dagblog - Comments for "The New Normal"

It's an adorable photo, but

Goldberry — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 23:22:00 +0000

It's an adorable photo, but this one is more real-world realistic, imo, and the complete photo was well-represented in the BLM Twittersphere. (smile) (I hope Tweets work here.)

https://twitter.com/elonjames/status/681187757490880512

Until Sept 2008 I was dubious

Flavius — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:44:18 +0000

In reply to This piece was about a *WOMAN

Until Sept 2008 I was dubious about Pelosi, at least unimpressed by her interviews. When the chips were down at the onset of the financial crisis she was completely right to reject the superficially appealing -to some on the left - response of letting Bush/Paulson/Wall Street stew in their own juices..

Whatever the merits of "Occupy Wall Street" arguably we, at least the Western/capital chunk could have entered -and still be sunk in- a 1930-type depression if she had emulated that month´s self indulgent Republican performance.

Go , Nancy!

I agree with every word

Flavius — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:42:02 +0000

In reply to Show me a good loser and I´ll

I agree with every word except the last four.

This piece was about a *WOMAN

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:43:53 +0000

In reply to The New Normal

This piece was about a *WOMAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE*. It's a very different vibe. While it's obviously about Hillary as well, it was focused on her womanly attributes that people find strange but hopefully will soon find normal.

Female politicians are different, and we haven't come to grips with how different in what ways. All our framing about tough Commander-in-Chief and what not leads us to one set of expectations, but half the time the President is trying to calm a nervous public over some shock or trauma. In any case, we're still doing a lot of projection and transferal based on our own roles and our relation with our parents and grandparents, and there certainly hasn't been enough professional female history to well cover the wide spectrum of possibilities. The candidacies of Carly Fiorina and Sarah Palin give us a hint of how much of a joke it's been up to now. Though Nancy Pelosi's performance as Minority Whip on through Speaker and Minority leader has been a powerful example for 15 years of a competent skillful woman in a complex high-level political position - likely a big help to our acceptance of our current nominee. Here's a picture of Pelosi pre-botox, so we're reminded both of how normal she's been, and how long she's served (since 1987 in Congress, with the DNC since 1976, 40 years).

PS - I take Wolraich

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:16:19 +0000

In reply to Reading (okay skimming) this

PS - I take Wolraich seriously and Lulu mostly seriously. You I don't take very seriously, while I don't take Sync or Wattree seriously at all, though for vastly different reasons. Please don't lump yourself in with the rest - I'm not treating everyone who's meh to Hillary as a group.

Show me a good loser and I´ll

ocean-kat — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 05:50:41 +0000

In reply to Hal,

Show me a good loser and I´ll show you a loser

No Flavius that's only true if one defines losing in purely personal terms. Is it all about Sanders or is it about the country, the world, the future. If Trump wins I'll be devastated. But why? I will lose nothing if Trump wins. nothing. If Trump Supreme Court nominees over turn roe v Wade it won't affect me at all. If cops kill more black people in the cities it won't be me they kill. If the ACA is ended and millions of people lose their health insurance it won't be me. Loss of gay rights, not me.

I'm old, I have no children, and I live so far on the fringe of society that nothing Trump could do will affect me. So why do I care? It's about compassion, about empathy. It's about caring about the future and making a better world.

Sanders only lost if the fight was about him. If it's about the future than the fight goes on. The first step in that fight is endorsing Hillary to defeat Trump. What I see so far is for Sanders it's not about the future. It's not about making a better world. It's all about him.

Hal,

Flavius — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 03:53:45 +0000

In reply to Reading (okay skimming) this

Hal,

It´s too soon for either side to stop treating Bernie and Hillary as contestants in a zero sum game. Giving Hillary credit , for example , for her 20 year involvement with Marian Wright Edelman takes nothing away from Bernie.

BTW something was responsible for Bernie 's victory margin increasing each time he ran for mayor of Burlington. And criticizing him for not compiling a more extensive DC legislative record always seemed like criticizing Pedro Martinez´ batting average. Not his game. And in any event the voters in Vermont had the responsibility for evaluating his performance . As they did.

As to his endorsing Hillary. He can and should do that at the Convention. Not before. As I occasionally repeat here Leo Durocher had it right ,saying,

¨Show me a good loser and I´ll show you a loser¨

As was true 8 years ago we were lucky to have had the chance to choose between two such highly qualified,if contrasting candidates ,. There are lots of ways to San Jose.

Consummate professionals as they are , my guess Bernie and Hillary aren´t a fraction as antagonistic as their impassioned dagblogger supporters.

When he finally retires maybe Hillary will put Bernie in charge of the SEC. That would put the cat among the pigeons .

No more fraudulent Trump Universities .And maybe he´d be invited to address Goldman Sachs!

Thanks, Peracles...I was in

stillidealistic — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 18:30:52 +0000

In reply to Yeah, I wrote a feelgood

Thanks, Peracles...I was in need of a feel good piece.

It is no secret that I have come to my admiration of Hillary recently. And I did it through lots of research and challenging myself as to "why" I felt so negatively toward her. I didn't just wake up one day and say, "Gee, I think I'll start liking Hillary" all of a sudden.

I find it so interesting that people don't do more of that.

The transition was fairly easy for me once I realized she'd been a victim of the same kind of sleazy right wing BS the President has been subjected to. Of course, if you're in the camp that thinks the President has been a disappointment, maybe they aren't seeing what I'm seeing.

I think that being a grandmother has softened Hillary a bit. Or it could be I'm doing some transference, since I'm a grandmother as well, and I desperately want the world to be a softer place for my grandkids, as she does hers. But her whole history is of trying to help make the world a kinder, gentler place for women and children. Why can those who HATE her so much not see that?

I am under no illusions that she is perfect. She is far from, but who is? Certainly none of the other choices...

But I'm not voting for the lesser of evils. I'm voting for the person I think has the best shot at building on what President Obama has accomplished.

And the more the people on the left try to tear her down, the more personal it gets for me. I EXPECT the right to do it, they've BEEN doing it for decades. The left? No, I find that offensive. Disagree with her policies if you can (they are NOT that far off from Bernie's) but the personal stuff? The name-calling? Uncalled for.

Oh come on Hal. Nobody

ocean-kat — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 18:17:37 +0000

In reply to Reading (okay skimming) this

Oh come on Hal. Nobody supports Hillary because the like the pretty picture. Some might like the pretty picture because they support Hillary. That's all.

Thanks, Peracles. Hillary is

Ramona — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:29:39 +0000

In reply to The New Normal

Thanks, Peracles. Hillary is looking better and better all the time. The story of Trump and the GOP is looking like the craziest soap opera ever, so it's good to see someone out there talking about policy and coming up with real solutions. Love the picture, too. I'm glad she's feeling like she can show her human side now. She's a much better candidate for it.