I'm Not Ready
June 15, 2015 12:24 PM   Subscribe

"Readiness has also become the slogan of the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Rather than a galvanizing declaration of devotion, the slogan is a queasy-making line in the sand. When the legitimacy of the system the president presides over is in question, as racial oppression, capitalism, and police brutality are discussed on a global scale, choosing a president isn’t a royal crowning. The conflation of being “Ready for Hillary” with feminist allegiance brings the worst problems of political fandom, racism, and poor civic awareness to the forefront. Secretary Clinton is portrayed as a fulfillment of a progressive checklist or schedule rather than an individual candidate."
posted by HumanComplex (125 comments total) 7 users marked this as a favorite
 
Nothing is ordained. She was predestined in 2004 and it was her turn then as well.

I hope Iowa eats her alive (again) and Sanders kicks her ass in New Hampshire.

I am sick or dynastic politics, and I will admit to being one of those progressives who voted for Obama partially because I was tired of old white guys fucking it up, but I'm back to letting the old white guy have a chance (only because Warren won't run).
posted by cjorgensen at 12:52 PM on June 15, 2015 [33 favorites]


Yeah, I'm...argh. I think Hillary would do fine as a president, but she's kind of a lousy candidate. She does that "Say whatever will net me the most votes" thing that hurt Romney so badly. I have every faith in her ability to blow this, and that's what scares me about this election.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:04 PM on June 15, 2015 [7 favorites]


I don't know if she realizes or is OK with it but she's the Fox and Friends (in addition to the denser layer of atmosphere that is Patriot radio on XM) heat shield for everyone else.

Mike Church, which the boss is a fan of, is rabid about just her. Every single day, with breaks for whatever hilarious overreaction is deserved by some culture war issue.

It boggles the mind as to why so many on the right (and the hard, hard right!) are spending this much time and money on her when what resulted from this single target strategy last time was a two term dem in the white house.

So I guess what I'm saying is, its not really a problem that to the GOP and independents she is the "sure bet" but that inside the left everyone is still quite divided. I think?
posted by Slackermagee at 1:16 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]


It boggles the mind as to why so many on the right (and the hard, hard right!) are spending this much time and money on her

Because they've built their whole political "brands" on being against things and they have nothing else as attractive to be against?
posted by Slothrup at 1:20 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]


It boggles the mind as to why so many on the right (and the hard, hard right!) are spending this much time and money on her when what resulted from this single target strategy last time was a two term dem in the white house.
Slackermagee

If you were around in the 90s you know that the right hates Hillary. That's a fire that's been burning for decades at this point. Obama got a lot of shit and had the racism problem, but conservative hatred for Hillary runs very, very deep, ugly, and personal.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:29 PM on June 15, 2015 [23 favorites]


Well, to be fair, the Clintons have been polarizing for decades. Most people either love them or hate them. There's not a lot of middle ground. Even Obama has supporters who are less than enthusiastic and detractors who don't see him as the anti-christ. The Clintons on the other hand, even among those in their party either love them or hate them.

Other day I read a one that gave me a spot of hope for seeing someone other than Hillary taking the nomination:

Hillary hates Iowa as much as Iowa hates Hillary.

I'm pretty sure that's true, and if there's one thing Iowans and Hillary have in common is not being good at faking it. It's going to come out, as she tries to eat food on a stick, and stands next to hay bales, that no one wants her here any more than she wants to be here.

Sure, she'll have her supporters, but not because they love her, but because the narrative has been there aren't other viable options.

Hillary is probably the best Republican candidate in a crowded field.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:32 PM on June 15, 2015 [14 favorites]


Feminists celebrating the prospect of Clinton’s election must address what it will mean for Black people and specifically Black women. The campaign is playing up its support among millennials, especially women, but as usual even as young white women are lauded for their achievements and exhorted to lean in ever further, Black women are often left out of that narrative of progress with little thought.

This article articulates a lot of feelings that I have regarding Hilary Clinton. Mainly, I will be made to feel like I am a bad feminist if I don't vote for her, but I don't want to vote for her simply because she is a woman. I want to vote for the right candidate and for me, she isn't that. (But really, we can drop referencing "millennials" in anything, guys. Holy cats.)
posted by Kitteh at 1:32 PM on June 15, 2015 [11 favorites]


I was a child in the 90s, entered high school in 99. The only thing I remember about politics in the 90s is how much the far right hated both the Clintons. It makes me real nervous about this election.
posted by Caduceus at 1:34 PM on June 15, 2015 [7 favorites]


I think it's actually a good thing. The hate burns so bright it's going to make them do stupid things that will help Hillary, especially since the Republicans already have an image problem with regard to women.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:46 PM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]


Add to that it seems like everyone that has ever attacked the Clintons falls in a spectacular manner and the Clintons keep marching.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:48 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]


The hate burns so bright it's going to make them do stupid things that will help Hillary, especially since the Republicans already have an image problem with regard to women.

Probably some truth to that, but it's going to depend on how the media handles her. At times, it seems like some parts of the establishment media hate the Clintons as much as Republicans do.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:51 PM on June 15, 2015


Well, to be fair, the Clintons have been polarizing for decades. Most people either love them or hate them. There's not a lot of middle ground. Even Obama has supporters who are less than enthusiastic and detractors who don't see him as the anti-christ. The Clintons on the other hand, even among those in their party either love them or hate them.

Man, every time I read things like this, I wonder what's wrong with me, because I don't have any strong feelings about Hillary (or Bill) Clinton one way or the other. I think that as President, she'd be a little to the left of Obama on social and economic issues, which is good, and a little bit more hawkish with foreign policy, which is bad, and I'm 100% on Team Sanders, but if Clinton got the nomination I'd vote for her.

I can also either take or leave cilantro.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:58 PM on June 15, 2015 [30 favorites]


it seems like some parts of the establishment media hate the Clintons as much as Republicans do

isn't the Venn diagram of establishment media and Republicans a single red circle containing all the network logos?

a handful of outlying individuals excepted and floating in the whitespace around our circle
posted by kokaku at 2:08 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]


isn't the Venn diagram of establishment media and Republicans a single red circle containing all the network logos?

Gosh, that's just what the lie-beral media want you to think!
posted by Spatch at 2:11 PM on June 15, 2015


The GOP has moved so far to the right that Democrats were able to move to the right and still look good in comparison. This is why it's important not to compare Clinton to Republicans today, but to compare her to Republicans forty years ago. Going further, compare both parties today to both parties forty years ago. This goes a long way towards explaining what's wrong with American politics. There is not enough separation between Democrats and Republicans. No real opposition party to the corporate and banking agenda, which shapes our economic and foreign policies.

A Clinton victory would be a defeat for Republicans, but it wouldn't be a defeat for wall street. It would be business as usual for the one percent of the one percent.

Sanders is my preferred candidate by a mile.
posted by Beholder at 2:18 PM on June 15, 2015 [24 favorites]


Unfortunately we need 8 more years of a republican administration for liberals to stop with the navel gazing crap. Is Hillary perfect - hell no. Is she better than Jeb, Rubio, Santorum, etc. I'll let you all answer that one.
posted by photoslob at 2:21 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]


isn't the Venn diagram of establishment media and Republicans a single red circle containing all the network logos?

See also: "Vast right-wing media conspiracy."
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:21 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


I live in Oregon, and every time there's a list of Democrats who voted for an awful thing along with Republicans, there's one Democrat from Oregon on that list, Kurt Schrader. Pisses me off. I saw an article in the local paper saying he was one of the first congresspersons to officially endorse Clinton for president. I feel like in any decent world, one where the Overton window hadn't been pushed so far to the right, this guy would be a Republican. And his endorsement makes me wonder if Bill Clinton running for president and winning as a Democrat didn't directly contribute to the rightward movement of the Overton window, or if it was just a result of work Reagan did.
posted by Caduceus at 2:28 PM on June 15, 2015 [5 favorites]


Unfortunately we need 8 more years of a republican administration for liberals to stop with the navel gazing crap. Is Hillary perfect - hell no. Is she better than Jeb, Rubio, Santorum, etc. I'll let you all answer that one.

What bothers me is the narrative that only Clinton can beat Republicans. I'm not saying that's what you meant, but it needs to be challenged in every discussion about her Presidential campaign. The American people (including right wingers) are so sick of war, so sick of wall street corruption, and so sick of business as usual that I believe Sanders has a real chance. Can't we at least wait until after the first Democratic presidential debate before anointing Clinton as inevitable or even electable? Maybe she is on both, maybe not. Let's give Sanders a fair chance to make the argument that he's a better choice.
posted by Beholder at 2:31 PM on June 15, 2015 [26 favorites]


If you want to brush up on the hatred the Clintons faced from the right wing and from mainstream news outlets (especially including the NYT) in the 1990s, you could do a lot worse than reading The Hunting of the President.

President Obama has faced a lot of unfair, moronic, and racist vitriol (along with some deserved), but from my perspective, little of it can match the funhouse-mirror absurdity of the 1990s. I mean, there was a Congressional committee investigating the possibility that the President or someone close to him ordered the murder of his Deputy White House Counsel! And the Republican chair of that committee shot a watermelon in his own backyard to prove something-or-other about the forensics of the killing! I don't think we've seen anything like that lately.
posted by burden at 2:35 PM on June 15, 2015 [7 favorites]


Although I don't really want to be that person, I can't seem to help it: the horrible, absolutely ugly beating she's taken from the right wing and from the mainstream press makes me more likely to support her than I would be if they just treated her like any other candidate with the same positions and record.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 2:36 PM on June 15, 2015 [5 favorites]


it would be nice to have a Dem in the White House, but if the GOP controls the Senate and Congress, it won't much matter who that Democrat is.
posted by Postroad at 2:52 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]


Just a friendly reminder that, while the Presidential election is important, pay close attention to your local races. The Kochs are trying to be state legislatures and, as Wisconsin and Kansas have demonstrated most clearly, they can do some really major damage to you directly that no president is going to be able to help you address.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:26 PM on June 15, 2015 [40 favorites]


When referring to the current election's designated Bush, remember to use the ! at the end.

I see articles like this and shrug. What is there to say? Don't like Hilary or whoever will win the nomination? Well, there's the Republicans, or..nothing. There is nothing else.

It sucks. I sometimes think, however, that some Democrats hold the Clintons personally responsible for this state of affairs, and not the Electoral College/system we have set up that only really allows for two viable candidates. Which is unfair.

It's gonna be a looooong season for me, because all that matters to me is Supreme Court judges at this point (and down-ticket races). They could actually run a yellow dog, and if he was able to somehow communicate sufficiently liberal picks for Supreme Court justices, and use his adorable paws to stamp out a veto to whatever bullshit the Republicans send his way, I'd vote for him.
posted by emjaybee at 3:26 PM on June 15, 2015 [20 favorites]


Although I don't really want to be that person

Then don't be. Clinton has been dodging Republican barbs for decades. In return, she's amassed political power and personal wealth. She doesn't want your sympathy. She wants your vote. Sanders also wants your vote. Support the candidate who you feel will best represent your concerns, not the candidate who Republicans hate the most.

I say this as an ex right winger. I disliked "Bill & Hill" for the wrong reasons twenty years ago. I dislike them for the right reasons today. People change. Clinton hasn't. Sanders 2016.
posted by Beholder at 3:28 PM on June 15, 2015 [7 favorites]


I say this as an ex right winger.

Honest question: what made you change your mind?
posted by Ratio at 3:48 PM on June 15, 2015


Man, every time I read things like this, I wonder what's wrong with me, because I don't have any strong feelings about Hillary (or Bill) Clinton one way or the other.

You're not alone.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 3:52 PM on June 15, 2015 [5 favorites]


Hillary has a lot of problems, especially relying so much on "inevitability" as a campaign tactic, which absolutely sucks as politics and failed disastrously in 2008, but the GOP is like that part of the movie Scrooged when Bill Murray looks inside the robe of the Ghost of Christmas Future.

So in one corner you have Hillary, who has problems, but in the other corner is this.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:58 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]


I have a theory.

Hilary Clinton is, in fact, not running for president. I honestly think she has no interest in the job. She, of all the people running, knows *exactly* what the job entails and what the cost of being the president will be, having been married to one president and the Secretary of State for another. Two presidents with incredibly hostile opposing parties, but those might be cakewalks compared to the hatefest Hilary Clinton will see.

Oh, it looks like she is. But she knows that she is the Great Attractor for Fox News and the Tea Party. So, she's getting out front, and taking all the heat in the world. Meanwhile, the real race is setting up behind her.

The GOP will SCREAM and SCREAM and SCREAM at Hilary Clinton, throwing every hunk of mud they can. Fox News will tie everything they can to her. The Tea Party is marching and screaming and throwing whatever shit they can find. BENGHAZI!

And then, just when the primaries start, she'll step aside, and all that time and money the GOP could have spent tearing down the real candidates will have been wasted.

And it will be the best con in the world. Fox News might well have a cow. Breach. Esp. if she makes a point of pointing all of this out in the press conference. 'Yeah, I did this really to make Fox News waste a whole bunch of time and money. And they did. Like the idiots they are."
posted by eriko at 4:47 PM on June 15, 2015 [27 favorites]


Eriko, I like the cut of your jib, and would like to subscribe to your pamphlet! I want so much for your vision to be true. I don't think it is, but damn...that would be so awesome. So. Awesome.

I too am pretty much a yellow dog democrat, except when real leftists are running; which in Texas doesn't happen that often. Hell, even our democrats are teahadists down here. As presidents go, I'm sure she'd be fine. She's more war-like than I prefer, and she's in bed with a lot of interests that I don't find aligned with mine...but she's a brilliant woman who has done amazing things, and of all the candidates, she has already seen the abyss, but y'all...I remember the 90s. The hate was visceral. If you weren't around for it, I cannot even explain how bad it really was...just the hate in people's eyes when her name was mentioned. It was crazy. And all of it stems from her being an uppity woman what don't know her proper place. How dare she think the First Lady would have a role in government? That's the only sense I can make of that whole period, is that they really fucking hated her for being the person that should have gotten elected instead of Bill. There is no doubt in my mind that the reason Bubba's tenure went so well is because Hillary was driving. Bill, bless his heart, may be the most charismatic human on the planet, but Hill was the brains...and jesus the Right hated her for it.

