Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I don't think many "progressives" realise the degree their criticisms of Hillary - and especially their imputations as to her character and beliefs - have been manufactured for her by the conservative and corporate media which they seem to accept wholesale. She has suffered considerably for her public service - from the suicide of her close friend Vince Foster when he couldn't stand the heat to all the bogus conspiracies and scandals manufactured for her - none of which would have raised an eyebrow for a Republican male candidate. The degree of misogyny and opposition to women in leadership still rampant has also to be seen to be believed.

If one of Obama's great achievements was simply to be a black man elected to the Presidency, then her achievement to be elected as a women will be similar.  It forces all sorts of changed social attitudes simply by virtue of them having been elected.

The other great fallacy is to simply assume that her Presidency will simply be a continuation of Bill's and Barack's Presidencies.  Both those Presidencies were considerably shaped by the political realities of their period in office. Far more important than any imputed ideological orientations in determining the course of her Presidency will be the degree to which Democrats, and Progressives within the Dem party, can take control of Congress and State houses to tackle such issues as gerrymandering, voter suppression, campaign finance, the make-up of SCOTUS, Wall Street regulation and infrastructural investment in sustainable energy, energy conservation, education, student loans, healthcare and prison reform etc.

I find the media - and many "progressives" focus on imputed or ascribed personalities, media performance, character, and personal presentation to the exclusion of all serious policy discussion or the structural factors and processes which can block or facilitate change utterly infantile, naive, lazy and dishonest.

And that is why we have Trump.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Jun 6th, 2016 at 06:26:25 PM EST
Counterpoint: The loyalty of older dem voters was bought precisely by the viciousness of the GOP assault on her. And on the flip side younger voters don't find any positive reason for supporting her because they don't remember the worst of it.

And I at least see little evidence that it is the right wing talking points driving this.
The main objections seem to be her warmongering and perceived closeness to the financial industry.

by generic on Tue Jun 7th, 2016 at 07:07:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
IMHO there is a third main objection, and one in which the right-wing hate campaign may have played a large part: her perceived insincerity. Then again, the arrogance and dishonestly spinning rhetoric of her dismissals of Sanders and his supporters didn't help.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 7th, 2016 at 07:25:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And even that is only the less charitable formulation of the Jon Steward clip.
by generic on Tue Jun 7th, 2016 at 11:42:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It isn't perceived; she, like the rest of the DLC, is insincere.  The DLC/DNC has done nothing for the last 30 years but give ground the the GOP while claiming TINA and pretending to be the friends of the 99.99% they were screwing over for their 0.01% masters.  Bilious Bill sold out small farmers, labor, and clean water in Arkansas for the sake of industrial agriculture cronies (I keep hearing people say, "Look at how he improved education in Arkansas," but folks, creating a system that cranks out little but more, redundant psych/lit/poli sci majors is nothing but a con game.).  In the White House he dismantled the social safety net and banking regs while she tanked gay rights and healthcare reform for a generation.  I just can't buy that the DLC's "accomplishments" have been merely unintended consequences instead of a salient part of the driving neolib/neocon agenda.
by rifek on Wed Jun 8th, 2016 at 08:37:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The real improvements to education in Arkansas were accomplished under his predecessor, Democrat Dale Bumpers. Bumpers pushed through a tax increase that really paid dividends when agriculture boomed back then. Bumpers laid the financial foundation for a solid K-college education system in the state - brought Arkansas from the '30s to the '70s in four years. Too bad he never ran for president.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Jun 8th, 2016 at 11:50:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, Dale was the man who got it rolling; Clinton was just more than happy to take credit for the results a decade after the work was done.  As nearly as I can figure, there were two reasons he always turned down a presidential run: no desire to run a national campaign, and the unions didn't like him.
by rifek on Thu Jun 9th, 2016 at 03:59:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The other great fallacy is to simply assume that her Presidency will simply be a continuation of Bill's and Barack's Presidencies.

On this I actually agree: I think she has a mind of her own and is quite capable of deciding on something going against Bill's or Obama's legacy if she'd gain the power to do so. But, if she has already any long-term plans ready, she didn't offer any in the campaign, and that's a quite major problem for me.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jun 7th, 2016 at 07:29:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure she has a mind of her own, but I don't really see why one should assume she would govern that differently. From her Secreteray of State time we know she is pro war, pro fracking and pro "trade" agreements. If anything, she is more aggressive then Bill Clinton and Obama.

To the - probably very large - extent these policies are formed by an environment, that environment is not the political scene, but the security establishment that goes hand in hand with big money. I think these views are formed by the interests of the MIC, Big Oil and the US trade policy post 70ies that strives to write the rules to benefit the US corporations that deals in "rights", previously it was mostly intellectual rights, now there is also the right to profit itself.

And I don't see how that will change, or Hillary Clinton as a likely change agent there.

by fjallstrom on Tue Jun 7th, 2016 at 11:19:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Like GHW Bush, Hillary has 'the vision thing'. Namely, a distinct lack of one, other than for herself. As Jesse said in '92: "When there is no vision the people perish!" The price of four more years will be measured in lives lost needlessly.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Jun 8th, 2016 at 11:54:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Dutch prime-minister Rutter has regularly remarked that, in his opinion, 'vision is the elephant that blocks the horizon'.

It's been a fruitful source of satire.

by Bjinse on Fri Jun 10th, 2016 at 05:40:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think many "progressives" realise the degree their criticisms of Hillary - and especially their imputations as to her character and beliefs - have been manufactured for her by the conservative and corporate media which they seem to accept wholesale.

I find this to be more rhetoric than reality. Certainly Hillary partisans would like to smear progressive supporters of Sanders with this imputation, but as one of that group, I find it absurd. I WAS an off the chart, to the left voter who registered as a Democrat, voted for Bill Clinton after discussing with pollsters what I found attractive about Perot back in '92 and I defended both Clintons against any who criticized them, especially for Bill's poorly controlled libido. Then and until recently I thought Hillary might be a little more progressive than Bill on some things. Hillary probably was on LGBT issues and both were supportive of black constituencies, but since I started learning about economics, finance and what happened from 2000 to 2009 my opinion of both her and Bill changed.

It is inherently repugnant to me and to other progressives to have to agree with some of the allegations against the Clintons from Fox and the rest of the RW Foam Machine. But, as my father once said: "Even the blind old boar will stumble onto an acorn ever so often." The RW might be a stopped clock, but they are still right about the time twice a day. Hell, until the last few years I even thought Clinton's surpluses were a good provision for the future which Bush proceeded to squander. And I remember wondering in a post on ET why Bill Clinton had to go along with the repeal of Glass Steagall until Bruce McF explained it to me. It is painful to be so naive at 65. And in Bill Clinton's defense, his response to Rubin's explanation of why he needed to 'keep the bond guys happy' showed how little he understood about finance and its impact on politics. And he was already POTUS.

I think most older Sander's supporters have a similar memory of having loved the Clintons back in their days and of having defended them against the RW Foam Machine. They WERE better than what went before in so many ways. But, eventually, at least for some of us, the scales fall from our eyes. And that does not mean that we now believe the RW was right all along. As Bertrand Russell said about a century, 'A correct belief held without reason or for the wrong reason is just one more lie masquerading in the words that utter a truth'.    

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Jun 7th, 2016 at 03:42:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
BINGO.  I backed them in '92 and I backed them again in '96, in spite of their nonaccomplishments, sell-outs, and the fact that I could see professionally that the federalization of criminal law that Bilious Bill had achieved was going to be a bad thing.  But now I'm sick to death of that crap.  And I'm damned if I'm going to put up with a mob of little Hillbot snots who are too young and callow to actually remember a Clinton White House accuse me of being anti-Hillary because I just don't understand her, and I'm also damned if I'm going to put up with a mob of apparently senile Hillbot seniors who either can't or won't remember what the DLC/DNC has done to the Democratic Party for three decades and what happened in '68 and thereafter, the last time the party bosses smacked down a grass roots movement.
by rifek on Wed Jun 8th, 2016 at 08:50:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Honestly, I figure she will be .. very, very like Obama in office. From across the sea, effectively indistinguishable as far as policies go. This is overall bad news for the US, because it means she'll do nothing to rein in the financial sector. But it beats the heck out of Trumph.
by Thomas on Sat Jun 11th, 2016 at 12:14:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series