And is there anyone else besides Donald Trump who Hillary could beat? How did that happen?
I say we elect her then make her life miserable. Let Liz Warren set the agenda for Democrats and watch the steam come out of Hillary’s ears.
Oh, and a fork between the eyes to anyone who after the election says the voters gave Hillary a mandate. No, the voters will give Trump a mandate and send him to loser land. Then do the same to Hillary in four years.
All those corporations, power players, and foreign states whose interests are influenced by the state department giving big money to the Clinton Foundation (the Clinton family’s cash cow); ugly.
Now compare this with the feds making Bob DeLeo an unindicted co-conspiritor because he wrote a few recommendation letters for people hoping to land a job with a state agency. I think he recommended 16 people for jobs and 5 of them were hired. Hmmm, I always thought the speaker could get anyone a job anywhere. I mean that’s what the Globe has always told us. And now we see he’s five for 16 at one agency. Although the Globe has no clue how things work on Beacon Hill it likes to pretend it does.
And btw Kane is still a piece of shit in my eyes. Mr. Progressive. Mr. Morality. Mr. Catholic. Yeah right. More like Mr. sackless pussie who put himself before his principles. You know, the ones he wears on his sleeves. Yet Mr. Morality has no problem executing every prisoner whose death sentence was carried out during his term.
Then he tells us he believed the law of the land should be upheld and honored. Hey asshole, the law of the land includes powers giving the governor the ability to stop any execution without reason. You suck Tim Kane. You really really really suck.
New York Blog seeking angry, entitled white male to portray Donald Trump Jr Jr.
Applicant must be white and male (two Y chromosomes a plus), exist in a permanent state of paranoia and rage, with a distinct, easily discerned animus to all things female. Preference will be given to candidates with experience hiding behind ridiculous pseudonym.
Payment variable, and likely in Russian Rubles, but applicant will be allowed to post all the hate filled bile they can muster and may have unpaid intern to help encode the more overtly racist and sexist statements until the meds kick in.
The successful applicant will also be allowed whip the Mexican help when necessary.
Applications for the position may be had by taking a long walk on a short pier.
I find this comment stupid and useless. The contributor apparently believes that electing Ms. Clinton and “then [making] her life miserable” will somehow help. All I see in this post is unshackled misogyny — together with yet more whining about the correct prosecution and conviction of corrupt Massachusetts officials.
I predict that President Hillary Clinton and Senator Elizabeth Warren will together set the economic agenda for the federal government, and push that agenda through a Democratic House and Senate.
I predict that Robert DeLeo will join Donald Trump in the dustbin of history’s losers.
If eb3 is still with us when the 2020 campaign season begins, I’m sure we’ll be treated to more contributions like this. I’m confident that those contributions will be ignored then just as this one is best ignored now.
I predict that Ms. Clinton will be re-elected to a second term, so that she can finish the work she will begin in her first term.
…if her first term is finishing the work of her husband’s, there will be no second term, at least if I have anything to say about it. If, however, she “becomes her own woman”, escapes the shadow of her spouse, and pursues an actual progressive agenda, one that FDR and Senator Warren would admire, then her second term will be won with an even greater landslide than her first.
…they start talking about the 2020 presidential election before Election Day 2016.
And the continued corruption and small minded conservatism of this Speakership.
Make no mistake. The biggest obstacle to progressive governance in Washington is the Republican Congress and voter base, not the supposed centrism of the Democratic nominee. Make no mistake locally, the biggest obstacle to progressive governance in Massachusetts is not Charles Duane Baker, but Speaker Robert DeLeo. Memorize these facts, too many on this blog seem to forget legislators make laws, not the executive.
I think a lot of people will see her as vulnerable to a primary, though, so here’s hoping she governs in concert with the left, as opposed to in opposition.
She loses if she runs as a centrist. She needs the base fired up to defend a potential House majority or Senate majority in a difficult 2018 terrain. There are no blue dogs left to mess with passing real progressive legislation, it’s either get the power and do the job, or waste the power and get thrown out. That is the choice the Democrats will have if they regain a governing majority. She is aware of this, whether out of long held principle or pragmatism, she will have to govern to the left or lose.
As usual I would put it differently than Ernie does, but there’s no denying her deep unpopularity among Democrats.
She will not “govern from the left.” She will do a few things that please the left, but most of her admin will be firmly centrist. If Bill’s presidency is any guide, they will tell us they have to do that to “take issues away from the Republicans.”
But, does that mean a primary challenge? I really doubt it.
there is a trust issue among many. The election hasn’t happened so there is not winner yet, but if Clinton is elected in the back of some minds is if she cuts a deal with the R’s or does she fight on issues. So far, she had not moved to the center, but at the same time she hasn’t needed to. Except possibly at the first debate, that’s when it could have happened and it didn’t. From this point on though, it’s all TMZ crap until election day.
…”her deep unpopularity among Democrats”? She did after all get the party’s nomination and IIRC would have won it by bigger margins in many states if only registered Dems could vote. I also heard just today that the percentage of Dems who plan to vote for her is in the high 80s (comparable to Republicans for Trump, FWIW). She also routinely tops lists of most admired women. Her supposed unpopularity, unlikability, and untrustworthiness have always been more memes than reality it seems.
The polls showing she’s the most admired women were after her tenure as Secretary of State and before she ran for president. 55% of Americans disapprove of her, which would be fatal in November if 10% more of them didn’t disapprove of Trump more. She was polling 55/45 among Democrats throughout the primary which mirrors her popular vote totals compared to Sanders. A 30 year Democratic stalwart, endorsed by 95% of elected officials in Washington, every incumbent Governor, the spouse of the most popular former President and successor to the popular Democratic incumbent should’ve had a cakewalk. She didn’t.
And it was due to lingering anger over the war, her continued hawkishness even out of office (read the Jeffrey Goodberg interview where she attacks Obama from the right), and a general mistrust shared by folks like Elizabeth Warren who criticized her record in the Senate and didn’t endorse her until Sanders was dispatched. Those are the reasons Bernie ran and needed to run!
To keep her honest, keep her progressive, and reignite our base. She will have won in November due to the efforts of him and Warren to campaign on her behalf. He gave a barn burner of a speech in Colorado for her yesterday and she needs the lift there since Johnson and Stein were comfortable in double digits ahead of the first debate and could still tempt voters now.
Against any competent or credible Republican, maybe even Mike Pence, she would likely be losing or in a dead heat. Don’t forget this! And it’s important progressives hold her feet to the fire after she wins, and all of us have that responsibility. But we have a first responsibility of making sure she wins first!
I strongly disagree with your final paragraph.
I think Ms. Clinton chose her campaign strategy based on her opponent. If her opponent had been different, her strategy would have been different.
I find the repetition of this meme discouraging and unhelpful. Ms. Clinton has been a strong fighter for progressive causes her entire life. She has also been a pragmatist, particularly after she recognized the role she played in her husband’s loss after one term as AK governor.
The Hillary Clinton I see welcomes the opportunity to work with Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and all progressives to advance a progressive agenda. In my view, any voter who examines the record and proposals of Mr. Johnson or Ms. Stein and still chooses either over Ms. Clinton is either ignoring reality and facts or does not share my progressive values.
Hillary Clinton is far and away the most progressive candidate in this race. If elected, she will advance a far more progressive agenda than Barack Obama. Our job is to give Ms. Clinton a Democratic majority — of REAL, not blue-dog, Democrats — in the Senate and House so that we can make her progressive agenda real and concrete. We must ensure that her nominees to the Supreme Court are approved quickly and expeditiously.
In my view, your comment repeats attacks that have more basis in media talking heads than reality. In particular, the attacks on the Clinton Foundation and on her alleged “trust issues” are manufactured by network owners who seek advertising revenue by inflating any and every controversy.
There is no “there” there.
I actually made your argument in my comment you replied to, the comment below in reply to JimC, and repeatedly throughout this primary:
She fucked us on Iraq and Bankruptcy Reform, and progressive voters wanted a real choice in the primary and an alternative. He ran a stronger race than he should’ve because of her weaknesses on these issues and other issues. But, she still won. Of course electing her ensures this progress can continue, I am not advocating and have NEVER advocated another course this election. Don’t lump me in with Stein and Johnson, I have repeatedly argued against them.
I cited this below and wholly agree. No disagreement here.
I literally said all of these things in my reply to JimC. You should read it. She will be forced to govern as a progressive in order to govern as a pragmatist since that’s where her coalition wants her to go. If she governs as a centrist she will lose the midterms, lose re-election, and deservedly so.
Or rather, these people can.
I think there is a wealth of evidence that Clinton had to move to the center to regain his presidency after the midterms, which had the psychological effect of wiping out nearly a half century of Democratic control in the House. The ideological makeup of the Democratic Party was also substantially more diverse when he governed and even during Obamas first term. There just aren’t any conservatives or even that many centrists left. Just as there are no more moderate Republicans.
If Clinton can carry in a Senate majority and even better, a House majority, to will be far more ideologically cohesive and progressive than the last time both branches were under Democratic control. And the court would have a liberal majority for the first time since the Warren years, which is probably the most under appreciated consequence of this election and the main reason conservatives are sticking with Trump.
Hillary is privately more conservative than BMG on economics and foreign policy, but her coalition will force her to govern from the left and she will have to inspire the progressive base to vote in 2018 to keep it in office. She’s smart enough to know this, and even if her own policy instincts are centrist, she will want to get things done. I don’t buy the secret liberal theory some on the left have, but I also don’t buy that she would jeopardize her presidency just to spite the left either.
I would be pretty shocked if the coalition pushed her left, but it would be a pleasant shock.
Governing from the left defies her history. The Clintons have always operated with an eye toward the center, and with the knowledge that the left has nowhere else to go. Granted the discussion on some issues has moved left, but economics has not, and the Global War on Terror has not.
I would love to be wrong about this …
You write “Hillary is privately more conservative than BMG on economics and foreign policy”.
How do you know this? Have you been privy to any private conversations with Ms. Clinton or any of her family members? Your comment treads perilously close to reinforcing the “crooked Hilary” meme and I wish you’d stop or even walk it back.
I see the same information as you and I come to a very different characterization of Ms. Clinton than you. I don’t think either of us can claim anything at all about her private beliefs.
My argument, since it seems hard to follow, is that Hillary is at her core a pragmatist who wants to ‘get things done’ and those things tend to be center-left policy priorities, especially on domestic and social issues.
Since she is a pragmatist, she will move further left than her Senate and First Lady record, and the record of her husband, because the party that nominated and elected her moved to the left. Along with the broader electorate.
So no Jim C, I think you are wrong that she will govern like a DLCer, since that wing of the party is dead and never coming back, and her survival depends on the Warren/Sanders coalition coming out to vote for her now and to vote downballot in 2018. Clearly being ‘not a Republican’ wasn’t enough even against Trump, since she has had to continue moving left in the general to recover lost votes to Stein and Johnson. Hence why Bernie gave a barn burner yesterday asserting her election was part of his revolution. In many ways, it actually is. She is held captive to this wing as much as Paul Ryan is to his base.
As for Tom, no sorry, I won’t argue with you about the 1990s or early 2000s since they aren’t relevant now, but Dean, Wellstone and Reich were progressive leaders during that era, not the Clintons. They were the DLC wing. They were the liberal hawk wing. They were the party of Wall Street wing. We can’t rewrite that, but, they want power and power flows through the Warren/Sanders wing now. They are smart enough to know what the Bushes weren’t, that the base is the new establishment. In both parties.
Again, I would love to believe this. But I don’t, yet.
My disagreement was with your specific choice of wording that I quoted above. It seems to me that you were making an assertion about her private state of mind — with an insinuation or implication that she is hypocritical that ultimately shows itself in the “crooked Hillary” meme. It is that implication and/or insinuation that motivates me to respond.
I believe that Ms. Clinton’s values and priorities are progressive. I believe that she is also pragmatic. I note that none of Mr. Dean, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Reich became president (or first lady). In my view, Mr. Dean’s unsuccessful primary run demonstrates the difference between Mr. Dean and Ms. Clinton. I believe each is progressive. I believe that Ms. Clinton is more willing to make occasional compromises, and I suggest that the success of she and her husband demonstrate the effectiveness of that pragmatism.
I want to resist the temptation to separate ourselves into various wings. In my view, one of Ms. Clinton’s strengths is her eagerness to address each issue as it comes up based on its merits. I think her private core values form a context for this and a lens through which she views each issue. I suggest that another lens that she also uses is her pragmatic sense of what is and is not possible now and in the future.
Let me use the cardboard glasses of 3-D movies as a metaphor for how both lenses combine to transform just another movie into something dramatically compelling. In my view, Hillary Clinton (like her husband before her) is a master at combining both progressive idealism and realistic pragmatism into a coherent “3-D” whole. This unique approach is a reason why I support her. I suggest it is also a reason why media pundits and political opponents despise her.
I suggest that a key motivation for that hostility from political opponents is that her “3-D” approach makes her incredibly effective.
Finally, I want to say yet again that Ms. Clinton chose to focus on temperament as a key aspect of her campaign. As the campaign spirals out of control, that focus strikes me as increasingly prescient. She does have the temperament to be president, and Donald Trump does not. A person with the temperament to be president does not rage against virtually the entire world and challenge the legitimacy of the electoral system itself when he or she shoots themselves in the foot.
Al Gore conceded graciously, even though the 2000 election actually was stolen from him, because Al Gore has the temperament to be president. Hillary Clinton will surely do the same if it comes to that, and she demonstrated that in 2008.
Hillary Clinton presents the positive case for why only she has the temperament to be president through her behavior and utterances each and every day.
beginning on the first Wednesday of November, and it will work sort of like the “oppose Obama on everything” did in 2009. Who is she to change the character of the USSC?! She only won on a fluke anyway.
I’m already tired of this argument.
we ain’t seen nothin yet.
n/t