It's all a ploy on the part of the illuminati to make being a billionaire seem totally unappealing.
Ghislaine Maxwell recently was involved with TEDx in Charlottesville. (Does that further stain her reputation?)
I blame Stanley.
Meanwhile, Ogged, way to bury the lede:
Other prominent figures whose names appear in the logs, which document globe-spanning flights on Epstein's planes during various periods from 1997 to 2005, include Dershowitz, former Treasury Secretary and Harvard president Larry Summers, Naomi Campbell, and scientist Stephen Pinker.
I am so happy any time anyone brings up "God damn America!" because that was such a great part of the sermon and makes me very happy. The end! Maybe I don't have to do CrossFit and could just walk around muttering "God damn America!" to myself and grinning so that I'd be happy all the time. I'd be just as likely to make new friends.
I really, really, really hope that someone beats Clinton in the primaries. I don't think it's going to happen, of course, but I wish it would. I will say, repeating myself from past conversations, that I know she's odds-on to win the whole thing, but I believe that Jeb Bush (and maybe one of the real nut cases) can beat her. The press hates her guts (both because of sexism and because she's become, over time, a cartoon villain). She's lied on the record about taking fire in Tuzla, and I can't bear to witness another successful swiftboating, particularly given that this time I won't think the swiftboatee should be defended. She's a terrible campaigner (I'm aware that this is mostly a subjective judgement). And she surrounds herself with moral monsters who punch hippies for sport, and with mental midgets who can't figure out how the primary process works. All of that said, I would very much like a woman to be POTUS, yes. It's long past time. Just not a woman named Clinton, please. I suppose I should vote for Carly Fiorina.
Echoing Thorn, I was quite anxious about the politics of "God damn America!" at the time that story broke (off topic: what I dipshit I was (and I'm sure still am; see above) about politics). But on the substance, and especially in the context of historical evangelical Protestantism, it seemed like a pretty great sermon.
Please bring back the "god damn America" scandals
Yeah, you know, the totally fucking racist scandals.
7: Like that one which led Snuffleupagus to ask Obama at the infamous Philly debate (which btw led to the creation of Journolist) whether he thought a minister and former Marine loved his country as much as Obama did.
5 is in indication that the terrorists Penn State has won.
My bad, Stormcrow; I should spell things out when I know you might be reading.
You (and objective reality) don't think there's been a personal Obama scandal. In the alternate universe of Fox there are plenty of real Obama scandals. The craziest of these I recently heard (via nutjob who asked at a Santorum event) was that Obama was narrowly foiled from nuking Charlotte as a false-flag operation to improve his ratings.
Well, at least he picked some place horrible.
There's a dishonest right-wing attack machine dedicated to ruining the Clintons, but the Clintons are, or sure love to hang out with, the dregs of the American ruling class.
And Obama hates American and collaborates with terrorists.
As I think the OP acknowledges, the behavior of the Clintons, like that of the Obamas, is only tenuously related to their scandals. If Obama flies in the same plane, nobody cares. If Clinton was born in Hawaii, nobody would be talking about how he was really born in Kenya.
Sure, there's a reason these narratives stick, but if you don't want to hear about Bill's future sex scandals, well, tough luck. That narrative has already been set - as have the narratives regarding Hillary - and there's nothing they can do to change that.
We, however, don't have to be suckers who buy into whatever tales the media and the Right want to tell.
5 pretty much gets it right, incidentally. Not that I don't love hedge fund zillionaires and believe that they have my best interests at heart when acting as benevolent oligarchs.
What no flights with Silvio Berlusconi on the Bunga-Bunga plane? My image of the jet set is shattered.
I get the impression that Epstein is doing very well at playing the "I'm special because I'm rich" card, holding back the 30 counts of underage sex he should be hit with. If he's settling lawsuits left and right it ought to not be too hard to pin things on him. Presumably they settlements include STFU clauses, but that ought not be a huge obstacle. Perhaps the lawyers here can set me straight.
In 2008, I found Obama a million times more compelling than HRC. But now that she's the most likely bet, I actually have an inkling of FEMALE PRIDE HEAR ME ROAR-ism. Yes, I'd prefer a different woman, too, by far, but I'm enjoying the solidarity.
Closest to a real personal scandal Obama got was probably the house buy.
I actually have an inkling of FEMALE PRIDE HEAR ME ROAR-ism. Yes, I'd prefer a different woman, too, by far, but I'm enjoying the solidarity.
This actually means a lot to me. I'm genuinely hopeful that people will, if only on breaking-the-glass-ceiling and gender-solidarity grounds, eventually get excited about a Clinton candidacy and presidency. For now, though, I hear lots of people resigned to her inevitability, planning to vote for her in the general while holding their noses, but hoping that some mysterious white knight (image chosen for both racial and gender reasons) shows up to beat her in the primaries. I include myself in that group, I suppose, so there may be some selection bias at work here.
