|-|>

by Eszter Hargittai on June 8, 2016

A friend I saw today is not ready to celebrate, because he doesn’t want to jinx it. I, however, am very much in a celebratory mood and wanted to mark the important occasion here.


Ezra Klein does a nice job reflecting on Hillary Clinton’s political savvy. While the following is not a new revelation, it is important to continue pointing out: the gendered nature of elections is stacked against women in so many ways, it is hard to appreciate. It is exhausting just to think about it, never mind come up against it day in and day out, year after year, and still manage to garner so much support. Bravo, Secretary Clinton!


In case anyone still needs clarification:


Also:


Create your avatar of support here.

I know CT readers like to comment so how about discussing VP possibilities? WaPo has put together a list. Thoughts?

(Perhaps not shockingly, some men took credit for the emoji illustration above soon after Laura Olin posted it.)

{ 300 comments }

1

Brian Weatherson 06.08.16 at 10:17 pm

Every cycle I have the same hope for the VP: it won’t be a white male, and it will be someone from the west.

Unless I’ve missed someone, the Democratic Party has never in its history nominated, for President or Vice-President, a candidate from the Mountain or Pacific Time Zones. That seems like a huge oversight.

And they have only four times (Ferraro 84, Obama 08/12, Clinton 16) nominated someone who wasn’t a white male.

Putting those two together, I’d like to see Xavier Becerra or maybe Kamala Harris selected out of the ones on the list.

At the very least, I hope there is more attention to western candidates than is usual. The WaPo post you link to at least provides 4 options; the recent NYT article had a long list of names that was basically Julian Castro and a bunch of East Coasters.

2

oldster 06.08.16 at 10:19 pm

She is a very admirable person in many ways. Tough-minded, focused, knowledgeable, and smart. She has the talent and training to do a very good job as president, and I hope she will.

Having Obama as president has been a huge source of satisfaction to me. He has done an immense amount of good, and has provoked his opponents into showing exactly how wicked, stupid, and retrograde they are. I have hopes that Hillary’s presidency will do even more good, and show up even more evil.

3

harry b 06.08.16 at 10:35 pm

4

Alan White 06.08.16 at 10:54 pm

Thank you Eszter (if I may). The fact that it’s entirely possible that this election may be competitive is depressing enough and, if it turns out that way, then it will be an indictment of the US electorate along several different dimensions.

Bloix and oldster: hear hear!

5

Eszter Hargittai 06.08.16 at 10:55 pm

Harry, a friend of mine just posted a

Hillary 2016

Beyonce


sticker on her Facebook wall today so who knows?

6

gocart mozart 06.08.16 at 11:31 pm

1. Tom Perez (Labor Sec)
2. Chris Murphy (Sen CT)
[Warren and Sharod Brown are more valuable in Senate and would be replaced by R Gov]

7

Tabasco 06.08.16 at 11:59 pm

Clinton’s campaign theme will be how scary and risky Trump is. Ergo, she will pick the whitest, safest, most boring man available: step up, Tim Kaine!

8

Sebastian H 06.09.16 at 12:11 am

Klein isn’t specific enough. Clinton is a master of intra party politics. How that translates is to be determined.

9

derrida derider 06.09.16 at 12:56 am

Yep, she needs a boring old white male from a swing state as her VP, but also one that is renowned for his personal charm to offset her perceived lack of it.

Bill Clinton – step up!

10

Chris G 06.09.16 at 12:57 am

BLUF*: My preference would be O’Malley or Patrick, conceivably Klobuchar or Franken.

My reasoning:
1. Strong preference for a (former) Governor or (former) Senator. The VP needs to be able to step in if something happens to the President. With that in mind, I want someone who has had relatively high level government experience and – preferably – foreign policy experience.
2. Patrick and O’Malley both seem like liberal-leaning competent technocratic managers. The VP doesn’t need to be inspiring. They need to be capable. Both of them fit the bill. Patrick was a pretty decent manager as MA Gov. My understanding though is that he doesn’t want to get back into politics. How’d O’Malley do when he was mayor of Baltimore?
3. I have a vaguely positive impression of Klobuchar but I’d need to learn a bit more about her and about MN politics before preferring she or Franken to Patrick or O’Malley.
4. I like Sherrod Brown a lot but gocart mozart (@7) nails the downside of selecting Brown. Brown is up for re-election this year too, yes?
5. Sanders and Warren are much greater assets in the Senate than they would be as VP. No. (See also gocart mozart’s point re Warren.)
6. Bloomberg, Cuomo, McAuliffe, Byah, Warner: May as well just flip me and other Sanders supporters the bird. (I don’t know too much about Kaine but I suspect that upon investigation he’d fall into that camp as well.)
7. Shaheen: Meh. Vice presidential but I don’t see her as up to the task being President.
8. Vilsack and Napolitano: Not as familiar with them as Shaheen but similar impression.
9. Biden: Current VP and former Senator. I’d be good with him. Would he do it again?
10. Becerra and Foxx: I know nothing about them but they don’t pass my Gov/Sen litmus test.
11. Castro, Castro, Salazar: Don’t know them beyond knowing their names and what positions they hold. Don’t pass the Gov/Sen test.
12. Booker: Corporate shill. No thanks.
13. De Blasio: Seems like a nice guy and well-intentioned but not presidential material.
14. Harris: Premature. Get her elected to the Senate and maybe in 2024.

*BLUF = Bottom Line Up Front

11

RNB 06.09.16 at 1:14 am

I am guessing that victory depends less than on winning the majority of independents than on turning out the constituencies that identify with your campaign. So the challenge seems to be turning out women, Black and Latino voters. She may still have to split the independent vote.

If yesterday is an indication, she will inspire moderate to liberal women to support her historic candidacy. Would not be surprised along with others here if she went with Thomas Perez or Julian Castro or Xavier Becerra. A Latino VP strengthens the attack against Trump in obvious ways.

12

js. 06.09.16 at 1:28 am

Everyone’s so well behaved! (Tho maybe a couple of comments got deleted?) Anyway, I thought the smart money was on Warren at this point.

13

Layman 06.09.16 at 1:31 am

None of the insiders have IMO any appeal. I’m guessing it will be Sherrod Brown, because 1) on the bus early and often, and 2) Ohio.

14

Tabasco 06.09.16 at 1:33 am

Julian Castro

If she picks Julian Castro, Trump will flood Florida with advertising that says “Hillary is a communist! Castro is her running mate!” And that will be enough to give Trump Florida’s 29 electoral votes.

15

J-D 06.09.16 at 1:35 am

‘Unless I’ve missed someone, the Democratic Party has never in its history nominated, for President or Vice-President, a candidate from the Mountain or Pacific Time Zones.’

Correct. Although in 1860 the breakaway Southern Democrats did nominate Joseph Lane of Oregon for Vice-President.

16

Flowers 06.09.16 at 1:40 am

As someone who has always appreciated EH’s post, I ask these questions genuinely, not to start an unproductive flamewar, based on the tweets she quotes approvingly.

Is Hillary Clinton’s “entire political career”, something to celebrate? It seems very difficult to brush off the support for Iraq and the devastating effects of welfare reform on the lives of millions. Outside of the conservative bubble, it seems uncontroversial to say that these were massive sources of unnecessary human suffering. If that’s the price the political system asks for a symbolic victory then shouldn’t we be trying to upend the system? And if not should we consider the election of Margaret Thatcher a minor victory (maybe we should)?

Aside from her gender, Hillary has been a status quo politician. What are the gains that can be envisioned from the symbolism of having a woman atop the status quo? To my eyes it seems unlikely that those further down the kyriarchy will see many tangible benefits from an HRC victory but maybe I’m missing something.

17

LFC 06.09.16 at 1:44 am

derrida derrider @10
LOL

18

Chris G 06.09.16 at 1:50 am

@js (06.09.16 1:28 am):

I don’t think Warren is it. She and Clinton don’t see eye to eye and whoever replaces her in the Senate would be a downgrade.

Gov. Charlie Baker is a Republican and would almost certainly appoint a Republican to fill her seat until the special election to replace her. As far as a permanent replacement goes, former Gov. Deval Patrick and current Congressman Mike Capuano would be good – not as good as Warren but good – but Patrick has indicated that he’s not particularly interested in getting back into politics and Capuano got his head handed to him by Martha Coakley (who subsequently lost to Scott Brown who lost his re-election bid to Warren) when he ran to be the Democratic nominee to replace Kennedy. Not sure Capuano will run again or how he’d fare if he did. The short list of likely Democratic nominees to replace Warren is probably Seti Warren, Deb Goldberg, Seth Moulton, Niki Tsongas, and Stephen Lynch. (Maybe I missed someone and maybe I’m too generous to include Warren and Goldberg.) Not particularly strong or popular candidates. If Baker decided to run for the seat he’d have a pretty good shot at winning.

That and Warren is a great asset in the Senate. Making her VP would undermine her authority. Clinton would not be doing Democrats or non-Democrat progressives any favors by selecting Warren.

19

politicalfootball 06.09.16 at 2:01 am

The arguments against Warren as VP have a great deal of validity:

-Warren would be sorely missed as a Senator
-She’s probably too old to succeed Hillary as president
-She doesn’t balance the ticket in the traditional sense.
-Hillary isn’t a gambler by temperament, and doesn’t need to roll the dice on an unconventional pick given the Republicans’ disarray

But those minuses are overcome because:

-Massachusetts is reasonably well-positioned to elect a suitable replacement Senator. (The Boston Globe, however, lays out the challenges facing a Democrat given that Massachusetts has a Republican governor.)
-Al Gore didn’t balance the ticket with Bill Clinton, but the selection of Gore sent a message that the ticket didn’t need balancing.
-Warren would solidify support among liberals, giving Hillary a little more room to move right, as I suspect she would like to do.
-Warren is incredible! She has created a national stage as a first-term senator, and would be tremendous in the Biden role of loudmouth loose cannon commenting from the sidelines.

Mind you, I don’t think it can happen. I think any politician is going to see the minuses I’ve described above as outweighing the pluses. But gosh, I sure would love to see it.

20

js. 06.09.16 at 2:12 am

I only meant to gesture at the fact that some fairly astute political commentators, on Twittet e.g., seem to think it’ll be Warren. Obviously, they could be wrong. Equally obviously, even if they’re right, it could be a bad choice in one way or another.

21

js. 06.09.16 at 2:14 am

Fuck. Twitter.

22

F. Foundling 06.09.16 at 2:20 am

Sounds as if the OP should be read as implicitly banning any commenting on its actual contents (unless agreeing) and only endorsing discussion of VPs. Since the contents are fairly controversial and consciously so, this seems quite … impressive. Indeed, it’s beyond me how anyone could find it appropriate to post comments on such terms, even if they agree with the OP and are sincerely interested in the issue of VPs.

23

Omega Centauri 06.09.16 at 2:30 am

The younger cohorts (under roughly 40) really want an economic populist. Thats why they went strongly for Sanders, and their support cannot be taken for granted. I think Warren would best send the message to this group. If they don’t vote in decent numbers out goose could be cooked.

24

Rich Puchalsky 06.09.16 at 2:45 am

“Sounds as if the OP should be read as implicitly banning any commenting on its actual contents (unless agreeing)”

Just part of the general “ha ha you suck Bernie Bros” that’s going on right now. HRC is nearly guaranteed to win against Trump and there’s no point in even pretending that the Democratic Party needs people to the left.

25

Bruce Wilder 06.09.16 at 2:52 am

Apparently the 2008 primary decided the next 16 years and that’s final

26

Bruce Wilder 06.09.16 at 2:53 am

But, yeah democracy!

27

Chris G 06.09.16 at 2:54 am

@Rich (06.09.16 2:45 am):

Clinton will be the nominee. I’m not happy about it but I’m not going to expend any energy getting worked up over it. Water (presumably) under the bridge. Time to shift focus to getting good (Sanders/Warren-type) candidates elected at the state and local level, think about getting good people to run for House and Senate seats in 2018. That Sanders won as many states as he did gives me hope that candidates can run and win on the same basic platform he has. That he won by huge margins with younger voters also gives me hope. DC wasn’t going to get rebuilt in a day and neither are state legislatures. His campaign has created a lot to build on.

See also Corey Robin’s “Bile, Bullshit, and Bernie” – https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democratic-primary-president-caucus/ See in particular his Item #16.

28

LFC 06.09.16 at 2:58 am

I’d bet HRC won’t pick a woman to run w her for roughly the same reason Obama did not pick an African-American to run w him: for pragmatic reasons, she wants the electorate to take the historic first in its stride, so to speak, and not underline or re-emphasize the historic novelty via the whole ticket. Perhaps too calculating, and thus I might be wrong, but’s that how I’d bet. Not the ideal way to pick a v.p. perhaps but I think one shd recognize these things are probably considered.

29

Eszter Hargittai 06.09.16 at 3:19 am

Flowers, I know of no politicians with whose every move, comment, and decision I agree. That does not mean I cannot be supportive of and enthusiastic about a candidate. I didn’t read that quote from that tweet the way you did. I read it as pointing out that there is much more to Hillary Clinton than the fact that she’s a woman. (Case in point, I had zero interest in supporting Sarah Palin regardless of her gender.) Indeed, there have been various initiatives over the years trying to get “a” woman in the White House, which seems problematic since simply being a woman does not guarantee an interest in and focus on policies with which I would agree. I read that tweet as simply highlighting that it is not just because of Clinton’s gender that people support her.

derrida derider, :-)

Thanks for the various thoughts on why Warren is unlikely to be the choice, good points there.

I feel like Biden is a definite possibility. Like Chris G notes though, not sure if he’d do it again.

30

RNB 06.09.16 at 3:29 am

@25

a. One could take issue with the OP and argue that nomination of the first woman by a major party for President is not an important historic moment. Or only identity politics makes it so, and identity politics is the politics of slavery by another name, as Jeffery Lord would say.

b. Or one could argue against the OP that the gendered nature of elections is not stacked against women. Or at least not significantly so. Or that Sanders faced an even more stacked deck.

c. one could argue that a significant number of people did indeed vote for her only because she is a woman

d. one could argue that voting for Clinton would be harmful since that will only make her inevitable win a mandate which (her having a mandate) will make possible some very terrible things.

e. one could take issue with the Ezra Klein piece

f. one could try to explain why Sanders lost so badly in NJ and California where he has been camped out for the last two weeks–I was not expecting that.

But I don’t think one should complain about being implicitly banned by the Clinton supporters.

31

RNB 06.09.16 at 3:31 am

At any rate I now see that @17 and @30 show that there has been no implicit ban of debate.

32

Bruce Wilder 06.09.16 at 3:37 am

dd @ 10

constitutionally, that would require an admission that they’ve separated, plus Bill is not eligible to serve as POTUS

In 2000, Cheney pretended he was not living in Texas, and — professional courtesy and always ready to be bf’d, the Dems did not object, but . . .

The key to H’s choice is to avoid kindling any eagerness to replace her. Obama chose someone who had already established to every one’s satisfaction except Biden’s own that there was absolutely no desire in the country to see Biden as P. Is there such a person now? Martin O’Malley seemed presentable, but curiously unpopular.

33

RNB 06.09.16 at 3:43 am

On the Iraq War, I think what Clinton can be blamed for–along with politicians in both parties–is support for the sanctions on Iraq that terribly damaged the country. She has apologized for her vote to give Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq but not for what the sanctions did to the Iraqi people. HRC did warn Bush against misusing that authorization in exactly the ways that he did and I don’t think it’s likely that she would have ordered the occupation of Iraq had she been President. But she is responsible for the harm the sanctions did to the Iraqi people and for not even worrying about what they were doing to the country. I fault Bernie Sanders on the same grounds.

In terms of the welfare and social policy I think she would be much better than the Republicans and Matt Yglesias said that Sanders’ welfare proposals look an awful lot like what Clinton is proposing. They both wanted to reduce racial differentials in drug sentencing. Sanders wanted to do it retroactively, Clinton going forward. That’s an important difference but there is a huge gulf between them and the Republicans on this issue of drugs as well as the response to the opioid crisis.

34

Rich Puchalsky 06.09.16 at 3:44 am

“there has been no implicit ban of debate”

No one has bothered to actually debate, because that’s not the point of this post. If there was going to be debate, it would have to start with obvious things like the only argument that HRC has presented to the left to vote for her over Trump is that Trump is horrible, and that the only argument that HRC presented to the left to vote for her over Sanders was that you were sexist if you didn’t. (And David Brock in his way did a bit of “you’re racist if you don’t vote for HRC” too.) And of course RNB followed along with that here.

And this post follows in that line. There’s nothing in particular in it about HRC, other than that she’s a woman who has succeeded within the system. Thatcher was a woman. And of course Palin was a woman too, but on the wrong side of the tribal divide, so the bombs that Palin would have dropped would have killed people for the wrong reasons, unlike the bombs that HRC will have dropped that will kill people for the right reasons.

I’ll be sure to bookmark this post and quote it later after the first bombings. Then we can all get mad all over again about those men who stole credit for those emojis.

35

RNB 06.09.16 at 3:51 am

@35 Now if few people take seriously enough what you have written about Clinton=Palin on bombing people to even bother to respond, that would not mean you have been implicitly banned.

36

engels 06.09.16 at 3:59 am

But I don’t think one should complain about being implicitly banned by the Clinton supporters.

Last try and then I’ll give up for good. I posted four lines of anti-Clinton emojis in response to the pro-Clinton emojis and they appeared then vanished. I posted a comment noting the removal of the first without referencing its contents and that has also disappeared. And I am now seemingly in the Kafkaesque position of reading people discuss the fact that there has been no prevention of disagreement whilst being prevented from disagreeing with them. The emojis were not rude in any way and referenced Clinton’s imperialism, as a rejoinder to the reference to her gender in the emojis in the OP, and the second comment was only mildly sarcastic. I’m happy not to comment further but if I have been banned I am completely in the dark as to why.

37

Flowers 06.09.16 at 4:01 am

@ Ezster, upon rereading the comment I agree with your interpretation of the tweet.

However, when you state @30 “I know of no politicians with whose every move, comment, and decision I agree. That does not mean I cannot be supportive of and enthusiastic about a candidate.”

I could agree with this if we were talking about a small tax concession in order to pass a fiscal bill, or not coming out strongly enough in favour of a progressive social issue due to pragmatic electoral concerns. But the Iraq war has killed around 180 000 *civilian* men, women and children through violence. Likewise the “welfare reforms” of the 1990s spiked extreme poverty, disproportionately hurting women and children.

These images of death, poverty, and lost futures, are far too visceral for me. HRC didn’t stand idly by while these happened, she advocated for them and I can see little evidence that her disposition in power would be any less hawkish or poor punishing. Any enthusiasm I had to finally see a woman atop the political system is overwhelmed by the fact that the aforementioned political system has rewarded advocacy of such widespread immiseration as ‘experience’.

38

Lyle 06.09.16 at 4:11 am

RNB,

I’m not at all convinced that Palin and Clinton wouldn’t bomb most of the same people for most of the same reasons.

39

Rich Puchalsky 06.09.16 at 4:22 am

Chris G: “Time to shift focus to getting good (Sanders/Warren-type) candidates elected at the state and local level […] His campaign has created a lot to build on.”

Actually, I don’t think that it has. Sanders was never as far as I know an organizer or party builder, and I don’t see that he’s going to leave any particular infrastructure behind. The appeal of his campaign was mainly due to differences in generational experience, which is something that won’t go away but also something that he didn’t create.

