I’m posting Hillary Clinton’s Commencement Address to the Class of 2017 at Wellesley College for a few reasons.
First, I wanted to hear what she had to say and after I did, wanted to share it with you.
Second, she is a graduate of Wellesley, so the occasion had special meaning for her. I too am a graduate of Wellesley, so her words had special meaning for me.
Third, I thought it was refreshing to hear once again a person in public life who was able to speak clearly, directly, candidly, without bluster or braggadocio or meanness of spirit.
As I watched her speak, I thought that there was a silver lining behind her loss. True, she won the popular vote by nearly 3 million people, and she lost the electoral vote, which is what matters most. True, the country is stuck with the most extremist, offensive, cruel, and reactionary leadership of modern times.
But what if Hillary had won, along with a Republican majority in both houses? The Senate would not have approved any Supreme Court justices she nominated. The House would be in the middle of impeachment proceedings against her. The government would be crippled. She would have been treated by the Congress as an illegitimate President. Hatefulness would have typified the work of Congress.
I’m not glad she lost. She had the strength, the experience, and the knowledge to be an inspiring leader. Yet given the state of the Republican Party today, she would have been stymied at every turn.
Right now, I suspect Trump wishes he had not been elected. He is in over his head. His demeanor is tearing the country apart. History will not judge him kindly.
I hope she returns to public life, not as a candidate, but as a voice of reason. We need her now, more than ever.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Couldn’t agree more,
HC could run for the US Senate in New York again.
She deserves the Ival. Every woman in this nation, every child in this nation deserved a forward looking, Demicracy living, feminist woman for President. This was Russia and James Comey. It’s not over.
Sorry, too many typos. I think it can be figured out. Bottom line: it took FBI director’s interference and Russia hacking to bring down America’s first woman president. It will not be forgotten.
God no, you want me to move to California.
How about Hawaii instead. I think the ratio of votes against Trump in Hawaii were greater than any other state.
Lloyd Hay, . . .it ‘s nice out here.
Ah nice climate but more expensive than NY or California
LOL
I am glad you posted it. A republican congress would have hated her, but Lindsey Graham and John McCain like her. She has a record of reaching across the aisle and creating legislation with her enemies, even back when she was FLOTUS. Legislation for adopting children, children’s health care, veterans health care: all done with conservatives. She believes in finding common ground to move forward. Our country lost a lot but, this isn’t over. We deserved a great president. We deserved her.
Diane I hear what you are saying, but the Republicans have REALLY won if, in either case of Hillary winning or losing the election, we don’t care because the R party would have “stymied” everything anyway.
That’s a method of a hateful ZERO sum GAME conflict used by unreasonable even hateful people. If we win, you lose; but if YOU win, we will be sure you PAY for it and will be sorry you have done so. It has Mitch McConnell’s and Paul Ryan’s face on it; and It makes the opposition take a hopeless stance.
That “reasoning” got them the last Supreme Court justice installed exhausting good people from so many diversions and from just waiting it out; and its the reasoning THEY used when they never did accept B. Obama as their president but stopped him at every turn, not for the people, but on principle, just because they didn’t want him or the Democrats to even LOOK like they won anything. It didn’t matter what it was about.
It also got the Congress a 13 percent approval rate, which doesn’t seem to matter at all now. Even so, they still somehow made it look like everything wrong was Obama’s and the Democrats’ fault (good marketing–they could sell sxxt if they put their corrupt minds to it) and so now they have the entire Congress, the Court, and the Presidency. They make good people look like stooges–they are more like the Russians than we think.
Giving up is what they want us to do.
CBK,
I am not giving up. I will fight for every candidate who wants to repudiate this era of selfishness and greed.
Diane Me either. But I have wondered time and again what is going on in both the Republican mind and those who voted for and still stand behind that awful man, some in my family included. But some of the links and postings here have been helpful to me in understanding some of background and history of the present problems we face, most recently, about the authoritarian mind–both follower and leader–in the review of John Dean’s book.
Aside from the present conflicts in education that are addressed here, such insights should lead us to understand what is actually missing in our long-term formal education that such movements of mind can resurface time after time . . . . Thanks for responding.
Catherine, I totally agree. Plus, one of the reasons Hillary Clinton was such an effective Senator for New York is that she knew how to cross the aisle and work with Republicans. In this era of bluster, it’s hard to even remember that that is a possibility, let alone a desired quality.
It is sickening that our country elected a mentally challenged, ego maniac instead of an accomplished, intelligent, principled leader. What a missed opportunity.
Karen Wolfe It’s scary, and this is off-course a bit, but I think that same kind of thinking was at work with the Comey debacle. I think they didn’t reveal the Trump investigation early on, as they did with Hillary, because (1) they knew the RANT from the Right would be deafening and never-ending, and they didn’t want to face it and its aftermath; and (2) they thought Hilary would win anyway. If that’s the case, what a twist of history.
One more: her quote from New York magazine a few days ago. “What are they so afraid of? Me. Because I don’t die, despite their best efforts. What really drives them is what I represent.” – Hillary
As a New Yorker I remember Hillary and Wellesley.
“But what if Hillary had won?
NOW THAT IS A QUESTION!
I think Diane has it right. She would have been prevented from doing anything and vilified in every way possible.