They haven't forgotten. I'm really surprised it hasn't ramped up already, to be honest.

All that said; given a choice, my vote goes to Sanders, because I'm tired of the 1% Dynasty repeats. I want a real liberal, an actual progressive, a socialist. Yes. I admit it. I want a socialist. I want a big schmoopy socialist utopia, where all American children actually have food and shelter. An American where education is considered a birthright. An America where all the poor have a chance. An America where returning soldiers aren't killing themselves every day. An America where we don't have returning soldiers because we're not fighting stupid wars. An America that returns to a reality pre 9/11, pre-fear, pre-police state, pre trumped up differences. An America where we actually are as great as we all think we are.

Do I think Bernie can make that happen? Of course not. I'm not stupid. But I don't know any other candidate that would actually try.
posted by dejah420 at 5:35 PM on June 15, 2015 [33 favorites]


it would be nice to have a Dem in the White House, but if the GOP controls the Senate and Congress, it won't much matter who that Democrat is.

Just as long as it's a Democrat. This country cannot afford another conservative being appointed to the Supreme Court.
posted by Ber at 5:50 PM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]


The hate was visceral. If you weren't around for it, I cannot even explain how bad it really was...

This is what makes me nervous about this election and the presidency in general. There has been a lot of hateful things said about her, and the left has been no saints when it comes to how it's held women on the right to a different standard than its male politicians And the left is supposed to be the home to feminists ideals. With Hillary, the opposition can barely conceal its hate of women; I am not looking forward to them united under their hatred of Ms. Clinton. Because it's going to overflow on the rest of women. And I've seen how bold having a black president has made the racists. Should we get a women president, and that women is Hillary? It's going to be a miserable 4-8 years.

Not that it will stop me from voting for her. But damn, it will be dark days.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 6:06 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


The hate for the Clintons was, and is, visceral. The hate for Obama is vicious and ugly. No non-Republican, non-Conservtave candidate or president will receive anything but vicious lies and hate. The election isn't until November 2016. Pretty sure the reportage of The Race, absence of meaningful reporting, vile spewings from the Far Right, attack ads, dumb campaign moves, more ads, will tip American over some brink. The 2020 campaign begins November 4, 2016, or has already begun. I could consider not voting for Clinton because she declared so fucking early. Really, another Republican presidency, I mean, I can't even.
posted by theora55 at 6:37 PM on June 15, 2015


I voted for a woman in the last presidential election, and I'll meanwhile very happily not vote for this woman. Surely we can imagine a more meaningful vision for 21st century feminism than Let The Terrible Plutocrat Who Kills People Be A Lady This Time.
posted by threeants at 7:00 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]


Gang, I love Bernie too, but the Supreme Court is simply too fucking important. We need another 8 years of Democratic Presidents to lock it down. Get on the boat or get out of the way. After that, go ahead elect Eugene Debs.
posted by leotrotsky at 7:06 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]


I will vote for her in the general election if she is the candidate, but there is no way in hell that I will vote for her in the primary.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:07 PM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]


The American people (including right wingers) are so sick of war, so sick of wall street corruption, and so sick of business as usual that I believe Sanders has a real chance.

This is just flat-out not true. Maybe most of the people you know feel this way (and I admit that I try not to associate with those who don't), but not "the American people" as a whole. Unfortunately, "more than a third of all Americans would like to see Christianity made the official religion of their state. Over half of Republicans support such a policy, with nearly half of older people and those with just a high school education following."

In last November's election, "Nationally, 52% of voters backed Republican candidates for Congress, while 47% voted for Democrats, according to exit polls by the National Election Pool, as reported by The New York Times." IOW, more than 50% of voters went out and voted for candidates who want MORE war, MORE Wall Street corruption, and MORE business as usual.

Every single one of the Republican candidates opposes equal pay, reproductive choice, marriage equality, higher taxes for the wealthy, and Obamacare. Most of them want to privatize Social Security, expand the military, and invade Iran, and ALL of them are strongly in favor of "keeping God in the public sphere." Source And roughly half of "the American people" are going to vote for one of those candidates, because they agree.

I'm sorry, because I like Bernie. He's a good man. But he does not have a chance.

I do wish my fellow liberals could refrain from unfairly demonizing Hillary with right-wing talking points. No, she is not perfect, but she is brilliant, hard-working, capable, experienced, compassionate, tenacious, and tough as nails, and a lot more liberal than she gets credit for being. I have never been able to understand why some liberals hate her.
posted by caryatid at 7:14 PM on June 15, 2015 [14 favorites]


As compelling as the Supreme Court argument is, I see no reason to believe that Clinton would be able to (...or frankly even be inclined to) get Congress to confirm a Justice to the left of Thomas or Kennedy.

...And while I definitely don't hate Hillary, and admire her intelligence and skills, you only have to look at her legislative record to see why many on the left find her wanting.
posted by Anoplura at 7:23 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]


I'm kind of unreceptive to the "Hillary is the only one who can win" argument. If it's true, then she'll steamroll Sanders, O'Malley, and whoever else in the primaries. If someone else comes away with the nom, then I think they will have demonstrated a superior organizational talent and/or reading of the electoral mood, and so they'll probably be the better candidate for the general.

That said, I agree that it would be great if participants in the Democratic primary process could try to stifle the vitriol and use of right-wing talking points against candidates they don't favor. I mean, the campaigns so far have been fairly congenial; can't we at least try to follow their lead?
posted by burden at 7:35 PM on June 15, 2015 [9 favorites]


you only have to look at her legislative record to see why many on the left find her wanting.

OK, then let's look at her record:

Govtrack.us
All bills

Would you like to point out to me what you find so objectionable about her legislative record? I'm serious. I don't see it.

BTW, Hillary Clinton Was the 11th Most Liberal Member of the Senate for the 107th, 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses. (Barack Obama was 23rd. Joe Biden was 30th. Bernie, of course, was 1st.)
posted by caryatid at 8:01 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]


Sorry, I meant to add this: Hillary Clinton's senate voting record.
posted by caryatid at 8:08 PM on June 15, 2015 [5 favorites]


I'll vote for Hillary (in the general, I'll probably just sit the primary out given the current field), but I'm starting to get this sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that she's not actually gotten any better at running a presidential campaign in the last eight years.

I like Bernie, I'm sure I'm closest to him on policy issues of all the candidates, but the idea that he could win a general election, or even the primary, is straight-up delusional.

