Hillary Rodham Clinton

User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 3453
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#51

Post by DejaMoo » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:27 pm

TollandRCR wrote:This should be the last election in which an aspirant to the Presidency is deemed by his or her party to have a right to the nomination. "My turn" makes no political sense. The only possible exception would be a sitting president, and even then the party needs to decide if that person would be the best possible candidate and the best possible president.
This really is the heart of the dilemma for every effective organization. You need people - volunteers, for the most part - to do most of the day-to-day drudgery involved in running any organization, especially when said org gears up for one of its periodical Big Events.

The org's continued existence rests on the faithful few: those who show up, those who can be counted on to do the work, and do it right, and especially, those who can be depended on to keep showing up.
There is a tremendous amount of truth in the adage The World Is Run By Those Who Show Up.

On the other hand, the org needs a constant influx of new people, new ideas, new approaches. Problem is, any organization that has lasted beyond a few years survives in large part due to the reliable people reliably turning up and reliably doing the work. So the new people are simultaneously welcomed and looked at a bit askance: Will they do the work? Will they keep coming back? Will they listen? What have they got to say?

And both sides think: Can we use them, or are they only interested in using us?

Orgs traditionally reward the faithful, especially the competent ones, by promoting them through the ranks. Political parties often reward party faithful by promising them the party's support if/when they decide to run for office. What office, and when to run, is subject to negotiation, since the party isn't going to want to waste a promising candidate on a sacrificial run, nor have them go head-to-head with another party loyalist who's currently the incumbent.

It's this that causes orgs to fill up with and be primarily represented by older white people. They've put in their time, they've now gotten their payback. But in the meantime, the world has changed. The makeup of political parties and their leaders no longer represent their constituents. Back to the need for new people. But if you take a pragmatic view and endorse that brand-new minority prospective candidate, because it's not only the smart thing to do, it's also the right thing to do, you will have passed over somebody who's been working for the party and waiting their turn. They may understand. Or they may be royally p.o.'d and turn on you.

There is no single answer to this dilemma. Whatever you decide and whoever you pick, you will be passing over someone else with an equally valid argument for being the best choice. There is one argument in favor of institutional inertia, though: if you consistently pass over the faithful in favor of the new, you'll lose many of the people you can least afford to replace, and over time those losses will add up. That's the reason behind making people put in their time before being rewarded. Then again, if you consistently pass over the new, you become increasingly irrelevant because you've become increasingly out of touch.

This is why we need both the old guard and the new. We need both Bernie and Hillary. It is a great shame that the party and these two candidates were not able to resolve their differences and work together. If I had to guess, I'd say the major factor for both candidates was their ages. They both knew this was their last chance to grab for that gold ring. When it's your last shot, it's going to be oh, so hard to concede.



User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#52

Post by p0rtia » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:32 pm

Suranis wrote:HRC on CBS on Sunday

HRC on Anderson Cooper

HRC on the View

HRC with Ezra Klien on VOX (Hour long)

I haven't watched any of these, so no idea of the content, good or bad. These are all just recent interviews that I found, to promote her book and talking about what happened in 2016. Enjoy.
Not at all directed at you, Suranis; it's just that this is a good place to say something I've been wanting to find the time to say to the world at large in between hurricane clean-up organization and planning trip to Tuscany (!).

There is no right or wrong about what HRC says; she wrote down what she thinks about a period in her life and the world at large. Anything anyone else (scholar, layperson, political junkie, journalist, right wing, left wing) thinks about what she wrote is their opinion. One can agree or disagree, but again, there is no right or wrong about what a private person chooses to write about their live. To conclude that writing something else would have been more productive/less problematic for the DNC is [fill in the blank].


No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 4453
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#53

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:33 pm

Political naif and questioner of Bernie asks, "Isn't Bernie an Independent?" He seems to me to be the progressive side of Trump. My "don't trust this person" radar went off when I first saw Paul Ryan and when I first saw Bernie Sanders. Talk some facts to me so I can learn why the Democratic Party wants Bernie other than his followers.