Vox has another article helpfully in the end notes off the Klein article in the OP about how the Democrats are becoming the favored party of the wealthy. Eventually realignment will happen, but I don’t see any major politician particularly preparing for it.

40

PatinIowa 06.09.16 at 4:25 am

I don’t know whether Ed Rendell is actually a Clinton “surrogate,” but apparently Warren lacks enough “experience in foreign policy,” to be president. (Sounds to me suspiciously like “She’s a girl.” YMMV.)

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282815-clinton-surrogate-warren-not-in-any-way-shape-or-form

I doubt very much if Clinton picks another woman, and I’d be mildly surprised if she picks a POC who codes as such. I read her as cautious to a fault, and I expect her campaign to accumulate money and let Trump scare the hell out of everybody. (That’s what scares me. It’ll probably work, but if you’re content to win 17-10, sometimes weird things happen. And Trump is weird.)

My feeling is that if she picks Warren, the benefit to Clinton is that it’ll shut Warren up about the Wall Street money that’s about to come rolling in.

I honestly don’t see what’s in it for Warren. If she wants to run for President, she’s better off in the Senate, and if she wants to be effective, the same is true.

I think we can all agree that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is out, right?

41

RNB 06.09.16 at 4:26 am

On welfare Clinton did support new work requirements but as a part of deal to get $8 bn more to help poor women with child care. I get this off the wikipedia page. One can fault her for the compromise, but jeez Sanders said he signed the Crime Bill to get the provisions to protect women against violence. She’s an ordinary deal-making, compromising Democratic politician but still galaxies far away from what the Republicans are offering. I responded to her Iraq vote @34.

42

RNB 06.09.16 at 4:31 am

From the beginning of this very long debate about the Democratic nomination process, I always thought that the differences between Clinton and Sanders were not that great and the differences in what they could accomplish were not that great. I thought from the outset that the real issue was electability.

I had less nervousness about a candidate whom I thought had a very good chance of turning out a historic women’s vote and turning out the Latino vote and the Black vote than a candidate who depended on getting a a good majority of the independent vote and turning out the young in historic fashion. I was very nervous about relying on a historic youth turnout. So I supported Clinton. I thought Sanders could lose the enthusiasm of the Latinos due to his immigration votes if he ever were hit really hard about this and that he would have a hard time defending himself against the tax-and-spend charge, to say nothing of his associations with socialist governments, in the media blitz before the election.

The one debate he got hit hard with questions was the one in the Florida, and after what I thought was a real test in the debate he lost badly in Ohio and Florida as well as (?) Illinois and Missouri, I think. I worried about his ability to take a real punch. And not doing well in Ohio and Florida really made me worry; those are two very important swing states. For all these reasons I did not take Sanders’ advantage in head-to-head polls with Trump seriously, and thought it could evaporate upon attack.

It was my belief that Clinton’s rating wasn’t getting any lower, and she already could beat Trump.
Sanders spent a lot of time and money in New York and California and lost badly.

I do not think he was as strong an electoral candidate as his supporters thought. Interestingly he never released five years of his full tax filings. This could have been to hide a big severance package his wife received as she was running Burlington College into the ground. This could be a small matter compared to the charge of corruption via the Clinton Foundation and the email issue, but he depended on having a squeaky-clean image to get votes.

Trump was more of a threat when I made my decision whom to support. I went with the person whom I thought was the safer candidate to defeat him and have taken my fair share of blows for this stance on this list.

This does indicate what an existential threat I took Trump to be from the outset. I am happy to see him finally imploding, but I am still cautious.

43

Consumatopia 06.09.16 at 4:39 am

Ezra Klein seemed to be arguing that building up relationships with party insiders is a “less masculine strategy” than appealing directly to voters via rhetoric and charisma, and that sexism is a bigger obstacle for the latter strategy than the former.

I thought Carl Beijer made a pretty good argument last year that the opposite was the case–that good ole’ boy networks of men make it much harder for women to find the resources (money, connections) to run for office, but once they get on the ballot voters have no problems voting for them, especially in Democratic primaries.

This isn’t to minimize Clinton’s accomplishment–in fact it makes it more impressive that she’s managed dominate a still mostly male party establishment. But we shouldn’t be so quick to assume that Clinton’s strengths–and weaknesses–are widely shared among women. In particular, we shouldn’t assume too quickly that party processes favoring “a campaign of relationships, not speeches”, as Klein put it, would be good for female politicians generally.

44

bad Jim 06.09.16 at 4:41 am

Elsewhere I reveled in the notion of Warren as VP, even though it’s a less powerful position than Senator or Secretary, just because it would make her the presumptive successor, but she may be too old for that.

How about John Kerry? No one else has suggested him. He’s presidential material, or at least we used to think so, and he’ll have more experience and gravitas than any conceivable Republican opponent. He needs a job, and the minimal duties of the Vice President would probably be preferable to either retirement or private employment.

45

derrida derider 06.09.16 at 4:46 am

Jokes about VPs aside (and yes, some candidates are a joke) all I have to say to Sanders supporters about HRC is:

3 SCOTUS appointments likely in the next few years.

So what RNB said. Get out & vote for her in November.

46

glory 06.09.16 at 4:56 am

clinton/sanders yo, obvs.

47

Sandwichman 06.09.16 at 5:07 am

Free Chelsea Manning.

48

Tabasco 06.09.16 at 5:08 am

3 SCOTUS appointments likely in the next few years

There’s no way Alito and Thomas are retiring if a Dem is in the White House. And if they die, the Repubs will prop up their corpses, Weekend at Bernie’s style. With Thomas, no one will be able to tell the difference.

Apparently the 2008 primary decided the next 16 years and that’s final

Posts like this have the faint whiff of Germans 1945-75 who never accepted the Oder-Neisse line.

49

Sandwichman 06.09.16 at 5:12 am

Jerry Brown for VP. Because he is 78 and because nobody has mentioned him, ever.

50

Consumatopia 06.09.16 at 5:13 am

Damn it, both parties should just embrace court packing so we quit whining about SCOTUS and also the exponentially increasing number of justices would be a great jobs program.

51

robotslave 06.09.16 at 5:19 am

@42

You’ve got a fascinating position there– “There is no notable reason prefer one candidate or the other, but you should pick the one I support because The People will notably prefer that candidate over the other.”

I’m not criticizing your pick here; I’m suggesting the argument you’ve presented in support of it is at best a bit tautological.

52

Flowers 06.09.16 at 5:20 am

@ 41RNB – I suspect that where we differ is in our faith in the ability of the current system and actors within it to address problems.

As you say :”She’s an ordinary deal-making, compromising Democratic politician but still galaxies far away from what the Republicans are offering.” On the assumption that the major issues of the day were capable of being solved within the framework of a Democrat making pragmatic deals to get things done then Hillary Clinton is a fine candidate. This is the argument you make for HRC on both Iraq and Welfare – she did the best she could within the systemic constraints. Kevin Drum makes the most persuasive form of this argument and I’m somewhat partial to it.

However there seems more evidence that the model of democracies where the pragmatic politicians of the centre-left make deals with the centre-right and we all muddle through is failing. Not just in the US but in virtually all advanced democracies, hard left and hard right wing parties are on the rise due to dissatisfaction with the *system* – in the US the mainstream of the two parties. Relating to this I’d encourage you to read Henry Farrell’s essay in Aeon a few years ago [1]. It seems to me highly unlikely that a status quo politician negotiating with Republicans in the manner that has occurred over the last 30 years will be able to take the actions necessary to make the dramatic changes to the political system as a whole that are needed.

So to return to the initial points HRC maybe made a pragmatic decision *within* the system, however the system is so dysfunctional and immiserating at this stage that its preservation is likely to at best kick the can down the road and the current dysfunction and polarization will remain.

Perhaps you can make the argument that she’ll change the system from within but I really can’t imagine her using the political institutions as they currently exist to force through a dramatic redistribution of wealth, decarbonise the economy or stand up to an over-interventionist defense/foreign policy establishment (which she seems thoroughly part of).

[1] https://aeon.co/essays/the-left-is-now-too-weak-for-democracy-to-survive

53

J-D 06.09.16 at 5:39 am

Rich Puchalsky @35

‘I’ll be sure to bookmark this post and quote it later after the first bombings.’

Will this undertaking still hold good in the context of a Trump Presidency?

54

RNB 06.09.16 at 5:41 am

OK I’ll read the Farrell essay which does look very interesting and Part III of Poulantzas’s State, Power and Socialism too…

55

J-D 06.09.16 at 5:54 am

Flowers @52

Question 1: of the following four possibilities, which is most likely to contribute to bringing about systemic change: people voting for the Democratic nominee; people voting for the Republican nominee; people voting for somebody else; people not voting?
Answer: None of them.

Question 2: of the following four possibilities, which is most likely to hinder systemic change: people voting for the Democratic nominee; people voting for the Republican nominee; people voting for somebody else; people not voting?
Answer: None of them.

And yet, people are going to do one of those four things. The choices they make between those four possibilities will not make any difference to the likelihood of systemic change; but that’s not the same as saying that they will make no difference at all.

56

Sumana Harihareswara 06.09.16 at 6:19 am

I am going to use this comment to daydream about VP candidates who are incredibly unlikely.

Lawrence Lessig
Vanita Gupta
Tim Wu
Neal Katyal

57

Flowers 06.09.16 at 6:22 am

J-D @ 52

Could you state more explicitly what your point is?

I think you’re trying to say that people’s voting actions are unlikely to influence systemic change at all, but they can make a nonzero difference on the quality of the extant system. The implication being that one should vote for Hillary Clinton so as to make the most of the little influence that one has. Is that correct?

58

Doug 06.09.16 at 6:36 am

There is a certain precedent for having two people of the same gender on the presidential ticket.

Hillary is going to paint Trump as the past, and position her campaign as the future. Choosing a running mate in her 40s or 50s would reinforce that image, and continue the work of building the Democratic Party. Demographically, I would say that her ideal VP pick is a woman of color somewhere between her late 40s to mid-50s.

Female Democrats are governors in New Hampshire, Oregon, and Rhode Island. NH and RI are too small, and too northeastern. Oregon would mean someone from the West, but she moved up to the governorship when the previous governor resigned in scandal; I think not.

Senators: Mikulski (MD), Feinstein (CA), Boxer (CA), Murray (WA), probably too old for the job. Cantwell (WA) western!, Stabenow (MI), Klobuchar (MN) as mentioned above, McCaskill (MO) probably too conservative, Shaheen (NH) again with the Northeast, Gillibrand (NY) same state as Clinton, Hirono (HI), Warren (MA) as discussed above, Heitkamp (ND) probably too conservative, Baldwin (WI). All of the Senators and governors are white, except Hirono.

There are 84 women currently serving in the US House of Representatives; 62 of them are Democrats. The congresswomen include 32 women of color: 18 African-American women, 5 Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 9 Latinas. I haven’t looked through their ranks comprehensively, so there might be some surprises. Alma Adams looked interesting: African-American, NC is a swing state, great name – Clinton/Adams would be like a throwback to the Constitutional Convention. But she’s 70. Donna Edwards just lost a tough Senate primary, but seems to have significant progressive support. Michelle Lujan Grisham looks very interesting: NM, so both western and a swing state, Hispanic, mid-50s.

What about mayors? I looked for women among mayors of the 100 largest US cities and came up with some rough and ready observations. The biggest obstacle for most of them is that they have not been in office very long.

Ivy Taylor, Mayor of San Antonio, one of the 10 largest cities in the US. Black, age 46, second woman to be elected Mayor of San Antonio, first African-American elected to the position. Officially non-partisan, only in office since 2014.
Jennifer W. Roberts, Mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina. Major city in a potential swing state. Career includes time as a US diplomat. Only in office since 2015.
Megan Barry, Mayor of Nashville. First woman to hold the post. MBA, professional work in healthcare and ethics. Only in office since 2015.
Betsy Hodges, Mayor of Minneapolis. Only in office since 2014.
Nelda Martinez, Mayor of Corpus Christi, Texas. Hispanic. Only in office since 2012.
Nancy Vaughan, Mayor of Greensboro, North Carolina. Potential swing state. Only in office since 2013.
Hillary Schieve, Mayor of Reno, Nevada. Swing state, age 46. Officially non-partisan but endorsed by Nevada Democratic Party, only in office since 2014.

59

J-D 06.09.16 at 6:59 am

Flowers @56

‘I think you’re trying to say that people’s voting actions are unlikely to influence systemic change at all, but they can make a nonzero difference on the quality of the extant system. The implication being that one should vote for Hillary Clinton so as to make the most of the little influence that one has. Is that correct?’

You’re conflating two issues there. The statement that ‘people’s voting actions are unlikely to influence systemic change at all, but they can make a nonzero difference on the quality of the extant system’ is pretty close to being paraphrase of what I wrote: I would have hoped that it would be obvious that I agreed with it. I deliberately did not follow up with any recommendation relating to the available choices. I don’t see that you need to know which choice I would recommend in the forthcoming elections in order to evaluate the assertion that it does make a difference. If I offer recommendations, will you exploit the opportunity to change the subject?

60

Sebastian H 06.09.16 at 7:31 am

“This isn’t to minimize Clinton’s accomplishment–in fact it makes it more impressive that she’s managed dominate a still mostly male party establishment. But we shouldn’t be so quick to assume that Clinton’s strengths–and weaknesses–are widely shared among women. In particular, we shouldn’t assume too quickly that party processes favoring “a campaign of relationships, not speeches”, as Klein put it, would be good for female politicians generally.”

She really is gifted at intra party politics, but there was another Clinton who you seem to be forgetting in that narrative.

61

novakant 06.09.16 at 8:00 am

She should pick Sanders of course, but I’m afraid it will be Lloyd Blankfein.

62

T 06.09.16 at 9:54 am

Her (and Bill’s) political brilliance was keeping Warren, Brown, and Biden out of the race. She would have lost to all three just like she lost to Obama. She is so disliked it took her to June to beat Bernie who had little name recognition before the primaries.

63

Phil 06.09.16 at 9:54 am

Everyone’s so well behaved! (Tho maybe a couple of comments got deleted?)

Mine certainly was.

64

Lee A. Arnold 06.09.16 at 10:01 am

HRC is constrained to pick someone for VP with very strong foreign policy knowledge, who will also memorize all of Trump’s contradictory nonsense on every other issue too, and keep repeating it endlessly before audiences. All of the Democrats had better start, this very moment.

65

J-D 06.09.16 at 10:18 am

The comments policy is abundantly clear (and reasonable): ‘We welcome comments from readers on posts, but you do so as guests in our private space. Concepts of “censorship” are not applicable. … It is up to us.’

66

Collin Street 06.09.16 at 10:24 am

Comment-disappearing is a pretty bad idea, because it doesn’t fix structural problems wrt disagreement about acceptable standards of discourse. Just patches over the problem.

[you need negative feedback to tell you where the boundaries are, which means the negative feedback needs to be visible. Better still if you can see the negative feedback engendered by the actions of others, because then everyone’s learning from the mistakes that everyone makes rather than just their own. Disappearing comments… I barely remember what I did post, can’t be expected to notice it if it’s gone: this means that disappearing my posts leaves me with no sign I’ve done wrong. If I can’t learn from my mistakes, and if I can’t learn from others’ mistakes… then I can’t from any mistakes, and so can’t learn to avoid any mistakes. Not good.]

If you want to get rid of undesired content, disemvowel or delete stuff, but leave some token of “this was a bad choice X made”.

67

Rich Puchalsky 06.09.16 at 10:31 am

dd @ 45: “all I have to say to Sanders supporters about HRC is: […] 3 SCOTUS appointments likely in the next few years.”

Judges on the Supreme Court are usually elderly: there is hardly ever a period of a few years when some appointment is not likely. This argument will never fail for as long as the GOP is horrible. As such it’s merely a subset of “Vote for HRC because Trump is horrible.”

If anyone cares then I’ve already written here far too many times that if I was going to bother to vote at all, I’d vote for HRC on global warming grounds and because the Democratic base has better politics than the GOP base. So I’m not writing that the two parties are identical in any way. But this celebration of the primary win because HRC is a woman is also a celebration of all the people who will predictably be killed by HRC, because I don’t think that there was exact equivalence between candidates and bases between Clinton and Sanders either. If we have to vote for HRC as the lesser evil, knowing that by doing so we’re condemning thousands or hundreds of thousands of people to death “for the greater good”, let’s at least see it as the disgusting occasion that it is, not a celebratory one.

68

Soullite 06.09.16 at 10:35 am

Oh, look. Upper class twit women trying to convince each other that they are history’s greatest victims, instead of history’s most protected class of people.

69

Soullite 06.09.16 at 10:37 am

lmao, this always happens when feminists take over. They institute draconian censorship policies because their beliefs cannot stand up to criticism. It happens everywhere they gain a position of power — everywhere.

If feminists didn’t have the elite pushing so hard, their ideology would go nowhere. It has no public support. It only has a bunch of rich people pushing it in schools, in politics, and in the corporate world. The overwhelming majority of men disagree with it. The majority of women disagree with it.

And yet somehow, feminists convince themselves that they are fighting the very power structures rigging things up for them.

70

Soullite 06.09.16 at 10:41 am

It is censorship. Censorship is any removal of other people’s abilities to speak. That’s the definition of censorship.

You can pretend that it’s justified here, but you don’t have the right to change the definitions of words. It’s censorship, and this is why people have always rejected feminism, and why they increasingly reject the left.

This is what has made academia a joke — the notion that only other people (people who disagree with academic leftists) should have their preconceived notions challenged. This is why Trump is pulling even, because people are sick of the doublethink. They are sick of liberals making rules only other people have to follow.

71

Rich Puchalsky 06.09.16 at 10:44 am

One more comment in response to J-D, then I should stop — I figured that engels’ comments were deleted because of some CT technical issue, not deliberately, but with Phil saying it happened too it’s more likely that it was deliberate. CT posters have the right to delete anything they like from comments threads but I also have the right not to validate a thread by continuing to comment in it, and I should have trusted my judgement that this thread was likely to be edited in this way.

J-D: “Will this undertaking still hold good in the context of a Trump Presidency?”

It depends on why we get an (unlikely) Trump Presidency. The more likely reason for this unlikely result is that HRC can’t convince young voters to turn out for her and is in general a bad campaigner, and if that’s the reason then yes, this post will stand as a fine illustration of how in victory Clinton supporters really had nothing better to do than to rehearse their resentments about Bernie Bros and their impossible desire for political perfection.

72

Igor Belanov 06.09.16 at 11:06 am

I think the time for feminists to get excited might be if the Democratic Party adopts a presidential candidate who is both female and not a former First Lady with impeccable establishment connections.

73

JimV 06.09.16 at 11:24 am

I like moderation (in moderation). Without it, arguments tend to become uncivil, which is not what most people (myself, anyway) want. Ideally everyone should police themselves. I self-delete a significant fraction of my comments (i.e., write them but not post them) but probably not enough.

74

JimV 06.09.16 at 11:34 am

P.S. I just saw #66 after posting. I thought about the pros and cons of that myself, and decided I have no problem with comments being deleted without comment. That way the one who made the comment gets the negative reinforcement without the further embarrassment of being identified. If in doubt, they can resubmit the comment until doubt is removed.

75

J-D 06.09.16 at 11:39 am

Rich Puchalsky @68

I don’t know whether you intend to say that if a future President Trump starts bombing people you will cite this post to show that it’s all Clinton’s fault — but when the relevant comments are lined up that’s how it looks.

76

Eszter Hargittai 06.09.16 at 12:13 pm

from Consumatopia @06.09.16 at 4:39 am:
But we shouldn’t be so quick to assume that Clinton’s strengths–and weaknesses–are widely shared among women. In particular, we shouldn’t assume too quickly that party processes favoring “a campaign of relationships, not speeches”, as Klein put it, would be good for female politicians generally.

Indeed, it’s hard to know in what way it’s reasonable to generalize, both in terms of what abilities may be widely held by others and what would be favorable for others. Presumably she’s lauded as so talented, because some of her skills are ones that generally not that many people possess, regardless of gender. I appreciate the author’s focus on her different approach and that this type of approach has not tended to be valued in the past. I’m not sure it needed the more general “this is a woman’s approach” angle, I don’t know what the evidence of that is in politics. (Maybe it’s not there because people haven’t really tried it. Or maybe it’s not there, because it’s more about her than her gender.)

Doug @06.09.16 at 6:36 am, thanks for those reflections, an interesting argument for an all-female ticket. Part of me agrees with what LFC said @06.09.16 at 2:58 am. Part of me wonders, however, whether people who are fine with voting for a female president would then care whether the running mate is male or female. Are there people who can barely stomach it and will not manage to stomach a ticket with two women? I don’t know. (The fact that this is even a conversation to have shows that we are still very far from gender equality, of course. No one is wondering whether an all-male ticket would be detrimental for a candidate.)

77

Niall McAuley 06.09.16 at 12:16 pm

J-D, I think Rich is saying that if Trump nukes Iran, it will be Ezter’s fault for posting about emojis instead of supporting Bernie.

78

Layman 06.09.16 at 12:43 pm

Rich P: “But this celebration of the primary win because HRC is a woman is also a celebration of all the people who will predictably be killed by HRC…”

I confess I don’t grasp the point of this objection. If history is any guide, any person elected to the Presidency will predictably kill people; it seems to go with the territory. Go ahead, name the last President who killed no people.

Is it only HRC who is not to be celebrated? Or are no winners of primary contests ever to be celebrated? Even if the latter, why make the objection now, with respect to HRC?

79

basil 06.09.16 at 12:46 pm

These reactions from jealous Bern!eBros and worse from lefter-than-thou, even-Bern!e’s-not-good-enough types are useful evidence of the violence and misogyny dominant in the far-left across the world. There’s really no depths to which the whingers won’t plunge to ensure that only white bros rule the whatever whenever forever.

—-
Someone on CiF pointed out yesterday that some of the largest human collectives in the world – India, Brazil, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, Argentina, the Phillipines* – have already had honchas. That they dismayed the liberty-enhancing aspirations of feminism suggests that perhaps the problem is that this is being celebrated for feminism, and by anti-feminists, rather than for liberals and their capitalism.

*Okay, also Germany, the CAR, Argentina, Australia, the UK, Malawi, Russia, Spain, the country of Africa, etc.
**Elizabeth Warren for a splash of colour, and even to extract an apology to Native Americans. That will be the kind of symbolic performance that will really show the Republicans – and continue the circus of emancipatory representation.
***Wouldn’t it be fun to have the liberals host a discussion of Jodi Dean’s Communicative Capitalism?
****What is the emoticon for a right turn?

Peace everyone.

80

Chris Bertram 06.09.16 at 12:46 pm

I only read Danielle Allen’s rather good piece on Clinton recently: Hilary is the ultimate establishment candidate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sorry-hillary-you-are-the-establishment/2016/02/05/0aa7cf80-cc27-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html

81

Layman 06.09.16 at 12:48 pm

Coming back to the OP, reflecting on possible VP choices leads me to the realization that there are damned few appealing high-profile politicians. If you rule out sitting Senators who would be replaced by Republican governors or conservative constituencies, and you rule out those arguably too old, you’re left with, well, no one of any note or appeal.

82

Lynne 06.09.16 at 1:26 pm

Harry: “I suppose Beyonce is off the table for VP? She’s smart, popular, articulate, hard to dislike. “

Well, there’s her Drunk in Love song with its lyric “Eat the cake, Anna Mae”, which seems to condone the violence Ike Turner did to Tina.

83

Phil 06.09.16 at 1:37 pm

I’ll admit to being fairly grumpy when I posted my (silently deleted) comment, but I honestly think both the point it made & – more importantly – the way it made it were reasonable.

Now that the thread’s a bit busier (and I’ve had a night’s sleep) I’ll give it another shot. The point I was making was this: a female major-party presidential candidate is a very good thing, a very big deal & very much worth celebrating. But either it’s such an amazingly uniquely world-historical Good Thing that it outweighs everything else about HRC, or it’s one good thing among others. I may be wrong, but I don’t think many people are genuinely committed to the first of these positions, any more than many people thought that feminists must support Margaret Thatcher in 1979. (She was, of course, the first & to date only woman Prime Minister – big deal, worth celebrating. She was also one of the most reactionary Prime Ministers in the last 50 years – and made no secret of it when she was running for office.)

So we get the kind of argument represented by the second quoted tweet – “#ImWithHer” for political reasons as well as because of who she is. But if it is a political choice, then it must be legitimate for others on the left to oppose her for political reasons, taking the view that there are enough negatives in HRC’s politics and political record to outweigh the (very big) positive of a potential woman President. And if that’s the case, the suggestion in the third quoted tweet (that political attacks on HRC represent holding a woman to a higher standard than a man) is really inappropriate & unhelpful.

If I had a vote & it had to go to either HRC or Trump, I’d vote for Hillary; if I thought I could get away with it I’d vote for Hillary twice*. I’ve never been enthused by Sanders as a candidate; I’ve always felt that his campaign should be seen as the spearhead of a broader campaign to transform and revitalise the Democratic Party rather than as a thing in itself. (Which also explains why he’s not giving up, of course.) But his policies are, by and large, policies I support, whereas HRC’s are, by and large, policies I actually oppose – not as intensely or with as much revulsion as I oppose most things currently coming out of the GOP clown show, but oppose nonetheless. Asking someone with my kind of views to forget all of that and concentrate on the one very big deal of a possible woman president – that’s asking a lot. And accusing me of sexism for not buying in – I don’t think that’s on.

(Copies comment to desktop post-it note, because you never know.)

*Do not attempt to vote for Hillary twice. That would be wrong.

84

chris y 06.09.16 at 1:39 pm

The Democratic Party being what it is, I think we can venture a small bet that, with HRC at the top of the ticket, the VP pick will be:

1. Male
2. Straight
3. Cis
4. “Centrist”
5. Not Senator Sanders

I would put another, slightly smaller, bet on him being white, although I accept that a Hispanic or Asian candidate is not quite inconceivable.

85

Plume 06.09.16 at 3:01 pm

“The idea that HRC must be 100% perfect in order for her achievement to count as historic or laudable is a great metaphor for being a woman.”

This, of course, is a classic strawperson.

No one is saying she has to be perfect. Her critics just point to her many flaws, in concrete terms, in order to demonstrate she’s a terrible candidate. It’s not about her lack of perfection. No one is claiming this is a requirement for office. But it would be nice if she weren’t a warhawk and avid neoliberal, all too chummy with billionaires and Wall Street in general. It would be nice if she had more to offer than being “not as bad as Trump.”

Ironically, if a person really does want women to be treated equally, then they should be okay with a tough critique of HRC. Male politicians get that. The rough and tumble of it all. Why should HRC be immune? Again, ironically, it’s actually sexist to “go easy” on her because she’s a woman, and avoid being honest about her flaws. As if she’s too weak to handle it. It’s sexist to think she needs protection from all the slings and arrows that routinely hit male politicians.

I’ll be voting for the best candidate on the ballot, regardless, who just happens to be a woman:

Jill Stein.

86

Lasker 06.09.16 at 3:02 pm

@56

What appeals to you about Lessig? He strikes me as a good-hearted guy who is nonetheless extraordinarily politically naive. It feels silly to worry about competence when Trump is a possibility but I’d be pretty concerned in his case given the way he has spent his energies in the last few years.

I would love to see Tim Wu get a role in shaping tech policy at the national level, but not sure VP is the best place from which to from which to do it. He could definitely have a future in electoral politics in NY.

I’m not too familiar with Katyal and Gupta but they appear to be people who would have a bright future in a Clinton Administration, though again, I’m not clear why VP would be a good place.

I’d be interested to hear more about what you admire about the four people you named.

87

RNB 06.09.16 at 3:10 pm

@81 Actually the Danielle Allen criticism of Hillary Clinton softens quite a bit at the end; it’s the Simon Head one to which she links that has always been the most serious (more serious than the email controversy, I have long thought). Trump has promised to focus on the corrupt linkages via the Clinton Foundation in a speech next week. I would not be surprised if Trump’s speechwriters draw from that Simon Head piece. It will be the most important attack Trump can make of Hillary Clinton. One wonders whether HRC had any leverage on Sanders since he did not take up this line of attack. She will say that she and her husband have always been transparent about the flow of money here and that she has nothing to hide and that for example the arms sales that she approved were not unusual. But we have not heard the last of this by any means!

88

Eszter Hargittai 06.09.16 at 3:18 pm

Me thinks people are reading too much into tweets. Tweets are limited to 140 characters and thus by design are unlikely to be nuanced. They can help make a point nonetheless.

Plume, if you think HRC has been criticized at the same level – or you seem to think possibly less – than her male counterparts then you are reading/viewing/listening to some really unusual sources of news. She gets critiqued on her political positions and then some, because she gets critiqued for raising her voice or not having a strong enough voice, etc, etc, characteristics of candidates that don’t usually come up, not for the types of behavior in which she is engaging. There are some excellent commentaries with details about this out there in case you’re curious about specifics.

89

Waiting for Godot 06.09.16 at 3:20 pm

As a “Boomer” from the class of 1946, reading this offering of love and fealty to Mrs. Clinton makes me weep. I am convinced that irony is Allah’s biggest joke on Americans. The Clinton’s and neoliberalism now represent the generation that took to the streets against corporate wars of empire, took down a sitting President, raged against institutional racism and sexism and ultimately was consumed by the corporate Leviathon. But the irony of the moment is that we had a choice (or did we) in this primary between: a former Goldwater Girl and a democratic socialist; a former first lady who railed against black youth who needed to be “brought to heel” and a college activist who helped force the University of Chicago to divest of it’s slum holdings in South Chicago; a former senator who voted for the Iraq war and a sitting senator who as a congressman did not support that debacle; and, finally, a choice between a former Secretary of State who turned to Henry Kissinger for advice and inspiration and a life-long anti-war activist. If Mrs. Clinton is allowed to reconsolidate power in the Democratic Party as President then we are truly and righteously screwed.

90

T 06.09.16 at 3:31 pm

As for the VP, I’ll go with Al Franken. I’ve seen him in gov’t forums on several occasions and he is extremely smart, from the left, a team player, and can bring down a room with a pause. Completely composed from years of practice, he would not be left-footed by Trump. He is after all a professional comedian. My guess is she pivots right but whatever choice she makes, it’s about winning.

I recall a similar sentiment about Franken in the first comment to this thread that is no longer here. (Bliox?) It was short and noncontroversial. I could be wrong.

@81 — And that’s part of the reason she is so disliked. She’s buddies w/Tony Podesta fcs. There isn’t a long enough shower to wash that off. We’re in a lesser of two evils world. A lot of people will have a lingering taste of vomit in their mouths when leaving the voting booth.

91

T 06.09.16 at 3:32 pm

Eszter — is there some system flaw or are comments being deleted without acknowledgement they actually existed? I recall commenters being banned, devoweled or warned publicly, but never “disappeared.” Can you explain what’s been happening? Does this happen regularly at CT? Is the OP author in control?

92

cs 06.09.16 at 4:11 pm

My impression is that for the most part, criticisms of Hillary that I’ve seen are fair and similar to what an otherwise similar male candidate would get. Obviously there are exceptions, the raising her voice stuff is an example.

Of course there is a certain built-in unfairness, eg if Clinton’s hair was as unkempt as Trump or Sanders she would probably lose a lot more votes for it than they do. But on the other hand, there are people making fun of Trump’s hair, his skin tone, his small hands, the way he pronounces certain words etc, so not all of that trivial stuff is due to gender bias necessarily.

93

Garrulous 06.09.16 at 4:22 pm

The aggressive moderation policy on this thread is ill-conceived, insulting and unnecessary. I can only imagine it will do some damage to conversation on this site. The other contributors should have a quiet word with the OP.

94

Waiting for Godot 06.09.16 at 4:23 pm

As a native Minnesotan who unfortunately landed 35 years ago in Wisconsin, I must caution those who look favorably on Klobuchar or Franken as VP. First Minnesota probably wouldn’t elect another Democrat to the Senate, the state DFL Party is a neoliberal mess. Second, Amy Klobuchar is a very nice person and I’m sure she is nice to her children and doesn’t abuse the dog but she has the political substance of an egg souflee and the energy and imagination of an anesthetized rock. And Franken was beaten into submission by the party bosses both state and national and only won re-election by playing invisible man for 6 years per the instructions of the party bosses. As for Elizabeth Warren not only can we not afford to lose her in the Senate but she is far to intelligent and might I say intellectually honest to get anywhere near Mrs. Clinton politically or otherwise.

95

L2P 06.09.16 at 4:40 pm

” But this celebration of the primary win because HRC is a woman is also a celebration of all the people who will predictably be killed by HRC, because I don’t think that there was exact equivalence between candidates and bases between Clinton and Sanders either.”

Here’s a list of all of the leaders of any country who aren’t responsible for killing somebody:

Princess Celestia, co-ruler of Equestria;

That’s it.

Why do so many purportedly serious, informed people make arguments that would embarrass a fifth grader? Countries are governed in the real world, not the world of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. The real world is made up of scarce resources, the lack of which end up with somebody dying. Literally every decision a President makes will kill somebody, eventually.

Grow the fuck up.

96

tomsk 06.09.16 at 4:40 pm

Christ, the disappeared comments by Phil and Engels must have been awful if they were so much worse than soullite’s usual crescendo of righeous drivel, which remains in all its glory.

97

RNB 06.09.16 at 4:46 pm

Can’t wait to tell my 7-year-old that there is a raging discussion of My Little Pony on Crooked Timber, though I think she will be upset what it’s about. My wife has visions of her former English students sitting around a table, drinking heavily, swearing up a storm and producing one brilliant My Little Pony script after another.

98

Cranky Observer 06.09.16 at 4:46 pm

Yeah, some point Frankin took a beating from the Three Letter Agencies or their protectors because he toned down his criticism on surveillance and civil liberties violations about 85%. Not sure that’s a good starting point for the person a heartbeat away.

99

Consumatopia 06.09.16 at 4:48 pm

Danielle Allen’s piece is interesting not because it’s a damning indictment of HRC (it’s not) but because it casts some of the praise she’s getting in another light. Like when Ezra Klein talks about her “reaching out to longtime allies who had crushed her campaign by endorsing him over her”, well, “reaching out” sounds a bit euphemistic now, doesn’t it? For a “less masculine” strategy, it seems to involve a lot of score-settling.

re:raising her voice, I don’t doubt that sexism influences the way many of us view HRC. But, personally, Bill Clinton’s anger bothers the hell out of me much more than Hillary’s. And, yes, anger from either of them bothers me much more than anger from Sanders, Warren, or Obama tends to, for a couple of reasons. The Clintons, especially Bill, have engaged in more disingenuous left-punching than any of those other figures. Sanctimony from either of them absolutely infuriates me given how shady their personal finances are and how much blood they have on their hands. (Yes, I know Sanders and Obama are bad on that front too, and Warren isn’t necessarily better, but HRC has repeatedly criticized Obama from the right on foreign policy.)

Considering that she seems to be maintaining a personal friendship with Henry Kissinger, it’s a little bit off-putting to see here get a fire in her belly over how single-payer will never, ever happen.

But the most disturbing thing about Bill Clinton’s aggression is that I’ve noticed a couple of times when it looked borderline physical–pointing at or even touching whoever he’s arguing with. Or that recent scene when he’s standing over a bunch of people eating in a booth at a restaurant arguing with one of them. And I’m definitely not the only one who feels that way, even some HRC supporters seem to wince when the Big Dog goes off script.

I guess if you show me someone who likes when Bill Clinton gets angry but hates when HRC does, there’s a good chance that’s sexism, because Bill’s anger looks god damn terrible, and even a bit chilling given some of the allegations against him. But with HRC, it isn’t so much that I don’t like her raising her voice as that she gets angry at the wrong things.

100

RNB 06.09.16 at 4:57 pm

“Or that recent scene when he’s standing over a bunch of people eating in a booth at a restaurant arguing with one of them.”
It looked to me that the New School student in that booth was having the time of his life, sensing that he would soon reach rock star status for having a vigorous debate with Bill Clinton.

101

JeffreyG 06.09.16 at 5:01 pm

You can count this ‘Bernie Bro’ out. Clinton’s contempt for me/my generation has come through clear enough over the course of this primary that I don’t see any way that she could win my vote back, barring some unprecedented pivot to the left for the general.

On the point of counting chickens, do not be too hasty. The so-called ‘FBI primary’ is still going strong, and many of HRC’s prior statements (reassurances) on that situation have been proven false by official reports. If you are not troubled by this, and the potential for this specific problem to usher in a Trump presidency (maybe even by a decent margin), then I am not sure that you are paying attention.

102

A H 06.09.16 at 5:01 pm

That Klein piece is ridiculous. I never knew LBJ had such success because of his feminine virtues.

103

Tom Allen 06.09.16 at 5:05 pm

This pretty much says it all. Having followed the Clintons since 1993, I will never understand how anyone who fancies herself a progressive can get excited about Hilary’s candidacy. Those two have been on the wrong side of the good and the just their entire political lives.

https://www.facebook.com/filmsforaction/photos/a.322689300982.159055.107925785982/10153691358725983/?type=3&theater

104

Lee A. Arnold 06.09.16 at 5:08 pm

Garrulous #94: “The aggressive moderation policy on this thread is ill-conceived, insulting and unnecessary. I can only imagine it will do some damage to conversation on this site.”

I strongly disagree. Quashing some knuckleheadedness could only improve things.

105

DavidtheK 06.09.16 at 5:12 pm

Let’s shift the center of gravity with VP pick. A progressive belief is to see government as a force for doing good on behalf of the commons. How about someone from the non-profit community as VP. Some names to think about:
Aaron Meir – Elected President of the Sierra Club or Michael Brune – Full-time Executive Director of the Club
Rashad Robinson the Executive Director or Arisha Michelle Hatch Managing Director of Campaigns at Color Of Change
Rhea Suh – President of the National Resources Defense Council

And while we’re at it, when it is time to pick the cabinet – I hope Mrs. Clinton will look among the same people. It is time for the non-profit world to have a seat at the table.

106

Layman 06.09.16 at 5:18 pm

JeffreyG: “On the point of counting chickens, do not be too hasty. The so-called ‘FBI primary’ is still going strong, and many of HRC’s prior statements (reassurances) on that situation have been proven false by official reports.”

This would be something to take seriously if you actually articulated a charge, or could do so. I have no doubt at all that HRC chose her particular email strategy with the intention that she, not someone else, be in control of the keeping of records of her communication, for obvious political reasons. Even knowing that, and disapproving of it, does not lead me to any obvious crime. It was certainly known to anyone of prominence in the hierarchy of the state department and the executive branch that she was doing so – one need only send to or receive from her any email to know. No one told her she couldn’t, no one stopped her, no one took steps to retain her data. So, what’s the crime, exactly?

