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 14
    More: Obvious, Bill Clinton, memoirs, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, China Seas, Leon Panetta  
•       •       •

598 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jun 2014 at 9:11 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-06-06 11:05:49 PM
4 votes:

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 10:18:39 PM
3 votes:
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 07:42:57 PM
3 votes:
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....
2014-06-07 12:03:16 AM
2 votes:
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 12:13:09 AM
1 votes:

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.
2014-06-06 11:10:04 PM
1 votes:

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 10:59:54 PM
1 votes:
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 10:38:22 PM
1 votes:

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 10:24:27 PM
1 votes:
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 10:00:36 PM
1 votes:

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 09:42:02 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2014-06-06 09:23:57 PM
1 votes:
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 09:18:38 PM
1 votes:

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


Berghazillary.
2014-06-06 09:03:17 PM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 14 of 14 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report