|
Harrow posted:Wait, what did she say about Obama? Obama, the guy who ran around campaigning for her? Did she say something lovely about him not taking public sides in the primary until it was basically over or what? “I do wonder sometimes about what would have happened if President Obama had made a televised address to the nation in the fall of 2016 warning that our democracy was under attack. Maybe more Americans would have woken up to the threat in time. We’ll never know.” She later on says that Obama asked her to lay off of Sanders so that the primary wouldn't get uglier, as well.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:rededicate the washington monument to the city/nation as a whole. keeping it as is is also acceptable if mount vernon is redone to emphasize the slaves he had Mount Vernon already has a heavy emphasis on Washington's slaves. It's a very neat place in general, definitely worth a visit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Wait, what did she say about Obama? Obama, the guy who ran around campaigning for her? Did she say something lovely about him not taking public sides in the primary until it was basically over or what? she said that his actions during his presidency made her gaffe wrt coal miners blow up worse than it ever would of if he had governed better. quote:She made a connection between Mr. Obama and what she called her biggest gaffe of the campaign: telling voters in Ohio, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” Mrs. Clinton insisted that the line was taken out of context, but said Mr. Obama had fed the narrative of Democratic hostility toward coal miners by announcing a plan that set state-by-state targets for carbon emissions reductions, and a framework for meeting them, at the White House, next to the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. also, she complained he put her in a straight-jacket by asking her to not go full out negative against bernie in the primaries
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Wait, what did she say about Obama? Obama, the guy who ran around campaigning for her? Did she say something lovely about him not taking public sides in the primary until it was basically over or what? Obama pulled his punches on the email/Russian hack so as to not look "biased." Lofty, noble, and completely pointless as the whole Republican party still believes he is 100% biased.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:There were a lot of factors that were "the final straw" because the contest was extremely close. In a lot of ways everyone is right. She lost because she was a woman - and because of campaigning in the wrong states, being a Clinton, having a fight with Bernie, email shenanigans, and Trump bringing the racists out of the woodwork. If any of those things had been absent, she would have won. Don't forget hilariously skewed press coverage. Seriously, noone should ever forget this because gently caress the media.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:It was pretty obvious that Lieberman would get a pretty huge chunk of the Republican voters voting for him in the general election as well as those democrats that voted for him in the primary. Smoozing him so he didn't run immediately into the open arms of the Republican party was pretty sound political strategy. imo, people like lieberman who will jump into the arms of republicans on a whim shouldn't be in the dem party at all it's too bad nancy pelosi refuses to make healthcare a litmus test issue so we can filter out future liebermans that will try to sabotage future healthcare bills
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Wait, what did she say about Obama? Obama, the guy who ran around campaigning for her? Did she say something lovely about him not taking public sides in the primary until it was basically over or what? Basically the country failed her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I'd be curious to know your top 5 as mentioned up thread. We talking all Americans or just Presidents? I've got the POTUS list 5) LBJ - huge rear end in a top hat, but fought for and signed the civil rights act, knowing it would cost him/his party dearly because it was the right thing to do 4) Obama - would be higher on the list but not enough time has passed 3) Ike - good dude and did a lot of work. I have ties to Gettysburg where he's still a legend and learned a lot about his non-Presidency stuff 2) Lincoln - saved the Republic, also a guy with a lot of demons who is really sympathetic on a personal level and I relate to a lot 1) FDR - saved us from complete ruination and also led us to war against the Nazis As for non-POTUS people in no particular order: Bob Ross Fred Rogers Jim Henson My Grandpa (fought in WW2 and was career Army, went from being a high school dropout to a college graduate and history teacher and the person I learned my leftism from) Frederick Douglas