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14566
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#54

Post by Suranis » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:52 pm

p0rtia wrote: Not at all directed at you, Suranis;
No, I mostly agree with what you said.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 19113
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#55

Post by TollandRCR » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:25 pm

I agree (and wrote before) that Hillary would have been a better candidate in 2008 than she was in 2016. Furthermore, I wrote that Obama ran too early and with too little experience in 2008. Much of what he tried to do he could not really do through Executive Orders, as we are seeing..

I blame DWS for much of this. But I agree that the Democratic Party needs to wake up.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#56

Post by p0rtia » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:35 pm

TollandRCR wrote:I agree (and wrote before) that Hillary would have been a better candidate in 2008 than she was in 2016. Furthermore, I wrote that Obama ran too early and with too little experience in 2008. Much of what he tried to do he could not really do through Executive Orders, as we are seeing..

I blame DWS for much of this. But I agree that the Democratic Party needs to wake up.
Another thing I've been wanting to say for a while, so I'll piggyback it here (even though it's continuing the threadjack). Again, not at all aimed at you, Tollie.

Many democrats (and most of the MSM) think this election was about why Hillary lost, not about why Biff won. I disagree.

The DNC can get woke all you want, but IMO it's not going to mean shit while the RNC and half the country remain in a 30 year coma.

So not a believer that if the DNC just says the magic words (in a non-shrill voice), the sleepers will listen.


No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 19113
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#57

Post by TollandRCR » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:43 pm

p0rtia wrote:...

So not a believer that if the DNC just says the magic words (in a non-shrill voice), the sleepers will listen.
They listened to Obama twice. His election was revolutionary. The country is not in a coma. It just needs attractive candidates.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#58

Post by p0rtia » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:53 pm

TollandRCR wrote:
p0rtia wrote:...

So not a believer that if the DNC just says the magic words (in a non-shrill voice), the sleepers will listen.
They listened to Obama twice. His election was revolutionary. The country is not in a coma. It just needs attractive candidates.
This is exactly where we disagree. The oligarchs/banksters/fill-in-the-blanksters have been working for decades to poison the country and we are well and truly poisoned.*

On another note, it occurs to me that the thread jack that occurred and has gone on unchecked since the initial post is a reflection of the myopia that has spread across the country.

*Staking my territory in the we are well and truly fucked doomsday brigade.


No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 1619
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#59

Post by Dan1100 » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:55 pm

TollandRCR wrote:
p0rtia wrote:...

So not a believer that if the DNC just says the magic words (in a non-shrill voice), the sleepers will listen.
They listened to Obama twice. His election was revolutionary. The country is not in a coma. It just needs attractive candidates.
I almost think they should put out a goat on a stake to be the target of the Right Wing hate machine (Kamala Harris comes to mind, being both a women and not white). Let poor Kamala be abused by the constant stream of lies and conspiracies until a substantial part of the white electorate believes she is evil incarnate like HRC. Then at the last minute, she could back down and the Dems could run some fatherly silver haired white guy.


"Let's say you're on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, 'I forgot armed robbery was illegal.' "

-Steve Martin

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14566
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#60

Post by Suranis » Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:15 pm

Interesting idea, Dan. One of the things about the Obama experience was they had to completely regig their propaganda to attack him as the worst guy evah after Hillary lost, rather than Hillary.

The fact is though that your election season is WAAAAY too long. There is plenty of time for them to invent new lies to reprogram their base, and their proxies on the left, to attack the new target.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 19113
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#61

Post by TollandRCR » Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:16 pm

True. So is the primary season.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#62

Post by p0rtia » Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:02 pm

Suranis wrote:
The fact is though that your election season is WAAAAY too long. There is plenty of time for them to invent new lies to reprogram their base, and their proxies on the left, to attack the new target.
I have long since lost track of the number of things that are fatally wrong with the apparatus of our political system. Our system of gov't and, yes, our judicial system have been overwhelmed with deceit, stagnation, and intentional destruction. To the point where (again, not at all aimed at you, my friend, as you have said nothing in disagreement with opinion I'm about to make), I become angry when anyone implies or even uses a freaking sentence structure/tense that implies that there is only one reason or one most prominent reason for the current political climate.

