Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Hillary News & Views 5.24: "The last thing we need is a bully in the pulpit."

Today’s Hillary News & Views begins with the latest on the general election match-up between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
CNN reports:
"Trump economics is a recipe for lower wages, fewer jobs and more debt. He could bankrupt America like he has bankrupted his companies," Clinton said to laughs from the audience. "I mean ask yourself, how could anybody lose money running a casino? Really?"
Clinton pushed for raising the federal minimum wage, mandating equal pay for women and protecting unions in her speech tailored to issues important to the Service Employees International Union.
She used all of those issues to blast Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee who Clinton is preparing to face in the general election.
"He actually talked about getting rid of the national minimum wage all together. Shouldn't be surprising, he has hired union busters to break up organizing campaigns on the properties that he owns," Clinton said.
Clinton added that Trump economics "would mean running up our debt, stating trade wars, letting Wall Street run wild," all policies that could "cause another crash and devastate working families and our country."
"We need a president who will use the bully pulpit to stand up for working families -- but the last thing we need is a bully in the pulpit," Clinton said.
Detroit Free Press reports:
Clinton addressed more than 3,000 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members at the union's 2016 International Convention.The SEIU endorsed Clinton in November, calling her a leader "who will stand up for the working people building a movement to secure a better future for their families."
Clinton focused a chunk of her speech on Trump, who she said is a"disaster waiting to happen to America." The crowd booed loudly at the mention of Trump.
Using strong rhetoric, Clinton accused Trump of unfairly targeting immigrants, calling them "rapists and murders" and said in the past, he argued that "we’re actually paying Americans too much"  and he"talked about getting rid of the minimum wage altogether."
"What kind of country would we be if we let Donald Trump rip our families apart," Clinton said. "We have to reject this wrong vision for America with a strong clear voice.”
"I am here to tell you I join with you to do everything we can to make sure the men and women of SEIU who are providing care for our children, elderly and people with disabilities, you all have a living wage," Clinton said. "I know that you are often unsung heroes. I want you to know your fights are my fights. Just like the theme of this conference says, together we are unstoppable. There has never been more at stake for working families than there is now. ... With your help we are going to win in November."
"I grew up respecting the dignity of hard work and what it takes to provide a good middle-class life," Clinton said. "That's why I believe when unions are strong, America is strong. ... There is no doubt, even though some may try to question it, unions helped build the strongest middle class right here in the United States."
Clinton also touched on an immigration plan she said she will roll out in her first 100 days in office and touched on systemic racism and called for the dismantling of the "school-to-prison pipeline."
"We have a moral obligation to fight for justice and equity everywhere," Clinton said. "That includes ending the era of mass incarceration and rebuilding the trust between law enforcement and the community."
Meanwhile, Chuck Todd couldn’t get Hillary Clinton to note one praiseworthy thing about Donald Trump, and that’s pretty awesome.
Melissa McEwan writes for Shakesville:
The audacity of demanding that Clinton find something to praise about someone as odious, hateful and ignorant as Trump just galls me. To ask the question in the first place and then to keep hammering away at it when she refuses to take the poisonous bait is not only pathetic and eye-roll worthy; it's also insulting and disrespectful to Clinton as a woman, as a presidential candidate, and as a person who does have a lot in her own background that is praiseworthy. 

From working for the Children's Defense Fund to trying to help secure healthcare reform to being a tireless fighter for women's equality around the world to a thousand other things, Clinton has a personal and professional history that can be admired and emulated. She has spent much of her life trying to make the lives of others, many of whom were far less privileged than she was, a little bit better and a little bit fuller. She has made this work a central focus of her presidential campaign.

Donald Trump has...not done that. I am not going to enumerate the mountains of reprehensible garbage that make up his life's resume thus far. We know who he is, and who he has always been, with his employees, his girlfriends and wives, the media, the contestants on his reality shows...we all know just what kind of man he is.

And it's not a praiseworthy one. And Clinton knows that as well as, or at this point even better than, the rest of us.

But Chuck Todd just couldn't stand letting her get away with not giving in and offering up some laudatory remarks about him. He's a rich and powerful man, and in this society that clearly means he deserves esteem, no matter what else he is besides rich and powerful.

