... making it look like Lena Dunham was biting the headline, but � click through � she's holding an "I'm with Hillary" bumper in her teeth. And here's Lena's message of support for Hillary:
Hey, just a head�s up: accusing women of supporting Hillary just because she�s female is misogynistic BS � women are smart enough to make decisions based on a number of factors: policy, track record, campaign strategy. Yes I think it�s time for a female president but I�m not part of a witch�s cabal that senses ovaries and suddenly MUST VOTE. Plus if I was gonna vote for someone just because she was female it would be this chick...
(Photo of Lil' Kim.)
... written in on all my ballots always. So go ahead, argue your political POV but don�t insult a woman�s intelligence by acting as though she votes exclusively along vaginal party lines. As Kim would say �I�m valedictorian y�all in the audience/And I�ve got nine hundred and ninety-nine votes, You got nine hundred and ninety-nine notes/You know bitch I�m worldwide.� New Hillary campaign slogan? TGIF!
The quote is from The Nation, and all I can say to you right-wingers is: Don't give the lefties what they want. You do see what they want, don't you? I'm not going to womansplain it to you. If you don't see what you shouldn't do, I'm not going to help.
"She knew what was happening and just to ignore it. It was a political relationship and suited them both. The Clintons don't care what they do, who they run over to get to the top. It is all about political status."
Said Paula Jones, who was run over so long ago that many young voters have never heard of her.
"Did this have something to do with Monica Lewinsky?" a student asked last month when we read Clinton v. Jones. I wondered whether the Supreme Court's statement of the facts in that case came as a strange surprise to the young people in the class:
Those allegations principally describe events that are said to have occurred on the afternoon of May 8, 1991, during an official conference held at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Governor delivered a speech at the conference; respondent--working as a state employee--staffed the registration desk. She alleges that Ferguson persuaded her to leave her desk and to visit the Governor in a business suite at the hotel, where he made "abhorrent" sexual advances that she vehemently rejected. She further claims that her superiors at work subsequently dealt with her in a hostile and rude manner, and changed her duties to punish her for rejecting those advances. Finally, she alleges that after petitioner was elected President, Ferguson defamed her by making a statement to a reporter that implied she had accepted petitioner's alleged overtures, and that various persons authorized to speak for the President publicly branded her a liar by denying that the incident had occurred.
Her campaign is still in its infancy. The presidential election is nearly 18 months away. But Democrats are already banking on a �Hillary effect,� an anticipated wave that will lift the party�s fortunes up and down the ticket.
They're banking on it? Where does this come from? Is it pure lying? Is it propaganda? Click for more �
BEST: cool illustrations (of John Quincy Adams, Teddy Roosevelt, etc.); appropriate selection criteria (do good work, don't undermine your successors, etc.); actually saying something nice about Nixon (a "purposeful post-presidency," becoming a "respected elder statesman").
WORST: Acting like they're offering help to Obama (who's "deeply engaged in his presidency," but must be thinking about his post-presidency), when the subject obviously came up because of Hillary Clinton and her ex-president spouse coming in for criticism for their grandiose and lucrative posturings in the direction of great good work.
From the Hillary email, strange delight about how The Wall Street Journal reporter Monica Langley got weirdly physical in an interview with Hillary:
This will be exciting when it's FOIA'd...
::Monica grabs HRO's knee::...
::Monica again touches HRC's leg::
Monica: They think I'm so funny (looking at Philippe and me.) HILL, can I ride on your lap to the White House?...
Tom, she moved that yellow chair as close as it went. Knee to knee. Amazed she didn't try knee in between knee.... This went on like that for 51 minutes - unacceptable in any culture. I don't even think you see that behavior among any type of mammal. The touching the leg and repeatedly calling her 'Hillary' was just gravy.
(If you're thinking I want to see a picture of Monica Langley: here.)
"We can debate that until the end of time. But what is not debatable is that it was a victory. Bush bequeathed to Obama a success. By whose measure? By Obama�s. As he told the troops at Fort Bragg on Dec. 14, 2011, 'We are leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.' This was, said the president, a 'moment of success.' Which Obama proceeded to fully squander. With the 2012 election approaching, he chose to liquidate our military presence in Iraq. We didn�t just withdraw our forces. We abandoned, destroyed or turned over our equipment, stores, installations and bases. We surrendered our most valuable strategic assets, such as control of Iraqi airspace, soon to become the indispensable conduit for Iran to supply and sustain the Assad regime in Syria and cement its influence all the way to the Mediterranean. And, most relevant to the fall of Ramadi, we abandoned the vast intelligence network we had so painstakingly constructed in Anbar province, without which our current patchwork operations there are largely blind and correspondingly feeble. The current collapse was not predetermined in 2003 but in 2011. Isn�t that what should be asked of Hillary Clinton? We know you think the invasion of 2003 was a mistake. But what about the abandonment of 2011? Was that not a mistake?"
"And the press corps, both blessed and cursed with live streaming, tweeting and Snapchatting technologies, is armed with questions devised to win the moment. The result is a carnival atmosphere. It is not clear what Mrs. Clinton gains politically from playing the freak."
1. Seven... eight... who remembers?... human beings got murderedkilled in that Twin Peaks shoot out and no one cares. Should we be a little ashamed of taking murder death so lightly?
2. These people all stand accused of mass murderorganized crime, and it's just some kind of meaningless joke:
3. It would be funny if that were animated and they all started looking around at each other "Brady Bunch" style.
4. We're being prodded to think of the numerosity of the GOP field of candidates as absurd. (How will they debate?) I keep seeing GOP-disparagers calling the group a "clown car." What's really going on? I say it's displacement of anxiety over the extreme opposite happening on the other side: only Hillary.
5. What will we get tired of first, the only-ness of Hillary or the overly-ness of the GOP? I've been giving this a lot of thought. It's complicated. Hillary has been trying to avoid too much attention, and if there's no action, maybe attention will be lavished on the GOP and we'll get tired of them as a group. But won't they be attacking her? She can't sit back and hope we don't think about her for the next year. And I don't see the GOP candidates attacking each other. Hillary and her allies can't do very well attacking the GOP candidates. Which ones would she pick on, and why help the GOP thin the crowd? To do so would not only strengthen the remaining group, it would require her to take positions and get specific, making her an easier target.
CHUCK TODD: Are you satisfied after Governor Bush's sort of fourth answer on this, saying that he wouldn't have gone into the war in Iraq, knowing what we know now?...
SENATOR RAND PAUL: Well, I think it's an important question and I don't think it's a historical anecdote. I don't think it's something that's a hypothetical question. I think it's a recurring question in the Middle East. Is it a good idea to topple secular dictators? And what happens when we do? I think when Hussein was toppled, we got chaos. We still have chaos in-- in Iraq. I think it emboldened Iran. I think-- we now have the rise of radical Islam in Iraq as well. But I think the same question, to be fair, ought to be asked of Hillary Clinton, if she ever takes questions. They should ask her, "Was it a good idea to invade Libya? Did that make us less safe? Did it make it more chaotic? Did it allow radical Islam and ISIS to grow stronger?" So I think the war in Iraq is a good question and still a current question, but so is the question of, "Should we have gone into Libya?"
On Thursday, Clinton also reiterated her support for a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United, a long-shot effort that is nonetheless popular among Democratic activists.
"She said she is going to do everything she can," the attendee said. "She was very firm about this � that this Supreme Court decision is just a disaster."
My thoughts:
[ADDED: FIRST, let me be clear that quote that begins this post is something Bernie Sanders said on one of the Sunday talk shows. The blocked and indented quote is from Hillary, and it's something she said to donors at a closed meeting that was leaked by an attendee whom the Washington Post is keeping anonymous. The Post relates that Hillary "got major applause when she said would not name anybody to the Supreme Court unless she has assurances that they would overturn" Citizens United and calls this a "pledge to use opposition to Citizens United as a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees." I don't know that Hillary ever used the term "litmus test," and it sounds as though she's under pressure because of what Sanders had said.]
1. I don't believe this pledge. I think she's saying this because she thinks it's politically advantageous, so: Why does she think that?
2. Normally, what Presidents and presidential candidates say is that they don't have any "litmus test." It's been considered politic to act as though you are choosing Justices in a soberly meritocratic fashion, posing as if you value judicial independence and cases decided according to the law. These Presidents and presidential candidates may nevertheless have a litmus test, of course. They just choose not to say so.
3. Citizens United! is an incantation, but who is it for, who responds to it and why? Very few people have much understanding of what the case was actually about, so incanting Citizens United! is a pretty idiotic approach to politics. I suspect Hillary Clinton has a good deal of contempt for the little people of America whom she needs to like her and who did not find her likable enough last time.
4. One thing Citizens United was about was a movie about Hillary, "Hillary: The Movie":
I wonder if any aspirant for the presidency except Hillary Clinton could survive [a book like "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich"]. I suspect she can because the Clintons are unique in the annals of American politics: They are protected from charges of corruption by their reputation for corruption. It�s not news anymore. They�re like . . . Bonnie and Clyde go on a spree, hold up a bunch of banks, it causes a sensation, there�s a trial, and they�re acquitted. They walk out of the courthouse, get in a car, rob a bank, get hauled in, complain they�re being picked on��Why are you always following us?��and again, not guilty. They rob the next bank and no one cares. �That�s just Bonnie and Clyde doing what Bonnie and Clyde do. No one else cares, why should I?�
My theory is that Hillary Clinton is only getting away with it now. The evidence against her should utterly destroy her, but not yet. The stars are aligned in her favor now, but the alignment will end some time in 2016.
Who is motivated to use this evidence now? Basically, no one.
Democrats still believe she will be their candidate, and they don't want to attack her. It might be useful to test her and allow her to topple early enough to open the field to other candidates. But who? That's a risky strategy, and it takes nerve. The better approach seems to be to allow all the new things to get old and to hope people will forget or at least get bored enough to swallow the argument that the subject has already been fully discussed and only toxic weird people still talk about it.
Why should Republicans attack? They have great material, but if they use it now, they might end up with someone else whom they'd have to find ways to demolish. Save it. Hold it in reserve. Wait until the Democrats lock her in as the candidate, and then let loose with all the attacks you've had so long to meticulously prepare.
I say she's not getting away with it. Not in the end.
I'd have said: ... six presidential primary debates, giving Hillary Clinton shockingly long stretches of time to bore the pants off us.
I mean, I'd say that today, even though I'd like to place a bet that she's going to withdraw from the race before the primaries begin. If you'd give me good enough odds....
A Wall Street Journal editorial. (There's a subscription wall that you can bypass if you Google some of the text and get your own link.)
Milton Friedman once observed that the 1928 platform of the Socialist Party of America may have seemed radical at the time, but nearly all of it was eventually absorbed by mainstream parties and became law. That�s also Mr. Sanders�s hope. He wants to drive the Democratic Party debate to the left so it drags Hillary Clinton along with it.
And it may be working. Mrs. Clinton has already disavowed her husband�s trade agenda. She�s proposed a rewrite of the First Amendment to limit political speech, and don�t be surprised if she also embraces expanded entitlements. The difference is that Bernie believes what he says, while Hillary believes whatever seems necessary to win.
The practical political question is whether Mr. Sanders, or some other liberal gadfly, can do well enough to serve as a stalking horse for a stronger candidate against Mrs. Clinton. Recall how Eugene McCarthy drove LBJ out of the 1968 race with a strong performance in the New Hampshire primary. Robert Kennedy soon jumped in as a more electable antiwar candidate.
[NOTE: The last paragraph of this post is rewritten. Originally, it said: "And we ended up with LBJ, who really was someone who would say whatever was necessary to win." That's not a proper account of 1968!]
Clinton "has a loud and clear voice," Stanford linguist Eckert says. "A �nice� woman tends to have a breathy voice," she explained, sounding a little Marilyn Monroe-ish. "There�s nothing breathy about Hillary Clinton�s voice. And if somebody doesn�t want a woman to be powerful they�re not going to like that voice."
Nunberg agrees: "People have become so conscious of the semi-coded ways in which people communicate these sexist notions of aggression." Like Frank Luntz noting he would get "hit" by Media Matters, for example. "Voice will be the place where that comes home to roost. ... It�s just another way of saying �shrill.�"
In fairness to Hillary, she was not the governor of the state that is having terrible trouble right now. She was not the mayor of Baltimore. O'Malley, if he is to be a plausible alternative to Hillary, needs to be able to flaunt his achievements as governor and mayor.
He's tweeting things like: "We must come together as one City to transform this moment of loss & pain into a safer & more just future for all of Baltimore's people." I wouldn't give him much credit for self-interested, anodyne statements like that. Baltimore is really hurting him. The man was mayor of Baltimore or Governor of Maryland from 1999 to just this past January. If Baltimore has big problems, he's responsible for them! His expressions of sorrow and hope for the future are fundamentally ridiculous.
Meanwhile, it might be nice if Hillary would show up and contribute something to the national political debate.
I've got to stay with that Lanny Davis interview for another post. The previous post is about his talking point that the Clinton Foundation is so huge that things that might seem big are actually small. The proportion point. There's also the coincidence point:
WALLACE: Do you think it was a coincidence all these Canadian mining executives are giving millions to the foundation, that a company with close ties to Vladimir Putin's government in Russia is giving half a million dollar speech? Do you think that's a coincidence that's happening while the Russian company that wants to buy Uranium One has business before the State Department? Do you think that's a coincidence?
DAVIS: I don't use the word "coincidence". Of course, it's a coincidence but it's a false inference. It sounds like if two incidents occur side by side, like the rooster crows and then the sun rises, it's a coincidence that the sun rises after the rooster crows. The rooster doesn't cause the sun to rise.
It's not a coincidence that the rooster crows and then the sun rises. It's true that the rooster doesn't cause the sun to rise, but the sun rising causes the rooster to crow. The events are causally related. The mistake is over what caused what. It's not a coincidence!
I think Davis was striving to sound casual and folksy, what with that barnyard scenario, except that he sounds like an overbearing lawyer, not like somebody tapping into real, everyday life (with everyday people). Davis has no background on farms. His father was a dentist. Farms are just a useful source of American hokum. I'd watch out for nonfarmers using farm bullshit. (Other than the "bullshit" itself, which is a fully dead metaphor.) Click for more �
