his stance. 

    The "gender card" was about "stop shouting", which fell easily into a standard female complaint - that men shut down over the sound of their voices, whatever they're saying. It's not exactly what Bernie said, but the circumstances were close enough to bring up a well-known issue. Hal can write a big long piece about penises in bathrooms as an issue that needs to be dealt with "now", but women being able to speak in the public marketplace of ideas without being called bitchy, pushy, abrasive, divisive, cackling, droning on and on, hysterical, shouting, or countless other adjectives is "playing the gender card", not a critical gender issue that needs to be addressed "now".

    The policy purists have also adopted some standard where it's most important who had a specific position first, that you don't change. Which is absurd when we have new technologies coming along, new realities coming along, new circumstances coming along faster and faster. If you said in 1995 we should take shoes off in airports, you'd be a loony. In 2002, it was accepted. Video taping all police encounters in 1995 didn't make economic sense nor was the rate of police killings and beatings nearly as high today, nor was there uncontrolled use of tasers or the funneling of Iraq/Afghanistan military equipment to police forces - in 2015, that's our daily bread. Hillary's HMO-based health care initiative seemed (for some) the best we could do at the time - by 2008, single payer/Medicare model looked much more attractive. Andrew Sullivan in 1989 was one of the first gays to publicly promote gay marriage - nearly every single person, gay or straight, evolved on that issue after 1989. Does it matter much whether you evolved in 1992 or 2001 or 2012, or is it as important what you do with that information, what legislation or guarantees or equivalent analogies you champion as you come to what are likely more enlightened views? is it best to stay consistently stuck in the past, right on some issues, forever wrong on others, but at least "consistent"? Is it best to rush to a new consensus, like HMOs in 1993, only to regret that corporate focus and then have to shift, or cling stubbornly to what wasn't ideal? Or then there's Dick Cheney, who pushes back on Bush Sr's contention that his wife and daughter made him an unlikeable conservative wingnut, relying on his normal self-assured self-sufficency that he became an asshole all by himself? But change is often good - but in scoring political points, change turns to bad. Sometimes. My head can't stop spinning.

    Whatever Hillary advocated in the 90's, the situation of much heavier law enforcement, much decreased crime, understanding of the damage of mass incarceration of blacks, the rising number of horrid stories of police abuse, shooting of innocent blacks, survivalist & other disgruntled whites parading around with automatic weapons in public and frequently going into public schools and theaters and shooting them up completely changes the situation from 1995. She would be stupid to still be re-treading position papers and approaches that are 20 years old, from a very different era. And for the last 20 years, we've given white gun owners much benefit of the doubt, that they're responsible, want them for hunting or gun ranges or careful self-defense, that they're true patriots. Instead of wacko 1995 urban crack gangs, we have wacko white supremacists who are a threat to normal people and normal life. Yes, Bernie - gun owners may be safe enough in Vermont, but in much of the rest of the country they're a menace. Time to change. It's not about checking people's mental health - it's about getting rid of the guns.

    Edit to note: Hal's also pushing mighty hard to make Bernie the better feminist. We've been down this road before - of course "In this race, Barack Obama is the true feminist. Hillary Clinton, unfortunately, still does not get it. " - except he wasn't, but who knew until after he was elected? Uh, like anyone with a brain. Note in that article, Obama's the better feminist because he acts graceful, while Hillary's the pushy conniving bitch. Nothing stereotypical about that, eh? Goofus, meet Gallant.


    Thank you so much for this, PP.  Beautifully said.  And not a condescending word about Brittany Spears or any other silly dame.  Thank you for that, too.


    HRC plays race card against Barack Obama May 2008:

    “I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in the interview, citing an article by The Associated Press.

    It “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

    “There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.

    HRC's record, as opposed to her rhetoric, is hostile to poor people, women, and children.  The pattern that emerged from her years as first lady through her terms in the Senate and while Secretary of State is not a pretty one.

     


    She had every right, during the 2008 primary, to argue that she had broader appeal than Obama.  She lost the argument, but it was a fair point to pursue.


    But Michael, they were *white* people. It's only inclusive and allowed if they're a minority. Otherwise they're exploitive, living off the undeserved fruit of their sinful ancestors, tied to the 1%, the cause of most of the world's atrocities, and doomed like dinosaurs as soon as rightful immigration catches up with them. Ask Hal, he'll tell you.