Money, might, and masculinity are in and of themselves praiseworthy in a capitalist, patriarchal oligarchy. Clinton challenging that status quo makes a lot of people, a lot of men, uncomfortable.

I hope she keeps doing it. That's praiseworthy.
Bernie Sanders continues to do his best “Bruce Willis before the last five minutes ofThe Sixth Sense” impression, but Clinton is done humoring him that this is still a race.
CNN reports:
Declining to participate in the Fox News debate -- which Sanders had agreed to -- is another clear sign that Clinton and her top aides are fully focused on the general election against Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee.
"As we have said previously, we plan to compete hard in the remaining primary states, particularly California, while turning our attention to the threat a Donald Trump presidency poses," Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's spokeswoman, said. "We believe that Hillary Clinton's time is best spent campaigning and meeting directly with voters across California and preparing for a general election campaign that will ensure the White House remains in Democratic hands."
Clinton and her top aides are ready to no longer focus on Sanders and have signaled for the weeks that they are turning their focus to Trump whether the Vermont senator is around or not.
"I will be the nominee for my party," Clinton told CNN last week.
I found Sanders’ reaction particularly amusing.
The Hill reports:
“I was disturbed, but not surprised that Secretary Clinton has backed out of the debate,” Sanders said at a rally in Santa Monica, Calif., ahead of the delegate-rich June 7 primary.
“I think it’s a little bit insulting to the people of California -- our largest state -- that she is not prepared to have a discussion with me about how she will help the Californians address the major crises that we face,” he continued.
Dude. Bro. You’re not the conduit through which Clinton needs to talk to the California voters about how she could help the Californians, any more than you have to go through her to talk to California voters. She can and will talk directly to them. Go get your free right wing media time without Clinton’s assistance. 
The Sanders post-mortems also continue, even while the candidate himself thinks he’s pre-, not post-.
D. Frederick Sparks writes for The Orbit:
So with no black candidate in the race, surprisingly the 2016 contest is more racially polarized in terms whom voters support than the 2008 contest was. But in any event it is justifiable to say that Sanders support is largely white male and Clinton has been buoyed by people of color. It doesn’t “erase” any of the women or people of color who support Sanders to state that numerical and statistical fact. It is a valid generalization supported by empirical evidence.
And this occurs underneath a Sanders campaign that has elevated the social discourse about income equality. People who would have rarely used the words oligarch or establishment a year ago now use them quite frequently in social media postings. And whether or not you support Bernie Sanders has become a litmus test for whether or not you get the real story behind economic inequality or whether you are just another establishment supporting stooge.
This ends up resulting in the amusing proposition that white men are the backbone of the political revolution against income inequality and are carrying this out by supporting the candidacy of a white man, and all these people of color who haven’t Felt the Bern just don’t get it. Amusing, because I think most white left progressives have a huge blind spot when it comes to the reality of race and inequality.
Sanders and other white progressives have long been challenged on this by people of color, but as Sikivu Hutchinson noted, Sanders and his ilk have longed disdained any inter-sectional analysis on race and income inequality.   Sanders isn’t immune to these kind of racial blind spots because he participated in protests against housing discrimination in the 1960s.   The more I talk to people of color and women who have long been involved in liberal politics, the more they confirm that white male left progressives can exhibit as much racial arrogance and misogyny as their conservative counterparts.
This blind spot, not being able to see these things because they don’t have to, is why I find it highly unlikely that white male left progressives are going to be the ones who identify and anoint the messianic figure in American politics who will lead the revolution against inequality. And if I had to wager, I wouldn’t put my money on said messianic figure being a privileged white male from the Northeast. I’d put my money on a black woman from the south or a Latina from the Southwest, someone who on an ontological and inter-sectional level understands the various power paradigms that contribute to unfairness in this country and can competently speak to and address all of them, and not just get fixated on one.
Cynthia Dill writes for the Portland Press Herald:
The arc of Sanders’ campaign has gone from extremely inspiring to incredibly annoying, and the latest temper tantrum in Nevada is inexcusable. Whining about “unfair” rules that have been on the books since 2008. Outrage that delegates not registered as Democrats were refused a seat at the official convention of Democrats to select the Democratic nominee. Indignation that the higher number of Clinton delegates trumped the higher volume of Sanders delegates. Astonishment that “Bernie Bros” rushing the dais, throwing chairs, cursing and shouting caused security to shut down the convention four hours after the designated end time. Accusations of another conspiracy by establishment.
Hillary Clinton is winning the Democratic primary fair and square by the same rules by which she lost to Barack Obama in 2008. She won the recent contest in Nevada for the same simple reason she’s winning overall: She got more votes. That’s not “establishment” – that’s democracy.
What’s sold as a “political revolution” looks more and more like just another power trip. Bernie and Jane Sanders are high on crowds and crowdfunding, and through the haze it’s crystal clear why virtually none of Sanders’ colleagues in the capital support him. It’s not because he’s “anti-establishment.” It’s because he’s an angry, unreasonable man with a chip on his shoulder as big as the state of Maine.
Sanders is losing fair and square in the voting contest, so why must he torch every bridge along the way? Why must he incite volatile people and provoke useless rage? Sanders has been in Washington for decades, and he still can’t manage to disagree with people without being disagreeable.
There’s a word for somebody with these characteristics, and it’s not “leader.”
Melissa McEwan writes for Shakesville:
Sanders said during another monologue against the "corrupt" Democratic nominating process: "Some 400 of Hillary Clinton's superdelegates came on board her campaign before anybody else announced. It was anointment. And that is bad for the process."