107

Peter K. 06.09.16 at 5:21 pm

I am (was) a Sanders supporter.

Wall Street will never allow Warren as VP. That’s why they paid HRC so much for those speeches.

Even as white male I can appreciate the significance of the first female nominee or President which is similar to the first black President. One does if you have a sense of history and how institutional racism and sexism is still virulent. People point out that Margaret Thatcher was a woman or Marine Le Pen is a woman (or Angela Merkel who tortures Greece), but that still doesn’t negate the point. As a Sanders supporter I can empathize with how it would move women who have dealt with sexist BS their whole lives and who know the history.

But we’ll see how Hillary does. She’ll probably be like Obama, policy-wise. Not too bad, not enough. Hopefully she doesn’t turn to the right in order to “compromise” with Republicans and triangulate. Hopefully she doesn’t indulge her more hawkish tendencies on foreign policy.

I think she’ll beat Trump because of his poor showing with Latinos and women. The Republicans will lose the Senate as well. (Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois said he won’t support Trump.)

Hopefully the millennials turn out to vote against Trump but who knows? The Hillary campaign would be better served by making an effort at outreach rather than bashing them as Bernie Bros.

I am full of disgust at media liberals like Krugman and Weenie Central Vox and others who unfairly attacked Sanders during the primary. I will vote for HRC, but I doubt that disgust will wear off. Probably they have permanently soured me on the establishment (whose tendency is to slow walk and foot drag on reforms and lash out viciously at any challenge from the left). But we’ll see what Sanders get. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz’s head on plate would be a good start.

108

harry b 06.09.16 at 5:42 pm

RE: Consumatopia’s comment: I too, am not a big fan of Bill Clinton. I’m not a fan of HRC, either, but if I had to choose between her and him she’d win every time. I doubt there are many CT readers who despise HRC more than they despise her husband, but I know there are plenty of people who do, and the only reasonable explanation of that is some form of sexism. Thatcher, too, was subject to extreme sexism, throughout her rise in the Tory party, her leadership and premiership, and afterwards. The people who treated her in (revoltingly) sexist ways were, by and large, people I’d sooner have seen in power: she did terrible things, and many of those men would not have done such bad things, and without her any one of them would have been PM because her wing of the Tory party had no other standard bearer who could plausibly have been leader, or won an election if they were. But that shouldn’t blind us to the fact that she overcame much greater barriers, and dealt with more ongoing bullshit, than any similarly capable man would have had to. (I’m not disagreeing with anything Consumatopia said, just free associating or something….)

109

harry b 06.09.16 at 5:43 pm

And everyone who opposes Warren as VP — yes, it would be awful to lose her from the Senate. I imagine she and Biden are both kicking themselves for not having run this time though.

110

harry b 06.09.16 at 5:45 pm

Finally — about the OP. I pored over that visual for a very long time, several times, and only figured out what it meant after reading some comment above. So. I feel pretty stupid.

111

William Timberman 06.09.16 at 5:57 pm

Jeane Kirkpatrick…Madeleine Albright…Hillary Clinton. I suppose the patriarchy has to accept at least part of the blame for the contours of their path to success. To be taken seriously, a woman must out-Kissinger Kissinger — I get it. But beyond that, ambition by its very nature produces figures who believe that things must be controlled, and that someone (why not them?) should do the controlling. Liberals in our day and age, as opposed to leftists, ask whether, given the monsters out there, we’d really be comfortable with the Buddha in charge of the global hegemon.

Maybe not, but I have a feeling we could do worse, and probably will, regardless of the next President’s gender.

112

Eszter Hargittai 06.09.16 at 6:03 pm

T 06.09.16 at 3:32 pm asked:
Eszter — is there some system flaw or are comments being deleted without acknowledgement they actually existed? I recall commenters being banned, devoweled or warned publicly, but never “disappeared.” Can you explain what’s been happening? Does this happen regularly at CT? Is the OP author in control?

Comments can and do get deleted from threads. I and at least one other CT author have deleted comments from this thread. This is nothing new and it is in line with our stated comments policy.

113

Lynne 06.09.16 at 6:08 pm

Eszter, Sad to know that it is necessary. Curious who got deleted, but not to know what got deleted (I can guess the kind of thing.)

114

JeffreyG 06.09.16 at 6:14 pm

Layman,
I don’t want to derail the thread with this – when talking about these sort of investigations the discussion quickly turns to speculation of the sort that I don’t think anyone would benefit from. So don’t expect me to get into this one in too much detail after this.

That being said, you are right that the consequences need to be spelled out. To be brief, there are a number of potential harms here: violation of an NDA that she signed upon entering office; violations of protocols for handling sensitive data; gross negligence with respect to her cyber-security set-up; inadvertently revealing the names/details of US spies, risking their missions; giving an open door to the cyber-espionage of rival nations; use of a private server to circumvent the FOIA process, in the extreme charge as a way of using the Clinton Foundation as a sort of pay-to-play operation in conjunction with the State Dept; a formal indictment of HRC.

To be clear – I am just spelling out the possible scenarios for set-back*. Not all of these are significantly damaging enough to derail her presidential bid. But some of them – alone or in concert with other issues – might be sufficient via more institutional channels or at the ballot box, and that worries me. Also worrisome is how HRC and her surrogates have insisted throughout the primary process that this was not going to be a problem, and would go away soon, despite much evidence to the contrary (here we are). Sure, it might all be a ‘nothingburger’ in the end; but there is a chance that this one is live, and set to blow up in our collective faces if this is the path chosen.

*It should be noted, of course, that there is also the possibility that she passes through these investigations without major incident, which may be effectively spun into a sort of 3rd party vetting to her political advantage.

115

Lynne 06.09.16 at 6:22 pm

Actually, re my comment at # 114, no, I can’t guess because I was thinking I was in the other thread. Please ignore.

116

Rich Puchalsky 06.09.16 at 6:25 pm

“I and at least one other CT author have deleted comments from this thread. This is nothing new”

It is nothing new: Maria deleted the whole end of a comment thread when it got too anti-war for her tastes so that it could end with a pro-military comment that she approved of. During the Lybia intervention the comment threads here were managed in order to not upset a guest “humanitarian” in charge of making justifications for that killing at the U.N.

But, as Lynne writes above, “it is necessary.”

117

Peter K. 06.09.16 at 6:52 pm

@110

It’s probably good Warren didn’t run. The race would have been closer and hence the establishment and corporate media would have been much, much more nastier.

We’ll see what she and Sherrod Brown can accomplish.

A number of pro-Hillary bloggers and outlets have become very censorious and thin-skinned. Any criticism of the annointed one or the establishment means that you’re a Republican. A bad form of paranoia and groupthink and shows weakness on their part. Blogs that shut down comments I just don’t read very much.

118

Jim Harrison 06.09.16 at 7:03 pm

About the meme of Clinton’s coziness with Wall Street: you not only need to assemble a coalition to win a election; you have to keep a coalition together in order to govern. Clinton, like any other Democratic president who wants to be effective, will have to garner support from the business classes and all the more so because many of her stated policy goals make bankers and billionaires very nervous. Clinton will continue to make nice with Goldman Sachs et.al., but not because she got hefty speaking fees.

119

Layman 06.09.16 at 7:10 pm

JeffreyG: “…a formal indictment of HRC.”

Yes, this more or less re-begs the question: A formal indictment for what? You list a bunch of things, some of which are not crimes; some of which might conceivable be crimes if they are intended, and evidence of intent exists; and some of which are fantasies unfounded in any evidence yet brought to light.

If you want to say “…the FBI might conceivably have (or find) some evidence of a crime we don’t know about…”, well, it’s a free country, but you might just as well go on to say “..about Vince Foster…” for all that’s worth. Base speculation is base.

120

Phil 06.09.16 at 7:24 pm

#111 – I got it straight away, but only because my daughter (revising for her History exam) had been complaining about how difficult it was to keep inter-war presidents straight: “they’re all old white guys!”

#114 – a shorter and slightly more tetchy version of comment #84, for one. (Yes, I’m upset about it – I’ve been commenting on CT for years now & never got so much as a warning before.)

121

Doug 06.09.16 at 7:36 pm

Eszter 06.09.16 at 12:13 pm Just briefly to follow up, I mentioned the notion of a two-woman ticket to a friend here in Berlin who is a fairly senior staff member in the Bundestag, and she said she tripped up a bit mentally when she first heard it, but the more she thought about it, the more she liked it. Anecdata and all of that, but I think that might be a typical reaction among the target audience.

It also plays against one of the negative narratives about Hillary, which is that she is too cautious. (Of course the opposition would try to spin the choice into another negative narrative, which is that she is too calculating. Double binds, what can ya do.) Bill’s choice of Al, way back when, was also seen as going against the grain, since they were practically the same age and were from the same region.

122

harry b 06.09.16 at 7:37 pm

I delete comments from threads, rarely without warning, but sometimes, especially early on in a thread, if I think the comment has a high probability of derailing the discussion. To a considerable extent this is a forum that I use to get valued input from commentators, and if I think a comment is going to prevent that from happening (and it often has) I act selfishly. I don’t think I have done this to an innocuous comment, but I would, if I thought it was worth it (and would, in that case, send an email explaining). Actually, now I realise I have done that once, but the email address was a fake one.

Anyway whenever I do that I am pretty confident that I am improving things for the many more people who read my threads than comment on them, and for most of the commenters. Readers have at least as much of an interest in getting something of value as potential commenters have in venting their feelings.

123

JeffreyG 06.09.16 at 7:45 pm

Layman,
It is not my job to prove these allegations. I am noting that others who do have that job are currently looking into these questions, and I find that fact quite disconcerting. Moreover, indictment is just one of the potential bad scenarios, independent from the scenario of revealed legal (‘not illegal’) but highly unpopular conduct.

Given that there is an active investigation going on – by individuals much more privy to the details than you or I – it is something of a stretch to call this base speculation. Again, we were led to believe that this was just an ‘inquiry’ which would be wrapped up shortly to no consequence. That account becomes more implausible by the day.

We can agree to disagree about the likelihood of these outcomes – our opinions are meaningless to the finding anyways. I just don’t share in the confidence expressed here that Trump will be easy for HRC to beat. Like many people, I vastly underestimated Trump and overestimated Clinton (against Sanders) in the primary contests. A year ago I was fairly certain that HRC was going to be our next president, barring exceptional events. I have since revised those expectations downwards.

124

RNB 06.09.16 at 7:53 pm

I’ve had comments devoweled or whatever the word is and deleted by John Quiggin and Chris Bertram. Corey Robin has threatened to expunge me from his threads several times. I could not post to a while for CT and wrote people who I thought might have banned whether they had. Only one did not write back to say that he had not banned me. At any rate, I was able to post again a few days later. Are we supposed to be crying about this? I mean if you are a rrrrrevolutionary or a Clinton apologist like me you have chosen a difficult life for yourself and should expect one beset by brutal blows, smears, blackballing, petty insults, shaming, ridicule and silencing. But we Clinton shills will soldier on.

125

js. 06.09.16 at 8:35 pm

Obviously, if OPs or moderators want to delete comments, that’s entirely their prerogative. But it is a bit weird when it feels arbitrary or when there’s no notice given, before or after. (Esp. since the CT system has been known to be just a bit finicky on more than one occasion.) Phil’s first comment, e.g., was I thought completely legitimate, well behaved even! (I happened to read it right after the post was published.)

Meanwhile, you’ve got Soullite.

126

Ronan(rf) 06.09.16 at 8:44 pm

“But we Clinton shills will soldier on.”

Eh, I think I’ve seen you mention this at least 4 times in the past few months. If this is you suffering in silence….. ; )

127

Lynne 06.09.16 at 8:56 pm

Well, I’d be upset, too, if my comment was deleted without notice and I didn’t know why. If I had my druthers, there’d be some mention in the thread when comments were deleted. Although in some threads (like the Required Reading one, where I thought I was when I posted #114 above) awful comments are quite likely (the thread so far has had a couple of humdingers, but nothing ban-worthy) so I wouldn’t be very surprised or even, probably find it odd if there were no notice. But I’d be curious.

I think Soullite was banned, btw.

128

Lynne 06.09.16 at 8:59 pm

RNB, I admire your fortitude. ;)

129

Goldcap 06.09.16 at 9:10 pm

Jim Harrison: “the meme of Clinton’s coziness with Wall Street”

I think that’s a pretty casual disregard for an established narrative. Just reading into her stated policy (this of course prior to Bernie pushing her left) would show her to be TPP friendly, contra significant financial reform, and averse to “progressive” fiscal policy. She even quibbles over a $15 minimum wage.

Even looking at her advisory board shows a healthy smattering of healthcare and financial execs.

Charlie Baker
Garry Gensler
Dennis Cheng is in a strange “conflict-of-interest” position as the guy who brokered most of the Clinton Foundation donations
…others

Likewise, it’s those Goldman Sachs speaking gigs (and cozy family loans) that elevate her from a fairly poor lawsuit ridden ex-first-wife to a multi-millionaire presumptive nominee. So not sure it’s a “meme”, seems more like a “trend”.

130

RNB 06.09.16 at 9:28 pm

“I never thought that any of the contributors would play in loco parentis and remove comments without notice or explanation.”
Really you never noticed others whose politics you may not share complain about a post having been expunged/”disappeared” or being threatened to be cut off or seeing the vowels of their posts being taken out. Or is it that this is the first time it has happening to those with whom you agree and that is why this common CT practice is finally registering.
Please spare us the sanctimony.

We’ve had non-stop Clinton criticism here and a few of us have posted a lot in favor of Clinton over Sanders as a potential nominee. It’s all getting out there.

There was a request in the OP to focus on the historic significance of a woman finally being nominated by a major party for the US Presidency and how she was able to overcome patriarchal opposition. One answer is that he has really deep ties with establishment Democrats. Did Ezra Klein call this kind of networking a woman’s style of politics. I don’t find that convincing.

But like harry b was able to note that Thatcher whom he may well detest endured a lot of sexist insult we could focus on the egregiously sexist comments that have been made about HRC and see what this reveals about our culture (your daughters may see no harm in focusing on that) just as the fact that Trump has millions of supporters and even independents don’t find his talk about Curiel decisively racist says something sad about the level of prejudice in society.

131

Collin Street 06.09.16 at 9:34 pm

don’t find his talk about Curiel decisively racist

Well, yeah.

It’s a reflection of the point I’ve raised a couple of times before, that you can’t recognise your own mistakes as mistakes while you’re making them [because if you did recognise them you wouldn’t make them]. Racism is irrational prejudice; if you’re aware of your racism, then… it doesn’t go away, at all, but it becomes a different thing. And the same applies when your mistakes are made by other people.

In general you cannot expect people to recognise their errors.

132

Waiting for Godot 06.09.16 at 9:45 pm

Citizen RNB I confess that I’ve been called a lot of things especially by my kids but this is the first time I’ve been called sanctimonious. Coming from you I guess I’ll take it as a compliment.

133

RNB 06.09.16 at 9:47 pm

Oh crap. John Holbo’s missing white voter theory gets its own section http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/upshot/there-are-more-white-voters-than-people-think-thats-good-news-for-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Could be a problem for Clinton, and as I work through this piece I may be lowering my odds that Clinton goes with Castro/Perez/Becerra for VP. If Trump wins more of white working class men, then Clinton has to do better with the white woman vote, I would suppose. So maybe a two-woman ticket. She should also enjoy much higher Latino turnout as well a better performance with college-educated whites.

134

RNB 06.09.16 at 9:48 pm

@134 First time to your face, perhaps. Kids talk a lot behind our backs.

135

F. Foundling 06.09.16 at 10:07 pm

As I skim through recent comments, it seems that statements critical of H. R. Clinton aren’t *automatically* deleted, as I assumed they would be. Still, I will try to strike a more constructive and optimistic note: I sincerely and ardently hope that as President, H. R. Clinton *won’t* strike grand bargains with the Republicans on cuts to welfare and public services, *won’t* defend the interests of Wall Street against the public, *won’t* escalate in Syria, *won’t* foment coups in Latin America, *won’t* intensify support for Israel, *won’t* pursue pyromaniacal hawkish policies against Russia and China, and *won’t* sign the TTIP, among other things. I realise that some of these hopes are (even) more implausible than the others, but one should always be allowed to dream.

Now, I do happen to think that in this election season, there was an actual, very rare, possibly unique opportunity for Americans to elect a president, who, while far from perfect, was significantly less likely to do all or almost all of those things. However, one has to admit that said candidate’s reproductive physiology left much to be desired, indeed it was downright underwhelming, and that’s what *really* matters, as a neat emoji illustration will demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt.

By the way, I would suggest that HRC’s admirers ought to make up their minds whether triangulating and warmongering are small imperfections (as per the third tweet in the OP), or outright virtues (as per the second one).

But, to end as I began – may I be proven to have been dead wrong in my fears, and may all of my pessimistic expectations concerning H. R. Clinton’s likely actions during the next four years not materialise. Somehow. I also intend to be immortal or die trying.

136

T 06.09.16 at 10:18 pm

@95 Godot and @99Cranky

Thanks for the update on Franken. It’s hard to follow everyone and local knowledge in politics is valuable — one reason for coming to CT. Still trying to figure out why the Bliox comment was deleted other than banning him altogether. The thread asked for VP opinions and Franken seemed an obvious Warren-side choice — from a state w/a dem governor (unlike Warren and Brown) and more than capable of being the VP attack dog against Trump. He was even on the link in the OP. In fact, your characterization makes him even a more likely candidate as I don’t see HC going actual left in her choice. She wants someone who’s a team player which is expected. Any thoughts appreciated.

137

F. Foundling 06.09.16 at 10:25 pm

RNB (06.09.16 at 9:28 pm and elsewhere) seems to be suggesting that he and other pro-Clinton commenters have been victimised, oppressed and persecuted for many months by a relentlessly anti-Clinton CT establishment. Apparently, not every thread even marginally related to the US election consists of 15-20% RNB (or, alternatively, root_e) comments. Amusing.

138

42ofakind 06.09.16 at 10:44 pm

First. For VP I think Al Franken is a clear-cut best choice because:
1. He had the best understanding that that financial crisis would have been much less likely had the rating agencies been truly independent. He immediately sponsored legislation to give them more independence–that is more important than the debate that happened between Sanders and Clinton about size of banks. And a professional satirist is the most qualified to address what is happening with the Trump campaign.

Second. I will actively support Clinton against Trump but am really disappointed that she is the nominee–not because she is a woman but because she is a Clinton.
I know that a majority of what has been said about Bill and Hillary has been overblown and some outright false. However, I have some (admittedly second-hand) experience with their politics. In my Congressional district in 2012 there was an open seat as Chris Murphy decided to run for the senate. Three Democrats were in the primary. The former speaker of the CT House, a former representative in the state house, and the son of a top national lobbyist. The former speaker had a close associate indicted the first week of the primary campaign. So the choice was between the former state representative (a woman backed by Emily’s List and other feminist-leaning groups) and a young man with no experience who had lived most of his life outside the district.

http://ctmirror.org/2012/08/10/robertis-father-and-son-lobbyist-and-candidate/
http://www.oneidadispatch.com/article/OD/20120807/NEWS/308079957

Bill Clinton endorsed the young man.
This is really annoying because the district was one of the few really competitive districts and would most likely have been lost had Clinton’s candidate lost.

Some of the critiques of Sanders and his supporters were doubling annoying. Such as he wasn’t helping elect Democrats and his supporters were anti-women. While those may have been somewhat valid, my experience with the Clintons is that the country or values can take a backseat to who can help them or do them favors.

