I’m nitpicking; it’s not misogyny to refuse to differentiate a woman from her husband, just sexism. At least it doesn’t feel that way.
“Hillary was a perfectly decent candidate, at least as qualified as any in living memory.”
This is the kind of thing white collar Democrats like to say because they don’t bother ever talking politics to blue collar voters. The name Clinton has practically been a curse word in union halls for twenty years now,
3 Likes
She is a reviled candidate, sure. But that has nothing to do with her decency or qualifications for the office and everything to do with a 30-year smear campaign waged by the right.
15 Likes
In a democratic system, ability to be trusted by electorate to represent them is an overriding qualification. You’ve heard of this thing called voting, yeah? Also, give me a fucking break with this “vast right wing conspiracy” bullshit. Lady earned her two-faced reputation with actual double dealing and corruption.
1 Like
I never said anything about a conspiracy. It was right out there in the open.
“Corruption” was one of those oft-repeated labels that was not actually backed up by evidence. You are correct that it was widely believed though.
12 Likes
No. No she did not deserve that reputation by her actions. But in retrospect, we should not have chosen a candidate who needed to be defended so strongly on that count that we failed to attack on others.
3 Likes
Compared to Michelle Obama? Well she’s a better lawyer. She’s a sitting Senator. She has gone after banks and still has a political career suggesting nigh-preternatural levels of toughness. And Mark Blyth thinks well of her which, for me personally, is a good thing.
Compared to Clinton? Not a warmongering neocon in her foreign policy, and hasn’t publicly claimed credit for an intervention that even Obama says was a mistake. Yeah, Clinton has had more time in various offices, but mostly she has used this time to provide reasons not to vote for her.
…you did ask.
2 Likes
Thank you, yes I did. Though my confusion at why Michelle Obama was brought into your answer led me to look at what post of mine you were replying to, and now I’m just confused. I do dislike this fancy forum interface.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to call her a warmongering neocon. As it is, I thought her experience as SoS was sufficient; I’m not a fan of the cult of personalities that spring up around the presidency; we should be electing the head bureaucrat and civilian head of the military, and trying to ignore that the President is also our head of state as much as possible. If wishes were horses… I’d be mucking out stables.
She treated her time in office like a fucking ATM. I wonder how many tinpot despots are going to be donating millions to the Clinton Foundation now, or how many millions she’ll make giving speeches to investment bankers? I bet they’re just lining up to keep giving her cash.
2 Likes
Charitywatch gives the Clinton foundation an “A” rating. They don’t rate the Trump Foundation at all because it’s a private organization that doesn’t even meet the legal requirements to operate as a nonprofit in many states, but we do know that Trump has used Foundation funds (which he does not contribute to) to pay off his own companies’ private debts. Not to mention giant vanity portraits.
But sure, Clinton is the one who earned the “corrupt” label.
16 Likes
Ah! I now understand. You thought I was talking about Clinton.
Look, Clinton’s not particularly qualified for some things. She is however, very qualified in the field of foreign policy because she ran American foreign policy for a bit. I am not impressed with her performance but that stems strictly from my antiwar point of view. If you like the idea of war with Russia and Iran and further encircling China and making nice with Saudi Arabia… then she’s super qualified.
I’m not even saying the above sarcastically. I think the above are all terrible things, but if you don’t and want them, then she is indeed the best candidate for the job. For me, however, they are absolute dealbreakers.
Dude, they sold access to the State Department and then the White House based on her prospective upcoming presidential run and had to be admonished by outside advisors about it. They lost on their own merits. You can tell me Trump is terrible all day long, and I will agree all day long, but stop defending the decision to run a candidate that offered no real alternative to a deciding portion of the electorate. It was a disastrous error that gave us this nightmare administration.
“I’m so tired of peanut butter and jelly. I think I’ll try the broken glass and arsenic-laced feces for lunch today.”
16 Likes
Yeah, I was just correcting their misattribution of Michelle’s catchphrase. I find the idea of Michelle 2020 amusing and highly unlikely.
I don’t want the same things you don’t want. I think I have a different estimation of their likelihood under Clinton. I think war with Iran would be unlikely, Russia is a tossup, and we’ll continue to be frenemies with China and the Saudis… under any establishment candidate; they’re mostly interchangeable in that respect. At least with the public’s current skepticism; thanks Bush.
2 Likes
Imagine if, say, Joe Biden had run.
1 Like
It’s pretty easy. You appoint a couple of people who think Roe v. Wade was a mistake (or who are willing to say that for money). The Supreme Court of the United States isn’t even a real court, it’s just a bunch of partisan hacks. They’ll say that an abortion prevents the fetus from owning guns and therefore violates the constitution and flat out ban is everywhere. That would make exactly as much sense as Citizens United or Hobby Lobby.
ETA: Regarding the title - I thought the idea that left wing politicians used minority groups as human shields was a right wing accusation, not something progressive people actively bought into.
5 Likes
Well sure, if you want to take the “repeat conservative lies” approach sure we’ll listen to those lies again.
9 Likes
It’s not, sadly plenty of persons think self-ascribing as an “ally” is enough.
Just saying, MA will be fine, Romneycare was already basically the same thing and MA already had just 2-4% of the population uninsured in 2010-2012.
3 Likes
Thomas, for instance, has reportedly stated that precedent should be treated with the same regard as a Law Review article–i.e. not much. (source is probably Jeffrey Toobin, but it could be Dahlia Lithwick)
precedent has a great deal of value in ensuring that venue doesn’t matter. My lawyer should be able to go into any court in the land, and know what facts are relevant, know what law is relevant, and put forth the best argument he can knowing those constraints.
3 Likes