Think about how much damn money it takes to run for president - where would he get it? And the average American voter, outside our little nobody-I-know-voted-for-Nixon bubble, is not ready for what Bernie is selling. My already great respect for him is increased, though, by him running as a Democrat and hopefully keeping his voters in the big tent where they have a better chance of at least getting us more Sotomayors and fewer Alitos.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 8:34 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


Would you like to point out to me what you find so objectionable about her legislative record? I'm serious. I don't see it.

I'm running out the door, so forgive my lack of links, but she voted in favor of the Patriot Act, the invasion of Iraq, and the bank bailouts among other things.
posted by Anoplura at 8:40 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]


all that matters to me is Supreme Court judges at this point

Voting for Hillary is fine. I just think it should be understood that she is a Republican candidate running as a Democrat, for purposes of branding, and the Supreme Court justices she would install would be more in favor of treating corporations as people, legally, than any actual women human beings where privacy, worker and healthcare rights are concerned.

Whatever she may say during her campaign, in her role as Secretary of State, she has acted in a manner that indicates she believes that corporations are more deserving of being ascribed human rights, than actual human beings. And that's the kind of Supreme Court justice that we can expect her to install.

So long as people understand that this is the Faustian bargain at hand, democracy is what it is, and people can vote for her with their eyes wide open.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:04 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]


she voted in favor of the Patriot Act, the invasion of Iraq, and the bank bailouts among other things.

A lot of Democrats voted for the Iraq war; Kerry, Biden, Daschle, Edwards, Feinstein, and Reid among them. Hillary has admitted her vote was a mistake.

98 out of a hundred senators voted for the Patriot Act.

Only 22 Democratic senators voted against the bank bailout.

Hillary and Bernie both voted against FISA. Obama voted for it.

Hillary voted the same as Bernie Sanders 93% of the time when they were both in the Senate.

Sorry, I guess I'm just not seeing her votes on these issues as high crimes and misdemeanors, and certainly not indicative of any reason to find her "wanting." Her legislative record shows that she is still more liberal than most Democratic senators.

And the notion that she is a "Republican candidate running as a Democrat" is simply absurd and utterly unfounded.
posted by caryatid at 9:46 PM on June 15, 2015 [14 favorites]


As compelling as the Supreme Court argument is, I see no reason to believe that Clinton would be able to (...or frankly even be inclined to) get Congress to confirm a Justice to the left of Thomas or Kennedy.

Really? Obama appointed Sotomayor and Kagan, and the GOP hates him so much they didn't allow him to make any appointments for anything for years. They can't indefinitely block appointments so much that the president just caves, and he didn't, and I don't believe Clinton would either. It's too important.
posted by krinklyfig at 9:50 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]


Wait, that's wrong, only nine Democratic senators voted against the bank bailout.
posted by caryatid at 9:54 PM on June 15, 2015


I'm no fan of Hillary's corporate ties or her hawkish foreign policy (to name only a few things), but I feel like she might be effective at governing. My (somewhat uninformed) impression is that she was an effective legislator. Where Obama wasn't much of a legislator (which has translated into six to eight years of him blowing the few legislative openings he's gotten), Hillary apparently knew what she was doing in the Senate and has at least a few friendships with Republicans (and presumably some with Democrats as well). As I see it, there's at least some chance she'd be able to take some of the good ideas about running the country coming from the left and implement them-- playing LBJ to Obama's Kennedy, if you will.

This assumes that the frothing on the right dies down enough to allow governing to happen-- a big caveat, admittedly.
posted by mr_deerheart at 9:54 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]


"I see articles like this and shrug. What is there to say? Don't like Hilary or whoever will win the nomination? Well, there's the Republicans, or..nothing. There is nothing else. "

Seconded. There is no ideal candidate that you're going to like better. (And if it was Obama, how well did that go for you? I mean, I'm still generally in favor of the dude, but there's some shit I don't approve of too.) There's probably no really good one, because a really good candidate would be too sensible/broke to run, and wouldn't get elected anyway. And even if that happened, the system would corrupt them anyway because you're stuck trying to "work with" an entire side that hates you no matter what you do, and see how well that goes.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:03 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]


This assumes that the frothing on the right dies down enough to allow governing to happen-- a big caveat, admittedly.

The GOP is fractured because of their lack of consensus when it comes to acting together under leadership, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in the House and Senate. They can't figure out how to secure votes for their own legislation, and that includes the big packages that the party needs to pass. Even though they look menacing, it's only because they're defiant, but this includes within their own party. The Tea Party strategy doesn't really work when it comes to governance. It's pure populism. Their ability to get away with throwing sand in the gears is limited to popular appeal, and that's not going to last forever, no matter how much money anyone has to throw around.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:05 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


I don't think the liberal identity of the country is aligned with Hillary's history and goals, by and large, plain and simple, and so what we see are the efforts of the party to steer popular opinion and her image into the same path, but fuck that, fuck dynasties, and fuck that Merkin Muffley guy from Maryland if he's supposed to be the backup. Democrats can follow me and my ilk for once.
posted by rhizome at 10:41 PM on June 15, 2015


I have never been able to understand why some liberals hate her.

This is easy. She's clearly a DLC sellout, just like her husband, and her venal and calculated vote in favor of IraqAtaq! is the icing.

But given that she succeeds in the realm of venal, calculating, sellouts, she could be a lot worse than she is, yeah.
posted by notyou at 11:01 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]


Merkin Muffley guy from Maryland

Now now I don't like Littlefinger Carcetti O'Malley either, but there's no reason to call him names like that.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:13 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


To add to my last thought ... It's not that the GOP aren't a big problem. I'm most concerned about their potential to elect a president while having a majority in the House and Senate, particularly now when the Tea Party is active and they are so effective in local elections. I think the destruction from that kind of government would last a long time. I'm almost positive I would no longer have any sort of medical insurance before too long, and I really need it for multiple reasons which make me uninsurable in a "free market."
posted by krinklyfig at 12:51 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


I'm actually pretty happy with the noises that Clinton has been making at the start of her campaign. The fact she's coming out of the gate emphasizing things like raising the minimum wage and ensuring universal voting rights at shows that she (and her handlers) have realized that the blue dogs are dead and that Democrats want to vote for someone running on liberal ideals.
posted by octothorpe at 3:58 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


A lot of liberals hate her because she's a woman and her politics have nothing to do with it. I remember the absurd levels of sexism in 2008 from both brogressives and right-wingers alike. If you doubt me, feel free to do some searches from that year on this site.

I'm not looking forward to seeing it again, but I fully expect it to happen.
posted by winna at 4:22 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


I would vote for Sanders in the primary but for the fact that I don't know if he would then run as an independent for the general.

Because one Florida 2000 per lifetime is enough.
posted by angrycat at 4:34 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


The fact she's coming out of the gate emphasizing things like raising the minimum wage and ensuring universal voting rights at shows that she (and her handlers) have realized that the blue dogs are dead and that Democrats want to vote for someone running on liberal ideals.

I guess I'm glad that any major candidate is saying those things, but as others have noted she suffers greatly from the "let me say the things I think you want to hear" syndrome, so it's not like she has any particular credibility on or commitment to these issues. If her advisers were proposing a different path to the nomination, she would be saying different things.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:52 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]


I agree DF but I assume that any candidate for president is saying things that someone wants to hear and I'd rather that she's says stuff that I want to hear than not.
posted by octothorpe at 5:21 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


A lot of liberals hate her because she's a woman and her politics have nothing to do with it.

You know, it's really easy to say that, but that doesn't make it true.

All the liberals I know (myself included) who despise Hillary would vote for Warren in a hot second. Also, I think DiFi is a disgrace, but *gasp* I'm an ardent supporter of Barbara Boxer. But hey, calling someone who disagrees with you a sexist or racist is a cheap and easy way to get points while ignoring the substantive issues, so carry on.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:27 AM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]




The Tea Party strategy doesn't really work when it comes to governance. It's pure populism. Their ability to get away with throwing sand in the gears is limited to popular appeal, and that's not going to last forever, no matter how much money anyone has to throw around.

"The market Republican Party can stay irrational longer than you our country can stay solvent." - John Maynard Kilobit
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 10:33 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


All the liberals I know (myself included) who despise Hillary would vote for Warren in a hot second.

That's where I am at as well.

I also think there's a greater ideal at stake here. A friend of mine suggests I should vote for Hillary as "the lesser of two evils" over a GOP candidate. He's probably correct, but there's a reason we put term limits on a president. There's no realistic way to do this, but I'd love to see that extend to the whole family for the next three generations. The Presidency of the United States should not be a trophy passed back and forth between a couple families. I'm no more to vote Bush than I am Clinton, but it has nothing to do with sexism.

I also see Clinton as a pro-Wall Street/Big Business, pro "the wealthy" candidate. She's not going to hold banks accountable. She's probably going to continue the foreign policy quagmires. I could go on.

I don't want her for my President, but it has nothing to do with her gender.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:56 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


All the liberals I know (myself included) who despise Hillary would vote for Warren in a hot second.

"Some of my best candidates are women." doesn't really disprove winna's point though. And nobody has accused anybody here of being racist or sexist, so it was odd you interpreted it precisely that way. To me, it does sound reasonable that some people do get a little more vicious in their attacks against women politicians who are considered political enemies.
posted by FJT at 11:05 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


You know, you can't sling mud all over a room indiscriminately and then claim you didn't mean to get anyone dirty.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:11 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]


And nobody has accused anybody here of being racist or sexist, so it was odd you interpreted it precisely that way.

"A lot of liberals hate her because she's a woman and her politics have nothing to do with it."
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:14 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]


I also reject the premise that there are a lot of liberals that hate Clinton.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:18 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


But hey, calling someone who disagrees with you a sexist or racist is a cheap and easy way to get points while ignoring the substantive issues, so carry on.

Sucks, doesn't it? That's exactly what Hillary's supporters were subjected to in 2008. When we explained that we preferred her policies and pointed out that she had much more experience, skill, accomplishments and a far more liberal voting record than candidate Obama, that didn't matter. We were racists. That was so much easier than looking at the facts, just as it is now.

Meanwhile, we were told that every sexist attack from Obama, his staff, his supporters, and the media, was not, in fact, sexist. I see the same dynamic in play now. And no, being willing to vote for Warren instead doesn't count.

Sexism is far more tolerated in this country than racism. The fact that you can't be a progressive if you aren't a feminist is not universally accepted. The source of much of the current Hillary hatred is the 2008 presidential campaign. Even though she sucked it up, ggraciously accepted her defeat, worked hard to elect her political rival, and served ably in his administration, she gets no credit for that whatsoever.

It's hilarious (and sad) that in this election, the old white guy is considered the "outsider," while the woman who has been fighting for gender equality all of her life is considered the "establishment" candidate. It's beyond ironic.
posted by caryatid at 11:32 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


I also reject the premise that there are a lot of liberals that hate Clinton.

Maybe it just seems that way because they are so eager to speak up about their hatred.
posted by caryatid at 11:33 AM on June 16, 2015


Re: the inevitable 2008 election scab-picking (which is just one reason I'm not looking forward to a Clinton candidacy): I saw some breathtakingly sexist rhetoric out of some Obama supporters and I saw some breathtakingly racist rhetoric out of some Clinton supporters. Neither 'side' can be fairly characterized by that awful rhetoric and it's an ugly can of worms to reopen as if it says something about either candidate or the broad base of their supporters.

I'm voting for Bernie. I think it's kind of silly to characterize him as just another "old white guy" if you know anything about his politics and history, but whatever. I've been waiting for a chance to vote for him for close to a decade now and I'm really excited to get the chance. At the very least, I hope he's able to move the old Overton Window a few notches to the left, and that his supporters can help keep the eventual nominee from sliding too far back to the right in the general election. I'm encouraged that Clinton seems to be making more forceful/left policy positions this time and I hope that trend continues, especially with Bernie pushing her to the left a little.
posted by dialetheia at 11:47 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]


And no, being willing to vote for Warren instead doesn't count.

Though it is pretty odd that the same people you are directly accusing of being sexist have expressed support for the election of another woman to the office, should she ever choose to run.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:50 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


It's almost like they're paid shills for Hillary. What? Oh, I wasn't talking about anyone in particular. (Sucks, doesn't it?)
posted by entropicamericana at 11:59 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


Though it is pretty odd that the same people you are directly accusing of being sexist have expressed support for the election of another woman to the office, should she ever choose to run.

As has already been pointed out, "Some of my best candidates are women" doesn't cut it.
posted by caryatid at 12:00 PM on June 16, 2015


Warren is an entirely different candidate than Clinton. But sexism abounds.

Still, a vote for, say, Sarah Palin wouldn't be misogynist because the candidate herself is a woman, doesn't pass the smell test for me.

Jill Stein ran. She's from Chicago too. Didn't see much of a turnout.
As mentioned above the big two parties aren't the only game and local elections can change and shape the political landscape much better than just who gets put up by Red or Blue.

The Presidency of the United States should not be a trophy passed back and forth between a couple families.

This.

Hil Clinton, herself is terrific. Some things though, she's fanatic about (as in, not acknowleging reality in favor of ideology) and I can't vote for that whether I agree or disagree with a given policy. (Disclaimer: some policies I vehemently disagree, but I'd rather have her than any other GOP candidate out there, and Dems, other than maybe Jim Webb, but he's not running as of yet)

And too, what sane American would vote for Jeb Bush?

I could love every political move he's ever made I wouldn't vote for him because I'm pretty sure the Presidency wasn't supposed to be hereditary.
Jeez, let's pack a order of succession political power on top of the 400 or so families that have the most concentrated wealth and power in the U.S. because we don't like the other color.

And the Supreme Court isn't exactly a mighty oak. It's shown it's been willing to bend with the wind so, important, yeah, but a matter of context. If we're going to have Chelsea Clinton running against Jenna Bush in 15 years, say, I'm not going to be calling that progress in women's rights because reinstating primogeniture is ok as long as it's a woman from the family oppressing you running things.

So, Bernie Sanders. Heard of 'em? Me too.

