Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her

[trish]

In 2008 I voted for Obama in the primaries, principally because Hillary was such a polarizing figure. In spite of the fact that Hillary had more experience, Obama was equally liberal and seemed more electable. Little did I know at the time just how polarizing - no traumatizing - a black president would be. I aways knew the shit that was thrown at Hillary from the beginning was just the ‘malarkey’ that was continuously churned out by conservative radio, Fox News, Frank Luntz and other sexist, Republican strategists. They went off the rails back in the 90’s already when they accused her of murder.

Hillary is, of course, still a polarizing figure, but I favored her over Bernie. I would’ve have voted for Bernie in the presidential election had he been our candidate, but I would’ve been much more pessimistic about winning. Even now, Bernie is like an iceberg - most of what the Republicans would have used against him is still hidden from view. Like Trump, Bernie never released his tax papers. The Clinton campaign went very easy on him, considering. Hillary has ten times as many accomplishments, is ten times more pragmatic and is not the one-note charlie that Bernie is.

I chose Obama in the presidential campaign over McCain and Palin not because he had more experience than McCain (he obviously didn’t) but because I favored Obama’s proposed policies over McCain’s.

I’m voting for Hillary in the upcoming presidential election because, duh.

[fred41]

I ask not because I'm trying to corner you... I'm asking because of the way you endorsed her.
Bottom line - You voted for Obama over her when even back then she had a better track record. She had way more experience than he did.
Why did I ask?
Charisma is everything when it comes to a presidential candidate.
It's the rockstar quality you can't quite put a name to...but you know it when you see it.
Kennedy had it...Reagan had it ...
Barack Obama has it...hell, his whole family has it...Michelle has it.
It isn't a requirement though, and that's why I'm bringing it up...because Hillary doesn't have it. She's awful when it comes to doing the big smile, thumbs up look. I hate her when she does that...it's awful. it's incredibly unnatural.
Her best interviews, in my opinion, are the very rare ones (because she does so few) where she just speaks about policy...no smiles...no shouting...just conversational and matter of fact.
She's very good when she does those. Almost wonkish...but in a good way.
I hate the Hillary that the campaign pushes on people.
But I almost like the real Hillary we don't often get to see because that's not how campaigns work.
Hell, I wish she would never smile.
If you're a cranky bitch...be a cranky bitch...be the best damn cranky bitch you can be.
She was a blatant carpetbagger when she became a New York senator. But she was an excellent senator for us once she was in.
She's very good at what she does. maybe she's not all that likable ...I don't know. ....and she is very polarizing - that is true.
But at this moment in time we need someone we can rely on to actually do the work and understand it.
I don't care if that person is likable.
She damn sure knows what she's doing and she's good at it.

For a while IRL I was pushing Gary Johnson to acquaintances that usually voted Republican but were obviously uncomfortable with Trump. Johnson is actually a much, much better, and more palatable Libertarian than the Pauls. He doesn't come across as a hater in any way or form like they are.
...and i figured he was a good vote since my state of New York will vote Hillary anyway.
but I can't rely on that anymore.
and there's no reason not to vote for her anyway...- she (and her husband) are moderates. She broadcast that when she picked Tim Kaine for vice president. It was like saying "look... I have to move further left to appease the Sanders voters, but that will change once I get elected"...otherwise she would have picked someone like Elizabeth Warren.
She's "establishment"...and that's what I prefer.


I disagree with you on Bernie Sanders. He's the most honest politician out there (seemingly) but I don't believe in his policies.He's way, way too far to the left for me ...and you probably are to...but I still love you to death.

I'm back to being an Independent because, right now, there's no place for me in the Republican Party I used to vote for.
Things have changed. I've changed. They've changed too...but for the worse.

Hillary is just the common sense choice at this point.


Funny how things change.

[Stavros]

What worries me about candidates, not just in the US, is the promises they appear to make on jobs, given that without jobs people do not have an income other than from welfare or donations from family and friends. Job creation is not impossible, but unless millions of 'blue collar' Americans are going to be employed making and repairing roads and bridges in the infrastructure projects Obama touted in 2008 that Mrs Clinton also referred to last week, I don't see present-day technology offering work at the same level as say the 1950s, for example US fracking has survived Saudi Arabia's attempt to price it out of business by cutting cost and that means using fewer workers to extract more shale oil, but there will be new jobs -for some people.

In Clinton's case the team she assembles will be as important as her own contribution, but what I got from the Convention was the extent to which she is probably more interested in domestic than foreign policy, and that she has been effective when dealing with detailed policy that most people find boring, because it is, though necessary.
A claim in the Telegraph in the UK that Mrs Clinton, if elected, will 'go after Asad' and propose No-Fly Zones in Syria as part of a renewed effort to evict him from office, does not impress me and may not be true, as the Syrian Air Force is not the only cause of death in Syria, and if the US proposed it but the Russians declined to accept it, the policy would be impracticable. Presidents need someone with authority and expertise in foreign affairs and assume John Kerry will want a rest from that job.

[trish]

Hi Fred,

Back in ‘08 I chose Obama over Hillary mostly because I thought we was electable and that once in office he could get legislation passed. By then Hillary had already secured the ire of Republican voters and was a polarizing figure thanks to the way conservative media had slandered her ever since she proposed a single-payer national health insurance plan - something first ladies aren’t supposed to concern their pretty little heads about. Obama was also my Senator. I heard him talk, shook his hand and spoke to him on several occasions prior to ’08.

You’re right about charisma, and pants suits apparently aren’t part of the formula. Even charisma won’t give you the House. If Hillary is to fulfill any of her promises we have to give her a Senate and Congress that will not devote themselves to obstructing everything she does. On that score, I’m not holding my breath.

Hi Stavros

I agree that our approach to employment in the modern world has incorporate the inevitable advance of robotics and computer technology. Building and maintaining infrastructure still requires construction workers, and plumbers, engineers and technicians who know how to lay and splice optic cable.
There is one sense in which the numbers tell us the U.S. economy has fully recovered from 2008 recession. The stock market is booming. But the recovery was lopsided. Blue collar jobs don’t pay what they used to. Labor unions that secured fair pay have, in many States, been systematically dismantled by Republican Governors. (In Illinois we haven’t had a budget bill passed in over a year. Gov. Rauner is starving social safety nets for children and the elderly, and starving universities in hopes to destroy collective bargaining and wreck academic unions.) If one person has to work two jobs to make a living, it’s not going to help the employment rate.

I don’t know if anyone in the U.S. has a workable proposal for Syria. Nor does the electorate want to hear what they consider to be wonkish details. The options are: “I’ll be a forceful ambassador,” vs “I’ll bomb the shit out of them” - unless we’re talking about our border, then the options are: “I’ll build a huge wall” vs “I’ll build a bridge.”

Many Dems I know think Kerry is a better Secretary of State than Hillary was and wouldn’t mind seeing him continue in that position. As far as I know, no candidate ever publicly promises those kinds of posts to anyone until after the election.

[buttslinger]

Wow, lots of people ringing the "truth bell" here, fantastic!
The Future holds a God in Heaven who will free us all from pain and death.........
til then, we've got us a complex business here to run.
Now, I'm putting the electoral college "over under" at 100 points for Hillary.

Baby needs a new pair of shoes, hah!

image sharing sites

[trish]

Ever since Fred brought up the notion of charisma the other day it’s been rolling around in my head. I’ve met a few people who I describe as having a kind of dominating presence. When you’re in the same room with them, they somehow hold your attention. You’re immediately drawn to what they say, how they hold themselves and you want to impress them back. For me this quality never comes across on the television screen, although for a lot of people it does. I never understood Reagan’s charisma, for example. I was never impressed by his presence; but then I’ve never met him. Even the movie screen fails me in this way. I understand the language of film, so I know by how other characters react, that Rick (in Casablanca) is supposed to be charismatic, but for me it doesn’t emanate from the character but rather from how the others respond to the character. It’s all acting. If somehow I could met Bogart in person, then I might feel the strength of his presence.

Given the diminished sensitivity of my charisma sensors, and having never met Trump, I’m wondering why people seem to think he’s so charismatic. I look at him and listen to him and I see an complete and utter asshole.

But here is my real question. How often is the word ‘charismatic’ ever applied to a woman? It’s not unusual for a woman to dominate a room, make her presence felt and draw people who will want to impress her. Men like that are charismatic. Women are alluring, sultry, attractive, sexy but are they ever called ‘charismatic’? Because of the way we understand and apply the concept, is it even possible for a woman candidate to be charismatic?

[broncofan]

That's a good point Trish. I've never heard a woman described as charismatic but I have heard women described as "likable, empathic, easy to listen to." I am not saying these are equivalents as it is unfair for the gold standard for women to be about getting along and the gold standard for men to be about commanding respect and demonstrating control.

I think the problem for Hillary is that she is an extremely serious person who is not given to small talk or spontaneous outpourings. This is seen as robotic and makes her difficult to relate to. Her campaign team has tried to make her more relatable by having her smile more and laugh more but this only makes it seem contrived because she is not naturally easygoing or good-humored.

I'm not sure she has the potential to display the negative charisma of a Dick Cheney just by seeming grouchy or curmudgeonly. But that is probably a symptom of sexism. A man without special charm can seem appealing if he grumbles and looks like he isn't trying too hard to please anyone. Do women have the option of appearing not to care? Are women ever praised for "telling it like it is, damn the consequences" or ignoring various norms of behavior? I would say no.

[fred41]

But here is my real question. How often is the word ‘charismatic’ ever applied to a woman? It’s not unusual for a woman to dominate a room, make her presence felt and draw people who will want to impress her. Men like that are charismatic. Women are alluring, sultry, attractive, sexy but are they ever called ‘charismatic’? Because of the way we understand and apply the concept, is it even possible for a woman candidate to be charismatic?

I don't think the problem is the definition of the word 'charismatic' (personally I think it comes down to presence..but based on various characteristics that seem to slightly differ in people that have it. Attraction is obviously a key, but it's not necessarily based on being attractive...it's can also involve likability -but not moral or even good).
I also don't think the problem is whether the word is used to describe women. It is. Hell, the first definition that came up in google for the word used a woman as an example. I then googled the words 'charismatic woman', to see what discussions or articles came up describing a woman as charismatic. I stopped after the first example. It was an article that described both Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton as charismatic.
So apparently the problem was that I don't think she has charisma.
Apparently lots of other people think she does.

It would have been better for you to say "Fred. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Hillary Clinton oozes charisma...and you're just an asshat."

lol.
The usage of the word is based on personal perception...and therefore an opinion.
You've admired her for a very long time...I really didn't, so our perception would be different.

[fred41]

I'm not sure she has the potential to display the negative charisma of a Dick Cheney just by seeming grouchy or curmudgeonly. But that is probably a symptom of sexism. A man without special charm can seem appealing if he grumbles and looks like he isn't trying too hard to please anyone. Do women have the option of appearing not to care? Are women ever praised for "telling it like it is, damn the consequences" or ignoring various norms of behavior? I would say no.

I thought about it for two seconds and the first name in politics that came to mind was Jean Kirkpatrick. There are others.

[fred41]

...and who say's "Discussion has died..." on this board. We just went from talking about Hillary to whether or not there is sexism in descriptive words.