#hillary clinton was right about everything: the redux redux redux
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Visit Tumblr Blog
Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.
Last Seen Tumblr Blogs
Fun Fact
Total funding amounts to $125.3M.
Text
#politics for ts#it is what she DESERVES#hillary clinton was right about everything: the redux redux redux
2K notes
·
View notes
Text
Hey, Here Are Some People Who Really, Really Should Not Run For President
March 2017 is probably far too early to start considering the next presidential election, and who the Democrats might send into the breach to take on Donald Trump (assuming he runs for re-election, of course). That said, there’s already an awful lot of rumor and sigh in the news transom about people having sudden-onset political stirrings, including those setting their sights on a 2020 presidential run.
Some of them are the last vestiges of the Clinton network, still high on that old Third Way supply, banking on the belief that the country isn’t yet done with late-1990s nostalgia. But a new group of would-be candidates is on the rise ― extravagantly wealthy wannabes stirred both by the Clinton-era Democratic Party embrace of meritocratic elites and the success of Trump’s outsider run. And if they all have something in common, it’s that they are all the worst possible people for the Democrats to run for office, if you consider the lessons of the 2016 election.
What were those lessons? Well, for one thing, 2016 was the year that the Democratic Party’s obsessions with the professional class finally caught up with it. Amid roaring calls for solutions to widely felt economic inequities, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign largely based on social niceties and boardroom diversification, with some incremental crumbs thrown the way of middle- and working-class strivers.
None of it added up to a compelling enough case against the GOP’s con-man class-traitor to win the election. (And tellingly, some taken-for-granted Democratic strongholds fell to Trump at the exact moment Democrats needed them most.) But if there’s one thing both political parties share, it’s that they are slow to learn their lessons. The fear that the Democrats might stay the course, despite Clinton’s failings, suffused the atmosphere in the recent Democratic National Committee election ― and those who wanted a decisive change are still not sure they’re getting one with the election of former Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez. That some of the Clinton family’s most dedicated hangers-on feel like they are the person to run for office in the Trump era likely won’t soothe their ravaged souls, either.
And then there are the unfortunate side effects of Trump’s win itself, which has apparently touched off a whole new round of thinking as to whether it would be a good idea to examine this moment in history ― in which a brash billionaire-celebrity outsider has ascended to the highest political office in the world ― and consider whether the time is right to have more brash billionaire-celebrity outsiders try to run for president.
That every single day of the Trump presidency has been a scintillating demonstration of the Peter Principle seems to not deter anybody. Instead, the event of a complete and utter billionaire buffoon with no political experience has suggested to a slew of other buffoons that, hey, why not me?
A century or two of yawning inequality has left us with no shortage of such buffoons. Hundreds of these folks have ascended to the dizzying heights of our American oligarchy ― or were born there ― and now gaze downward, gripped with the firm conviction that they should run all that they see below. “Stay in your lane,” once the byword of America’s true and most successful innovators, is advice too easily chucked aside by today’s captains of industry. And so, “meritocracy” has become something of a dirty word.
Nowadays, those who have found success in one area are just as likely not to think that their success is translatable to other endeavors. When this turns out not to be the case, comical hijinks ensue. Perhaps the apotheosis of this rich-people folly came when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg thought it would be a good idea to appoint his friend, Hearst executive Cathleen Black, to the position of New York City schools chancellor ― despite the fact that her relevant experience could best be summed up as “not any.”
It was a huge disaster, but did anyone learn a damn thing from this experience? (Hmmm, let me check: Oh, yeah, Betsy DeVos is the U.S. secretary of education. So, no, nobody did.)
Still it’s one thing for Republicans to consider running the play ― they’ve obviously managed to make it work, at least in the narrow electoral sense. And their billionaire was no obscure figure. Entering the election with 100-percent name identification, and a years-long run in American living rooms as a fictional, all-knowing business leader, gave Trump legs up that your random billionaire lacks.
Replicating either side of the last presidential election is a losing move for Democrats. But it’s a very tempting one: It’s a notion that allows the easy-breezy fantasy that a massive party overhaul isn’t necessary, and that all of their problems can be ameliorated by either billionaires with quick fixes and cash on-hand, or Clinton 2016-redux candidates with better data and marketing.
With that in mind, here are a bunch of people whose political ambitions should be extinguished with all deliberate haste.
Bob Iger: Who, pray tell, is Bob Iger? Well, for a while, he was a member of Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, a collection of CEO heavyweights who were going to help Trump #MAGA, for which Iger was well suited as the chief executive of Walt Disney. SInce then, it’s been reported that he is mulling making a run for the White House in 2020. Hmmm, maybe he hasn’t thought through this whole politics thing? Apparently not, considering that his inspiration to maybe run for president stems from the fact that he says “a lot of people ― a lot ― have urged me to seek political office.” I mean, maybe set your sights a little lower, first time out?
J.B. Pritzker: Having endeavored mightily to paint the past two Republican presidential nominees as out-of-touch wealthy elites ― and having failed to distinguish their own last presidential nominee as something different ― are Democrats stupid enough to make an about-face and run their own billionaire?No, J.B. Pritzker wouldn’t make it out of Iowa without a negative vote total. But even though he’s recently been sniffing around the possibility of running in the Illinois gubernatorial election, that hasn’t stopped him from floating to friends that he’s considering making a run for the White House as well ― or so we’re told by one recipient of such a flatulent flotation. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, had designs on being commerce secretary under Hillary Clinton, just as his sister Penny Pritzker was under Obama. Just stop.
Sheryl Sandberg: According to some election-year rumors, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg was in the running to serve as Hillary Clinton’s treasury secretary. Since then, she’s been rumored to be considering a White House run, amid occasional denials. At the same time, she has recently been more open to Trump’s overtures. She was one of those Silicon Valley leaders who met with Trump prior to the inauguration. As Slate’s Helaine Owen notes, Sandberg made no public mention of the Women’s March that took place afterwards, a curious move for the “Lean In” maven ― at least until you consider the fact that “Lean In” is a disingenuous brand-washing scheme, and that Sandberg is especially unwilling to criticize her C-suite peers for crimes against women in the workforce.
Howard Schultz: The Starbucks CEO has said “never say never” to a presidential run. Indeed, Schultz would be the fever-dream candidate of the No Labels set: his political “brand,” insofar that he has one, is essentially based around his core belief that everyone in politics should be a lot nicer to each other. This worldview most famously manifested itself in the short-lived March 2015 “Race Together” campaign, in which Schultz ― after having mostly eliminated manual espresso machines in Starbucks stores ― tasked baristas with bridging America’s racial divide. If you want a president who believes that all of America’s problems can be solved by constantly throwing corporate culture at them, he’s your guy.
Mark Zuckerberg: Hey, let’s see: Do we really want the founder and CEO of Facebook ― a business that depends on learning as much about your private life as possible, more and more every single day, always probing and collecting, never ceasing in its sleepless drive to know everything about you, better than you could possibly know yourself, until the very idea of “privacy” becomes an obsolete concept and individual autonomy is subordinated to a set of bloodless algorithms and advertisers are straight-up living inside your dreams ― to be our president? I dunno, man. As Big Brother might say, that sounds doubleplusungood!
Chelsea Clinton: Anyone else notice how after the election, Chelsea Clinton has been slowly creeping into our lives? There’s been this gradual ramping up of Total Chelsea Clinton Awareness, and along with it, the gradual ramping up of yet another Clinton’s political career ― even though, up until now, Chelsea Clinton has essentially been nothing more than a lodestar for other people’s money to find their way into Clinton bank accounts. (I read here that she was paid $600,000 to do journalism? Holy cats, how long did it take Jimmy Breslin to make $600,000?) Anyway, she’s been tweeting lately ― tweets that feel a little too clever, but not enough to be thought of as “edgy” ― the sort of social media output that makes you want to look for hidden wires. Hillary Clinton got a lot of stick ― unfairly so ― for lacking authenticity, but her daughter’s recent re-emergence feels like a ghost in the shell being willed into existence by a team of P.R. firms. We don’t suspect we have to fear a run in 2020 from Chelsea. But let’s please add every year in the future, ever, to that safe space.
Terry McAuliffe: The biggest beneficiary of the Clinton family to not have actual Clinton family DNA (probably, anyway!), McAuliffe revived his political career by winning the 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia. It was close. Too close, considering he was running against a throwback Christian conservative ideologue in the form of Ken Cuccinelli. During the 2016 campaign, McAuliffe distinguished himself by telling reporters at the Democratic National Convention that Hillary Clinton was definitely going to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal after the election. The TPP, if you recall, was the thing convention-goers booed and jeered more lustily than Donald Trump. McAuliffe and his spin-team later tried to walk this back, saying that it was just McAuliffe who supported the TPP, which ― is still not good? Anyway, he is basically kooky, has a lot of funny-money connections, and suffers from the fact that Virginia has a one-term term limit for governor, leaving him with an itch that has to be scratched, probably with a huge pile of donor money that could be put to any number of more productive purposes.
Andrew Cuomo: The Clintons and Cuomos have never been particularly warm to each other, but the two political dynasties, eternally orbiting one another, have managed to seamlessly apply the transactional-slash-triangulating political style they share in common to their interpersonal relationships. Now, as rumors mount that Cuomo is considering a White House bid, he’s welcoming former Clinton campaign staff into his fold, where they’ll likely discover similarities to their natural habitat. Liberals have, in recent months, thrilled to Cuomo’s stance on fracking and his defense of immigrants, but they’re setting themselves up for huge disappointments. Cuomo, who is astonishingly petty and mean-minded, has done more to dampen the fortunes of New York’s Democratic Party than New York Republicans have. And he’s corrupt as all get-out to boot ― his most notable accomplishment as governor was to shut down the Moreland Commission anti-corruption inquiry as soon as the probe starting sniffing around targets with ties to the governor ― and getting away with it.
That, right there, is a murderer’s row of the exact wrong candidates for the Democratic Party, who’d be better advised to begin the hard work of rebuilding their party’s foundations and restoring a deep bench of new policymakers with fresh ideas. This is not the moment to try to lock arms with a gaggle of dilettante 1-percenters, promising to do what Trump pulled off. And it’s certainly not the time to try to revive the fortunes of their political cousins ― the broken remnants of the Clinton machine.
Drown these candidacies in the bathtub, right now.
Ryan Grim contributed.
~~~~~
Jason Linkins edits “Eat The Press” for The Huffington Post and co-hosts the HuffPost Politics podcast “So, That Happened.” Subscribe here, and listen to the latest episode below.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mTj4As
0 notes
Text
Hey, Here Are Some People Who Really, Really Should Not Run For President
March 2017 is probably far too early to start considering the next presidential election, and who the Democrats might send into the breach to take on Donald Trump (assuming he runs for re-election, of course). That said, there’s already an awful lot of rumor and sigh in the news transom about people having sudden-onset political stirrings, including those setting their sights on a 2020 presidential run.