139

F. Foundling 06.09.16 at 10:55 pm

@Myself 06.09.16 at 10:07 pm
>However, one has to admit that said candidate’s reproductive physiology left much to be desired, indeed it was downright underwhelming

I see that the sarcasm might make this difficult to interpret, so, to be clear – yes, it *is* a good thing that it’s demonstrated that a woman, or a black person, or any other member of a historically underprivileged group can become head of state. However, this can only be a legitimate argument in favour of a candidate, or a good reason to celebrate the candidate’s victory enthusiastically, or the main story of an election, if there is virtually no significant difference between the candidates besides their identity, i.e. no difference w.r.t. policies, record and so on. That is very rarely the case; it was *especially* far from being the case in this election.

140

The Temporary Name 06.09.16 at 11:05 pm

Just noticed some graffiti from Georgia in 2007 (or so Wikipedia would have me believe):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikheil_Saakashvili#/media/File:Vote_Saakashvili.JPG

141

novakant 06.09.16 at 11:06 pm

79

HRC has a history of promoting violent solutions to FP issues – do you disagree? No?So this increases the likelihood, scratch that, makes it almost certain that she will resort to violent means rather than exhaust non-violent alternatives once elected president, which in turn means more dead people as the result of US FP. If you’re cool with that, fine, go vote for HRC – but don’t pretend you didn’t know about this.

142

Kenny Easwaran 06.09.16 at 11:16 pm

Replying to Doug at 58 – one problem with finding mayors that have been in office long enough is that you’re only looking at current mayors. Annise Parker just finished her third two-year term as mayor of Houston, and also has the distinction of being the first gay mayor of a city over a million in the United States. I don’t know if any other medium-to-large cities have recently had women mayors that didn’t show up in the search for current mayors. (San Antonio also had another woman as mayor before the current one, but she just lost a statewide race, which might be bad for optics, even though statewide offices in Texas just aren’t actually open to Democrats these days.)

143

novakant 06.09.16 at 11:20 pm

144

RNB 06.09.16 at 11:45 pm

@ Umm I thought I was obviously satirizing the idea of a Clinton “shill” or a Sanders “revolutionary” suffering great indignities here at CT.

On Sanders he is not as far to the left as you think: Serbian bombing, Iraq Regime Change Act, 100% support of Israel hitherto, Afghan invasion–have you checked his stances on the sanctions that were put on Iraq and Iran; or the aid package to Ukraine. You do know that he voted for the deregulation of derivatives and supports drone warfare. And why didn’t you support Jill Stein?

Second Sanders can’t do squat if he can’t win in a general election. Don’t his poor showings in California, New Jersey, Florida, Ohio create some, any concern?

Third Clinton is willing to subsidize college, make taxes more progressive, push for paid parental leave, strengthen Dodd-Frank, expand early childhood education, put a labor activist on the platform committee and make much better judicial appointments than any Republican would.

So when you come up with an argument for why I should not vote for Clinton to keep Trump out of office, wake me up, F. Foundling.

145

Layman 06.10.16 at 12:08 am

@novakant, I’m sure you can tell me something about HRC that I don’t know, but your posts 143 & 145 don’t accomplish that. If you want to defend Rich P’s odd view that people who vote (or fail to) aren’t morally responsible for what ensues, while people who simply celebrate election outcomes apparently are responsible for what ensues, get on with it.

146

Howard Frant 06.10.16 at 12:14 am

Peter K@108

I don’t think Krugman was particularly unfair to Bernie. He’s a columnist; he’s allowed to have opinions. It got a little personal because when he and other good economists pointed out that Gerald Friedman’s economic analysis of Bernie’s plan was way off, they brought down upon themselves a torrent of invective (The Gang of Four!) from people who said well, obviously you’re in the pocket of Clinton. As it turned out of course, the economists were right.

Krugman had some substantive doubts about Bernie, which included the behavior of some his acolytes. I had similar doubts, which have mostly been realized. Maybe I’m missing something, but what I’ve seen has been sketchy ideas and a reluctance to flesh them out. On any policy, it seemed that Bernie’s answer was that Clinton disagreed with him and (“because” implied but not stated) was getting contributions from X (banks, drug companies, fossil fuel industry, etc). I don’t recall any substantive discussion of policy differences.

So to get back to my question: I know that Krugman was not able to resist the temptation of making snide remarks, but how was he actually unfair to Bernie?

Jeffrey C @102 Sorry to lose you. In what way has Clinton shown contempt for you/your generation? After this campaign, my own opinion of you/your generation is pretty low, but what are your complaints about Clinton?

A general point: The designation of Clinton as a “neoliberal” instantly befogs any discussion. The word conflates two terms, (1) an American one, nearly dead, denoting people who, roughly, were open to using markets to achieve progressive ends; and (2) a British one, with a strong ideological emphasis on markets and generally conservative ends. George Monbiot was writing about the second; carbon taxes belong to the first (sorry, Bernie, you’re a neoliberal now). Thatcher, second; Clinton, first. Safest course: avoid the word, which has become term of abuse on the left (“Neolib bitch!”)

Oh, and I assume the mention of Lessig as VP candidate was intended as a way for Clinton to signal a commitment to campaign finance reform, which she should definitely do, but in some other way.

147

Tabasco 06.10.16 at 12:43 am

Why do people always reach for Margaret Thatcher when talking about women political leaders?

She wasn’t the first (Bandaranaike); she didn’t lead the most important country (Merkel); the most populous (Gandhi); or have the most difficult stuff to deal with (Bhutto, Meir). Many other countries have had women as Prime Ministers – just about if not every country in Scandinavia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand (twice).

Enough with the Thatcher obsession, at least on this subject.

148

LFC 06.10.16 at 12:44 am

Howard Frant @148
The designation of Clinton as a “neoliberal” instantly befogs any discussion. The word conflates two terms, (1) an American one, nearly dead, denoting people who, roughly, were open to using markets to achieve progressive ends; and (2) a British one, with a strong ideological emphasis on markets and generally conservative ends.

There was a long discussion of this whole issue not too long ago at CT attached to a post by C. Robin. You (H. Frant) evidently learned little or nothing from that discussion. The ‘other’ meaning of ‘neoliberal’ is not specifically British but rather reflects how the word has been used generally outside the specific context of domestic U.S. politics. In that meaning the word refers, inter alia, to an emphasis on privatization, deregulation, ‘free’ trade agreements, imposition of fiscal discipline on poorer countries via the IMF, and often attacks on welfare or public goods provision, to name a few. Thatcherism is one instance, but far from exhausts it.

p.s. On the question of whether there are any similarities betw. Charles Peters-style (‘American’) neoliberalism and neoliberalism in the broader sense, there is no pt rehashing that whole discussion.

149

Shmoo 06.10.16 at 12:53 am

A brief technical point about comment deletion: it messes up the very useful CT practice of referrring back to previous comments by number, since it throws off the comment count after other comments are posted. I’d encountered this in other CT threads and wondered why subsequent posters appeared to have their comment references wrong. I’d vastly prefer to have the comment replaced by a placeholder like [This comment has been deleted by the moderator] or some such.

150

novakant 06.10.16 at 12:55 am

147

Your argument is idiotic: all presidents kill people, so who cares. There are if course presidents and policies that are more belligerent and consequently kill more people than others. It’s a matter of degree. And while I personally wouldn’t celebrate any US president, it is clear that Clinton is a particularly extreme example of a hawk and therefore shouldn’t be celebrated by those who claim to be liberals or left, if these designations should retain any meaning at all.

151

Layman 06.10.16 at 12:55 am

Agree with Schmoo @ 151 (or 150?) (or nowhere?).

152

Layman 06.10.16 at 12:57 am

“Your argument is idiotic: all presidents kill people, so who cares”

That’s not my argument, but thanks for giving ‘reason’ a go. I’m not sure you’re doing it right…

153

LFC 06.10.16 at 1:09 am

@novakant & layman
Anger-inducing/devastating article in WaPo today focusing on a U.S. airstrike at a checkpoint outside Mosul that destroyed two cars (which hadn’t moved for some 40 mins. and thus attracted suspicion) and killed the civilians in them, incl. children. (One of the cars was being smuggled out of Mosul for its owner, who had earlier left the city w her family to escape ISIS. The other car was carrying the entire family of an Iraqi police official; they all died.)

As a critic of the extent to which Obama has used drones (and in some cases air power generally) and of some other aspects of US FP, I would not ‘celebrate’ HRC’s becoming the nominee b.c I think her foreign policy will be great — it won’t be great in many respects. Moreover, as someone who voted for Sanders, I’m not celebrating period. However, I am going to vote for HRC in November, however unenthusiastically, and I do think the first woman being nominated by a major party is an important milestone in US politics.

154

LFC 06.10.16 at 1:10 am

p.s. The strikes in question occurred last year.

155

Shmoo 06.10.16 at 1:11 am

I hate it when my iPad reloads the page I was writing a comment on…

As for the people who are talking about Larry Lessig, please god no. He has the political instincts of a small shrub. He made an utter fool of himself with that presidential campaign nonsense.

Here in MA, it’s pretty obvious that Warren is waaay too smart to have any political aspirations beyond her current office. Hell, she didn’t even aspire to be a senator – she fell into it when she was blocked from heading the CFPB. She’s stumbled into a job she’s great at, where she has a bully pulpit for as long as she wants – remember, we in MA elect our senators for life.

Franken is great – smart as hell, funny, really, really well-informed. I’m not seeing him do it, somehow.

Patrick? Eh. He was an OK governor, but he’s basically a garden-variety Dem politician who happens to be African-American. Not a particularly good arm-twister – I frankly wouldn’t bother.

156

JeffreyG 06.10.16 at 1:17 am

157

JeffreyG 06.10.16 at 1:25 am

Howard Frant
“my own opinion of you/your generation is pretty low”

Right back at you buddy.

158

RNB 06.10.16 at 2:12 am

Feeling as if Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden were auditioning for the VP position today. Warren trashed The Donald (my proposed nickname for him is BFD: Big Fraud Don; Warren emphasized Trump’s fraudulent character), and Biden gave a more subtle explanation of how Trump has threatened Curiel and endangered the rule of law. He also wrote a letter to the Stanford rape victim. So I am lowering my odds that the VP choice will be Castro or Perez or Becerra.

159

novakant 06.10.16 at 2:19 am

Yes, Layman, please enlighten us then what your argument is: “boo! sexism!”?

It seems you don’t have any argument or conviction beyond reflexively “defending” Clinton.

160

Chris G 06.10.16 at 2:20 am

@Shmoo 06.10.16 1:11 am

I share your take on Patrick as MA Gov. As VP, I’m not bothered by his being garden-variety in substance. My threshold for VP is that if they have to assume the Presidency then they need to get the country to the next election without running it over a cliff – don’t allow the barbarian hordes (Koch brothers, Tea Party types, etc) to overrun the place and no strategic nuclear exchanges with foreign adversaries. I think he can manage that.

>She’s stumbled into a job she’s great at, where she has a bully pulpit for as long as she wants – remember, we in MA elect our senators for life.

With that in mind, Coakley losing to Brown was a gift. She would have been near impossible to displace. Without Sen. Brown I doubt we’d have Sen. Warren. (Would Warren have run for Kerry’s seat?)

161

milx 06.10.16 at 2:57 am

I feel as though if you are a single issue, or primary issue, anti-imperialism/anti-war voter then you have no good choices this election. You truly have no good choices when it comes to US politics in general and if you don’t think the historical and contemporary Democratic Party is any better than the Republican Party when it comes to war (and maybe even worse), you are probably 100% correct. For the rest of us who will consider other issues Hillary is campaigning on platform that, generally speaking, hits all of Bernie’s points though often not as hard. $12 minimum wage instead of $15. Fracking as a stop-gap as alternative energy is developed instead of an immediate stop. Free community college instead of free college total. Expanded ACA instead of complete universal healthcare. Campaign finance reform and Wall St. regulation in an incremental moderate package instead of as the cornerstone of an outspoken campaign. That she is the first woman candidate of a major US political party for president is a wonderful thing too. But [and with the exception of you gung ho pacifists] if you really can’t understand why someone [okay, maybe only nominally] on the left is happy about her nomination then you’re not being particularly honest.

162

F. Foundling 06.10.16 at 2:59 am

@RNB 06.09.16 at 11:45 pm

>On Sanders he is not as far to the left as you think

I know and have said that he wasn’t perfect, but even in those areas or cases where he was or had been unimpressive, he was still much better than Clinton. To put it in familiar language, Sanders was the lesser evil needed to keep Clinton (and pretty much everyone else in the same triangulating crowd) out of office.

>So when you come up with an argument for why I should not vote for Clinton to keep Trump out of office, wake me up

Oh no, *you* and other HRC-ists don’t get to play the ‘lesser evil’ card. You were the ones who did your best to make sure the only alternative to Trump would be Clinton, *before* it was inevitable. Now the responsibility for all of her future actions is on you. That will be little consolation, unfortunately.

163

MIJ 06.10.16 at 3:05 am

1. Ta-Nehisi Coates
2. Edward Snowden
Ok, in the real world neither is going to get a thought for VP but I can wish.
Warren is much more effective in the Senate where she can hold hearings and hold people’s feet to thew fire. Her questioning of witnesses has been brilliant and effective.
Age might be a consideration in VP selection . Clinton will be 73 in 2020, not too old but the odds of health problems do increase and 2020 is going to be an essential election because of the census and redistricting. (I’m 66 so this isn’t generational prejudice).
I think doubling down on gender, given Donald Trump’s antagonism might make a great deal of sense.
Although she is from the Boomer generation I think Patty Murray of Washington would be an excellent choice. She voted against Iraq, is strong on environmental issues, and is a master at budget negotiations. She has been weak on trade issues. Her committee assignments have given her broad experience, especially on veterans issues (important to me). She has been strong on education issues.
Castro’s resume is too thin. Cory Booker has been a nightmare especially with respect to Newark schools. Brown is too important in the Senate and the fact that his replacement would be named by a Republican governor gives pause.

I supported Sanders, primarily because of economic issues. I don’t especially like HRC but I think she has been a masterful politician and some of the criticisms leveled against her seem to arise from the fact that she made political decisions. I’m not sure she is nearly as hawkish as she has been portrayed, I wonder if as president she would feel the need to demonstrate “toughness” to the same degree she has in the past. My biggest concern about Mrs. Clinton is Mr. Clinton. I thought her comments, which she quickly walked back, about having Bill around to “fix the economy” were very ill-advised but I took them as essentially political – a nod toward the fact that the economy did well, albeit for those at the top primarily, during Clinton’s term.
I think her instincts are far more Progressive than she is given credit for and perhaps has demonstrated over her career.
I suspect if elected the Republicans will quickly double down on Clinton Derangement Syndrome. My hope is that rather than try to negotiate, make nice, or find common ground with a party that continually negotiates in bad faith she will call bullshit from day one – adopting FDR’s “I welcome their hatred” might be a good strategy.

164

RNB 06.10.16 at 3:29 am

@164 OK so you don’t have any argument as to why I should not vote for Clinton to keep Trump out of office.

Unlike the Bernie or Bust people on this list, I was always clear that I would vote for Sanders were he the nominee. I have been focused perhaps more than anyone on this list on Trump’s racism from the beginning and feared from the outset that his racism would propel him to the Republican nomination when this was (pun intended) a minority position. I would have happily voted for Sanders to defeat Trump.

But more importantly if Clinton wins you’ll have a tough time proving that Sanders wouldn’t have done what Clinton will do that angers you (drones, another NATO action in Libya, even a no-fly zone in Syria that he explicitly did not rule out, redeployment in Afghanistan) or that Sanders would have got better social policy actually passed (doubtful of course) or that Sanders would not have done bad things (put off immigration reform or blocking imports from poor countries that could have dire consequences on those countries or let banks collapse taking the economy into The Greater Depression) or that a Sanders nomination wouldn’t have led to a Trump victory that would have led to things worse than what would have happened in a Clinton administration.

Sanders a decent person whom I would have enthusiastically voted for in spite of my disagreements has lost; you ridiculously exaggerate my role in this !

The emails are not doing Clinton in. And you haven’t provided me one reason not to vote for Clinton to keep Trump out of office.

165

RNB 06.10.16 at 3:35 am

@163 is convincing to me though HRC’s worldwide marketing of US fracking technology worries me greatly and raises the possibility of powerful US business interests distorting HRC’s energy policies. We certainly need a growing and powerful environmental movement to force Washington to take action. As for the options before us now, Trump will destroy the progress represented by the Paris Accord. This makes the election of Clinton urgently important.

166

F. Foundling 06.10.16 at 3:42 am

@milx 06.10.16 at 2:57 am
>But … if you really can’t understand why someone [okay, maybe only nominally] on the left is happy about her nomination then you’re not being particularly honest.

Well, ‘maybe only nominally’ certainly does a lot of work here. In the actual context, being happy about HRC’s nomination means being happy that it’s her *as opposed to Sanders*. I.e. it means that you consider her a better candidate than him. I honestly don’t see any good reasons for any (not-only-nominal) leftist to think so, and even your own presentation, which ignores, among other things, the difference in the candidate’s actual records, doesn’t give any.

167

js. 06.10.16 at 3:46 am

In the actual context, being happy about HRC’s nomination means being happy that it’s her *as opposed to Sanders*.

This is obviously wrong. (I’m trying to stay out of endless primary nonsense, but this is really a point of logic.) It’s perfectly possible for me to have preferred that Sanders be the candidate and still be happy about Clinton’s nomination (for various reasons). What exactly is the problem there?

168

js. 06.10.16 at 3:48 am

Compare: I’d have preferred Italy to win Euro 2012 but I’m happy about Spain’s win. (This isn’t actually true, but the point is it makes sense.)

169

F. Foundling 06.10.16 at 4:03 am

@js.
If you are choosing out of many countries/candidates, then yes, you might think that both Italy and Spain, both Clinton and Sanders happen to be among the best in that large group. However, the Democratic primary was all about Clinton vs Sanders virtually from the start. This is like saying that you would have preferred it to rain, but are also happy about it not raining.

170

js. 06.10.16 at 4:12 am

No, you can be happy with second-best even when there are only two choices. There’s really no problem with this at all.

171

F. Foundling 06.10.16 at 4:15 am

@RNB 06.10.16 at 3:29 am

>OK so you don’t have any argument as to why I should not vote for Clinton to keep Trump out of office.

I have never said one shouldn’t vote for HRC to keep Trump out of office. Trump is definitely much worse than HRC, AFAICS. On the other hand, that’s easy for me to say, since I’m not a US voter anyway; tactically, Sanders voters’ only leverage to keep HRC from pivoting to the right is to threaten not voting for her. There has never been any comparison with HRC voters in this respect.

>But more importantly if Clinton wins you’ll have a tough time proving that Sanders wouldn’t have done what Clinton will do

If you make the choice that is obviously much more likely to lead to the undesirable result, it’s natural to connect the result to that choice. If you choose to go to Somalia and are shot, I can’t *prove* that you wouldn’t have been shot even if you had stayed at home. As for the rest of your counterfactuals, I find them highly far-fetched.

172

F. Foundling 06.10.16 at 4:18 am

@js. 06.10.16 at 4:12 am
>No, you can be happy with second-best even when there are only two choices. There’s really no problem with this at all.

Second best out of two? Why not be unhappy about the best of the two, since it’s actually the second worst?