    She made the argument that she had broader appeal than Obama and in 2008, she didn't.  He won.  She took her lumps, joined the Obama administration, performed great work at State and obviously learned some lessons that have made her a much better candidate this time around. Hal's case would only really apply to a Mitt Romney, a guy who years after losing has complained bitterly about all the government hand-out recipients who refused to make him king. 

     


    She made the argument that she had broader appeal than Obama and in 2008, she didn't.  He won.  She took her lumps, joined the Obama administration, performed great work at State and obviously learned some lessons that have made her a much better candidate this time around. Hal's case would only really apply to a Mitt Romney, a guy who years after losing has complained bitterly about all the government hand-out recipients who refused to make him king. 

     


    Well, she had significantly broader appeal to Whites and Hispanics, winning 56% and 64% respectively, but certainly (and unsurprisingly) not to blacks where she garnered only 15%. That she only got 52% of females is more surprising.

    Green (1st) shows the percentage of the candidate's total base the category represents (without respect to Asians and "others", as explained below). Blue (2nd) shows what percentage of the category each candidate garnered relative to the other.

    Hillary's males          Obama's males        

    6,859 38.1% 43.6%   8,857 45.7% 56.4% 

    Hillary's females        Obama's females

    11,166 61.9% 51.5%  10,520 54.3% 48.5%

    Hillary's Whites          Obama's Whites

    13,617 79.1% 56.0%  10,688 59.7% 44.0%

    Hillary's Blacks          Obama's Blacks

    1,002  5.8% 14.9%     5,741  32.1% 85.1%

    Hillary's Hispanics     Obama's Hispanics

    2,589 15.1% 63.7%    1,472 8.2% 36.3%


    So let's understand here - every time a candidate counts up support among Hispanics, whites, blacks, Jews, Italians, Irish - aren't they then playing the "race" card? Aren't the Democrats counting on taking the growing Hispanic demographic while relying the consistent African-American base? Aren't candidates going off to Israel to pander to Jewish policy preferences? How about hitting those St. Paddy's Day parades? Don't candidates frequently balance tickets with regional and/or ethnic figures designed to broaden the guaranteed support? Clinton cited an AP article. Let's see how objectionable this is:

    It found how Senator Clinton’s support among hard working Americans, black Americans, is weakening again, and how blacks in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

    “There’s a pattern emerging here,” he said.

     

    It found how Mr. Trump's support among hard working Americans, Hispanic Americans, is weakening again, and how Hispanics in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

    “There’s a pattern emerging here,” Sanders said.

     

    It found how Mr. Sanders' support among hard working Americans, Hispanic Americans, is weakening again, and how Hispanics in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

    “There’s a pattern emerging here,” Rubio said.

    Wow, those are really unusual divisive quotes.


    Clinton's dishonest smears of the true progressive demonstrate that she is not committed to, and cannot make a convicing case to the American people that she is committed to, justice for all Americans.  That's why she is striving, sadly with a great deal of success as shown by the comments here, to divide what should be a united Democratic coalition along gender and race lines.


    Yeah, Hal, you're the voice of the true progressive, and because your overwrought attack screeds don't persuade us to unify behind your chosen Messiah, there's something wrong with us. Will inform my shrink and priest and dealer right away.

    You're painting a picture of a desperate Clinton, pulling out all the stops and fighting dirty against a close rival for the nomination but...

    He's not a close rival at all.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democrati...

     


    You're exactly right Michael.  Hillary's smears are wholly unnecessary.  Sadly, she's all but got this thing in the bag.  So, one has to wonder what she could possibly be thinking.  In fact, her vindictiveness is almost certainly self-defeating. 

    A listener to my show paraphrased Thom Hartmann's comments this morning as follows:

    In attacking Bernie, Hillary is attacking the party base and the very voters that she most needs to excite enough that they come to the polls. Hillary may be improving the odds that she will get the nomination, but that is almost assured anyway, so what she is doing now to Bernie is only going to hurt her in the general election.

    My speculation is that Hillary is ready for Hillary.  She expected that nobody would stand in her way to the nomination.  Democratic liberal Elizabeth Warren scurried right out of her way like a squirrel avoiding an 18-wheeler.  Bernie's temerity in challenging her may well have enraged her.  If I'm right, his statement absolving her for directly violating the federal regulation governing her email records probably riled her up even more.  His magnanimousness implied, at a minimum, that he has the temerity to believe he is her equal.