Some of them are the last vestiges of the Clinton network, still high on that old Third Way supply, banking on the belief that the country isn’t yet done with late-1990s nostalgia. But a new group of would-be candidates is on the rise ― extravagantly wealthy wannabes stirred both by the Clinton-era Democratic Party embrace of meritocratic elites and the success of Trump’s outsider run. And if they all have something in common, it’s that they are all the worst possible people for the Democrats to run for office, if you consider the lessons of the 2016 election.
What were those lessons? Well, for one thing, 2016 was the year that the Democratic Party’s obsessions with the professional class finally caught up with it. Amid roaring calls for solutions to widely felt economic inequities, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign largely based on social niceties and boardroom diversification, with some incremental crumbs thrown the way of middle- and working-class strivers.
None of it added up to a compelling enough case against the GOP’s con-man class-traitor to win the election. (And tellingly, some taken-for-granted Democratic strongholds fell to Trump at the exact moment Democrats needed them most.) But if there’s one thing both political parties share, it’s that they are slow to learn their lessons. The fear that the Democrats might stay the course, despite Clinton’s failings, suffused the atmosphere in the recent Democratic National Committee election ― and those who wanted a decisive change are still not sure they’re getting one with the election of former Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez. That some of the Clinton family’s most dedicated hangers-on feel like they are the person to run for office in the Trump era likely won’t soothe their ravaged souls, either.
And then there are the unfortunate side effects of Trump’s win itself, which has apparently touched off a whole new round of thinking as to whether it would be a good idea to examine this moment in history ― in which a brash billionaire-celebrity outsider has ascended to the highest political office in the world ― and consider whether the time is right to have more brash billionaire-celebrity outsiders try to run for president.
That every single day of the Trump presidency has been a scintillating demonstration of the Peter Principle seems to not deter anybody. Instead, the event of a complete and utter billionaire buffoon with no political experience has suggested to a slew of other buffoons that, hey, why not me?
A century or two of yawning inequality has left us with no shortage of such buffoons. Hundreds of these folks have ascended to the dizzying heights of our American oligarchy ― or were born there ― and now gaze downward, gripped with the firm conviction that they should run all that they see below. “Stay in your lane,” once the byword of America’s true and most successful innovators, is advice too easily chucked aside by today’s captains of industry. And so, “meritocracy” has become something of a dirty word.
Nowadays, those who have found success in one area are just as likely not to think that their success is translatable to other endeavors. When this turns out not to be the case, comical hijinks ensue. Perhaps the apotheosis of this rich-people folly came when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg thought it would be a good idea to appoint his friend, Hearst executive Cathleen Black, to the position of New York City schools chancellor ― despite the fact that her relevant experience could best be summed up as “not any.”
It was a huge disaster, but did anyone learn a damn thing from this experience? (Hmmm, let me check: Oh, yeah, Betsy DeVos is the U.S. secretary of education. So, no, nobody did.)
Still it’s one thing for Republicans to consider running the play ― they’ve obviously managed to make it work, at least in the narrow electoral sense. And their billionaire was no obscure figure. Entering the election with 100-percent name identification, and a years-long run in American living rooms as a fictional, all-knowing business leader, gave Trump legs up that your random billionaire lacks.
Replicating either side of the last presidential election is a losing move for Democrats. But it’s a very tempting one: It’s a notion that allows the easy-breezy fantasy that a massive party overhaul isn’t necessary, and that all of their problems can be ameliorated by either billionaires with quick fixes and cash on-hand, or Clinton 2016-redux candidates with better data and marketing.
With that in mind, here are a bunch of people whose political ambitions should be extinguished with all deliberate haste.
Bob Iger: Who, pray tell, is Bob Iger? Well, for a while, he was a member of Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, a collection of CEO heavyweights who were going to help Trump #MAGA, for which Iger was well suited as the chief executive of Walt Disney. SInce then, it’s been reported that he is mulling making a run for the White House in 2020. Hmmm, maybe he hasn’t thought through this whole politics thing? Apparently not, considering that his inspiration to maybe run for president stems from the fact that he says “a lot of people ― a lot ― have urged me to seek political office.” I mean, maybe set your sights a little lower, first time out?
J.B. Pritzker: Having endeavored mightily to paint the past two Republican presidential nominees as out-of-touch wealthy elites ― and having failed to distinguish their own last presidential nominee as something different ― are Democrats stupid enough to make an about-face and run their own billionaire?No, J.B. Pritzker wouldn’t make it out of Iowa without a negative vote total. But even though he’s recently been sniffing around the possibility of running in the Illinois gubernatorial election, that hasn’t stopped him from floating to friends that he’s considering making a run for the White House as well ― or so we’re told by one recipient of such a flatulent flotation. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, had designs on being commerce secretary under Hillary Clinton, just as his sister Penny Pritzker was under Obama. Just stop.
Sheryl Sandberg: According to some election-year rumors, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg was in the running to serve as Hillary Clinton’s treasury secretary. Since then, she’s been rumored to be considering a White House run, amid occasional denials. At the same time, she has recently been more open to Trump’s overtures. She was one of those Silicon Valley leaders who met with Trump prior to the inauguration. As Slate’s Helaine Owen notes, Sandberg made no public mention of the Women’s March that took place afterwards, a curious move for the “Lean In” maven ― at least until you consider the fact that “Lean In” is a disingenuous brand-washing scheme, and that Sandberg is especially unwilling to criticize her C-suite peers for crimes against women in the workforce.
Howard Schultz: The Starbucks CEO has said “never say never” to a presidential run. Indeed, Schultz would be the fever-dream candidate of the No Labels set: his political “brand,” insofar that he has one, is essentially based around his core belief that everyone in politics should be a lot nicer to each other. This worldview most famously manifested itself in the short-lived March 2015 “Race Together” campaign, in which Schultz ― after having mostly eliminated manual espresso machines in Starbucks stores ― tasked baristas with bridging America’s racial divide. If you want a president who believes that all of America’s problems can be solved by constantly throwing corporate culture at them, he’s your guy.
Mark Zuckerberg: Hey, let’s see: Do we really want the founder and CEO of Facebook ― a business that depends on learning as much about your private life as possible, more and more every single day, always probing and collecting, never ceasing in its sleepless drive to know everything about you, better than you could possibly know yourself, until the very idea of “privacy” becomes an obsolete concept and individual autonomy is subordinated to a set of bloodless algorithms and advertisers are straight-up living inside your dreams ― to be our president? I dunno, man. As Big Brother might say, that sounds doubleplusungood!
Chelsea Clinton: Anyone else notice how after the election, Chelsea Clinton has been slowly creeping into our lives? There’s been this gradual ramping up of Total Chelsea Clinton Awareness, and along with it, the gradual ramping up of yet another Clinton’s political career ― even though, up until now, Chelsea Clinton has essentially been nothing more than a lodestar for other people’s money to find their way into Clinton bank accounts. (I read here that she was paid $600,000 to do journalism? Holy cats, how long did it take Jimmy Breslin to make $600,000?) Anyway, she’s been tweeting lately ― tweets that feel a little too clever, but not enough to be thought of as “edgy” ― the sort of social media output that makes you want to look for hidden wires. Hillary Clinton got a lot of stick ― unfairly so ― for lacking authenticity, but her daughter’s recent re-emergence feels like a ghost in the shell being willed into existence by a team of P.R. firms. We don’t suspect we have to fear a run in 2020 from Chelsea. But let’s please add every year in the future, ever, to that safe space.
Terry McAuliffe: The biggest beneficiary of the Clinton family to not have actual Clinton family DNA (probably, anyway!), McAuliffe revived his political career by winning the 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia. It was close. Too close, considering he was running against a throwback Christian conservative ideologue in the form of Ken Cuccinelli. During the 2016 campaign, McAuliffe distinguished himself by telling reporters at the Democratic National Convention that Hillary Clinton was definitely going to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal after the election. The TPP, if you recall, was the thing convention-goers booed and jeered more lustily than Donald Trump. McAuliffe and his spin-team later tried to walk this back, saying that it was just McAuliffe who supported the TPP, which ― is still not good? Anyway, he is basically kooky, has a lot of funny-money connections, and suffers from the fact that Virginia has a one-term term limit for governor, leaving him with an itch that has to be scratched, probably with a huge pile of donor money that could be put to any number of more productive purposes.
Andrew Cuomo: The Clintons and Cuomos have never been particularly warm to each other, but the two political dynasties, eternally orbiting one another, have managed to seamlessly apply the transactional-slash-triangulating political style they share in common to their interpersonal relationships. Now, as rumors mount that Cuomo is considering a White House bid, he’s welcoming former Clinton campaign staff into his fold, where they’ll likely discover similarities to their natural habitat. Liberals have, in recent months, thrilled to Cuomo’s stance on fracking and his defense of immigrants, but they’re setting themselves up for huge disappointments. Cuomo, who is astonishingly petty and mean-minded, has done more to dampen the fortunes of New York’s Democratic Party than New York Republicans have. And he’s corrupt as all get-out to boot ― his most notable accomplishment as governor was to shut down the Moreland Commission anti-corruption inquiry as soon as the probe starting sniffing around targets with ties to the governor ― and getting away with it.
That, right there, is a murderer’s row of the exact wrong candidates for the Democratic Party, who’d be better advised to begin the hard work of rebuilding their party’s foundations and restoring a deep bench of new policymakers with fresh ideas. This is not the moment to try to lock arms with a gaggle of dilettante 1-percenters, promising to do what Trump pulled off. And it’s certainly not the time to try to revive the fortunes of their political cousins ― the broken remnants of the Clinton machine.
Drown these candidacies in the bathtub, right now.
Ryan Grim contributed.
~~~~~
Jason Linkins edits “Eat The Press” for The Huffington Post and co-hosts the HuffPost Politics podcast “So, That Happened.” Subscribe here, and listen to the latest episode below.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mTj4As
0 notes
Text
Hey, Here Are Some People Who Really, Really Should Not Run For President
March 2017 is probably far too early to start considering the next presidential election, and who the Democrats might send into the breach to take on Donald Trump (assuming he runs for re-election, of course). That said, there’s already an awful lot of rumor and sigh in the news transom about people having sudden-onset political stirrings, including those setting their sights on a 2020 presidential run.
Some of them are the last vestiges of the Clinton network, still high on that old Third Way supply, banking on the belief that the country isn’t yet done with late-1990s nostalgia. But a new group of would-be candidates is on the rise ― extravagantly wealthy wannabes stirred both by the Clinton-era Democratic Party embrace of meritocratic elites and the success of Trump’s outsider run. And if they all have something in common, it’s that they are all the worst possible people for the Democrats to run for office, if you consider the lessons of the 2016 election.
What were those lessons? Well, for one thing, 2016 was the year that the Democratic Party’s obsessions with the professional class finally caught up with it. Amid roaring calls for solutions to widely felt economic inequities, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign largely based on social niceties and boardroom diversification, with some incremental crumbs thrown the way of middle- and working-class strivers.
None of it added up to a compelling enough case against the GOP’s con-man class-traitor to win the election. (And tellingly, some taken-for-granted Democratic strongholds fell to Trump at the exact moment Democrats needed them most.) But if there’s one thing both political parties share, it’s that they are slow to learn their lessons. The fear that the Democrats might stay the course, despite Clinton’s failings, suffused the atmosphere in the recent Democratic National Committee election ― and those who wanted a decisive change are still not sure they’re getting one with the election of former Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez. That some of the Clinton family’s most dedicated hangers-on feel like they are the person to run for office in the Trump era likely won’t soothe their ravaged souls, either.
And then there are the unfortunate side effects of Trump’s win itself, which has apparently touched off a whole new round of thinking as to whether it would be a good idea to examine this moment in history ― in which a brash billionaire-celebrity outsider has ascended to the highest political office in the world ― and consider whether the time is right to have more brash billionaire-celebrity outsiders try to run for president.
That every single day of the Trump presidency has been a scintillating demonstration of the Peter Principle seems to not deter anybody. Instead, the event of a complete and utter billionaire buffoon with no political experience has suggested to a slew of other buffoons that, hey, why not me?
A century or two of yawning inequality has left us with no shortage of such buffoons. Hundreds of these folks have ascended to the dizzying heights of our American oligarchy ― or were born there ― and now gaze downward, gripped with the firm conviction that they should run all that they see below. “Stay in your lane,” once the byword of America’s true and most successful innovators, is advice too easily chucked aside by today’s captains of industry. And so, “meritocracy” has become something of a dirty word.
Nowadays, those who have found success in one area are just as likely not to think that their success is translatable to other endeavors. When this turns out not to be the case, comical hijinks ensue. Perhaps the apotheosis of this rich-people folly came when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg thought it would be a good idea to appoint his friend, Hearst executive Cathleen Black, to the position of New York City schools chancellor ― despite the fact that her relevant experience could best be summed up as “not any.”
It was a huge disaster, but did anyone learn a damn thing from this experience? (Hmmm, let me check: Oh, yeah, Betsy DeVos is the U.S. secretary of education. So, no, nobody did.)
Still it’s one thing for Republicans to consider running the play ― they’ve obviously managed to make it work, at least in the narrow electoral sense. And their billionaire was no obscure figure. Entering the election with 100-percent name identification, and a years-long run in American living rooms as a fictional, all-knowing business leader, gave Trump legs up that your random billionaire lacks.
Replicating either side of the last presidential election is a losing move for Democrats. But it’s a very tempting one: It’s a notion that allows the easy-breezy fantasy that a massive party overhaul isn’t necessary, and that all of their problems can be ameliorated by either billionaires with quick fixes and cash on-hand, or Clinton 2016-redux candidates with better data and marketing.
With that in mind, here are a bunch of people whose political ambitions should be extinguished with all deliberate haste.
Bob Iger: Who, pray tell, is Bob Iger? Well, for a while, he was a member of Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, a collection of CEO heavyweights who were going to help Trump #MAGA, for which Iger was well suited as the chief executive of Walt Disney. SInce then, it’s been reported that he is mulling making a run for the White House in 2020. Hmmm, maybe he hasn’t thought through this whole politics thing? Apparently not, considering that his inspiration to maybe run for president stems from the fact that he says “a lot of people ― a lot ― have urged me to seek political office.” I mean, maybe set your sights a little lower, first time out?
J.B. Pritzker: Having endeavored mightily to paint the past two Republican presidential nominees as out-of-touch wealthy elites ― and having failed to distinguish their own last presidential nominee as something different ― are Democrats stupid enough to make an about-face and run their own billionaire?No, J.B. Pritzker wouldn’t make it out of Iowa without a negative vote total. But even though he’s recently been sniffing around the possibility of running in the Illinois gubernatorial election, that hasn’t stopped him from floating to friends that he’s considering making a run for the White House as well ― or so we’re told by one recipient of such a flatulent flotation. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, had designs on being commerce secretary under Hillary Clinton, just as his sister Penny Pritzker was under Obama. Just stop.
Sheryl Sandberg: According to some election-year rumors, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg was in the running to serve as Hillary Clinton’s treasury secretary. Since then, she’s been rumored to be considering a White House run, amid occasional denials. At the same time, she has recently been more open to Trump’s overtures. She was one of those Silicon Valley leaders who met with Trump prior to the inauguration. As Slate’s Helaine Owen notes, Sandberg made no public mention of the Women’s March that took place afterwards, a curious move for the “Lean In” maven ― at least until you consider the fact that “Lean In” is a disingenuous brand-washing scheme, and that Sandberg is especially unwilling to criticize her C-suite peers for crimes against women in the workforce.
Howard Schultz: The Starbucks CEO has said “never say never” to a presidential run. Indeed, Schultz would be the fever-dream candidate of the No Labels set: his political “brand,” insofar that he has one, is essentially based around his core belief that everyone in politics should be a lot nicer to each other. This worldview most famously manifested itself in the short-lived March 2015 “Race Together” campaign, in which Schultz ― after having mostly eliminated manual espresso machines in Starbucks stores ― tasked baristas with bridging America’s racial divide. If you want a president who believes that all of America’s problems can be solved by constantly throwing corporate culture at them, he’s your guy.
Mark Zuckerberg: Hey, let’s see: Do we really want the founder and CEO of Facebook ― a business that depends on learning as much about your private life as possible, more and more every single day, always probing and collecting, never ceasing in its sleepless drive to know everything about you, better than you could possibly know yourself, until the very idea of “privacy” becomes an obsolete concept and individual autonomy is subordinated to a set of bloodless algorithms and advertisers are straight-up living inside your dreams ― to be our president? I dunno, man. As Big Brother might say, that sounds doubleplusungood!
Chelsea Clinton: Anyone else notice how after the election, Chelsea Clinton has been slowly creeping into our lives? There’s been this gradual ramping up of Total Chelsea Clinton Awareness, and along with it, the gradual ramping up of yet another Clinton’s political career ― even though, up until now, Chelsea Clinton has essentially been nothing more than a lodestar for other people’s money to find their way into Clinton bank accounts. (I read here that she was paid $600,000 to do journalism? Holy cats, how long did it take Jimmy Breslin to make $600,000?) Anyway, she’s been tweeting lately ― tweets that feel a little too clever, but not enough to be thought of as “edgy” ― the sort of social media output that makes you want to look for hidden wires. Hillary Clinton got a lot of stick ― unfairly so ― for lacking authenticity, but her daughter’s recent re-emergence feels like a ghost in the shell being willed into existence by a team of P.R. firms. We don’t suspect we have to fear a run in 2020 from Chelsea. But let’s please add every year in the future, ever, to that safe space.
Terry McAuliffe: The biggest beneficiary of the Clinton family to not have actual Clinton family DNA (probably, anyway!), McAuliffe revived his political career by winning the 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia. It was close. Too close, considering he was running against a throwback Christian conservative ideologue in the form of Ken Cuccinelli. During the 2016 campaign, McAuliffe distinguished himself by telling reporters at the Democratic National Convention that Hillary Clinton was definitely going to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal after the election. The TPP, if you recall, was the thing convention-goers booed and jeered more lustily than Donald Trump. McAuliffe and his spin-team later tried to walk this back, saying that it was just McAuliffe who supported the TPP, which ― is still not good? Anyway, he is basically kooky, has a lot of funny-money connections, and suffers from the fact that Virginia has a one-term term limit for governor, leaving him with an itch that has to be scratched, probably with a huge pile of donor money that could be put to any number of more productive purposes.
Andrew Cuomo: The Clintons and Cuomos have never been particularly warm to each other, but the two political dynasties, eternally orbiting one another, have managed to seamlessly apply the transactional-slash-triangulating political style they share in common to their interpersonal relationships. Now, as rumors mount that Cuomo is considering a White House bid, he’s welcoming former Clinton campaign staff into his fold, where they’ll likely discover similarities to their natural habitat. Liberals have, in recent months, thrilled to Cuomo’s stance on fracking and his defense of immigrants, but they’re setting themselves up for huge disappointments. Cuomo, who is astonishingly petty and mean-minded, has done more to dampen the fortunes of New York’s Democratic Party than New York Republicans have. And he’s corrupt as all get-out to boot ― his most notable accomplishment as governor was to shut down the Moreland Commission anti-corruption inquiry as soon as the probe starting sniffing around targets with ties to the governor ― and getting away with it.
That, right there, is a murderer’s row of the exact wrong candidates for the Democratic Party, who’d be better advised to begin the hard work of rebuilding their party’s foundations and restoring a deep bench of new policymakers with fresh ideas. This is not the moment to try to lock arms with a gaggle of dilettante 1-percenters, promising to do what Trump pulled off. And it’s certainly not the time to try to revive the fortunes of their political cousins ― the broken remnants of the Clinton machine.
Drown these candidacies in the bathtub, right now.
Ryan Grim contributed.
~~~~~
Jason Linkins edits “Eat The Press” for The Huffington Post and co-hosts the HuffPost Politics podcast “So, That Happened.” Subscribe here, and listen to the latest episode below.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mTj4As
0 notes
Text
Hey, Here Are Some People Who Really, Really Should Not Run For President
March 2017 is probably far too early to start considering the next presidential election, and who the Democrats might send into the breach to take on Donald Trump (assuming he runs for re-election, of course). That said, there’s already an awful lot of rumor and sigh in the news transom about people having sudden-onset political stirrings, including those setting their sights on a 2020 presidential run.
Some of them are the last vestiges of the Clinton network, still high on that old Third Way supply, banking on the belief that the country isn’t yet done with late-1990s nostalgia. But a new group of would-be candidates is on the rise ― extravagantly wealthy wannabes stirred both by the Clinton-era Democratic Party embrace of meritocratic elites and the success of Trump’s outsider run. And if they all have something in common, it’s that they are all the worst possible people for the Democrats to run for office, if you consider the lessons of the 2016 election.
What were those lessons? Well, for one thing, 2016 was the year that the Democratic Party’s obsessions with the professional class finally caught up with it. Amid roaring calls for solutions to widely felt economic inequities, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign largely based on social niceties and boardroom diversification, with some incremental crumbs thrown the way of middle- and working-class strivers.
None of it added up to a compelling enough case against the GOP’s con-man class-traitor to win the election. (And tellingly, some taken-for-granted Democratic strongholds fell to Trump at the exact moment Democrats needed them most.) But if there’s one thing both political parties share, it’s that they are slow to learn their lessons. The fear that the Democrats might stay the course, despite Clinton’s failings, suffused the atmosphere in the recent Democratic National Committee election ― and those who wanted a decisive change are still not sure they’re getting one with the election of former Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez. That some of the Clinton family’s most dedicated hangers-on feel like they are the person to run for office in the Trump era likely won’t soothe their ravaged souls, either.
And then there are the unfortunate side effects of Trump’s win itself, which has apparently touched off a whole new round of thinking as to whether it would be a good idea to examine this moment in history ― in which a brash billionaire-celebrity outsider has ascended to the highest political office in the world ― and consider whether the time is right to have more brash billionaire-celebrity outsiders try to run for president.
That every single day of the Trump presidency has been a scintillating demonstration of the Peter Principle seems to not deter anybody. Instead, the event of a complete and utter billionaire buffoon with no political experience has suggested to a slew of other buffoons that, hey, why not me?
A century or two of yawning inequality has left us with no shortage of such buffoons. Hundreds of these folks have ascended to the dizzying heights of our American oligarchy ― or were born there ― and now gaze downward, gripped with the firm conviction that they should run all that they see below. “Stay in your lane,” once the byword of America’s true and most successful innovators, is advice too easily chucked aside by today’s captains of industry. And so, “meritocracy” has become something of a dirty word.
Nowadays, those who have found success in one area are just as likely not to think that their success is translatable to other endeavors. When this turns out not to be the case, comical hijinks ensue. Perhaps the apotheosis of this rich-people folly came when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg thought it would be a good idea to appoint his friend, Hearst executive Cathleen Black, to the position of New York City schools chancellor ― despite the fact that her relevant experience could best be summed up as “not any.”
It was a huge disaster, but did anyone learn a damn thing from this experience? (Hmmm, let me check: Oh, yeah, Betsy DeVos is the U.S. secretary of education. So, no, nobody did.)
Still it’s one thing for Republicans to consider running the play ― they’ve obviously managed to make it work, at least in the narrow electoral sense. And their billionaire was no obscure figure. Entering the election with 100-percent name identification, and a years-long run in American living rooms as a fictional, all-knowing business leader, gave Trump legs up that your random billionaire lacks.
Replicating either side of the last presidential election is a losing move for Democrats. But it’s a very tempting one: It’s a notion that allows the easy-breezy fantasy that a massive party overhaul isn’t necessary, and that all of their problems can be ameliorated by either billionaires with quick fixes and cash on-hand, or Clinton 2016-redux candidates with better data and marketing.
With that in mind, here are a bunch of people whose political ambitions should be extinguished with all deliberate haste.
Bob Iger: Who, pray tell, is Bob Iger? Well, for a while, he was a member of Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, a collection of CEO heavyweights who were going to help Trump #MAGA, for which Iger was well suited as the chief executive of Walt Disney. SInce then, it’s been reported that he is mulling making a run for the White House in 2020. Hmmm, maybe he hasn’t thought through this whole politics thing? Apparently not, considering that his inspiration to maybe run for president stems from the fact that he says “a lot of people ― a lot ― have urged me to seek political office.” I mean, maybe set your sights a little lower, first time out?
J.B. Pritzker: Having endeavored mightily to paint the past two Republican presidential nominees as out-of-touch wealthy elites ― and having failed to distinguish their own last presidential nominee as something different ― are Democrats stupid enough to make an about-face and run their own billionaire?No, J.B. Pritzker wouldn’t make it out of Iowa without a negative vote total. But even though he’s recently been sniffing around the possibility of running in the Illinois gubernatorial election, that hasn’t stopped him from floating to friends that he’s considering making a run for the White House as well ― or so we’re told by one recipient of such a flatulent flotation. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, had designs on being commerce secretary under Hillary Clinton, just as his sister Penny Pritzker was under Obama. Just stop.
Sheryl Sandberg: According to some election-year rumors, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg was in the running to serve as Hillary Clinton’s treasury secretary. Since then, she’s been rumored to be considering a White House run, amid occasional denials. At the same time, she has recently been more open to Trump’s overtures. She was one of those Silicon Valley leaders who met with Trump prior to the inauguration. As Slate’s Helaine Owen notes, Sandberg made no public mention of the Women’s March that took place afterwards, a curious move for the “Lean In” maven ― at least until you consider the fact that “Lean In” is a disingenuous brand-washing scheme, and that Sandberg is especially unwilling to criticize her C-suite peers for crimes against women in the workforce.
Howard Schultz: The Starbucks CEO has said “never say never” to a presidential run. Indeed, Schultz would be the fever-dream candidate of the No Labels set: his political “brand,” insofar that he has one, is essentially based around his core belief that everyone in politics should be a lot nicer to each other. This worldview most famously manifested itself in the short-lived March 2015 “Race Together” campaign, in which Schultz ― after having mostly eliminated manual espresso machines in Starbucks stores ― tasked baristas with bridging America’s racial divide. If you want a president who believes that all of America’s problems can be solved by constantly throwing corporate culture at them, he’s your guy.
Mark Zuckerberg: Hey, let’s see: Do we really want the founder and CEO of Facebook ― a business that depends on learning as much about your private life as possible, more and more every single day, always probing and collecting, never ceasing in its sleepless drive to know everything about you, better than you could possibly know yourself, until the very idea of “privacy” becomes an obsolete concept and individual autonomy is subordinated to a set of bloodless algorithms and advertisers are straight-up living inside your dreams ― to be our president? I dunno, man. As Big Brother might say, that sounds doubleplusungood!
Chelsea Clinton: Anyone else notice how after the election, Chelsea Clinton has been slowly creeping into our lives? There’s been this gradual ramping up of Total Chelsea Clinton Awareness, and along with it, the gradual ramping up of yet another Clinton’s political career ― even though, up until now, Chelsea Clinton has essentially been nothing more than a lodestar for other people’s money to find their way into Clinton bank accounts. (I read here that she was paid $600,000 to do journalism? Holy cats, how long did it take Jimmy Breslin to make $600,000?) Anyway, she’s been tweeting lately ― tweets that feel a little too clever, but not enough to be thought of as “edgy” ― the sort of social media output that makes you want to look for hidden wires. Hillary Clinton got a lot of stick ― unfairly so ― for lacking authenticity, but her daughter’s recent re-emergence feels like a ghost in the shell being willed into existence by a team of P.R. firms. We don’t suspect we have to fear a run in 2020 from Chelsea. But let’s please add every year in the future, ever, to that safe space.
Terry McAuliffe: The biggest beneficiary of the Clinton family to not have actual Clinton family DNA (probably, anyway!), McAuliffe revived his political career by winning the 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia. It was close. Too close, considering he was running against a throwback Christian conservative ideologue in the form of Ken Cuccinelli. During the 2016 campaign, McAuliffe distinguished himself by telling reporters at the Democratic National Convention that Hillary Clinton was definitely going to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal after the election. The TPP, if you recall, was the thing convention-goers booed and jeered more lustily than Donald Trump. McAuliffe and his spin-team later tried to walk this back, saying that it was just McAuliffe who supported the TPP, which ― is still not good? Anyway, he is basically kooky, has a lot of funny-money connections, and suffers from the fact that Virginia has a one-term term limit for governor, leaving him with an itch that has to be scratched, probably with a huge pile of donor money that could be put to any number of more productive purposes.
Andrew Cuomo: The Clintons and Cuomos have never been particularly warm to each other, but the two political dynasties, eternally orbiting one another, have managed to seamlessly apply the transactional-slash-triangulating political style they share in common to their interpersonal relationships. Now, as rumors mount that Cuomo is considering a White House bid, he’s welcoming former Clinton campaign staff into his fold, where they’ll likely discover similarities to their natural habitat. Liberals have, in recent months, thrilled to Cuomo’s stance on fracking and his defense of immigrants, but they’re setting themselves up for huge disappointments. Cuomo, who is astonishingly petty and mean-minded, has done more to dampen the fortunes of New York’s Democratic Party than New York Republicans have. And he’s corrupt as all get-out to boot ― his most notable accomplishment as governor was to shut down the Moreland Commission anti-corruption inquiry as soon as the probe starting sniffing around targets with ties to the governor ― and getting away with it.
That, right there, is a murderer’s row of the exact wrong candidates for the Democratic Party, who’d be better advised to begin the hard work of rebuilding their party’s foundations and restoring a deep bench of new policymakers with fresh ideas. This is not the moment to try to lock arms with a gaggle of dilettante 1-percenters, promising to do what Trump pulled off. And it’s certainly not the time to try to revive the fortunes of their political cousins ― the broken remnants of the Clinton machine.
Drown these candidacies in the bathtub, right now.
Ryan Grim contributed.
~~~~~
Jason Linkins edits “Eat The Press” for The Huffington Post and co-hosts the HuffPost Politics podcast “So, That Happened.” Subscribe here, and listen to the latest episode below.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mTj4As
0 notes
Text
Hey, Here Are Some People Who Really, Really Should Not Run For President
March 2017 is probably far too early to start considering the next presidential election, and who the Democrats might send into the breach to take on Donald Trump (assuming he runs for re-election, of course). That said, there’s already an awful lot of rumor and sigh in the news transom about people having sudden-onset political stirrings, including those setting their sights on a 2020 presidential run.
Some of them are the last vestiges of the Clinton network, still high on that old Third Way supply, banking on the belief that the country isn’t yet done with late-1990s nostalgia. But a new group of would-be candidates is on the rise ― extravagantly wealthy wannabes stirred both by the Clinton-era Democratic Party embrace of meritocratic elites and the success of Trump’s outsider run. And if they all have something in common, it’s that they are all the worst possible people for the Democrats to run for office, if you consider the lessons of the 2016 election.
What were those lessons? Well, for one thing, 2016 was the year that the Democratic Party’s obsessions with the professional class finally caught up with it. Amid roaring calls for solutions to widely felt economic inequities, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign largely based on social niceties and boardroom diversification, with some incremental crumbs thrown the way of middle- and working-class strivers.
None of it added up to a compelling enough case against the GOP’s con-man class-traitor to win the election. (And tellingly, some taken-for-granted Democratic strongholds fell to Trump at the exact moment Democrats needed them most.) But if there’s one thing both political parties share, it’s that they are slow to learn their lessons. The fear that the Democrats might stay the course, despite Clinton’s failings, suffused the atmosphere in the recent Democratic National Committee election ― and those who wanted a decisive change are still not sure they’re getting one with the election of former Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez. That some of the Clinton family’s most dedicated hangers-on feel like they are the person to run for office in the Trump era likely won’t soothe their ravaged souls, either.
And then there are the unfortunate side effects of Trump’s win itself, which has apparently touched off a whole new round of thinking as to whether it would be a good idea to examine this moment in history ― in which a brash billionaire-celebrity outsider has ascended to the highest political office in the world ― and consider whether the time is right to have more brash billionaire-celebrity outsiders try to run for president.
That every single day of the Trump presidency has been a scintillating demonstration of the Peter Principle seems to not deter anybody. Instead, the event of a complete and utter billionaire buffoon with no political experience has suggested to a slew of other buffoons that, hey, why not me?
A century or two of yawning inequality has left us with no shortage of such buffoons. Hundreds of these folks have ascended to the dizzying heights of our American oligarchy ― or were born there ― and now gaze downward, gripped with the firm conviction that they should run all that they see below. “Stay in your lane,” once the byword of America’s true and most successful innovators, is advice too easily chucked aside by today’s captains of industry. And so, “meritocracy” has become something of a dirty word.
Nowadays, those who have found success in one area are just as likely not to think that their success is translatable to other endeavors. When this turns out not to be the case, comical hijinks ensue. Perhaps the apotheosis of this rich-people folly came when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg thought it would be a good idea to appoint his friend, Hearst executive Cathleen Black, to the position of New York City schools chancellor ― despite the fact that her relevant experience could best be summed up as “not any.”
It was a huge disaster, but did anyone learn a damn thing from this experience? (Hmmm, let me check: Oh, yeah, Betsy DeVos is the U.S. secretary of education. So, no, nobody did.)
Still it’s one thing for Republicans to consider running the play ― they’ve obviously managed to make it work, at least in the narrow electoral sense. And their billionaire was no obscure figure. Entering the election with 100-percent name identification, and a years-long run in American living rooms as a fictional, all-knowing business leader, gave Trump legs up that your random billionaire lacks.
Replicating either side of the last presidential election is a losing move for Democrats. But it’s a very tempting one: It’s a notion that allows the easy-breezy fantasy that a massive party overhaul isn’t necessary, and that all of their problems can be ameliorated by either billionaires with quick fixes and cash on-hand, or Clinton 2016-redux candidates with better data and marketing.
With that in mind, here are a bunch of people whose political ambitions should be extinguished with all deliberate haste.
Bob Iger: Who, pray tell, is Bob Iger? Well, for a while, he was a member of Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, a collection of CEO heavyweights who were going to help Trump #MAGA, for which Iger was well suited as the chief executive of Walt Disney. SInce then, it’s been reported that he is mulling making a run for the White House in 2020. Hmmm, maybe he hasn’t thought through this whole politics thing? Apparently not, considering that his inspiration to maybe run for president stems from the fact that he says “a lot of people ― a lot ― have urged me to seek political office.” I mean, maybe set your sights a little lower, first time out?
J.B. Pritzker: Having endeavored mightily to paint the past two Republican presidential nominees as out-of-touch wealthy elites ― and having failed to distinguish their own last presidential nominee as something different ― are Democrats stupid enough to make an about-face and run their own billionaire?No, J.B. Pritzker wouldn’t make it out of Iowa without a negative vote total. But even though he’s recently been sniffing around the possibility of running in the Illinois gubernatorial election, that hasn’t stopped him from floating to friends that he’s considering making a run for the White House as well ― or so we’re told by one recipient of such a flatulent flotation. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, had designs on being commerce secretary under Hillary Clinton, just as his sister Penny Pritzker was under Obama. Just stop.
Sheryl Sandberg: According to some election-year rumors, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg was in the running to serve as Hillary Clinton’s treasury secretary. Since then, she’s been rumored to be considering a White House run, amid occasional denials. At the same time, she has recently been more open to Trump’s overtures. She was one of those Silicon Valley leaders who met with Trump prior to the inauguration. As Slate’s Helaine Owen notes, Sandberg made no public mention of the Women’s March that took place afterwards, a curious move for the “Lean In” maven ― at least until you consider the fact that “Lean In” is a disingenuous brand-washing scheme, and that Sandberg is especially unwilling to criticize her C-suite peers for crimes against women in the workforce.
Howard Schultz: The Starbucks CEO has said “never say never” to a presidential run. Indeed, Schultz would be the fever-dream candidate of the No Labels set: his political “brand,” insofar that he has one, is essentially based around his core belief that everyone in politics should be a lot nicer to each other. This worldview most famously manifested itself in the short-lived March 2015 “Race Together” campaign, in which Schultz ― after having mostly eliminated manual espresso machines in Starbucks stores ― tasked baristas with bridging America’s racial divide. If you want a president who believes that all of America’s problems can be solved by constantly throwing corporate culture at them, he’s your guy.
Mark Zuckerberg: Hey, let’s see: Do we really want the founder and CEO of Facebook ― a business that depends on learning as much about your private life as possible, more and more every single day, always probing and collecting, never ceasing in its sleepless drive to know everything about you, better than you could possibly know yourself, until the very idea of “privacy” becomes an obsolete concept and individual autonomy is subordinated to a set of bloodless algorithms and advertisers are straight-up living inside your dreams ― to be our president? I dunno, man. As Big Brother might say, that sounds doubleplusungood!
Chelsea Clinton: Anyone else notice how after the election, Chelsea Clinton has been slowly creeping into our lives? There’s been this gradual ramping up of Total Chelsea Clinton Awareness, and along with it, the gradual ramping up of yet another Clinton’s political career ― even though, up until now, Chelsea Clinton has essentially been nothing more than a lodestar for other people’s money to find their way into Clinton bank accounts. (I read here that she was paid $600,000 to do journalism? Holy cats, how long did it take Jimmy Breslin to make $600,000?) Anyway, she’s been tweeting lately ― tweets that feel a little too clever, but not enough to be thought of as “edgy” ― the sort of social media output that makes you want to look for hidden wires. Hillary Clinton got a lot of stick ― unfairly so ― for lacking authenticity, but her daughter’s recent re-emergence feels like a ghost in the shell being willed into existence by a team of P.R. firms. We don’t suspect we have to fear a run in 2020 from Chelsea. But let’s please add every year in the future, ever, to that safe space.
Terry McAuliffe: The biggest beneficiary of the Clinton family to not have actual Clinton family DNA (probably, anyway!), McAuliffe revived his political career by winning the 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia. It was close. Too close, considering he was running against a throwback Christian conservative ideologue in the form of Ken Cuccinelli. During the 2016 campaign, McAuliffe distinguished himself by telling reporters at the Democratic National Convention that Hillary Clinton was definitely going to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal after the election. The TPP, if you recall, was the thing convention-goers booed and jeered more lustily than Donald Trump. McAuliffe and his spin-team later tried to walk this back, saying that it was just McAuliffe who supported the TPP, which ― is still not good? Anyway, he is basically kooky, has a lot of funny-money connections, and suffers from the fact that Virginia has a one-term term limit for governor, leaving him with an itch that has to be scratched, probably with a huge pile of donor money that could be put to any number of more productive purposes.
Andrew Cuomo: The Clintons and Cuomos have never been particularly warm to each other, but the two political dynasties, eternally orbiting one another, have managed to seamlessly apply the transactional-slash-triangulating political style they share in common to their interpersonal relationships. Now, as rumors mount that Cuomo is considering a White House bid, he’s welcoming former Clinton campaign staff into his fold, where they’ll likely discover similarities to their natural habitat. Liberals have, in recent months, thrilled to Cuomo’s stance on fracking and his defense of immigrants, but they’re setting themselves up for huge disappointments. Cuomo, who is astonishingly petty and mean-minded, has done more to dampen the fortunes of New York’s Democratic Party than New York Republicans have. And he’s corrupt as all get-out to boot ― his most notable accomplishment as governor was to shut down the Moreland Commission anti-corruption inquiry as soon as the probe starting sniffing around targets with ties to the governor ― and getting away with it.
That, right there, is a murderer’s row of the exact wrong candidates for the Democratic Party, who’d be better advised to begin the hard work of rebuilding their party’s foundations and restoring a deep bench of new policymakers with fresh ideas. This is not the moment to try to lock arms with a gaggle of dilettante 1-percenters, promising to do what Trump pulled off. And it’s certainly not the time to try to revive the fortunes of their political cousins ― the broken remnants of the Clinton machine.
Drown these candidacies in the bathtub, right now.
Ryan Grim contributed.
~~~~~
Jason Linkins edits “Eat The Press” for The Huffington Post and co-hosts the HuffPost Politics podcast “So, That Happened.” Subscribe here, and listen to the latest episode below.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mTj4As
0 notes
Text
Hey, Here Are Some People Who Really, Really Should Not Run For President
March 2017 is probably far too early to start considering the next presidential election, and who the Democrats might send into the breach to take on Donald Trump (assuming he runs for re-election, of course). That said, there’s already an awful lot of rumor and sigh in the news transom about people having sudden-onset political stirrings, including those setting their sights on a 2020 presidential run.
Some of them are the last vestiges of the Clinton network, still high on that old Third Way supply, banking on the belief that the country isn’t yet done with late-1990s nostalgia. But a new group of would-be candidates is on the rise ― extravagantly wealthy wannabes stirred both by the Clinton-era Democratic Party embrace of meritocratic elites and the success of Trump’s outsider run. And if they all have something in common, it’s that they are all the worst possible people for the Democrats to run for office, if you consider the lessons of the 2016 election.
What were those lessons? Well, for one thing, 2016 was the year that the Democratic Party’s obsessions with the professional class finally caught up with it. Amid roaring calls for solutions to widely felt economic inequities, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign largely based on social niceties and boardroom diversification, with some incremental crumbs thrown the way of middle- and working-class strivers.
None of it added up to a compelling enough case against the GOP’s con-man class-traitor to win the election. (And tellingly, some taken-for-granted Democratic strongholds fell to Trump at the exact moment Democrats needed them most.) But if there’s one thing both political parties share, it’s that they are slow to learn their lessons. The fear that the Democrats might stay the course, despite Clinton’s failings, suffused the atmosphere in the recent Democratic National Committee election ― and those who wanted a decisive change are still not sure they’re getting one with the election of former Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez. That some of the Clinton family’s most dedicated hangers-on feel like they are the person to run for office in the Trump era likely won’t soothe their ravaged souls, either.
And then there are the unfortunate side effects of Trump’s win itself, which has apparently touched off a whole new round of thinking as to whether it would be a good idea to examine this moment in history ― in which a brash billionaire-celebrity outsider has ascended to the highest political office in the world ― and consider whether the time is right to have more brash billionaire-celebrity outsiders try to run for president.
That every single day of the Trump presidency has been a scintillating demonstration of the Peter Principle seems to not deter anybody. Instead, the event of a complete and utter billionaire buffoon with no political experience has suggested to a slew of other buffoons that, hey, why not me?
A century or two of yawning inequality has left us with no shortage of such buffoons. Hundreds of these folks have ascended to the dizzying heights of our American oligarchy ― or were born there ― and now gaze downward, gripped with the firm conviction that they should run all that they see below. “Stay in your lane,” once the byword of America’s true and most successful innovators, is advice too easily chucked aside by today’s captains of industry. And so, “meritocracy” has become something of a dirty word.
Nowadays, those who have found success in one area are just as likely not to think that their success is translatable to other endeavors. When this turns out not to be the case, comical hijinks ensue. Perhaps the apotheosis of this rich-people folly came when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg thought it would be a good idea to appoint his friend, Hearst executive Cathleen Black, to the position of New York City schools chancellor ― despite the fact that her relevant experience could best be summed up as “not any.”
It was a huge disaster, but did anyone learn a damn thing from this experience? (Hmmm, let me check: Oh, yeah, Betsy DeVos is the U.S. secretary of education. So, no, nobody did.)
Still it’s one thing for Republicans to consider running the play ― they’ve obviously managed to make it work, at least in the narrow electoral sense. And their billionaire was no obscure figure. Entering the election with 100-percent name identification, and a years-long run in American living rooms as a fictional, all-knowing business leader, gave Trump legs up that your random billionaire lacks.
Replicating either side of the last presidential election is a losing move for Democrats. But it’s a very tempting one: It’s a notion that allows the easy-breezy fantasy that a massive party overhaul isn’t necessary, and that all of their problems can be ameliorated by either billionaires with quick fixes and cash on-hand, or Clinton 2016-redux candidates with better data and marketing.
With that in mind, here are a bunch of people whose political ambitions should be extinguished with all deliberate haste.
Bob Iger: Who, pray tell, is Bob Iger? Well, for a while, he was a member of Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, a collection of CEO heavyweights who were going to help Trump #MAGA, for which Iger was well suited as the chief executive of Walt Disney. SInce then, it’s been reported that he is mulling making a run for the White House in 2020. Hmmm, maybe he hasn’t thought through this whole politics thing? Apparently not, considering that his inspiration to maybe run for president stems from the fact that he says “a lot of people ― a lot ― have urged me to seek political office.” I mean, maybe set your sights a little lower, first time out?
J.B. Pritzker: Having endeavored mightily to paint the past two Republican presidential nominees as out-of-touch wealthy elites ― and having failed to distinguish their own last presidential nominee as something different ― are Democrats stupid enough to make an about-face and run their own billionaire?No, J.B. Pritzker wouldn’t make it out of Iowa without a negative vote total. But even though he’s recently been sniffing around the possibility of running in the Illinois gubernatorial election, that hasn’t stopped him from floating to friends that he’s considering making a run for the White House as well ― or so we’re told by one recipient of such a flatulent flotation. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, had designs on being commerce secretary under Hillary Clinton, just as his sister Penny Pritzker was under Obama. Just stop.
Sheryl Sandberg: According to some election-year rumors, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg was in the running to serve as Hillary Clinton’s treasury secretary. Since then, she’s been rumored to be considering a White House run, amid occasional denials. At the same time, she has recently been more open to Trump’s overtures. She was one of those Silicon Valley leaders who met with Trump prior to the inauguration. As Slate’s Helaine Owen notes, Sandberg made no public mention of the Women’s March that took place afterwards, a curious move for the “Lean In” maven ― at least until you consider the fact that “Lean In” is a disingenuous brand-washing scheme, and that Sandberg is especially unwilling to criticize her C-suite peers for crimes against women in the workforce.
Howard Schultz: The Starbucks CEO has said “never say never” to a presidential run. Indeed, Schultz would be the fever-dream candidate of the No Labels set: his political “brand,” insofar that he has one, is essentially based around his core belief that everyone in politics should be a lot nicer to each other. This worldview most famously manifested itself in the short-lived March 2015 “Race Together” campaign, in which Schultz ― after having mostly eliminated manual espresso machines in Starbucks stores ― tasked baristas with bridging America’s racial divide. If you want a president who believes that all of America’s problems can be solved by constantly throwing corporate culture at them, he’s your guy.
Mark Zuckerberg: Hey, let’s see: Do we really want the founder and CEO of Facebook ― a business that depends on learning as much about your private life as possible, more and more every single day, always probing and collecting, never ceasing in its sleepless drive to know everything about you, better than you could possibly know yourself, until the very idea of “privacy” becomes an obsolete concept and individual autonomy is subordinated to a set of bloodless algorithms and advertisers are straight-up living inside your dreams ― to be our president? I dunno, man. As Big Brother might say, that sounds doubleplusungood!
Chelsea Clinton: Anyone else notice how after the election, Chelsea Clinton has been slowly creeping into our lives? There’s been this gradual ramping up of Total Chelsea Clinton Awareness, and along with it, the gradual ramping up of yet another Clinton’s political career ― even though, up until now, Chelsea Clinton has essentially been nothing more than a lodestar for other people’s money to find their way into Clinton bank accounts. (I read here that she was paid $600,000 to do journalism? Holy cats, how long did it take Jimmy Breslin to make $600,000?) Anyway, she’s been tweeting lately ― tweets that feel a little too clever, but not enough to be thought of as “edgy” ― the sort of social media output that makes you want to look for hidden wires. Hillary Clinton got a lot of stick ― unfairly so ― for lacking authenticity, but her daughter’s recent re-emergence feels like a ghost in the shell being willed into existence by a team of P.R. firms. We don’t suspect we have to fear a run in 2020 from Chelsea. But let’s please add every year in the future, ever, to that safe space.
Terry McAuliffe: The biggest beneficiary of the Clinton family to not have actual Clinton family DNA (probably, anyway!), McAuliffe revived his political career by winning the 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia. It was close. Too close, considering he was running against a throwback Christian conservative ideologue in the form of Ken Cuccinelli. During the 2016 campaign, McAuliffe distinguished himself by telling reporters at the Democratic National Convention that Hillary Clinton was definitely going to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal after the election. The TPP, if you recall, was the thing convention-goers booed and jeered more lustily than Donald Trump. McAuliffe and his spin-team later tried to walk this back, saying that it was just McAuliffe who supported the TPP, which ― is still not good? Anyway, he is basically kooky, has a lot of funny-money connections, and suffers from the fact that Virginia has a one-term term limit for governor, leaving him with an itch that has to be scratched, probably with a huge pile of donor money that could be put to any number of more productive purposes.
Andrew Cuomo: The Clintons and Cuomos have never been particularly warm to each other, but the two political dynasties, eternally orbiting one another, have managed to seamlessly apply the transactional-slash-triangulating political style they share in common to their interpersonal relationships. Now, as rumors mount that Cuomo is considering a White House bid, he’s welcoming former Clinton campaign staff into his fold, where they’ll likely discover similarities to their natural habitat. Liberals have, in recent months, thrilled to Cuomo’s stance on fracking and his defense of immigrants, but they’re setting themselves up for huge disappointments. Cuomo, who is astonishingly petty and mean-minded, has done more to dampen the fortunes of New York’s Democratic Party than New York Republicans have. And he’s corrupt as all get-out to boot ― his most notable accomplishment as governor was to shut down the Moreland Commission anti-corruption inquiry as soon as the probe starting sniffing around targets with ties to the governor ― and getting away with it.
That, right there, is a murderer’s row of the exact wrong candidates for the Democratic Party, who’d be better advised to begin the hard work of rebuilding their party’s foundations and restoring a deep bench of new policymakers with fresh ideas. This is not the moment to try to lock arms with a gaggle of dilettante 1-percenters, promising to do what Trump pulled off. And it’s certainly not the time to try to revive the fortunes of their political cousins ― the broken remnants of the Clinton machine.
Drown these candidacies in the bathtub, right now.
Ryan Grim contributed.
~~~~~
Jason Linkins edits “Eat The Press” for The Huffington Post and co-hosts the HuffPost Politics podcast “So, That Happened.” Subscribe here, and listen to the latest episode below.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mTj4As
0 notes
Text
Hey, Here Are Some People Who Really, Really Should Not Run For President
March 2017 is probably far too early to start considering the next presidential election, and who the Democrats might send into the breach to take on Donald Trump (assuming he runs for re-election, of course). That said, there’s already an awful lot of rumor and sigh in the news transom about people having sudden-onset political stirrings, including those setting their sights on a 2020 presidential run.
Some of them are the last vestiges of the Clinton network, still high on that old Third Way supply, banking on the belief that the country isn’t yet done with late-1990s nostalgia. But a new group of would-be candidates is on the rise ― extravagantly wealthy wannabes stirred both by the Clinton-era Democratic Party embrace of meritocratic elites and the success of Trump’s outsider run. And if they all have something in common, it’s that they are all the worst possible people for the Democrats to run for office, if you consider the lessons of the 2016 election.
What were those lessons? Well, for one thing, 2016 was the year that the Democratic Party’s obsessions with the professional class finally caught up with it. Amid roaring calls for solutions to widely felt economic inequities, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign largely based on social niceties and boardroom diversification, with some incremental crumbs thrown the way of middle- and working-class strivers.
None of it added up to a compelling enough case against the GOP’s con-man class-traitor to win the election. (And tellingly, some taken-for-granted Democratic strongholds fell to Trump at the exact moment Democrats needed them most.) But if there’s one thing both political parties share, it’s that they are slow to learn their lessons. The fear that the Democrats might stay the course, despite Clinton’s failings, suffused the atmosphere in the recent Democratic National Committee election ― and those who wanted a decisive change are still not sure they’re getting one with the election of former Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez. That some of the Clinton family’s most dedicated hangers-on feel like they are the person to run for office in the Trump era likely won’t soothe their ravaged souls, either.
And then there are the unfortunate side effects of Trump’s win itself, which has apparently touched off a whole new round of thinking as to whether it would be a good idea to examine this moment in history ― in which a brash billionaire-celebrity outsider has ascended to the highest political office in the world ― and consider whether the time is right to have more brash billionaire-celebrity outsiders try to run for president.
That every single day of the Trump presidency has been a scintillating demonstration of the Peter Principle seems to not deter anybody. Instead, the event of a complete and utter billionaire buffoon with no political experience has suggested to a slew of other buffoons that, hey, why not me?
A century or two of yawning inequality has left us with no shortage of such buffoons. Hundreds of these folks have ascended to the dizzying heights of our American oligarchy ― or were born there ― and now gaze downward, gripped with the firm conviction that they should run all that they see below. “Stay in your lane,” once the byword of America’s true and most successful innovators, is advice too easily chucked aside by today’s captains of industry. And so, “meritocracy” has become something of a dirty word.
Nowadays, those who have found success in one area are just as likely not to think that their success is translatable to other endeavors. When this turns out not to be the case, comical hijinks ensue. Perhaps the apotheosis of this rich-people folly came when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg thought it would be a good idea to appoint his friend, Hearst executive Cathleen Black, to the position of New York City schools chancellor ― despite the fact that her relevant experience could best be summed up as “not any.”
It was a huge disaster, but did anyone learn a damn thing from this experience? (Hmmm, let me check: Oh, yeah, Betsy DeVos is the U.S. secretary of education. So, no, nobody did.)
Still it’s one thing for Republicans to consider running the play ― they’ve obviously managed to make it work, at least in the narrow electoral sense. And their billionaire was no obscure figure. Entering the election with 100-percent name identification, and a years-long run in American living rooms as a fictional, all-knowing business leader, gave Trump legs up that your random billionaire lacks.
Replicating either side of the last presidential election is a losing move for Democrats. But it’s a very tempting one: It’s a notion that allows the easy-breezy fantasy that a massive party overhaul isn’t necessary, and that all of their problems can be ameliorated by either billionaires with quick fixes and cash on-hand, or Clinton 2016-redux candidates with better data and marketing.