And I take joy in knowing there’s a sink hole in front of Mar-A-Lago. I have these visions of the entire Dump team being swallowed up by a sink hole. Maybe we can channel this notion together.
To think we even have to deal in alternative facts is crazy.
The Emperor has no clothes on!
Grew up in Florida. The state is full of sink holes but not enough to take care of the corruption there.
Hillary revised history again. Nixon RESIGNED “prior” to possible impeachment proceedings.
Oops
That is quite irrelevant. That is like plea bargaining in exchange for a lighter sentence . In the eyes of the public it is effectively the same. Nixon did not resign do to ill health or boredom.. .
due
Wasnt her husband impeached but congress left him in office? The most cheated on woman i can think of not only by a democratic hierarchy in the party desiring Obama but also her husband! So sad and her speech at commencement left out one main compelling reason for her loss –HillRy herself – must be having aroma therapy in her safe space in the woods
Had she won, Obama would have worked with the Republicans in the lame duck ,to push through the TPP.
Hillary would have protested mightily but we know better .
A grand bargain on Tax reform would have been worked out probably only differing on the margins from where it may eventually wind up. In exchange for few cuts to the saftey net for the poor. Deficits never did matter to Republicans ever.
She would have gotten 2 supreme court justices(Ginsberg) as long as they were deemed business friendly enough.
She would in short pivot to the center which is now wayright of where Reagan was, further empowering the plutocracy. .Longer and stronger patent protection . Less consumer power , stronger enforcement of bankruptcy laws against a deeper indebted working class .
Witness those 13 Democrats that voted for big Pharma and against consumers ability to import (American)drugs from Canada . They still have not learned the lesson.
She may have preserved a minimal and shrinking safety-net . For an ever increasing population in need of it. In exchange for cuts around the edges of Social Security and Medicare . Ie means testing for high incomes which like the AMT will creep down to the middle class, when it is not adjusted for inflation . The AMT started as a tax on multi millionaires. It now affects a teacher in NY.
The redistribution of wealth would have continued it’s upward spiral . And the corpocracy continued to consolidate power .
In education she would talk a good game while DFER and the oligarchy continued its assault perhaps at a slower pace , but always ready to pick up speed .
She would not be the existential extinction level event for organized labor that Trump will try to be . But at the end of four years policy from trade, to immigration, to privatization of public goods would again leave labor in a weaker position.
In short she would have pursued the policy bent that was becoming evident between the primary and the convention when Sanders was out of the picture and before the base rebelled, threatening to disrupt the pretty show that was the convention.
Four years later the Republicans would have locked down those swing states and possibly a few more like Minnesota. At that point they would move in for the kill.
Matt Taibbi called it the other day.
“But “Republicans are bad” isn’t a message or a plan, which is why the Democrats have managed the near impossible: losing ground overall during the singular catastrophe of the Trump presidency.
The party doesn’t see that the largest group of potential swing voters out there doesn’t need to be talked out of voting Republican. It needs to be talked out of not voting at all. The recent polls bear this out, showing that the people who have been turned off to the Democrats in recent months now say that in a do-over, they would vote for third parties or not at all.
People need a reason to be excited by politics, and not just disgusted with the other side. Until the Democrats figure that out, these improbable losses will keep piling up. ”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-the-democrats-need-a-new-message-w484569
Which pretty much squares with what I have seen . Those that voted for Trump are pretty much unreachable, Many are deplorable and will remain so until they themselves get royally screwed. Then they will, to take a line out of “Deliverance”, squeal like a pig.
Forty five percent of Americans don’t vote and they are disproportionately in the lower economic classes. Conversely 80 % of the French do vote. I wonder why they have the highest rated healthcare and almost free college education . If someone wants to debate their 10% unemployment rate you had better explain how their prime age 25-54 employment to population ratio is 7% higher than ours.
AMEN!
Most politicians are corrupt (Trump is not a typical politician). I know too much about Hillary and it is backed up by a very reliable source!
Trump is not a typical politician he makes Hillary and the rest of the crowd look like Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity. That takes a lot.
Trump and the whole pack around him should be hung for treason.
The Rosenberg’s if the case against them was true,committed treason because of Ideology . Trump on the other hand is deeply indebted to Russian Oligarchs and we have Jared setting up back channels to discuss payoffs from Russian banks in exchange for lifting sanctions on Putin. After colluding with a hostile foreign power to subvert our electoral process
That is a whole knew level of corruption . High Crimes
“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
new ( love that edit button).
Ok people….enough. Hillary did NOT win.
She has blamed everyone but herself for her loss. She was solely responsible. She was not a good candidate–her baggage was too over whelming. Lies, server, WikiLeaks, Benghazi, pay to play etc, etc. She sandbagged Sanders who might have pulled it off. She grossly underestimated the feelings of people between the Coasts. She could barely draw a crowd.
I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans…some I regretted doing so soon after. However, I never acted or ever saw the level of disgust toward a president exhibited as I have now. It appears that the welfare of the country isn’t being considered. Hurt feelings have brought out displays of immoral behavior at some hateful marches, intolerable acts of violence, attempts at character assignations and lies like never seen before
.
I read a newspaper and immediately wonder if it is a lie or the truth. I listen to ALL the news channels and am bewildered by comments that are the opposite of what I heard the president say in person. You say that had Hillary won “hatefulness would typify the work of Congress and that she would be stymied at every turn” That is clearly what is happening with Donald Trump. He has not been supported by Democrats or even some Republicans who are only interested in holding onto their wealth, power or position. My own representative in one of those people. Donald Trump did not have to run for president. He is not accepting pay but is donating it. The media is against him. He is not a stupid man yet he is painted as an idiot. Every member of his family has been attacked–even a 10 year old. His wife and daughter are greatly admired (overseas and by Trumps base). President Trump is fighting more battles on the home front than on the battle fields of the Middle East. He has accomplished a great deal but he is being stopped on the AHCA and Tax cuts because so many people are not interested in helping…or even reading the bills. I think he is willing to listen which Obama did not care to do. Ryan and McConnell are not helpful and Democratic leaders just like to toss in one investigation after another and toss around impeachment like they have evidence but is just lies dreamt up by newspapers. Schummer, Waters and Pilosi are poor representatives for your cause. The ladies really need to retire along with McCain and Graham and a pack of others from both sides.
It IS possible to work together, if people are willing to forgo the nastiness and name calling.
We can compromise on so many issues. We live in very dangerous times. Race relations are worse that I have ever seen them. Constitutional liberties are under assault. Colleges are being taken over by mobs and police officers are unable to do their duties out of bodily fear or fear of loosing a job or being prosecuted. College professors cannot teach without being labeled racist, homophobic or sexist. Conservative speakers are not allowed on a campus for their own safety or are yelled down. Tolerance and free speech exists only if you say what the mob wants to hear. This is not right people, and you know it! It did not exist until Trump was elected. Am I to assume that Hillary supporters caused all this? I hope that there are a few Democrats left who are willing to work toward the betterment of our society—Lord knows we need them. If we can agree that Betsy DeVos and Charter schools are bad—there is hope.
Stop with the BS .I will state this again Hillary could go away for ever for ever . trying to be PC and i could care less. .
Why would I work with a DEMAGOGUE whose agenda is totally destructive to the working class of this nation. Whose every appointment is an oligarch hostile to the working class. Who admires ruthless authoritarians around the world and oppressive regimes while he berates our democratic allies. It is not about playing nice it is about policy.
Real news :
Collusion with a foreign power being sanctioned by the sitting government is collusion with a country hostile to the United states. Doing this to subvert an election is a treasonous act of the highest order.
Setting up back channels to avoid detection only weeks after the election is highly suspicious. When that connection includes a sanctioned bank under the control of that hostile nation, after being told there could be rewards for lifting sanctions . After being told that the man you met with is a spy . This is treason for greed
Work with them, hell F—–ng no ,I want to see them tried and hung.
Joel,
I hear your volatile enmity towards Trump.
Real News – ?? But I still can’t find one, not one example of a verifiable point on collusion – if you can all the media and 3 or 4 investigate panels have been clamoring for months for your info and sources.
Setting up back channels – you might want to calm down your elevated blood pressure and stop reading only the headlines of the media. A little history if you can swallow it – Since Presidencies back to George Washington have used back channels –
I posted the following reply recently – so I copied it in case you didn’t read it it
start with WAPO
Washington Post: “Jared Kushner is Now a Focus in Russia Investigation.”
And then if you go look at the Washington Post top 20 stories, 15 of them are Jared Kushner … “Kushner is the only current White House official known to be considered a key person in the probe. The Post has not been told that Kushner is a target — or the central focus — of the investigation, and he has not been accused of any wrongdoing.”
Well, then what’s the story? Jared Kushner now a focus in Russia investigation?
The Washington Post has not been told that Kushner’s a target or the central focus of the investigation, and he has not been accused of any wrong doing. Well, then there’s not a morsel of evidence. He’s not a key figure in this!
They’re just writing another story that served as the bombshell at 5:30 AM
NBC News did the same thing. “Jared Kushner, Trump’s Son-in-Law, Has Come Under FBI Scrutiny in the Russia Investigation.” And then later, “Investigators believe he has significant information. But that does not mean they suspect him of a crime or even intend to charge him.”
NBC News does the same thing. “NBC News reporting that Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, one of his senior advisers, has come under FBI scrutiny in the Russia investigation.”
Folks, there is not a morsel of evidence for any allegation. And after practically indicting Kushner here, NBC says, “But that does not mean they suspect him of a crime or even intend to charge him.”
It’s unconscionable. It’s journalistic malpractice.
Backing this up CNN, Anderson Cooper. He’s talking with the former attorney general, Michael Mukasey, about reports that Kushner has become a focus in the Russia election. Anderson Cooper says in his question, “Jared Kushner is not a suspect here. He is not a person of interest. He is just, we’re told, a focus. They want to speak to him because it seems like he was basically a witness. What do you make of this, Attorney General Mukasey?”
MUKASEY: If you read back what you just said, you used two terms that are unknown to any federal investigator. “Person of interest” is not a term that any federal investigator ever uses, and it’s not a term that’s appropriate to this investigation. This is a national security investigation. It’s not a criminal investigation. So pretty much everybody is a witness. Now, what are they a witness to? They’re probably a witness to the fact that the Russians were trying to get close to influence people of influence. That’s what they do. That is not in itself surprising.
Up next, Professor Dershowitz. Same show. After Mukasey says that it’s not surprising Kushner’s considered a witness, Dershowitz added —
DERSHOWITZ: Attorney General Mukasey is absolutely right. This is being done backwards. Usually you can point to a statute and say we’re investigating crime under this statute. There’s a great danger to civil liberties when you say let’s investigate and maybe we’ll find something, that we can find a statute to fit. That’s not the way it ought to happen.