    C'mon, Hal... you're reaching for a motive here, which makes the crime unlikely. By your own argument, Hillary has benefited from Bernie's challenge.  You think she doesn't see that?


    Really. Nothing could  have been worse for Hillary to have no credible challenger, to have no one to debate in the democratic primary, to actually be coronated. That would have been worse than a nasty fight for the nomination. Sanders is the best case scenario for Hillary and I'm sure she knows it.


    I have no idea what's in her mind.  I think he gave her a few sleepless nights and she didn't like that.  She sure didn't like it in 2008.  Another reason that she probably is trying to bury him right now and for good is that he has pushed her much farther to the left than this "center-moderate" DLC third-way pol ever wants to be.  She wants to end that dynamic right now.  Also, she will want to head into the convention without any obligations to the pro-worker, pro-peace, pro-environment wing of the Democratic party.  That way, she can spoon pablum to rank and filers without hard promises to activists.


    Here's your psychic soulmate to help you divine her inner workings. Such a cunning scheming woman, it must be tough peering into her ([lack of] soul.


    Hillary is not smearing Bernie.  Far from it.  On the other hand, you are smearing Hillary by reaching into any barrel to drag out something, anything you can use against her.  Why?  Both Hillary and Bernie are going to be looking for things to use against each other as the months go by.  That's the nature of politics.  But neither of them will ever be as nasty as their followers.  That's what's sad.

    You insist that Hillary is not a feminist, not a progressive, while progressive feminists who know Hillary or have worked with her paint a far different picture.  

    This from Gloria Steinem.

    Cecile Richards' daughter is working on Hillary's campaign.

    Maya Angelou's Poem in Praise of Hillary Clinton

    Lena Dunham talks feminism with Hillary Clinton

    I could go on and on, but what's the point?   We're trying to choose a president and to my mind Hillary Clinton is the best choice.  You don't agree.  That's fine.  But you've spent an inordinate amount of time trying to make her out to be anti-progressive and anti-feminist when she's neither.  There are other issues you can dwell on, if that's your thing and you can't let it go, but whether or not she's a feminist is only a tiny part of presidential whole fabric.

    If your idea of convincing women they shouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton is to try and shame women for wanting to vote for this particular woman--or, worse yet, trying to be the man to set us straight--it should be obvious to you by now that it's not working.

     

     

     


    Facts Ramona.  Facts and evidence demonstrating that Hillary Clinton is dedicated to justice for poor, working, and middle-income Americans will persuade me that she's a good candidate and they are what should persuade you.  A list of names of  one-percenters who support a multi-millionaire doesn't quite cut it, now does it?


    Gloria Steinem and Maya Angelou are 1 percenters now? You be playing freaky boy with yourself too long.

    Maya Angelou - Net  worth $10 million
     
    Gloria Steinem - Net Worth:  $3 Million.  Her investments throw off about $178,000 annually.
     
    Measuring by net worth - The poorest family in the top 1% has a net worth of $8 million.  Measuring by income - the lowest income that puts you in the 1% is about $380,000 for a family.
     
    So I overestimated Gloria Steinem's relative affluence . . . but not by a whole lot.  Given her age and the fact that she's a widow without dependents, she's doing awfully well.  Her step-son is movie star Christian Bale.  Maybe not technically a one-percenter but in the economic elite fer shur.
     
     

    Right.  That's all they are.  Rich bitches.


    C'mon Ramona.  I'm supposed to roll over and put my paws in the air because a few celebrities write odes to Hillary Clinton.  Her record is pedestrian or worse.  It's that simple.


    Can you do that?  Can you roll over and put your paws in the air?  I've underestimated you.  I had no idea.


    It's his way of showing that Hillary is a pedestrian and he is not. Or maybe he needs to be let out.


    BTW, Hal, I saw what you did there about the feminist one-percenter "celebrities".  I'm not biting.  That is all.


    I had a feeling you caught that. ;-)


    ;)


    Bernie Sanders makes $174,000 a year, in the economic elite fer shur.

    Hal, the lengths you go to put someone on your economic shit list is really disturbing. If yours is the prevailing attitude of a potential Sanders administration, I might vote for Bush or Kasich.

