The Clinton campaign has probably locked up the Democratic nomination already. Nevertheless, she continues to do damage to herself for the general. Most recently, it was this:
Leftists are in an outrage, because "Sander's record as a feminist is as good as Clinton's." Ok, if you say so. Frankly, I doubt the statement is true. I expect that Sanders would prove to be a better feminist than Clinton, whose work as a lawyer and a First Lady has undermined that cause. I also doubt it matters. 'Who's the better feminist' is chasing a majority among the 18% of Americans who think they are feminists. That's probably not the margin of victory in a Presidential election.
More to the point, though, Clinton has to win votes to win the election. She's already in something of a bind with working class voters, both black and white, because of the economics. She'll be running as the heir to the current administration, whose health care plans have largely determined that most working class Americans are chasing part-time jobs without benefits -- part time jobs that start off as "seasonal" so you don't even make minimum wage for a year or two -- in an environment where all new jobs statistically have gone to immigrants.
She's got to win a massive percentage of women to make up for the men she's losing with remarks like this. She's got to win a massive percentage of the gun-control advocates to make up for the fact that they're a small minority among American voters. She'll have a huge enthusiasm gap given that black voters can't view her pro-immigration policies as otherwise than depressing their access to jobs and the pay that those jobs offer. She won't have access to anything like the Obama coalition, nor does she deserve to.
Of course, a lot depends on who her opponents in the general turn out to be -- and whether there will be one, or two.
13 comments:
I can't even imagine the oppo research the Republicans have gotten out of this- going through her emails? What a treasure trove.
That aside, she has indeed given up plenty of value for the general, gems like the fact that she apparently isn't much for actually working to administer and oversee that which she is nomimally in charge of, to the extent she doesn't even have a computer in her office, and can't be bothered with 600 some requests for increased security from an area she was supposedly quite interested in and was of national importance at the time.
I've been suspecting for a long time that the GOP has been quite content to let her withhold information as it only pushed the revelations closer to the general election.
Oh, and Bernie a better feminist than Hillary? Maybe. Maybe not.
I don't agree. Even if we're going back to the 1970s, Hillary is still worse.
In a dispute between HRC and Sanders over who's the better feminist (over anything, come to that), I'll take Sanders' word.
If the Republicans really have done competent opposition research, they'll notice that Obamacare is much more closely aligned with Hillarycare than with the program Romney passed--and that Romney did not try to foist off on the nation at large.
HRC the 1970s lawyer did nothing relevant to feminism: she did her job as a defense lawyer, which includes attempting to impeach the plaintiff.
Eric Hines
The accusation is that she lied rather viciously in the process of impeaching the accuser. There are relatively few jobs in which lying is part of one's duty, and defense attorney is not among them: at least, it is my opinion that attorneys ought to seek the best deal for their clients that the truth supports, not to defraud the system through false statements.
Now, I suppose one could question the claim that Clinton lied in this role. I'm not sure there's much reason to suppose she didn't, though, given her record.
What fools these humans be.
I've seen no evidence that HRC lied in that case.
I'm not sure there's much reason to suppose she didn't, though, given her record.
Interesting that you seem willing to convict her in a particular case based on her behavior in unrelated cases. And to convict her on the basis of accusation and not evidence.
On the other hand, maybe someone can get Comey to investigate that case. It would be a monstrous act, had she actually lied in defense of her client.
Eric Hines
Interesting that you seem willing to convict her in a particular case based on her behavior in unrelated cases.
Since the question is whether she is willing to lie to advance her goals, they aren't unrelated cases at all. The numerous proven examples of lying to advance her goals are directly relevant.
The numerous proven examples of lying to advance her goals are directly relevant.
They're relevant only to determining a suitable sanction for a particular deed. They're not at all relevant to whether she did the particular deed.
Eric Hines
Hm. If I were a juror considering the case before a court of law, that might be almost true -- it is still possible for character information to be made relevant, although at least under Georgia law the accused has to make character relevant by introducing evidence or claims that they are of too good a character to be suspected of a crime of this sort.
If I am merely making a judgment as a voter, especially given that she is apparently immune to being made to appear before a court to answer for her crimes, then the standards are different. There is much less at stake, for one thing: if I am wrong in suspecting she probably lied here given that we know she lied many times elsewhere, the damage done to her by my error is quite limited. I am not, really, even being unfair to her under the circumstances.
If I am merely making a judgment as a voter....
Of course. But in that case, I can stop my voter analysis with her present behavior. Things that happened 40 years ago interest me a whole lot less: she told the truth, but she's allowed to evolve her position without being a flip-flopper (of course, she may have flip-flopped without legitimate evolution). Alternatively, she lied those 40 years ago. A grievous thing, certainly, but she may have evolved a more honest character over all that time since.
What matters to me is what her reasonably stable behavior has been in the more recent past and into the present.
Eric Hines
John Ringo, of Baen, your novel "prediction" may be right yet. Although it was late by 8 years.
HRC said a rape victim was something equal to a slut, in defense of rapists.
Later on, same thing happened with her husband.
Intel analysts might have something on that by then.
Post a Comment