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Mount Vernon already has a heavy emphasis on Washington's slaves. It's a very neat place in general, definitely worth a visit. The Jefferson mansions, Monticello and Poplar Forest, don't shy away from every aspect of what transpired there, including slave labor. I mean, Poplar Forest is still under renovation because its own by a private entity instead of by the state government and they will shorten things down for general tours for the sake of time, while allowing you to personally ask questions; however, they don't lie about slavery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:There were a lot of factors that were "the final straw" because the contest was extremely close. In a lot of ways everyone is right. She lost because she was a woman - and because of campaigning in the wrong states, being a Clinton, having a fight with Bernie, email shenanigans, and Trump bringing the racists out of the woodwork. If any of those things had been absent, she would have won. To add to this There are some things a campaign can control and some that they cannot. The campaign cannot make everyone less sexist instantly. They can make society aware of its inherent sexism and then it's up to the citizens to enact change. The campaign can control the platform and were it campaigns. Saying she lost because she is sexist is true. But it's not much of an electoral strategy for the future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Don't forget hilariously skewed press coverage. Yeah, this is one area where I agree with Clinton: the media really hosed us all in 2016. I can't imagine a more obviously cynical display than poo poo like keeping cameras on Trump's empty podium.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:There were a lot of factors that were "the final straw" because the contest was extremely close. In a lot of ways everyone is right. She lost because she was a woman - and because of campaigning in the wrong states, being a Clinton, having a fight with Bernie, email shenanigans, and Trump bringing the racists out of the woodwork. If any of those things had been absent, she would have won. the only one of these I'd dispute is the Bernie fight one; that was a symptom of an underlying issue. if you wave your hand and make Sanders cease to exist, the Not Hillary vote coalesces around someone else who still takes waaaay longer to put away than he should have, and Hillary still writes a book about how if only he'd given up sooner someone in her campaign would have remembered that Michigan and Wisconsin exist. the underlying issue is that the Hillary campaign never figured out why people should care about voting for Hillary Clinton, and it turns out I'm With Grim Inevitability does not test well
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Condiv posted:imo, people like lieberman who will jump into the arms of republicans on a whim shouldn't be in the dem party at all No he shouldn't, but that traitorous fucker was #60 and he abused the gently caress out of it. Majorian posted:Yeah, this is one area where I agree with Clinton: the media really hosed us all in 2016. I can't imagine a more obviously cynical display than poo poo like keeping cameras on Trump's empty podium. One of my most infuriating memories of the election was another Trump Nuremberg Rally being held on full screen with audio while Hillary's event was a tiny little thumnail in the bottom right corner of the screen. On CNN.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Mount Vernon already has a heavy emphasis on Washington's slaves. It's a very neat place in general, definitely worth a visit. ah well i haven't been since the 8th grade trip and i dont recall much mention of them then. then again it was a long rear end time ago and i may have forgotten
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Majumbo posted:To add to this This is a good point. I think I'm just incredibly frustrated because it's so true...and unlike most of the other causes there's nothing we can do about it and people are still willingly sticking their head in the sand about it. All the other factors are definitely things that can be fixed. Also I did not think her answers about donations from rich people were great because while yes, she's right that it doesn't influence policy, that isn't why people don't like it. People don't like it because the optics of someone saying "I'm for public campaign financing, also I'm going to give closed door speeches to rich donors" is terrible. People, rightly so, don't trust your commitment to what you're saying if you do that. I agree though that it's hosed up that some politicians get hit on this while others get free passes. axeil fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, this is one area where I agree with Clinton: the media really hosed us all in 2016. I can't imagine a more obviously cynical display than poo poo like keeping cameras on Trump's empty podium. The media has always been a factor, and understanding how it works has swung presidential elections before. For all his many faults, Trump understood the media, and he obliged them with plenty of rating-grabbing showmanship.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:No he shouldn't, but that traitorous fucker was #60 and he abused the gently caress out of it. one problem is that apparently lieberman used the perks the dems handed to him (during the general election no less) to sell himself to voters. he was campaigning on the fact that he would have more seniority than lamont if he got into office, that he would keep all his influence and would be better able to represent connecticut and bring it more perks and benefits because of it. that very well could've tilted the election away from lamont. as i said, the dems brought lieberman's healthcare treachery upon themselves when they rewarded the first instance of it (and clapped for the slimeball when he came back as an independent)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I'd be curious to know your top 5 as mentioned up thread. Carter, Carter, Carter, Carter, and Carter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Condiv posted:here's a slate article backing this up further: Did he stab them in the back, or did he do them a favor by voting against the public option to cover them so they didn't have to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
