I didn't expect to have to account for what are undeniably widely held, and even more widely acknowledged, views of Hillary Clinton as being an uninspiring politician and unattractive personality. The truth, falsity or unfairness of these views is irrelevant in the context in which I made my comments.
A read of The Economist's article (now nearly 2 years old, and alas, wrong in its expectations) offers some hints. Their take? It's instructive that by and large, the public appears to have approved of the work Clinton's done when holding office (senator, sec. of state), but pretty much has loathed her whenever she runs for office.
That's not their take. Not least because it makes no sense: if the public so loathes her when she runs for office, how did she achieve the offices in which she apparently attracts approval?
It's hard to know where to start with Croesos's comments. Since the facts of the other politicians are patently not on all fours with those of Hillary Clinton it's difficult to see what the point in the comment is generally. In fact, they're each so different it's a wonder anyone thought to make the comparisons in the first place.
Since I've been accused of waffling, post hoc rationalisation and so on, I will just - again - point out the bleedin' obvious...my referring to "perceived faults" and "views" [of Clinton] was because it doesn't matter whether they're true or not if the concern is that her interventions galvanise Trump voters.
Let me put it this way. I think Tony Blair was a talented, decent and effective Prime Minister and statesman. But I recognise that many in the UK now find him repulsive. So if there's a debate that he sticks his oar into in a way that I agree with I still cringe a little because I expect him to generate more opposition than support.
@Crœsos and @Ohher definitely have a point but @HymnNumber466 is also right. There is without a doubt a narrative about Hillary that is extremely negative. Most of it cannot be substantiated by any serious analysis of the facts. However, in the court of public opinion that's not usually what counts.
Trump is clearly of a personality type who responds to threats both perceived and real by lashing out and hence Hillary has been the subject of a deluge of personal attacks from The Donald. Given that, there is no doubt that she has an absolute right to respond - especially as we now see so much of what she said being vindicated. That doesn't change the fact that her comments may not play well in certain circles. I would argue though, that she's shown incredible restraint thus far.
The other bug-bear I have is people who blame Hillary for Trump. The he would have lost to any other candidate line. I don't buy that; his brand of break all the rules, speak your mind nonsense would have worked against anybody sane. It is a form of populism that is hard to combat. It is a form of populism that the GOP have been cultivating for 30 years (at least) and as I have commented earlier - they played with fire, now they're reaping the inferno. If you can cope with me horrendously mixing metaphors there...
It is true that there are people who voted Trump just because he wasn't Clinton. That's not her fault. It would be if she genuinely had all these flaws she allegedly has - but as noted, for the most part, the charges just don't stack up.
Democracy means sometimes the other guy wins. I don't have a problem with that - I don't like it but it is necessary. The problem I have is when the other guy is so egregiously unqualified but garners support anyway from people who not only should know better, they do know better. As I said, for me the blame lies squarely with the Republican party for the evil games they've been playing. If Trump ends up destroying the GOP, notwithstanding the decent and honorable republicans that do exist, I will feel no sympathy at all. You caused Trump by sins of commission and omission. He is trying to take down America and the rest of the world; if he ends up only taking down the GOP, then that really is a good thing.
It's hard to know where to start with Croesos's comments. Since the facts of the other politicians are patently not on all fours with those of Hillary Clinton it's difficult to see what the point in the comment is generally. In fact, they're each so different it's a wonder anyone thought to make the comparisons in the first place.
There may be differences, but mypoint was that you specifically cited five reasons (loser of previous nomination, loser of previous presidential campaign, pursued office from early age, "unsympathetic" manner, believes presidency should be his) why Hillary Clinton is uniquely unfit to publicly comment on the person who won the electoral college when those reasons were across-the-board applicable to every presidential loser since 1996 with the exception of John Kerry (who only fits four of your five criteria). None of those six men were held to a standard that it was unseemly for them to stay active in politics after their loss, or even comment negatively on the president who beat (or in the case of Al Gore "beat") them.
This matters because Republicans are masters about building special rules about why it's never appropriate to call them out on their crimes and failures. (Not you, @HymnNumber466. I'm sure your dislike of Hillary Clinton is sincere, even if your offered explanation for why she should shut up makes no sense when compared to how other presidential losers are treated.) For example, Mitch McConnell is complaining about how Democrats are derailing Brett Kavanaugh's nomination "at the last minute in an irregular manner". Now those of us whose memories go back further than January 20, 2017 might recall McConnell's insistence that the Senate considers Supreme Court nominations on its own schedule and therefore there is no "last minute". The Garland nomination also dispensed with the idea that there's an "irregular manner" to such things, at least as far as Senator McConnell is concerned. So yes, Republicans are going to be shameless like this, but that doesn't mean that anyone else is obligated to play along with their pretense.
I guess that's just a long way of saying that just because Republicans are peeing on Democrats' leg there's no obligation for Democrats to believe the Republican explanation that it's raining.
@Crœsos and @Ohher definitely have a point but @HymnNumber466 is also right. There is without a doubt a narrative about Hillary that is extremely negative. Most of it cannot be substantiated by any serious analysis of the facts. However, in the court of public opinion that's not usually what counts.
All very true. What I, and possibly @Crœsos (though I hesitate to speak for him) are trying to point out is not what doesn’t count in the CPO, but what does – and is being ignored, denied, brushed aside (pick your druthers), and that is sexism.
Clinton was lied about, in some cases with lies so preposterous (the pedophile pizza-parlor thing) that it’s hard to imagine anybody taking those lies seriously; yet some people did. Would a similar lie about Kerry or McCain or the others have produced a similar result? Does the CPO find men more credible or less suspect than they find women? Well, just look at what people are saying about Ford and her account of sexual assault against Kavanaugh. In fact, look at the reaction almost any female sexual assault victim’s account gets: she could be lying. She’s out for vengeance. She’s after publicity. She changed her mind afterward. Etc. Etc. Do we raise this kind of question when mugging victims file complaints? How often do we raise these questions when male sexual assault victims file complaints?
Trump is clearly of a personality type who responds to threats both perceived and real by lashing out and hence Hillary has been the subject of a deluge of personal attacks from The Donald. Given that, there is no doubt that she has an absolute right to respond - especially as we now see so much of what she said being vindicated. That doesn't change the fact that her comments may not play well in certain circles. I would argue though, that she's shown incredible restraint thus far.
(My emphasis.)
Again, true enough. I wouldn’t argue otherwise. But it’s worth considering why her comments don’t play well, and it’s worth examining the nature of those “circles” – especially the ones we ourselves swim in.
...
Not least because it makes no sense: if the public so loathes her when she runs for office, how did she achieve the offices in which she apparently attracts approval?...
Allow me to explain. As has been pointed out, HRC was elected Senator in New York; she was appointed Secretary of State by President Obama. First Lady of Arkansas / USA are not elected positions, but she made the most of them. Hillary Clinton is "different" because:
Women are supposed to keep quiet and let men run things.
Women are actually pretty good at running things. As good as men, in fact.
So when a woman actually gets an opportunity to run things, everyone is like, "Wow, she's really great." Even some of the people who thought she should have kept quiet and let the men run things.
This gives her the idea that maybe she should try running something bigger. Or gives other women get the idea that they could run things too.
But women are supposed to keep quiet and let the men run things.
Lather, rinse, repeat, make a crack in the glass ceiling, and try again. Harris / Warren 2024. (They are desperately needed in the Senate for now.)
@Ohher I've been a HRC fan since way back. And it is interesting how many of the arguments against her come down to old fashioned sexism. But here's the question that's doing my nut; suppose she decides to run in 2020 and DJT is running for re-election....
Which is better: The Dems choose her again as basically a F*** You to all the idiots who seek to tear her down and make her go away quietly or they choose someone else who is certain* to beat Trump?
Because defeating Trumpism is really important. As is winning the argument against sexism.
AFZ
*Very much a hypothetical because for the reasons I stated above, I think Trump's kind of populism is very hard to fight against and I don't believe anyone is certain to defeat him in such a theoretical match-up.
I'd be astounded in HRC took another run at the presidency. First, I doubt the Democratic Party would countenance her candidacy after the 2016 schwocking. Second, even with full support from the party and the people, she'll be seen as too old (as will most of the other current front-runners, and I'm looking at you Bernie Sanders, for all that I like what you have to say). Third, she may be out of the kinds of money needed to campaign with. Fourth, she's not, I hope, unrealistic enough to think a 2020 run is politically feasible for her. All those lies about her are still around, easily refreshed and put back into circulation; and this culture (MeToo movement notwithstanding) is still largely anti-woman. 2020's only 2 years away. Time for both Hillary and the Dems to pass the torch on to the Bookers and Harrises and maybe a bit later, Octavio-Cortez and Beto O'Rourke.
I agree that sexism is a massive factor in keeping the most talented and experienced American politician in her generation out of office, as well as someone who embodies the American dream of hard work and commitment reaping rewards.
I think another factor not mentioned (although I haven't read the linked articles) is the pernicious influence of Fox News and the relentless negative reporting about her. I'm not sure whether Fox was around at the time, but the relentless attacks on her as First Lady were aimed squarely at sinking the health reforms she was driving under Bill's Presidency. That seemed to me to be the beginning of the storm of criticism she attracted, and much of that was about her stepping out of a perceived traditional role as First Lady. From that almost sane type of attack, we have the ridiculous Benghazi scandal, the never-ending email rubbish and for the benefit of the truly loony, Pizzagate.
We have a Murdoch-owned cable news station that begins to howl at the moon after about 6pm. Its not taken off yet, but Murdoch is nursing it and feeding it money. I am really hoping that the freak market in Australia is just too small for it to be sustainable, and News Ltd pulls the plug once Rupert kicks the bucket. He's 87, but his Mum Dame Elizabeth of blessed memory made a century.
I agree that sexism is a massive factor in keeping the most talented and experienced American politician in her generation out of office, as well as someone who embodies the American dream of hard work and commitment reaping rewards.
I think another factor not mentioned (although I haven't read the linked articles) is the pernicious influence of Fox News and the relentless negative reporting about her.
I'm not sure whether Fox was around at the time, but the relentless attacks on her as First Lady were aimed squarely at sinking the health reforms she was driving under Bill's Presidency. That seemed to me to be the beginning of the storm of criticism she attracted, and much of that was about her stepping out of a perceived traditional role as First Lady.
We have a Murdoch-owned cable news station that begins to howl at the moon after about 6pm. Its not taken off yet, but Murdoch is nursing it and feeding it money. I am really hoping that the freak market in Australia is just too small for it to be sustainable, and News Ltd pulls the plug once Rupert kicks the bucket. He's 87, but his Mum Dame Elizabeth of blessed memory made a century.