173

F. Foundling 06.10.16 at 4:26 am

@RNB 06.10.16 at 3:29 am

I’m stuck in moderation for whatever reason, so briefly: 1. Personally, I have never argued for a Bernie or Bust position, although I can see that it may be tactically useful to use it as a threat in order to influence HRC; 2. It is never possible to prove that something wouldn’t have happened no matter what, but choosing the course of action that clearly makes it much more likely makes you responsible for it.

174

Val 06.10.16 at 4:33 am

Thanks Eszter, that’s a great image.

I really hope the US experience with having a female presidential candidate, and President if she makes it, will work out better than ours did. (By which I mean, Julia Gillard was a decent and competent Australian Prime Minister but she still suffered from unbelievable levels of misogyny and sexism, including some from her own side of politics).

And on the topic of vice presidential candidates, here is something for those who may think that we feminists sometimes exaggerate – this is the first comment I saw when I was reading an article in the Guardian about Elizabeth Warren as a potential VP:

Jason Ma

They look too much like a lesbian couple together. It’d be wise for Clinton to choose a male running mate in my opinion.

Seriously, you couldn’t make this stuff up.

175

Suzanne 06.10.16 at 4:49 am

@157: Warren’s prompt and enthusiastic endorsement of Clinton and rapid assumption of the role of attack dog suggest someone who is at the very least open to the idea of being on the ticket. The bully pulpit of a Senate seat is nothing compared to the vice presidency in its modern form (since Gore). The “bucket of warm ‘spit'” era is long over.

Warren’s potential as a veep is real, but Clinton may reasonably wonder if the country is ready for two women at the top of the ticket. (Clinton – Gore isn’t really quite the same (“Hey! We’re doubling up on white male moderate Democrats!” – even if the second one also had a Southern accent.) It’s also true that Warren has no interest in foreign policy – she has burbled a few things about her unswerving support for Israel, but that’s about it. I think she’ll be considered seriously, though – and rightly. I’d like to see it happen, myself. In the end I don’t think it will, but not because Warren is unwilling.

@102: Clinton has done nothing but say, and do, the right things to demonstrate her eagerness to win over the younger voters who support Sanders — those who do support him, that is — she has done fine with younger women of color, for example. The contempt is pretty much on one side, certainly as far as the candidate is concerned.

176

bad Jim 06.10.16 at 5:31 am

A casual perusal of the history of catastrophic vice presidential candidates is not especially instructive. Was Sarah Palin significantly worse than Dan Quayle? It’s not clear whether the selection or the dumping of Tom Eagleton was worse, and I suspect few would argue that Agnew added to Nixon’s luster in 1968.

Let’s recycle Al Gore! Think of all the bumper stickers and yard signs we could re-use! That ticket won twice, and maybe the promise of Gore made it work. Isn’t that the appeal of Game of Thrones?

177

J-D 06.10.16 at 5:44 am

F. Foundling @137

‘By the way, I would suggest that HRC’s admirers ought to make up their minds whether triangulating and warmongering are small imperfections (as per the third tweet in the OP), or outright virtues (as per the second one).’

People who admire Clinton have a variety of reasons for doing so; their values, their opinions, and their attitudes vary, and it’s extremely unreasonable to expect otherwise.

178

J-D 06.10.16 at 5:55 am

Tabasco @149

‘Why do people always reach for Margaret Thatcher when talking about women political leaders?
‘She wasn’t the first (Bandaranaike); …’

Bandaranaike may have been the first woman to be elected to be national leader, but she wasn’t the first woman to be national leader.

If I had to guess, I would guess that Thatcher is mentioned more often as an example by Anglophones because she was the first woman elected as national leader of an Anglophone country. This may not be a good reason, but it does at least offer some kind of explanation.

179

J-D 06.10.16 at 5:58 am

novakant @152

So which of the following do you think is the best assessment (and why)?

1. Clinton as President would be significantly more belligerent than Trump would be as President.
2. Clinton as President would be significantly less belligerent than Trump would be as President.
3. Clinton as President would exhibit a level of belligerency about equal with what Trump would exhibit as President.

180

JeffreyG 06.10.16 at 6:04 am

Suzanne, I am afraid that I do not see it that way, and many of my peers feel the same way (yes, even young women of color!) Now, a solid number who feel this way will also vote for her – not everyone’s vote is as purely symbolic as mine. But your abrupt dismissal of something my peers and I have been upset about for some time is… curious, to say the least.

I could go on about specific things, but I don’t much see the point. I will note that David Brock has been running a major part of Clinton’s messaging campaign, and that said campaign also at one point hired a brigade of internet trolls. David Brock is a shameless propagandist, and a veteran of the rightwing art of the smear campaign – is there any wonder that people are coming away with negative feelings?

181

bad Jim 06.10.16 at 6:28 am

Colin Powell would balance the ticket: a man, a black, a veteran, another Secretary of State, internationally respected (I actually had a conversation about him in Spanish with a cab driver in Madrid, my one Tom Friedmann moment), another user of a private e-mail service, a former Republican.

182

Howard Frant 06.10.16 at 6:38 am

LFC@150
” You (H. Frant) evidently learned little or nothing from that discussion.”

I didn’t find the discussion very illuminating, if that’s what you mean. I wasn’t trying here to define the other meaning (call it the Monbiot meaning for short) of neoliberalism. I was commenting that it has nothing to do with Clinton. What I was trying to do in that other discussion, evidently unsuccessfully, is to keep the word from being applied to the American center-left as if it indicated some intellectual connection between Clinton and Thatcher. There is no mystical connection between the two words; they are constructed from different meanings of “neo-” and different meanings of “liberal.” Clinton is not a neoliberal in Monbiot’s sense, as anyone can see from your discussion @150. People should stop calling her that, as it only leads to confusion. Well, perhaps not confusion, as people are already using it as a generalized insult, with no clear idea what it means.

JeffreyG@159

Fair enough. Now, how has Clinton failed to show due respect to you/your generation?

183

annie 06.10.16 at 9:19 am

sometimes c.t. really shocks me. like i remember the thread on henry louis gates being locked out of his house.
this is written from my special place in hell. i’m picking out the drapes.

184

dax 06.10.16 at 9:41 am

” I’d vastly prefer to have the comment replaced by a placeholder like [This comment has been deleted by the moderator] or some such.”

I think it should be : ” [This comment has been deleted by (person’s name).” First, because it clarifies. And then second, because I imagine it will give more pleasure to the person doing the deleting anyway (always trying to help here), since a big reason for comment deletion is to Show Who Is In Charge – and what better way to punctuate one’s power trip than by signing it? harry b gives an entirely reasonable explanation for comment deletion, but c’mon that’s not why most comments are deleted. They are deleted because they are contrary to the moderator’s point of view.

Insulting, ad hominem comments – sure, delete them. Ow I don’t agree with this, “It’s my house, I can do what I want.”

As to Hillary, my eyes glaze over when people try to pretend this is a big step forward for women. Having the wife of a former President become President is what often happens in the third world. HRC’s advancement doesn’t show an improvement for women; it shows how much the USA has slid into third-world norms.

185

ZM 06.10.16 at 10:07 am

For Vice Presidential candidates I really liked Martin O’Malley when I read about him as a Democrat Candidate for President. He dropped out of the race pretty early, saying he hoped that his candidacy at the start would have good implications for the race. He had a really good climate change policy.

I think the illustration is really good. Even if in some ways Hilary Clinton doesn’t have the perfect set of policies for me, it is just good to see that people of colour, and women, and other groups, can be considered for President now, and in the case of Obama, win.

Australia’s politics is a bit different, we are a smaller country, and I think when Obama visited he pointed out that political speech is a lot more direct in Australia. He said in America people would sort of hide what they were saying, but Australians just say it directly.

Val mentions Prime Minister Julia Gillard above, like a lot of people I had some issues with how she came to be Prime Minister, but in retrospect her government had a lot of successful policy and she gave a speech I liked about sexism and misogyny in politics. I think women in this sort of role experience a lot more sexism and misogyny than maybe most women do when they are not in the public sphere. You can sort of hear how she is very personally offended by things people in politics and public life have said about women or about her.

https://youtu.be/sl1v4VOLj2Q

186

Layman 06.10.16 at 11:58 am

@ novakant, do you agree with this?

“But this celebration of the primary win because HRC is a woman is also a celebration of all the people who will predictably be killed by HRC, because I don’t think that there was exact equivalence between candidates and bases between Clinton and Sanders either.”

And this?

“It depends on why we get an (unlikely) Trump Presidency. The more likely reason for this unlikely result is that HRC can’t convince young voters to turn out for her and is in general a bad campaigner, and if that’s the reason then yes, this post will stand as a fine illustration of how in victory Clinton supporters really had nothing better to do than to rehearse their resentments about Bernie Bros and their impossible desire for political perfection.”

Or do you agree this is rank nonsense?

187

Layman 06.10.16 at 12:02 pm

JeffreyG: “I could go on about specific things, but I don’t much see the point.”

I’m left with the impression that you would happily support Clinton – did, in fact! – until she did some things to insult or alienate you (and others like you), which things you can’t be bothered to recount. Is that the impression you mean to give?

188

JeffreyG 06.10.16 at 1:34 pm

Yeah, I have clarified – running a dishonest campaign that eagerly smeared Sanders and his supporters. See David Brock, Bernie Bros, the falsehoods peddled on Sanders’ civil rights record by Clinton surrogates before super T, Clinton’s comments about ‘feeling sorry for young kids who don’t do their research’, the continued stream of lies about the FBI criminal investigation, the dismissal of young women who support Bernie (they do it for the boys!), her complete bullshitting on the question of the SS payroll cap (insisting that she had he same position as S but not agreeing when asked directly), the hiring of a brigade of Internet trolls to harass pro Bernie people , her lack of credible stance on the TPP ( state dept set to release her emails on the matter on Nov 31st – not just after the election but on a day that doesn’t exist- suck), nearly everything on healthcare, and not ever actually looking into those Wall Street transcripts despite her conditions being met and her promising to look into them.

Throw in a couple white noise generators, a strong messaging apparatus that works diligently to spoon-feed Narrative to career-minded journalists, and half a year without an unscripted press conference for good measure. I do not get the impression that she is interested in honestly informing the American people about where she stands on major issues.

Note – My support for Clinton was never going to be happy. She remains a warmonger of the highest order, for instance, and that is never something to happily endorse. Resigned to the inevitability is a much better description of the mental state in question than happy.

189

Rich Puchalsky 06.10.16 at 1:56 pm

History is being re-written days after the fact, not just in the tiny microcosm of this thread but by the HRC campaign itself. I remain boggled at the minds that can understand “Celebrating Trump’s victory is celebrating the likely deaths of thousands because HRC, another credible candidate, would kill fewer people” and that just can not understand “Celebrating HRC’s victory is celebrating the likely deaths of thousands because Sanders, another credible candidate, would kill fewer people.” No, it’s all pissant lectures about how all Presidents kill people and therefore why do we really care which one wins. You know that if anyone on the left wrote that, the cry of “Naderism!” would go up.

Yes, the people here can delete whatever comments they like, but it’s not simply deletion for not following the thread or for personal attacks: it’s systematic deletion of comments from people who don’t think like the people here. That’s why people reading the thread should know about it. When someone is banned after public warning or disemvowelled people at least see that there was a dissenting opinion, but when it comes to matters of war and peace, best get rid of them silently.

190

Plume 06.10.16 at 2:31 pm

Howard Frant,

“Neoliberal” fits perfectly well, when applied to Clinton. The label was pretty much invented by Charles Peters (as LFC points to, above), at the Washington Monthly, though it has snowballed/morphed from there to include much more than just the conflicted center left:

A Neo-Liberal’s Manifesto

I also agree with his additions:

“In that meaning the word refers, inter alia, to an emphasis on privatization, deregulation, ‘free’ trade agreements, imposition of fiscal discipline on poorer countries via the IMF, and often attacks on welfare or public goods provision, to name a few. Thatcherism is one instance, but far from exhausts it.”

A good way NOT to be confused by the word “liberal” within the label is just to think of it the same way propertarians do: The liberalization of markets. The Clintons are all for that. They’re all for certain right-libertarian constructs in general, with regard to those markets, but they veer away from them toward the “conservative” by also supporting a social safety net. That social safety net was originally a conservative idea, not left-wing. Right-libertarians, OTOH, are under the delusion that their udopia (no social welfare, an all-privatized economy) would last more than a second or two. They’re convinced that capitalism without massive state support would more than just survive, it would supposedly thrive like never before.

In reality, it would die a very quick and bloody death. No economic system in history requires “Big Government” like capitalism.

191

Layman 06.10.16 at 2:42 pm

Rich P writes: “History is being re-written days after the fact…”

…and then goes on to re-write history, days after the fact.

192

milx 06.10.16 at 2:45 pm

“That social safety net was originally a conservative idea, not left-wing.”

Not sure how to interpret this claim but I know that in the 1930s the idea of establishing a social safety net did not emerge from the American right-wing unless we’re now stretching terms so far that they’ve lost any kind of historical meaning.

193

Cranky Observer 06.10.16 at 2:49 pm

“Not sure how to interpret this claim but I know that in the 1930s the idea of establishing a social safety net did not emerge from the American right-wing ”

Bismarck took his advisors’ advice to build a basic social safety net to protect industrialism from a communard revolution, and he was as right wing as they come. Hopkins and Roosevelt studied that system.

194

Layman 06.10.16 at 2:55 pm

@ JeffreyG, that strikes me as a far-from-objective list. All the campaigns were dishonest. HRC did not coin ‘Bernie Bros’ , did not make the comment about young women. The ‘research’ comment came in response to an attack from Sanders which fact checkers found largely false. Clinton is certainly conflicted by past associations, positions, statements, votes, but then, so is Sanders. If one justifies one’s use of one’s Senate seat to provide cover for gun manufacturers, because of one’s constituency and the need to get re-elected (as Sanders did!), it takes some chutzpah to then turn around and accuse another of hypocrisy for the same sort of behavior.

I like Bernie’s positions better, and I like him better, and I voted for him. But refusing to vote for the Democratic nominee, out of pique and personal affront, is crazy.

195

RNB 06.10.16 at 3:04 pm

@191 RP, would you care to present a detailed argument with reference to actual conditions on the ground or at least link to one that in the absence of NATO intervention in Libya, things would be or could have been better there now than they are? Juan Cole for example thinks things would have been worse. Alex de Waal thinks a negotiated settlement with Qaddafi may have been possible and that Clinton jumped on the Security Council authorization for military action which (Security Council Resolutions in regards to Libya) the Senate Resolution that Sanders had sponsored also supported.

For reasons I do not understand, given your claimed pacifism, Sanders’ support of bombing in Serbia and his sponsorship of this Senate Resolution and his support of drone warfare did not drive you away from him for Jill Stein, also a woman.

Also would you care to present a detailed argument with reference to actual conditions on the ground or at least link to one that a no-fly zone in Syria to support the Free Syrian army five years ago would have made things worse than they are in Syria today? Jeffrey Sachs thinks that HRC behind the scenes scuttled Annan’s peace deal that Assad was willing to sign; others will say that Assad would clearly have violated the terms of that agreement.

Note a couple of things: 1. in both these cases Clinton ruled out putting troops on the ground, so she is not as hawkish Pres. George W. Bush who put troops on the ground in Iraq and 2. Donald Trump has said that he would have done or will do terrifying hawkish things unilaterally (for example seize the oil fields in the South of Iraq though ISIS does not have a presence there and threaten to use nuclear weaponry against ISIS despite the horrific risk that would pose to civilians), so take that into account when you make an argument that we should not vote for Clinton to keep Trump out of office.

196

RNB 06.10.16 at 3:07 pm

@190 John Lewis’ questioning of Bernie Sanders’ youthful civil rights commitments was a low point in the Clinton campaign. It was unjustified. Nothing like that was said at CT by anyone preferring to Clinton over Sanders as far as I can remember.

197

Plume 06.10.16 at 3:10 pm

@195:

Exactly.

“Bismarck took his advisors’ advice to build a basic social safety net to protect industrialism from a communard revolution, and he was as right wing as they come. Hopkins and Roosevelt studied that system.”

198

RNB 06.10.16 at 3:13 pm

Again my slogan for the next 4+ months is NO BFD (No Big Fraud Don). Thank you.

199

Rich Puchalsky 06.10.16 at 3:14 pm

“RP, would you care to present a detailed argument”

No, I would not, not in a corrupt forum where any comment that I might make could be silently deleted and in which I have to self censor those that I do make.

All of the mysterious mysteries about my comments can be answered by those very comments, if you could read and if you bothered to read. (For instance, what about Jill Stein? Is it possible that *gasp* you’re driven away from her because she’s a woman? Or did I just write something right in the last comment about credible candidates, as in candidates that have an actual nonzero chance of winning the election?)

I comment here because I like to argue, because this is one of the few sites left that has a substantial pool of people who like to argue about these topics (the alternative –LGM?), and because I’ve been arguing with some of these people for more than a decade and I’m reluctant to move on. The posters here apparently think that they are content creators, just as the GOP goes on about job creators. But this is getting more annoying.

200

milx 06.10.16 at 3:14 pm

Be that as it may (and with the acknowledgement that using a social safety net to preserve an autocratic or neoliberal capitalist regime may ultimately be reifying a right-wing) in the US the expansion of welfare has always coincided with left-wing control of government. Perhaps from a purely Bolshevik perspective any kind of governance that does not ultimately lead to a dictatorship of the proletariat is “right-wing,” but in the reality the rest of us live in the right-wing is eternally hostile to any kind of social safety net (cf the last century of American politics).

201

RNB 06.10.16 at 3:17 pm

@201 Bluster.

202

bianca steele 06.10.16 at 3:33 pm

I find it interesting that Rich is complaining at such elaborate length about the moderation policies here, when this complaining is compared with his behavior in comments over the past several months.

I personally dislike silent deletion or silent permanent moderation of comments. From this side it feels like a power play, as one is left wondering what karmic guilt load has contributed to this. It’s only happened to me once or twice on this blog but I don’t blame Phil for feeling upset about it. FWIW I assume RNB was banned temporarily for longwindedness and aggressiveness, as I don’t see anything wrong with most of what he says. But it is extremely unpleasant to take part in a comments section when a significant proportion of the commenters are trying to game the system, or when the frontpagers view all commenters as potential hostile adversaries.

203

Rich Puchalsky 06.10.16 at 3:39 pm

I find it interesting that bianca steele goes on at length about how people who she doesn’t like shouldn’t respond to her, but she herself responds to what I write to other people at every opportunity despite knowing that I want nothing to do with her.

204

bianca steele 06.10.16 at 3:40 pm

Rich:

Can you provide evidence? I didn’t think so.

205

RNB 06.10.16 at 3:44 pm

So nice to have your support, such that it is, bianca.

But Long winded ok; yet how am I aggressive? I wasn’t shouting at my opponents that they are “shameless propagandists”? When do I accuse my opponents of “not being able to think”? Things like this are routinely said about me; do I respond in kind?

206

JeffreyG 06.10.16 at 3:48 pm

OK Layman- first I will note that you aimed here for the easy targets, not the hard ones. You are oddly silent on the non-disclosure of her Wall Street speeches, for instance. Or that whole FBI thing. Or the smearing of Bernie Sanders’ civil rights record by a journalist married to a Clinton operative just before many Southern states were set to vote.

But because I have already started, lets play ball:

“HRC did not coin ‘Bernie Bros’ ” – David Brock took this narrative and ran with it, there are reporters on record saying that they were pitched this story by the HRC campaign. Are you trying to claim that the HRC campaign is not partly responsible for this narrative? Reference the ‘Obama boys’ narrative in 2008.

