Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Here we definitely disagree. Yes, having a woman POTUS will affect how governance happens, but will it affect it in a good way? We need a laser focus on long-term projects that will both create jobs and tighten the job market long enough to get us back above 2% inflation. The other focus is AGW. Neither of these are known interests of Hillary. If we were talking about Elizabeth Warren, I would feel differently. Hillary is more like the typical UMC liberal, who has interests in foreign affairs and social issues, but bread-and-butter ... not so much.

UMC???

I think she is interested in economic issues and equality. Health care reform, for example, was meant to keep health costs from bankrupting people and small businesses. Her limitation is not so much lack of interest, but in willing to compromise her ideas or ideology for political gain by accepting support from those she would need to regulate or tax in order to bring about greater equality.

A woman leader does not guarantee a better leader. But women often take leadership above the usual male ego gamesmanship and violent approach, and help create a national community. Women bring a greater consciousness of life and interest in nurturing it instead of conquest. The few women pharoahs were among the greatest. If you look at British history, the best monarchs were the few women that were allowed to rule: Elizabeth I and II, Victoria, Anne. Only one bad apple, Mary. Of course, there was Maggie Thatcher too. Arguably, more sensible than Reagan, but still more like a man. There was Catherine the Great, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Angela Merkel, Eva Peron. It might make a good study, but the British examples alone make women leadership a promising possibility.

Upper middle class.

Originally Posted by Kepi

http://politics.suntimes.com/article...06112014-904am

Hillary Clinton's favorability in decline. Here's the real issue. People like the idea of Hillary, and they're quick to forget that she's a war hawk. They want to remember healthcare, healthcare healthcare, which is great, but there's more to being president than that. And when people see her add more than just someone trying to push a new healthcare initiative, she becomes fairly unlikable, which makes her unelectable for this office at this time.

It's too difficult to make that judgement yet. And being more hawkish on war and foreign relations is a plus to many people. You can't say she's unlikable just because you don't like her!

What she needs is to resolve to do her best from the moment she starts, and articulate a vision. So far, she's not doing it; but then, she's not a candidate yet. Her political instincts and strategy need some work. She can do that work though, and unless a better candidate becomes well-known fast, there is no alternative to her; maybe even in the general. But she will have to work and earn the position, not get complacent and feel entitled to it.

It's kinda like the tough on crime positions. They got a lot of people back in the 70-90's era. Now even though nobody wants to say it in the press, those initiatives aren't really popular. People like the sound of them, until they really consider them. Gun control suffered from this effect. Marijuana legalization is also gaining on that. While the news media might be tailored towards later Silents and early Boomers, the people with the numbers for actual power are actually Millennials. I sincerely doubt that after 8 years, Millennials will go for Hillary. There's some stuff there that's worth supporting to them, but all the negatives, when considered, make her unwanted.

Gun control suffered from gun fanaticism, orchestrated by the NRA, and that's all. Opinions do shift on those issues, but also on all other issues. So I don't think your point is very clear there. As far as the news media being tailored toward "aquarian" or "sixties generation" silents and boomers, that's tough to prove. Most media is always geared to the young as far as what sells is concerned, and that's what the media aim at. You can "sincerely doubt" that millies will go for Hillary, but what does that prove? Yes, she can be beaten. There has to be a more appealing alternative though, and there's no Obama yet. And if the best possible opponent is Jeb Bush, is America willing to make that choice?

The longer she stays in the lime light, I think the less likely she is to be viable. The best thing a candidate can do is wait for maybe 2 other peyote to throw their hats in or throwing your hat in 6 months before the election, which ever comes last.

The 2008 campaign showed that she got better and did better toward the end as a candidate. So the opposite would appear to be true, based on history so far. She actually out-polled Obama in the primaries by a very small margin.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

UMC???

If you look at British history, the best monarchs were the few women that were allowed to rule: Elizabeth I and II, Victoria, Anne. Only one bad apple, Mary.

Which Queen Mary? There were two Queens Regnant of Britain, Mary I (known popularly as "Bloody Mary" because her side, the Catholic side, lost) and Mary II, who ruled jointly with her husband, William and Orange (the pair were known as "William and Mary" but Mary, being the eldest surviving daughter of King James II and a non-Catholic (Catholics were barred from the British throne in the late 17th Century), was the rightful Queen, and not just a spousal Queen.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Which Queen Mary? There were two Queens Regnant of Britain, Mary I (known popularly as "Bloody Mary" because her side, the Catholic side, lost) and Mary II, who ruled jointly with her husband, William and Orange (the pair were known as "William and Mary" but Mary, being the eldest surviving daughter of King James II and a non-Catholic (Catholics were barred from the British throne in the late 17th Century), was the rightful Queen, and not just a spousal Queen.

I also think referring to QEII and QV as "rulers" is a bit much. Calling Cleopatra VII (the one who slept with Marc Antony and Julius Caesar) or Queen Anne as great rulers is a bit of a stretch. The Empress Mathilda wasn't all flowers and sunshine, either.


It baffles me, the extent to which the political/cultural movements which fought so hard to get women and minorities of various types recognized as people are so eager to perpetuate stereotypes, make appeals to essentialism, and try and build new hierarchies the moment they have the window to do so. Well, perhaps"baffle" is the wrong word, since I'm not really surprised at all.

It's too bad. You'd think self-reflection would be the one skill the focus on identity in academia could manage to impart.

Eric, what you fail to see is that Millennials aren't going to go for Boomer brandings as an alternative. They've already shown this in 2010. Either interest them and engage them or Jeb Bush is probably your option because Hillary will be demotivating enough that enough people just won't show up. Elections aren't either or, it's a game of which option can actually get people to show up and vote. If Hillary takes the primary (which is where I suspect she will lose) Jeb would have to work awful hard to demotivate the republican base as much as Hillary's out of touch war hawking, moralistic nagging, and just in general played out soccer mom schtick would disinterest Millennial voters.

Flat out, they won't care if she's the candidate, and you can't make them. Meanwhile the Democrats are wholly dependent on Millennials to win. They must either do things to engage Millennials or they'll die out and someone who will will take their place. At this point the entirety of the Democrats success is measured purely in terms of their ability to motivate late Xers and Millennials, especially early Millennials, to vote. Otherwise everything will be pretty much like 2010 for a while.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Jim Webb seems more likely as a future SecDef, to me. If he has a political future at all.

Also, I would think that the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, Sheikh Hassina, and others would have disproved the notion of fundamentally different perspectives from female politicians by now. But hey, why not, right?

Of course, maybe Hillary's fundamental hawkishness might be just what it takes to disprove the notion once and for all. Or maybe not. Hope springs eternal.

Come on guys, this is about the easiest piece on the chessboard. He's angling to be Hillary's running mate. He's extremely intelligent, quick on his feet, Marine, who doesn't take shit off of anyone - remember his first face to face with Bush? He's the perfect male running mate for HC; he'll rip the other team a new one whenever they get nasty with HC, women will love it, and HC can stay above the fray. Puts to rest any concern for a single HC term - Webb in 2020 at the top of the ticket. Smart guy.

Keep up guys.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Eric, what you fail to see is that Millennials aren't going to go for Boomer brandings as an alternative. They've already shown this in 2010. Either interest them and engage them or Jeb Bush is probably your option because Hillary will be demotivating enough that enough people just won't show up. Elections aren't either or, it's a game of which option can actually get people to show up and vote. If Hillary takes the primary (which is where I suspect she will lose) Jeb would have to work awful hard to demotivate the republican base as much as Hillary's out of touch war hawking, moralistic nagging, and just in general played out soccer mom schtick would disinterest Millennial voters.

Flat out, they won't care if she's the candidate, and you can't make them. Meanwhile the Democrats are wholly dependent on Millennials to win. They must either do things to engage Millennials or they'll die out and someone who will will take their place. At this point the entirety of the Democrats success is measured purely in terms of their ability to motivate late Xers and Millennials, especially early Millennials, to vote. Otherwise everything will be pretty much like 2010 for a while.

This whole scenario is based on the GOP not scaring the living shit out of 65-70% of the electorate, particularly the Millies, over the next two years. With what just happen to Cantor, that's a very bad bet. Hillary in a landslide with coattails to put the entire Congress firmly in the Dems' box.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Come on guys, this is about the easiest piece on the chessboard. He's angling to be Hillary's running mate. He's extremely intelligent, quick on his feet, Marine, who doesn't take shit off of anyone - remember his first face to face with Bush? He's the perfect male running mate for HC; he'll rip the other team a new one whenever they get nasty with HC, women will love it, and HC can stay above the fray. Puts to rest any concern for a single HC term - Webb in 2020 at the top of the ticket. Smart guy.

