"The married women of Bucks County"

    A new T.V. show, "The married women of Bucks County" will begin streaming on major networks next week and is being advertised so vigorously on websites like the New York Times that you want to slam your laptop because the print won't move when you click it.

    I wanted to understand why Hillary Clinton is still being panned by the media and all I see is ads for emotionally unavailable, well-to-do ladies taking their parents to therapy while calling the bank to transfer funds into their kids' checking accounts. The dresses of these ladies do not suggest sexual availability, they aren't in a drunken stupor at a bar with their single friends, and don't finish off the night with a new tattoo or running down traffic signs on the way home. Why in hell would anyone watch a show about financially secure women who you couldn't entice out to a clandestine lunch if your life depended upon it.? In any case, I am annoyed that no one is analyzing Hillary Clinton's speech---except for brain trusts like Chuck Todd.

    Scanning the networks last night I nearly retched when, for the fourth time, I heard Chuck Todd's take--God, I hate that word---on HRC's speech analyzed in the now-made-glib context of "poetry vs. prose". I think the biggest insult is being treated to the meme, after 8 years of pithy comments by pundits who spend more time in makeup  than exercising their analytical neurons, that Obama's speech was "poetry"---we get it, numb nuts, she is a policy wonk through and through. Can't this bitch, just for once, entertain us like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders? Or now, even, in the newly minted eloquence of Barack Obama?

    I then happened upon the article today, "To win, Hillary should be more like Bernie, new poll suggests", by Daniel Marans in Huffpo. I highly recommend this article---which highlights an indelible role for Bernie Sanders as this campaign season goes forward.  I think there is a serious question about whether well off moderate and Republican-leaning women can fill a gap for Hillary in this election. But my main question is---are the Bernie economic messages and the Ladies of Bucks Counties messages really mutually exclusive?

    Not to mention a preliminary question--"Is there a Gap?" Are the 2008 and 2012 elections just out the window because we are all more disgruntled, and Bernie's got the younger folks all stirred up?

    I thought Steve Schmidt's comments about HRC's speech were the best among the pundits I heard---Hillery is who she is, better to publish the most authentic version of her that you can---and by the way, if she isn't up substantially my the middle of next week, the Democrats are in trouble.

    And I live in a rural county in Texas, a stone's throw from the Red River. Where the hell is Bucks County?

    Oh, a flashback. Young guy leaves Business School for the Summer, goes to work in a summer theater in strange county outside Philadelphia. His daughter is born in Doylestown, hasn't been there since. It was a different time. Wife was in there for quite a few days. Baby fine. Wife was missing her evening martinis so young dude in ample blazer goes in every night with a shaker of martinis in the inside pocket. Fun times. What the hell happened to the good old days?





    Two white guys sold a bill of goods that most ethnic minorities rejected. Trump lies about building a wall and has ties to Russia, our enemy. Sanders can't pay for his pipe dreams. Ethnic minority voters see through the crap. What is wrong with white voters?

    Good question, I don't know for sure what's wrong with them.

    As far as white, church going Republicans are concerned, I think they are angry at their own party, empty promises---despite all the dog whistles on race, the promises to deport immigrants and stymie gays, for them, it keeps getting worse. Truly, they're sending a message to the Republican party.

    As for white Democrats, I really don't get it. And, sorry, the more I hear from Bernie supporters, the less sympathy I have.  Especially as Hillary has come around on things like free tuition.


    Rmrd, please refrain from criticizing Sanders and Sanders supporters. I have already suspended a couple people, and I do not want to suspend any more. Thank you for your cooperation.

    PS Hi Oxy, nice to see you again.

    Michael my question is an honest one. Democrats receive about 40% of the white vote. Thus the GOP and third parties get the majority of the white vote. I was pointing out that ethnic minorities see the candidates differently. An article noting that Hillary should campaign as Sanders was mentioned, thus I included Trump and Sanders in my question. I am really trying to get a feel for what white voters are seeing.

    I will reframe the question. What are white voters seeing in Donald Trump. He does not seem to be a rational choice for President. Ethnic minorities has higher unemployment, economic, and criminal justice stress than whites. Do whites feel more stressed out? Are there other factors going on? I am seriously curious.

    Thank you for reframing the question. That precludes the chance of provoking yet another debate about the feasibility of Sanders proposals or the psychology of his supporters.

    To your question, after decades of Republican propaganda, many conservative white voters have become distrustful of government because they see it as helping minorities, not themselves. This feeling was exacerbated by the election of a black president and the shrill rhetoric from conservative leaders. Poor blacks and Latinos may be just as stressed as poor whites, but they don't blame government or minorities for their woes.

    I think Hillary will win because of the 40% white votes coupled with the majority of ethnic minority voters. We are asking the wrong question. The problem is not Hillary, the problem is white voters willing to vote for a racist.

    In some cases It's pure rationalization. They don't want to admit racism, but like it when Donald does so. But the vote is rationalized as he is stronger against ISIS, or can't vote for Hillary, the criminal.

    Blacks were 80/20 against invading Iraq 2/2003. Whites nearly opposite. 

    It was rarely covered why.

    Back then I used to watch TV news in 2/2003 (the invasion or what some called the massacre started late in 3/2003) TV news had a very short interview with an African-American on the streets of Philly on this racial discrepancy, and I recall the man said he didn't believe the WMD hype, 'it was like when a cop shoots and says I thought I saw a gun'.

    I have no idea what motivates many people's vote. I look at policy and personality. What does the candidate propose to do, why do they propose these policies i.e. have they correctly identified the problems, and how will they get them passed. And are they smart, knowledgeable, stable, does their life story and accomplishments support the public persona they present.

    Many people have no idea what policies a candidate proposes nor do they have any idea what the candidate has done with their life, even many democrats. Do people vote with their "gut" or mostly on party affiliation. Do they follow the crowd or do they vote their basest hatreds.

    I have no clue how low information voters make their decisions and that's why I always worry right down to election day.

    Thanks, Ocean Kat.

    I thought Hillary's speech was great and I really liked the fact that she kept the energy going right into the last part where she outlined specific plans and that she was going to pay for her programs by "following the money" to Wall Street and the super rich who have absorbed all the income gains in the last 7 years. I was going to vote for her in any case and have gone against my pledge not to spend savings on political campaigns---but I can't help myself, I've got to contribute something to the election.

    But like you, I'm worried.


    My confusion about how people decide who to vote for is one reason I don't get too upset over some hyperbolic campaign rhetoric. There's a lot of people I just can't talk to. They may seem like good people or bad people to me but even if I think they are good people I can't talk to them. Once we've discussed the weather I don't know what to say. Part of it is my extreme introversion but it's more than that. They know almost nothing about the subjects I like to talk about. I'm not interested in the subjects they want to talk about. I expect the politicians I support to know how to talk to these people because we need their votes. I place much greater weight on the in depth interviews of the candidate, the long detailed analysis of their views, life story etc.. The long form articles I read.  If the policy is sound I don't nitpick over every detail of the political rhetoric on the campaign trail. The first job of the politician is to get elected.

    Would you provide a recommendation, maybe a link, to an interview or article in long form or otherwise which gives a fair and accurate account of Hillary's foreign policy beliefs and actions, what her influences are, who she trusts, and maybe even goes on to predict how she will act in that arena as POTUS? Thanks. 

    I don't keep a list of links of articles I read. There was an interesting and pretty detailed article looking at Hillary's input to Obama during the Lybia campaign, her reasoning as to why she responded as she did to the French request for help. I couldn't find the link atm. I think I or someone else here linked that article a couple of months ago. But if you're serious about know her foreign policy beliefs she wrote a book, Hard Choices. You may disagree with her analysis of the situations she describes, the actions she chose, and her analysis of the outcome but her reasoning for those decisions are there.

    I haven't read "Hard Choices" [have you] and probably won't, but I have seen so many references to it along with quotes that I have a fair idea of what she says in it. Significantly, in the latest paperback addition she doesn't say anything about Honduras. Maybe what she did there slipped her mind but my guess is that she is hoping it has slipped our minds. 

     This isn't long form, more of a quick rundown of Hillary's hawkish ness and with evidence to guide speculation. I think the author has credibility. I know that concluding that Hillary is a hawk does not turn her off to many people. Many, blindly I think, admire and root for kick-ass treatment of the rest of the world. U.S.A.  U.S.A.   U.S.A.

    Oh jeez, again you're linking Flournoy to Hillary as evidence that she is more hawkish than Obama. When in fact there is much more evidence to link Flournoy to Obama  Look up the last time we discussed this if you want to see my arguments. But this article goes farther. It links Panetta to Hillary as evidence that she is more hawkish than Obama. When, again, Panetta is much more closely linked to Obama who made him his CIA director and was apparently so happy with his performance he made him his SoD. Your evidence more closely suggests a continuation of Obama's policies than a more hawkish posture. And yes, I did read Hard Choices.

    I have two problems with your arguments. First you engage in much black white thinking. As if there is no grey between isolationism and neo-con. As if neo-con and responsibility to protect are equally hawkish and pursue the same goals.

    Second you treat every hawkish impulse of the Obama administration as the influence of Hillary and every act of restraint of the Obama administration as divorced from Hillary. That's a superficial analysis that reflects your dislike of Hillary more than anything else. All major policy statements from a SoS are vetted by the president. SoS's are not rogue actors. SoS's can influence and advise but in the end they are part of the team and reflect the policies as decided by the president. The farther back one goes the more clear the differences within the team become. For example looking at Bosnia one can get a clearer picture of the differences of opinion between the major actors than looking at more recent decision like Lybia or Honduras. Major actors speak more openly  about the internal debate as the years go by.