This is not a constitutional impeachment. It’s not happening in the House and Senate. It’s happening in the American media.
The Trump administration is being tried and convicted without a trial. And it’s been intense and steady, let’s just call it since the election, since last November. It actually predates that. But that’s what this really is. There’s nothing news here. There’s no reporting going on. There isn’t a scandal that has happened that they are desperately trying to uncover. There is no cover-up going on.
Now, Jeffrey Toobin — was also on CNN, same show. Jeffrey Toobin had just heard Mukasey basically tell Cooper: You don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s nothing to see here. They just heard Dershowitz say that they’re going about this ass backwards. These people don’t have a violation. They don’t have a crime. They don’t have anything. So they’re just throwing everything up against the wall and hoping one day they’re gonna find a violation of a crime.
Back channel communications have been used by previous presidents – JFK with the Russians – during the Cuban missile crisis.
Add the following from Sunday Back channels serve a purpose – have I ever heard of so many admin officials contacting the Ruskies before – no, but then again we didn’t have Trump and half the nation and media outlets out to destroy the president and this country – I bet Putin is laughing at us.
but let me add the following when I noted JFK using back channel comms –
During a panel segment on NBC’s “Meet The Press” Sunday morning, Kimberly Strassel of The Wall Street Journal took MSNBC’s Joy Reid to task when discussing reports that White House advisor Jared Kushner may have suggested establishing a communication back channel with Russian officials.
Strassel explained that while Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, his team set up a secret communication line with Iranian officials to sow the seeds for diplomatic negotiations that would eventually become the Iran Nuclear Deal.
“Let me set the scene for you: It’s 2008, we are having an election and candidate Obama, he’s not even president elect, sends William Miller over to Iran to establish a backchannel, and let the Iranians know should he win the election they will have friendlier terms. Okay? So this is a private citizen going to foreign soil, obviously in order to evade U.S. intelligence monitoring and establishing a backchannel with a sworn enemy of the United States who was actively disrupting our efforts in the military in the Middle East.”
Reid later quoted an excerpt of New York Times White House correspondent Mark Landler’s book “Alter Egos,” explaining what a back channel is. The book explains that Obama did indeed set up a “back channel” to negotiate with Tehran privately. As The Washington Post‘s David Ignatius points out in the very same article that flashed across the screen as Reid spoke, Obama’s back channel with Iran was shrouded in secrecy.
Reid insisted the Obama administration’s back channel with the Iranians is different than the form of communication Trump’s team reportedly established with Russian officials because the former president established this line of communication in league with the State Department, whereas Trump’s team reportedly did not.
Russian officials routinely spread misinformation via communications they know are being monitored. Just because one Russian official said to another Russian official on monitored lines that Kushner wanted to set up a back channel with the Kremlin, that doesn’t mean it’s true. In other words, the Post’s reporting could be not only inaccurate, but further Soviet objectives.
Why is Jared Kushner conducting high-level diplomacy? What are his qualifications? He ran a family real estate business.
April We tried that during the Obama administration. Didn’t work, compliments of Mitch McConnell and the rest of them. And Trump’s character, what there is left of it, has been self-assassinated. Every time I find myself hoping, . . . gone. I almost threw up when he pushed through those leaders to stand out front at that photo op. Do you really think those people respect him? Comb the sand out of your hair and look again. I sting with embarrassment every time he opens his mouth or tweets. What has this to do with Hillary? Nothing.
And the worst of it, as one of the talking heads said this morning, Nixon was a Crook; but at least he was OUR Crook. He wouldn’t have been caught dead with his head up the xxx of Russia’s Putin. But Justice takes time. We’ll see what it has to say after enough time goes by.
I don’t think there is any reason to be embarrassed because of what the Kremlin’s Agent Orange is doing. The world knows that the malignant narcissist in the White House lost the popular vote by almost 3 million and that the United States is the only democracy in the world with this weird thing called the Electoral College, at least those who know enough to watch a YouTube video that explains how the Electoral College works and why it exists due to a compromise with slave owners during the revolution in the 18th century.
*Lloyd** It’s not a decision, it’s a feeling–of embarrassment. Trump is still our President and supposedly represents us to those outside of the USA. I feel like he’s the horse in a parade down Main Street–someone has to run after him and pick up the sxxt he leaves on the street. I feel embarrassed when he speaks to out-of-country people.
It is true that most people stereotype others, no matter what culture or country they come from, and the leaders of countries are front and center when they offer evidence for an easy to manufacture stereotype.
Lloyd The irony is that Trump IS the embodiment of a thoughtless, self-serving stereotypical American.
He’s worse than that stereotype and that means the stereotype will be revised and be worse than what it was.
“She has blamed everyone but herself for her loss.”
This is an out and out lie. So already you have lost credibility by starting your post with a lie. She has said in every interview that she bears some responsibility, but as usual, her words are always twisted so that comments that are no different than every single person’s are twisted to seem evil and corrupt.
And blaming Hillary Clinton for the election of Donald Trump is like blaming Jews for so many Germans wanting to vote for the man who wanted to exterminate them. Trump won because too many ignorant Americans liked his nasty, xenophobic, racist “blame minorities for your problems” rhetoric. And too many greedy billionaires were willing to look the other way at a dangerous demagogue taking power in exchange for having more money than they could spend in 30 lifetimes.
By the way, those same Americans are still supporting Trump despite him enacting policies that will continue to harm them. It isn’t the economy, stupid. It’s offering a scapegoat to the people you are too greedy to help.
NYC public school parent—You are spot on–“Trump won because too many ignorant Americans liked his nasty, xenophobic, racist “blame minorities for your problems” rhetoric. ” The middle class has been bleeding for years. They looked to Obama for help and relieve to no avail. The Repubs took advantage of this and repeated the message that entitlements were the reason so many middle class were struggling. Take a look at all the cuts being proposed to government programs. The Dems did nothing to counter this with the truth that the tax breaks to the 1% were the real reason the middle class was being crippled. I guess they couldn’t risk stopping the money flowing into campaigns.
Most of the Americans that voted for the Kremlin’s Agent Orange still support him but not all Americans that voted for him still support him.
Like Lincoln said, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time even for the ignorant deplorable that put the malignant narcissist in the White House.
For instance
One does not apologize by adding a “But…… Hillary still blames others for her defeat. It is unseemly.
Yes, President Trump has made mistakes. He is a businessman and has to grow into the office. He has made comments to other leaders that had to be said. No apologies. He will “evolve” in some of his thoughts. He is a pragmatist. He is not totally conservative or liberal. He is what he is. Would you accept him more if he seemed to be Mr Perfect then turned out to be everything you hated–dictator–lunatic.
He is being taken to task for made up accusations. I accept nothing from an anonymous source or the cowardly news media that promote or create the lies. Leakers are putting our country’s security at risk. It is illegal and those individuals should be tried for treason. Good grief, the Brits don’t want to share info with us. The President is accused of saying things in his office that those present deny. No matter WHAT he says—it is wrong. How can you say his policies are wrong if they are never given a chance to work. The people elected him yet, congress is defeating him. This is contrary to the principles of our constitution.
Stories are being told that totally negate the fact that so much was done by prior officials and nothing was said or done about it. For example: John Podesta got 53 million from a Russian investment company started by Putin. Bill Clinton got 500 thousand for a Moscow speech paid by Renaissance Capitol a company tied to Russian Intelligence. Hillary Clinton approved the sale of 20% of US uranium and then she and Podesta lied about it. Hillary got 145million from the sale of the uranium from shareholders. She also accepted millions from Russian oligarchs like the Russian Nuclear Research Cluster. Clinton failed to report donations hidden in Canadian tax records. Her private server was hacked–a grave security issue. She was in violation of security protocol that military members have gone to prison for. Even Edward Kennedy asked for Russian help when he had a brief attempt at running for president. No one has come out saying that WikiLeaks is a lie. The facts are documented. The DNC looked bad because of the pathetic people at the top.
April, you spend too much time watching FOX, Infowars, and Bretbart.
I didn’t ask you to change your vote in 2016 or to spill out your hatred and lies. I asked you to watch a speech that I liked. I didn’t realize it would push your hate buttons.
Shall I tell you what I think of Trump? Shall I tell you that no previous presidential candidate ever had so many ties to Russian agents. Please explain. Do not go off again about your hatred for Hillary. Just explain why the president’s son-in-law met with the Russian ambassador and tried to set up a secret communication line inside the Russian embassy, where American intelligence agencies could not hear them? What was the secret he wanted to tell the Russians that he didn’t want the CIA or FBI to know about?
“My only regret w/ Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.”
My only regret is that she wasn’t strapped to the top of the van when he blew up the Federal building .
You do protest to much . You would not want to compare the violence committed by the right to the minimal actions we have seen by a few anarchistic groups .
Well said April. It’s good to see the occasional voice or truth raised on this blog.
Diane, I had the privilege of attending the graduation in person because my niece was graduating. My wife, children, and I had the dumb luck to watch the graduation at an alumni section where HRC made a personal appearance after the ceremony. She was amazing.
I thought Clinton would have been better for public schools than either Obama or Trump. I voted for her.
Unfortunately, I think the Democratic Party is in real trouble. Republicans are really far Right and so there’s a need for an opposition party now more than ever, and Democrats just don’t seem up to the task. They don’t really believe in anything anymore and it shows. They’re shallow- they flit from issue to issue and slavishly follow trends and whichever “expert” is most popular on a given week. They seem to think this is “innovative” or “progressive” but no one knows what they stand for, and when one delves into this stuff most of it is garbage that came out of some think tank.
What do Democrats believe in? What would they go to the mat to defend? I can’t think of anything they wouldn’t trade away for some gimmicky promise or trend.
Democrats are slacktivists. They say the right things, but they only “do” to keep the money flowing to themselves and their wealthy friends. There is no middle ground or compromise anymore. Sure, Hillary would have been better than Trump on public school issues, but she still would have kept the same Obama reforms. We would still be fighting like mad to keep Charters to a minimum and CBL out of our classrooms. I voted for HRC because I couldn’t stomach voting for Trump….but that’s a horrible way to have to vote….the lesser of 2 evils.
It would be best if HRC would never return to public life. She invokes at best lukewarm enthusiasm on the left and seething hatred on the right…..a seething hatred that the right seems to organize quite efficiently around.