The more inequality we have, the more person-in-the-street outrage we'll get, and the more freakism we'll see, I'm afraid.
I think another factor not mentioned (although I haven't read the linked articles) is the pernicious influence of Fox News and the relentless negative reporting about her. I'm not sure whether Fox was around at the time, . . .
Fox News launched in 1996. For whatever reason what's known as "the mainstream media" has had a hate-on for Hillary Clinton since she entered the national spotlight. Some of it was driven by things like Richard Mellon-Scaife's Arkansas Project, but it was never really rational and eventually took on a life of its own. Mostly the press hated Hillary Clinton for not being guilty of murdering Vince Foster / Travelgate / Filegate / that thing with the cattle futures / Rose law firm legal billing / Whitewater land investments / Monica Lewinski giving her husband a blow job. It turned into the journalistic equivalent of the sunk cost fallacy, where reporters rationalized that they'd spent so much time investigating Hillary Clinton she had to be guilty of something, otherwise everything that came before would just be a tremendous waste of time and effort and that would be intolerable.
Which is a snapshot summary of why, according to the American media (and not just the folks at Fox) the biggest issue facing America in the summer of 2016 was . . . e-mail server management best practices at the State Department. How much of the media's obsession with why the witch was escaping unburned can be attributed to sexism is an exercise I leave to the reader.
Let me put it this way. I think Tony Blair was a talented, decent and effective Prime Minister and statesman. But I recognise that many in the UK now find him repulsive. So if there's a debate that he sticks his oar into in a way that I agree with I still cringe a little because I expect him to generate more opposition than support.
Is that clear enough?
For me, that's the point completely.
With regards to both Clinton and Blair, I have doubts about some of their actions and attitudes but freely admit that on balance they did a good job in their positions. But - whether fairly or not - they are both now vilified in certain sections of the populations in their countries in such a way that any contribution that they may make to national political dialogue will only harden opinions against them and their position. If Blair makes a statement about remaining in the EU, the net effect will almost certainly be that waverers who might be considering reversing Brexit will start saying "if that weasel wants us in the EU it must be a bad idea."
Is it fair? Hell no. But that's politics for you (and always has been).
To both of them my recommendation would be "no matter how provoked, bite your tongue and walk away. Work in the background to support and encourage others who will make the points you want to make." These are two very clever people, so they ought to be able to understand this.
Personally I'm not sure. It is clearly an abuse of power and is part of his continuing assault on the credibility of the FBI, the DoJ and Mueller. His efforts so far seem to many folks to be evidence of an intention to obstruct justice.
And politically it must relate to the midterms as well. He needs a story to reverse a significant decline in the polls. In this age of alternative facts, this might be the story to do that. It plays into the 'deep state' narrative.
Plus there are already GOP voices applauding the move. This is now all about winning. Even by means of a naked and blatant abuse of power.
A few years back now I was closely involved in exposing a con artist of whom a judge correctly said that he would "wriggle and wriggle" until he could "wriggle no more". Over the course of our investigations I was amazed at this person's ability to "wriggle", and indeed they appear to be continuing to con people today (albeit on a smaller scale).
This person has been my model for undestanding Trump right from the start, and the similarities - except for the scale - are extraordinary.
So I wouldn't underestimate Trump's ability to wriggle, and indeed to wriggle free of whatever judicial reckoning is coming.
Here’s a good reason why Hillary Clinton shouldn’t run again: she’ll lose. Recent polling has showed that if the election was rerun tomorrow, Donald Trump would still win. The small number of flyover states that hold sway over the electoral college would still go the same way.
Now to me, that’s a powerful argument for reforming the electoral college, which from my outsider’s perspective looks completely unfit for purpose. But that’s a different argument.
It’s all kinds of unfair and wrong that Hillary would still lose. But I think the Democrats have to live in the world of the possible, and find a different candidate who can actually win the thing in the real world.
With regards to both Clinton and Blair, I have doubts about some of their actions and attitudes but freely admit that on balance they did a good job in their positions. But - whether fairly or not - they are both now vilified in certain sections of the populations in their countries in such a way that any contribution that they may make to national political dialogue will only harden opinions against them and their position. If Blair makes a statement about remaining in the EU, the net effect will almost certainly be that waverers who might be considering reversing Brexit will start saying "if that weasel wants us in the EU it must be a bad idea."
Is it fair? Hell no. But that's politics for you (and always has been).
To both of them my recommendation would be "no matter how provoked, bite your tongue and walk away. Work in the background to support and encourage others who will make the points you want to make." These are two very clever people, so they ought to be able to understand this.
Re Blair. He appeared to be a "nice man", but he also did very wrong about Iraq: the invasion, and if we're being especially kind, we can call it "blind-sighting himself to the truth". But I don't think that's allowable at this level of leadership and political maturity. He wanted to be friends to Bush, and probably expediently to keep the so-called special UK-USA relationship, and he miscalculated at the cost of war. It's nice in hindsight that he's sorrowful and regretful etc about destroying Iraq and being accessory to killing perhaps millions, but it isn't sufficient that he's sorry. I see that some high level judges found that he could not be prosecuted as a war criminal, which is too bad. Until leaders are found guilty for being bad, they will continue to do whatever they want, how many harmed or dead be damned.