With that in mind, here are a bunch of people whose political ambitions should be extinguished with all deliberate haste.
Bob Iger: Who, pray tell, is Bob Iger? Well, for a while, he was a member of Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, a collection of CEO heavyweights who were going to help Trump #MAGA, for which Iger was well suited as the chief executive of Walt Disney. SInce then, it’s been reported that he is mulling making a run for the White House in 2020. Hmmm, maybe he hasn’t thought through this whole politics thing? Apparently not, considering that his inspiration to maybe run for president stems from the fact that he says “a lot of people ― a lot ― have urged me to seek political office.” I mean, maybe set your sights a little lower, first time out?
J.B. Pritzker: Having endeavored mightily to paint the past two Republican presidential nominees as out-of-touch wealthy elites ― and having failed to distinguish their own last presidential nominee as something different ― are Democrats stupid enough to make an about-face and run their own billionaire?No, J.B. Pritzker wouldn’t make it out of Iowa without a negative vote total. But even though he’s recently been sniffing around the possibility of running in the Illinois gubernatorial election, that hasn’t stopped him from floating to friends that he’s considering making a run for the White House as well ― or so we’re told by one recipient of such a flatulent flotation. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, had designs on being commerce secretary under Hillary Clinton, just as his sister Penny Pritzker was under Obama. Just stop.
Sheryl Sandberg: According to some election-year rumors, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg was in the running to serve as Hillary Clinton’s treasury secretary. Since then, she’s been rumored to be considering a White House run, amid occasional denials. At the same time, she has recently been more open to Trump’s overtures. She was one of those Silicon Valley leaders who met with Trump prior to the inauguration. As Slate’s Helaine Owen notes, Sandberg made no public mention of the Women’s March that took place afterwards, a curious move for the “Lean In” maven ― at least until you consider the fact that “Lean In” is a disingenuous brand-washing scheme, and that Sandberg is especially unwilling to criticize her C-suite peers for crimes against women in the workforce.
Howard Schultz: The Starbucks CEO has said “never say never” to a presidential run. Indeed, Schultz would be the fever-dream candidate of the No Labels set: his political “brand,” insofar that he has one, is essentially based around his core belief that everyone in politics should be a lot nicer to each other. This worldview most famously manifested itself in the short-lived March 2015 “Race Together” campaign, in which Schultz ― after having mostly eliminated manual espresso machines in Starbucks stores ― tasked baristas with bridging America’s racial divide. If you want a president who believes that all of America’s problems can be solved by constantly throwing corporate culture at them, he’s your guy.
Mark Zuckerberg: Hey, let’s see: Do we really want the founder and CEO of Facebook ― a business that depends on learning as much about your private life as possible, more and more every single day, always probing and collecting, never ceasing in its sleepless drive to know everything about you, better than you could possibly know yourself, until the very idea of “privacy” becomes an obsolete concept and individual autonomy is subordinated to a set of bloodless algorithms and advertisers are straight-up living inside your dreams ― to be our president? I dunno, man. As Big Brother might say, that sounds doubleplusungood!
Chelsea Clinton: Anyone else notice how after the election, Chelsea Clinton has been slowly creeping into our lives? There’s been this gradual ramping up of Total Chelsea Clinton Awareness, and along with it, the gradual ramping up of yet another Clinton’s political career ― even though, up until now, Chelsea Clinton has essentially been nothing more than a lodestar for other people’s money to find their way into Clinton bank accounts. (I read here that she was paid $600,000 to do journalism? Holy cats, how long did it take Jimmy Breslin to make $600,000?) Anyway, she’s been tweeting lately ― tweets that feel a little too clever, but not enough to be thought of as “edgy” ― the sort of social media output that makes you want to look for hidden wires. Hillary Clinton got a lot of stick ― unfairly so ― for lacking authenticity, but her daughter’s recent re-emergence feels like a ghost in the shell being willed into existence by a team of P.R. firms. We don’t suspect we have to fear a run in 2020 from Chelsea. But let’s please add every year in the future, ever, to that safe space.
Terry McAuliffe: The biggest beneficiary of the Clinton family to not have actual Clinton family DNA (probably, anyway!), McAuliffe revived his political career by winning the 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia. It was close. Too close, considering he was running against a throwback Christian conservative ideologue in the form of Ken Cuccinelli. During the 2016 campaign, McAuliffe distinguished himself by telling reporters at the Democratic National Convention that Hillary Clinton was definitely going to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal after the election. The TPP, if you recall, was the thing convention-goers booed and jeered more lustily than Donald Trump. McAuliffe and his spin-team later tried to walk this back, saying that it was just McAuliffe who supported the TPP, which ― is still not good? Anyway, he is basically kooky, has a lot of funny-money connections, and suffers from the fact that Virginia has a one-term term limit for governor, leaving him with an itch that has to be scratched, probably with a huge pile of donor money that could be put to any number of more productive purposes.
Andrew Cuomo: The Clintons and Cuomos have never been particularly warm to each other, but the two political dynasties, eternally orbiting one another, have managed to seamlessly apply the transactional-slash-triangulating political style they share in common to their interpersonal relationships. Now, as rumors mount that Cuomo is considering a White House bid, he’s welcoming former Clinton campaign staff into his fold, where they’ll likely discover similarities to their natural habitat. Liberals have, in recent months, thrilled to Cuomo’s stance on fracking and his defense of immigrants, but they’re setting themselves up for huge disappointments. Cuomo, who is astonishingly petty and mean-minded, has done more to dampen the fortunes of New York’s Democratic Party than New York Republicans have. And he’s corrupt as all get-out to boot ― his most notable accomplishment as governor was to shut down the Moreland Commission anti-corruption inquiry as soon as the probe starting sniffing around targets with ties to the governor ― and getting away with it.
That, right there, is a murderer’s row of the exact wrong candidates for the Democratic Party, who’d be better advised to begin the hard work of rebuilding their party’s foundations and restoring a deep bench of new policymakers with fresh ideas. This is not the moment to try to lock arms with a gaggle of dilettante 1-percenters, promising to do what Trump pulled off. And it’s certainly not the time to try to revive the fortunes of their political cousins ― the broken remnants of the Clinton machine.
Drown these candidacies in the bathtub, right now.
Ryan Grim contributed.
~~~~~
Jason Linkins edits “Eat The Press” for The Huffington Post and co-hosts the HuffPost Politics podcast “So, That Happened.” Subscribe here, and listen to the latest episode below.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mTj4As
0 notes
Text
BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME!!!, SCOTUS edition:
Clarence Thomas: appointed by George H.W. Bush (Republican)
Samuel Alito and John Roberts: appointed by George W. Bush (Republican)
Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett: appointed by Donald Trump (Republican)
Conservative total: 6
Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan: appointed by Barack Obama (Democrat)
Ketanji Brown Jackson: appointed by Joe Biden (Democrat) replacing Stephen Breyer, appointed by Bill Clinton (Democrat), who also appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg;
Liberal total: 3
Most common split on all these bad decisions: 6-3
Gee, it's almost like SCOTUS actually is incredibly important, Hillary Clinton and the entire mainstream Democratic electorate knew that in 2016, Democratic presidents consistently appoint the justices who are on the side of the rulings that you agree with, it was maybe a bad idea to let a man charged with 71 felony counts including criminal espionage appoint one-third of the current court, and yet BUH BUH BERNIE AND HER EMAILS.
#hilary for ts#politics for ts#hillary clinton was right about everything: the redux redux redux#i will never not once ever not be salty about this#and how the purity brigade and decades of GOP bile aimed at hillary#have gotten us to exactly this point that all of us with brains in our heads saw coming back in 2016#urrrrrrgh
205 notes
·
View notes
Note
"The opinion of the court is, quite literally, a notice that reads: 'Some services may be denied to same-sex couples."
You fucking go off on them, Ms Sotomayor. One single sane opinion on a board of lunatics
I mean technically, Kagan and KBJ are equally outraged, but 6 is more than 3 every time, so there's not a lot they can do about it other than write scathing dissents....? Ugh.
Also, I don't think we're really grasping the sheer magnitude of the bullshit assfuckery of this case, in that it was completely fabricated. The guy who allegedly wanted the homophobic cake decorator to make him a gay wedding cake says he never filed the lawsuit and never worked with her (not to mention, HE IS STRAIGHT AND MARRIED TO A WOMAN). So basically, it's looking like the homophobes literally made this all the fuck up, sued with the express intent of getting the case in front of the Trump-stacked SCOTUS, and SCOTUS duly took the case (and ruled in favor of the bigot cake designer who again, I repeat, made the whole thing up) as a convenient legal pretext to gut LGBTQ rights, just like the anti-abortionites teed up Dobbs to be the case that would destroy Roe.
I just. I can't. They do this shit in fucking plain sight, and yet, Her Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemails!
#anonymous#ask#politics for ts#hillary clinton was right about everything: the redux redux redux#scotus is fucking corrupt beyond belief
63 notes
·
View notes
Text
Hillary Clinton walking out to a 5 minute standing ovation, giving a barnburner speech, and then getting to stand there and grin while the crowd chants LOCK HIM UP about Trump is what she deserves.
Massive props to all the DNC tech people who cut together entirely new hype videos of Kamala in less than a month, and everyone who totally rewrote their speeches in the same time. You'd honestly think this had been the plan all along. I am impressed.
#hillary clinton was right about everything: the redux redux redux#is a tag i have#honestly she would have been so justified in fucking off forever after 2016#and the fact that she gets a hero's welcome to help out kamala now is great
650 notes
·
View notes
Note
I understand how important it is to be able to criticize the President, and am not at all of the belief he should be beyond critique, but the critiquing of Biden makes me so nervous. (That's not to say I agree with every decision he's made - I absolutely do not). But I feel like people see things he's done wrong and decide they won't vote for him because of it. I'm not sure if enough people have the ability to see that he's done things wrong but also is our only hope of staving off literal fascism.
So many people talk about how sick they are of it constantly being a lesser of two evils situation, constantly having to vote for a candidate they hate because the other side is worse (I heard it in 2020, 2022, etc), and I guess I just- I don't really get it? We're here because they didn't do that in 2016. All of this could've been avoided had the result been different then. I just feel like people don't comprehend how different of a place we'd be in if Hillary won and engage in all this cognitive dissonance to make themselves feel better about being part of the reason she didn't.
Like.... this has been a long-running topic of discussion on my blog, not least because it is so inexplicable and maddening. It also shows how terribly shallow most people's understanding of the American political process is, and how toxic the "I can only vote for a candidate if every single personal belief/position of theirs matches mine" belief is, as well as how much damage it has done to American democracy even (and indeed, especially) by people who technically don't identify as right-wing. Yell at Republicans all you like (God knows I do, because they're the worst people on earth) but they vote. Every time. Every election. Every candidate. Whereas the Democratic electorate still holds out for Mister Perfect, and it very definitely is Mister Perfect. The amount of "evil HRC!!!" Republican-poisoned Kool-Aid that so-called progressives drank in 2016, and then afterward when they insisted they could have voted for someone like Elizabeth Warren and then didn't do that in 2020, is... baffing.
Frankly, I don't care if Hillary Clinton's personal positions on XYZ issue were the most Neoliberal Corporate Centrist Shill to Ever Shill (and Online Leftists' intellectual skills being what they are, I seriously doubt that they were using any of those words correctly and/or accurately). American policy is not made by "personal dictate of the ruler," or at least it shouldn't be, because we are not an absolute monarchy. We rely on the operation of a system with input from many people. As such, if Hillary had been elected, we would have 2-3 new liberal justices on SCOTUS and have secured civil and environmental rights for the next generation. Roe would be intact, and all the other terrible rulings that SCOTUS has recently handed down wouldn't have happened. We wouldn't have had January 6th, the attempt to stage a coup, all the tawdry scandals, our national security being at risk because of Trump stealing classified documents and probably selling them to Russia and/or Saudi Arabia, etc etc. If you think that's in any way an equivalent amount of evil to what would have happened if Hillary was elected, or if she was "still evil!!!," then I honestly don't know what to tell you. She could fucking murder puppies in her spare time if she had preserved SCOTUS for us, WHICH SHE WOULD HAVE, BECAUSE SHE WARNED US EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
(Hoo. Sorry. Still steamed. 2016 war flashbacks, again.)
In short, Hillary would have been a solid continuity Democrat and she would have signed whatever legislation a Democratic House and Senate passed, not to mention been hugely inspiring as the first female president. But because it's so important to the Online Leftists' moral sense of themselves that BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME!!!, they can't possibly acknowledge that ever being a factor, and/or admit that they have any culpability in not voting for her in 2016. It's like when you read the British press about any of the UK's equally numerous problems, and they BEND OVER BACKWARD to avoid mentioning that Brexit might be a factor. They just can't mention it, because then that means they might have made the wrong choice in pulling for it as hard as they did, and blah blah Sovereignty.
Basically, if HRC had been elected president, everything would be so much less terrible and terrifying all the time, we would be talking about her successor in 2024 as someone else who could be the "first," we could explore handing the reins over to Kamala as a Black/Asian woman, we could promote Buttigieg as the first gay president, etc etc. But because 2016 was so catastrophically fucked up, we are in damage control mode for the immediate future and every election is just as pivotal. And yet, because people think that the only thing that matters is a presidential candidate's personal views, we're stuck having the same old arguments and desperately begging people over and over to please vote against fascism, since that somehow isn't self-evident enough on its own. Yikes on Bikes.
5K notes
·
View notes
Text
Anyway, yet again, everyone who scoffed off voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016 because "the Supreme Court isn't important" (among all the other ridiculous misogynistic tripe usually sourced directly from the decades-long Republican smear campaign against her) needs to write her a formal fifty-page apology letter with full citations to every time they said it and a complete explanation of just why it was so mind-bogglingly stupid.
#hilary for ts#politics for ts#hillary clinton was right about everything: the redux redux redux#hoo boy i am in a mood today#if anyone needs me i will be screaming off into the night
1K notes
·
View notes
Note
Ok so what were conservatives accusing Hillary of doing with her emails in 2016 anyway?
Literally me aging 50 years upon reading this ask:
Please tell me, dear nonnie, your secret to being a sentient human on the internet in the year 2022 and managing to remain blissfully ignorant of the BUT HER EMAILS!!! screaming. In very brief sum, during her tenure as Secretary of State under the Obama administration, Clinton applied for (and received) permission to use a private email server to conduct some government business. Republicans had already been running a virulent smear campaign against her for decades, and the attacks intensified as she became tipped as the 2016 Democratic nominee. The BUT HER EMAILS!!! affair quickly mushroomed into evidently the most egregious political scandal ever suffered by any country anywhere, along with a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four people and was evidently, somehow, Totally Hillary's Fault.
The Republican-controlled House held endless "investigative" hearings (including forcing Hillary to testify for 11 hours straight, which she did calmly and with grace and without pleading the Fifth 400 times), which Kevin McCarthy straight up admitted were simply intended to damage her in the eyes of the American public and reduce her viability as a presidential candidate. The bullshit this incredibly gifted and well-qualified woman endured, even as she warned us over and over exactly what Trump would do and was rewarded with absolutely hysterical and endless misogyny and demonization as a result, from both the right and left, is truly unbelievable. We could have had her, our first female president, and we got. This.
In short, after YEARS of investigating BUT HER EMAILS and finding NOTHING incriminating, then-FBI director James Comey announced, with literally 11 days to go until the 2016 presidential election, that they were going to reopen the case. This was the most blatantly political intervention imaginable and it took just enough off Clinton's margins in key states, as the race had already been tightening even after the "just grab them by the pussy!" Trump tape dropped, to swing the election.
Anyway. All those Republicans who howled for years about how elected officials weren't above the law, classified information should be properly handled, LOCK HER UP, etc, are absolutely dead silent now (or rather, they are screaming that this is a horrible awful thing that has never happened to anyone and is totally unfair to do to Trump). I wonder why.
227 notes
·
View notes
Note
very telling how many people simply refuse to take responsibility for fucking up in 2016. the amount of "we voted blue!! clinton won the popular vote!!" people who seem to insist on being willfully obtuse about how our system works is just.... it sucks. we know it sucks. we are not going to make it suck less by not voting though, and i'm not sure how you think we will.
that's always my big thing with the 3rd party advocates. there is no evidence to support that a 3rd party candidate will win. you're splitting the dem vote, aka helping the republicans. how in the hell do you think doing that, or not voting, will get you closer to what you want? if it isn't happening with a democrat in office, it sure as hell won't if a republican wins. like..... simple logic is so lost on these people who love to claim moral superiority and it's mind-blowing.
I mean. Yeah. We all know that because of the wildly fucked up Electoral College, winning the popular vote actually has no impact on who wins the election. Dubya lost the popular vote in his first term. Trump lost the popular vote TWICE, and yet still managed to be elected, because the EC was working exactly as it was supposed to. Indeed, he lost by THREE MILLION VOTES and still won the presidency due to scraping out very narrow margins in three key states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania). People all over the country voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, voted for Trump, or in large part, didn't vote at all because they "didn't like" either candidate or thought HRC was "mean." Progressive Moral Superiority, racist Obama backlash, Bernie-or-Busters, Russian psyops and interference troll farms, assuming that Trump would never actually win, etc etc... it all fucked us over GOOD, and now we're desperately trying to build enough of a patch in the dam so it doesn't totally break.
And yet, those very same people who insisted that voting for HRC was a terrible sin, that SCOTUS wasn't that important, that the parties were the same, etc, haven't shut up or learned a god damn thing, even when everything happened exactly as Hillary warned us that it would. They're still on social media yammering about their imagined Progressivism, throwing tantrums about how Evil and Disappointing the Democrats are with zero attention to either what the Republicans are doing or the larger political climate, and otherwise putting us all in danger. Everyone who has grown up in America has no experience at all of living in a genuinely fascist theocratic dictatorship. You do not fucking want to do that, especially if you insist that you're Just Too Good to take a stand against fascism and somehow won't be affected by it. And once you ring that bell, there is no going back.
Once again: VOTE. VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS. THANKS A LOT.
107 notes
·
View notes
Note
With 2016, people just don’t understand how everything works. Getting the popular vote isn’t how the game is played, getting the electoral vote is. The popular vote doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things because candidate’s strategies would completely change if they were trying to get the popular vote rather than win individual states. Did I vote for Hillary? Yes. Do I still think she didn’t approach the vote with the right strategy and played it for the popular vote rather than the electoral vote and lost as a result? Also yes.
Okay, but you do get how that's a flawed metric for an argument, right? Hillary DID win the popular vote by three million plus, and in any sane system, that would have been enough to net her the presidency. "Hillary ran a flawed campaign" is to some extent, a true statement, as is "Hillary didn't focus enough on Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania because the Democrats assumed she had them on lockdown and didn't take into account the amount of Midwestern white people voting for Trump because of white backlash against Obama." But that is something that a) only became clear in hindsight and b) yet again, in any sane universe, should not have decided the election. Because:
Hillary was, and is, possibly the single most qualified presidential candidate the Democrats have ever had;
Voters were predisposed to hate her not because she "wasn't likable" or was "too corporate," but because the Republicans had been running literal decades of virulent smear campaigns against her to poison the well for this very eventuality;
The media almost never bothered to point this out at all and spent endless airtime on BUT HER EEEEEEEMAILS and doing sympathetic pieces about Trump voters, implying that their vote for Trump was a justified or moral protest against Both Sides Badism, and this was even the so-called "mainstream" media;
Fox News, of course, pumped out endless hit pieces and then some, all of which was echoed in some degree by those outlets;
James Comey announced TEN DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION that suddenly oops, he was investigating her emails again;
Even though there was nothing there and it is absolutely small potatoes compared to the much worse things Republicans are doing on the regular, because SELLING NUCLEAR SECRETS TO FOREIGN ENEMIES is okay as long as it is Trump doing it;
America is still so fucking racist and misogynistic that even after Trump spewed off terrible things about every non-white group, scapegoated Mexicans and Muslims and black people, and was caught on tape bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, this didn't actually make much of an impact on people planning to vote for him, because they evidently figured it "wasn't real" or "he would change" once he became president, while for others, the open hatred was the main attraction;
Bernie refused to concede until the actual convention, implied that if you couldn't vote for him, you shouldn't vote for anyone, and generally fanned the kind of I'll Take My Pony and Go Home rhetoric that is a poison in "progressive" online circles today;
Almost 10% of Bernie voters voted for Trump instead of Clinton;
Gary Johnson and Jill Fucking "Russian Asset" Stein were somehow treated as valid "protest vote" options, even while Hillary was warning everyone left and right about how much Trump sucked, how much SCOTUS (AND SPECIFICALLY ROE) was at risk, and how much democracy would be damaged if he won, which -- GUESS WHAT -- happened exactly as she predicted;
Speaking of the Russians, they were interfering the hell out of it, whether through Wikileaks/the DNC email hack, social media psyops, organized troll farms, or anything else they could think of;
And on and on. Against the backdrop of sheer and unmitigated fuckery that was the 2016 election, and the fact that so many people couldn't be bothered to vote for Hillary because she was a Smart Woman who was Too Corporate when the alternative was literally Trump, "Hillary didn't campaign enough in MI/WI/PA" is.... hardly a valid way to explain or excuse the many, many bad-faith actors, bad choices, and general lethargy, misinformation, deliberate destruction of faith in democracy, racism, Russian interference, misogyny, and white fragility that fucked us over and continues to do so.
131 notes
·
View notes