Keep up guys.

He's white, and 68 right now. I doubt that scenario very seriously. If the Dems go with someone as old as Hillary (as seems likely right now), I could see them going for a young, charismatic young brown guy like Julian Castro to balance the ticket. That just seems more likely than two first wave white boomers, particularly with the Republicans potentially running several Hispanic candidates. They even tossed him a cabinet position recently, with Bill Clinton and Podesta both meeting with him to tell him to take the job.

Originally Posted by playwrite

This whole scenario is based on the GOP not scaring the living shit out of 65-70% of the electorate, particularly the Millies, over the next two years. With what just happen to Cantor, that's a very bad bet. Hillary in a landslide with coattails to put the entire Congress firmly in the Dems' box.

Quite frankly I don't see a major difference between the two parties when you tally up end results. It's two sides of the douche culture crusade coupled with variances of economic policy that were cobbled to together from a world that's 70 years old.

Why would I actively seek out either? Obama seemed like the right guy, but somewhere between him and the party, it's just a half assed, mentally stunted mess of a production put on by clowns who haven't had the chance to look around and really understand that the world is a different place from the cold war era.

I'm not so much more afraid of republicans from democrats that I'd be motivated to go vote for a democratic candidate just because they're not a republican.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Quite frankly I don't see a major difference between the two parties when you tally up end results. It's two sides of the douche culture crusade coupled with variances of economic policy that were cobbled to together from a world that's 70 years old.

Democrats enunciate real concerns: inequality, lack of opportunity, climate change, new energy industry opportunities, the need for gun safety, the need for protection of liberties and voting rights, the need for education and infrastructure; not a single bit of culture crusade douche there. That's all on the other side, the red side.

End results. Well, a lot of that was being blocked by voters who were unable to tell the difference, and who therefore failed to put reasonably-intelligent folks in office; IOW Republicans. And it's the results created by some Democrats bowing to the propaganda pressure put on by those same Republican douche bags. I wish they wouldn't bow; that's true. Their track record is mediocre at best. Their economic policies may be 70 years old, but you haven't suggested anything better; I have. And 70 years old is a lot better than 250 years old, which the other side offers. You have to at least get back to the starting line before you can go forward.

Why would I actively seek out either? Obama seemed like the right guy, but somewhere between him and the party, it's just a half assed, mentally stunted mess of a production put on by clowns who haven't had the chance to look around and really understand that the world is a different place from the cold war era.

I don't know what the Cold War has to do with this.

I'm not so much more afraid of republicans from democrats that I'd be motivated to go vote for a democratic candidate just because they're not a republican.

Anyone NOT afraid of the dire threat to America and the world from even ONE of these Republican creeps in office, is not paying attention. But if you prefer not to vote out of fear, I understand that; go ahead and vote for another party, or just for someone half way decent, or vote selectively for some candidates, and none of the above on other offices. I do this too, quite often. It's a matter of strategy. At least vote, and don't vote idiot. And make sure to get some people to do it with you too.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Eric, what you fail to see is that Millennials aren't going to go for Boomer brandings as an alternative.

The generation of the candidate will not be the issue. The Millennials will show up and vote for Hillary, as many did in 2008, if she articulates a program in a convincing way and reaches them with correct strategy and technology. She does all that, and she will win.

They've already shown this in 2010. Either interest them and engage them or Jeb Bush is probably your option because Hillary will be demotivating enough that enough people just won't show up. Elections aren't either or, it's a game of which option can actually get people to show up and vote. If Hillary takes the primary (which is where I suspect she will lose) Jeb would have to work awful hard to demotivate the republican base as much as Hillary's out of touch war hawking, moralistic nagging, and just in general played out soccer mom schtick would disinterest Millennial voters.

Millennials have no-one to blame but themselves for not showing up to vote in 2010. That was nothing but the stupidist, rankest mistake they have ever made in their lives. There was not the slightest reason not to come out to vote that year; not the vaguest excuse. Allowing Black Tuesday to happen was a glaring lack of the civic duty and ability millennials are supposed to have. They are going to have to learn to vote in midterms, if they ever want a snowball's chance in hell of building that civic order you speak of. If they don't, they and our country are dead meat.