axeil posted:Nah mostly in how she (rightfully) really loving hates Bernie and points out all the little insidious things he did that undermined her. To make an analogy he was basically a little kid holding his hand in front of your face saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" and people fell for that excuse/explanation. And also how she points out sexism was a major contributing factor to why she lost even though no one admits it. How did people fall for anything Sanders did, in her account? She won the primary. If we're talking about America's hatred of Hillary Clinton, that has longer roots than 2016.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
axeil posted:Nah mostly in how she (rightfully) really loving hates Bernie and points out all the little insidious things he did that undermined her. To make an analogy he was basically a little kid holding his hand in front of your face saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" and people fell for that excuse/explanation. And also how she points out sexism was a major contributing factor to why she lost even though no one admits it. He campaigned for and endorsed her and more of his voters voted for her than her voters voted for Obama in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Majumbo posted:To add to this A good campaign will make weaknesses into strengths. Most women running for high office will make much of their incredible toughness, that they are more manly than the men, with iron wills and handbags of steel. This is to overcome the "woman problem." Clinton's unfortunate ill-health at the culmination of the campaign combined with her unconvincing attempt to appear "grandmotherly" really did not help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Did he stab them in the back, or did he do them a favor by voting against the public option to cover them so they didn't have to. This is an interesting point - we really don't know who would've actually voted for the public option in 2010. I'm thinking it's pretty unlikely that Max Baucus would've voted for it so really there were only 58 votes in the Senate. I mean, I could be wrong on this since I haven't heavily researched it, but it seems suspicious to me that it fell short by only one vote and that one vote was the one person not in the party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
The Groper posted:Carter, Carter, Carter, Carter, and Carter. Carter was actually a pretty terrible president, objectively speaking. Nice guy, but wholely unsuited for the office.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:He campaigned for and endorsed her and more of his voters voted for her than her voters voted for Obama in 2008. but you don't get it, mcmagic, he intimated hillary clinton's integrity was less than sterling something that the Republican Party would definitely not have done at any point in the general, if he hadn't given them the idea
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Carter was actually a pretty terrible president, objectively speaking. Nice guy, but wholely unsuited for the office. Fairly or unfairly, I still blame him for energizing the religious vote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:How did people fall for anything Sanders did, in her account? She won the primary. If we're talking about America's hatred of Hillary Clinton, that has longer roots than 2016.  Really? Really? We still have people in this thread (and all other past iterations of USPol and in the toxic waste dump that is the Dems thread) making GBS threads all over Clinton for not being progressive enough and not being a true champion for change, etc, etc. How do you think that well got poisoned? And of course the GOP was gonna do it but it makes a hell of a lot of difference if Fox News is saying that versus the supposed most-leftist major politician in America saying it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The media has always been a factor, and understanding how it works has swung presidential elections before. For all his many faults, Trump understood the media, and he obliged them with plenty of rating-grabbing showmanship.  The media's always going to train its sights on what it thinks is the better story. This is something that Clinton herself seemed to know in her heart of hearts, but never wanted to admit and deal with the implications. Ezra Klein has a surprisingly insightful piece on this: (emphasis mine)quote:On page 239 of What Happened, Hillary Clinton reveals that she almost ran a very different campaign in 2016. Before announcing for president, she read Peter Barnes’s book With Liberty and Dividends for All, and became fascinated by the idea of using revenue from shared natural resources, like fossil fuel extraction and public airwaves, alongside revenue from taxing public harms, like carbon emissions and risky financial practices, to give every American “a modest basic income.” Even from a pragmatic, only-interested-in-winning-elections perspective, the Dems absolutely need to make big, sweeping, inspiring promises, and then fight for them. If they don't succeed, they don't succeed, but they need to at least try.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