:crying:


No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 5239
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#63

Post by RVInit » Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:26 pm

p0rtia wrote:
Suranis wrote:
The fact is though that your election season is WAAAAY too long. There is plenty of time for them to invent new lies to reprogram their base, and their proxies on the left, to attack the new target.
I have long since lost track of the number of things that are fatally wrong with the apparatus of our political system. Our system of gov't and, yes, our judicial system have been overwhelmed with deceit, stagnation, and intentional destruction. To the point where (again, not at all aimed at you, my friend, as you have said nothing in disagreement with opinion I'm about to make), I become angry when anyone implies or even uses a freaking sentence structure/tense that implies that there is only one reason or one most prominent reason for the current political climate.

:crying:
:like:


"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 19113
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#64

Post by TollandRCR » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:01 pm

When I heard Hillary Clinton speak at UConn, she did not speak as a candidate for political office. She spoke as a person who deeply wanted to encourage our students to participate in the civic life of the nation. I thought her speech worthy of a president.

They why did she charge us $245,000? Do she and Bill want to be rich like their Wall Street friends? Why did she and her staff not stay at our rather modest hotel (The Nathan Hale Inn) along with the students that we overbooked?

The Hillary who spoke here was pleasant, happy, and well-mannered. She did not yell, and she was not angry.

The Hillary that we saw during the campaign was, to my perception, arrogant and angry. I think that largely lost her the election.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14566
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#65

Post by Suranis » Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:13 pm

http://www.npr.org/2017/09/12/549430064 ... hel-martin
And you decided to include that anecdote for a reason. I mean, what did it signify to you? Is that when you started to understand you were missing something important about the country, in that moment?

No, I understood that long before, Rachel, and in the book, what I tried to point out is, I understood there was anger and fear and people were really unhappy because of what had happened in the financial crash. I understood all of that, and I understood that my opponent had been, from the beginning of the primaries, fueling that anger, and providing scapegoats, and a kind of cynical nostalgia that was rooted in saying, basically, you know, all these other people — whether it's African-Americans or Muslims or immigrants or women or whomever — we're going to get it back to the way it was. And that's going to be my gift to you. I understood all of that. What I didn't — and I say this in the book — I didn't really do well is conveying how much I understood of that, conveying how I got the despair and the anger. I talked about it, I talked about it constantly. I talked about jobs. I talked about the despair of people in America, white Americans who were dying at an unbelievable rate because of suicide, opioid abuse, alcoholism, so much that really signifies that despair. I talked about it, but I didn't really convey the emotional resonance that would have maybe made it possible for somebody to say, "Yeah, you know, maybe that one sentence she said was taken out of context because look at what she's done and look at what she says she will do."

So you kept going to policy solutions and you're saying you should have given a more emotional response?

Well, I think a more emotional response, but honest. Not like we're going to bring back coal. Not like we're going to build a wall to keep Mexicans out. Not like that, but more of a connection emotionally first before saying, "I think I've got the best experience, I think I've got the best ideas that will actually make a difference in your life."


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8402
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#66

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:46 pm

Suranis wrote:
So you kept going to policy solutions and you're saying you should have given a more emotional response?

Well, I think a more emotional response, but honest. Not like we're going to bring back coal. Not like we're going to build a wall to keep Mexicans out. Not like that, but more of a connection emotionally first before saying, "I think I've got the best experience, I think I've got the best ideas that will actually make a difference in your life."
People don't like to be told "trust me, I know what I'm doing." They do tend to support the ideas put forth by people they trust. That strikes me as kind of basic.


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
maydijo
Posts: 2314
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:23 pm
Location: where women glow and men plunder
Occupation: harassing marsupials

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#67

Post by maydijo » Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:00 pm

TollandRCR wrote:True. So is the primary season.
Elections here are six weeks long, max, and people think that's too long.

The difference is, though, that Australia (and most of the rest of the democratic world) has a parliamentary system of government, so in effect the parties campaign the entire term of government. You know who the leader of the party is, and you know who the leader(s) of the opposition(s) is/are, and you know where they stand on policies; so there is no need for a long, drawn-out primary system. By the time the election comes, you already know who you like and who you don't like. The rest is just dressing.