Heard of Lincoln Chafee or Martin O'Malley?
*crickets* Me too.
Joe Biden's too smart to run. Same with Warren. Again, Webb, most people haven't heard of and he seems to prefer real work to politics.

Then in Red we've got Bush, Cruz, Rand Paul, Rubio, Santorum, Huckabee, Pataki, Graham, Perry, and other people you (and I) have heard of like Donald Trump, etc.

So, a large, wealthy, but fractious and distractable entity (The GOP) vs. one that needs to build a coalition (Clinton) and one that is extraordinarially mobile, can force the opposition to prove it's ability to govern without having to substantiate it's own because doesn't have to build a coalition to raise money because of it's populism (Sanders).

Hmm...where have I heard that story before? Oh, yeah, every successful guerilla war in history.

But winning, hell, I've already put up some money (like, apparently, a lot of other people) and I'll come out with more and volunteer for him if that's what it takes to wrench politics as usual away from the same people we've been looking at the past 20 years. I'd do that even if I was sure he couldn't win. But I ain't.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:37 PM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]


dialetheia: "I'm encouraged that Clinton seems to be making more forceful/left policy positions this time and I hope that trend continues, especially with Bernie pushing her to the left a little."

Hillary is the establishment candidate. If there's any inkling of trouble for her, Obama will implement policy, or more, to help her win. Party politics, and Bernie can only help this process.
posted by rhizome at 12:39 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


Still, a vote for, say, Sarah Palin wouldn't be misogynist because the candidate herself is a woman, doesn't pass the smell test for me.

The difference is pretty obvious. Sarah Palin's ascendance was a cynical choice by GOP establishment who attempted to court votes on the basis of her simply being a woman, despite sponsoring policies that actively hurt the poor and people of color, which in turn disproportionately and adversely affect women. They were counting on people to vote for her on the basis of being a woman, without consideration for her record or that of her party.

It's weird to call someone supporting Warren a misogynist, however. If anything, Warren's opposition to policies favorable to Wall Street makes her even more of a feminist and ally to women than Hillary Clinton could ever be.

Clinton is incredibly cozy with Wall Street and corporations that hurt women, particularly in their actions against women and single mothers who are raising families, whether it is working to maintain pay inequality (even in the finance sector itself), holding back any progress on maternity and paternity leave — to quote Hillary: "I don't think we can get [maternity leave] now" — or working to slowly break teacher unions and privatize education through support for Common Core and charter schools, under the veil of "education reform".

It's not even "some of my best candidates are women". If Senator Warren were to run, she would be a clearly much better choice for the majority of Americans — women, especially. Calling her supporters misogynists is laughably absurd.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:49 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]


or working to slowly break teacher unions and privatize education through support for Common Core and charter schools, under the veil of "education reform".

Turns out Warren's not all that great in that department either. Nor does she have a great foreign policy record (mostly because she's been predominantly focused on domestic financial issues as Senator.)

And it's pointing out that which is why I have a lot of problems with people trying to use Warren to defend their opposition to Clinton, because it becomes pretty clear that a lot of people aren't looking at Warren as a politician with existing viewpoints, but are projecting their own views onto her. Which is a bit problematic.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:08 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


Or maybe they are heavily concerned domestic financial issues and already know Hillary's foreign policy record is fairly appalling? No, couldn't be that simple.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:13 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


Warren's not running anyway.
posted by rhizome at 2:20 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


I'm voting for the one with the D by their name, whoever that ends up being. Ginsburg and Breyer aren't getting any younger and I'll be damned if a Republican gets to replace them.
posted by bgal81 at 2:32 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]



And yet here we are.

I say the same thing I say whenever people start wondering why we're not over this stuff, because we're not over it, and they're part of the problem.

And yet here we are.
posted by pfh at 3:14 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


As mentioned above the big two parties aren't the only game

In the race for the presidency they are the only game, yeah. State-level, perhaps not. And perhaps if there's enough concerted effort at state/local levels to build a viable third party, maybe in twenty years "the big two parties aren't the only game" might not be so laughable. (Be careful what you wish for, though; take a look at Canadian federal politics sometime. You'll either end up with a leftist party, a dinosaur right wing party, and lefty-seeming-centrists who get referred to as "[nation]'s natural governing party," or you get multi-party coalitions that are... difficult.)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:27 PM on June 16, 2015


bgal81: "I'm voting for the one with the D by their name, whoever that ends up being."

Kind of a conversation-ending cliche, but I hope it's still OK to talk about what it would take to have a D candidate who isn't a garbage person.
posted by rhizome at 3:36 PM on June 16, 2015


Fire up isidewith.com. It'll give you your candidate blind. You give it your issues. You can weight your answers. You can also refine your answers. I am like 95% Sanders and 76% Clinton. One could argue these are still sexist results because I am siding with man issues, but if this is the case there's no winning.
posted by cjorgensen at 3:50 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


Sanders 95%, Clinton 75%, Muffley 67%.
posted by rhizome at 4:11 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


Hmm, if I could vote in the US: 96 Sanders 76 Clinton.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:38 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


I saw some breathtakingly racist rhetoric out of some Clinton supporters.

Like, for example ... ? I recall a lot of innocent remarks that were deliberately misconstrued to be racist by a truly tortuous process. I don't recall anything "breathtakingly racist." Kind of like now - I have seen no Hillary supporters say anything to demonize Bernie, but Bernie supporters seem to be incapable of praising him without disparaging her.

It's weird to call someone supporting Warren a misogynist

That didn't happen, though. What was said was that saying you're willing to vote for one woman does not make you non-sexist. Just like saying you have black friends doesn't mean you're non-racist.

Clinton is incredibly cozy with Wall Street

Is she really "incredibly cozy," or is she just a major party candidate being judged by a double standard?

Obama donors 2012
Romney donors 2012
Obama donors 2008
McCain donors 2008
Hillary donors 2008
Kerry donors 2004
Bush donors 2004

Are we beginning to see a pattern? Why is it apparently no big deal if every male candidate in the past 12 years has had big corporate donors, but when they support Hillary, it makes her "incredibly cozy" with Wall Street?
posted by caryatid at 4:48 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


"She's just as terrible as everyone else!" isn't the greatest argument for Hillary Clinton...
posted by Anoplura at 5:09 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]


Why is it apparently no big deal if every male candidate in the past 12 years has had big corporate donors

It is a big deal. That's exactly why I support Bernie Sanders.
posted by Backslash at 5:11 PM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]


Is she really "incredibly cozy," or is she just a major party candidate being judged by a double standard?

It's not a double standard to me. I think it's unfair to go back before 2008, since that precedes the banking crisis. Occupy Wall Street was still years away. Eyes weren't open.

Also, I would say it's a shitty defense to say, Everyone else was doing it too.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:32 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


caryatid: "Why is it apparently no big deal if every male candidate in the past 12 years has had big corporate donors"

But it is a big deal, and it just so happens that the guy who is rejecting that standard apparently agrees with me on a whole bunch of important issues.
posted by rhizome at 5:42 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


Why is it apparently no big deal if every male candidate in the past 12 years has had big corporate donors

Why do you assert it is "apparently" no big deal to the rest of us, when it very clearly is, since it is something the rest of us have said is, indeed, an issue of importance to determine how we will choose to vote in a democracy?

