Hillary Clinton: Classic or Dud?

Went over to Lorraine’s house after school. She told me how her cousin Jim at Northwestern gets "high" by drinking cough syrup. We looked in her parents’ medicine chest, but we didn’t find any cough syrup. But there was a box of Sucrets. We didn’t know how many to take, so we each ate three.

I sat down and closed my eyes for fifteen minutes but nothing happened. So I decided to go to the kitchen and eat a banana. Then as I was getting up, the room suddenly started to spin real fast. The picture of Fabian on Lorraine’s wall looked right at me and winked. Then I got real dizzy. The walls were starting to collapse, so I fell on the floor and rolled myself into a ball. Lorraine was talking so fast that I couldn’t understand her. After a while I opened my eyes and the room was turning around slower and slower, like when you turn a record player off. Finally it stopped and I was able to catch my breath. I’ve never been SO SCARED in all my life. We’re taking some more tomorrow.

After this episode the girls went on a Sucrets jag that lasted until shortly after Christmas, when the local druggist got suspicious and refused to sell them any more. Hillary and Lorraine tried sniffing Elmer’s Glue, but it paled in comparison. They cast about for a substitute, testing and rejecting Vitamin C tablets, Carter’s Little Liver Pills, and St. Joseph’s Children’s Aspirin. The period of experimentation and disappointment lasted several months. Then Hillary found out about boys.

Hillary’s diary from this period reflects the anguish of a young girl cast adrift in a world she does not know or understand, bereft of the one thing that has given her life meaning. A typical entry reads:

December 20, 1961.

I’m bored. I wish it would snow. I want to move to Chicago. In Chicago you can walk into any store and get all the Sucrets you want. All the boys at school are yucky. I want to go to Chicago and meet a nice handsome boy and take Sucrets with him. My teachers assign too much homework.

A friend of mine was telling me today about how, when she was working in a convent in Kenya, one of the little boys she was looking after was called Hillary Clinton, that was his first name. She said that sometimes the people there really liked the sound of english words and would name children after them, so there were children with names like Pressurecooker and Birthcontrol.

I was going to ask how people rated Hillary as Secretary of State but knowing that somewhere in Kenya is a young boy named Birthcontrol has distracted me somewhat

slightly less obnoxious/obsequious than Condi

No second term as SOS or presidential run

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/16/clinton-running-for-president/

I'm a bit surprised about no run for the nomination. Whatever happens in 2012, I thought she'd be in good position for '16. She'd be 69, same age as that old guy who won. I know a lot of people love her no matter what, and a lot of other people hate her no matter what, but I think I'm fairly representative of people who couldn't stand her through the '08 campaign but who've come around since then. (If she had run, I probably could have learned to not-stand-her all over again.)

part of the problem

Me or Hillary? Let me guess--both.

no; like me, you don't matter!

All right--pressure's off!

do you think hillary would get significant support from former obama supporters who now think she'd have made a better president in the first place? (subquestion - does anyone think she would have?)

I think she would have ended up almost exactly like Obama tbh; they were always more similar than they were different.

I think she would have got a fair amount of support from Obama '08 supporters because of the way she's conducted herself since she lost. (The three or four weeks where she slowly came to terms with having lost were surreal--remember them well.) If I explain any further, Morbius and other people will jump on, and this'll become another ridicule-Obama thread.

I have no idea what kind of country will have left Obama's successor in 2012 (if he loses), let alone 2016, but I'm pretty sure I don't want HRC leading it.

*Obama will have left his successor

*jumps on clemenza*

in 2016 it will be called President of Thunderdome btw

she will run in '16

she will be 69 in 2016

will she still be "making change"?

The former U.S. secretary of state begins her Twitter bio with "Wife, mom."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/clintons-reliably-bad-foreign-policy/

Well that's very kind, but I am doing what I want to do right now and I have no intention or any idea even of running again - 2011

reliably bad liar

Hillary Clinton: is the Co*rtney L*ve of democratic reform politics. Except IT TAKES A VILLAGE is crap, and PRETTY ON THE INSIDE isn't.

― mark s, Wednesday, July 4, 2001 8:00 PM (14 years ago)

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-JYEe9GZbEVY/VvYaJnQLcsI/AAAAAAADCAg/wr3x9KLtTzs/s640/blogger-image--825882656.jpg

throngs of well-wishers begged her to run again and she stoically agreed to once again mount the rostrum and humbly offer her leadership to the nation -- this has been the storyline ever since George Washington

fb friend (lefty, as in just left his Dem Party registration for indie):

"The most pertinent fact likely to be overlooked in this extraordinarily troubling report is the following: neither the Secretary nor her top aides consented to be interviewed by the Inspector General of the very department of government they had been entrusted with running."

A terrible attack on the only person that can possibly prevent the biggest threat to humanity since.....whatever the last thing was in american politics twonk circles

Nixon fans loved to say "They all did it."

The election thread is like a convention of mob lawyers this afternoon :)

each party has its lemmings. it's a beautiful thing.

Oh its like a lemmin party alright

dr morbius sounding a lot like the sort of person who lives by the movie 'fight club'

When life hands you lemmings, make lemmingaid.

omg deems

What do folks make of the Clinton Foundation stuff, and is there anything especially good to read on it? It continues to smell fishy to me even where many of their other "scandals" don't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8oAQOvOEXY

Is that a redaction or the monolith from 2001 (or are you just happy to see me)?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

maybe?

https://www.byline.com/project/27/article/520

This is a decent overview of some of it:

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Doesn't really cover the big pharma / oil industry / uranium mining elements, though.

also worth looking at this imo http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

since that byline.com article repeats a lot of the more fallacious arguments that factcheck parses

eg

We spoke by phone with Sandra Minuitti at Charity Navigator, and she told us Charity Navigator decided not to rate the Clinton Foundation because the foundation spun off some entities (chiefly the Health Access Initiative) and then later brought some, like the Clinton Global Initiative, back into the fold. Charity Navigator looks at a charity’s performance over time, she said, and those spin-offs could result in a skewed picture using its analysis model. If the foundation maintains its current structure for several years, she said, Charity Navigator will be able to rate it again.

The decision to withhold a rating had nothing to do with concerns about the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work. Further, Minuitti said citing only the 6 percent of the budget spent on grants as the sum total spent on charity by the foundation — as Willis and Fiorina did — is inaccurate.

She referred us to page 10 of the 2013 990 form for the Clinton Foundation. When considering the amount spent on “charitable work,” she said, one would look not just at the amount in grants given to other charities, but all of the expenses in Column B for program services. That comes to 80.6 percent of spending. (The higher 89 percent figure we cited earlier comes from a CharityWatch analysis of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates.)

How they're spending it is less of a problem than how they're getting it.

The most charitable interpretation is that US political-arms nexus is such a moral cesspit that the decision to sell cluster munitions to the people supplying al-Qaeda, etc, would have happened anyway. There was no undue influence brought to bear because there were no contrary opinions for the money to sway. Donors weren't buying privileged access to lobby Clinton, they were buying privileged access to lobby each other.

also it's been a while since i checked into this but state is just one group of a few that discuss + approve arms deals. not saying that means that they couldn't have been trying to buy influence with state by donating to the foundation but that if they were it wasn't sufficient. they have to consult w/ sec of defense, all arms deals get approved by congress, etc. and also iirc the link between donations and arms sales were mostly bogus? like some countries that donated funds got reductions in arms sales (like jamaica and ireland). it could be there was some v soft influence peddling but it def wasn't sufficient + it seems to like SV says assume that they wouldn't have made those sales anyway. which we had done before clinton and continued to do after clinton.

it seems silly to me bc of what SV says - they would have made those sales anyway* - sorry, syntax got weird there

Like many things with the Clintons, it seems hard to believe that there's is an explicit, 1:1 quid pro quo here, but it's also hard to believe that there isn't a lot of influence peddling and enriching the circle of cronies going on with the foundation and the global initiative.

Something weird is happening with YouTube embeds on here this week

god thank you i thought it was just me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwaiyjh1dGk

The best part was when Comey got welcomed into the #resistance after the letter and throwing the election.

And wrote a book comparing Trump to a Mafia don.

one of the cringiest characters to emerge in the Trump era, and buddy that is saying something

Karl otm

Bernie needs to pass the mantle in 2024 to someone like Jeff Merkley.

― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Friday, January 14, 2022 3:17 PM (forty-three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

look if there's one thing the GOP is doing right (electorally, at least), it's realizing that Trumpism is their future and flooding the polls with reactionaries like Boebert and Cawthorn, while the Dems are operating as though the future of the party is in intensely focus-grouped centrists like Mayor Pete and Kamala. like they are still in this mode where "qualifications" are all that matter. all my life I've seen the winner of the Presidential race go to whichever candidate is funnier/easier to imitate. What do Bob Dole, Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton all have in common? They're intensely boring people!! Nobody particularly likes them!! Sure, Biden is one of 'em too, but he had the advantage of running against the least popular president in history. The Dems **do** have politicians that people actually like and they seem to shun them at every turn. They have something in Bernie but, he's 78 years old and that is a concern everyone seems to have. They need to find as many people like him as they can. I legitimately had hope in 2018 when people like AOC, Ilhan, Tlaib etc. were winning seats. How many more are they gonna find for 2022? Cuz you know for the GOP it's gonna be all people like Matt Gaetz and MTG.

I got no problem with AOC or Ilhan Omar going after the Bernie base in 2024. They know how to go on the offensive.

frogbs otm

xp Omar can’t run for President.

too bad. and I'm not sure if AOC is 35 y.o. in 2024.

The GOP was better at recognizing AOC's political talent than the dems were. You can tell by how hard they went after her (admittedly also part of a strategy to paint the dems as far left)

Also helps that AOC is attractive and has this sort of celebrity aura about her. I think this was a big part of Obama's appeal too. When the 2020 Dem debates were happening when it was just Bernie and Biden a lot of people commented on the optics of that, like how can you get excited about two old men shouting at each other? Who's looking at that and saying "yes, these are my people"? AOC very much seems like the sort of person who can win people over. She's very articulate and has a way of speaking that is very unlike typical Dem politicians.

. When the 2020 Dem debates were happening when it was just Bernie and Biden a lot of people commented on the optics of that, like how can you get excited about two old men shouting at each other? Who's looking at that and saying "yes, these are my people"?

dogg, who do you think votes?

Like, for Democrats specifically?

Whats the odds of clinton running again

That may be, but she was the party's nominee. The Bernie voters who stayed home in the general can go fuck themselves, since they fucked the rest of us.

― jimbeaux, Friday, January 14, 2022 1:34 PM (six hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

it’s adorable to me that we still have dopey posters like this what with our membership drought, can’t wait to see what’s next for this guy

Mimbeauxship drought

listened to the le tigre song and now I finally understand why trump won

I think AOC turns 35 the month before the 2015 election

Uh, the 2014 one i mean

Or perhaps 2024

we could do a poll

I never want to look at a poll involving Hillary Clinton again

this is not my beautiful subtweet

Yow, Hillary unloads on Bernie in ⁦@alivitali⁩’s new book pic.twitter.com/G7HJL8fLYS

— Bill Scher (@billscher) August 12, 2022

omg who cares about this anymore

If you lost an election to Donald Trump would you ever be able to let it go?

lmao

i would vote for warren again tbh

I’d vote for bernie again!

I’d vote for bernie again!

Can a mod plz change the thread title to "Hillary Clinton: Classic or Dud or Completely Irrelevant?"

what was this revive about

I assumed it was about losing a legal trivia game to Kim Kardashian.

I find hillary clinton very attractive, and would like to spend "quality time" w/her. Thus "classic"
xoxo

― /<-R4/>-31337, Thursday, July 5, 2001

nuvvieworld

75 today. (Which I know because I looked up someone to talk about with a 4/5 class for Today in History.)