Confirmation of my fan-dom of HRC; this is a classy little anecdote about her. I have been listening to the latest episode of the West Wing Weekly. This week, they've been discussing s5e15 Full Disclosure; an episode written by the brilliant Laurence O'Donnell. In this episode, they depict the workings of the Base-Closing Commission. This commission makes recommendations that certain bases are no longer militarily necessary anymore. It then obviously becomes a very political process, given the psychological and employment significance of military bases to individual states and potential closures are fought tooth-and-nail by the Representatives and Senators from said states. As an example (based on real-life experience), in the episode, the commission recommends that Fort Drum in upstate New York should be closed.
After this episode aired; Clinton and Rep John McHugh wrote to the fictional Deputy White House Chief of Staff, Josh Lyman to make clear their opposition to such a move.
A few years back now I was closely involved in exposing a con artist of whom a judge correctly said that he would "wriggle and wriggle" until he could "wriggle no more". Over the course of our investigations I was amazed at this person's ability to "wriggle", and indeed they appear to be continuing to con people today (albeit on a smaller scale).
This person has been my model for undestanding Trump right from the start, and the similarities - except for the scale - are extraordinary.
So I wouldn't underestimate Trump's ability to wriggle, and indeed to wriggle free of whatever judicial reckoning is coming.
The problem is that during every stage of the Russian investigation Trump has acted in a way that suggests he's incredibly guilty. There was never a point where he acted (credibly) as if he was confident any investigation would exonerate him. He often said that, but none of his actions were ever consistent with that premise.
The problem is that during every stage of the Russian investigation Trump has acted in a way that suggests he's incredibly guilty. There was never a point where he acted (credibly) as if he was confident any investigation would exonerate him. He often said that, but none of his actions were ever consistent with that premise.
I completely agree.
I am about half-way through Woodward's book Fear. It is fascinating and horrifying. The level of dysfunction in the administration due to the level of dysfunction in the President is stunning.
As an aside, there is Nothing in the book that supports collusion. Initially, I found this silence odd and a disappointing. On reflection, I think it is due to two factors. Firstly Woodward's sources are clearly all within the administration and whilst they don't seem to have held back about the President's countless flaws, if any of them do know of criminal wrong-doing (and mostly likely many don't) they wouldn't be forthcoming. Secondly Woodward is an excellent journalist and only writes what he can support. Given that he was looking at the administration and the information he has; there is no speculation. This is a professional work by an excellent journalist.
After this episode aired; Clinton and Rep John McHugh wrote to the fictional Deputy White House Chief of Staff, Josh Lyman to make clear their opposition to such a move.
People on the left really need to get over their infatuation with West Wing.
After this episode aired; Clinton and Rep John McHugh wrote to the fictional Deputy White House Chief of Staff, Josh Lyman to make clear their opposition to such a move.
People on the left really need to get over their infatuation with West Wing.
It's absolutely fine as a fantastical story, and completely counter productive as a model of politics. The anecdote above is a little like liking a politician more because they say they support your favorite sports team.
It's absolutely fine as a fantastical story, and completely counter productive as a model of politics. The anecdote above is a little like liking a politician more because they say they support your favorite sports team.
In the current climate as observed from an adjacent country, it's more of liking a politician because they like:
(a) coal and deny climate change
(b) corporations as people
(c) a big military
and they dislike:
(c) government-sponsored health care
(d) abortion
(e) people whose skin is off-white
It appears it's only necessary to have one of these as a motivation to like a politician.
It's absolutely fine as a fantastical story, and completely counter productive as a model of politics. The anecdote above is a little like liking a politician more because they say they support your favorite sports team.
Not really.
My point is that this particular act appeals to my whimsy. The WW was indeed idealised but also tried to engage in real issues. It's the discussion that matters. Base closures is a real issue. Real politicians choosing to respond to the show I think is classy, in same way I enjoyed the Department of Transport's response to this: Toy Train Company Applies to Run West Coast Main line
After this episode aired; Clinton and Rep John McHugh wrote to the fictional Deputy White House Chief of Staff, Josh Lyman to make clear their opposition to such a move.
People on the left really need to get over their infatuation with West Wing.
Oh and that writer clearly doesn't like the show. Or 'liberals' by the sound of things. The premise of the article is deeply flawed but the critique of the show that real politics has no place for smart people trying to do the right thing allows me to bring the discussion smoothly back on track...
Trump clearly shows how having a simplistic, ignorant approach to politics is a very bad idea.
After this episode aired; Clinton and Rep John McHugh wrote to the fictional Deputy White House Chief of Staff, Josh Lyman to make clear their opposition to such a move.
People on the left really need to get over their infatuation with West Wing.
Oh and that writer clearly doesn't like the show. Or 'liberals' by the sound of things. The premise of the article is deeply flawed but the critique of the show that real politics has no place for smart people trying to do the right thing allows me to bring the discussion smoothly back on track...
Trump clearly shows how having a simplistic, ignorant approach to politics is a very bad idea.
Oh and that writer clearly doesn't like the show. Or 'liberals' by the sound of things. The premise of the article is deeply flawed but the critique of the show that real politics has no place for smart people trying to do the right thing allows me to bring the discussion smoothly back on track...
No. I don't really think that's the substance of that critique, and over 2 terms a bunch of smart people ended up doing very little of any substance.
Trump clearly shows how having a simplistic, ignorant approach to politics is a very bad idea.
and yet he won, what are you going to do with all his supporters? Burn them?
Oh and that writer clearly doesn't like the show. Or 'liberals' by the sound of things. The premise of the article is deeply flawed but the critique of the show that real politics has no place for smart people trying to do the right thing allows me to bring the discussion smoothly back on track...