Flat out, they won't care if she's the candidate, and you can't make them. Meanwhile the Democrats are wholly dependent on Millennials to win. They must either do things to engage Millennials or they'll die out and someone who will will take their place. At this point the entirety of the Democrats success is measured purely in terms of their ability to motivate late Xers and Millennials, especially early Millennials, to vote. Otherwise everything will be pretty much like 2010 for a while.

Democrats will need Millennials to win, no doubt. But at this point, America depends on Millennials to come out and reverse their abysmal performance in 2010 and 2012 and do their civic duty and engage in politics and voting (all of them now eligible, not just the cohorts nearest to yours for cryin' out loud). If that means voting for Hillary, and the fact is there's no credible alternative, then the Millennials need to make themselves hold their nose and do it.

If they don't, or at least register a protest vote and not an idiot vote, they are making a mistake far greater than any mistake you have ever accused Boomers of making. All Democrats need to do is lay out a credible case, and then it's up to Millennials along with others to support them and push them forward. Democrats may have a mediocre track record, but I don't see another horse in the race right now that can take us anywhere. In order to act boldly, politicians need to feel the winds of a people who are asking for real change and action on these issues I have mentioned, and not asking for "less government, lower taxes and less spending." It's up to we the people of all ages to blow that wind. Government of the people, by the people, for the people, depends on the people, or it will perish from the earth.

Hillary is far from ideal. But for cryin' out loud, given the general stupidity of Americans, which is as obvious as anything could be, you just can't expect anyone much better to even be in the race. You can't just blame Boomers for not just conjuring up such a candidate. Candidates need a background, track record and name recognition in order to win.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

He's white, and 68 right now. I doubt that scenario very seriously. If the Dems go with someone as old as Hillary (as seems likely right now), I could see them going for a young, charismatic young brown guy like Julian Castro to balance the ticket. That just seems more likely than two first wave white boomers, particularly with the Republicans potentially running several Hispanic candidates. They even tossed him a cabinet position recently, with Bill Clinton and Podesta both meeting with him to tell him to take the job.

Julian Castro has the lowest score of any potential candidate in my cosmic system. Believe it, or not! I can only report it.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I also think referring to QEII and QV as "rulers" is a bit much. Calling Cleopatra VII (the one who slept with Marc Antony and Julius Caesar) or Queen Anne as great rulers is a bit of a stretch. The Empress Mathilda wasn't all flowers and sunshine, either.

Let's look at women as political leaders, not only as reigning monarchs. Tyrants' molls, to be sure, are awful as a group (Poppaea, Lucrezia Borgia, Imelda Marcos, Elena Ceausescu, Chiang Ching, Eva Peron, Magda Goebbels, Sajida Hussein). Tyrants' molls indicate a paucity of freedom and the widespread abuse of power. Those are hardly models of feminism. Women as leaders? On the whole they seem very good. Of course, none achieved power through military or political coups, so that rules out a huge source of bad male leaders.

Presidents, prime ministers, and reigning monarchs? Women are better than average. The only such woman that I see as an awful leader is Isabel Peron.

Conservatives ought to love Margaret Thatcher... about like liberals ought to admire Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House is typically the second-most powerful person in the US). Indira Gandhi? Corazon Aquino? Catherine the Great really was great, I can't imagine a better-suited ruler for the time than Elizabeth I of England, and even though she was steadily devolving what remained of absolute power, Victoria was very good.

...Testosterone does not make a great leader. Women can be as tough, rational, intelligent, and decisive as men. Women are less aggressive, probably because they have less testosterone. They are more likely to negotiate than make a unilateral, angry strike. Political leaders who exude machismo have something personal to defend, and perhaps an ego to stroke. Benito Mussolini seems the archetype, and Vladimir Putin shows too many personal similarities to Mussolini for me to have any confidence in him. Macho aggression may have been a hallmark of greatness in a time in which hand-to-hand combat might have been essential on the part of a political leader in warfare. Such is now not only antiquated but also dangerous.

Just think of how badly the Argentine military junta underestimated Margaret Thatcher.

It baffles me, the extent to which the political/cultural movements which fought so hard to get women and minorities of various types recognized as people are so eager to perpetuate stereotypes, make appeals to essentialism, and try and build new hierarchies the moment they have the window to do so. Well, perhaps "baffle" is the wrong word, since I'm not really surprised at all.

It astonishes me that you would use such a word as essentialsm, at most a flawed and only partial description of the perception of reality. It was controversial in Plato's time. If there is truth, it has no all-encompassing reality behind it.