    Oxy. if you are really looking for analysis of what HRC's speech and the whole DNC debacle is about you might read Jeff St Clair's four gonzo takedowns of the Clintonites at Counterpunch and i don't recall anything about her personal quirks just a deadly humorous  analysis if what these people are really about,  These texts are probably already on the Clintonite banned profane literature list so be careful.

    Please submit a link to or a list of the Clintonite banned profane literature. Because I don't believe any such list exists explicitly or implicitly and that this is just your passive aggressive way to insult us by implying we a narrow minded in our reading.

    Peter,thanks but I'm not going there. Already contributing to Hillary.

    You're probably safer to remain a low-information voter with no regrets, but you did ask.

    Another insult. Let's stop pretending. Insults are all you bring to dagblog.

    Help. I feel like the time I walked into a nude TGIF cocktail party at Elysian Fields in Tujunga Canyon L.A,. nude, but the party had already started and the idea for the weekend was to get nude the next day---I think I missed a lot of preamble here also.

    What I was going for was---based on what I thought was a damn good speech---a discussion on how a lot of different points of view can be combined to effect a successful campaign against Trump.

    That's where we are, the possibility that Trump could be elected.

    Last night Hillary combined a big component of what left-leaning Democrats want with what moderates like me want.

    Isn't the free tuition plan a very big deal? Doesn't everyone benefit? Wouldn't the Married Women of Bucks County go for it ?

    And finally, was Hillary's white outfit suitable for the occasion? It's very embarrassing when you wear the wrong thing.

    We watched mostly the web broadcast because there were no pundits. Thought the entire convention was great.

    We switched to PBS for Hillary and caught a little punditry occasionally as they never stop propagandizing. Gwen Ifill blurted out, as Hillary walked up, 'somebody said Sanders people may walkout' a completely uncalled for remark. The wife diagnosed it as Ifill hoping they did, as then PBS News hour could run 2-3 segments a week on 'the split' in the Party and they could punditize on it until Nov.

    TV news is all about ignoring facts and stoking controversy. It is the worst place to go for facts and context. They are corporate executives, not journalists.

    Thanks, NCD. My internet service is from the top of a rural water tower, no TV, so I was switching around on my laptop and also have Sirius on my cell phone.

    Right, constant remarks on Sanders supporters, about their behavior, not so much on their policy differences. Of course, subliminal impressions are myriad. And then the occasional stunner---as in Mr. Khan's eulogy of his war hero Muslim son. "Donald Trump, you have sacrificed nothing" might be the single best description of this callous blowhard.

    Well done Oxy, as usual.

    I love Bernie.

    I mean, he got so goddamn mad at some time in his career that he said:


    He is and was never a mad man.

    But Hillary.

    I mean Hillary experienced so much more as far as her career.

    I love Hillary.

    This woman is about to break historical bounds.

    She will 'use' Bernie in her next administration.

    Right now there is another choice:



    I can't play Anticipation again. hahahahaha

    Too much, too soon.

    We do not get seven choices in this country.

    That is not how the 'system' works.

    But if there were a hundred choices, I would choose Hillary for so many reasons.

    So let us come together to defeat the ogre of the forest.

    Hey, Mr. Day. We've got to pull together.

    Well, shit, around here I'm a low information voter. Don't like to be so uninformed.

    Can't even say whether we should try to clean up the mess in Syria or just get the hell out. Is free tuition feasible?---seems to me if you put it in the context of "we rise together", Bucks county cream cheese and white bread sandwiches will go for it.

    Hillary got the opponent she wanted. Maybe she and the rest of us will regret it.

    Or blowhard might be so repulsive that a mini-coalition of R's and D's is possible on tuition and gun control. Just don't know.

    You are the best, Day.




    aClinton bounces in new PPP poll taken entirely after both conventions. Even with disaffected Democrats she leads blowhard by 5 points. Her favorably improved by 9 points.

    One of my questions above was, in the final analysis, is the race that much different from Obama's two elections. According to PPP:

    "we've been saying that this race is shaping up pretty similarly both nationally and at the state level to the margins Obama won in 2012---not a landslide, but a solid victory. The undecided pool leans Democratic and they like Obama but don't like Clinton,....a lot of these are Sanders voters... If (they can be won over)..., the margin improves from 5 to 8 and moves into landslide territory."

    It seems to me that if the undecided Sanders voters can help create a landslide we may in fact get free tuition, single payer and gun control.

    Clinton loves Vermont and Cabot Cheese.

    74% of Trump voters think HRC should be in jail, and only 12% say no. Doesn't leave much hope of attracting Trump voters.

    Many thanks to the women of Bucks county.  I love Philadelphia cream cheese and white bread sandwiches.

    Just happened on my last blog here.

    Guess there was no gap, people want change, any change.


    Latest Comments