Beyond that, she is no friend of any real left in this country, as Joel has pointed out, and really represents just a slower form of erosion to the New Deal agenda.
That HRC has become a bit of a symbol for an attack on the glass ceiling is only evidence of that very glass ceiling. Its a bench that needs to be fortified with better, actually progressive women. HRC got into striking range of the rancid, awful American glass ceiling only through toeholds made out of the rubble of decades of progressive policy. She climbed far by tacking to the right always. Her fumbling towards progressive politics was never anything more than opportunism. She was exactly the worst candidate for the Democrats to field in 2016…..with a proven ability to not inspire or excite. Her loss was of her own manufacture, built with a resume of right-tacking centrism, shrewd and very legible ambition, faith in hip-techno-utopian data culture, messaging that created yawns everywhere, and a willingness to always turn away from organized workers. Comey may have placed a final nail in a well constructed coffin, but the ship made out of cheese cloth was christened by her.
HRC represents a Democratic Party that has lost….utterly. If that party and the American Left Wing Tradition ever aspire to become meaningful and powerful again, it had best do without HRC and the broader Clintonian approach.
Our political culture needs real, badass, progressive women…..not women that we reluctantly label as badass. HRC’s politics were always murky and center-right at best. She always kind of sucked. I voted for her…obviously….as the alternative was…well, our current reality….but really, her politics always fell flat for anybody on the left. We all wanted her to be that person who we could champion, but when anybody shined a light into her actual politics, it was just….”ugh…well, shes a female fighting up against that glass ceiling at least!!! Right!?? Everyone….???? Right???”
We could do better.
I agree 100% with NYSTEACHER.
Nicely put. I will add that the Russians added to Comey . To assert otherwise is like saying:
‘The car hit a large patch of black Ice and the driver was found dead, crashed into a nearby tree. But we have no proof that the black ice caused the accident. ‘
But this does not alter the fact that the leaks were all true . That they pointed to the cancer within the democratic party that metastasized since Bill Clinton came to power. That Hillary was the shinning example of this failure . Flipping back and forth and refusing to take a stand on issues from fracking to trade….
A Socialist Jew from Brooklyn , that’s a lot of baggage. With that baggage Sanders was 13 points up on Trump in March of last year, to Clinton’s 5, months before the Wiki leaks. Hard to say that he was an unknown quantity. He had already lost the South big time to Clinton and those two issues factored large in that loss . But the American electorate is far greater than the identity politics of the Democratic party .
Hillary and even Sanders were not going to get that Trump base to vote for them . Hillary was never even going to get moderate Republicans (the few that there are) to vote for her. Her entire campaign was spent trying to woo them, one neo-con and one neo-liberal surrogate after another.Bloomberg at the Democratic Convention says it all. She might as well have gone after the Republicans because her credibility was zero among the population she had to reach. The Russians just reinforced her already tainted image. It was who Hillary left on the bench , those that never came out to vote,that cost her this election. They included blacks in Flint and Baltimore as well as working class voters in the mid west and the young voters who sat the election out. You and I voted for her but then again, I have been voting for the lesser of two evils for quite some time.
NYSTEACHER: I like some of what you say–not all, but some; but you gave yourself away when you called HRC ambitious. What presidential candidate was not ambitious? Why would that be a problem for HER? Also, I stopped thinking she was NOT a “badass” when she openly criticized Putin in Russia; and think that her history shows her to be authentically committed to child-advocacy and human rights.
She made some mistakes (like all of them), she is a woman, and is not the most charismatic person in politics–too bad . . . for us.
Catherine,
I realized when I wrote that that I was opening myself up to that criticism….the criticism of me, a male, labeling a female as “ambitious.” To be clear:
1) I am fully aware of how our paternalistic system and culture can deploy “ambition” as a slander against women, while exhalting it as a positive virtue for men. I am sensitive to it, awake to it, and on the lookout for it as a fairly strong sign of someone’s native sexism. That said, I deployed the term against HRC in my post coming from a much deeper place historically. I was using the term in a classical/neo-classical frame of reference whereas flagrant ambition was seen as a negative at all times. We are talking about the species of ambition that enables one to elevate themselves, regardless of scruples or harm to others. That it has become a commonplace component of our political aspirants in no way removes or dulls my point. I was not talking about the ambition of a girl to make something of herself. We must not neuter our language so much as to not address things cleanly.
2) Taking strong positions in support of children (though her comfort with DFER’s is telling) and on human rights, while lauditory, is not the stuff of a strong candidate. Its basic. I assume her positions for anybody even flirting with the left as a given. That she did things, strong things, in suport of those positions is great…..and appropriate as she was in a position to do strong things. When people in positions to do things actually do them, its good, but should be expected….even in our world of billionaire narcissists. We mustn’t lose site of our own basic compasses. I’m glad she stands for human rights….so do I.
3) My central criticisms of her are also not necessarily in the realm of charisma….tho charisma matters….in the classroom and on the campaign trail. Lets not forget that. I was also not doing the gender thing regarding charisma….whereas our society struggles with it in women and not so much in men. Her lack of charisma was not a product of her gender, but a product of her lifetime of constantly shifting with the political wind…..rudderless ships are rarely memorable….until they run aground.
HRC brought out an enourmous amount of sexist venom and paranoia…..in those on the right and left. I wasn’t coming from that place however.