I already decided I'm not voting for a white guy for president if it's at all possible to avoid it -- and obviously a non-white and/or non-guy Democratic nominee is the only mechanism that would allow for that possibility -- so it's not like anybody should take my disapprobation too seriously, but still bluhh.
I've got a bit of that going on myself. I don't think much of her ideologically: there aren't a lot of likely Democrats I wouldn't prefer on the substance (and I'll vote on the substance if there's anything real going on in the primaries).
But I do like seeing an old woman in charge of things -- I've talked here about how depressing it was, as a twenty/thirty-something litigation associate, sitting in conference rooms full of grey-haired men in their fifties and sixties, and eager young women all under thirty-five or so, and wondering when the firm was going to call the vet to have us all euthanized as we aged out of employability.
I include myself in that group, I suppose, so there may be some selection bias at work here.
Yup. You're Pauline Kael. You're Pauline Kael-man. The ladies in the real world who are inclined to get excited about these things are excited about Hillary. Also resentful of the folks who criticize her.
And digby says Hillary might be a liberal, though I haven't examined the evidence.
For now, though, I hear lots of people resigned to her inevitability
We're what, a year out from the primaries? Of course people are resigned to her inevitability at this point; it's still way too early for most people to give a shit.
22.2: Is there anything less convincing than vote tallies? She's spent the last year convincing me that her Iraq war resolution vote was less poorly calculated politics and more sincerely held belief.
You're Pauline Kael-man.
A rather niche super-hero. Able to generalize from a limited sample in a single bound!
You're Pauline Kael-man.
This is funny.
The ladies in the real world who are inclined to get excited about these things are excited about Hillary.
This, however, seems wrong to me. I mean, I hope it's right. But Digby was always already a Clinton supporter (or at least Clinton curious), no? Meanwhile, I've got piles and piles of anecdata *proving* that many progressive women aren't at all excited about a Clinton candidacy. That's why heebie's comment actually meant a lot to me.
Regardless, Josh is right: it's far too soon to know much of anything at all about 2016. Only the true whackjobs -- shut-ins, bloggers, etc. -- are at all engaged with the political process at this point in the election cycle.
Pssh, anyone can generalize from a limited sample if their bounds are big enough.
You (and objective reality) don't think there's been a personal Obama scandal. In the alternate universe of Fox there are plenty of real Obama scandals. The craziest of these I recently heard (via nutjob who asked at a Santorum event) was that Obama was narrowly foiled from nuking Charlotte as a false-flag operation to improve his ratings.
I've talked about my parents' politics -- you couldn't ask for better on economic issues, but they're questionable/troublesome/require a certain amount of whacking on the nose with a rolled up newspaper on race/gay rights/immigration. Nothing that makes them embarrassing to take out in public, but not really cutting-edge of enlightenment.
Anyway, Dad, apropos of nothing in particular mentioned that one thing about the Obama presidency was that Dad had previously believed that racism among American elites was pretty much a thing of the past -- there were some racist mouthbreathers out there, but nothing serious. After Obama's first term, he was no longer under that illusion.
Some of us shut-in whackjobs are trying to disengage from politics; it's not conducive to our mental health.
In the alternate universe of Fox there are plenty of real Obama scandals.
What's interesting is that the Obama "scandals" have remained confined to the Fox New/Limbaugh demographic, while the Clinton ones went mainstream.
I'm not sure whether that's because the press hates the Clintons more or because the right wing alternate universe has become more hermetically sealed off from the rest of the world in last decade-and-a-half.
heebie's first comment, I meant. heebie's second comment was hurtful.
29: you and me both, my brother. I can't even be bothered trying to get disappointed by someone new this time.
But Digby was always already a Clinton supporter (or at least Clinton curious), no?
She was a Clinton defender in '08, but I don't recall whether she was a Clinton supporter as well. That is, I was an Obama supporter, but I was getting into a whole lot of arguments on the Clinton side of things, because she was getting attacked in ways that seemed to me to be clearly, clearly bullshit. I know I was agreeing with Digby about those issues, but I don't remember reading her and disagreeing about who I was planning to actually vote for.
Getting disappointed by someone old is the new getting disappointed by someone new.
28 to 30: Or in other words, I think it's about the racism. Insane hatred of Clinton didn't get too close to anything unseemly, so you could play with it and not look like a bad person in public. Insane hatred of Obama, it's hard to play without getting visible racist-cooties, which has kept it from going mainstream with the same force.
shut-ins
To be fair, it's no fun to go outside when the weather's actively conspiring against you.
I have also feel myself gearing up for fire-in-the-belly anger at the amount of sexism that I assume will be unleashed.
33 is actually almost exactly what I meant. And yes, many of the attacks on Clinton in 2008 ranged from overtly spurious to disgustingly sexist. But I deprecated her candidacy for only pure reasons derived from enlightenment ideals.
(Heh. I just called myself an Obama supporter in '08. I mean, I ended up there, but I shouldn't let myself off the hook for my initial enthusiasm about Edwards.)
Look, morons, of course Jeb Bush (or any other Republican candidate, including true knuckle draggers like Scott Walker) could beat Hillary Clinton, or any other plausible Dem candidate for a host of reasons, most of them structural, most of them unknown right now. But the idea that Hillary is less electable than [insert plausible Democrat candidate here] is crazy -- there are plenty of reasons to think that she's extremely electable, despite whatever barrage of inevitable opp research scandal stories (and Jesus was that Gawker article a weak one*) are out there. So if "electability" is your issue, come on.
On policy, I'd personally support an insurgent left-liberal candidate in the primary, because I think it would hold Clinton's feet to the fire and won't hurt too much in the general, but if you think there are substantial policy differences between her and Obama, you're nuts. I mean I know this was a lie people told themselves in 2008 to justify punishing her for her Iraq War vote and to vote for charismatic Obama, but her people are almost entirely the same as Obama's people and the policy positions will be essentially the same, so handwringing over that difference isdumb as shit (as opposed to 'the Democrats in power aren't far left enough' which is a totally legit thing to handwring about).
*Other people who have been on private planes with skeevy billionaires -- Barack Obama, my wife, pretty much any very rich person you can think of, every sitting Senator almost certainly including Elizabeth Warren, etc. I mean even the people suing Epstein and attacking Dershowitz, who are led by a right-wing law group and Volokh conspirator, haven't accused Bill Clinton of doing anything improper with Epstein so you can be pretty sure there are no legs to that story.
I can't imagine what caused me to weary of talking about politics.
I'm just trying to preemptive strike the inevitable years of handwringing posts like these. Is Hillary Clinton a savior of the left? No. Is she a mainstream Democrat who has positions basically indistinguishable from the median mainstream Democrat? Yes. Is she as electable as any other plausible candidate? Yes. Does that mean that she will definitely beat a plausible Republican candidate? No. Will whatever happens in the election be clouded with weird vaguely sexist innuendo and vague reference to scandal? Yes. If there were some other Dem candidate running, would we be getting a different but equally stupid barrage of "scandal" stories? Yes.
I mean what else is there to say.
Not that it matters, because I was poking fun at you in 41 rather than making any kind of serious point, but 42 and 40 are rather different rhetorically.
Obama was narrowly foiled from nuking Charlotte
Charleston, actually. Different Carolina.
That's got some very nice buildings and good restaurants.
Way more personality than Charlotte, certainly.
TRO is right as far as that article goes: the thing read like someone at the editor's meeting said "well I have like 3/4s of an article about Epstein, Dershowitz and stuff but what can we add to it to make it seem relevant right now?" and then they just added a couple paragraphs about Clinton knowing these people on either side of it.
I'd love to see Warren playing basically the Edwards-from-2008 role* in the next election, but I'm getting tired of how people keep asking her if she's going to run. I'm fairly certain she is not going to run, based on the fact that she hasn't done anything to set up for a presidential run, has never expressed any interest in running, and has consistently, repeatedly said she has no interest in running. O'Malley seems like he actually means it when he talks about campaigning, but I can't imagine he thinks he has much of a shot. Maybe he's banking on the long shot chance of Clinton having a stroke or something, at which point he'd be the backup candidate.
*Enough of a candidate to take seriously but still not going to win the primary unless the first place candidate drunkenly runs over the second place one on camera. Edwards did do a lot to pull the debate to the left, and keep Obama and Clinton from competing for the "most moderate" trophy by running further and further to the right, though, which was a pretty great thing to do even though he would have been a poor choice overall.
I kind of assume this is O'Malley's practice run. I can't really see anybody taking the nomination from Clinton, absent a health issue. In MMA terms, she has cleared out the weight class; nobody is going to be able to be $$-competitive.
26: We're talking past each other a couple of different ways. I wasn't citing digby as a Hillary supporter (I don't think she was), but rather as a smart person who made an interesting observation.
And I wasn't talking about progressive women, but about the womens in general. Among women, she'll crush whatever toad the Republicans nominate, and it won't all be lesser-evilism. A lot of it will be genuine enthusiasm.
What I'm saying is, your hopes will be realized:
I'm genuinely hopeful that people will, if only on breaking-the-glass-ceiling and gender-solidarity grounds, eventually get excited about a Clinton candidacy and presidency.
42 and 40 are rather different rhetorically.
Are you saying 42 should have been signed KK Downing?
your hopes will be realized
I can't think of more than a few occasions that this has ever happened, but I'm certainly hoping you're right in this case.
It occurs to me that there must be a number, perhaps non-negligible, of people* for whom Pauline Kael is a, or the, favorite woman writer (on film, certainly, but perhaps on anything).
* Assuming arguendo that damned dirty movie nerds count as "people."
49 - I betting O'Malley is also trying to establish himself as the foremost "in case of emergency, break glass" Dem candidate.
53: Everybody I know likes Pauline Kael.
No one can beat HRC for the nomination, and I think we wouldn't want it to happen even if someone could: the candidate that beats her, unless it's someone with charisma and movement leadership abilities that are just way off the charts, will be too weak to win the general.
Our biggest assets in the general are (a) turnout from energized people (who don't usually vote) and (b) controlling the ground from center-left to center-right. The mythical white knight who wins by alienating the center-right gives away one, and if he/she wins by knocking, again, HRC, then I think you've got serious issues with the other. Unless there's someone lurking out there, hiding his/her charisma under a bushel . . .
It's mathematically possible that someone charismatic enough to energize huge swaths of people who aren't voting can win with a left/center-left coalition. I'm not sure we've seen someone like that in national politics in my lifetime.
SHERROD BROWN!!! How many times do I have to say it? I mean, he's not going to run -- actually, I suspect that he'll be selected as Clinton's running mate -- and I'm sure he has all kinds of skeletons in his closet. But he's a populist, he energizes a crowd, he's from one of the two or three most important swing states and is wildly popular there, and his wife would be one of the very best first ladies ever* (and, it goes without saying, a kickass POTUS in her own right).
* 1) Eleanor Roosevelt 2) Michelle Obama 3) ?
holding back the 30 counts of underage sex he should be hit with.
Aided in that endeavor by the sanctimonious moral monster* Ken Starr
*Not characterized as such due to this activity, of course, but rather the whole Ken Starr package.
Yay Sherrod Brownand DOUBLE YAY Connie Schultz.
If HRC drops out, Gore could make a compelling case to bring Millenials in with a Climate Change crusade. He'd do as well with other coalition members as HRC in the general: I think most women who would be motivated to vote for the first woman president would also be willing to vote against the goddamn GOP. But only if HRC has dropped out willingly, for health reasons, or whatever.
57.last: Aren't you just describing an Obama with less centrism and smaller victory margins? I mean, dude won by almost 10M votes, and 7 percentage points. Make 4 million center-right voters less comfortable, and he still wins.
I mean, you could argue that a less centrist Obama scares away a disproportionate number of nervous white voters, but that's a rabbit hole. My point is that Obama gained a lot of votes from traditional nonvoters through charisma, and won a resounding victory by maintaining center-right cred, but could, mathematically, have won a tighter victory with a more center-left/left coalition.
OK, maybe Brown too, but I think he's pretty much unknown in a lot of the country.
I love Sherrod, but he'll lose his voice about 1 week into the campaign.
Sorry, there should be a "4)" in 58 that reads: "Profit!!!"
Also, the biggest problem I see with 57 and 42 is Tuzla and a few other things that Clinton actually has done that are qualitatively different than other potential candidates. I mean, yes, sure, Republicans are going to attack whomever the Democrats nominate. But the attacks may be somewhat more effective, if, as in the case of Tuzla, they're accurate.
64: It's possible a less centrist candidate could have in 2008, but those were very favorable conditions for the Dems -- not likely to be that good again for a while. I mean, maybe in 2024, if we elect and reelect Scott Walker, but I'm not going to sign up for that.
64 -- Yes, I think BHO is extraordinarily charismatic. He had a great external situation too, what with the momentum from 2006, the financial collapse, Bush's failed war policy, and Jeri-Ryan's-ex-husband level luck in drawing Sarah Palin.
The 2016 race is totally winnable, but someone who can beat HRC and then go on to win the general is someone who (a) I'm not seeing and (b) doesn't seem to be seeing himself/herself in the mirror.
I'm never going to convince anyone on this kind of thing, but Tuzla really does not seem to me to be indicative of a character flaw. As Brian Williams could tell you, people are really bad at remembering events, even when they were really there, and I find it totally believable that someone said something about possible gunfire and she conflated it in her head into people firing on the airfield right then.
How damaging it'll be politically, I couldn't tell you, but I think anything who thinks it means much about her is being silly.
65 see 23. Only junkies are paying attention right now.
indicative of a character flaw
That's not what I'm saying! I've never said such a thing! Flawed character is, for me at least, completely beside the point. Tuzla is lousy politics, absolutely terrible baggage to have to carry around during a campaign. That's all I'm saying. And if you think that's silly, fair enough. Pretty much everything about politics in this country is very silly -- except for the consequences, which can be pretty serious.
58 etc.: I saw Sherrod and Connie give a dual commencement address and my heart exploded and I died. Also, she was way better at it than he, and he was fantastic. (Think whatever you want about that. I have no shame about my thruple.)
67: If you can pretend-liberate Auschwitz or steal the biography of a coal miner's son and still be a credible presidential candidate, who cares about taking a little fictional fire in Tuzla?
Now if Tuzla had a sex angle involving Bill, then you're on to something - then the suckers would go for it. As it is? Meh.
Hey, I had no idea who Sherrod was. I think google has cleared it up for me.
Anyway, my point in the post was that I much prefer the scandals that unmask the attackers to scandals that give me hives to defend. And if you don't think Bill is still diddling around...*
*Not that this much changes my view of Hillary, who I'll vote for, because the other party circa 2015 is almost 100% hate-filled theocratic numbskulls.
And if you don't think Bill is still diddling around...*
As I indicated in 14, and as you illustrate again here, Bill's actual behavior (short of getting caught) is immaterial. The rubes are going to tell this story regardless, not because it's true (although it could be), but because rubes gonna be rubes.
Sherrod Brown on the ticket would go a long way toward making a vote for Clinton not leave me feeling dirty.
78: True, and after seeing her encomium to Henry Kissinger last year, I feel filthy for even thinking about it.
76.last is my position. I'm all but indifferent to who the Democrats select as long as she or he can beat the theocratic numbskull the GOP nominates. I'm kind of worried about Jeb bush, though. He could win if it weren't for the name, but HRC has name issues of her own that might even things out.
Pauline Kael is certainly my favorite woman writer on film, because I can only think of about a half-dozen writers on film to begin with and the only other woman in the group is Kaja Silverman.
I mostly endorse 42, but I think it's reasonable to feel that Clinton, while in the mainstream of the Democratic Party (both in its base and in its elected officials) is to the right half, particularly on foreign policy. But we're not going to be getting presidential candidates Sherrod Brown or Mark Dayton or Donna Edwards this go around, and Clinton is doing God's work by sucking the available oxygen away from an all-too-possible Cuomo candidacy.
80: I'm kind of worried about Jeb bush, though
Terri Schiavo, Terri Schiavo, Terri Schiavo. One of the few things worse than a theocratic Republican is an opportunistically theocratic Republican. He admirably demonstrated that characteristic* in his stupid response to the recent Indiana Imbroglio.
*Although Politico tried to give him cover in their near-parodic write up (emphasis added):
Bush took a moderate line, underscoring his strategy of running a general election campaign even before the primaries: He denied that the Indiana measure was discriminatory and echoed Pence's argument that Democrats like Bill Clinton had backed similar measures in the past. "This is really an important value for our country ... in a diverse country, where you can respect and be tolerant of people's lifestyles, but allow for people of faith to be able to exercise theirs," he told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.
I guess because he didn't just come out and say, "Kill all the fucking gays."
I have a hard time seeing the Terri Schiavo affair getting much play. Republican rules, bygones, etc.
who cares about taking a little fictional fire in Tuzla?
Are you kidding? STOLEN VALOR!!!!!1!! The right will be all over that shit.
s an opportunistically theocratic Republican
Although it worked for GW. I do think GW was a better presidential candidate than Jeb will be. As Rove said, Bush was his "prefect" candidate--no strong views, and pretty much totally uninterested in practically anything except winning elections. I pretty much agree within the context of the last 20 years of political and media reality. There are theoretical worlds where he would be ripe for exposure, but this ain't it.
He could win if it weren't for the name, but HRC has name issues of her own that might even things out.
I don't get this. Except for maybe 18 months after 9/11, Bill Clinton has been much, much more popular than anybody named Bush for every one of the past 20 years.
I'll grant that a fresh young face a la Obama would make an appealing contrast to a JEB! candidacy, but in terms of peoples' reactions to "Bush" and "Clinton"? The analogy ban forbids me from describing it fully, but they are/would be different.
How is that a moderate line?!
It's not; it just appears to split the difference. I'm afraid that a great deal of electoral politics these days trades on ignorance and/or indifference on the part of the American public regarding actual policy issues, and that public doesn't know shit about the difference between, say, the federal RFRA and Indiana's recently-passed state level RFRA.
Someone upthread (von Wafer?) mentioned that nobody he knows is particularly enthusiastic about Clinton, and others disputed this claim. I do as well. I mean, I'm not, but any number of members of the general public really are.
83: The media has (inexplicably) labelled JBush a moderate, therefore any position he takes will become the "moderate" position.
TUZLAAAA! TUZLAAAA! FREAK THE FUCK OUT EVERYONE!!!
I have a hard time seeing the Terri Schiavo affair getting much play.
From the mainstream media, maybe not, but HRC can afford to run ads 24/7 reminding people what a shitshow it was, and I'm 95% certain that Michael Schiavo and medical personnel who were affected will be happy to speak up about how Jeb empowered militant loons to threaten their lives while they did everything possible to make dying patients, one of whom was totally brain dead, comfortable until the inevitable.
I think the Schiavo story is devastating for Jeb, and I think ads will hit him hard. The fact that it won't even come up during the primary* makes it all the more damaging in the general.
*I'm assuming
I can attest that my mother and a *lot* of women in her age cohort (which is also Hillary Clinton's, btw) are quite enthusiastic about voting for her.
Although, really, I don't think any of the Schaivo/Tuzla/Bill Clinton and softcore pornstars stuff actually appeals to anyone who isn't firmly set in one camp or the other anyway. It suppose its useful for motivating bases and providing a focus for the Two Minute Hate, but even there I don't think it moves the needle much. Its just election noise.
85: You are probably right. I do feel that was the point (even before Katrina) where everyone except the 27% realized that the Bush presidency had truly jumped the sharknado. I feel it was one of the moments in my lifetime when the country really did take a step to the edge and take a look down. I think it was so surreal that people have purged it from their memories--the breathless coverage of GW leaving vacation for the White House, the veiled threats from Jeb for ordering the Florida State patrol interfere.
Iraq and other shit were objectively worse, but much in line with standard US warmongering norms.
I think the Schiavo story is devastating for Jeb, and I think ads will hit him hard.
Its too easy to overplay the hand here, though. A lot of the disgust with Schiavo was a reaction to the right making a political circus out of a family tragedy. It could be pointed out that Democrats, in making such ads, would be doing the same thing, and why is it they want to euthanize everybody anyway?
97: I remember it as the last straw for John Cole.
it was so surreal that people have purged it from their memories
To the entire disastrous Bush presidency.
A few years ago I went to a panel at the national meeting of the main scientific society I belong to that was about public communication and outreach. They recounted some focus group studies they did to get a sense of how best to frame various issues. One thing they noted specifically was that the Schaivo fiasco got the strongest reaction of anything they mentioned (I guess they asked people's opinions on a whole range of random stuff in the initial stages). The reaction was overwhelmingly negative.
I was kind of surprised. But apparently outrage over that particular shit show has staying power.
The Schiavo story is old enough that if you polled on it I doubt many people would even remember what it was let alone who was involved in it. Plus the fact that he eventually backed down could easily be spun as "I stood up to my party because of Principles!" by his campaign, and since he's been designated Official Moderate by the media at this point I'm guessing that they would love it.
I will bet anyone here $100 to the charity of the winner's choice that neither Schiavo nor Tuzla will become major 2016 presidential campaign issues. "Major issue" is pretty subjective but we'll know it when we see it. For betting purposes, maybe we'll define it as Nate Silver believing that there is a more than 2% movement in the polls as a result of discussion of the issue. I have lost most of my Unfogged betting to date so take me up on the offer!
94: I can attest that my mother and a *lot* of women in her age cohort (which is also Hillary Clinton's, btw) are quite enthusiastic about voting for her.
Not just people in that female age cohort. Last week Melissa Harris-Perry had four millennial aged college students on a panel discussion about racism on campus, and she tossed out at the end a question about who they supported for President: two instantly said "Hillary Clinton." (One of the others made a diplomatic reply about the need for robust dialogue; the other nominated one of the kids on the panel discussion.)
I was just waiting for the punch line to be "Nearly killed 'im!"
There was an Onion headline back when, "Terry Schiavo Dies of Embarrassment" which I've trotted out and re-used a million times since then.
Also Schiavo will have zero effect on Jeb.
On Schiavo, while I remember the story clearly, I wouldn't have remembered to associate any particular wrongdoing with Jeb.
I seem to recall Bill Frist was the real stinker on that one.
Does no one think that the recent RFRA dispute will be a major issue in 2016? The public has a pretty short memory.
I would, in any case, like to see this play a major role: it's not just a matter of these particular state level laws, but takes on the entire approach adopted lately by libertarian-leaning conservatives at a judicial level. The question whether anti-discrimination laws trump religious freedom laws. I'd like to see that made a major issue.
103: Blunt force trauma to the rectum ought not be lethal, I'd have thought. Didn't Edward II go out that way, though? IIRC it was a red-hot poker. Anyway don't abuse your butts, people.
I'm confident that Hillary will go down in disgraceful defeat, once the public learns the real truth about Bengazi.
I expect the 2016 election will largely be a referendum on the economy, as usual, but if personalities matter then I think they cut in favor of Clinton. My impression from talking to not-as-progressive-women-as-the-ones-Wafer-knows is that they feel that it's a woman's turn. I've also heard the sentiment expressed that the argument that Clinton isn't progressive enough is bullshit, because that was the argument people made in favor of Obama and it turned out not to be true. These are people who vote and vaguely follow politics, but not to the obsessive extent we do.
As usual, Walt is here to comfort me.
I've also heard the sentiment expressed that the argument that Clinton isn't progressive enough is bullshit, because that was the argument people made in favor of Obama and it turned out not to be true.
Interesting.
the argument that Clinton isn't progressive enough is bullshit, because that was the argument people made in favor of Obama and it turned out not to be true
Yes, but it turned out to not be true for Obama partly because Obama gave Clinton the foreign policy dossier.
I'm not saying that it is bullshit -- if somehow Sherrod Brown were the nominee I would expect him to really be more progressive -- but it's an argument that has lost its potency. Anyway, the Democratic policy establishment is pretty much all neoliberal, so it would be difficult for anyone to change direction in the short term.
113: I'm telling you, man, economic determinism is freeing. The alternative -- that the whole deranged circus is the way we choose Presidents -- is too awful to contemplate.
All the economies I know voted for Gore in 2000.
Yes, but it turned out to not be true for Obama
No, it turned out to be true for Obama.
That he governed way to the left of where Clinton would have?
I think you may have misunderstood the sentiment in 112. It's not that Obama wasn't progressive enough, it's that we were told that, because Clinton wasn't progressive enough, people should vote for Obama.
Anecdata: I know of two later-in-life conversions to anti-Republicanism, and while the process took a few years to complete, in both cases the precipitating incident appeared to be Schiavo. That is to say, they could find excuses for the Iraq war and whatnot, but not Schiavo.
But that's ancient history, and like Tuzla, it's not a sex story and it's already factored into the media narrative. It doesn't matter any more.
No more wire hangers cities with 'z's in them, ever!
BTW, pf and (it pains me to say a bit) TRO are right in this thread.
And as I said somewhere above, despite my bringing up Schiavo I do not think it will be a significant thing, But it serves as a reminder how dangerous ambitious soulless people like him can be. Also 2000 election behavior. At most Schiavo might help on the margins to keep some "moderates" from voting for him. I expect a Clinton campaign to remind folks of it but not push it. A thing to bring up in a debate, for instance.
Archosaur
Squamata
Avemetatarsalia
Give us any chance we'll take it,
Give us any rule, we'll break it!
I predict: once Clinton is president, people will stop saying that they were wrong in 2008 to think Obama would govern well to the left of her.
I think 131 is probably right, but I don't know or really care. As for 127, pf and ripper have said a bunch of things in this thread, so I don't know which ones you're saying are right. But if you're referring to Tuzla being ancient history, I suspect you're wrong. Again, swiftboating seems to have worked once, and political operatives aren't creative people.
Oh sure, one of the things they will pound on.
Jeb having trouble figuring out how to keep his panders straight.
Jeb Bush appeared to modify his public comments about Indiana's "religious freedom" law on Wednesday in a closed-door Silicon Valley fund-raiser, telling a small group of potential supporters that a "consensus-oriented" approach would have been better at the outset.I enjoyed this Eric Boehlert tweet: after Gov. Hutchinson threw IN law under bus today, GOP candidates like Jeb had to scramble for new position; lacking core beliefs is tricky. (He is someone I follow on Twitter, VW. But he will tweet about attacks on HRC a lot.)
Back to the article in the OP, Bill C maps onto the vibe of Berlusconi style bunga bunga. The Dersh is a better fit for darker DSK style soirees, where he could advance his campaign for world's most self-righteous torture advocate by seconding DSK's claim that "I had no idea they were prostitutes." Spitzer's probably sui generis but conservative pervs would feel right at home at Max Mosley style orgies with Nazi uniforms and accountrements. Transatlantic cooperation lives.
134 is good but needs, like, David Vitter and John Kitzhauber analogues.
132: BENGHAZI!!!!! You can't expect Americans to remember more than one weird foreign place name -- and that's the one that has already been successfully planted in the conservative mind.
As for 127, pf and ripper have said a bunch of things in this thread, so I don't know which ones you're saying are right.
The rule of thumb is that whenever Ripper agrees with me, he's right. That works for other commenters, too.
Again, swiftboating seems to have worked once, and political operatives aren't creative people.
Sure, they're going to be mean to Hillary, but Tuzla isn't going to be the subject matter. Too old, too well chewed-over, and too based in reality.
