Democratic (Party) Direction

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
A thread for discussing the Democrats' "message"/framing/etc.

This is the most important-seeming article I've read yet.

g@bbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:33 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Golden Globes follies 2006 (239 new answers)
Show Me the Love for SNL's "Live Duluth" sketch (105 new answers)
Democratic (Party) Direction (Unanswered)
Celebrity Big Brother 2006 - Thread Two - We all stand together? (165 new answers)
the mongrels don't want to play like that, they just want to talk to the sheepfuxors (254 new answers)
UK Watercooler Conversation 5: TOmorrow Sometimes Knows (322 new answers)

,,, Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:58 (twelve years ago) Permalink

That party is fucking dead and it's never coming back in a way that will change anything much.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:59 (twelve years ago) Permalink

maybe your beloved whig party will change something

,,, Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:02 (twelve years ago) Permalink

maybe your beloved dick will change something

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:07 (twelve years ago) Permalink

it's a long article. i got three phone calls while i was reading it!

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:23 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Pretty interesting stuff in that article -- I feel like I need to read it again to really digest all of it. The value shift it describes sort of reminds me of South Park -- the whole nihilistic individualistic thing -- is that what "South Park Conservatives" is about?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:27 (twelve years ago) Permalink

and yeah, a lot of it is pretty otm, but i fear for what america will be like if BOTH parties are simultaneously doing the "moral yardstick" shtick. yes it's apparent that americans want to hear about christianity and family values, but if the dems start playing that card in earnest, hoo boy.

i'm also not convinced about some of those salary numbers -- how is he defining "household"? and is he giving salaries in cities like new york and san francisco equal weight to ones in poor rural regions? how does income tax figure in? it's kinda vague.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:32 (twelve years ago) Permalink

For a while I've had the idea that the Democratic Party could improve its future by putting more money and resources into local party organizations, campus recruiting, things that give people real human connections to the party. People are much more likely to listen to their neighbor than some internet ad.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:36 (twelve years ago) Permalink

xpost

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year. The article gets it right that those people don't receive any government assistance, but that's just where the problem lies -- they end up too well off to get assistance but still unable to afford their debt and medical bills.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:37 (twelve years ago) Permalink

2ndxpost

or hollywood actor

josh w (jbweb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:37 (twelve years ago) Permalink

thanks for the link, reading now. glad to see there's a direction not chosen by Lakoff, I think he has no clue.

dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:38 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The real problems with the Dems over-focus on economic policy are that 1) Policy is not very exciting to talk about and hard to understand, and 2) No one actually believes the Dems when they say they'll "create jobs."

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:38 (twelve years ago) Permalink

2x post back to Josh: OTM

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:39 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year.

the article suggested that the dividing line between affluent and poor was $50K per household, but for a married couple where both spouses work that only comes out to $25K per person, which isn't much once you figure in the high cost of living in america. plus, the article doesn't say who in these salary ranges pay for their own insurance and retirement funds.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:43 (twelve years ago) Permalink

2) No one actually believes the Dems when they say they'll "create jobs."

read: "we won't send your existing jobs to india."

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:45 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Right, but won't they?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:47 (twelve years ago) Permalink

it remains to be seen. let's get some dems in office and we'll find out.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:48 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Well, by not "send your existing jobs to India," I assume you mean "pass some kind of law to prevent companies from doing that." I'd be very surprised if that actually happened under Democrats.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:50 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I assume you mean "pass some kind of law to prevent companies from doing that."

it could happen, provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests. and monkeys might fly etc.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I wonder how much of this affluence tipping point is skewed due to debtwarp. Take away the credit cards and there are a lot less Republicans, maybe?

Polysix Bad Battery (cprek), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:53 (twelve years ago) Permalink

provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests

hahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hohohohoHOHOHOHOHOHOOH
heheheheheHEHEHEHEEEHEHEEEHEEHAHAHAHAHAHASNORTSNORTSNORT!

sorry

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

OK, this is really depressing! not re: Democrats, but the direction of the country as a whole.

dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Yeah, it is. I already had this vague fear that Americans were becoming these kind of paranoid, fat, lonely, nihilistic internet addicts who didn't talk to their neighbors.

Er wait, am I talking about Americans, or ILXors?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:57 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I wonder how much of this affluence tipping point is skewed due to debtwarp. Take away the credit cards and there are a lot less Republicans, maybe?

it is funny how many "affluent" "property owners" are up to their necks in mortgages and high-interest loans. it's like that commercial where the rich white suburban lawnmower dude says "i'm in debt up to my eyeballs!"

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:58 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The most important part of the article is where they reveal that by telling people that you're espousing Christian values because you're actually a Christian, they decide they agree with you, even if they they claim Christian faith as well but are only down with the first half of the Bible.

In the vast swaths of country between the megapolises there are people raising families of 5 on $57,000 a year and doing it relatively painlessly. And yeah, economic issues don't mean a goddamned thing to them.

TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:00 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Plenty of families of five with $57,000 a year would still like a better health insurance system, you just can't win an election on that alone.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:03 (twelve years ago) Permalink

hey, gabbneb, thanks for posting that article. it takes some time to think about....

patrick bateman (mickeygraft), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:04 (twelve years ago) Permalink

"the American Environics team argued that the way to move voters on progressive issues is to sometimes set aside policies in favor of values"

Wow, what an incredible insight. Very novel!

"Environics found social values moving away from the authority end of the scale, with its emphasis on responsibility, duty, and tradition, to a more atomized, rage-filled outlook that values consumption, sexual permissiveness, and xenophobia. The trend was toward values in the individuality quadrant."

I've long thought that if the Democratic party would focus their message on individualism (and the resulting freedom it implies) that they might get somewhere.

Today’s average American “worker” is, in short, very much on his or her own -- too prosperous to be eligible for most government assistance programs and, because of job laws that date back three quarters of a century, unable to unionize. Such isolation and atomization have not led to a new wave of social solidarity and economic populism, however. Instead, these changes have bred resentment toward those who do have outside aid, whether from government or from unions, and an escalating ethos of every man for himself. Against that ethos, voters have increasingly flocked to politicians who recognize that the combination of relative affluence and relative isolation has created an opening for cultural appeals.

"Every man for himself" has been an American credo for hundreds of years. It's the essence of competition, of capitalism, of industry. There's a bridge somewhere between individualism and community--is the Democratic party forcing people over a bridge or seeking one?

American voters have taken shelter under the various wings of conservative traditionalism because there has been no one on the Democratic side in recent years to defend traditional, sensible middle-class values against the onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows.

Maybe they're taking shelter because they don't think it's an economy that's pitting man against man, it's shelter from the resulting culture war. What are "traditional, sensible middle-class values" anyway? The only hint we get from this article is that candidates should talk about religion and that will mitigate their stance on the death penalty (in Virginia.)

I am happy to see the wasteland that is the Democratic Party looking inward. The Republicans wouldn't dare stare into their own dark abyss.

don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:35 (twelve years ago) Permalink

It's amazing to me that people still think that Republicans are better at creating jobs. We've had a Republican president and congress for the past 5 years, and what have we got? A "jobless recovery". The brilliant Republican plan for creating jobs is to give more money back to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts. They are still trying to sell the country on a supply-side economics platform. Look at Gov. Pataki's new budget in NY that came out this week. 24% of the tax cuts going to those who make over $200K per year. His rationale: it will create jobs and boost the economy. I think people need to start to question if that strategy really helps to create the kind of jobs this country needs. The one thing that we can be sure it does is make the rich even richer. I mean maybe if you're a BMW dealer or you sell Piaget watches, then these tax cuts are good for your business, but the average middle class type of jobs are probably not getting much of a boost.

As for the "average American household" that makes $60K a year, it would have been more informative to see the median income, because the average is skewed upwards by those at the top of the scale - ie., less than 50% of Americans make the "average" income.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:37 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Campus recruiting is definitely needed. I went to Rutgers, nicknamed "Kremlin on the Raritan" by some for its supposedly left-leanings, yet the Dems had almost no visibility on campus. Granted I went to school during the Nader years, when being a Democrat seemed like the lamest possible option. But the Dems need to pull talent at that level -- that's where Republicans end up with people like Rove.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:44 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Hmm, maybe "almost no visibility" is an exaggeration.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:45 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Re: Lakoff, despite the writer's early dismissal of him, I don't think the article suggests anything significantly different that what he's been talking about for years.

Lakoff's extensively written about the need for Democratic candidates and progressives in general to start explicitly talking about values. Also, for campaigns to work at creating more of an overall narrative for a candidate than just a laundry list of policies. It's only his work on the framing aspect that's received attention lately, not so much his work on defining the values systems that right/left folks tend to hold(e.g. "maintaining authority" vs "care & responsibility").

He's offered up Schwarzneggar's campaign as an example of a guy who ran entirely on narrative & perceived identity, and expressively refused to offer up any policy suggestions. Most folks don't have the time/energy/inclination to get into policy specifics, but if they trust your guy, they're trust him to take care of the details.

As he says,

"The pollsters didn’t understand it because they thought that people voted on the issues and on self-interest. Well, sometimes they do. But mostly they vote on their identity -- on persons that they trust to be like them, or to be like people they admire"

which connects to that aspirational bit that the article mentions.

Jim Wallis has talked about several of these same issues over the last year as well, especially with on the whole "onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows" bit.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Also, re: the poorer folks freaking out more about culture, I don't see the article acknowledging that it was a deliberate multi-year campaign on the part of conservertive politicos to get folks so het up about cultural issues that they didn't worry so much about the economics. It's a causal thing similar to Ethan's thread yesterday about outrage used for political gain.

Wallis has written about conversations his group has had with Frank Luntz and some other Repub pollsters who were quite open about their m.o. being to get voters so caught in such intense issues that they vote against their economic interest.

As other folks have pointed out, the Republicans have been better that bring the polls to them(gay marriage is the biggest thing you care about) vs the Democrats moving to where the polls now seem to be(well i guess we need to move rightward on gay marriage).

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:53 (twelve years ago) Permalink

interesting stuff. i don't really believe a lot of it, but i believe it's what people say, which still makes it significant. (i.e. a lot of people allegedly alarmed by the culture are also watching "desperate housewives" and "E!") it's not so much that the moral center is disgusted by the out-of-control culture, it's that a lot of people feel guilty about the very things in the culture that they participate in. massive moral cognitive dissonance, which the republicans exploit by convincing people that it's all someone else's fault (hollywood liberals, big-city elitists, gays gays gays). i'm not sure how the democrats can effectively tap into the same thing, and i sort of hate the idea that they need to, but maybe they don't have a choice.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:01 (twelve years ago) Permalink

It's amazing to me that people still think that Republicans are better at creating jobs.

That's the thing, innit? If you build up an entire apparatus to both promote & reinforce certain narratives, people will believe them even if they have no basis in fact. George W. Bush is steadfast & strong, Kerry's a weak-willed flip-flopper, Republicans are all about a smaller government, supply-side economics works, etc

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:06 (twelve years ago) Permalink

massive moral cognitive dissonance

oh fuck yeah this is a major bit of it, too. But since when did we start promoting self-reflection and critical thought?

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:07 (twelve years ago) Permalink

hard to promote self-reflection and critical thought when you're fighting hand to hand and desperate for power.

don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:39 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Well, is John Edwards' "Robert Kennedyization" for real? Making corporate / lobbyist theft vs. poverty / economic struggle a moral issur for Church People hasn't worked so far.

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:47 (twelve years ago) Permalink

very true. and I think that the number of folks who have to struggle is increasing.

xpost

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:49 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The Democrats are fucked - a weak, demoralized, decentralized party with no unifying political will, no narrative, and no reliable bases of power. The only thing keeping them around is the fact that the two-party system is so heavily institutionalized and entrenched. They're coasting on past glories and slowly squandering away all of their political resources so that they can become the eternally emasculated "opposition" party.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

Please God, take Hilary quietly so she won't fuck up the party with a presidential campaign. WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE EVER.

elmo, patron saint of nausea (allocryptic), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i think something that's still missing from a lot of this is an understanding that the current republican base was built from the ground up. it wasn't just a matter of coming up with the right code words or whatever, it was a long and systematic takeover of the party by various interest groups with overlapping or at least complementary agendas. the democrats at the moment seem disconnected from whatever constitutes their base, and even suspicious of it. it seems very top-down.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:55 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Well, is John Edwards' "Robert Kennedyization" for real? Making corporate / lobbyist theft vs. poverty / economic struggle a moral issur for Church People hasn't worked so far.

Huh? He's only been going this stuff in the press for about two years. Second, there are plenty of other folks who have made the connection, but have gotten shit for coverage(not fitting in with "religious = rightwing conservative" media narrative?), even when they got arrested for it on the Capitol steps.


For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

DLC-candidate-in-centrist-message shocker

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:56 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i think something that's still missing from a lot of this is an understanding that the current republican base was built from the ground up. it wasn't just a matter of coming up with the right code words or whatever, it was a long and systematic takeover of the party by various interest groups with overlapping or at least complementary agendas.

very much otm. The change will come from the outside.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:58 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I think values do matter to a lot of voters, and I agree that Democrats are going to keep losing national elections until they figure out how to participate in the values conversation. This doesn't necessarily mean they have to move to the right on cultural issues - I think it does mean they need to convince voters that they are people with integrity and mainstream values. Monica-gate did a lot of damage. People like to savor the voyeuristic souffles cooked up in Hollywood, but they won't buy Hollywood people preaching to them about values. I think the Dems need to take an antagonistic stance towards some of the amoral trends in our society. Evincing a sense of decency and morality is not the same thing as being conservative - but as long as the voters think it is, the Dems are going to have a hard time winning elections.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:00 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Clinton is the worst. I'd stay home before I'd vote for her. Jonathan Tasini, who is pretty great on a lot of issues, and is a pretty good speaker as well, is running against her in the primaries. I really hope he has an impact.

Re the direction of the party, past actions indicate the party will be quicker to line up behind someone with Clinton's politics as opposed to Tasini's. I'm not too hopeful when it comes to the future of the Dems.

TRG (TRG), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:02 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I think values do matter to a lot of voters, and I agree that Democrats are going to keep losing national elections until they figure out how to participate in the values conversation. This doesn't necessarily mean they have to move to the right on cultural issues - I think it does mean they need to convince voters that they are people with integrity and mainstream values. Monica-gate did a lot of damage. People like to savor the voyeuristic souffles cooked up in Hollywood, but they won't buy Hollywood people preaching to them about values. I think the Dems need to take an antagonistic stance towards some of the amoral trends in our society. Evincing a sense of decency and morality is not the same thing as being conservative - but as long as the voters think it is, the Dems are going to have a hard time winning elections

do you think it's necessary for dems to use the religious right's language ("morals" and "values")? would a less-loaded word like "ethics" skew too liberal?

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:03 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I think values do matter to a lot of voters

my question is, when do they not? unless a voter has completely descended into some cynical nihilism, of course.

i mean, yeah, "values" has come to signify a very specific set of values, which just goes to further show that democratic types do need to start talking about theirs.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:05 (twelve years ago) Permalink

haha "what's the difference between morals, and ethics..."

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:06 (twelve years ago) Permalink

"Since the end of July, Republican candidates in the 70 most contested races have reserved $60 million in TV ads, compared to $109 million for Democratic hopefuls"

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/12/gop-democratic-record-fundraising-response-898162?

reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 13 October 2018 18:43 (one week ago) Permalink

who lets these ppl continue to speak in public

Hillary Clinton: Bill's affair with Monica Lewinsky wasn't an abuse of power because 'she was an adult'https://t.co/ZHS00Chwfw pic.twitter.com/ozCMXmAg9g

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) October 14, 2018

wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Monday, 15 October 2018 02:12 (one week ago) Permalink

tbf that relationship was consensual, with Lewinsky doing most of the courting.

But they should shut the fuck up and throw themselves off a cliff.

You like queer? I like queer. Still like queer. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 15 October 2018 02:16 (one week ago) Permalink

it was consensual and an abuse of power

shwarmaduke (symsymsym), Monday, 15 October 2018 04:09 (one week ago) Permalink

Ding ding ding

wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Monday, 15 October 2018 04:10 (one week ago) Permalink

Poor Bill was powerless, how could he resist an intern bj?!? How could he not execute that mentally deficient man on death row? How could he not [insert garbage triangulating shit gabbneb would "explain" for us here]

velko, Monday, 15 October 2018 04:16 (one week ago) Permalink

elsewhere in Clintonism

Two of the biggest think tanks in Democratic politics, the centrist Third Way and the more liberal Center for American Progress, have come together to tell Democrats to pipe down about immigration, because bringing the Trump administration’s unbearable cruelty to light might lose them a couple of votes that were surely leaning towards them otherwise.

https://splinternews.com/democrats-told-to-avoid-talking-about-immigration-whic-1829750912

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 15 October 2018 14:44 (one week ago) Permalink

Bill Clinton did worse things than his Lewinsky affair, which was bad enough.

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Monday, 15 October 2018 15:10 (one week ago) Permalink

Probably yeah, but he admitted to the Lewinsky affair, it was while in office, and he should have stepped down because of it.

Frederik B, Monday, 15 October 2018 15:50 (one week ago) Permalink

I opened this thread and started reading it thinking it said the posts were from 12 hours ago. I made it 30 posts in before I saw that it said 12 years ago. Not much has changed. Stop talking about Hillary. Christ.

Yerac, Monday, 15 October 2018 16:00 (one week ago) Permalink

but her emails

j., Monday, 15 October 2018 16:03 (one week ago) Permalink

but his rapes

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Monday, 15 October 2018 16:10 (one week ago) Permalink

I mean, if she specifically comes out with a new statement excusing him, it's going to be talked about. You can't have it both ways, if she is making public statements people are going to talk about them.

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Monday, 15 October 2018 16:10 (one week ago) Permalink

A lot easier not to talk about the Clinton's when they don't release boneheaded statements weeks before an election tbf xps

wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Monday, 15 October 2018 16:11 (one week ago) Permalink

yes, get them -- no, HER -- to STFU

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 15 October 2018 16:14 (one week ago) Permalink

but yes, both over the cliff

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 15 October 2018 16:15 (one week ago) Permalink

tell cbs to stop booking her too

if we’re going to go after all culpable parties here

maura, Monday, 15 October 2018 16:23 (one week ago) Permalink

why is it never the fault of the interviewers or producers

maura, Monday, 15 October 2018 16:23 (one week ago) Permalink

"why did you give me this hammer, now I've gone and hit myself in the head"

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 15 October 2018 16:26 (one week ago) Permalink

i’m not defending hrc morbs. i’m saying that even fluffy sunday morning magazine shows should focus on the future.

maura, Monday, 15 October 2018 16:27 (one week ago) Permalink

the pursuit of eyeballs is an inherently conservative thing and unfortunately tv is all about that as is online media.... which is why the usual suspects are constantly trotted out

maura, Monday, 15 October 2018 16:28 (one week ago) Permalink

their hits are almost always retro

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 15 October 2018 16:28 (one week ago) Permalink

Stop talking about Hillary.

Unlike Dubya, Bill and Hillary will never stop trying to be seen as politically relevant and will always step into whatever spotlight is offered to them. Even Obama has kept a fairly low profile compared to Hillary, who's toured to flog her book since the election. I conclude she very much wants us to talk about her. But, you're right, we shouldn't.

A is for (Aimless), Monday, 15 October 2018 16:29 (one week ago) Permalink

Hillary and Bill decide whether or not to give interviews and what to give interviews about. I guarantee you they have a great deal of control over the subject matter, and they are grown ups who know how to say "I don't have a comment on that" even if surprised. She wanted to put that message out.

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Monday, 15 October 2018 16:33 (one week ago) Permalink

okay fine. only they are culpable. you’re all right. the way media relies on the same old names to bring in eyeballs certainly isn’t a problem at all.

maura, Monday, 15 October 2018 16:34 (one week ago) Permalink

Christ. It literally is so easy to pay her only a roll of the eyes.

Yerac, Monday, 15 October 2018 16:36 (one week ago) Permalink

there's even an emoji for it

I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Monday, 15 October 2018 16:37 (one week ago) Permalink

if you insist on posting about it

I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Monday, 15 October 2018 16:37 (one week ago) Permalink

I don't emoji.

Yerac, Monday, 15 October 2018 16:38 (one week ago) Permalink

good policy probably

I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Monday, 15 October 2018 16:39 (one week ago) Permalink

okay fine. only they are culpable. you’re all right. the way media relies on the same old names to bring in eyeballs certainly isn’t a problem at all.

― maura, Monday, October 15, 2018 11:34 AM (thirty-four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I mean, that's a problem in the entirety of politics, but it's kind of a weird deflection to make when someone intentionally and prominently defends severely problematic behavior in said media.

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Monday, 15 October 2018 17:10 (one week ago) Permalink

Hillary and Bill decide whether or not to give interviews and what to give interviews about. I guarantee you they have a great deal of control over the subject matter, and they are grown ups who know how to say "I don't have a comment on that" even if surprised. She wanted to put that message out.

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), 15. oktober 2018 18:33 (fifty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Lol, no

Frederik B, Monday, 15 October 2018 17:34 (one week ago) Permalink

I'm going to give her the credit that at this point in her public life, if she says something in an interview, it's because she intends it to be heard.

wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Monday, 15 October 2018 17:46 (one week ago) Permalink

she's successfully avoided a ton of subjects for 20+ years

President Keyes, Monday, 15 October 2018 17:54 (one week ago) Permalink

The interview is about the 'pink wave', and she is promoting a new afterword about sexism to her book 'What Happened'. Anyone think she 'wanted' to talk about Bill?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pink-wave-2018-midterm-elections-hillary-rodham-clinton-jahana-hayes-kimberlin-brown-pelzer/

Frederik B, Monday, 15 October 2018 18:05 (one week ago) Permalink

as with what they think, i don't care what they want

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 15 October 2018 18:08 (one week ago) Permalink

when you're dead, you should lie down

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 15 October 2018 18:08 (one week ago) Permalink

Fred, don't be fucking naive. A network will take a Hillary interview on her terms. She could easily make it a condition that she's not answering questions about Bill. These things are highly stage managed.

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Monday, 15 October 2018 18:09 (one week ago) Permalink

she is promoting a new afterword about sexism to her book 'What Happened'. Anyone think she 'wanted' to talk about Bill?

― Frederik B, Monday, October 15, 2018 6:05 PM (six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you're right though even if this thing wasn't stage managed to the nth degree how could she ever have anticipated and prepared a response to a question related to the topic of what she's promoting

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 15 October 2018 18:13 (one week ago) Permalink

Bernie Sanders is in Milwaukee today campaigning for Tony Evers and Tammy Baldwin. I don't think there are wings of the party in the Midwest anymore; it feels like all Democrats are just out there saying "if we make this election about healthcare healthcare healthcare and education education education we win" and the furious backpedaling by GOP candidates here (Scott Walker now insisting he too supports going to back to the old K-12 funding formula, and he too wants to protect people with pre-existing conditions) suggests that the election will indeed be fought on this Democrat-friendly ground. (Though of course Walker can still win if enough people can get themselves to believe his latest insistences.)

Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 13:45 (six days ago) Permalink

The ads run by the democrat running to unseat my republican rep here in Michigan are like 90% health care related, as are the dozen mailers I get every week. She's stated that her mother getting cancer in 2009 and going through a ton of bullshit and almost going bankrupt was what caused her to get into politics in the first place.

joygoat, Tuesday, 16 October 2018 16:55 (six days ago) Permalink

Every poll I've seen suggests that -- at long last -- Dems no longer feel defensive about health care.

You like queer? I like queer. Still like queer. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 20:27 (six days ago) Permalink

This is probably what the Cherokees were afraid of https://t.co/5EHb8U2PWA

— Chad Vi(gore)ous (@PrettyBadLefty) October 16, 2018

wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 20:28 (six days ago) Permalink

wait, does that mean Trump would have to think up a racist native american slur for Huckleberry

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 16 October 2018 20:30 (six days ago) Permalink

no Alfred, now they have immigration to be defensive about

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 20:32 (six days ago) Permalink

but his rapes

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Monday, October 15, 2018 9:10 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

gross fuckin way of putting this imo

princess of hell (BradNelson), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 20:50 (six days ago) Permalink

so nice of the Senate Minority Leader to do everything he possibly can to confirm more and more conservative circuit court judges

frogbs, Tuesday, 16 October 2018 20:56 (six days ago) Permalink

hillary and bill are going on a tour, this is the context in which she chose to defend bill again.

their tour stop in my city features floor seats for > $800 canadian

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 21:01 (six days ago) Permalink

they're awful people and should go away forever

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 21:01 (six days ago) Permalink

if anyone can spare $80, these 8 statehouse races seem like a good place to spend it

https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2018/10/16/data-for-politics-29-give-smart

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 04:46 (five days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.