No. I don't really think that's the substance of that critique, and over 2 terms a bunch of smart people ended up doing very little of any substance.
Trump clearly shows how having a simplistic, ignorant approach to politics is a very bad idea.
and yet he won, what are you going to do with all his supporters? Burn them?
Really? Most of us who are not American think that US healthcare is insane and that for all the flaws in the ACA, it was and is a minor miracle. Not to mention rebuilding the economy from the Great Recession.
Yes Trump won. But that doesn't mean I want an ignorant, self obsessed liar to run against him. That's just silly.
Really? Most of us who are not American think that US healthcare is insane and that for all the flaws in the ACA, it was and is a minor miracle. Not to mention rebuilding the economy from the Great Recession.
I was referring to the fictional Bartlett administration [leaving aside the manner in which those things were done].
Yes Trump won. But that doesn't mean I want an ignorant, self obsessed liar to run against him. That's just silly.
I don't think Trump and Hilary exhaust all possible approaches.
I can't believe AFZ has been attacked for liking West Wing!! It was a brilliant show! The notion that people of a liberal bent have somehow had their idea of politics shaped by it is laughable and the linked article (which I will not be reading) is stupid, illogical, and poorly written.
However, if your ideas of policing council estates in Britain come from watching The Bill for years and years and years, and you bonded with a woman who would become your wife by discussing in detail each episode, how do you think it feels when the storyline goes haywire and a PC blows up Sunhill? Thank God for repeats of Midsummer Murders.
On the Trump Presidency, has anyone got a read on whether the declassification of the documents is actually damaging, like, in a way that friends of the DoJ might consider problematic? I've read a couple of articles in The Hill and Politico (I think) but they haven't descended to substance yet and just talk about the politics.
I was referring to the fictional Bartlett administration [leaving aside the manner in which those things were done].
Sorry, the article referred to Obama as 8 years of achieving nothing, so I erroneously interpreted your statement as the same.
My bad.
Moreover as @Simon Toad pointed out, my politics is formed by far more than the West Wing as Bartlett is too moderate for my tastes (to quote Ainsley...)
On the Trump Presidency, has anyone got a read on whether the declassification of the documents is actually damaging, like, in a way that friends of the DoJ might consider problematic?
Trump wishes to discredit any investigatory processes which may make him look bad by discrediting folks who have been involved in those processes. It's crude "playing the man, not the ball". And ties in with his trashing of Sessions.
As Croesos said earlier, his action here is just a further example of his incredibly guilty-looking behaviour.
Apparently he hasn't even read the papers he want to declassify. Does that tell you anything?
Marcy Wheeler (emptywheel) posits that one the biggest obstacles facing Trump is that he hasn't been honest with his lawyers about exactly what his legal exposure is (a.k.a. what he's actually done). This is problematic on the obvious level that it's impossible to construct a defense if you're constantly playing catch-up with the special counsel's office, but it's also problematic for reasons of what intelligence professionals call "incestuous amplification".
In an article about how Trump’s lawyers, generally, are clueless, and demonstrating though not reporting that the lawyers providing information to the press are part of that general cluelessness, Maggie [ Haberman ] and Mike [ Schmidt ] don’t pause to reflect on whether that leaves them, too, clueless.
So when Trump tries to understand his plight by reading Maggie and Mike, he would believe a fiction largely created by the lies he has already told his lawyers and his preference for PR rather than solid legal advice.
Of course, it gets worse from there. Trump has benefitted from nine months of Devin Nunes-led intelligence, fed both via staffers and through a stable of incompetent right wing stenographers, about the investigation. I know for a fact that the most competent Republicans who have read the most investigative documents do not have a grasp about either the scope of the investigation or how it evolved (though someone at least understands that after August 1, 2017, the investigation got far more risky for the President).
But when you take that misunderstanding about the investigation and launder it through incompetent hacks like John Solomon, then the picture it provides is even more misleading.
Which led us to Trump’s decision on Monday to declassify a bunch of stuff.
In other words, he's getting high on his own supply.
Just so shipmates are aware, I have this day instructed solicitors concerning Stephanie Daniels' false and misleading use of my online identity in her upcoming book.
In other news, Trump has reversed himself on declassification. With the usual bluster of course.
Somebody must have got to him,
Also the NY Times Rosenstein story gets the Trump vote of approval as not-fake-news. Revealing once again that fake news is yet another double standard in the Trump mind.
Comments
I didn't expect to have to account for what are undeniably widely held, and even more widely acknowledged, views of Hillary Clinton as being an uninspiring politician and unattractive personality. The truth, falsity or unfairness of these views is irrelevant in the context in which I made my comments.
That's not their take. Not least because it makes no sense: if the public so loathes her when she runs for office, how did she achieve the offices in which she apparently attracts approval?
It's hard to know where to start with Croesos's comments. Since the facts of the other politicians are patently not on all fours with those of Hillary Clinton it's difficult to see what the point in the comment is generally. In fact, they're each so different it's a wonder anyone thought to make the comparisons in the first place.
Since I've been accused of waffling, post hoc rationalisation and so on, I will just - again - point out the bleedin' obvious...my referring to "perceived faults" and "views" [of Clinton] was because it doesn't matter whether they're true or not if the concern is that her interventions galvanise Trump voters.
Let me put it this way. I think Tony Blair was a talented, decent and effective Prime Minister and statesman. But I recognise that many in the UK now find him repulsive. So if there's a debate that he sticks his oar into in a way that I agree with I still cringe a little because I expect him to generate more opposition than support.
Is that clear enough?
Trump is clearly of a personality type who responds to threats both perceived and real by lashing out and hence Hillary has been the subject of a deluge of personal attacks from The Donald. Given that, there is no doubt that she has an absolute right to respond - especially as we now see so much of what she said being vindicated. That doesn't change the fact that her comments may not play well in certain circles. I would argue though, that she's shown incredible restraint thus far.
The other bug-bear I have is people who blame Hillary for Trump. The he would have lost to any other candidate line. I don't buy that; his brand of break all the rules, speak your mind nonsense would have worked against anybody sane. It is a form of populism that is hard to combat. It is a form of populism that the GOP have been cultivating for 30 years (at least) and as I have commented earlier - they played with fire, now they're reaping the inferno. If you can cope with me horrendously mixing metaphors there...
It is true that there are people who voted Trump just because he wasn't Clinton. That's not her fault. It would be if she genuinely had all these flaws she allegedly has - but as noted, for the most part, the charges just don't stack up.
Democracy means sometimes the other guy wins. I don't have a problem with that - I don't like it but it is necessary. The problem I have is when the other guy is so egregiously unqualified but garners support anyway from people who not only should know better, they do know better. As I said, for me the blame lies squarely with the Republican party for the evil games they've been playing. If Trump ends up destroying the GOP, notwithstanding the decent and honorable republicans that do exist, I will feel no sympathy at all. You caused Trump by sins of commission and omission. He is trying to take down America and the rest of the world; if he ends up only taking down the GOP, then that really is a good thing.
AFZ
There may be differences, but my point was that you specifically cited five reasons (loser of previous nomination, loser of previous presidential campaign, pursued office from early age, "unsympathetic" manner, believes presidency should be his) why Hillary Clinton is uniquely unfit to publicly comment on the person who won the electoral college when those reasons were across-the-board applicable to every presidential loser since 1996 with the exception of John Kerry (who only fits four of your five criteria). None of those six men were held to a standard that it was unseemly for them to stay active in politics after their loss, or even comment negatively on the president who beat (or in the case of Al Gore "beat") them.
This matters because Republicans are masters about building special rules about why it's never appropriate to call them out on their crimes and failures. (Not you, @HymnNumber466. I'm sure your dislike of Hillary Clinton is sincere, even if your offered explanation for why she should shut up makes no sense when compared to how other presidential losers are treated.) For example, Mitch McConnell is complaining about how Democrats are derailing Brett Kavanaugh's nomination "at the last minute in an irregular manner". Now those of us whose memories go back further than January 20, 2017 might recall McConnell's insistence that the Senate considers Supreme Court nominations on its own schedule and therefore there is no "last minute". The Garland nomination also dispensed with the idea that there's an "irregular manner" to such things, at least as far as Senator McConnell is concerned. So yes, Republicans are going to be shameless like this, but that doesn't mean that anyone else is obligated to play along with their pretense.
I guess that's just a long way of saying that just because Republicans are peeing on Democrats' leg there's no obligation for Democrats to believe the Republican explanation that it's raining.
Clinton was lied about, in some cases with lies so preposterous (the pedophile pizza-parlor thing) that it’s hard to imagine anybody taking those lies seriously; yet some people did. Would a similar lie about Kerry or McCain or the others have produced a similar result? Does the CPO find men more credible or less suspect than they find women? Well, just look at what people are saying about Ford and her account of sexual assault against Kavanaugh. In fact, look at the reaction almost any female sexual assault victim’s account gets: she could be lying. She’s out for vengeance. She’s after publicity. She changed her mind afterward. Etc. Etc. Do we raise this kind of question when mugging victims file complaints? How often do we raise these questions when male sexual assault victims file complaints?
(My emphasis.)
Again, true enough. I wouldn’t argue otherwise. But it’s worth considering why her comments don’t play well, and it’s worth examining the nature of those “circles” – especially the ones we ourselves swim in.
In Clinton’s pursuit of the Presidency, it’s more a matter of “Democracy means the other guy wins Every. Single. Time.”
Allow me to explain. As has been pointed out, HRC was elected Senator in New York; she was appointed Secretary of State by President Obama. First Lady of Arkansas / USA are not elected positions, but she made the most of them. Hillary Clinton is "different" because:
Women are supposed to keep quiet and let men run things.
Women are actually pretty good at running things. As good as men, in fact.
So when a woman actually gets an opportunity to run things, everyone is like, "Wow, she's really great." Even some of the people who thought she should have kept quiet and let the men run things.
This gives her the idea that maybe she should try running something bigger. Or gives other women get the idea that they could run things too.
But women are supposed to keep quiet and let the men run things.
Lather, rinse, repeat, make a crack in the glass ceiling, and try again. Harris / Warren 2024. (They are desperately needed in the Senate for now.)
Sometimes even better.
Your keyboard to God's ear, and AFAIC, I don't care which order they run in, though I'm leaning toward Harris in the top slot.
Which is better: The Dems choose her again as basically a F*** You to all the idiots who seek to tear her down and make her go away quietly or they choose someone else who is certain* to beat Trump?
Because defeating Trumpism is really important. As is winning the argument against sexism.
AFZ
*Very much a hypothetical because for the reasons I stated above, I think Trump's kind of populism is very hard to fight against and I don't believe anyone is certain to defeat him in such a theoretical match-up.
AFZ
I think another factor not mentioned (although I haven't read the linked articles) is the pernicious influence of Fox News and the relentless negative reporting about her. I'm not sure whether Fox was around at the time, but the relentless attacks on her as First Lady were aimed squarely at sinking the health reforms she was driving under Bill's Presidency. That seemed to me to be the beginning of the storm of criticism she attracted, and much of that was about her stepping out of a perceived traditional role as First Lady. From that almost sane type of attack, we have the ridiculous Benghazi scandal, the never-ending email rubbish and for the benefit of the truly loony, Pizzagate.
We have a Murdoch-owned cable news station that begins to howl at the moon after about 6pm. Its not taken off yet, but Murdoch is nursing it and feeding it money. I am really hoping that the freak market in Australia is just too small for it to be sustainable, and News Ltd pulls the plug once Rupert kicks the bucket. He's 87, but his Mum Dame Elizabeth of blessed memory made a century.
How is this not related to sexism?
And how is this not related to sexism?
What is "sane" about sexist First Lady-ism?
The more inequality we have, the more person-in-the-street outrage we'll get, and the more freakism we'll see, I'm afraid.
Fox News launched in 1996. For whatever reason what's known as "the mainstream media" has had a hate-on for Hillary Clinton since she entered the national spotlight. Some of it was driven by things like Richard Mellon-Scaife's Arkansas Project, but it was never really rational and eventually took on a life of its own. Mostly the press hated Hillary Clinton for not being guilty of murdering Vince Foster / Travelgate / Filegate / that thing with the cattle futures / Rose law firm legal billing / Whitewater land investments / Monica Lewinski giving her husband a blow job. It turned into the journalistic equivalent of the sunk cost fallacy, where reporters rationalized that they'd spent so much time investigating Hillary Clinton she had to be guilty of something, otherwise everything that came before would just be a tremendous waste of time and effort and that would be intolerable.
Which is a snapshot summary of why, according to the American media (and not just the folks at Fox) the biggest issue facing America in the summer of 2016 was . . . e-mail server management best practices at the State Department. How much of the media's obsession with why the witch was escaping unburned can be attributed to sexism is an exercise I leave to the reader.
For me, that's the point completely.
With regards to both Clinton and Blair, I have doubts about some of their actions and attitudes but freely admit that on balance they did a good job in their positions. But - whether fairly or not - they are both now vilified in certain sections of the populations in their countries in such a way that any contribution that they may make to national political dialogue will only harden opinions against them and their position. If Blair makes a statement about remaining in the EU, the net effect will almost certainly be that waverers who might be considering reversing Brexit will start saying "if that weasel wants us in the EU it must be a bad idea."
Is it fair? Hell no. But that's politics for you (and always has been).
To both of them my recommendation would be "no matter how provoked, bite your tongue and walk away. Work in the background to support and encourage others who will make the points you want to make." These are two very clever people, so they ought to be able to understand this.
Personally I'm not sure. It is clearly an abuse of power and is part of his continuing assault on the credibility of the FBI, the DoJ and Mueller. His efforts so far seem to many folks to be evidence of an intention to obstruct justice.
And politically it must relate to the midterms as well. He needs a story to reverse a significant decline in the polls. In this age of alternative facts, this might be the story to do that. It plays into the 'deep state' narrative.
Plus there are already GOP voices applauding the move. This is now all about winning. Even by means of a naked and blatant abuse of power.
This person has been my model for undestanding Trump right from the start, and the similarities - except for the scale - are extraordinary.
So I wouldn't underestimate Trump's ability to wriggle, and indeed to wriggle free of whatever judicial reckoning is coming.
Now to me, that’s a powerful argument for reforming the electoral college, which from my outsider’s perspective looks completely unfit for purpose. But that’s a different argument.
It’s all kinds of unfair and wrong that Hillary would still lose. But I think the Democrats have to live in the world of the possible, and find a different candidate who can actually win the thing in the real world.
I remember that story and I think you are right. President Trump will never throw in the sponge.
Well, never say never. If Mueller has Don Jr on collusion, that might change the never to hardly ever.
la vie en rouge
It gives me no pleasure to say this because of the various unfairnesses and prejudices surrounding her reputation, but I think you are right.
Indeed. Quite possibly. The one caveat I have is that she can still run and it's up to the Dems whether they nominate her or not.
Either way, I don't think she will.
AFZ
Re Blair. He appeared to be a "nice man", but he also did very wrong about Iraq: the invasion, and if we're being especially kind, we can call it "blind-sighting himself to the truth". But I don't think that's allowable at this level of leadership and political maturity. He wanted to be friends to Bush, and probably expediently to keep the so-called special UK-USA relationship, and he miscalculated at the cost of war. It's nice in hindsight that he's sorrowful and regretful etc about destroying Iraq and being accessory to killing perhaps millions, but it isn't sufficient that he's sorry. I see that some high level judges found that he could not be prosecuted as a war criminal, which is too bad. Until leaders are found guilty for being bad, they will continue to do whatever they want, how many harmed or dead be damned.
Confirmation of my fan-dom of HRC; this is a classy little anecdote about her. I have been listening to the latest episode of the West Wing Weekly. This week, they've been discussing s5e15 Full Disclosure; an episode written by the brilliant Laurence O'Donnell. In this episode, they depict the workings of the Base-Closing Commission. This commission makes recommendations that certain bases are no longer militarily necessary anymore. It then obviously becomes a very political process, given the psychological and employment significance of military bases to individual states and potential closures are fought tooth-and-nail by the Representatives and Senators from said states. As an example (based on real-life experience), in the episode, the commission recommends that Fort Drum in upstate New York should be closed.
After this episode aired; Clinton and Rep John McHugh wrote to the fictional Deputy White House Chief of Staff, Josh Lyman to make clear their opposition to such a move.
AFZ
The problem is that during every stage of the Russian investigation Trump has acted in a way that suggests he's incredibly guilty. There was never a point where he acted (credibly) as if he was confident any investigation would exonerate him. He often said that, but none of his actions were ever consistent with that premise.
I completely agree.
I am about half-way through Woodward's book Fear. It is fascinating and horrifying. The level of dysfunction in the administration due to the level of dysfunction in the President is stunning.
As an aside, there is Nothing in the book that supports collusion. Initially, I found this silence odd and a disappointing. On reflection, I think it is due to two factors. Firstly Woodward's sources are clearly all within the administration and whilst they don't seem to have held back about the President's countless flaws, if any of them do know of criminal wrong-doing (and mostly likely many don't) they wouldn't be forthcoming. Secondly Woodward is an excellent journalist and only writes what he can support. Given that he was looking at the administration and the information he has; there is no speculation. This is a professional work by an excellent journalist.
AFZ
People on the left really need to get over their infatuation with West Wing.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/04/how-liberals-fell-in-love-with-the-west-wing
No I don't.
AFZ
It's absolutely fine as a fantastical story, and completely counter productive as a model of politics. The anecdote above is a little like liking a politician more because they say they support your favorite sports team.
(a) coal and deny climate change
(b) corporations as people
(c) a big military
and they dislike:
(c) government-sponsored health care
(d) abortion
(e) people whose skin is off-white
It appears it's only necessary to have one of these as a motivation to like a politician.
Not really.
My point is that this particular act appeals to my whimsy. The WW was indeed idealised but also tried to engage in real issues. It's the discussion that matters. Base closures is a real issue. Real politicians choosing to respond to the show I think is classy, in same way I enjoyed the Department of Transport's response to this:
Toy Train Company Applies to Run West Coast Main line
AFZ
Oh and that writer clearly doesn't like the show. Or 'liberals' by the sound of things. The premise of the article is deeply flawed but the critique of the show that real politics has no place for smart people trying to do the right thing allows me to bring the discussion smoothly back on track...
Trump clearly shows how having a simplistic, ignorant approach to politics is a very bad idea.
AFZ
Try this link for the model train story. The one given above doesn't seem to work.
Oh and that writer clearly doesn't like the show. Or 'liberals' by the sound of things. The premise of the article is deeply flawed but the critique of the show that real politics has no place for smart people trying to do the right thing allows me to bring the discussion smoothly back on track...
Trump clearly shows how having a simplistic, ignorant approach to politics is a very bad idea.
AFZ
No. I don't really think that's the substance of that critique, and over 2 terms a bunch of smart people ended up doing very little of any substance.
and yet he won, what are you going to do with all his supporters? Burn them?
Really? Most of us who are not American think that US healthcare is insane and that for all the flaws in the ACA, it was and is a minor miracle. Not to mention rebuilding the economy from the Great Recession.
Yes Trump won. But that doesn't mean I want an ignorant, self obsessed liar to run against him. That's just silly.
AFZ
I was referring to the fictional Bartlett administration [leaving aside the manner in which those things were done].
I don't think Trump and Hilary exhaust all possible approaches.
However, if your ideas of policing council estates in Britain come from watching The Bill for years and years and years, and you bonded with a woman who would become your wife by discussing in detail each episode, how do you think it feels when the storyline goes haywire and a PC blows up Sunhill? Thank God for repeats of Midsummer Murders.
On the Trump Presidency, has anyone got a read on whether the declassification of the documents is actually damaging, like, in a way that friends of the DoJ might consider problematic? I've read a couple of articles in The Hill and Politico (I think) but they haven't descended to substance yet and just talk about the politics.
Sorry, the article referred to Obama as 8 years of achieving nothing, so I erroneously interpreted your statement as the same.
My bad.
Moreover as @Simon Toad pointed out, my politics is formed by far more than the West Wing as Bartlett is too moderate for my tastes (to quote Ainsley...)
AFZ
As Croesos said earlier, his action here is just a further example of his incredibly guilty-looking behaviour.
Apparently he hasn't even read the papers he want to declassify. Does that tell you anything?
In other words, he's getting high on his own supply.
Just so shipmates are aware, I have this day instructed solicitors concerning Stephanie Daniels' false and misleading use of my online identity in her upcoming book.
AFZ
I've seen tweets from women and men in response with the hashtag #WhyIDidntReport. Some very heart-wrenching tweets.
Somebody must have got to him,
Also the NY Times Rosenstein story gets the Trump vote of approval as not-fake-news. Revealing once again that fake news is yet another double standard in the Trump mind.
Yep. Both the responses to that tweet and anything under #WhyIDidntReport is heart-wrenching.
AFZ
You're not the only one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45611403
Not Trump related, but may raise a smile.
How are you expecting Trump to act in front of the UN? Can any of us know? Will I wake up to another shitstorm? Will there be a new 'rocket man'?