People are wise to avoid fitting derogatory stereotypes. Hierarchies of wealth and connections are emerging in America, but those exist largely to gain control of economic, political, and bureaucratic power capable of rendering all resistance to those hierarchies impossible, if not suicidal.

It's too bad. You'd think self-reflection would be the one skill the focus on identity in academia could manage to impart.

Nothing guarantees that self-reflection would get the same conclusion that anyone else would get.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The generation of the candidate will not be the issue. The Millennials will show up and vote for Hillary, as many did in 2008, if she articulates a program in a convincing way and reaches them with correct strategy and technology. She does all that, and she will win.

Precisely. GIs did not wait for one of "their own"; they went decisively for a figure on the Missionary/Lost cusp who justified GI optimism and social cohesion. Indeed, GI's soundly rejected the first of 'their own (Thomas E. Dewey) in 1944 and 1948. FDR was no GI; he did not need to be.

I'm beginning to think of Barack Obama as unable to be an FDR-like President because of the timing -- and the 22nd Amendment. The first eight years of the FDR Presidency were an effort to restore the soundness of the American economy. In one respect, FDR had better timing; his administration came into being at a time in which the people who had precipitated the economic meltdown of 1929-1933 had destroyed their ability to form a deep-pocket assault on the political change that FDR began. Barack Obama was inaugurated at the time analogous to the spring of 1931 -- before the bank runs of late 1931 and most of 1932 that did the big damage to the economy. Barack Obama rescued the financial system without forcing major reforms.

The economic elites that precipitated a financial panic similar to that that began in 1929 didn't get ruined. They still had the mans to strike back -- and that they did. They liked the Double-Zero decade and its trends, and they would be happy with a Gilded Age without the economic competition (except for workers competing with each other in a race to the bottom that makes them bond-servants in all but name). They want a government that represents wealth and bureaucratic power and enforces the concept that the common man is just another expendable machine to be cast aside if it under-performs. They want an economic order as dehumanized as the Marxist stereotype of capitalism. If they should get that, then we will have a Crisis Era that will make the American Civil War look like an ice-cream social by contrast.

Millennials have no-one to blame but themselves for not showing up to vote in 2010. That was nothing but the stupidest, rankest mistake they have ever made in their lives. There was not the slightest reason not to come out to vote that year; not the vaguest excuse. Allowing Black Tuesday to happen was a glaring lack of the civic duty and ability millennials are supposed to have. They are going to have to learn to vote in midterms, if they ever want a snowball's chance in hell of building that civic order you speak of. If they don't, they and our country are dead meat.

I trust that if the Millennial Generation fails to formulate the electoral behavior that one associates with Civic generations upon purely-rational processes, they will do so after learning the consequences of failure -- the hard way. Millennials have begun to get elected to Congress, and I can expect many to adopt the successful pattern of Barack Obama to their own agendas. Some will push Boomer extremists and X sell-outs out of elected office.

Democrats will need Millennials to win, no doubt. But at this point, America depends on Millennials to come out and reverse their abysmal performance in 2010 and 2012 and do their civic duty and engage in politics and voting (all of them now eligible, not just the cohorts nearest to yours for cryin' out loud). If that means voting for Hillary, and the fact is there's no credible alternative, then the Millennials need to make themselves hold their nose and do it.

Words to the wise: do not allow the unachievable Perfect to become the enemy of the attainable Good. In a Crisis Era, the horrific is never impossible.

If they don't, or at least register a protest vote and not an idiot vote, they are making a mistake far greater than any mistake (that Kepi has) ever accused Boomers of making. All Democrats need to do is lay out a credible case, and then it's up to Millennials along with others to support them and push them forward. Democrats may have a mediocre track record, but I don't see another horse in the race right now that can take us anywhere. In order to act boldly, politicians need to feel the winds of a people who are asking for real change and action on these issues I have mentioned, and not asking for "less government, lower taxes and less spending." It's up to we the people of all ages to blow that wind. Government of the people, by the people, for the people, depends on the people, or it will perish from the earth.

Enlightened self-interest -- that is all that can work well and get acceptable results. Democracy may have its flaws, but the alternatives are horrible. We just need to stay clear of demagogues who promise incompatible results and offer scapegoats who might be more useful as allies than as victims. If the Germans had only known the consequences of Hitler, they would have avoided him.

Hillary is far from ideal. But for cryin' out loud, given the general stupidity of Americans, which is as obvious as anything could be, you just can't expect anyone much better to even be in the race. You can't just blame Boomers for not just conjuring up such a candidate. Candidates need a background, track record and name recognition in order to win.

Boomers (like Dubya and much of his coterie) may have been much of the problem. There are still enough of us to make amends, to offer alternatives that the worst Boomers in political and bureaucratic power have done. We need to break the limits of personal opportunity that corporate elites have established; the alternative is a hereditary order that selects for sociopathic tendencies among elites.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We need to break the limits of personal opportunity that corporate elites have established; the alternative is a hereditary order that selects for sociopathic tendencies among elites.

I've been living in such a society for the last thirty years....

Pbrower,

You want political leaders? Sheikh Hassina in Bangladesh, Indira Gandhi or Mamata Bannerjee in India, Christina Kerchner in Argentina; the list goes on. Women can be just as venal, corrupt, and powerhungry as men, just as willing to stoke communal tensions, or have people murdered as their male counterparts. People are people, and to claim otherwise is to fall into the same gender essentialism I was criticizing above.



I mean, you did notice I was criticizing it, right (by which I mean clearly you didn't)? Go back and reread the paragraph I wrote, and see if you can figure that out.

You silly humans. By the time 2016's primary season gets here, our Treasury credit ratings will be junk. That's not something a particular gender can fix.

There is some buzz now about Mitt Romney running again. I admit he could be a real threat to Hillary. His cosmic score was not as good as Obama's, but it is good (11-5), and much better than Hillary's. It's unusual for Republicans to run candidates who have lost national elections before, but it happens sometimes (e.g. Nixon, Dewey).

I thought Romney was a pitiful candidate myself, but evidently he has appeal; more than John McCain did, although Obama lost ground in 2012 because the Republicans had stopped all action to get the economy to recover, and in fact deliberately sabotaged it in the hopes of electing Romney. I imagine the anti-Romney playbook would be available to Hillary though.

If Hillary just runs on her experience, and has no vision or platform, that would make it tougher for her, since that's also a chief complaint against Romney. Plus that he's a big flip-flopper, and is instinctively interested in rich people and not regular folks. Of course, Romney has no age advantage against Hillary.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There is some buzz now about Mitt Romney running again. I admit he could be a real threat to Hillary. His cosmic score was not as good as Obama's, but it is good (11-5), and much better than Hillary's. It's unusual for Republicans to run candidates who have lost national elections before, but it happens sometimes (e.g. Nixon, Dewey).

I thought Romney was a pitiful candidate myself, but evidently he has appeal; more than John McCain did, although Obama lost ground in 2012 because the Republicans had stopped all action to get the economy to recover, and in fact deliberately sabotaged it in the hopes of electing Romney. I imagine the anti-Romney playbook would be available to Hillary though.

If Hillary just runs on her experience, and has no vision or platform, that would make it tougher for her, since that's also a chief complaint against Romney. Plus that he's a big flip-flopper, and is instinctively interested in rich people and not regular folks. Of course, Romney has no age advantage against Hillary.

Pretty sure Romney has disavowed running, going so far as to introduce prospective candidates to his donor list.

Originally Posted by zerohedge

Posted on June 25, 2014 by Lambert Strether Bill enters, stage right. Note the difference between the post title as edited at Bloomberg:

Bill Clinton Defends Hillary’s Middle-Income Ties [What does that even mean?]

and the URL, which shows the original title:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...-comments.html

C’mon. Nobody outside the Beltway ever “pivots” from anything to anything else. That tells you where this whole fauxtroversy is coming from and who’s expected to care about it. Nevertheless, to the story:

Hillary Clinton, the former first lady and a potential 2016 presidential candidate, is trying to rebound from a series of comments in which she suggested that she and the former president aren’t really rich.
Bill Clinton acknowledged that she didn’t “give the most adept answer”[1] to questions about their personal wealth. “You can say, ‘OK, I gotta clean that up,’ which she did.”
[Hillary Clinton] has been tripped up most often on questions about her finances — even when no question has been asked.
Clinton said in an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” when they left the White House in January 2001. She told Britain’s Guardian newspaper that the couple isn’t “truly well off.” Chelsea Clinton cemented the storyline with remarks to Fast Company magazine.