NYSTEACHER The historical point taken. But my ears are still ringing?
Two basics: First, from my experience, and though there is some training to its development, charisma is often just an inborn thing. I can carry a tune, but I’m no Bruce Springstein. And HRC has little of it to work with, especially in the present high-tech environment–though many say that in person, it comes through soundly in HRC. By comparison, I was listening to Theresa May–her English demeanor has added to it that wonderful voice.
Second, I hear a complaint based in (perhaps?) a desire for perfection that is often not evident in critiques of men. Ring. Ring. Ring. Maybe it’s just my ears, though . . . .
Catherine,
I get the ringing ear thing. I’m a dude and an obnoxious one at that, I am sure. I cause my own ears to ring most of the time. I think our conversation here is an important one and your points are quite well-taken.
That said,
1) Charisma, like most things I am sure, can be native to our personalities at birth or learned via long practice at it. Conversely, a lack of it can be native, or manufactured via a lack of hard opinion, perspective, or stance. Rarely is a person charismatic and also completely vacant and opinion-free. Therein lies the tragedy of HRC….from what I have read, she is personally charismatic, funny, sharp, and a woman of strong stances. Politically however, she has allowed her meritocratic competence to destroy her. By always working to keep both feet center upon the proverbial dock, she has killed her political charisma. I’m sorry, but I cannot imagine HRC giving FDR’s “….I invite their hatred” speech, though I could imagine her saying such things personally. (Ears ringing there I am sure….sorry)
2) My desire for perfection is equally distributed between genders if you go back and read my comments on other threads. It’s not so much a desire for perfection, though, as a will to help create an archetype for our side of what we should expect. I may be an obnoxious dunce, but I am not a fool: perfection is a ridiculous notion, especially in regards to public people. That said, Im sorry…..but I do expect a lot from someone running for president. Just like right wing religio-sadist whack jobs require their politicians to be perfectly racist and hateful as well as conversant in the scribblings of Ayn Rand, I expect my politicians to at least pass a progressive smell test. HRC never passed. I don’t require a different levels of stink re. Gender or anything else.
That said, when it was down to her and the Don, I again went with the least stink. Many may recall my loud and blunt calls for HRC support after she won against Bernie. I am a political realist if nothing else.
So, Im sorry about the ears. Really. I hate that I caused that and I come off like “that guy.”
NYSTEACHER: It’s the nature of the beast, so to speak, that we can be many things at once, and where those things can conflict, but not really sometimes. Sometimes, it’s just that we are constantly moving from one weed field to another.
NYSTEACHER: I meant to add to my last note: I appreciate the dialogue.
I don’t feel Democrats are actually committed to these wage and income issues. The Obama Administration waited until his second term, after they had lost congressional majorities, to put anything forth on lower and middle class wages.
Why are work and wages such a low priority for Democrats? Work and wages aren’t limited to white people. All lower and middle income people care about these issues. They didn’t just abandon working class white people- they also abandoned working class black and hispanic people.
When Clinton came to Toledo she talked about Warren Buffet. I would bet maybe 5 people in that crowd of 100 knew who he is. I mean, honestly, who is it so hard for Democrats to actually talk to the people standing in front of them? It all comes off as scolding lectures.
The Employee Free Choice act which was a minor change to Taft Hartley pushed by Labor never even made it out of committee . At a time the Dems had a Supper Majority.
Warren Buffett is the biggest fake on the planet.
He puts on the folksy “I’m an old fashioned honest guy from Omaha” schtick but makes his money investing in companies like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase.
Buffet pretends to be above the crooked Wall Street fray, but make no mistake, he is in the thick of it.
Very hurtful and true
.
If I’m not mistaken, he made his original fortune from Berkshire Hathaway, a company that profits from selling ridiculously overpriced cheap (quality) pre-fab housing with insane interest rates.
“Buffett is a fake.” For sure. He blathered for a decade about not giving his kids, his money. Then, in 2012, he gave his kids’ foundations $660 mil. His kids’ foundations were originally funded with their mother’s money.
When Buffett decides he can make a buck by headquartering a company outside of the U.S., the firm is relocated ASAP.
Since Betsy DeVos spent all of last week promoting private schools and bashing public schools (on the public dime) maybe someone in the federal government could spend some time next week representing the 90% of US children who attend public schools.
I’m sick and tired of having no representation and I’m sick and tired of the ed reform lobby so dominating the debate that public schools are never mentioned except as “failing” or in comparison to charter or private schools.
If they don’t have anything to offer public schools they should stop using our schools as a political football in their stupid, cynical games. Just leave us out of it.
Race To The Top is a pretty good example of Democratic policy for public schools.
They dangled some goodies in front of public schools in order to get what they really wanted, which was an expansion of charters.
They used our schools and our kids as levers to promote their chosen schools. It had nothing to do with “public schools”. In the end it didn’t even benefit the public schools that received the grants. The grants didn’t come close to covering the cost of the gimmicky schemes. Another net loss for public school kids, which shouldn’t surprise anyone, because it wasn’t ABOUT public school kids. It was about their “vision” for “portfolios”
The same thing will happen with vouchers. Public schools will get some freebies thrown their way in pursuit of the voucher priority and Democrats will call a net loss for every public school kid in the country “a win”.