“did not make the comment about young women.” – Her campaign has been pushing this line continuously, effacing the strong support that Sanders has from young women, and only backed down on this after it completely backfired. This was the logical continuation of a message they were pushing for a while, only retracted when they overstepped their limits. If you don’t think that this was an incredibly hurtful message sent to young female leftists, I question how many you interact with on a day-to-day basis.

“The ‘research’ comment came in response to an attack from Sanders which fact checkers found largely false.” –

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron
You can spin it all you like, but ‘oh its just from a bundler’ or ‘oh its just her super PAC/

“to provide cover for gun manufacturers” –
This reminds me of another howler: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-vermont-guns-responsible-for-new-york-violence/ ; around this same time she was trying to link Sanders to the Sandy Hook shooting too. Shameless if you ask me.

“refusing to vote for the Democratic nominee, out of pique and personal affront, is crazy.”

Of course, you conveniently leave out all my issues with her corruption, dishonestly, and warmongering as the baseline for all of this, but tbh I wasn’t expecting an honest hearing to begin with.

Oh, and you also neglect the part where one of the dominant arguments put forward by her campaign – her presumed viability vs the Repubs in November – stands in great jeopardy due to the pending criminal investigation by the FBI, something which she has continuously lied to the American people about. Claims that it was ‘allowed’, that she was not hacked, that there was no sensitive intelligence on the server – all have been demonstrated as falsehoods by official reports.

Call me crazy all you like, but I am not excited for this to be the sort of standard setting at the leadership of the democratic party:
http://abc11.com/news/how-clinton-donor-got-on-sensitive-intelligence-board/1379818/

207

bianca steele 06.10.16 at 3:48 pm

Gee, thanks, RNB, I’ll look forward to agreeing with you in future too. Maybe you can ask the people who felt targeted by your aggressiveness why they felt that way: it’s not my turn today.

208

Suzanne 06.10.16 at 3:57 pm

@186: I think we can safely say that the eyes of feminists of Clinton’s generation are not glazed over at the thought. They know how far the country, and Clinton, have had to come to get to where they are now.

In Clinton’s youth, the prospect of any woman becoming president was remote. She has worked very hard at building her own resume and is far from the stalwart Congressional widow finishing out her husband’s term.

As Val has pointed out before, the U.S. still lags behind other developed countries in the political advancement of women. In the U.S., the president is both head of the government and head of state and thus carries a huge symbolic load (not to mention the title “Commander-in-Chief”). The United States is also the only superpower. To put a woman in that office is a very big deal indeed.

209

JeffreyG 06.10.16 at 3:59 pm

Stuck in moderation now, & I’m not really going to wait up for things to come out or find it all deleted (because apparently that is a thing now on CT?) I already got sucked deeper into this than I wanted to anyways.

If people want to go on saying that they don’t understand how an alliance with David ‘she’s a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty’ Brock resulted in a campaign that was extremely off-putting to many potential political allies, well that is their prerogative I guess.

We can resume this argument when the media narrative shifts to blaming left-wing defectors/Sanders’ intransigence for HRC’s slipping in the polls against Trump.

210

Eszter Hargittai 06.10.16 at 4:25 pm

Reading the comments, you’d think dozens of comments have been deleted on this thread. That is simply not so. About half a dozen have been deleted, completely consistent with the comments policy and that includes two comments by ZM that repeated the same URL that was already present in a prior comment. You can create conspiracy theories about comment deletion and moderation, but know that it is not a reflection of reality. The reality is that comments go into moderation for reasons not clear to anyone, certainly not to me. So if something doesn’t show up right away, that is not because someone is wronging you, it is some technical function of the system. CTers sleep and also have other things going on in their lives so we are not constantly monitoring what comments may have ended up in the queue and need to be released. (My impression is that including links is one way to end up in the moderation queue, it’s probably a way the system tries to protect against spam.)

211

RNB 06.10.16 at 4:39 pm

Cmon Jeffrey you don’t think Sanders campaign peddled its share of misleading claims, like Sanders was opposed to Wall Street when he voted for deregulation of derivatives; you don’t think he made some bad gun votes to win in VT; you don’t think he was hurtful to Southern blacks when he lost them; you don’t think he tried to throw Clinton under the bus for an intervention in Libya he too had signed up too; that he went out of bounds when he called HRC unqualified.
We can all be hurt. Let’s just say No BFD.

212

Rich Puchalsky 06.10.16 at 4:44 pm

engels @ 36: “I posted four lines of anti-Clinton emojis in response to the pro-Clinton emojis and they appeared then vanished. […] And I am now seemingly in the Kafkaesque position of reading people discuss the fact that there has been no prevention of disagreement whilst being prevented from disagreeing with them. The emojis were not rude in any way and referenced Clinton’s imperialism […]”

Me @ 72: “I figured that engels’ comments were deleted because of some CT *technical issue*, not deliberately, but with Phil saying it happened too it’s more likely that it was deliberate […] I should have trusted my judgement that this thread was likely to be edited in this way.”

Garrulous @ 94: “The aggressive moderation policy on this thread is ill-conceived, insulting and unnecessary. I can only imagine it will do some damage to conversation on this site. “

Eszter Haatgittai: “About half a dozen have been deleted, completely consistent with the comments policy […] You can create conspiracy theories about comment deletion and moderation, but know that it is not a reflection of reality. […] So if something doesn’t show up right away, that is not because someone is wronging you, it is some *technical function* of the system.”

It’s funny how trust works.

213

ZM 06.10.16 at 4:51 pm

Eszter,

“and that includes two comments by ZM that repeated the same URL that was already present in a prior comment.”

I was attempting to embed the video, usually YouTube embeds in the thread so you can see the video not only the URL, I wasn’t just repeating the same URL as a redundancy.

214

Layman 06.10.16 at 4:54 pm

@ JeffreyG

“Or that whole FBI thing.”

I didn’t respond to that because it is pointless until (as I said) you actually articulate a crime for which you think she could plausibly be charged, given the facts we have. If there is no more to the email server story than what is in the public record, then what is the crime? If your insistence is that there could be a crime we don’t know about, well, that’s pretty much true of anyone.

I’ve said I don’t like HRC. I think she’s out of touch with much of reality and has genuinely bad judgment about many things – the Wall Street chumminess and profiteering is just one example. I’d prefer to vote for Sanders, despite his own manifest flaws, because I think he grasps the urgency of the need for more drastic change in a way HRC doesn’t and seemingly never will. But, you know, Sanders lost the primary, and he won’t be the nominee, and either Trump or HRC will win the election. I know which outcome I would prefer, and sitting on my hands like a petulant child isn’t the answer.

215

Howard Frant 06.10.16 at 4:56 pm

Plame @192

No. Your confusion illustrates my point.

One word, call it “neoliberalA” was coined by Peters at the Washington Monthly in the 1970s. It was “liberal” as in the US moderate left, “neo-” as in new and improved (cf. neoconservative). Another word, neoliberalB, came from Europe and dates back possibly to the 1930s. It was “liberal” in the European sense of being pro-free-market, “neo-” as in revived from the past (cf. neoclassical, neoNazi).

One word did not “morph” into the other. They had independent existences. At some point, someone came across neoliberalA and confused it with neoliberalB, which was then in vogue in Europe as a pejorative. And so the academic left started saying Clinton = Thatcher, which is absurd on its face.

As I said earlier, neoliberalismA was largely about using markets to reach progressive goals. This was controversial on the left at the time, though not today. For example, cap-and-trade for acid rain was regarded with suspicion by environmentalists. Today, cap-and-trade for global warming is considered too moderate by Bernie; he wants a carbon tax. Both Peters and Hayek would agree in supporting that.

One thing in neoliberalismA that didn’t wear too well was a suspicion of unions. This is not come from free-market ideology or corporatist ideology, but from a desire to break up old comfortable monopolies. That looked different in the 1970s than it does today. Clinton does not line up with Peters on this, and she has been endorsed by a lot of unions (SEIU, AFT, plumbers, etc.)

Clinton does represent a more moderate or centrist liberalism, and you may not like that. People who say Bill was just a sellout, though, should remember that Democrats had lost five of the last six Presidential elections, and the last three in a row, and that the best extant representative of New Deal liberalism, Mondale, had suffered a landslide defeat. By any reasonable measure, the voters had rejected that model.

But calling H. Clinton a neoliberal nowadays is just an intellectual-sounding pejorative that links her to some European ideologies that she is not connected with. It increases confusion instead of decreasing it. People should stop doing it.

216

JeffreyG 06.10.16 at 4:58 pm

Eszter H.
” The reality is that comments go into moderation for reasons not clear to anyone, certainly not to me. So if something doesn’t show up right away, that is not because someone is wronging you, it is some technical function of the system.”

Noted.
My apologies if it sounded like I was insinuating that you were deleting my posts. That was not my intention and I suspect no such thing.

217

novakant 06.10.16 at 4:58 pm

would you care to present a detailed argument with reference to actual conditions on the ground or at least link to one that in the absence of NATO intervention in Libya, things would be or could have been better there now than they are?

use google, warmonger

218

JeffreyG 06.10.16 at 5:09 pm

“sitting on my hands like a petulant child isn’t the answer”

1 – you feel better now that you got that out of your system Layman?

2 – I would like to hear you explain how my voting for HRC will in any way impact the final result of the national election. (Here is a quick hint – it wont). The only way my vote has an impact is by voting third party, in the case where that third party achieves the 5% threshold.

219

Eszter Hargittai 06.10.16 at 5:10 pm

ZM, I wasn’t faulting you at all. I figured you were just trying to get the link to work in a certain way. Since it kept showing up as just a link, I deleted them to streamline the thread.

220

Layman 06.10.16 at 6:05 pm

“I would like to hear you explain how my voting for HRC will in any way impact the final result of the national election. (Here is a quick hint – it wont). “

Then why bother talking about it? What, after all, was the point of this:

“You can count this ‘Bernie Bro’ out.”

??

221

Suzanne 06.10.16 at 6:38 pm

@187: I thought O’Malley had promise, too. He was running to Clinton’s left, did well in most of the debates, and he’s a youngish former mayor and governor with experience in building coalitions among diverse and antipathetic groups. Perhaps fortunately for HRC, the anti-Clinton faction coalesced around a dyspeptic septuagenarian.

I don’t see him in the veep spot because of his utter failure to gain any traction in the primaries, but I assume he’s on the list.

222

engels 06.10.16 at 7:15 pm

“If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”
—Obi Wan Emoji

223

LFC 06.10.16 at 8:07 pm

harry b @111
Finally — about the OP. I pored over that visual [meaning the visual in place of a post title] for a very long time, several times, and only figured out what it meant after reading some comment above.

So perhaps harry b or someone else cd explain it to me — I didn’t study it closely, but I’m fairly sure if I did I wdn’t figure it out v. quickly. (And I’m sure I’ll feel dumb once it’s been explained, but c’est la vie. )

224

Cranky Observer 06.10.16 at 8:08 pm

“As I said earlier, neoliberalismA was largely about using markets to reach progressive goals. “

There’s a thousand-comment thread in the archives from a recent posting and it isn’t worth rehashing. Please go read it. Suffice it to say your statement is a very mild version of one of about six major axes of Peters (US) neoliberalism.

225

The Temporary Name 06.10.16 at 8:10 pm

LFC, they’re meant to be presidents. The last two are dissimilar.

I was not aware that presidential baldness was a norm, but there’s always something new to learn.

226

milx 06.10.16 at 8:10 pm

“So perhaps harry b or someone else cd explain it to me”

#imwithher forward-facing arrow emoji

227

engels 06.10.16 at 8:12 pm

Lfc, it’s an arrow pointing to the right – which indicates Hillary’s political trajectory nice she’s won the nomination.

228

js. 06.10.16 at 8:13 pm

@LFC — It’s an ‘H’ with an arrow pointing rightward through it. Which is Clinton’s campaign symbol or logo or whatever it’s called. I guess the image in-post means that you can go create your own avatar using that logo, but this isn’t really something I’ve looked into. (This helps tho because I first thought Harry meant the Twitter emoji image and was confused what Harry wasn’t getting about it.)

229

RNB 06.10.16 at 8:15 pm

Hilary Clinton’s signs have that symbol of an arrow pointing forward. Compared at this point to Trump’s attempt to restore a past to which we in fact can’t return. That is, progressive compared to reactionary, or maybe I am missing the point.

On the VP question, I would keep Biden where he is if it comes to Biden vs. Warren. The NYT presents him as the dovish one in the war rooms, and he had Jared Bernstein focus on questions of inequality and poverty. He eviscerated Trump yesterday in his speech; his letter to the victim of the Stanford rapist was moving; and due to his tremendous family losses and the dignity with which he has handled himself, he is a sympathetic character.

230

RNB 06.10.16 at 8:16 pm

Oh, I didn’t see the H part of the logo, just the arrow. Thanks js.

231

The Temporary Name 06.10.16 at 8:17 pm

My own comprehension fail means I should never run for president, and I guess I owe an apology to Harry and LFC. What a loser!

232

LFC 06.10.16 at 8:20 pm

engels & js. — thanks for the explanation

the temp. name — yup i got the sequence of presidents thing. It was the other thing (that’s now been explained to me) that i didn’t get. For one thing I managed to escape knowing that an H w/ an arrow through it was one of the — or maybe the, period — HRC campaign logo.

233

LFC 06.10.16 at 8:23 pm

What a loser!

Not at all, temp. name, these things happen to all (well, most) of us.

234

LFC 06.10.16 at 8:25 pm

p.s. and definitely happen to me.

235

Ronan(rf) 06.10.16 at 8:25 pm

It’s Hillary with a “greater than” symbol ?

236

LFC 06.10.16 at 8:29 pm

@RNB
Given Biden’s age and decades around the track, I doubt he wants to be VP another 4 years. Even if he does: fresh(er) blood, enough is enough.

237

LFC 06.10.16 at 8:31 pm

It’s Hillary with a “greater than” symbol ?

Plausible, Ronan, but no, it’s an arrow (see comments above). I feel like I’m in a graphic design class here. Or something.

238

Ronan(rf) 06.10.16 at 8:40 pm

I saw the explanations above, but found them unconvincing

239

Ronan(rf) 06.10.16 at 8:44 pm

I guess we’ll never truly know ….; )

240

annie 06.10.16 at 9:31 pm

and the arrow is pointing to the Right.
(someone said it means ‘hospital this way.’)

241

js. 06.10.16 at 10:18 pm

“Hospital this way” is funny. Had not heard that. While it opens itself up for obvious (and evidently some not so obvious) jokes, the arrow’s pointing right because English is written left-to-right. You all can fill in the intervening steps (or cf. @RNB).

242

LFC 06.10.16 at 10:24 pm

@Ronan
on the off-chance you’re not joking (which you probably are), google “Hillary logo”. plus, if I’d scrutinized the bumper sticker on a car parked around here I’d have prob seen the arrow, but I just registered it as an HRC bumper sticker w/o bothering to look closely at the design.

243

LFC 06.10.16 at 10:27 pm

I see you added the wink so i guess it was all in good fun…

244

Ronan(rf) 06.10.16 at 10:34 pm

I honestly wasn’t convinced by the claims above, but then i googled it and see what they’re getting at. I genuinely thought it was h > b.

245

Howard Frant 06.10.16 at 10:40 pm

Crnky Observer @226

Sorry I didn’t stay for all 1,000 comments when I was on that thread. I’m sure the readers here would be ever so grateful if you would summarize the six major axes of Peters’ neoliberalism, and compare and contrast them to the major axes of that other kind of neoliberalism that Monbiot was talking about. My purpose here was just to point out that there are two different meanings, unrelated except by coincidence, that there’s a lot of confusion around the meaning, and that the term is likely to be unhelpful as a description of Hillary Clinton, except as invective. That’s pretty much all the point I was trying to make on the other thread, too, but I doubt I succeeded, because at that point everyone seemed too invested in the idea that if you use the same word for two different things, that creates some mystical connection between them.

246

Eszter Hargittai 06.10.16 at 11:09 pm

Oh wow, I had no idea that the “title” caused such confusion, apologies. As some have guessed, it is a representation of the Clinton campaign in ASCII. I don’t think it’s possible to put a graphic as a post header so I did my best to put the logo in ASCII form. You can read about the logo here:
http://qz.com/423037/its-official-hillary-clintons-logo-is-actually-perfect/

Perhaps this would have been better to avoid the “greater than” confusion:
|-|-> .. but not sure.

Next time, feel free to ask earlier than 200+ comments in. ;-) But later is better than never. :)

247

Cranky Observer 06.10.16 at 11:19 pm

” I’m sure the readers here would be ever so grateful if you would summarize the six major axes of Peters’ neoliberalism, “

Having commented here for perhaps 12 years, I’m absolutely sure they would not. Do your own research.

In hopeful, actually, that Secretary Clinton has broken free from her circle’s neoliberal preferences (including WJC). But it is a fair point to be concerned about.

248

Helen 06.10.16 at 11:19 pm

I see that the sarcasm might make this difficult to interpret, so, to be clear – yes, it *is* a good thing that it’s demonstrated that a woman, or a black person, or any other member of a historically underprivileged group can become head of state. However, this can only be a legitimate argument in favour of a candidate, or a good reason to celebrate the candidate’s victory enthusiastically, or the main story of an election, if there is virtually no significant difference between the candidates besides their identity

Thanks for putting us in our place. No. The exclusion from social, political and economic power structures of women and POC is a major structural issue involving differences in reward for labour, access to effecting change and a whole raft of other major problems. You can handwave HRC’s gender as “merely identity” but we’re over 50% of the population. The fact that all of the presidents up to the last one have been white males is not just some irrelevant notion of “identity”. The fact that so many brocialists and manarchists are white men themselves suggests to me that some people are extremely protective of their own identity, but are not aware of it.

249

F. Foundling 06.11.16 at 12:11 am

@Helen 06.10.16 at 11:19 pm
Sorry, but I won’t have a single child of any gender be killed by a bomb so you can feel happy about a woman’s being president. Nor will I have a single family go broke, or a single worker of any gender be fired for that purpose. Maybe it’s because I’m a man, but I like to think it’s because I’m human.

250

F. Foundling 06.11.16 at 12:13 am

@J-D 06.10.16 at 5:44 am
>People who admire Clinton have a variety of reasons for doing so … and it’s extremely unreasonable to expect otherwise.

Certainly, but the OP appeared to cite both of the aforementioned positions as compatible with each other. Of course, my real point was the incompatibility of both positions with their proponents’ own stated views and with the facts.

251

LFC 06.11.16 at 12:45 am

Ezster @248
Yes I probably shd have asked earlier. Just didn’t occur to me for a while.

Btw from the linked piece at Quartz.com:

It is through all these iterations that Clinton’s logo fully displays its iconic value: It is highly recognizable despite the changes, and the much-criticized right-facing red arrow … now appears as it was likely meant to: pointing the way forward. … It vehicles [sic] a leadership based on collectivity and inclusiveness rather than the elitist individualism Clinton is often accused of.

It “vehicles”? No, sorry, I draw a line at that.

252

Howard Frant 06.11.16 at 12:50 am

Cranky Observer @249

Sorry. That was sarcasm. Next time I’ll put it in italics.

Now, when you say, “her circle’s neoliberal preferences,” which particular preferences are you talking about? And wouldn’t it be more informative to tell us that in the first place? Or do they come as a package?