In any case, this was an issue well before Hillary decided to run this time around. Even MetaFilter-fan-favorite Stephen Colbert was mocking a system that allowed Super PACs, for instance, and she had nothing to do with that.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:44 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


Joe Biden's too smart to run.

Never stopped him before. :P

I saw some breathtakingly racist rhetoric out of some Clinton supporters.

Like, for example ... ?


The birther stuff was first a conspiracy theory that made the rounds among Hillary supporters before the Republicans embraced it.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:44 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


First time around, no match. (I got too specific with "other stances.") Second time around: 95% Bernie 87% Hillary.
posted by entropicamericana at 6:11 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


Holy crap. I can't believe you had no matches.

My girlfriend had Marco Rubio and Sander as equal. She didn't get specific, didn't weight.

I was still baffled. How can you have issues that scores the two the same?

She and I do disagree on some key issues, and she score 76% on both, so I suppose it's possible, but I want her to go back and really fine tune. She's not going to though because she doesn't care about politics as much as I do.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:34 PM on June 16, 2015


isidewith.com

Fun site. No real surprises to me: Sanders, 95%. Clinton, 84%. O'Malley, 68%.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 6:55 PM on June 16, 2015


isidewith.com

"Buried lede (from the chart): A job guarantee, that crazy lefty MMT thing, is already supported by majority of public..."*
posted by kliuless at 7:11 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


Sanders - 98%, Clinton - 75%, O'Malley - 72% and just for fun: Cruz - 3%

I'm really curious what that 3% is. We both like eating ice cream while strolling the boardwalk on a hot summer day?

Like most people, I have very little idea about who O'Malley actually is, but apparently we agree even less than Clinton and I do. So I'm cool with that.
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:28 PM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]


This is what I facebooked about O'Malley:

If you would watch quality drama you would know Martin O'Malley is the inspiration for the character "Mayor Tommy Carcetti" in David Simon's highly acclaimed documentary "The Wire."

He was a white mayor in Baltimore and the eventual Gov. of Maryland. By all accounts as unethical, backstabbing, disloyal, corrupt and mean as they come.

He drove the city to it's knees, then proceeded to do the same for the state. I'd almost vote for him for the LULz
.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/omalley-still-hates-the-wire-but-will-drink-beer-snap-a-selfie-with-david-simon/2014/07/22/67a08f44-11af-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html
posted by cjorgensen at 7:39 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


Kurosawa - 93%, Herzog - 76%, Gilliam - 72%, Bay 3%

seems about right...
posted by Anoplura at 8:25 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]


I've always wondered if Simon was fair to O'Malley in The Wire. Any Baltimore folks know?
posted by angrycat at 2:52 AM on June 17, 2015


Kind of a conversation-ending cliche, but I hope it's still OK to talk about what it would take to have a D candidate who isn't a garbage person.


Kind of a passive-aggressive snipe but I hope it's still OK for other people to have different opinions from you.
posted by bgal81 at 7:32 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


“If Senator Warren were to run, she would be a clearly much better choice for the majority of Americans — women, especially. Calling her supporters misogynists is laughably absurd.”
Yeah, I think that’s the thing. One expects sexism amongst right wingers (or whatever Red is branding itself) but not, perhaps, from ‘brogressives’ who would, as proposed, hate any female candidate.

But I don’t buy that as the sole opposition. If Clinton changed a few of her policies, or hell, even dropped some of the fanaticism and just reality checked, I’d probably cut her a check.
In her case, kind of a double edged compliment here, a lot of people who have that level of expertise can be a bit stubborn. Michael Jordan comes to mind. The same things that make him a good basketball player make him kind of a dick. So even when she’s demonstrably wrong, she’s so Heavy she thinks she can make it work.
Not too much of a put down coming from me. God knows I have trouble hearing the word ‘no.’ But I'd vote Warren (if she ran), I wouldn't vote Clinton as it is.

‘As mentioned above the big two parties aren't the only game’

In the race for the presidency they are the only game, yeah.

And why make an effort to change that, eh comrades?

Be the change.

Er...we do know just 5% of the vote gets 3rd parties funding, right?

I mean, I get a bit didactic about civics but we all know the main reason guys like Ross Perot or Trump can get on the ballot in all 50 states was because they habe the resources to do it.

And the reason we don't hear from, say, a Jill Stein is because of the candidate funding structure, right?
posted by Smedleyman at 8:15 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


The birther stuff was first a conspiracy theory that made the rounds among Hillary supporters before the Republicans embraced it.

Cite?
posted by caryatid at 8:17 AM on June 17, 2015


I'd rather not see Sanders get the nomination, because then I'd have to deal with seven years of Mefites moaning about how he's betrayed them personally.

At least with Hillary they already hate her, so there won't be an uproar of outraged betrayal the first time she actually legislates something..
posted by happyroach at 8:25 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]


When I looked at the breakdown on isidewith.com, all the questions on which it showed me disagreeing with Clinton were ones on which she hasn't yet declared a firm position, or on which one of our positions is more nuanced than the other's.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:31 AM on June 17, 2015


93% Sanders, 88% Clinton and whatever for the rest on that isidewith quiz. Pretty much what I expected.
posted by bgal81 at 8:57 AM on June 17, 2015


The birther stuff was first a conspiracy theory that made the rounds among Hillary supporters before the Republicans embraced it.

Cite?


Never mind, I found it. Although the two Wikipedia sources are the Tampa Bay Times (citing Politico) and Politico (citing Snopes, no link), the "email from Clinton supporters" is not found on the Snopes site or anywhere else, and the Tampa Bay Times article doesn't mention Clinton or her supporters.

A few questions:

1. If it was an anonymous email, how do you know it was from Clinton supporters?
2. Why is there no record of the original email on Snopes, or anywhere else on the Internet other than that one Politico article?
3. In what possible way is this "breathtakingly racist" or attributable to the Clinton campaign?
4. Is that all you've got?
posted by caryatid at 9:15 AM on June 17, 2015


1. If it was an anonymous email, how do you know it was from Clinton supporters?

It wasn't just one anonymous e-mail. I had to argue with conspiracy minded Clinton supporters about it back in the day. It was not a pretty primary. Phillip Berg, a Hillary supporter, launched the first attempted birther lawsuit.

3. In what possible way is this "breathtakingly racist" or attributable to the Clinton campaign?

We aren't talking about the campaign, we are talking about supporters. If you don't understand why these theories are racist I don't really know what to tell you. It's the eye of the storm of most Obama related racism to this day.

4. Is that all you've got?

No. There's a lot more examples. Some Hillary supporters were racist. They said racist things. It happened.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:59 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


HuffPo, Posted: 05/29/2008: In the exit polls from Kentucky, racism once again played a major factor in Hillary Clinton’s overwhelming victory. The racism revealed in Kentucky (where 17% of the voters were whites who said they voted against Obama partly because of race) ranked a close second to last week’s vote in West Virginia, where 19% of the voters fit this criterion (more than any other primary).