    "Christian Bale is her step son"  So what?  She can always borrow money from him? what? If your family members are rich, so are you?  Bale has rich friends?


    I'm a little shocked that Gloria Steinem, after so many decades of prominence, is only worth $3 million.


    You do realize the deflection, don't you?


    I have no intention of trying to persuade you of anything.  I will, however, answer your attempts to smear Hillary.  You keep talking about Hillary's "attacks" on Bernie, which I have yet to see.  They are political opponents.  They're going to go after each other. 

    Bernie has been saying he disagrees with Hillary on "virtually everything".  I find that hard to believe but I understand what he's doing.  Someone will compare their senate voting records to see how many times they've voted in the same way (I'm guessing most of the time) but it won't be me. 

    Political hyperbole is a part of our grand tradition.  I know you know that.  You've been around long enough.


    You said it earlier... Hillary and Bernie are not going at each other with any sort of ferocity, at all. They are opponents in a zero sum game and, at this point, it looks like Sanders is losing.  To his credit, Sanders fights on with integrity and is not looking to explain his second place showing (so far) by blaming conspiracies or Clintonian dirty tactics.

    I get why there's liberal enthusiasm for Bernie, especially now when the Republicans are running a field where Rubio is the centrist, but when you get to the point where you're arguing that Hillary is playing too tough by mentioning her gender and sexism, you have to stop and take a breath.

    The fact is that for decades, Hillary has been loudly told to shut up and butt out of public affairs.  Maureen Dowd has called her Lady Macebth more times that Maureen Dowd has ever called the actual Lady Macbeth by her proper name.  No, this is not Bernie's sin.   But this is what Hillary has endured for decades and, I notice, Bernie doesn't actually object to her bringing it up. His supporters do.

    Are Bernie's supporters saying what Bernie can't?  Or are Bernie's supporters, so energized and full of good will, simply souring in the face of what they see as the wrong, but inevitable, result?

    The hint is this... Bernie speaks his mind. If he thought Hillary were unfairly using her gender against him to paint him as a sexist, he'd say so in convincing fashion.  My guess is that he just doesn't see it and, by the way, that he minds a Hillary Clinton presidency much less than some of his supporters do.


    She was so loudly "shouted" down that she was only appointed Secretary of State.  Here's what she said about colonialism way way back in 2010 in that role.

    Hillary Clinton in 2010 on the effects of and how best to respond to colonialism in Africa:

    For goodness sakes, this is the 21st century. We've got to get over what happened 50, 100, 200 years ago and let's make money for everybody. That's the best way to try to create some new energy and some new growth in Africa.

    H/t Corey Robin.


    Brilliant cherry-picking, Hal - you should own your own orchard.

    Try this on for size for one of the most corrup regions on earth that continues to be the poster child for unearned charity:

    "Most of the work that needs to be done needs to be done in Africa," Clinton told a forum about U.S. diplomacy on the continent.

    "If you look at trade between African countries, it is abysmally minimalistic," Clinton said. "African countries don't trade with themselves. They have barriers and tariffs and customs problems that stand in the way of developing their own economies."

    Of course you've stated you're not into welfare reform - you like welfare as an eternal institution. Hope you've got a big checkbook, or that's just a bill for the 1% like Gloria Steinem and Maya Angelou to pay? LOLZ.


    I know why the fat cat sings!


    Points. 1% = The Second Set? The Feminist Miss Chic? Can't top yours.


    Ms. Appropriation?


    Ramona - you identify well-known highly regarded female Hillary supporters as evidence that she is the best candidate.  I brought up their elite or nearly-elite economic status because it provides a different explanation for their support.  It's in their economic interest - and Katy Perry's by the way - to back her rather than the guy who will raise their taxes or taxes on their families.

    A related reason that many celebrities, who self-identify as progressive, may be endorsing HRC, rather than Bernie, is because they, including Steinem, who dated Henry Kissinger, Angelou, who counts Oprah as a close friend, and Lena Dunham, who has her own production company, have always, or for many many years, been cushioned from the prosaic day-to-day worries of the great majority of most Americans.

    I specified Angelou's and Steinem's net worth in response to PeraclesPlease's suggestion that I must be spending too much time masturbating if I think they're one-percenters.


    "It's in their economic interest - and Katy Perry's by the way - to back her rather than the guy who will raise their taxes or taxes on their families."

    Right.  Because Katy Perry is so worried about a few points on her taxes.  HRC will also raise her taxes. If Katy Perry were motivated solely by financial concerns, she could always vote for one of the Republicans or not vote at all -- she could renounce her citizenship in favor of some no tax locale and pretty much keep all her hoard.

    Might be that some of these women... feel a connection to Hillary Clinton!


    Hal, you're still spending too much time with mental masturbation if you think Gloria Steinem's career choices and political statements are designed to protect her stock portfolio.

    You're simply offensive - this woman is a pioneer, a hero to many, certainly didn't get $20 mill from her daddy to start a real estate business, but instead was left broke with a midwest mother with a breakdown, and built up her career with several seminal breakthroughs, including her early feminist writing for Esquire, her undercover exposé of the Playboy bunny scene, her launching of the groundbreaking Ms. magazine, her being the first woman to speak at the National Press Club.

    Whether she dated Henry Kissinger or not is a stupid item to even mention for a woman whose life and works shouldn't be judged by the men she dated (or her son-in-law), and is horribly ironical that this kind of male validation is antithetical to her feminist work. Tell us who you dated, Hal, otherwise we don't know who you are, whether you even exist to speak of.

    Where did you get your progressive credentials, K-Mart fishing tackle section?


    PP, thank you again.  Just wanted to let you know I'm paying attention and I appreciate it.  


    It is indeed hard to catch enough small brown trout in the coastal mountains of Cal. to make up dinner. So it is wholly believable that Hal switched from a bubble and fly to a straight number six hook baited with both Balls o' Fire salmon eggs and a dab of Zeke's Stinky Cheese---which is not illegal, but poor sportsmanship. If you're hungry enough you'll use anything you can get for bait.


    SMH.. You are not helping your candidate at all. One of these days I'd think you would write about your candidates policies and how he plans to implement them? How does he plan to move congress in his direction? How does he intend to change the tax code and how does he plan to get congress to do this? Does he think he can just shrink the military industrial complex by executive order? How will he begin to even implement one thing he wants to do?  

    It isn't just about legalizing pot you know Hal?  What are his specific plans for say allowing the CDC study the impact of gun violence in America? You know it isn't just a rural urban thing, I am originally from Montana Hal, where gunz are everywhere. And lots of people die because of gun violence, mostly because they get drunk and do something stupid. What are his plans? At this point all he has is a stupid 10th Amendment defense I hate that, I find it weak because we need federal legislation to begin to understand and compile research and get real information to people about the impact of having guns around children. There isn't a day that goes by that some kid in America gets  a old of a gun and shoots either 1. himself 2. his parent 3. a sibling etc. What are his plans for anything? Do you even know?

    I am convinced you think Atwater was right just throw shit out there and see where it sticks, even if that means throwing your feces at Maya Angelou (RIP) and Gloria Steimen because you are angry they support(ed) Hillary Clinton?  Dude all you are doing is making all that shit stick to your own candidate! Why are you doing that? 


    The gun issue is one that I think we could actually debate.  I'm from New Mexico.  Same situation as Montana.  There are a lot of guns.  There are accidental shootings and other shootings that go along with widespread gun ownership.  There is also a legitimate argument about rural spaces, culture, rights and why the rules in NYC don't necessarily apply in a town without a city 60 miles in its circumference.

    But we're not having that debate here. Bernie is right, of course.  Pot should be legalized.  If he manages to get that through the Senate, I doubt President Clinton will stand in his way.  This could work out for all of us!


    I do think we can debate this issue as well Mike. And there are others of course, but I think Clinton and Bernie agree on most things, but this is the one issue they differ greatly on.  We are never having that debate here with Bernie supporters because all they want to do is write about how she is worse than Beelzebub and in fact she will murder you in your sleep.. etc and so on. 

    I would really love to get into the handgun issue, because it differs no-where. No one hunts with handguns unless you're hunting people, so in fact there is no significant difference between rural and urban when it comes to handguns.  Culture, like you suggested in your TPM article can be changed just like we did with cigarettes. I really liked that article by the way, it was a great idea. And I've started using your idea.

    And yea, pot should be legal, it is here and boy has Washington State taken in some amazing sums of tax money! 

    It's just frustrating that every Bernie blog is not about Bernie but about the terrible evil Clinton. She isn't terrible and she isn't evil, and I'm sick of that argument. I mean would Hal taint Roosevelt with the one percenter charge? Because he was one, and yet did very good things for regular people. 