I had a lawyer explain to me once that it can be easier to defend a guilty client because you know what the cops are going to say. Hillary has well-practiced answers on the subject of Tuzla; she won't be making up anything on the fly.
The Swiftboaters were effective because they didn't let themselves to be constrained by factuality. They could say anything they wanted to, and did, and the media were grateful because it gave them a storyline where they didn't have to waste a bunch of time and effort checking facts.
Hillary is a liar? So what? That's old news. But tell me that Al Gore is serial liar - well, that'll get you some traction, as long as you make sure that you stick largely to matters he didn't lie about.
137: Benghazi comes closer because it lacks a factual basis beyond the actual deaths. But you need a fresh news peg.
Swiftboating "worked" (to the extent it did) because about 1/2 of John Kerry's political career was based around the idea that he was a genuine war hero (who then turned against the war, but was a hero first). Hillary's comments on Tuzla came out in 2008 and were mostly a non-issue then in the middle of an intense, fully vetted political campaign in which she was the front-runner. They nvolve the difference between a statement (from someone whose identity isn't at all based around being in combat) that she was landing under sniper fire and the truth, which is that she was landing in an area in which there were snipers (the latter apparently addressed in her memoirs). The idea that this will become her Achilles heel and we should be worried about this strikes me as bizarre. I mean anything is possible but come on.
I'm sure 131 will be right in terms of what people say (hell, there are people who were saying in 2010-2011 that Bill Clinton was more progressive than Obama, which was clearly wrong) but it won't be true. To the extent she'll pass legislation, she'll be constrained by Congress (which has both a pretty liberal by historical standards Democratic party and crazy Republicans who are likely to control at least one house). In terms of appointments, executive decisions, foreign policy, it is basically the exact same bench of people making the exact same decisions, sure with some minor variation but in both cases you're voting for putting the existing neoliberal Democratic party establishment (which is more liberal than it was in the 1990s, but less liberal than we'd like) in power.
Also note that the main witness for the prosecution on TUZLA!! is 90s comedian Sinbad.
141: Foreign policy has to be the area where the executive has the most influence, and, while it's obviously impossible to be certain, I think Obama has been a force for restraint.
From what I've heard Clinton is a really serious hawk when it comes to foreign adventures, whereas Obama doesn't seem to find the idea of war anywhere near as appealing. The various rumors I've heard about inside the administration stuff all seem consistent as far as that goes: Clinton almost always being on the pro-foreign-adventure side of various debates.
There are certainly reasons to think 143 is right, but I believe that what will be the signature dove-ish move of the Obama presidency (aside from leaving Iraq, which any Dem president would have done by 2009) namely a nuclear deal with Iran, was initiated by HRC and negotiated largely by the exact people you'd see running foreign policy in a HRC government. It's pretty much the same people doing the same things.
Tuzla could become a minor issue because BENGHAZI BENGHAZI FAST AND FURIOUS BENGHAZI. There is no such thing as reading the tea leaves when it comes to the shrieking right, because they shriek just to hear words come out their mouths. But I don't think it'd gain more traction than that sort of b-celebrity status.
145: We could also be more heavily involved in any number of wars.
The big difference I expect in BHO vs HRC foreign policy is that Obama will likely give a public cold shoulder to Netanyahu for the next two years, where Clinton is very likely to give him hot stone massages starting on Day 1.
Last week I saw an actual human in public (in this here American rust belt city) wearing a t-shirt that said "I STAND WITH BIBI" in giant letters. I was truly flabbergasted. Who does that?
148 -- We'll see but I doubt it. At this point Netanyahu has gone all-in with being identified with the US Republican party and I think the Dem foreign policy establishment is well and truly off the train, not thay they have any particularly constructive alternate plan.
148, 150 -- I expect HRC to engage in some triangulation during the campaign. How she ends up acting towards Israel once in office will depend on how well the PM does in convincing her that he really is interested in a settlement, just not quite yet. This is one of the few issues where I think the personalities actually matter.
She's not going to do anything about Our Stupidest War Yet (aka our support of the Saudi attacks in Yemen). I'm sure she's praying it'll be over before anyone asks her about it, but if Egyptian ground forces really are going to take part in the thing, it won't be.
Apparently there's some sort of framework agreement. I was 90 percent sure some bullshit would fuck it up before this point. (Still time, I guess.)
WRT Iran, not Yemen, which yes stupid and holy shit do I not want to think about Egypt.
(I suppose our support for the Saudis in Yemen is probably an explicit trade-off for their not making trouble over the deal with Iran. So, maybe it's a deal worth making. Still, siding with the Saudis against the principal enemy of Al Qaida -- what could go wrong?)
some mysterious white knight (image chosen for both racial and gender reasons)
I'm hoping for a Clinton/Kamala Harris ticket.
155: Then who will run for the California Senate seat?