I am not keen on Hilary Clinton, and Pollitt recognizes that in her peers.
My women college classmates (Radcliffe ‘71) aren’t so excited about Hillary Clinton. An e-mail to our New York City potluck group elicited distinctly modified rapture. They’re bothered by her high-priced speeches and the aura of favor-trading and favor-banking around the Clinton Foundation. They don’t like her Wall Street connections, and they don’t like Bill (a k a the “ick” factor). Plus, she’s not progressive enough. “It’s all so old and tired,” wrote one; “she’s been running forever.” “I’m definitely excited about the prospect of a woman,” another chimed in. “I am weary, not excited, about her in particular, and find it sad that she’s our best hope.” I should mention that these women are demographically much like Hillary (Wellesley ‘69) herself: prosperous, white, highly educated, sixtysomething feminists and professional women. You would think these women, of all people, would be jumping for joy at the prospect of someone so like themselves winning the White House.
Some of us guys, like me (University of Washington, 1979) feel the same way about Clinton. That’s a really good summary of why I’m unenthused.
Then she gives three reasons we should be enthused.
First, I’m excited about beating the Republicans, and she’s the best candidate for that job.
OK, that is a big consideration. The Democrats are lackluster, but the Republicans have evolved into a great force for evil and ignorance, and must be crushed.
Second, Hillary will be the first woman president—and that is important. At this point in world history, it is embarrassing how backward the United States is.
What about Carly Fiorina? Oh, point taken. We should elect a woman who is not a joke.
Third, Hillary is a feminist and is running as one—as she made clear in an April speech: “It is hard to believe that in 2015, so many women still pay a price for being mothers. It is also hard to believe that so many women are also paid less than men for the same work, with even wider gaps for women of color. And if you don’t believe what I say, look to the World Economic Forum, hardly a hotbed of feminist thought. Their rankings show that the United States is 65th out of 142 nations and other territories on equal pay.” She might not have the language of intersectionality down pat, but on a range of issues that matter to women—reproductive rights, healthcare, childcare, pay equity—she will move the ball forward.
Intersectionality is damned important, but given that there aren’t even any close competitors on feminist issues, I guess Clinton wins.
So it’s a good summary of why I’ll punch a ballot for Hilary Clinton when the time comes, but I’m still not excited.
I’m with you come November 2016. However, my primary vote will be for Bernie Sanders, and I will be excited.
Most likely she will the the only viable Democratic candidate when primaries start next year. However, until then, I’m going to be giving money to Bernie Sanders’ campaign every couple of months to help pull Clinton more to the left.
It always astounds me how far right the country has drifted since 1980. The republican noise machine works the refs and gets histrionic about every issue, and it continues to work well for them.
Why not vote Sanders?
I recall Barney Frank’s suggestion for a bumper sticker: “Vote Democratic: we’re not perfect, but they’re crazy.” And that’s why I’ll be voting for Clinton.
But, as stevendorst @1 states, in the general only. I think Bernie will push Clinton to the left, give her permission to articulate his more-progressive ideas. Especially when she sees that they are popular with the base (and the middle, for that matter).
The description “hotbed of x thought” is usually applied when describing something extreme or undesirable. Isn’t it frustrating when a woman running for office in 21st century America can’t speak openly of feminism without qualifying it in this way?
It says something when you have to start practising holding your breath three weeks before voting.
Alternatively, Bernie Sanders, the actually fairly sensible choice.
Though I must say I was heartened by her push for voting rights, universal registration, etc.
“Remember 2000.”
That version of Al Gore was the same sort of lame, DNC-style centrist. A lot of people, myself included, didn’t think the stakes were that high (voted for Nader in an always red state), and that the differences between the candidates were minor. Boy, were we wrong.
Lesser evil is good because there’s less evil.
Can we send you Boris Johnson please, He has dual nationality, is over 35 and as a british conservative well to the left of most of your politicians.
I’d love it if Bernie Sanders was a viable candidate. Since he’s not, I’ll hold my nose and vote for Clinton.
I’ll vote in the primary for the democrat that closest approaches my political philosophy. Come the general election, the democratic candidate will get my vote, even if I have to hold my nose to vote.
AndrewD @10: No:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-435875/Camerons-cronies-Bullingdon-class-87.html
I’ll add my “humble” vote for Sanders. At first, I dismissed him as “too old, backward, out of touch, etc”. But a single news story made me change my mind. He told WolfBlitz that he would do something to make all college free for all, by making a small, tiny, change to the tax code. “Wha?” said Blitz. Add a tiny percentage tax to stock trades. (kaboom). “Wha!?”, Blitz again.
Sorry for the attempted derail into Sanders proposed tax mod that qualifies for endless debate and rejection by Wall Street biggies (lookin at Trump, who will exemplify his name, as the ultimate trump card [double pun]) …. yada yada yada.
Sanders, seems like a rational person who will confront issues in a rational, less emotional, less fearmongering way, than any of the alternatives. Hillary would be an awesome kickback [pun] at our inbred misogyny, but Sanders could give her good “run for the money” [no pun intended]. Rerailing: Hillary is not aweful, maybe not ideal, but more than adequate. Somewhere between: “okay if so”, and “superb”. So like previous contributors have said, I’ll likely vote for Sanders in the Primary, then Hilary in the final. I trust she’ll learn from being challenged by Sanders.
I’ll look at the Hillary Clinton line while I punch, or draw the line, for Bernie Sanders.
Shes like a old leather jacket you paid to much for and cant get rid of due to cost, It fits nice here and there due to ware but it comes with the memory you don’t like to wear leather anymore. Bernie has my vote so far.
john@16:
that mention of leather jacket triggered me to relate my experience of leather jacketness. The cost, once acquired, is completely irrelevant, but once acquired becomes indispensable. Ware[sic], only makes one better, scratches etc only ADD to the character of the jacket. And the leather will adapt itself to one’s body. Most fabrics demand the reverse, that the body adapt to the shape of the garment. And that leather seems to work regardless of the weather: in cold weather, it is warm; in hot weather, it is bearable. (ie leather is a “breathable” material)
The point of this rant is that comparing Hilary to a leather jacket is apt. She appears adaptable, accommodating, flexible, That flaws enhance rather than detract, etc. etc.
I’d rather have Bernie, too. I’ll be voting for him in the Minnesota caucus, and if by some miracle he gets to the November election, I’ll enthusiastically vote for him even if Clinton is also on the ballot.
But if he doesn’t make it, I’ll vote for Clinton over any of the jokers in the Republican clown car.
Why are people so reluctant about Sanders? Look at what he’s accomplished already, without being affiliated with either major political party. Look at who he’s beaten in elections to get to where he is. His position on so many issues are much more closely aligned with how many US citizens feel than any of the other candidates. Not just one or two issues, like gun control or abortion or decriminalization of cannabis, but a very vast and diverse set of issues.
I’m excited about Bernie Sanders in a way that I haven’t been about any national level candidate in my entire adult life. And it boggles my mind that so many people who say they would much prefer him over anyone else currently running are already talking or acting like like he’s been defeated well before the first primary has happened. The dude has a shot. How about vote for him in the primary and then see who ends up on the ballot for the general, rather than talk about some other candidate as inevitable? We’ve certainly seen over the years that the assumed inevitable candidates don’t always win the primary.
What happens if he doesn’t get the democratic nomination? Then talk of a third party effort often starts, and if that really happens, or you don’t vote out of spite, the rethug candidate will be a shoo-in. We are staying realistic at the total picture.
I gave a non-trivial donation to both the O’Malley and Saunders campaigns last week. I may do some volunteer work for Saunders in my state. My hope is for a more lively Democratic contest, with more ink for all three resulting in better exposure of liberal ideas generally, while the Republican Clown Car drives ever further into the weeds. The absolute best outcome would be for the general ennui around a Hillary candidacy to become obvious and then — possibly aided by the Repubs managing to come up with some really effective swift-boating of Hillary — for either Saunders or O’Malley to gain the nomination.
Stop repeating the corporate media lie that Bernie is a fringe candidate that can’t win. 90% of the progressives I know or have talked to prefer Bernie. Over half the people in national polls agree with him on most issues. Yet there is still this mentality that somehow Clinton will get the nomination. If all of us go vote for Bernie in the primaries, he will win.
That is how it works. And seriously, even if Clinton does win the primary, who else has any chance of being her running mate? That’s not how I’d want it to play out of course, but writing him off when he’s already at least prime VP material looks pretty stupid to me.
I’m not so sure that Clinton would be better than Bernie Sanders at winning the general election. Sanders has is a true progressive, and has proven that many times over. He will probably lose some voters in the middle, but he’ll also be far better than Clinton at getting the Democratic base enthusiastic about voting.
I have no way of knowing the overall effect of these two things. But I don’t think things are really that much in her favor. I’d still vote for Clinton, and would be far happier to have her than any Republican (Supreme Court being the #1 most important concern there). But I would be enthusiastic about Sanders in a way I don’t think I’ve ever been about a presidential candidate.
Seconded. We’d love to be rid of him (well he’s a right-winger by our standards, and an appallingly posh git besides – frightful chap), but on the plus side he’s intelligent and not an anti-science lunatic. And you might find his accent amusing. Win-win?
opposablethumbs@25: Look, an American may have bought the London Bridge, but trying to foist Boris on us is a con too far. He’s actually dangerous (as I suspect you are well aware). He wittily brushed aside the photo I linked to @13 as youthful folly, and I suspect he’d charm the pants off 99% of the right wing, 95% of the national media, and an adequate extra 3% or so of the electorate (compared with Romney) to give himself a workable majority with, say, 30% of the eligible voters. (Reagan stormed into office with 27.3% of eligible voters, and was re-elected with 31.2%.) Bury Boris in London! Garlic and silver daggers optional but recommended.
Katha Pollitt:
The most important factors in any Democrat winning a presidential election are public perception of economic performance, and voter turnout.
The former will be based on perceptions of G.W. Bush and Obama, and will work about the same for any Democrat.
But the latter will depend to a large degree on the anti-voting “both parties are the same” propaganda. And when it comes to economics and foriegn policy, Hillary really is a lot like the Republicans, and the people who want to discourage voting are very experienced in combing Hillary’s past performance with a little exaggeration, and total denial of issues like abortion, to support their “both parties are the same” narrative.
The primary reason Obama got such awesome turnout in 2008 was that people believed (despite almost everything he said in his campaigns that wasn’t about the invasion of Iraq) that Obama was not like Hillary or other conservative Democrats. One reason Obama’s 2012 turnout was not as good is because fewer people believed that.
People do not want to go to the polls to support yet another conservative Democrat, and Hillary is the star example of that, and it won’t be difficult at all for the anti-voting contingent to talk people out of making the necessary effort.
In contrast, Bernie has a long record of being relatively socialist, and consistently opposing conservative Democrats on all the issues that make Hillary a lot like the Republicans.
Hillary, after many years of denial, finally understands this, and she’s working as hard as she can to emulate Bernie’s positions. But her past behavior is filled with examples in which she supported policy directly the opposite of those positions, so it won’t be difficult to undermine that narrative.
Bernie is not likely to win the primaries. But if he does win the primaries, he will get far better voter turnout than Hillary.
The rest of Katha Pollitt’s article is good.
funny thing about how I think about politics now days. I hadn’t noticed until I started reading this thread.
I have voted democratic for a long time and I remember approving of the moderate stance of Clinton on many issues. I even not being so negative to the use of force internationally if used with care with the clear goal of democratic rule and human rights.
As history has developed even the moderate position has proved a failure to really promote those ideals in practice. I am gratefully being lead further leftward. I always agreed with the ideals of the left but thought that they could be accomplished through a moderates. Alas that has not proven the case while we may have slowed our descent toward the middle ages we are still going the wrong direction.
I am becoming less accommodating toward the center.
If not now when?
I would sooner vote for Jon Stewart than a moderate.
uncle frogy
Nerd of Redhead:
Bernie has already stated he will not be spoiler. At this point, there’s no reason to believe he’ll support a third party effort, or a “don’t vote” effort.
unclefrogy @28: Jon Stewart IS a moderate. Really. I like him, but he’s no leftist.
llewelly @27: Bernie really is something of a leftist, and he would increase turnout among the few self-identified leftists in this country, but they would be outnumbered by the lack of turnout from the centrists who might have voted Dem. I wish that wasn’t true, and I hope that Bernie’s run will start a conversation that might lead to a genuine charismatic leftist (of whom I see no sign) having a decent shot in the future. Till then, alas and with best wishes, dream on, comrade.
well if the conventional wisdom is correct (has it ever been correct?) that we will have to chose between a lying reactionary spokes-suit for the rich and powerful and a “moderate center- left feminist” It might be better for the long haul if the radical right-wing came to rule again. I am aware how bad it could get having seen it before I saw what Reagun started in California before he went to Washington.
It is a pity that it takes a real calamity to begin to move the majority of the people to pay attention for a while.
It took “The Great Depression” to get many social programs passed into law and as we have seen so far the “little bump ” we experienced did not make a great impression of the direction of politics a little token changes but nothing substantial. The calamity of “Bushes folly” has had a similar impact of public sentiment. The list is long and I will not try a even attempt a full list.
I fully expect it to get far worse before we finally change direction if we ever manage to before it is too late for society as we know it.
I will do my best to help slow things down, I will vote for the lessor of two evils though it might be better the other way in the long run.
kind of a dark sunday!
uncle frogy
Jon Stewart, I’d characterize as a “Realist”. The Right is so mockable that they are often a target. Not that he hates them, he just points out how they often “shoot themselves in the foot” (so to speak). He’ll often jab at the mistakes the Liberals make, shooting themselves in the foot. The proprtionality of, usually mocking the Right while less frequently mocking the Left, is just representative of how the Right and Left behave.
to be brief (too late), sign me up. also, for Stewart support IFF he was running. Stewart is not a possible choice, but imagination is a wonderful thing. ;-) Sanders is currently the preferred choice among all the possible contenders. Hilary is _acceptable_, just not preferred.
Eh, petesh, you may be right.
Damn.
(hmm … I wonder if a USAnian Boris would run as a Democrat or a Rethuglican, though? People often say that our Tories are not a million miles away from your Dems, but I don’t have much of a grasp of how they measure up)
Guess we’ll just have to try and provide our own garlic in sufficient quantities :-\
… Republicans have evolved into a great force for evil and ignorance, and must be crushed.
Which, translated into Clintonspeak, comes out “… must be cushioned, coddled, and accommodated.”
Bush/Cheney prosecuted and convicted three major financial malefactors. Obama/Biden did the same, only three fewer. The former senator from Wal-Mart/Street will probably put three major white-collar criminals in the three foremost financial regulatory agencies (Federal Reserve, Treasury Dept, SEC) – and then do the same with the next three such positions, and then ditto with next twenty-seven.
But she’s still likely to be a better choice than any (pardon the foul language) Republican.
I have no idea why people have decided that Hillary is more electable because she’s more center. The only time democrats lose is when they tilt center and people get cynical and don’t vote. When people actually get excited to vote (like Obama 2008), Democrats win and win big. All Americans are bored and weary of all the corruption and politician bullshit.
Hillary is a terrible candidate for this very reason. Her on the ballot convinces people that they’re vote doesn’t matter and so they don’t vote (could you imagine if it’s literally Bush vs Clinton?). If anything I think she’s the only one that could possibly lose.
O’Malley and Sanders are both more electable imo because they are actually progressive.
Ah, the Leninist doctrine of the “heightening of the contradictions”.
The problem with “it needs to get worse before it can get better” is that there’s no bottom to how bad it can get.
unfortunately David Is correct there is no bottom of how bad it can get.
The question is how bad does it have to get before an active majority decide that we have to do things differently?
Clearly worse than it is today . I would wish it were otherwise but it looks that way to me. I am willing to be convinced I am wrong how ever.
On the other hand sometimes big changes take us by surprise.
uncle frogy
Republicans: Try to win by telling everyone the Democrats are a front for the KGB.
Democrats: Try to win by telling people who will already vote for Democrats that appealing to those who think the truth is somewhere betwen “Democrats are a front for the KGB” and “Democrats are the lesser evil”.
It worked great in 2000 … oh wait it didn’t, we’ll blame a nobody who got 5.7% as many votes as Gore, and deny the reality that Gore had a good environmental record he could have used to appeal to those Nader voters, but he said almost nothing about it, because he believed the triangulators. And since there was a indepent vote-swapping program that convinced a lot of greens in Florida and Ohio to swap votes with Democrats in red states, until both Gore and Nader foolishly attacked it, we know that at least some Greens were willing to consider Gore. And Gore seems to have won the most reliable counts anyway, but it’s still all Nader’s fault, because otherwise we’ll all be required to admit the great Democratic strategists have been living a lie for 15 years.
It worked great in 2002 … oh wait, Democrats lost again!
It worked great in 2004 … oh wait, Democrats lost again!
It worked great in 2006 … oh wait, Democrats actually ran mostly on “Republicans fucked up the invasion of Iraq”
It worked great in 2008 … oh wait, Obama said it was time for Change.
Now if you look at Hillary’s recent rhetoric – it’s all about adopting what Bernie has been advocating for years. All the appeal to the center yabble the last 20 years of her career into has been thrown out the window.
Even Hillary no longer believes in the yabble of triangulators, despite the fact that it ought to be difficult to overcome 20 years of sunk cost fallacy.
It’s time to admit appealing to the center has been helping Republicans win for 15 years.
#28 unclefrogy
I even not being so negative to the use of force internationally if used with care with the clear goal of democratic rule and human rights.
That doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense.
___
#31 unclefrogy
well if the conventional wisdom is correct (has it ever been correct?) that we will have to chose between a lying reactionary spokes-suit for the rich and powerful and a “moderate center- left feminist” It might be better for the long haul if the radical right-wing came to rule again
And that makes even less sense.
Holms,
I am sorry let me try to say that clearer.
I even went along with the use of force like in Afghanistan with the goal of promoting democracy and human rights alas that is not how that has turned out It still is a big fucking mess and the expense is contributing much to our own internal problems. I am no longer so easily convinced these adventures will deliver as promised.
well we will get to vote for either a right-wing republican or a “centrist” democrat or as has been said the lessor of two evils It might be better to vote for the more evil in the long run.
as for conventional wisdom well it sure looks to me that it is not something that should be heavily relied on to see things accurately.
uncle frogy
llewelly @38: You say so much better than I could what I’ve thought all along. Every time I hear someone on the radio or online utter the ‘accepted wisdom’ that candidates need to reach out to the center, I ask — sometimes out loud, I’m so frustrated with it — ‘What center? It’s mostly gone; and who cares what that tiny, confused group wants?’ It is accepted, seemingly by just about everyone in the leadership of the Democratic party, but it’s baloney. The Republicans don’t reach for the center, and they’ve taken over many of the States as well as the Congress. The only reason they have not won the Presidency lately is because they’re whacko, and enough voters — so far — know it.
What is the difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party?
One is a conservative party, the other a conservative party disguised has a progressive party.
All this controv about how Right-leaning the Dems really are, leads me to the following conjecture:
This is all a result of the Overton Window effect. I.E. The Repubus have pushed the window of “Central” so far to the Right, that the Dems think that as long as they are to the Left of that Window then they’re GOOD. The thing is, that window is so far to the Right, that just being to the Left of it is still what would have been considered Right, not long ago. In conclusion, voting for the Dems, even though they are not as Left as desired, will slowly drag that window back into a more Central location.
FWIW
I am registered unaffiliated and consider myself centrist. Well I considered myself centrist before the vast push of the Overton Window. I will vote for Hillary this year if she is the resulting Democratic candidate. She is nearly as beholding to Wall Street as the ReThugs, but she isn’t crazy or outright evil. Every single ReThug that appears to have a chance is, in the colloquial sense.
However, I am much, much more excited for Bernie Sanders. I actually believe he is not in the pocket of Wall Street and billionaires. He is the most authentic candidate I have seen in years. He has valid ideas and the knowledge to back them up in debates or with the media.
So don’t tell me he can’t win the General Election. He will energize the Democratic base, and sway a lot of us independents. The only thing he lacks is the vast resources (e.g. super PACs) to pummel our airwaves with stupid commercials that most of us ignore or resent.
Yes, IOWA may go 60% Clinton and 25% Sanders. But when he hits NH with say 47% to her 51%, it may be very difficult for Clinton to keep her ship from capsizing. If I am being too optimistic, he will still pull her and the Overton Window in the right direction.
Granted, I vote in every general election, so perhaps my excitement won’t translate to millions of other independents getting off their sofas on Nov 8, 2016. I may not have a handle on the malaise of independents. But I choose to think otherwise.
Sanders/Clinton 2016!
Darn. I had not noticed that I somehow capitalized all of Iowa. My mistake.
See, I’m not so enthused about Sanders. I’d vote for him in the general election, but he doesn’t actually strike me as someone’s who’s great on women’s rights. Like, he has the right voting record and when it comes down to it, I care about that way more. But he doesn’t do very well at the symbolic acts at all.
And the “well we will get to vote for either a right-wing republican or a “centrist” democrat or as has been said the lessor of two evils It might be better to vote for the more evil in the long run.” is nonsense. It’s not you who’s going to have the worst of living through the short run. People still haven’t recovered from Bush’s fuck-ups, and quite possibly may never recover. Not to mention, there is no evidence that voting for evil in the short run will result in less evil in the long run.
The thing that we have when it comes to bad foreign policy decisions is the idea that we may not be able to fix them at all. If we go in, we may not win. If we stay home, we may n not win. We need a better solution.