Logically, Clinton — I’m calling “Hillary Clinton” Clinton, now, and Bill Clinton “Bill,” reversing my 2008 usage — is perfectly correct; as Piketty knows, and heck, Karl Marx knew, income really is not “true” “wealth.” If you’re “truly well off,” you get to clip coupons! (To me, wealth is about ownership; specifically, about owning the product of the collective labor of others. That’s one reason that the “1%” frame from the Occupy movement was so analytically destructive; it distracts from social relations to focus on mere quantity. The Bloomberg reporter helpfully blurs this distinction with the formulation “not really rich.”)
The real issue is this: The fact that we’re even having this conversation is a sign of the policy vacuity at the heart, if any, of the Clinton non-campaign. If Hillary Clinton were advocating truly humane policies that benefit all equally — the 12-Point Platform gives a good list — we wouldn’t talking about Clinton’s tone deafness or hairstyle or health or looks or any of her personal characteristics at all: We’d be talking about policy. The political class would be outraged! Outraged! that Clinton advocated — picking an example at random — free public education K-16. Their hair would be on fire! Heck, even HOLC, back from 2008, an FDR-style bailout of individual homeowners, would put every pair of knickers in the beltway in a twist! FDR was a patrician, for pity’s sake; and the Roosevelts were a “truly” “wealthy” New York dynasty, not first-generation arrivistes from Mammoth Falls Little Rock. Arkansas. And FDR was brought to recognize the necessity of the New Deal, so kwitcherbellyachin, political class!
Clinton’s policy vacuity gave the opening to the h8terz, not in artful wording. Get back in your box, Bill!
Let’s go back to another time and place: Beijing, September 5, 1995, where Clinton gave the plenary speech to U.N. 4th World Conference on Women Plenary Session. In relevant part:

"is wealthy"? OK, what's the definition of "Is" here, Billy boy?

The great challenge of this conference is to give voice to women everywhere whose experiences go unnoticed, whose words go unheard. Women comprise more than half the world’s population, 70% of the world’s poor, and two-thirds of those who are not taught to read and write. We are the primary caretakers for most of the world’s children and elderly. Yet much of the work we do is not valued — not by economists, not by historians, not by popular culture, not by government leaders.

At this very moment, as we sit here, women around the world are giving birth, raising children, cooking meals, washing clothes, cleaning houses, planting crops, working on assembly lines, running companies, and running countries. Women also are dying from diseases that should have been prevented or treated. They are watching their children succumb to malnutrition caused by poverty and economic deprivation. They are being denied the right to go to school by their own fathers and brothers. They are being forced into prostitution, and they are being barred from the bank lending offices and banned from the ballot box.

Those of us who have the opportunity to be here have the responsibility to speak for those who could not. As an American, I want to speak for those women in my own country, women who are raising children on the minimum wage, women who can’t afford health care or child care, women whose lives are threatened by violence, including violence in their own homes.

"Concern trolling" big time. So, Shillary, which sex dies the most often in wars of choice? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Idiot.

"Women, women, women, blahh, blahh, blahhh". Go cry me a river. Sheesh.

[quote]
It’s the same issue; Clinton, being an American, is by definition wealthy with respect to the rest of the world. Her answer: “Those of us who have the opportunity to be here have the responsibility to speak for those who could not.” Contrast Clinton in her Guardian interview:

America’s glaring income inequality is certain to be a central bone of contention in the 2016 presidential election. But with her huge [What? Like a billionaire? Put down that hatchet!] personal wealth, how could Clinton possibly hope to be credible on this issue when people see her as part of the problem, not its solution?
“[CLINTON] But they don’t see me as part of the problem,” she protests, “because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names [why not?]; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work.”

Such lawyerly parsing, when 1995′s answer, slightly revised — “Those of us who have the opportunities have the responsibility to speak for those who cannot” — would, at the very worst, been buried, and certainly wouldn’t have allowed the the Clinton h8terz to gin up a controversy. Eleanor Roosevelt campaigned in a mink stole!
A second contrast, still from the Guardian interview:

“[CLINTON] I would like the social fabric that has begun to fray to have been repaired, for people to feel we were all in this together, that the American dream was real, not some distant vanishing image on the horizon, that fairness had been returned to the economy and politics, that our education system was doing a better job and more kids were healthy, and that we were once again respected for our values and how we presented ourselves to the world.”