    I have spent an inordinate amount of time directly comparing Hillary's and Bernie's records and thereby shown (I think) that Bernie is far more consistently progressive.  Here's an example.  Here's another.  I have also described, with nary a word about Hillary, the Bernie Sanders rally I attended.  Pretty much every blog I write about the Democratic primary candidates is chock full of specific facts on the two main candidates.

    This blog, which apparently upsets lots of people, is on a very important matter - namely Hillary's use of coded and sometimes not-so-coded language to slice and dice what should be a united Democratic electorate - both in this election cycle and in 2008.  I made a similar point here.  I believe Democratic Presidential candidates should work to unite poor, working, and middle-income Americans, not try to divide us along racial, and until recently sexual orientation lines.  Don't you?

    I have focused on her dishonest claim that her private email server setup was allowed even though it contravened Federal regulations since it did not preserve her records at the State Department.  I believe Presidential candidates should tell the truth and follow federal regulations.  Don't you?

    If you believe that I am wrong and the facts, and well-supported arguments, that I have adduced in Bernie's favor are not dispositive, that is fine.  But don't claim that I'm not writing about Bernie or comparing the two.  This is exactly what I've been doing.

    Regarding the claim that I'm distracting when I bring up 1-percenters - nothing is further from the truth.  The point I'm making is that the economic interests of the great majority of Americans are very different than those of the 1%.  Throughout his career, Bernie Sanders (like 1-percenter FDR and LBJ) has focused on making life better for the 99%.  Hillary Clinton has not.  That is the primary reason I support Sanders.  What is the primary reason you don't?


    Why are you asking for a primary reason for not supporting Sanders, rather than for reasons that Clinton supporters are happy with their candidate? When you phrase the question the way you do it carries the connotation, intended or not, that going all in for Bernie should be the default position.  Hillary's supporters can make their decision without referencing Sanders at all.

     


    You've spent an in inordinate amount of time distorting Hillary's record. The nasty bit tossing in her feminist backers as just elitist members of the 1% concerned only about their stock portfolios was a new low. Yeah, Hillary's record with rural poverty and women's issues was only to bolster elitist 1% cred. Trying to pass universal health care or SCHIP must have been just corporate gifts. Bernie good, Hillary bad, whatevers. I got a laugh out of Most Favored Nation status for China -I suspect you're not even familiar with what it is, or that China's been MFN since Carter in 1980 as have most countries.

    You write:

    1) I say "Bernie good Hillary bad" on everything.  In fact, I specifically note in this blog that Hillary's position on guns is better than Bernie's.  I also have praised Clinton here for coming out against TPP and for her recent announcement that she will no longer take money from the private prison industry.

    2) "China's been MFN since Carter."  This is true but does not in any way obviate my criticism of Clinton for supporting making permanent said status.  One of the last decisions by Bill Clinton was to sign into law permanent normal relations with China - a decision that Hillary called for while she was engaged in her first campaign for New York Senator.

    You call me a cherry-picker but you trot out the same old (and I mean old) examples of Clinton's support for poor, working, and middle-income people.  You ignore, inter alia, or minimize: 1) Her very close relationship with corporate America - dating back at least to her years as a Walmart Board member in the 1980s who, by all accounts, never once criticized the corporations ultra anti-union/worker policies.  2) Her refusal to criticize NAFTA.  3) Her opposition to a new Glass-Steagall.  4) Her support of permanent MFN status for China.  5) Her vote for the Patriot Act.  6) Her vote for the disastrous war with Iraq.  7) Her current support for a "no-fly" zone over Syria which might well lead to a hot war with Russia.

    Okay, that's enough or I'll bore Ramona to tears with another laundry list.


    Sheesh, let's go:

    1) Her very close relationship with corporate America - dating back at least to her years as a Walmart Board member in the 1980s who, by all accounts, never once criticized the corporations ultra anti-union/worker policies. 

    The Clinton's were close with Robertson Stephens, the banker who  brought Wal-Mart public. She was a highly qualified board member between 1986 and 1992, a time when we were actively debating the effects of globalization.  She was also on the board there at a time where Wal-Mart was a huge contributor to the Arkansas economy.  Did she do wrong by her home at the time?

    2) Her refusal to criticize NAFTA.  

    Opinions on NAFTA differ. There are benefits, you know.

    3) Her opposition to a new Glass-Steagall.  

    Glass Steagall is not the only way to regulate the financial sector.  Europe never had Glass Steagall.  Glass Steagall was not brilliant regulation and while I happen to see its virtues, it is not necessary.  You can regulate the financial sector in other ways.  Clinton's proposed adjustment of the capital gains tax schedule might be more beneficial.  That and a good Fed chair would do wonders.

    4) Her support of permanent MFN status for China. 

    Let's be real here... we trade with bad actors.  Some are worse than China.  Saudi Arabia is an ally, even!  Our relationships with other countries will always be fraught. Sanders is very pro-Israel from a pro-Palestinian perspective.

    5) Her vote for the Patriot Act.

    Yeah.  Fair enough.  A lot of people voted for that.  I'd love to disqualify them all from future politics but, come on...  

    6) Her vote for the disastrous war with Iraq. 

    Yeah.  Fair enough.  A lot of people voted for that.  I'd love to disqualify them all from future politics but, come on...  

    7) Her current support for a "no-fly" zone over Syria which might well lead to a hot war with Russia.

    Or... not?  Very complex situation here, don't you think?  Is Russia supporting Assad against ISIS?  Are we against both Assad and ISIS?  Is this entirely the kind of thing where it would be better to have Clinton at State than running for President in order to deal with it later? Let's not be glib?


    Okay, you give her guns - for TPP it's an "okay but late & hypocritical". Re: prisons, you ignored my evaluation of how much money, how little effect.

    China got permanent MFN under George W Bush, Dec 2001, but it's a bit confusing as Clinton signed a Permanent status in 2000 tied to WTO accession. Why China shouldn't have permanent normal trade relations?

    Re: WalMart you can read about her progressive activities on the board here.

    Re: NAFTA, the left has a hard-on about it, but it was mostly jobs to China that affected our manufacturing sector, and it's hard to see how with LG and Panasonic having trouble surviving in TVs, how we were going to keep making TVs in the US. The real negative effect of NAFTA was on Mexican farmers, but I don't think that's what you want to hear criticism on.

    Re: Glass-Steagall, I don't think that would do anything to stop a Goldman-Sachs from fraudulently packaging poisonous assets or illegally repossessing non-defaulted homes. She's advocated other measures to address issues, and opposes "too big to fail". It took Grayson's digging in the House to find out how many trillions the Fed was funneling to Wall Street banks - that wasn't the fault of Glass Steagall either. Nor was the over-exuberant housing bubble that was obviously in the making 10 years, nor the steady growth of corrupt power within Fannie May.

    Re: the Patriot Act, it passed the Senate 98-1. Yeah, she could have fought the crappy renewal 5 years later.

    Re: Iraq, she voted for inspections - were you against inspections? did you ever offer another plan for bringing Hussein to the table? If you're so concerned about Human Rights in China, what are your concerns about Human Rights in Iraq, and what active policies do you support? Do you agree with Hans Blix who up to Jan 2003 thought Hussein had a hidden weapons program? Did you consider Iraq a threat to Israel or any other Mideast state?

    Re: Syria, people kept predicting our "hot war" in Ukraine - didn't happen. I have bigger criticisms on SYrian and Libyan and Afghan and Iraqi policy than no-fly zones.

     


    Re: Glass-Steagall, I don't think that would do anything to stop a Goldman-Sachs from fraudulently packaging poisonous assets or illegally repossessing non-defaulted homes.

    It wouldn't.  Glass Steagall was not bad regulation, by any means, but it was also not necessary. There are trade-offs.

     


    She said "Some", not Bernie, you idjit. Republicans say we have a "sin" problem, not "skin" problem, when blacks are killed by cops. They also act like guns are only an issue of urban regions and that it's cops under threat more than black youth. In their eagerness to excuse gun atrocities, ignore the new profile of lone wolf mass murderer with guns strapped on and riding out in a blast of glory. Hillary's right, and you should be applauding her trying to do something about gun slaughter, but instead you're using an unwarranted assumption about the meaning of "Some" (how Clintonian of you) to score easy political points. Of course if Bernie's view of gun abuse is an "urban" problem, he should be attacked as well, but I haven't heard him say that. Mais qui s'excuse s'accuse.

    Latest Comments