Here’s my theory. High concentrations of racist views create a culture of racism in a community, and even an entire state, what I call a racist tipping point: In areas like Kentucky and West Virginia, high levels of racism and the lack of countering forces reached a point where racist messaging (such as the Muslim rumor nonsense) spreads widely and is believed.

posted by Drinky Die at 10:09 AM on June 17, 2015


> Sucks, doesn't it? That's exactly what Hillary's supporters were subjected to in 2008. When we explained that we preferred her policies and pointed out that she had much more experience, skill, accomplishments and a far more liberal voting record than candidate Obama, that didn't matter. We were racists. That was so much easier than looking at the facts, just as it is now.

You are absolutely going to get called out when you use dishonest smear tactics, just like you called Obama supporters when they did the same thing.

You spat out "Sucks, doesn't it?" while simultaneously admitting you know your attacks are lies, and you know that people support other candidates because of their policies and track record. I have absolutely no respect for people like you.
posted by nangar at 11:04 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


Phillip Berg, a Hillary supporter, launched the first attempted birther lawsuit.

But there's no proof that the birther stuff was started by Clinton supporters. According to this, it was started on The Volokh Conspiracy, Ruthless Roundup, and Free Republic (which makes more sense).

It's the eye of the storm of most Obama related racism to this day.

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. @_@ Obama-related racism would exist regardless of where he was born, and most of it isn't coming from the left or Hillary supporters - who, you may recall, followed her lead and helped get him elected. Twice.

Some Hillary supporters were racist. They said racist things. It happened.

I never claimed that some of her supporters weren't racist. The problem was that ALL of her supporters were repeatedly CALLED racist by Obama supporters, no matter what their reasons were for preferring to support her.

Sexism from Obama supporters and the media is easy to document.

Wil Wheaton: "hillary clinton: the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democratic party"
Chris Rock: "Hillary's not going to give up. She's like Glenn Close in 'Fatal Attraction.' "
Chris Matthews: Is Hillary Clinton a "She Devil"? "Nurse Ratched," "Madame Defarge," "witchy," "anti-male" and "uppity."
Maureen Dowd: "mommie dearest," the "debate dominatrix" and "Mistress Hillary."
Randi Rhodes: Hillary Clinton is "a big fucking whore."
Sexist Attacks Hillary Clinton Faced in 2008
Media Sexism Doomed Hillary's 2008 Bid (scholarly studies)
posted by caryatid at 12:06 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


Seventeen more months.
posted by dirigibleman at 12:18 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]


Yeah, Jesus.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:23 PM on June 17, 2015


Phillip Berg, a Hillary supporter, launched the first attempted birther lawsuit.

But there's no proof that the birther stuff was started by Clinton supporters.


Okay, it's possible it started circulating among the Clinton supporters after it started there, but some Clinton supporters definitely were very quick to embrace it.

most of it isn't coming from the left or Hillary supporters - who, you may recall, followed her lead and helped get him elected. Twice.

Of course, I'm not debating that. Obama supporters stopped saying as much sexist stuff about Hillary after the primary too.

I never claimed that some of her supporters weren't racist. The problem was that ALL of her supporters were repeatedly CALLED racist by Obama supporters, no matter what their reasons were for preferring to support her.

Which mirrors complaints Republicans make too, the reality is usually a little more complicated, but not getting a little too free with such accusations is going to be something Democrats are going to have to continue to grapple with as a diverse party. It's just not a higher priority than calling out the racism and sexism when it does occur.

And to remind you, the reason I'm talking about supporters is you specifically asked for examples of her supporters being breathtakingly racist.

The truth is, there was a lot of racism among some Hillary supporters and the campaign made some unintentional errors on that front. There was a lot of sexism among some Obama supporters and the campaign made some unintentional errors on that front. This is all well documented, old history.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:43 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


It's just not a higher priority than calling out the racism and sexism when it does occur.

The Democratic Party never called out the sexism against Hillary.
posted by caryatid at 2:01 PM on June 17, 2015


Yeah, well she still voted for the PATRIOT Act, the war, and the banks.
posted by rhizome at 2:32 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


The Democratic Party never called out the sexism against Hillary.

Yes, I think Obama and Dean dropped the ball pretty hard on that.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:42 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


It is a big deal. That's exactly why I support Bernie Sanders.

Bernie's donors are unions and civil organizations because he is not a major party candidate. If he becomes the Democratic nominee the big corps will donate to him and he won't refuse the money. He will have to accept it because he will need it to compete against the Kochs.

Major party candidates ALL get big donations from Wall Street. It's not a sign of virtue or vice on the part of the candidate - that's just how this shitty system works.

So will you continue to support him when he gets big Wall Street donors, given that your exact reason for supporting him will be gone?
posted by caryatid at 3:27 PM on June 17, 2015


The Democratic Party never called out the sexism against Hillary.

This may have been because the party is institutionally sexist. Or it may have been tactical; the party already struggles to capture male voters and ratcheting up the tension with some sexist callouts may have driven more away. That's the accepted wisdom for Obama's relatively muted positioning on race, after all.

If he becomes the Democratic nominee the big corps will donate to him and he won't refuse the money.

There's a lot of high in that hypothetical.
posted by notyou at 3:38 PM on June 17, 2015


If he becomes the Democratic nominee the big corps will donate to him and he won't refuse the money.

There's a lot of high in that hypothetical.


I think it's fair, if we want to treat him as a viable nominee. I say that as someone who often votes 3rd party so I've experienced the dilemma, you have to admit some of the purity comes at the cost of electability.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:40 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


This may have been because the party is institutionally sexist. Or it may have been tactical; the party already struggles to capture male voters and ratcheting up the tension with some sexist callouts may have driven more away.

Oh, and, it's probably both, but it's still a valid criticism, right? Parties are accountable both to the people they please with an action and the people they displease with it.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:45 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


There's a lot of high in that hypothetical.

No, not really. The Kochs are planning to spend close to $1 billion on the 2016 campaigns. I like Bernie, but I don't think he can compete on a national level with only the support of unions, civic organizations, and individuals. It's not his fault, but his lack of big corporate donors is not going to continue to be a reason to support him if he becomes the Dem nominee.

the party already struggles to capture male voters and ratcheting up the tension with some sexist callouts may have driven more away.

I'm well aware (what woman isn't?) that the Dems take women's votes for granted and hold them hostage with reproductive choice. With Hillary's candidacy they are being given a golden opportunity to make steps towards redeeming themselves.
posted by caryatid at 4:21 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


Yeah, well she still voted for the PATRIOT Act, the war, and the banks.


And Sanders voted to indemnify the gun industry.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:39 PM on June 18, 2015


I'm fine with that.
posted by rhizome at 2:48 PM on June 18, 2015


« Older Oh, what a sturdy web we weave...   |   No Animals Were Killed in the Making Of This... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments