HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Politics & Government » Populist Reform of the Democratic Party (Group) » Populist Group Post: Is ...

Wed May 27, 2015, 11:57 AM

Populist Group Post: Is it really out of order to mention Bill Clinton?

Last edited Tue Jul 7, 2015, 07:45 AM - Edit history (1)

A while back, DUers were posting lists of things that should not be mentioned in connection with Hillary Clinton during this primary, lest he or she who mentioned it be considered sexist. Not a difference of opinion or a different interpretation of facts, mind you, but bigotry. (Months before that, I'd been "informed" that anyone who made any mention at all of the Bosnia airport story was sexist, but that claim is too ludicrous on its face to warrant discussion.)

The list included Bill Clinton and his administration--as though Hillary somehow has nothing to do with the man she chose to be her husband and the father of her child, nothing to do with the man she helped sell to America in 1992, the man to who she has chosen to remain married for decades, etc. As a mom and a wife with my own career, I find this nonsensical as well as all too convenient.

In 1985, the conservative wing of the Democratic Party founded the DLC in hopes of altering the Democratic Party. Among the founding members were a group of professional politicians.....and Hillary Clinton. As best as I have been able to determine, she was the only founding member of the DLC who joined as the spouse of a politician.

When Bill Clinton ran for POTUS in 1992, he said that electing him would give America two for the price of one, meaning him and Hillary.


During the campaign, questions of conflict of interest regarding state business and the politically powerful Rose Law Firm, at which Hillary Rodham Clinton was a partner, arose. Clinton argued the questions were moot because all transactions with the state had been deducted before determining Hillary's firm pay.[3][46] Further concern arose when Bill Clinton announced that, with Hillary, voters would be getting two presidents "for the price of one".[47]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

Hillary never demurred. So, I think it's more than fair to say that they sold his administration as as a joint Presidency. Consistent with this, in 1996, America was asked to re-elect Bill AND Hillary, as though Hillary had been elected in 1992.

Bill Clinton had also sold his candidacy by campaigning on national health care. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

Soon after the 1993 inauguration, it was clear that Hillary was to lead the effort to pass health care legislation, something so extraordinary and unprecedented in American presidential politics that Hillary's role, especially the secrecy of the proceedings involving a "private citizen," became the subject of litigation.

The First Lady's role in the secret proceedings of the Health Care Task Force also sparked litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in relation to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) which requires openness in government. The Clinton White House argued that the Recommendation Clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution would make it unconstitutional to apply the procedural requirements of FACA to Mrs. Clinton's participation in the meetings of the Task Force. Some constitutional experts argued to the court that such a legal theory was not supported by the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.[15] Ultimately, Hillary Clinton won the litigation in June 1993, when the D.C. Circuit ruled narrowly that the First Lady of the United States could be deemed a government official (and not a mere private citizen) for the purpose of not having to comply with the procedural requirements of FACA.[16][17]

Also in February 1993, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, along with several other groups, filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and Donna Shalala over closed-door meetings related to the health care plan. The AAPS sued to gain access to the list of members of the task force. In 1997, Judge Royce C. Lamberth found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $285,864 to the AAPS for legal costs; Lamberth also harshly criticized the Clinton administration and Clinton aide Ira Magaziner in his ruling.[18] Subsequently, a federal appeals court overturned in 1999 the award and the initial findings on the basis that Magaziner and the administration had not acted in bad faith.[19]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

The result of the litigation was that Hillary, as First Lady, was declared a public official. Why? Because she was married to Bill while he was President; because he and she chose this role for her and because they decided to litigate to have her declared a public official.

Perhaps ironically....


In September 2007, former Clinton Administration senior health policy advisor Paul Starr published an article named "The Hillarycare Mythology",[30] where he asserted that Bill Clinton, not Hillary Clinton, was the driving force behind the plan at all stages of its origination and development; that the task force headed by Hillary Clinton quickly became useless and was not the primary force behind formulating the proposed policy; and that "Not only did the fiction of Hillary's personal responsibility for the health plan fail to protect the president at the time, it has also now come back to haunt her in her own quest for the presidency."[30]
id.

Had the healthcare bill passed, it would very likely have been the legislation that Bill in fact, would be pointing to today as his legacy, not NAFTA, DADT, DOMA, the Telecommunications Act or Gramm, Leach, Bliley. Concomitantly, I very much doubt that Hillary would have tried to disassociate herself from it when running for President, either in either 2008 or 2016.

As it was, it failed for many reasons, including that Congressional Democrats were not willing to back it. However, it became a model for Romneycare in Massacusetts. (Romney did attempt to distance his plan from that of the Clintons, but his attempts were lame and unconvincing.)

As stated above, in 1996, America was asked to re-elect Hillary and Bill Clinton.








Sometimes, ONLY Hillary Clinton








When Hillary ran for the US Senate against Lazio, she endorsed Bill's action in having ended "welfare as we know it."

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/29/nyregion/campaigns-soft-pedal-on-children-and-the-poor.html?pagewanted=1

Of Hillary and Republican Lazio, Deepak Bhargava, director of public policy at the Center for Community Change, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group based in Washington, said: ''Neither of them can be called a staunch defender of antipoverty programs.'' Instead, he said, they have worked on more marginal items. id.


In 2007-08 Hillary opted for "a tight embrace" of the legacy of the Clinton administration, taking credit for its positive aspects.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102588.html


Additionally, during her 2008 campaign, she cited her experiences as her husband's first lady as though they added to her qualifications to be President. And she referred to events during his administration using words like "us," "we" and "our." For example, I remember her response when some members of the LGBT community told her they'd worked to elect her husband, then were so disappointed in his treatment of them: "I thought we did very well," she responded. During that primary, she also named Bill Clinton as one of the ten best Presidents in all of US history.


And the main basis for her assertion (of being far more experienced than Obama) is the time she spent as first lady. Bill Clinton is hitting the theme hard as the voting in Iowa and New Hampshire draws closer, pointing back to the 1990s, citing his record as his wife's, referring to the work "we" did in office and, for the most part, brushing past or ignoring the tumult of those years.

.....


On Thursday night in Holderness, N.H., the former president returned again and again in his hour-long speech to the achievements of his administration as proof that his wife would be able to bring results if she were elected. Several times, he cited the statistics on the economic gains of the 1990s -- the rise in family income, the decline in poverty and in the number of uninsured, and the increase in students obtaining college aid ("I still know the numbers," he said).

.....

For all his talk about the 1990s, though, the former president does not go into great detail about the role his wife played in his administration, instead simply leaving the impression that she was part of the team that brought about the decade's gains.

......

At times, his pitch for his wife is focused so much on his own accomplishments as president that it almost sounds as if he himself is running for reelection. In a two-hour interview Thursday with the Concord Monitor, he referred to his having made a "terrible mistake" while president, an apparent reference to the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, and then added: "The voters will have to make their own judgments about that. I've done everything I could, first of all, to try to be a good president and, secondly, to try to be a good after-president."


id.
As Bill and Hillary had in 1996, many of her supporters tried to sell her 2008 candidacy as a two for one deal, with no demurrer from either of the Clintons Additionally, Bill also took a highly visible (and vocal) role in her 2007-08 Presidential primary campaign, at times sounding as though he were her Svengali:



Since all that did not work out too well, Bill may take a less visible role this time, but he is still there.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/04/11/hillary-clinton-bill-husband-presidential-campaign/25591609/

So, it seems Hillary is, and always has been, very willing to be fully associated with her husband's politics and Presidency--as long as it appears that so doing could possibly advantage her. However, one must take all or nothing and it is way too late in this game to opt for nothing, nor has Hillary done so. Bottom line: Neither the Clintons nor their supporters should expect to have it every which way on this issue.

(Obviously, if Hillary had been President first and Bubba had behaved about her administration and his experience as First Gentleman the same way as she has, the exact same realities would obtain if he were runninng for the Presidency.)

ETA: Recently, I heard that Hillary does not want to be judged by her husband's administration or by her past, including her past campaigns for Senate and POTUS, only by her current campaign. No doubt she does not. However, I don't think she gets to decide whether voters will have amnesia. And, trust me, if Hillary or Bill or Hillary's campaign think any of the foregoing will help Hillary's current campaign, we'll hear about it.

57 replies, 6219 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 57 replies Author Time Post
Reply Populist Group Post: Is it really out of order to mention Bill Clinton? (Original post)
merrily May 2015 OP
JoePhilly May 2015 #1
merrily May 2015 #2
NYC_SKP May 2015 #3
JoePhilly May 2015 #4
merrily May 2015 #5
NYC_SKP May 2015 #28
merrily May 2015 #29
upaloopa May 2015 #9
NYC_SKP May 2015 #10
upaloopa May 2015 #11
NYC_SKP May 2015 #12
upaloopa May 2015 #15
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply !
Phlem May 2015 #18
enid602 Dec 2015 #57
merrily May 2015 #33
merrily May 2015 #19
Paka May 2015 #34
fredamae May 2015 #6
merrily May 2015 #7
fredamae May 2015 #8
NYC_SKP May 2015 #14
merrily May 2015 #21
NYC_SKP May 2015 #30
KoKo May 2015 #13
merrily May 2015 #20
KoKo May 2015 #23
merrily May 2015 #25
nxylas May 2015 #16
Enthusiast May 2015 #17
KoKo May 2015 #22
merrily May 2015 #24
arcane1 May 2015 #26
merrily May 2015 #27
MannyGoldstein May 2015 #31
merrily May 2015 #32
MannyGoldstein May 2015 #35
merrily May 2015 #36
MannyGoldstein May 2015 #37
merrily May 2015 #38
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply !
MannyGoldstein May 2015 #40
Enthusiast May 2015 #41
whereisjustice May 2015 #39
Scuba May 2015 #42
merrily May 2015 #44
demwing May 2015 #43
merrily May 2015 #45
pnwmom Dec 2015 #46
merrily Dec 2015 #47
pnwmom Dec 2015 #48
merrily Dec 2015 #49
pnwmom Dec 2015 #50
merrily Dec 2015 #51
pnwmom Dec 2015 #53
merrily Dec 2015 #54
pnwmom Dec 2015 #55
merrily Dec 2015 #56
merrily Dec 2015 #52

Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed May 27, 2015, 11:59 AM

1. Did some one think the Cliintons would not be questioned, criticised, attacked ... from the left ...

... and the right?

I don't know anyone who thought that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #1)

Wed May 27, 2015, 12:02 PM

2. ? My post doesn't say someone thought the Clintons would not be attacked or anything like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed May 27, 2015, 12:08 PM

3. Clinton supporters might want to say that he and Chelsea are off limits. I disagree.

 

They are a unit in many ways, all members of the various foundations and all mixed up in banking and media.

Chelsea's job in banking and her $660K gig with NBC.

These are not trivial matters, it's fair game IMO.

Pantsuits and blow jobs, however, we don't need to discuss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #3)

Wed May 27, 2015, 12:15 PM

4. I tend to think that Clinton supporters know what's coming.

Everything is coming.

True, false, fabricated, manufactured ... endless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #3)

Wed May 27, 2015, 12:30 PM

5. AFAIK, Hillary has never associated herself with Chelsea's Wall Street or media jobs

or job performance, so that is a distinguishable issue from anything I touched on in my OP. I am not even talking about the Clinton Foundations. Right now, I am just discussing her husband's administration and his performance in her campaigns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #5)

Wed May 27, 2015, 07:16 PM

28. Good point, however there are parallels.

 

Except that Chelsea hasn't run for office, it's a different matter, I'll agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #28)

Wed May 27, 2015, 07:18 PM

29. Please see Reply 21.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #3)

Wed May 27, 2015, 01:02 PM

9. When you say "fair game" it describes your

motives exactly. To you it is a game.
So go play your games if you must.
I see you are still are making shit up
Everything you say about Hillary should be discounted and taken with an ocean of salt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #9)

Wed May 27, 2015, 01:17 PM

10. You're addressing a host of this group, fair warning.

 

"Fair game" means that what the family does as related to politics or potential conflicts of interest should be allowable discussion.

Chelsea's connection to big banks is fair game, her cush job at a major news outlet is fair game, and Bill's doings are also fair game.

At least in this group they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #10)

Wed May 27, 2015, 01:25 PM

11. Warning? I am not afraid!

What is with some people here? Don't warn me. I am banned from a few forums and I wear it as a batch of honor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #11)

Wed May 27, 2015, 01:32 PM

12. No problems, it's just that sometimes people don't realize where they are when they post.

 

I did that once and the Hillary group blocked me even after I deleted my reply.

No worries, we aren't trying to block people.

That said, I feel that in this case the entire Clinton family are evident of the problem and the need to reform the party.

To discuss and debate issues, candidates, and strategies related to the promotion of progressive, populist reforms within the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #12)

Wed May 27, 2015, 01:42 PM

15. Well I don't think you should use this platform

to attack Hillary because this group doesn't speak for Democrats. It speaks for those who post here.But I don't make the rules.
A lot if people don't realize that they have created a bubble in which to live and mistake the bubble for the real world. Also leadership of a bubble group is an ego boost that you can't get that easily outside the bubble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #15)

Wed May 27, 2015, 05:13 PM

18. !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 09:21 AM

57. jane

It also leaves plenty of room to talk about Jane Sanders' exploits. Google Jane Sanders/Burlington College/Overstatement of assets/$200K golden parachute. I don't know if it benefits Bernie to get the spouses involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #12)

Wed May 27, 2015, 08:07 PM

33. No, we aren't looking to block people, but we are looking for a safe haven for like-minded people

to discuss views. Upaloopa's posts on this thread did not fit any part that description.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #9)


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #3)

Wed May 27, 2015, 09:07 PM

34. Chelsea was off limits when she was 12.

Not any more. She is intrinsically involved; a core part of the unit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed May 27, 2015, 12:32 PM

6. We collectively

have to decide how to handle this unprecedented circumstance.
Have we ever had a wife of a former POTUS run for POTUS before?
I understand it is traditional to consider the spouse and kids are "off-limits".
This is different.
However, why not---doesn't this new situation call for "new traditions"?
As a former POTUS her spouse had a Treeeeeemendous impact on some "stuff" we're dealing with now.
I don't believe traditional "hands off" rules apply in this instance for the spouse. Kids and grandkids still hold as off limits, imo.
Hopefully, mentions of Bill (and HRC) will hold strong on His (Her) Issue Positions/Actions and not silly and meaningless personal attacks over "The Old/New Scandals".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #6)

Wed May 27, 2015, 12:38 PM

7. Children are deemed to have been off limits because they did not seek the spotlight, only a parent

did, especially a minor child.

I don't think that rationale applies when adult offspring conduct their own campaign events for a parent. And it certainly does not apply to a former President. In this case, however, the claim has been made that it would be somehow sexist to associate Hillary with her husband. However, if she's done that herself.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #7)

Wed May 27, 2015, 12:45 PM

8. All good points too

Sexist? lol...nope, I cannot make that connection at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #7)

Wed May 27, 2015, 01:41 PM

14. Chelsea is now an adult, hedge funder and overpaid media "journalist", foundation board member.

 

Her connections to banks and to media and the fact that she's not a child make her fair political game, IMO.

Which isn't to say we should call her out, just that where there's a reason to it ought not be off-limits.

This family, good grief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #14)

Wed May 27, 2015, 06:15 PM

21. I meant that my OP did not attempt to make any case about Chelsea. I am not trying to say

that a case is impossible to make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #21)

Wed May 27, 2015, 07:40 PM

30. IMO, it is not out of line to mention Bill Clinton.

 

He'll be a part of her inner circle, a virtual cabinet member.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed May 27, 2015, 01:33 PM

13. Good Points, Merrily.

I've always considered them running as a pair. And that if she wins it will be Bill's Third Term. I've asked many times on pro Hillary posts here on DU what Bill's role would be as the "First Man." Would they live together in the WH and what role would he take? I can hardly see him in charge of the WH Christmas Decorations or the Easter Egg Hunt. Who would fulfill that job while he serves as Co-President.

Anyway, hopefully you will post this in GD when the opportunity comes up to debunk that they aren't running as a team and that Bill's Administrations policies shouldn't be examined because Hillary was only First Lady and anything Bill did shouldn't reflect on her or how she would govern. As you've shown and many of us who've been around awhile and voted for Bill the first time know...They were always a Co-Political Team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #13)

Wed May 27, 2015, 06:07 PM

20. Thanks. If the subject comes up, you or anyone who wishes can always link to this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #20)

Wed May 27, 2015, 06:46 PM

23. One of things I like about our "Groups"

is that its easy to follow a "narrative" and find posts to bring back that can be reposted to clarify issues. Yours is certainly one (that as we move forward) will be important to remember or Bookmark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #23)

Wed May 27, 2015, 06:52 PM

25. With my blessing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed May 27, 2015, 02:54 PM

16. I'd say context is everything

Yes, Hillary is her own person, and should not be treated as a mere extension of her husband. But as you say, it is ludicrous to think that the two of them weren't in broad agreement politically during Bill's presidency, even if they may have disagreed on the details.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed May 27, 2015, 05:09 PM

17. I will not ignore NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act and Gramm, Leach, Bliley.

I will not ignore the damage they have done to my life, personally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #17)

Wed May 27, 2015, 06:43 PM

22. ...!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #17)

Wed May 27, 2015, 06:46 PM

24. I've been reading that she may try to disassociate herself from ending "welfare as we know it."

IMO, she will try to disassociate herself from anything that looks as though it could hurt her bid. As to welfare specifically, however, he ran on that in 1992. while promising America two presidents for the price of one and Hillary supported it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-26/will-hillary-clinton-run-against-her-husband-s-welfare-legacy-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed May 27, 2015, 06:58 PM

26. It's not really any different than bringing up W or HW when talking about Jeb Bush

 

Same thing: people running for president who are related to former presidents. Some degree of comparison is inevitable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #26)

Wed May 27, 2015, 07:15 PM

27. I do see it as different.

On the side of people who don't want it mentioned: without the points I raised in my OP, it might be sexist to assume that a wife approved of everything her husband did while he was in office. For example, I've never heard Mamie Eisenhower blamed for sending troops to Beirut, or Pat Nixon blamed for the Watergate cover up or any of Nixon's other sins.

Ironically, that is because of sexism: in their day, it never occurred to anyone that a wife might be a co-President, an advisor to her husband, etc. even though that was probably true of more than one President's wife.

Abigail Adams comes to mind, as does Edith Wilson. Nonetheless, I don't think it's fair to assume a wife approved of, and was responsible for, everything her husband did in his career, regardless of his profession.

However, in this case, I believe the factors in the OP do justify associating Hillary with what happened during her husband's administration. You can't run as co-Presidents in two elections and one primary (2008), then decide that doesn't suit the new Populist stand you wish to take after all and therefore anyone who attempts association is sexist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed May 27, 2015, 07:58 PM

31. Totally misogynistic.

 

(Damn, you do good research!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #31)

Wed May 27, 2015, 08:03 PM

32. For a woman.



Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #32)

Wed May 27, 2015, 09:11 PM

35. But that's not what matters now

 

Social issues must take a back seat to economic issues.

You understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #35)

Wed May 27, 2015, 09:23 PM

36. You'd better sign that one "Third Way Manny" before I

forget just how non-violent I am and smack you upside your virtual head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #36)

Wed May 27, 2015, 11:56 PM

37. I'm just a typical Sanders supporter

 

All I care about is cash and maintaining the white male patriarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #37)

Thu May 28, 2015, 12:01 AM

38. Then I am drumming you out of this group.

Oh, wait. I'm junior to you (and everyone else) in the host hierarchy. My only option is to drum myself out of hosting.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #38)

Thu May 28, 2015, 12:14 AM

40. !

 



And, no, it's never the wrong time of year:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #36)

Thu May 28, 2015, 05:59 AM

41. Pffft!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Thu May 28, 2015, 12:11 AM

39. It isn't just fair to bring Bill AND Hillary into this, it is necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Thu May 28, 2015, 06:10 AM

42. Good post, thanks merrily.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #42)

Thu May 28, 2015, 08:26 AM

44. Thank you, Scuba. Glad you found it useful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Thu May 28, 2015, 07:36 AM

43. Pinning this thread

 

thanks for the work you put into this, it needs to be added to our collective reference library!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #43)

Thu May 28, 2015, 08:33 AM

45. Thanks, demwing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 07:29 AM

46. Great. So Let's talk more about JANE SANDERS.

How she managed to get a job as Burlington College President with an online PHD from a program that was de-certified soon after she graduated -- and only a year and a half of college-level work experience.

How a trustee at the college said they hired her after her presentation to the board convinced them that her connections to Bernie would help them raise money.

How she actually raised money by applying for millions in loans -- based on millions of dollars in pledges that failed to materialize. (Including one future bequest for a million dollars that she falsely reported as a current pledge at the rate of $150K per year.)

How the majority of the staff protested her decision to fire a faculty member who had been named teacher of the year just a year previously. And when asked why she had no grievance procedure for faculty, she claimed she didn't need one . . . because it was a college, not a university.

Can you imagine? Arguing against a college having a grievance procedure?

And this wonderful lady is supposed to be one of Bernie's chief advisors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #46)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 07:33 AM

47. Not even going to read your bs. J. Sanders was never sold as Sanders' co-Senator or any of things

addressed in the OP. When you prove things comparable to those stated in the OP, maybe I will read your spin, but not until then.

Meanwhile, I have a feeling that whatever you posted, even if true, would not "amount to a hill of beans" in comparison with the prison complex, the was in Iraq and the rest of the Third Way atrocities.

BTW, you know this is a protected group for populists, right? Third Wayers trying to campaign as populists have a different protected group. Try you post there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #47)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 07:35 AM

48. Jane Sanders hasn't been in a position yet where she could do really serious damage.

Other than drive a college into near bankruptcy. But she has proven she can play fast and lose with the truth -- and use her connection to Bernie for her own gain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 07:37 AM

49. LOL! Speaking of playing fast and loose with the truth.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 07:39 AM

50. That's what you're always accusing the Clintons of. Clintons, meet Jane Sanders.

The woman who reported a million dollar future bequest as a million dollar current pledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 07:43 AM

51. Already responded to on this thread--and this is still a protected group

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 08:56 AM

53. Hillary and Bill and Bernie are ALL populists. So is Martin, for that matter.

Bernie wants to get for people what he's convinced they should want.

Hillary wants to figure out what people want and then help them get it.

Two different styles of populism.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/hillary-the-populist/400376/

If Sanders is a rhetorical populist, then Clinton is one in a different, and more literal sense: She actually tries to cater to the majority of likely voters. The Clintons have a reputation for obsessing over the public mood, with Bill catching blowback during his presidency for relying “too much on constant temperature-taking, even scripting his message—right down to his actual words—to polling and focus groups.” That reputation has followed Hillary. Reason recently classified her as a “Focus Group Democrat,” and it isn’t hard to find comments on articles accusing her of believing “what the polls and focus groups tell her to believe.”


But isn’t this barometric sensitivity just a sophisticated method for responding to the largest possible coalition of voters? It’s a coldly efficient way of giving the people what they want, calculated to upset as few as possible.


Politicians aiming for the center mass of public opinion aren’t a recent development in Anglo American politics. The 19th-century British journalist Walter Bagehot fawned over conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel’s ability to do just that: “From a certain peculiarity of intellect and fortune, he was never in advance of his time. Of almost all the great measures with which his name is associated, he attained great eminence as an opponent before he attained even greater eminence as their advocate.”

SNIP

Hillary Clinton, like Peel, is no prophet raging in advance of a cause. Instead, both politicians pursued synchronicity with the demands of the electorate, never outpacing the collective moral imagination with their own desires, and reframing compromise as virtuous inclusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 09:02 AM

54. Hillary is no populist, but YOU are the one posting in this group, not Hillary,

and you have not been posting anything populist, other than pretending Hillary's most recent "evolutions" actually make her a populist. And, once again, when confronted, you are lash out and begin flail wildly at others. Whatever you may imagine, that doesn't make the ones you lash out at look bad and it certainly doesn't make you look good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #54)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 09:03 AM

55. Where was I "flailing wildly"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #55)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 09:05 AM

56. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 07:48 AM

52. PS When did you complain about the Clinton foundation reporting $10,000,000 as zero?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread