It’s not about her e-mails; read the late C. Hitchen’s book, No One Left To Lie To, for a great list of why people might not like the Clintons as leaders that have nothing to do with sex and everything to do with money.
'The establishment wing of the democratic party wanted Clinton, but so did the majority of the Democrats."
Yes, but you win election by either reaching out to the other side – impossible for Hillary after 30 years of demonization, fair or not – or by reaching out to people who don’t vote – again impossible for Hillary as she offered NOTHING TO GET EXCITED FOR EXCEPT CORPORATIST, DONATION-BEGGING INCREMENTAL-CHANGE WEAKLINGS.
“Was there anything about the performance of our current president during the campaign that said 'Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner to you?”
No, but there was something about Hillary’s Campaign – smug, sneering, solipsistic – that told me she was gonna lose, and lose she did.
Trump isn’t the whole problem – he’s the ugly wallpaper in a burning house – and he represents deeper structural failures; thing is, at a certain point, so does Hillary. I’m not saying they’re the same, but if Hillary had won, she’d still be plowing money into our military and bad wars and drones without a second thought. She’d be supporting big banks and bad decisions. She’d be taking oil money and pretending to care about global warming. Why vote for someone whose slogan might as well be “The same as the other guy, but a lady!”?
P.S. I voted for Hillary – I’m mad, not insane – but at the same time, I keep asking for something better.
after the 2010 elections there was a republican majority in the house for the rest of his presidency. with his signature actions, the american recovery act, and the america care act he had 60 votes in the senate where the 60th vote was a senator who lost his democratic primary for being too conservative and ran as an independent to get re-elected. after 2010 he had no way to get legislation passed in the house or to pass a cloture vote in the senate. that’s just a little bit more than a stiff breeze.
there were many things about the obama administration a didn’t like at all-- trying to salvage something from the iraq and afghanistan projects, the rancid drone program, the persecution of whistleblowers, to name some points of contention. but do you really think we would have done better under mccain or romney? really!?!
Both establishment parties are catastrophically bad. Not the same, not equivalent, but not good. And that situation has been steadily worsening for decades, which is why we are in the current mess.
The empire is bipartisan. Capitalism is in crisis. And climate change cannot wait.
no, see Obama should have appointed BERNIE! as his VP, then resigned, because out of anybody, Sanders has a real track record of browbeating the Senate into passing progressive legislation, the only reason he’s been entirely ineffective is for lack of a bully pulpit, dontchaknow
I don’t think we would have done better under Romney or McCain I think we would have done better under a real Democrat and if Obama had some spine. And The Affordable Care Act is a joke; you don’t reform for-profit healthcare by forcing everyone to be part of it. Obama governed like his nightmare was that Mitch McConnell wouldn’t think he was a good person; that was dumb, and it got us here.
I suspect you and I agree about more than we disagree about, but, yeah.
I thought we were talking about political communication, political courage and political courage – and how they relate to victory. This seemed on point. If you disagree, I don’t know what to tell you. Also, please don’t call me ‘Bro.’
she’d have appointed people who were interested in governance. she’d have wanted the structure of government to help as many people as possible. she’d have wanted to demonstrate the awesome utility of effective government.
our current president represents something different in quality from anyone we’ve had as president during the last 100 years or so but what he shares with all republicans of the past 40 years and that is the idea that all government is inherently a bad thing. since reagan republicans have worked to make government more and more dysfunctional while democrats have insisted on trying to make it as effective as possible within the constraints of their congressional majorities.most republican presidents have worked to try and put off the reckonings for when a democrat is in office but this one doesn’t care. he’s content to let it all fall down on his watch. he is a throwback to presidents of the type of john tyler or james buchanan. we’ve really not had such a feckless incompetent in office in well over 100 years.
Matt Taibbi on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez vs the US political establishment
That’s the topic, not Hilary, not Bernie, not Romney, not the election of 2016.
Not a problem.
Please stick to actual the topic at hand and refrain from the unnecessary ‘hugs and kisses,’ as I don’t even know you like that for you to address me with such unearned familiarity.
if you think obama’s style of governance was in some way because he was afraid of hurting mcconnell’s feelings rather than a recognition that mcconnell had already gone publicly on record as saying his goal as minority/majority leader was to make obama a one term president it’s hard to see how we agree on much of anything.
Look, @DeclanMcManus, I get where you’re coming from. As my comment history will indicate I was in no way a supporter of Clinton or the DNC establishment or its neoliberal-lite ideology in 2016. But Clinton is yesterday’s news, a has-been and a bungler (and still, given the reality of who we have in the White House instead, it’s to all our great misfortune no matter what we think of Clinton).
This topic is about the current state of the fight between the party establishment to preserve its sclerotic and played-out Third-Way attitudes and about the efforts of AOC and Tlaib and other progressive Dems to move away from them. Obsessing about past avatars of those attitudes who, thankfully, are absenting themselves from that fray is a distraction that looks backwards instead of forwards.
So, rather than examine the notion that the bully pulpit is actually able to influence anything, you just stick with the line that since the bully pulpit wasn’t able to influence either redistricting or voter rights, then it must be the fault of Obama, QED, and not, like white supremacy encoded into the structure of US government or anything.
