Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Hillary Clinton has been right all along about pretty much everything, according to the new memoir by Hillary Clinton   (slate.com) divider line 84
    More: Obvious, Bill Clinton, memoirs, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, China Seas, Leon Panetta  
•       •       •

617 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jun 2014 at 9:11 PM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



84 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-06 06:53:17 PM  
I definitely do not approve of this brand new approach, invented by Hillary, of justifying past actions.

SHAME on you!!
 
2014-06-06 07:42:57 PM  
At one point she writes, "Your critics can actually teach you lessons your friends can't or won't. I try to sort out the motivation for criticism whether partisan, ideological, commercial, or sexist, analyze it to see what I might learn from it, and discard the rest." It would have been fascinating to see some evidence of this in the book.

Kind of surprising to see this kind of assessment of a Hillary product from Slate.  I wonder how long it will take for someone to call the author a misogynist.

It sounds like the book is a banal, by-the-numbers corporate product that exists for boomers to swoon over.  Like a Hillary Clinton campaign....
 
2014-06-06 08:13:38 PM  

Fark It: At one point she writes, "Your critics can actually teach you lessons your friends can't or won't. I try to sort out the motivation for criticism whether partisan, ideological, commercial, or sexist, analyze it to see what I might learn from it, and discard the rest." It would have been fascinating to see some evidence of this in the book.

Kind of surprising to see this kind of assessment of a Hillary product from Slate.  I wonder how long it will take for someone to call the author a misogynist.

It sounds like the book is a banal, by-the-numbers corporate product that exists for boomers to swoon over.  Like a Hillary Clinton campaign....


I know plenty of people would like to see Hillary be President, but I've personally never been too thrilled with her. I'll hold my nose and vote for her anyway I guess.
 
2014-06-06 09:03:17 PM  

make me some tea: Fark It: At one point she writes, "Your critics can actually teach you lessons your friends can't or won't. I try to sort out the motivation for criticism whether partisan, ideological, commercial, or sexist, analyze it to see what I might learn from it, and discard the rest." It would have been fascinating to see some evidence of this in the book.

Kind of surprising to see this kind of assessment of a Hillary product from Slate.  I wonder how long it will take for someone to call the author a misogynist.

It sounds like the book is a banal, by-the-numbers corporate product that exists for boomers to swoon over.  Like a Hillary Clinton campaign....

I know plenty of people would like to see Hillary be President, but I've personally never been too thrilled with her. I'll hold my nose and vote for her anyway I guess.


I feel the same way.  I'm really lukewarm on her.  But compared to anyone I can see on the other side...

Jesus I'm getting tired of voting for the lesser of who cares.
 
2014-06-06 09:12:49 PM  
Erm... Iraq, PATRIOT Act, NSA Re-auth... I'm not really on team Hillary if Russ Feingold or Elizabeth Warren run.
 
2014-06-06 09:15:23 PM  
A couple more Hillary stories and Drew will have to change the name of the tab again.
 
2014-06-06 09:17:35 PM  
This just in - right wing surprised to discover Hillary Clinton is a politician
 
2014-06-06 09:18:38 PM  

fusillade762: A couple more Hillary stories and Drew will have to change the name of the tab again.


Berghazillary.
 
2014-06-06 09:23:57 PM  
I like Clinton quite a bit and I would vote for her over whatever crazy the GOP throws at us, but I'm frankly tired of 'centrist' presidents who favor deregulation and put the interests of big business over people for the sake of the almighty 'job'.

She's in many ways like Obama. I really like him, but he's really not done the progressive side many (any) favors of late. I understand he basically can't pass any legislation, and I like him as a human being and pragmatic, but he also should be putting up a much stronger progressive front against the GOP especially in an election year. And he should be giving the progressives something to fight for this election season.

OK now a little Obama rant:

Come on dude, make a stand and remove Tom Wheeler from the FCC chair position. No one in your base likes net neutrality except maybe a few f*cking telecom and cable execs who are playing both sides, and even though they have big pockets the people are still allowed to vote regardless of money.

The new EPA regulations? Watered down sh*t when you look at the timeframe and the potential loopholes, even the polluting power companies were like 'meh that's not too hard.'

Why doesn't he make more of a big deal about the healthcare/Medicare stuff? I mean you've got states that simply won't give poor people the time of day.

How about voter ID laws, Mr. President? Why can't we hear more about the justice department hitting those states like mine hard? How about your dont give a f*ck stance on privacy?

I'm somewhat convinced the media is to blame that some of Obama's policies and ideas aren't given the light of day. All the attention is on this stupid Bergdazi/Benghazi/VA whatever crap. But some of this stuff seriously needs to come to light.

I know he can do it. The work Obama did on selling healthcare to people really worked. He needs to start fighting back. The GOP is seriously going at him gangbusters right now and even his own party won't back him up.
 
2014-06-06 09:29:34 PM  
BERGHAZI!!!
 
2014-06-06 09:36:24 PM  
Berghazi forum.  Nice.
 
2014-06-06 09:39:08 PM  
In 2007, John Edwards had a rally in Berkeley, and hundreds showed up.
In 2007, Barack Obama came to Oakland on next to no notice, and 15,000 showed up.
In 2007, Hillary had a fundraiser in Pacific Heights for an unknown number of donors who paid unknown how many thousands of dollars each.
/There's a lesson in there somewhere about Hillary's idea of campaigning, for 2008 did not turn out for her as expected.
 
2014-06-06 09:42:02 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-06 09:44:17 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: I feel the same way.  I'm really lukewarm on her.  But compared to anyone I can see on the other side...

Jesus I'm getting tired of voting for the lesser of who cares.


She still has to win the primary. I know people keep saying that if hilary runs everyone else will back off but I am not convinced that is what would happen.  Other people will run and if there's one that's better than clinton she may not make it past the primary.  It's not like it hasn't happened before.  She was seen as pretty inevitable in 2008.
 
2014-06-06 09:51:22 PM  

Ambivalence: Benevolent Misanthrope: I feel the same way.  I'm really lukewarm on her.  But compared to anyone I can see on the other side...

Jesus I'm getting tired of voting for the lesser of who cares.

She still has to win the primary. I know people keep saying that if hilary runs everyone else will back off but I am not convinced that is what would happen.  Other people will run and if there's one that's better than clinton she may not make it past the primary.  It's not like it hasn't happened before.  She was seen as pretty inevitable in 2008.


Yes, we shall see.  My guess is she learned a very valuable lesson from 2008 and will pick campaign staff who know how the hell to do it this time.
 
2014-06-06 10:00:36 PM  

firefly212: Erm... Iraq, PATRIOT Act, NSA Re-auth... I'm not really on team Hillary if Russ Feingold or Elizabeth Warren run.


I'm not thrilled by a Clinton run either, but in terms of experience, she's better than Warren,   I love what Warren is trying to do in the Senate, but she has zero foreign policy experience and the pundits will jump all over her for it.   I think she can do so much more good staying where she's at.

Hillary has a long and varied experience.   Of course, the Clinton name will alienate some voters and her personality is too abrasive to cajole needed compromises out of Congress.   (Though, I don't think even Jesus could get our current legislature to compromise.)
 
2014-06-06 10:04:49 PM  

bdub77: I like Clinton quite a bit and I would vote for her over whatever crazy the GOP throws at us, but I'm frankly tired of 'centrist' presidents who favor deregulation and put the interests of big business over people for the sake of the almighty 'job'.

She's in many ways like Obama. I really like him, but he's really not done the progressive side many (any) favors of late. I understand he basically can't pass any legislation, and I like him as a human being and pragmatic, but he also should be putting up a much stronger progressive front against the GOP especially in an election year. And he should be giving the progressives something to fight for this election season.

OK now a little Obama rant:

Come on dude, make a stand and remove Tom Wheeler from the FCC chair position. No one in your base likes net neutrality except maybe a few f*cking telecom and cable execs who are playing both sides, and even though they have big pockets the people are still allowed to vote regardless of money.

The new EPA regulations? Watered down sh*t when you look at the timeframe and the potential loopholes, even the polluting power companies were like 'meh that's not too hard.'

Why doesn't he make more of a big deal about the healthcare/Medicare stuff? I mean you've got states that simply won't give poor people the time of day.

How about voter ID laws, Mr. President? Why can't we hear more about the justice department hitting those states like mine hard? How about your dont give a f*ck stance on privacy?

I'm somewhat convinced the media is to blame that some of Obama's policies and ideas aren't given the light of day. All the attention is on this stupid Bergdazi/Benghazi/VA whatever crap. But some of this stuff seriously needs to come to light.

I know he can do it. The work Obama did on selling healthcare to people really worked. He needs to start fighting back. The GOP is seriously going at him gangbusters right now and even his own party won't back him up.


Agreed. I am rather dismayed at how "establishment" Obama has become... I understand that's probably something that has to happen to do any sort of business at all in Washington because the President isn't King, but damn. The whole system needs a reboot as far as I'm concerned. We're not gonna get that. Hillary will almost certainly not bring that either, no matter what she says.
 
2014-06-06 10:05:54 PM  

Fark It: At one point she writes, "Your critics can actually teach you lessons your friends can't or won't. I try to sort out the motivation for criticism whether partisan, ideological, commercial, or sexist, analyze it to see what I might learn from it, and discard the rest." It would have been fascinating to see some evidence of this in the book.

Kind of surprising to see this kind of assessment of a Hillary product from Slate.  I wonder how long it will take for someone to call the author a misogynist.

It sounds like the book is a banal, by-the-numbers corporate product that exists for boomers to swoon over.  Like a Hillary Clinton campaign....


Slate kind of beat her up back in 2008 as well. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2008/0 1 /the_case_against_hillary_clinton.html

/put the book in the Fiction aisle and call it a day.
 
2014-06-06 10:15:01 PM  

beakerxf: Of course, the Clinton name will alienate some voters and her personality is too abrasive to cajole needed compromises out of Congress.   (Though, I don't think even Jesus could get our current legislature to compromise.)


Actually, I think her knowledge of where all the bodies are buried and what everyone wants can enable her to get Congress doing what she wants far better than Obama could. Obama's getting better, but Hillary wouldn't have had all of the trouble he had at first because she would have went after Congress with a stick and a cupcake.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge Hillary fan - she's too centrist for this point in our history, when the Overton window is artificially weighted so far to the right due to big moneyed interests and gerrymandering - she'll have to placate far more on the right than the left to get anything accomplished. But she WILL get stuff accomplished. Maybe not everything I want to see accomplished, and likely a few things I don't want to see, but more "stuff" will get done no matter what kind of Congress she has to deal with.

If Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden had a policy love child, I'd vote for him or her in a heartbeat.
 
2014-06-06 10:18:39 PM  
Hillary Clinton is the end product of the American political system. A resume of pablum marketed to folks who are slowly convinced it's good enough. A vane petty egotistical amoralist who should never be given any measure of power.
 
2014-06-06 10:24:27 PM  
Mrbogey:  A vane petty egotistical amoralist who should never be given any measure of power.

She swings to whatever direction the wind blows.
 
2014-06-06 10:25:14 PM  

Herb Utsmelz: fusillade762: A couple more Hillary stories and Drew will have to change the name of the tab again.

Berghazillary.



Berghadzilla was the scariest monster to attack Tokyo.
 
2014-06-06 10:29:58 PM  

gunther_bumpass: Mrbogey:  A vane petty egotistical amoralist who should never be given any measure of power.

She swings to whatever direction the wind blows.


A friend of mine saw her campaigning in Texas.
www.corpusballoon.com
She's pretty scary.
 
2014-06-06 10:37:20 PM  
Yinz sound young.

/runs
 
2014-06-06 10:38:22 PM  

gunther_bumpass: Mrbogey:  A vane petty egotistical amoralist who should never be given any measure of power.

She swings to whatever direction the wind blows.


*citations needed*
 
2014-06-06 10:39:55 PM  
Holy crap, how'd I get in the politics tab?

Ain't nobody got time for this.
 
2014-06-06 10:41:34 PM  

lindalouwho: gunther_bumpass: Mrbogey:  A vane petty egotistical amoralist who should never be given any measure of power.

She swings to whatever direction the wind blows.

*citations needed*


You ask for them in vein.
 
2014-06-06 10:47:23 PM  

gunther_bumpass: Mrbogey:  A vane petty egotistical amoralist who should never be given any measure of power.

She swings to whatever direction the wind blows.


Which means she's perfect for the one percent.
 
2014-06-06 10:51:29 PM  
Ok....i might be a little slow, but when did Drew change it? ROFLMAO
 
2014-06-06 10:54:03 PM  
I've been scorched by Hillary before. I got a rapid heartbeat from her Hillary brand vitamins, my 'Clinton Calculator' didn't have a seven or an eight, and Hillary's autobiography was self-serving with many glaring omissions. But this time, she's gone too far.
 
2014-06-06 10:59:26 PM  
i.imgur.com


If I were the TF'er I was five years ago, I'd take a flame-thrower to this BERGHAZI!
 
2014-06-06 10:59:54 PM  
If you want to know what a Hillary Clinton presidency would look like just look at Obama, I don't think they are too far apart on many domestic issues and the way they conduct foreign policy.
 
2014-06-06 11:05:49 PM  

beakerxf: Of course...her personality is too abrasive to cajole needed compromises out of Congress.


upload.wikimedia.org upload.wikimedia.org

Farker, please. She's actually milquetoast compared to almost everyone who's held the office.  She only 'seems abrasive' because she's female and speaking from a position of power. Americans by and large are still not used to that.
 
2014-06-06 11:10:04 PM  

make me some tea: Fark It: At one point she writes, "Your critics can actually teach you lessons your friends can't or won't. I try to sort out the motivation for criticism whether partisan, ideological, commercial, or sexist, analyze it to see what I might learn from it, and discard the rest." It would have been fascinating to see some evidence of this in the book.

Kind of surprising to see this kind of assessment of a Hillary product from Slate.  I wonder how long it will take for someone to call the author a misogynist.

It sounds like the book is a banal, by-the-numbers corporate product that exists for boomers to swoon over.  Like a Hillary Clinton campaign....

I know plenty of people would like to see Hillary be President, but I've personally never been too thrilled with her. I'll hold my nose and vote for her anyway I guess.


Hell, I'm a Republican and I may have to vote for her.
 
2014-06-06 11:10:07 PM  

Mrbogey: A vane petty egotistical amoralist who should never be given any measure of power.


Wasn't one Reagan enough?
 
2014-06-06 11:15:42 PM  

AtlanticCoast63: make me some tea: Fark It: At one point she writes, "Your critics can actually teach you lessons your friends can't or won't. I try to sort out the motivation for criticism whether partisan, ideological, commercial, or sexist, analyze it to see what I might learn from it, and discard the rest." It would have been fascinating to see some evidence of this in the book.

Kind of surprising to see this kind of assessment of a Hillary product from Slate.  I wonder how long it will take for someone to call the author a misogynist.

It sounds like the book is a banal, by-the-numbers corporate product that exists for boomers to swoon over.  Like a Hillary Clinton campaign....

I know plenty of people would like to see Hillary be President, but I've personally never been too thrilled with her. I'll hold my nose and vote for her anyway I guess.

Hell, I'm a Republican and I may have to vote for her.


RINO!
 
2014-06-06 11:22:07 PM  

make me some tea: I know plenty of people would like to see Hillary be President, but I've personally never been too thrilled with her. I'll hold my nose and vote for her anyway I guess.


I'm on the other end of that one.  If the Democrats run Hillary it's the one thing that would actually put the ball in the GOP's court so far as getting my vote goes.  All they'd have to do is not run someone actively stupid and I'd probably go back to (R) on the presidency.  (Probably not on anything else, though.)  I don't intend to vote for someone that voted for both PATRIOT and its renewal while in the senate and that was actively, unapologetically part of the deregulation blitz that bombed our economy.  I'll take an untested new guy that leans right of me over that.

// Albeit, I'm not crossing my fingers on the GOP  not running someone actively stupid/terrible, not after Palin and Romney.  So the difference may be academic.
 
2014-06-07 12:02:26 AM  
Wow, I thought only my ex and mother brought this much justification to the table. Must be a chick thing.
 
2014-06-07 12:02:32 AM  

Jim_Callahan: All they'd have to do is not run someone actively stupid


There is no indication that they plan to do otherwise. We'll see I guess.
 
2014-06-07 12:03:16 AM  
Agreed. I am rather dismayed at how "establishment" Obama has become...

Oh please. He hasn't "become establishment". He is simply overwhelmed by the job and is mostly in reactive mode. He did a crappy job of picking staff, they're not helping him. They all over the place, grinding their own policy axes. He just goes along. Obamacare was not his creation. It was a Pelosi/Reid joint.  He simply went along. He is NOT a leader. He's just a bullshiater. Nothing more. And he's been sucking at that lately (West Point - "the purpose of the military is to protect the country" Really?) He has no real executive experience. He had no business getting elected president.

His foreign policy is completely unorganized and drifting all over the place. He has stepped on his own crank multiple times (Russia Reset! Redline! Asia Pivot!). Useless. And he's planting the seeds of a future war making the US look weak and indecisive. Russia's getting nasty, the Chinese are throwing their weight around, etc., because they have correctly assessed that Obama's an out-of-his-depth Pussy.

He IS the very definition of an Affirmative Action hire. The Washington/media establishment decided he was "good enough" to be President and overlooked his obvious inexperience, lack of executive experience, lack of serious domestic/foreign policy depth, etc. and smoothed the way for him. No serious reporting about his background, suppression of any media questioning of his abilities. It was decided that it was time for a Black President and that was that.

8 years. Wasted. Running in place while Washington chases it's tail.
 
2014-06-07 12:05:45 AM  

gunther_bumpass: lindalouwho: gunther_bumpass: Mrbogey:  A vane petty egotistical amoralist who should never be given any measure of power.

She swings to whatever direction the wind blows.

*citations needed*

You ask for them in vein.


Rhetorical.
 
2014-06-07 12:07:33 AM  

mark12A: Agreed. I am rather dismayed at how "establishment" Obama has become...

Oh please. He hasn't "become establishment". He is simply overwhelmed by the job and is mostly in reactive mode. He did a crappy job of picking staff, they're not helping him. They all over the place, grinding their own policy axes. He just goes along. Obamacare was not his creation. It was a Pelosi/Reid joint.  He simply went along. He is NOT a leader. He's just a bullshiater. Nothing more. And he's been sucking at that lately (West Point - "the purpose of the military is to protect the country" Really?) He has no real executive experience. He had no business getting elected president.

His foreign policy is completely unorganized and drifting all over the place. He has stepped on his own crank multiple times (Russia Reset! Redline! Asia Pivot!). Useless. And he's planting the seeds of a future war making the US look weak and indecisive. Russia's getting nasty, the Chinese are throwing their weight around, etc., because they have correctly assessed that Obama's an out-of-his-depth Pussy.

He IS the very definition of an Affirmative Action hire. The Washington/media establishment decided he was "good enough" to be President and overlooked his obvious inexperience, lack of executive experience, lack of serious domestic/foreign policy depth, etc. and smoothed the way for him. No serious reporting about his background, suppression of any media questioning of his abilities. It was decided that it was time for a Black President and that was that.

8 years. Wasted. Running in place while Washington chases it's tail.


Come over to the light, my friend - did somebody steal your joy?
 
2014-06-07 12:09:05 AM  

mark12A: Oh please. He hasn't "become establishment". He is simply overwhelmed by the job and is mostly in reactive mode. He did a crappy job of picking staff, they're not helping him. They all over the place, grinding their own policy axes. He just goes along. Obamacare was not his creation. It was a Pelosi/Reid joint.  He simply went along. He is NOT a leader. He's just a bullshiater. Nothing more. And he's been sucking at that lately (West Point - "the purpose of the military is to protect the country" Really?) He has no real executive experience. He had no business getting elected president.

His foreign policy is completely unorganized and drifting all over the place. He has stepped on his own crank multiple times (Russia Reset! Redline! Asia Pivot!). Useless. And he's planting the seeds of a future war making the US look weak and indecisive. Russia's getting nasty, the Chinese are throwing their weight around, etc., because they have correctly assessed that Obama's an out-of-his-depth Pussy.

He IS the very definition of an Affirmative Action hire. The Washington/media establishment decided he was "good enough" to be President and overlooked his obvious inexperience, lack of executive experience, lack of serious domestic/foreign policy depth, etc. and smoothed the way for him. No serious reporting about his background, suppression of any media questioning of his abilities. It was decided that it was time for a Black President and that was that.

8 years. Wasted. Running in place while Washington chases it's tail.


hahahah wow
 
2014-06-07 12:10:21 AM  

mark12A: He IS the very definition of an Affirmative Action hire.


But remember, it has nothing to do with his race at all.
 
2014-06-07 12:11:11 AM  

beakerxf: firefly212: Erm... Iraq, PATRIOT Act, NSA Re-auth... I'm not really on team Hillary if Russ Feingold or Elizabeth Warren run.

I'm not thrilled by a Clinton run either, but in terms of experience, she's better than Warren,   I love what Warren is trying to do in the Senate, but she has zero foreign policy experience and the pundits will jump all over her for it.   I think she can do so much more good staying where she's at.

Hillary has a long and varied experience.   Of course, the Clinton name will alienate some voters and her personality is too abrasive to cajole needed compromises out of Congress.   (Though, I don't think even Jesus could get our current legislature to compromise.)


On paper, Bush Sr. may be the most qualified President of our lifetimes.

He was ok.
 
2014-06-07 12:13:09 AM  

Somacandra: beakerxf: Of course...her personality is too abrasive to cajole needed compromises out of Congress.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x293] [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x276]

Farker, please. She's actually milquetoast compared to almost everyone who's held the office.  She only 'seems abrasive' because she's female and speaking from a position of power. Americans by and large are still not used to that.


LBJ and TR are pretty rare exceptions. The party shunted TR to the vice presidency because he was too abrasive and they wanted to get rid of him. LBJ seized the Vice Presidency because he thought it was his one last, desperate shot to put him in line to be President. He was also probably the singularly most abrasive person ever to hold the office. LBJs and TRs aren't common. Presidents who are, in their time, inspiring popular leaders who have no farking idea how to take Congress to task are far more common. Kennedy is a great example if you want to bring up LBJ. He was clueless. He had no farking idea how Congress worked, despite having served in the body for a decade. He didn't know where the bodies were buried, he didn't know where the levers of power were. As a Congressman and Senator, he was useless. He mastered the art of self promotion, but that was about it. As a President, he showed a lot oof leadership internationally. He had an idea what he was doing there. Congress? He and his staff had no farking ideas. He insulted committee chairs that Johnson later petted and placated. He simply had no idea how obstruction worked. He couldn't read what senior senators meant when they told him they'd look at a bill. When Byrd (the Virginia one, not the WV one) told him he wanted serious budget restraint or no Civil Rights Bill, Kennedy thought he was kidding, and just wanted window dressing. That's not to say Kennedy was particularly incompetent- he wasn't. He was typical. Historically, Presidents have not been entirely effective at managing Congress.

But I agree with the idea that the abrasiveness was effective in getting shiat done. LBJ got things through Congress that Kennedy never could have. His force of will, his personal manner, and his intimate knowledge of how Congress worked on a personal and institutional level really made him effective at bending Congress to his will in a way no President before or any President since has been. But that's not the only model. Lincoln largely won Congress over with charm and modest favors. He'd smile, laugh, ploddingly tell a rambling story, often with no relevance to the topic whatsoever, disarm a guy, and then gently ask for something. It worked for him, and allowed him to reconcile conservatives and liberals to a moderate policy that he deliberately evolved into a liberal one, bringing the conservatives along with him by winning them over to a cult of personality. LBJ could do that to, but underlying the stories was a personality where you knew that he would crush you if you did not comply. If you did not submit to him, you were not welcome, and that was made very clear.

The other big factor is that LBJ, as President, had overwhelming majorities for his party, he just had a lot of ideological diversity within his party. Most of his achievement was in hammering his own party in line, as was Lincoln's, since most southern members, the bulk of the Democrats, had resigned. That is a far different ask than trying to force members of the opposition party to your will. It is very, very hard to catch those flies, regardless of whether you're using honey or vinegar.

The bottom line is that it's really hard to compare Presidential styles, since the underlying dynamics are always different. Sometimes you can, but you keep running into the problem the stat heads who try to predict Presidential elections based on historical Presidential elections run into (major pet peeve of mine, BTW). There are too many variables and the sample size is way too low.
 
2014-06-07 12:16:31 AM  

ox45tallboy: beakerxf: Of course, the Clinton name will alienate some voters and her personality is too abrasive to cajole needed compromises out of Congress.   (Though, I don't think even Jesus could get our current legislature to compromise.)

Actually, I think her knowledge of where all the bodies are buried and what everyone wants can enable her to get Congress doing what she wants far better than Obama could. Obama's getting better, but Hillary wouldn't have had all of the trouble he had at first because she would have went after Congress with a stick and a cupcake.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge Hillary fan - she's too centrist for this point in our history, when the Overton window is artificially weighted so far to the right due to big moneyed interests and gerrymandering - she'll have to placate far more on the right than the left to get anything accomplished. But she WILL get stuff accomplished. Maybe not everything I want to see accomplished, and likely a few things I don't want to see, but more "stuff" will get done no matter what kind of Congress she has to deal with.

If Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden had a policy love child, I'd vote for him or her in a heartbeat.


Biden's two big platforms has been as a strong advocate for the continuation of the war on drugs, and the promotion of banks. Usury is currently legal in two states; Nevada and Delaware.  Biden helped bring in the new bankruptcy laws in the middle 2000s that resulted in a record number of bankruptcies.

He is a banker shill and tool of the industrial prison complex that has turned our nation into something that is anything but free and just.

But since he is an asshole you guys like him. Since you're all assholes.  And partisan tools.
 
2014-06-07 12:20:49 AM  

Nemo's Brother: ox45tallboy: beakerxf: Of course, the Clinton name will alienate some voters and her personality is too abrasive to cajole needed compromises out of Congress.   (Though, I don't think even Jesus could get our current legislature to compromise.)

Actually, I think her knowledge of where all the bodies are buried and what everyone wants can enable her to get Congress doing what she wants far better than Obama could. Obama's getting better, but Hillary wouldn't have had all of the trouble he had at first because she would have went after Congress with a stick and a cupcake.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge Hillary fan - she's too centrist for this point in our history, when the Overton window is artificially weighted so far to the right due to big moneyed interests and gerrymandering - she'll have to placate far more on the right than the left to get anything accomplished. But she WILL get stuff accomplished. Maybe not everything I want to see accomplished, and likely a few things I don't want to see, but more "stuff" will get done no matter what kind of Congress she has to deal with.

If Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden had a policy love child, I'd vote for him or her in a heartbeat.

Biden's two big platforms has been as a strong advocate for the continuation of the war on drugs, and the promotion of banks. Usury is currently legal in two states; Nevada and Delaware.  Biden helped bring in the new bankruptcy laws in the middle 2000s that resulted in a record number of bankruptcies.

He is a banker shill and tool of the industrial prison complex that has turned our nation into something that is anything but free and just.

But since he is an asshole you guys like him. Since you're all assholes.  And partisan tools.


He also wrote a significant part of the Patriot Act.
 
2014-06-07 12:25:20 AM  
But remember, it has nothing to do with his race at all.

It had everything to do with his race. Anybody who seriously questioned Obama's qualifications to be president were summarily dismissed as racists. Nothing more.

Japan's gonna rearm big time because China is getting randy, the South China Sea will be the flashpoint for the next big war between China/Japan/ Vietnam, because the Chinese have correctly assumed Obama and his team ain't gonna do jack to stop them, so they'll act like assholes until somebody starts a fight with them.

Ditto for Iran. The rest of the Middle East will arm up with nukes because the Obamessiah's admin doesn't seem interested AT ALL at stopping Iran from getting nukes. At some point Israel will pre-empt to prevent their own destruction. And the Middle East will blow up. All because of eight years of Amateur Night at the White House.
 
2014-06-07 12:33:36 AM  

mark12A: It had everything to do with his race. Anybody who seriously questioned Obama's qualifications to be president were summarily dismissed as racists. Nothing more.


Or maybe you're just a racist.
 
2014-06-07 12:37:02 AM  

Somacandra: beakerxf: Of course...her personality is too abrasive to cajole needed compromises out of Congress.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x293] [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x276]

Farker, please. She's actually milquetoast compared to almost everyone who's held the office.  She only 'seems abrasive' because she's female and speaking from a position of power. Americans by and large are still not used to that.


"Farker please" - I like that.

I was only referring to stories I've heard about she's hard on her underlings, but you may be right that there is a gender bias.
 
2014-06-07 12:37:25 AM  
Or maybe you're just a racist.

Or maybe you're just a poopyhead.

Bag it, I'm out, Craigy Ferg is coming on...
 
2014-06-07 12:42:35 AM  

mark12A: It had everything to do with his race. Anybody who seriously questioned Obama's qualifications to be president were summarily dismissed as racists. Nothing more.


They/you deserved it.
 
2014-06-07 12:47:45 AM  

Nemo's Brother: Biden's two big platforms has been as a strong advocate for the continuation of the war on drugs, and the promotion of banks. Usury is currently legal in two states; Nevada and Delaware.  Biden helped bring in the new bankruptcy laws in the middle 2000s that resulted in a record number of bankruptcies.

He is a banker shill and tool of the industrial prison complex that has turned our nation into something that is anything but free and just.

But since he is an asshole you guys like him. Since you're all assholes.  And partisan tools.


The main thing I was referring to was his knowledgeable but cautious take on foreign policy. He knows what he's talking about, and he'd rather see if we can be involved militarily in other countries as little as possible. He's also in favor of some reasonable gun control, such as background checks for private sales.

His domestic stances I don't agree with would be outweighed by Warren's populism. Besides, it's quite silly to blame Delaware state laws on someone like Biden that never held statewide office. Senators don't make laws in their home states, and the only office Biden ever held in Delaware was County Councilman.

It's also quite silly to imply I'm a partisan tool just after I've made statements critical of the presumptive nominee, and explained the qualities I'd like to see in a President instead.

I'm not saying I'd never vote for someone with an (R) after their name, I'm saying that a person I might agree with on more issues than I agree with Hillary on could never make it out of the Republican primaries in the current political climate. That doesn't make me a partisan tool, it makes me someone who is stating their own position relative to the stated Republican platform.
 
2014-06-07 12:49:43 AM  

Nemo's Brother: beakerxf: firefly212: Erm... Iraq, PATRIOT Act, NSA Re-auth... I'm not really on team Hillary if Russ Feingold or Elizabeth Warren run.

I'm not thrilled by a Clinton run either, but in terms of experience, she's better than Warren,   I love what Warren is trying to do in the Senate, but she has zero foreign policy experience and the pundits will jump all over her for it.   I think she can do so much more good staying where she's at.

Hillary has a long and varied experience.   Of course, the Clinton name will alienate some voters and her personality is too abrasive to cajole needed compromises out of Congress.   (Though, I don't think even Jesus could get our current legislature to compromise.)

On paper, Bush Sr. may be the most qualified President of our lifetimes.

He was ok.


Yes, he was ok and as time has gone on history has soften its view on his term.   His decision to pull out of Iraq rather than trying to nation was definitely the right call in hindsight.  Having the balls to raise taxes even though it was political suicide is something we haven't seen in a long time and we have quite the deficit to show for it.

I know experience doesn't equal qualified.  But I have to wonder that of Obama had more political experience before becoming president, how much more he could have accomplished.
 
2014-06-07 12:50:45 AM  

mark12A: He IS the very definition of an Affirmative Action hire.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-07 01:00:16 AM  

Nemo's Brother: On paper, Bush Sr. may be the most qualified President of our lifetimes.


On paper, Nixon could give Bush Sr. a run for his money. On paper Nixon may have been the most successful politician of the last half of the 20th century. Reagan got elected Governor with the help of some used-car dealer salesmen. He had almost no prior experience in politics. He got national recognition running against Gerald Ford from the right. Nixon was far more successful than Reagan and for much longer than Bush Sr. Its just that his presidency ended so badly everyone just remembers that part. But Nixon still got Bill Clinton to talk to him about foreign policy by threatening to criticize him in an op-ed. That is serious influence.
 
2014-06-07 01:12:37 AM  

Somacandra: But Nixon still got Bill Clinton to talk to him about foreign policy by threatening to criticize him in an op-ed. That is serious influence.


I really don't understand why. Nixon had an old skool paranoid Cold War mindset regarding foreign policy. Why anyone would suck up to that, not to mention overlook the utter political disgrace, is a bit puzzling.

But then again, Clinton was a center-right leaning policy maker and probably (stupidly) respected Nixon like a lot of people did.
 
2014-06-07 01:14:09 AM  

Somacandra: On paper, Nixon could give Bush Sr. a run for his money. On paper Nixon may have been the most successful politician of the last half of the 20th century. Reagan got elected Governor with the help of some used-car dealer salesmen. He had almost no prior experience in politics. He got national recognition running against Gerald Ford from the right. Nixon was far more successful than Reagan and for much longer than Bush Sr. Its just that his presidency ended so badly everyone just remembers that part. But Nixon still got Bill Clinton to talk to him about foreign policy by threatening to criticize him in an op-ed. That is serious influence.


Nixon did some really good things, like sign into law the EPA and get us out of Vietnam. Nixon also did some horrible things with long-lasting consequences, like sign into law HMO's. His presidency up until Watergate was kind of a wash as far accomplishments go in my opinion, but I don't know that a different person would have done the same good things he did, and might have done more bad things..
 
2014-06-07 02:06:09 AM  

Mrbogey: Hillary Clinton is the end product of the American political system. A resume of pablum marketed to folks who are slowly convinced it's good enough. A vane petty egotistical amoralist who should never be given any measure of power.


For whom do you plan on voting?
 
2014-06-07 02:13:46 AM  

acohn: Mrbogey: Hillary Clinton is the end product of the American political system. A resume of pablum marketed to folks who are slowly convinced it's good enough. A vane petty egotistical amoralist who should never be given any measure of power.

For whom do you plan on voting?


Well, y'see, both sides are bad, so...
 
2014-06-07 02:34:58 AM  

ox45tallboy: Somacandra: On paper, Nixon could give Bush Sr. a run for his money. On paper Nixon may have been the most successful politician of the last half of the 20th century. Reagan got elected Governor with the help of some used-car dealer salesmen. He had almost no prior experience in politics. He got national recognition running against Gerald Ford from the right. Nixon was far more successful than Reagan and for much longer than Bush Sr. Its just that his presidency ended so badly everyone just remembers that part. But Nixon still got Bill Clinton to talk to him about foreign policy by threatening to criticize him in an op-ed. That is serious influence.

Nixon did some really good things, like sign into law the EPA and get us out of Vietnam. Nixon also did some horrible things with long-lasting consequences, like sign into law HMO's. His presidency up until Watergate was kind of a wash as far accomplishments go in my opinion, but I don't know that a different person would have done the same good things he did, and might have done more bad things..


Nixon actually kept us in Vietnam longer than we had to be, and ultimately settled with the North Vietnamese on the exact same terms that were there to be had in 1968.
 
2014-06-07 02:50:11 AM  

forgotmydamnusername: Nixon actually kept us in Vietnam longer than we had to be, and ultimately settled with the North Vietnamese on the exact same terms that were there to be had in 1968.


And Obama could have gotten us out of Iraq and Afghanistan sooner as well. The point is that the other guy would have kept us there, and it worked out better than it could have.
 
2014-06-07 02:57:58 AM  

forgotmydamnusername: ox45tallboy: Somacandra: On paper, Nixon could give Bush Sr. a run for his money. On paper Nixon may have been the most successful politician of the last half of the 20th century. Reagan got elected Governor with the help of some used-car dealer salesmen. He had almost no prior experience in politics. He got national recognition running against Gerald Ford from the right. Nixon was far more successful than Reagan and for much longer than Bush Sr. Its just that his presidency ended so badly everyone just remembers that part. But Nixon still got Bill Clinton to talk to him about foreign policy by threatening to criticize him in an op-ed. That is serious influence.

Nixon did some really good things, like sign into law the EPA and get us out of Vietnam. Nixon also did some horrible things with long-lasting consequences, like sign into law HMO's. His presidency up until Watergate was kind of a wash as far accomplishments go in my opinion, but I don't know that a different person would have done the same good things he did, and might have done more bad things..

Nixon actually kept us in Vietnam longer than we had to be, and ultimately settled with the North Vietnamese on the exact same terms that were there to be had in 1968.


Not to mention that one of Nixon's big selling points to be elected in '68 was a promise to end the war. Which he made worse.

Oh and I love the "Nixon created the EPA" hindsight. The truth is he had no choice given the state of the country, socially on the verge of collapse.
 
2014-06-07 03:00:51 AM  
Nice to see the Fark Independents exercising some division of labor in these Clinton threads. M12 in this one and CptDan in the other.
 
2014-06-07 04:01:12 AM  
I'll vote for her, unless Mr. Biden promises, as president, to replace the armored Cadillac limo with an armored '77 Firebird. Then everything's on the table.
 
2014-06-07 04:32:57 AM  
This just in - those who prefer being slapped in the face repeatedly with a halibut to being raped by a syphlitic baboon tend to vote Democrat.
 
2014-06-07 08:00:01 AM  
2016 America is ready for a documented lair, possibly alcoholic,with a very poor memory of current events.
Wall Street loves her ( bought a paid off by Goldman Sachs)
Main Street loves her (populist speech and the black kid on her knee/ may substitute Hispanic/Mexican child in southwestern states.)

Fark the rest of the world we have a quota to fill.

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2014-06-07 08:51:51 AM  
But Robert Gates' memoir was the defining dissertation on Obama's inner circle
 
2014-06-07 08:53:42 AM  
When has Clinton ever taking a risky or unpopular position about anything? Her entire political career after the "Hillarycare" thing (which her actual involvement in was overblown; it was less about her being involved than Congress being left out of the sausage making process that doomed the bill) she's been one of the most risk-averse politicians in Washington. She never coauthored any bills in the Senate besides things like naming post offices. She never tried the sort of overt and costly efforts to broker a peace deal with Iran or settle the Israel/Palestinian situation that Kerry has been doing since he took over at State.

She keeps a holding pattern and hopes that it is enough that she avoids having things blow up on her. While there is definitely an argument to be made that America could use less push for risky policies and maintaining a holding pattern, I don't think that's enough to justify and win her the support she wants though.
 
2014-06-07 09:01:03 AM  

mark12A: Ditto for Iran. The rest of the Middle East will arm up with nukes because the Obamessiah's admin doesn't seem interested AT ALL at stopping Iran from getting nukes. At some point Israel will pre-empt to prevent their own destruction. And the Middle East will blow up. All because of eight years of Amateur Night at the White House.


Really? They have less than a fifth of the weapons grade nuclear materials they would need to build even one bomb, and that number has been falling, not rising, since we brokered a deal with them back in November.
 
2014-06-07 10:02:42 AM  
a1.mzstatic.com
 
2014-06-07 10:06:49 AM  
My Wife has been right all along about pretty much everything, according to the new memoir by My Wife
 
2014-06-07 10:18:26 AM  

Fark It: At one point she writes, "Your critics can actually teach you lessons your friends can't or won't. I try to sort out the motivation for criticism whether partisan, ideological, commercial, or sexist, analyze it to see what I might learn from it, and discard the rest." It would have been fascinating to see some evidence of this in the book.

Kind of surprising to see this kind of assessment of a Hillary product from Slate.  I wonder how long it will take for someone to call the author a misogynist.

It sounds like the book is a banal, by-the-numbers corporate product that exists for boomers to swoon over.  Like a Hillary Clinton campaign....


img.fark.net
 
2014-06-07 11:15:20 AM  

ox45tallboy: forgotmydamnusername: Nixon actually kept us in Vietnam longer than we had to be, and ultimately settled with the North Vietnamese on the exact same terms that were there to be had in 1968.

And Obama could have gotten us out of Iraq and Afghanistan sooner as well. The point is that the other guy would have kept us there, and it worked out better than it could have.


Nixon actually had Kissinger sabotage the '68 talks, in exchange for a post in his administration when he won. Humphrey would have had us out sooner. Nixon even illegally expanded the war into Laos and Cambodia. Obama did kill OBL in Pakistan, and there have been a few cross-border drone strikes, but the scale is not even remotely close to Nixon's wholesale carpet bombings and incursions.
 
2014-06-07 11:28:56 AM  

acohn: Mrbogey: Hillary Clinton is the end product of the American political system. A resume of pablum marketed to folks who are slowly convinced it's good enough. A vane petty egotistical amoralist who should never be given any measure of power.

For whom do you plan on voting?


Hopefully someone not named clinton. She is absolutely everything that was described in that post.
 
2014-06-07 11:50:02 AM  

make me some tea: Fark It: At one point she writes, "Your critics can actually teach you lessons your friends can't or won't. I try to sort out the motivation for criticism whether partisan, ideological, commercial, or sexist, analyze it to see what I might learn from it, and discard the rest." It would have been fascinating to see some evidence of this in the book.

Kind of surprising to see this kind of assessment of a Hillary product from Slate.  I wonder how long it will take for someone to call the author a misogynist.

It sounds like the book is a banal, by-the-numbers corporate product that exists for boomers to swoon over.  Like a Hillary Clinton campaign....

I know plenty of people would like to see Hillary be President, but I've personally never been too thrilled with her. I'll hold my nose and vote for her anyway I guess.


Same here. I feel like the 2008 election was sort of bait and switch. I voted for Obama, but I got Hillary anyway, and I'm not just talking about the ACA instead of single payer. He took a rightward step right into Hillary's platform. That said, it's still better than what we had or anything that a candidate from the current Republican Party would give us. And I am looking at you, Supreme Court.
 
2014-06-07 12:21:03 PM  

ox45tallboy: forgotmydamnusername: Nixon actually kept us in Vietnam longer than we had to be, and ultimately settled with the North Vietnamese on the exact same terms that were there to be had in 1968.

And Obama could have gotten us out of Iraq and Afghanistan sooner as well. The point is that the other guy would have kept us there, and it worked out better than it could have.


Actually, no. Nixon sabotaged the negotiated peace efforts in 1968 because it would be to his political benefit if we remained in the war, by calling the South Vietnamese and promising they would get a better deal if he became President than if they agreed to a peace deal then. The North Vietnamese had made concessions, and the South would have accepted that and struck a deal had Nixon not interfered. The South walked out entirely due to Nixon's representations. His interference at that point was directly and solely responsible for the war continuing as long as it did, and he is singularly responsible for every death in that war after 1968. Had it not been for Nixon committing treason (which is not too strong a word), we would have been out under Johnson's leadership. Johnson knew about it, and the reason we've learned so much recently is that the White House tapes of him discussing it were just recently released. Johnson made the decision, in consultation with Humphrey, to not release the evidence because it would be incredibly disruptive to the country, and because at the time, it looked like Democrats were going to win anyway.
 
2014-06-07 12:37:08 PM  

acohn: or whom do you plan on voting?


Who do we got?
 
2014-06-07 01:51:51 PM  
Sarah Pal- wait hold on
Chris Chris- ummm hang on a sec
Mitt Rahahahahahahahah, sorry I couldn't get through that one
Rick Santorum
Ted Cruz

Take your choice!
 
2014-06-07 02:05:33 PM  

Eddie Barzoom: Sarah Pal- wait hold on
Chris Chris- ummm hang on a sec
Mitt Rahahahahahahahah, sorry I couldn't get through that one
Rick Santorum
Ted Cruz

Take your choice!


This is the problem with people complaining about Obama. Sure, he has some deficiencies. Who was he running against, though? Pandering farkhead corporate criminal Romney? The clueless, impulsive, morally bankrupt, unhealthy old codger McCain, with the vindictive, paranoid and stupid demagogue Sarah Palin waiting in the wings? Jeb Bush vs. Obama in 2012 might have been a tossup for me, despite the unfortunate last name. That isn't what we got.
 
2014-06-07 08:59:41 PM  

Mrbogey: acohn: or whom do you plan on voting?

Who do we got?


Realistically, what we got is a figurehead, no matter who runs.  This country's now a corporatocracy.
 
2014-06-07 09:18:16 PM  

acohn: Mrbogey: acohn: or whom do you plan on voting?

Who do we got?

Realistically, what we got is a figurehead, no matter who runs.  This country's now a corporatocracy.


Here's who I am voting for:
c1.staticflickr.com
She's patriotic, and I like her stance on shipping.
 
2014-06-08 06:13:25 AM  

Snarfangel: acohn: Mrbogey: acohn: or whom do you plan on voting?

Who do we got?

Realistically, what we got is a figurehead, no matter who runs.  This country's now a corporatocracy.

Here's who I am voting for:

She's patriotic, and I like her stance on shipping.


She looks fat.
 
Displayed 84 of 84 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report