axeil posted:
She's not progressive enough and she's not a true champion of change. All you need to do is listen to her defend her selling access to big doners and whining ad nauseam about Bernie not being a democrat to know that though. We all still voted for her and aren't the reason she lost though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
If you somehow didn't hate Hillary after her awful showing in 2008, you should by now. If not you are just being contrarian for the sake of it. She is a worse person then she was a politician and frankly she shouldn't really be discussed anymore. Her future has diverged from the democratic party, and things like Fight for 15 and Medicare for All are much more relevant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
axeil posted:
pop quiz Axeil what happened to Hillary Clinton in 2007
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:but you don't get it, mcmagic, he intimated hillary clinton's integrity was less than sterling Damning with faint praise is more powerful than you can imagine. Many voters are fairly uninterested in politics, and if they feel uninspired by their candidate, they will not make huge efforts to vote. Got a flat tire? Kid sick? Neighbor having a barbeque? Feeling hung over? "gently caress it, Im staying home. News said she had it in the bag anyway, and she's nearly as much a crook as Trump."
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
Good stuff. This is the main lesson I've taken. Voters don't give a poo poo about the actual numbers, nor does the media (see: Paul Ryan) so if you have a really transformative idea, run on it and figure out the details later. Right now, can anyone tell me off the top of their heads what the differences were between Hillary and Obama's healthcare plans in 2008? No one remembers or (seriously) cares about this stuff in a way that will affect their vote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
I can't help but feel that a part of this though is that the regressive side of the voting public is very much more willing to eat outlandish promises up wholesale and not react negatively to being lied compared to the progressive side.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
axeil posted:We still have people in this thread (and all other past iterations of USPol and in the toxic waste dump that is the Dems thread) making GBS threads all over Clinton for not being progressive enough and not being a true champion for change, etc, etc. How do you think that well got poisoned? Welfare Reform, the '94 crime bill, the Gramm Bill, the bad parts of NAFTA...
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:If you somehow didn't hate Hillary after her awful showing in 2008, you should by now. If not you are just being contrarian for the sake of it. She is a worse person then she was a politician and frankly she shouldn't really be discussed anymore. Her future has diverged from the democratic party, and things like Fight for 15 and Medicare for All are much more relevant. I think Hillary Clinton is a great woman+politician and The Tragedy of Hillary will be something we look back on in shame and admit that all the hatred of her was due to sexism. I am sorry that you cannot accept that there are actually people who like Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The media has always been a factor, and understanding how it works has swung presidential elections before. For all his many faults, Trump understood the media, and he obliged them with plenty of rating-grabbing showmanship. He also bribed them. And accordingly received absolutely fawning media coverage. The American news media needs to be torn down and rebuilt. It is a sycophantic grotesque whose only purpose is to turn access to power into eyeballs for advertisements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:I can't help but feel that a part of this though is that the regressive side of the voting public is very much more willing to eat outlandish promises up wholesale and not react negatively to being lied compared to the progressive side. I think there's a lot of truth to this, but that still leaves a lot of ground for progressive candidates to play around in. "Medicare For All" still needs to have a lot of details hammered out, but it's both aspirational and inspirational, and it's a hell of a lot more believable than most of the poo poo Trump promised.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
axeil posted:I think Hillary Clinton is a great woman+politician and The Tragedy of Hillary will be something we look back on in shame and admit that all the hatred of her was due to sexism. the tragedy of the woman shopping around Obama Is A Secret Muslim as a hail-mary to preserve her shot at 2008 not getting to be president will live forever in our hearts
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
Hillary would have been a great politician for a different era of politics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:54
|
|