Ormond Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 I wasn't alive then, so I have no perception of what the public thought. But Nixon led efforts to purge the state department of Jewish officials, which is not something his predecessors did. I have no idea if that's correct or not, but my point was about those who were wondering how so many Americans could have supported Nixon back then. Whatever he did or didn't do about Jewish employees of the State Department, if the general public didn't know about it, it had no bearing on whether or not people decided to vote for him back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 I have no idea if that's correct or not, but my point was about those who were wondering how so many Americans could have supported Nixon back then. Whatever he did or didn't do about Jewish employees of the State Department, if the general public didn't know about it, it had no bearing on whether or not people decided to vote for him back then. I'm not arguing that point, just pointing out that Nixon was more anti-semitic than most. A very quick google can't find the state department story, but here's the story of his reorganization of the Bureau of Labor Statistics to try to remove Jews. Apologies for how poorly written it is, but its the most comprehensive one I could quickly find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Not actually as inflammatory as the headline suggests, but some documentation on continuing terrible abuses by US soldiers in Afghanistan that have gone unpunished.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/11/amnesty-us-concealed-troops-war-crimes-in-afghanistan-as-recently-as-last-year.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 There's some speculation today on how Hillary may have made a blunder and opened up more room for a challenger in the Dem primaries with her comments in her interview with The Atlantic. It's too early to judge as is often the case in the day-to-day coverage of politics, but it's sure hard to see how it helped. She undermined the sitting President who is still very popular with the party base, she did so as a person who used to work for him and did it while the situation is pretty nasty on the ground anyway, and, at least from what I can tell, all else aside, she did so by actually making a pretty idiotic point herself suggesting that maybe ISIS wouldn't be who they are if we'd just moved more forcefully to arm rebels in the Syrian civil war. I'm all ears of someone can explain the logic (of her comments on Syria). She's always been a bad campaigner who hires really really really bad people to help her campaign and the Clintons have always been all about triangulation. The beltway consensus is that Obama is unpopular so she's looking so far like she wants to pull a Gore and distance herself from Obama and try and pick up the mythical unicorns called "swing voters". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 She currently has no challengers on her left, so moving to the right is both something she actually seems to believe and lets her distance herself from Obama, which will honestly probably help her in the general. She can always count on people turning up to vote for "holy fuck Republicans are crazy" which is, lets face it, about half of the Democratic voters in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 She currently has no challengers on her left, so moving to the right is both something she actually seems to believe and lets her distance herself from Obama, which will honestly probably help her in the general. She can always count on people turning up to vote for "holy fuck Republicans are crazy" which is, lets face it, about half of the Democratic voters in this country. Not really. It demoralizes her base and concedes ground to the GOP in ways that will fuck her once she takes office and which will also fuck her in that it burns candidates down-ticket. It's alot of the shit Clinton did back in the 90s and it did horrible things for the US because it's conceding to them the argument. And as we learned then and as we certainly know now, the GOP will still lynch you even as you agree with them because they don't care. The biggest lesson of the Obama presidency for anyone paying attention in the Democratic party is that moving right wins you nothing with the GOP or it's voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 And she's already walking it all back anyway:http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-making-amends-obama-critique-211138144--election.htmlAfter distancing herself from some of President Barack Obama's foreign policy, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called her ex-boss Tuesday to try to smooth things over and planned on "hugging it out" in person at an upcoming get-together Someone probably got a very angry phone call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 That's gonna be one awkward, uncomfortable hug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 I think you guys could both be right in a way. I think it could be the type of thing that may help in the general if she gets there, but totally opens her up to a more difficult primary process. I'm about ready to give her no support until I hold my nose if and when she's in the general election. ETA: It's actually kind of amazing to think about what's at stake for Hillary Clinton in the next election. She is still the favorite in my eyes, and I'd still put money on her over any other candidate, but if she loses now given the expectations, she would probably be one of the more humiliated politicians in memory. If it was to Uncle Joe, it would be incredible. Hillary's start to her "campaign" for the presidency has been horrendous. She opened it with a book tour where she claimed she left the White House broke in a tone deaf attempt to justify making hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech to Wall Street firms, including Goldman Sachs, and other big businesses. She has also been giving populist speeches where she decries the growing economic inequality. In a debate, or when the campaigning actually gets serious, she's going to get torn apart if she tries pushing this type of populist message. Now she's ripping Obama on his foreign policy approach, right after serving as his Secretary of State. Way to support the Democratic Party, your former boss, and excite the base Hillary. If she isn't careful, she's going to lose the nomination again. I know Warren said in the past that she wasn't going to run against Hillary, but maybe she'll change her mind if Hillary continues down this path. There's still a lot of time before the election, and if Hillary's numbers continue to drop, I could see Warren changing her mind. I really hope Warren changes her mind and runs. Given a choice between the two, right now I would easily cast my vote for Warren. Maybe Warren has publicly stated that she isn't running to keep the heat off her and on others, like Hillary. If Hillary runs a great campaign, which she isn't doing right now, Warren can just stay on the sidelines. But if Hillary really falters, Warren can jump in next year without having been pounded in the press during the run up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Bass Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 She has also been giving populist speeches where she decries the growing economic inequality. In a debate, or when the campaigning actually gets serious, she's going to get torn apart if she tries pushing this type of populist message. No she won't - quite the opposite. Obama went hard on that topic in 2008 and 2012, with stuff like "cutting taxes for 95% of Americans and raising them for the top" and universal health care. This isn't the 1990s, when the Democrats and Bill Clinton were so demoralized by the defeats in 1994 and an energetic Republican opposition that they folded over completely until the impeachment scandal. Income Inequality is red meat for the activists in the Democratic Party that Hillary will need to turn out for door-knocking and money in order to compete with the colossal cash flows that the Republican candidate in 2016 is going to be getting from rich conservatives and big companies. She's always been a bad campaigner who hires really really really bad people to help her campaign and the Clintons have always been all about triangulation. I'm hoping she learned a bit about that from the disastrous campaign management experiences in 2008, and she may have some of Obama's competent campaign staff people working for her in 2016 versus the stale old hands she had from Bill's years in office (such as Mark Penn). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 I really hope Warren changes her mind and runs. Given a choice between the two, right now I would easily cast my vote for Warren. As much as I like Warren, I think her getting the nomination would be about the only way the Republicans could win 2016. Even without Hillary. I think the Democrats still win with Biden, but with Warren you would get endless screams about "extremism" and "Massachusetts liberalism". The Right would try to make her look like another George McGovern. Never mind that she's also unlikely to mobilise either Obama's support among blacks or Hillary's support among Appalachian whites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Never mind that she's also unlikely to mobilise either Obama's support among blacks or Hillary's support among Appalachian whites. I don't think the black turnout is going to be much down on 2012 regardless of candidate, moreover the demographic picture is such that 2004 level turnout might still win 2016 for the Democrats. I'd be leery about Hillary's Appalachian white support, the way US politics has polarised I'd be amazed if those votes show up in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 I'd be leery about Hillary's Appalachian white support, the way US politics has polarised I'd be amazed if those votes show up in 2016. Oh, we're not going back to 1996 (Democrats win Kentucky, Tennessee, etc). But Hillary has the best shot of anyone at reversing the trends in Arkansas and West Virginia, both of which were apocalyptic for Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Oh, we're not going back to 1996 (Democrats win Kentucky, Tennessee, etc). But Hillary has the best shot of anyone at reversing the trends in Arkansas and West Virginia, both of which were apocalyptic for Obama. Apocalyptic results worth all of 11 EV seem oddly bearable when OH, PA, CO, VA are all trending your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 As much as I like Warren, I think her getting the nomination would be about the only way the Republicans could win 2016. Even without Hillary. I think the Democrats still win with Biden, but with Warren you would get endless screams about "extremism" and "Massachusetts liberalism". The Right would try to make her look like another George McGovern. Never mind that she's also unlikely to mobilise either Obama's support among blacks or Hillary's support among Appalachian whites. I admit that the more Hillary Clinton speak, the less enthusiastic I am to support her. However, at this point, I don't see who usurps her place as frontrunner. Obviously, we said much the same in 2008, but still... I also would not be so sure that Elizabeth Warren has no chance at winning the general election. In truth, think that structural factors determine the winner of the general more than specific candidate qualities. If 2016 a good year for Democrats then whatever Democrat is nominated will likely win; if not, not even Hillary Clinton can save the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 The upside to all this at least is that we're so far from 2016 still that the general public won't remember any of this. Better for her to get back into campaign mode (she did just fine in 2000 in New York) now, before it really matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Benghazi will derail Hillary and rightfully so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Benghazi will derail Hillary and rightfully so There are LOTS of things that should derail Hillary, but if you think Benghazi is one of them I'd suggest watching something other than right wing news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Haha what, like left wing news!? Come on man, she looked like a complete idiot. The whole administration really. That's not left or right, that's what happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Haha what, like left wing news!? Come on man, she looked like a complete idiot. The whole administration really. That's not left or right, that's what happened Maybe, if that's what floats your boat. I watch news that isn't slanted in either direction because I don't need someone else to tell me how to think. But if you want to look really stupid, please, continue the BENGHAZI!!!!! line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.