"Anointment" is, first and foremost, more dogwhistled sexism. But, beyond that, I wish one damn journalist would point out to Sanders in response to this shtick that Clinton has run for president before. She was a known quantity...

Further, as I have now pointed out about a biebillion times: In 2008, the superdelegates also started out backing Clinton by a large majority. And when she began losing the primary, they started backing then-candidate Barack Obama. 

She wasn't "anointed" then, and she's not being "anointed" now.   
In other news, Sanders also said on CBS' Face the Nation that he's supporting Democratic National Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz's primary opponent, law professor Tim Canova: "Do I think she is the kind of chair that the Democratic Party needs? No, I don't."
Now, personally, I have problems with some of DWS' decisions; I don't believe she's above criticism. (No one is!) But it's very interesting to me that Sanders has announced his support for her primary opponent, who just happens to be a dude. 

Which means he's supporting four candidates, two of whom are straight and running against openly gay contenders, and one of whom is a man running against a woman.

I keep getting told screamed at that he is a champion for women and people of color and the LGBT community, but somehow he never finds any candidates who aren't running to defeat marginalized people that he can support, and he himself has run over and over against women. Huh. What a string of coincidences!


  1. signs of Bernie's bern-out,

    "It’s not because he’s “anti-establishment.” It’s because he’s an angry, unreasonable man with a chip on his shoulder as big as the state of Maine."

    but add he's amazingly ignorant for such an old guy, he pretends his ideas are tooooooo big, but they're really toooooo mishmash of old ideas, no wonder he couldn't finish college.

    and this one:

    '"Some 400 of Hillary Clinton's superdelegates came on board her campaign before anybody else announced. It was anointment. And that is bad for the process."

    "Anointment" is, first and foremost, more dogwhistled sexism."

    He usually says 'before Bernie Sanders announced,' as if everyone ought to have waited for the great male hope to save us from competence, experience and feminism, and that if they'd only know the Grand Bernie would come to save mankind...

    MORE dogwhisled sexsim, finally

    once that fraud is paid off, (the under-water bank of bernie is too pissed off to fail) things will be funner

    great line, no bullies in the pulpit, but his supporters like bullies, I like it best when she just withers his stupid remarks, he gives an opening a minute,

    just quoting him with her amused raised eyebrows and then her laugh, that's what I like to see.

    That's showing non-normalization, not saying it. (showing's always more entertaining.)

    but you can bet Donald is going to pull of a grand show at the Republican convention, he CAN put together events, he'll have lots of sponsors, like the super-bowl half-time show, the fast one he did when he wasn't really raising money for the vets was an example, he has that staff and that know how.

    Ergo, I want us to have a great one too, with lots of talent, like Cindy Lauper, and ...

    (girls just want to have fun, isn't that right Gloria? )

  2. we should have a convention album, I mean CD, with the talent and inspiring one-liners from speeches.

    Like when Homeland credits played a voice-over of Hillary:

    “You can't keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors. You know, eventually those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard.”

    1. Hmmm...good idea about the convention album. I wish I had time to put something like that together!