As I see it, the only way to stop the primary system - which is clearly damaging to all of the candidates who run - is to revamp the system: Either have the parties choose the candidates (which is highly unlikely to happen) or to change the entire system of government to something closer to a parliamentary system (which is very obviously and most definitely not going to ever happen, period.) Until then we're stuck with this uniquely American phenomena in which politics - much like that other uniquely American phenomena, a Black Friday sale - is a blood sport.



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14566
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#68

Post by Suranis » Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:04 pm

A very expensive blood sport at that.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

TexasFilly
Posts: 17212
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#69

Post by TexasFilly » Fri Sep 15, 2017 1:05 am

Hillary did the full hour of the Rachel Maddow show tonight. It was a great interview. Rachel spent the early part talking not about "the book" but about North Korea. Hillary's response was very thoughtful and very correct.

One tidbit of interest is that old Rex Tillerson has not reached out to any living past Secretary of State. The Secretaries of State in the past have held a dinner they mostly all attend to welcome in the new SOS and to provide advice and guidance. That didn't happen this year. Tillerson has no interest in learning from his predecessors. That's a sad and frightening situation.


I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill!

User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 1902
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#70

Post by Turtle » Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:56 am

TexasFilly wrote:Hillary did the full hour of the Rachel Maddow show tonight. It was a great interview. Rachel spent the early part talking not about "the book" but about North Korea. Hillary's response was very thoughtful and very correct.

One tidbit of interest is that old Rex Tillerson has not reached out to any living past Secretary of State. The Secretaries of State in the past have held a dinner they mostly all attend to welcome in the new SOS and to provide advice and guidance. That didn't happen this year. Tillerson has no interest in learning from his predecessors. That's a sad and frightening situation.

He is friends with Condi Rice and some of the other Bush people like Robert Gates, Jim Baker and Dick Cheney, so he can lean on them the next time a pre-emptive war is on the table.



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25024
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#71

Post by Foggy » Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:46 am

Wait, did the ladies ask Bernie for permission before going on Tee Vee for an hour and talking without supervision? :mrgreen:


... and how does that make you feel?
What is it you're trying to say?
:think:

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14566
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#72

Post by Suranis » Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:43 pm

HRC on Colbert







"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 6892
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#73

Post by Orlylicious » Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:31 pm

:P
Hillary Clinton's "What Happened" had a big debut.

Clinton's book, about her stunning presidential election loss in 2016 to Donald Trump, sold more than 300,000 copies in the combined formats of hardcover, e-book and audio, Simon & Schuster told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

The book's hardcover sales of 168,000 were the highest opening for any nonfiction release in five years, according to NPD BookScan, which tracks around 85 percent of retail print sales. Mark Owen's "No Easy Day," a 2012 memoir about the killing of Osama bin Laden, sold more than 250,000 copies in its first week.

Sales for "What Happened" far exceeded the first-week numbers of more than 100,000 copies for Clinton's book about her years as secretary of state, "Hard Choices," which came out in 2014 as she was preparing to launch her run for president. "What Happened" has been at or near the top of the Amazon.com best-seller list since its publication Sept. 12 despite a suspicious early wave of negative reader reviews, likely posted by commentators who had not read the book and later pulled by Amazon.
HRC Sales.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14566
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#74

Post by Suranis » Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:47 pm

I wouldn't call it a debut. She has written books before. Unlike Donald who has paid others to write books.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
vic
Posts: 3162
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley
Occupation: Web developer

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#75

Post by vic » Sat Sep 23, 2017 2:27 am

Suranis wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:47 pm
I wouldn't call it a debut. She has written books before. Unlike Donald who has paid others to write books.
The post said that the book had a big debut, not Hillary.
Hillary Clinton's "What Happened" had a big debut.
Edit: debut, as in first week sales for the book.
For an example of this usage, see e.g.Forbes
When Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was first released back in 1967, it was an immediate commercial and critical success. The album debuted at No. 1 all around the world, and in the decades since, it has reportedly sold over 30 million copies. A 2009 reissue also hit No. 5 in the U.K., proving that people, especially the British people, simply can’t get enough of the Beatles.



Post Reply

Return to “General Politics”