253

J-D 06.11.16 at 12:54 am

F. Foundling @252

The most likely explanation for Eszter Hargittai finding compatible the two tweets whose positions you found incompatible is that she interpreted the significance of those two tweets differently from the way you interpreted them. Are you able to offer any other explanation of this fact?

254

Faustusnotes 06.11.16 at 1:02 am

I for one would love to see just a single CT thread about the election that didn’t descend into this killary=trump bullshit, and if that means aggressive comment deletion then bring it on.

CT has really degenerated since all the armchair socialists decided Bernie “sanctions” sanders is the purest form of revolution, and Clinton the first American political leader ever to hurt anyone … disappointing that I have to go to LGM if I want to read anything vaguely analytical about the election because of the way these comment threads get berned down by rich white dudes who have nothing to lose from a trump presidency salivating over the chaos it will cause.

It would be nice if we could have just one comment thread about how great it is that a woman gets to win something. But I guess American sexism will spoil even that..

255

john c. halasz 06.11.16 at 1:38 am

256

LFC 06.11.16 at 2:59 am

@Faustusnotes
the way these comment threads get berned down by rich white dudes who have nothing to lose from a trump presidency salivating over the chaos it will cause.

As far as I can tell, there is almost none of that in this particular thread. And my further impression is that the majority of people who voted for Sanders and comment here are going to vote for HRC in the fall. I certainly am.

It would be nice if we could have just one comment thread about how great it is that a woman gets to win something.

Many of the comments in this thread are about that. I said specifically upthread that while I voted for Sanders in the primaries, I do see HRC’s victory as an important milestone in US politics. That doesn’t mean that I’m going to suspend all criticism and just yell ‘hooray hooray hooray’, but if someone wants to do that for a while and then return to the actual world, so to speak, I have no particular problem with it.

I have to go to LGM if I want to read anything vaguely analytical about the election

Are the posts at LGM about the election mainly analytical, or are they mainly polemical (not that the two things are nec. mutually exclusive)?

257

Alan White 06.11.16 at 3:25 am

Look: if the last three decades have taught us anything, it is that the SCOTUS can change much of what passes as the treasured “freedom” that US citizens claim to possess actually means. This election is about appointments to that body. Everything else is ceteris parabis road to capitalist hell anyway.

258

js. 06.11.16 at 3:46 am

Since most of the action has moved to the more recent Trump post (because all election posts are Trump posts because this is America and we can’t have nice things), I’ll leave this here.

259

engels 06.11.16 at 4:01 pm

“Politics: the art of convincing decent people to forget the lesser of two evils is also evil.”—Edward Snowden

260

awy 06.11.16 at 4:19 pm

on the issue of ‘discipline’ for third world governments from the IMF, it’s important to look at both the fiscal measure or goal, and the content of reform suggested by the IMF. There is a difference between demanding social welfare cuts and reforms that target existing monopolies, political corruption and lack of accountability etc. The latter is more accurate a description of what the IMF usually wants reform to be.

261

LFC 06.11.16 at 8:04 pm

awy @262
A discussion of the IMF would be off-topic for this thread, so I probably shouldn’t have mentioned it in the first place. (I might be interested in a discussion of it in some other context some time.)

262

Layman 06.11.16 at 8:14 pm

On topic, I’ve not seen any suggestions for VP that wow me. Both Warren and Sherrod Brown will be more valuable counting toward a Senate majority. It will surely not be Biden – someone younger is called for. It will not be Bernie – age again, Senate majority again. O’Malley is younger, but not impressive, especially considering that the whole point of his primary campaign was to position himself for something like the VP slot, and he was underwhelming as a candidate.

So, who?

263

Lupita 06.11.16 at 8:55 pm

Having the wife of a former President become President is what often happens in the third world. HRC’s advancement doesn’t show an improvement for women; it shows how much the USA has slid into third-world norms.

If you want to dis Clinton, just dis her outright, instead of using “third world” as an insult synonymous to backward, sexist, or undemocratic. As we all know, politics runs in families as reflected in quite a few cases of daughters/sons, siblings, nephews, etc. of presidents becoming presidents themselves. I do not see why the husband/wife relationship should be viewed as somehow tainted, but if you think so, just state why.

264

T 06.11.16 at 8:59 pm

This
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/democrats-will-learn-all-the-wrong-lessons-from-brush-with-bernie-20160609
As I said earlier, HC won by keeping Warren, Brown and Biden out of the race. She shouldn’t confuse a tactical victory with a strategic one. I’m not optimistic.

265

Phil 06.11.16 at 9:42 pm

Eszter @212 – I know what I wrote & when I wrote it; it appeared (briefly) after oldster’s comment (which is now @2, though I think it was comment 3 at the time). It wasn’t modded, either – it went straight through, but was silently deleted at some point in the next few hours. My comment @84 – which repeats & amplifies the substance of the deleted comment, albeit in a less sulky tone – was modded; I know this sometimes happens at random, but I think I can be forgiven for suspecting it wasn’t random on this occasion. (But thanks for releasing it.)

I don’t want to make a big deal of this (if I can say that with any conviction at this point!) – my comment did appear; I don’t think I’ve been declared persona non grata for ultra-left brocialist deviationism; CT & me are, basically, cool. Maybe somebody over-reacted, maybe two comments got deleted instead of one – whatever, no big deal. I just don’t like being told that nothing happened when I know something did.

266

Howard Frant 06.11.16 at 10:32 pm

Engels @261

Yes, I have heard the Snowden quote, and it sounds deep until you start to think about it. “The lesser of two evils is also evil.” OK, but the greater of two evils is also evil, and it’s, you know, worse. As far was we know, there will either be a Clinton presidency or a Trump presidency, and no third alternative. So which do you prefer?

267

J-D 06.11.16 at 10:38 pm

‘If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.’

268

engels 06.12.16 at 12:52 am

which do you prefer?

Hillary—that’s the ‘lesser’ part. The ‘deep’ part is that if you support her, you’re supporting evil.

269

engels 06.12.16 at 1:02 am

(Maybe, just maybe, being a citizen is more difficult than supporting a football team or choosing a flavour of ice cream)

270

J-D 06.12.16 at 1:05 am

engels @269

So when you, engels, are preferring Hillary, are you preferring evil?

271

engels 06.12.16 at 1:08 am

Yes—lesser evil. This isn’t rocket science dude

272

Helen 06.12.16 at 1:12 am

Sorry, but I won’t have a single child of any gender be killed by a bomb so you can feel happy about a woman’s being president.

That is a silly and disingenuous distortion of what I said, which was to disagree with the brocialist idea that only class and income matters and gender and race are mere identity politics, frills, decoration.
Does your boundless compassion extend to the grown women killed by US policies on abortion, or is that OK because we’re not (as your comment hints at) human?

273

RNB 06.12.16 at 1:15 am

@273 Great comment.

274

Helen 06.12.16 at 1:31 am

Thanks, RNB.

275

engels 06.12.16 at 2:00 am

The issue isn’t whether class, gender or race matter, it’s whether the class, gender or race of a politician matters more than his or her policies and track record. American liberals think it does – everyone with a brain thinks it doesn’t…

276

J-D 06.12.16 at 2:03 am

engels @271

If I say to people ‘You are supporting evil’, they are going to think that I am trying to make them feel bad about what they’re doing and that I’m trying to discourage them from doing it. That’s not rocket science either. (Incidentally, it turns out that ‘It’s Not Rocket Science Dude Limited’ is a private limited company registered in the UK — it was the top hit when I searched the Web for the phrase ‘rocket science dude’. I was disappointed; I wanted to find somebody out there who is using the self-applied description ‘Rocket Science Dude’. I can’t find ‘Brain Surgery Dude’ either.)

So, when you write that people who support Clinton are supporting evil, are you aware that the likely effect is that they will think that you are trying to make them feel bad about supporting Clinton and trying to discourage them from supporting Clinton? is that your intention?

277

engels 06.12.16 at 2:48 am

J-D when you ask people endless questions with seemingly obvious answers and no apparent purpose are you aware the likely effect is that they will think that you are trying to annoy the living shit out of them?

278

js. 06.12.16 at 4:33 am

J-D — Did you use to comment here under a different handle? You don’t have to answer this if you don’t want to (obviously).

279

Howard Frant 06.12.16 at 6:53 am

Well, this thread is petering out pretty rapidly, but I wanted to make one final comment: intellectuals seem to waste a huge amount of time arguing about things because they don’t understand the definitions of the words. In addition to all the time wasted trying to fit Hillary to a European idea of a “neoliberal,” we have the misunderstanding of the word “evil.” A hundred years ago there was the word Evil, but people also talked about “an evil” meaning a bad thing. If your roof leaked, that was an evil. All that “the lesser of two evils” meant was “the less bad of two bad things.” Saying “The less bad of two bad things is still a bad thing” doesn’t seem even momentarily profound. Nor does it seem like an argument against picking it. Sorry– I know this is not as much fun as being on the side of Good against Evil.

280

ZM 06.12.16 at 7:10 am

js.

“J-D — Did you use to comment here under a different handle? You don’t have to answer this if you don’t want to (obviously).”

J-D is a regular commenter on John Quiggin’s blog under this name. I don’t think he would have commented on Crooked Timber under a different name.

281

ZM 06.12.16 at 7:14 am

engels,

“J-D when you ask people endless questions with seemingly obvious answers and no apparent purpose are you aware the likely effect is that they will think that you are trying to annoy the living shit out of them?”

Asking questions is J-D’s commenting style, he was very helpful to me when I was trying to look for what laws hold the government accountable to act on climate change, since he kept asking me questions and disagreeing with me until I found the right laws.

282

J-D 06.12.16 at 8:29 am

engels @278

‘J-D when you ask people endless questions with seemingly obvious answers and no apparent purpose are you aware the likely effect is that they will think that you are trying to annoy the living shit out of them?’

1. The answer to the question I asked you may be obvious to you, but it’s not obvious to me, or I wouldn’t have asked the question.
2. The purpose of my asking that question may not be apparent to you, but I did have a purpose that was clear to me, and which I am prepared to explain on request.
3. I am aware that sometimes my asking of questions has the effect of annoying people, so it would be natural if people sometimes think that annoying them is my purpose, even though it isn’t.

So, that’s your question answered; now, what about mine?

js. @279
No, I’ve never commented here under a different screen-name, but that’s the second time somebody here has asked me that (perhaps it was you the first time as well; I can’t remember). Curious.

283

Collin Street 06.12.16 at 8:50 am

In general, “are you aware that” questions are kind of nasty to answer. It’s a “have you stopped beating your wife yet” question; “are you aware of X” presumes the truth of X, and there’s no way to answer if you think X is false.

Refusing to answer a misconstructed question is a pretty reasonable thing to do. Also, of course, asking misconstructed questions raises all sorts of red flags about the questioner, and again it’s reasonable to be dubious about answering a question if you think the questioner might misunderstand or misinterpret your answer or the implications of your answer. And people respond badly to being told they’re asking the wrong questions, too, so… what’s a body to do?

Or! We can ask, right now. Suppose you ask a person a question. Suppose the person thinks that the question is misconstructed: that it assumes to be true things that that person believes to be false, or that the person believes you’ll take an answer of a particular sort as an admission or claim that some other point is true or false when in fact it isn’t intended that way.

How do you want your question to be answered, in those sorts of circumstances?

284

Phil 06.12.16 at 9:56 am

Seriously, guys, could we stop with the silent deletions? I spent a quarter of an hour last night working on a quiet & reasonable reply to Eszter @212 – having refamiliarised myself with the comments policy – and this morning, pouf! no comment.

Tell me to shut up & I’ll shut up. I’m just not crazy about being shut up, especially without any warning or acknowledgment.

285

Phil 06.12.16 at 9:58 am

Oh bollocks, it didn’t get deleted at all. Don’t know how I missed that. Sorry – please do delete the previous comment (and this one).

286

J-D 06.12.16 at 10:00 am

Collin Street @284

I feel as if I’ve provided an answer to your question by demonstration before you asked it. At comment 278 engels asked me a question which I felt contained false presuppositions; in my comment at 283 I discussed those points and then provided an answer to the question taking account of those issues. That’s the why I’d like people to answer my questions when they think those questions contain false presuppositions.

You make a good point, though, about ‘Are you aware’ questions; I’ll try to remember that and modify my approach in future. Thanks for that.

287

ZM 06.12.16 at 10:15 am

Phil,

I have had issues with comments not showing up too. I think this is sometimes the wordpress filter having tech issues.

288

engels 06.12.16 at 10:38 am

JD (curious to know whether your last name is ‘Sports’ of ‘Wetherspoon’) you need to think about the difference between being a Socratic gadfly and this:

289

J-D 06.12.16 at 11:44 am

engels @289

‘No and then!’ That’s what my best friend keeps quoting! Thanks so much for that! I’ve wanted to know that for years!

Personally, I don’t feel as if I’m either an electronic recording or a Socratic gadfly, but I don’t expect to control how other people judge me.

I’m absolutely sure, however, that my last name is neither Sports nor Wetherspoon, and that I am neither a sports-fashion retail company nor a chain of pubs.

290

Layman 06.12.16 at 12:15 pm

engels: “The issue isn’t whether class, gender or race matter, it’s whether the class, gender or race of a politician matters more than his or her policies and track record. American liberals think it does – everyone with a brain thinks it doesn’t…”

This is, well, nonsense. It ignores the fact that (at least some of those) American liberals don’t agree with you about the policies and track record, doesn’t it?

291

F. Foundling 06.12.16 at 1:18 pm

@Helen 06.12.16 at 1:12 am

>That is a silly and disingenuous distortion of what I said, which was to disagree with the brocialist idea that only class and income matters and gender and race are mere identity politics, frills, decoration.

Well, yes, but that’s an idea I have never expressed, so your comment was a ‘silly and disingenuous’ distortion of what *I* said (hardly even a distortion, as it had so little in common with it). I just used the word ‘identity’ and this was apparently a sufficient pretext for you to read something into my comment that was never there. I used ‘identity’ as a shorthand for gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, and all other things that a candidate *is* – as opposed to what a candidate *does* (so identity includes class, actually). What I did say is that candidates should be elected based on their policies and record, not on their identity. Since you clearly disagreed with that (mostly by re-expressing verbally the rich intellectual content of the emoji picture, and levelling baseless accusations against me), I motivated it more strongly – electing a worse candidate because of his/her identity means causing harm to the actual humans, including those who have that identity. This is the case with Hillary, whose warmongering and cosiness with the plutocracy will cause massive harm to women as well as men – probably to women even more than men – enormous direct harm that absolutely can’t be compensated by the symbolism of having a female US president.

292

F. Foundling 06.12.16 at 1:23 pm

>Does your boundless compassion extend to the grown women killed by US policies on abortion, or is that OK because we’re not (as your comment hints at) human?

Of course not. I did explicitly say in my comment that I only care about *male* children killed by bombs and *male* workers being fired, didn’t I? Why do I need to repeat myself? I have *always* been a staunch supporter of genocide against women! Sarcasm aside, that’s even more silly and disingenuous. I made it clear that my position is, in my conviction, the one I consider *appropriate* for a human, from an ethical standpoint. And naturally, I contrasted that with the position of *Hillary supporters*, not with women. The rhetoric of equating ‘Hillary supporters’ and ‘women’ (by using the 1st person plural) is, again, as manipulative as it gets.

BTW, I note that you have been honoured with The RNB Prize for Disingenuousness at 273, so congratulations. As far as I can tell, it’s richly deserved. Anyway, your comments are so close to trolling that I see it as pointless to engage with you from now on.

293

F. Foundling 06.12.16 at 1:27 pm

@J-D 06.11.16 at 12:54 am

I see no point in discussing with you any further either.

294

Faustusnotes 06.12.16 at 1:58 pm

The modern CT thread : a cavalcade of people declaring they don’t want to speak to each other anymore.

Who goes into the Internet to tell someone that?

295

bianca steele 06.12.16 at 2:26 pm

I think J-D is trying to tell engels that s/he is smug.

296

bianca steele 06.12.16 at 2:35 pm

On @212 (not meant as a direct reply to EH): Some people seem to think there’s a hard and fast binary choice between “there’s a person making deliberate choices about everything for reasons,” and “stuff just happens and no one understands it.” If one knows how computers work and why some things are more feasible than others, that becomes less plausible.

297

Layman 06.12.16 at 2:42 pm

F. Foundling: “Sorry, but I won’t have a single child of any gender be killed by a bomb so you can feel happy about a woman’s being president.”

I ignored this when you posted it, but as you’re carrying on in the same vein, I have to respond, with: “Very well, F. Foundling, what is it that you’re doing instead? Because from what I can tell from your posts, there’s just about fuck all you are doing to prevent that child from being killed – perhaps fuck all you CAN do to prevent it – which rather implies that you will have it after all, any righteous indignation to the contrary.”

298

F. Foundling 06.12.16 at 5:07 pm

@Helen 06.12.16 at 1:12 am
>Does your boundless compassion extend to the grown women killed by US policies on abortion …

I said I wouldn’t respond any further, but I belatedly realise that I forgot to react to this little gem. Apparently, my arguing against HRC in the primary in connection with FP and economic issues somehow implies my arguing against… the right to abortion?! Sanders being, presumably, an anti-abortion candidate, in the parallel universe under discussion. On the odd chance that you aren’t trolling, you really … need some rest, or something.

299

F. Foundling 06.12.16 at 5:11 pm

@Layman 06.12.16 at 2:42 pm
You aren’t making any sense as far as I can see. The answer to your question is obvious from all of my posts and those of many others, so I don’t think you’re asking in good faith either. Still, just this time, here goes – one little tiny thing one can do about such things is oppose candidates with a more warmongering record/policies and support those with a less warmongering record/policies. The same applies to other issues besides war, of course: my general point, which was quite clear in the original context, was against supporting or celebrating the victory of the candidate with the worse policies because of his/her gender, race etc – or, for that matter, ignoring/denying the fact that these policies are worse because of his/her gender, race, etc. I assume your next response will be equally unconstructive, so, alas, even as I shudder at the formidable perspective of once again earning Faustusnotes’ derision, I will have to declare in advance that I won’t be continuing this exchange either. Have fun, or whatever it is you’re doing.

300

Layman 06.12.16 at 5:54 pm

F. Foundling: “one little tiny thing one can do about such things is oppose candidates with a more warmongering record/policies and support those with a less warmongering record/policies.”

Yes, I got that, but I assumed I must be wrong, since this approach will not stop hypothetical children from being bombed, and it would be a bit absurd to hypothesize a particular child who would only be bombed in the one case but not in the other. Which child, and why THAT particular child and not another?

That aside, there are several other things things wrong with your sanctimonious priggery, for example:

– Someone could genuinely believe that this female candidate is also the one least likely to bomb children. I get that you don’t believe that, but you’re guessing, so perhaps a less insulting approach to objecting is called for? Or is it that you think 13 million people cast votes for HRC because they expect and want her to bomb children?
– Someone could be unhappy with the candidate while at the same time be encouraged that the electorate chose a woman for the first time. Yes, this is a complicated view to hold in one’s mind, but people are complicated things, and I assure you that some people hold this view.
– Someone could believe that HRC stands the best chance of beating the Republican nominee, perhaps because of her political skills, perhaps because of favorable demographics, perhaps because Trump is particularly adept at angering women who vote, perhaps because of all these reasons and more. And also believe that supporting such a woman candidate would be a way to, I don’t know, ‘oppose candidates with a more warmongering record/policies and support those with a less warmongering record/policies.’

So, by all means, feel free to shut up now.

Comments on this entry are closed.