This isn’t exactly a Roger Mudd moment, where Mudd asked Teddy Kennedy why he wanted to be President, and Teddy stumbled through a non-answer. But the language is cliched (“social fabric”) and the policy proposals are both vacuous (“American Dream”) and pre-compromised (“better job,” “more kids were healthy”). Everything is all about feelings (“feel we were all in this together”) and goals without metrics (“fairness had been returned”). It’s mush. Feelings aren’t facts, let alone concrete material benefits. Contrast the vivid and precise language of Clinton’s 1995 speech. Again:

[quote]

What a load of shit, Shillary's laying here. Shillary, you're a good for nothing fatcat, get it? And yes, do please tell us about being all up and cozy with your fellow Arkansas buddies, the Waltons.

They are watching their children succumb to malnutrition caused by poverty and economic deprivation. They are being denied the right to go to school by their own fathers and brothers. They are being forced into prostitution, and they are being barred from the bank lending offices and banned from the ballot box.

In 1995, every line not only calls out for justice, but calls up policies with verifiable outcomes. Sad. Very, very sad.

Then put those millions you have where you big fat bacteria infested mouth is then!

* * * I’m not sure what happened to Clinton between 1995 and 2014 — almost 20 years is a long time in anyone’s life. I like to think of our political class as rather like a refinery with human resources — for example, that golden couple, the Clintons, but many, many others — as feedstocks. As the human crude rises within the cracking towers, it is “refined,” as more and more human characteristics (especially empathy) are stripped away, under immense heat and pressure. The purest essences that are drawn off from the top of the towers are sociopathic simulacra, and hence optimally useful as inputs to the systems that the political class, in turn, serves (see under “Oligarchs, owned by”). Only the most exceptional humans (Lincoln, FDR, even Washington, who after all surrendered power and freed his slaves) can resist the cracking process and retain some humanity at their core. Most don’t have a prayer. We could reform the process by banning the production and sale of the most volatile essences, but it may be our only hope is to shut down the refinery altogether and do without the product.

Yup. What a low life. I can't stand her.

Billary! What a deal. Two yahoos for the price of one! Yippie!

Florida voters back Clinton over Bush 49 - 42 percent in the 2016 White House race. The Democrat tops other Republicans by wider margins:

53 - 39 percent over Rubio;
53 - 37 percent over Paul;
54 - 33 percent over Christie;
51 - 38 percent over U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

Independent voters back Clinton over Bush by a narrow 45 - 41 percent. Against other Republicans, her lead among independent voters is 16 to 20 percentage points.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-e...ReleaseID=2063

Florida is a microcosm of America in its politics, and it has never gone for a Democratic nominee for President by more than 7% (Carter in 1976) in a binary election since 1948 (Truman 49% - Dewey 35% - Thurmond 16%) or given a Democratic nominee more than 52% of the vote since 1944 (when Florida was undeniably part of the old Democratic Solid South). LBJ barely won the state in 1964 (51-49) while winning the US 61-38.

Of course I discount this poll because I can't imagine any Democrat putting together a coalition that puts together not only the usual Democratic voters but also the sorts of people who would have voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 (but not for Obama) together with those that voted for Barack Obama but would have not voted for Carter in 2008 and 2012.

This scale of a win suggests a parallel to an Eisenhower win in the 1950s even if Hillary Clinton has little in common. (Acting like a 60-ish reactive, Barack Obama seems to have more in common with Truman or Eisenhower than anyone since Ike -- take your pick, depending on your taste). Ike won 39 of 48 states in 1952 and 41 of 48 states in 1956. Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia did not then vote.

Polls & analysis:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...enate_map.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...house_map.html

I'm glad to see they stopped calling it his master's thesis:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...lagiarism.html

Sheesh.

The US Senate seat in Michigan is no longer a toss-up. But that is 2014.

In 2016 the Republicans are obliged to defend a bunch of Senate seats won in 2010 from Democrats. Support for Ayotte, Toomey, Burr, Portman, Johnson, Kirk, and Rubio is marginal at best. Add to that, a couple of very old incumbent Republican Senators (Grassley, IA; McCain, AZ) could be calling it quits. The most likely pickup for Republicans in 2016 is that of Harry Reid, who will be very old and perhaps ready for retirement.

Democrats are likely to reverse any R majority gained in 2014 -- in 2016. The political climate of 2016, a high-turn-out general election, will be very different from 2010.