Our schools are an afterthought to these people. They don’t value them. Since Trump’s election there has not been one substantive discussion or debate that is ABOUT public schools. They spent 8 years promoting charters and they’ll now spend 4 years either promoting or opposing vouchers.
Do Democrats realize how much ground they have lost in public education? Last week they were defending BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS in publicly-funded schools.
Democrats are barely hanging onto civil rights laws that were passed 35 years ago. That’s how far they have retreated.
Forget “improving public schools”. They are barely hanging onto public education of any kind.
“Agnostics” make lousy advocates and public education needs advocates. We need people in DC who are as passionate about public schools as ed reformers are about charters and vouchers, and we don’t have them.
There are many Democrats in the congress/Senate who are passionate about public schools. Example: Al Franken (D-MN).
No truer words have been spoken.
Diane,
In a reply to April on the 26th , you asked her “Just explain why the president’s son-in-law met with the Russian ambassador and tried to set up a secret communication line inside the Russian embassy, where American intelligence agencies could not hear them? What was the secret he wanted to tell the Russians that he didn’t want the CIA or FBI to know about?”
I didn’t see a reply to that so I will, if she doesn’t mind…start with WAPO
Washington Post: “Jared Kushner is Now a Focus in Russia Investigation.”
And then if you go look at the Washington Post top 20 stories, 15 of them are Jared Kushner … “Kushner is the only current White House official known to be considered a key person in the probe. The Post has not been told that Kushner is a target — or the central focus — of the investigation, and he has not been accused of any wrongdoing.”
Well, then what’s the story? Jared Kushner now a focus in Russia investigation?
The Washington Post has not been told that Kushner’s a target or the central focus of the investigation, and he has not been accused of any wrong doing. Well, then there’s not a morsel of evidence. He’s not a key figure in this!
They’re just writing another story that served as the bombshell at 5:30 AM
NBC News did the same thing. “Jared Kushner, Trump’s Son-in-Law, Has Come Under FBI Scrutiny in the Russia Investigation.” And then later, “Investigators believe he has significant information. But that does not mean they suspect him of a crime or even intend to charge him.”
NBC News does the same thing. “NBC News reporting that Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, one of his senior advisers, has come under FBI scrutiny in the Russia investigation.”
Folks, there is not a morsel of evidence for any allegation. And after practically indicting Kushner here, NBC says, “But that does not mean they suspect him of a crime or even intend to charge him.”
It’s unconscionable. It’s journalistic malpractice.
Backing this up CNN, Anderson Cooper. He’s talking with the former attorney general, Michael Mukasey, about reports that Kushner has become a focus in the Russia election. Anderson Cooper says in his question, “Jared Kushner is not a suspect here. He is not a person of interest. He is just, we’re told, a focus. They want to speak to him because it seems like he was basically a witness. What do you make of this, Attorney General Mukasey?”
MUKASEY: If you read back what you just said, you used two terms that are unknown to any federal investigator. “Person of interest” is not a term that any federal investigator ever uses, and it’s not a term that’s appropriate to this investigation. This is a national security investigation. It’s not a criminal investigation. So pretty much everybody is a witness. Now, what are they a witness to? They’re probably a witness to the fact that the Russians were trying to get close to influence people of influence. That’s what they do. That is not in itself surprising.
Up next, Professor Dershowitz. Same show. After Mukasey says that it’s not surprising Kushner’s considered a witness, Dershowitz added —
DERSHOWITZ: Attorney General Mukasey is absolutely right. This is being done backwards. Usually you can point to a statute and say we’re investigating crime under this statute. There’s a great danger to civil liberties when you say let’s investigate and maybe we’ll find something, that we can find a statute to fit. That’s not the way it ought to happen.
This is not a constitutional impeachment. It’s not happening in the House and Senate. It’s happening in the American media.
The Trump administration is being tried and convicted without a trial. And it’s been intense and steady, let’s just call it since the election, since last November. It actually predates that. But that’s what this really is. There’s nothing news here. There’s no reporting going on. There isn’t a scandal that has happened that they are desperately trying to uncover. There is no cover-up going on.
Now, Jeffrey Toobin — was also on CNN, same show. Jeffrey Toobin had just heard Mukasey basically tell Cooper: You don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s nothing to see here. They just heard Dershowitz say that they’re going about this ass backwards. These people don’t have a violation. They don’t have a crime. They don’t have anything. So they’re just throwing everything up against the wall and hoping one day they’re gonna find a violation of a crime.
Back channel communications have been used by previous presidents – JFK with the Russians – during the Cuban missile crisis.
jscheidell We are all choking on the smoke surrounding the Trump presidency. Surely you understand that. That smoke goes way back with Trump’s (and then Kuschner’s) financial involvement with the Russians–long before Trump’s political ambitions publicly arose. Kuschner is on tape commenting on it.
Also, neither the Press nor the public are the courts. I happen to think it would be really strange NOT to find a fire where there is all that smoke. Some of that smoke is the context of Trump’s embarrassing moral comportment, his historical ignorance, penchant for lying, nefarious business dealings, and self-only service.
But I am not the court. And in fact, it’s the Press who have researched and “done the digging” to uncover much of the evidence to at least raise the questions that the independent council presumably will pursue along with their own investigations–questions that Trump actively suppresses.
Not to worry. Habeas corpus lives. I think we can have enough confidence in the process to know that they won’t be marching DT or Kuschner off to jail before the fire becomes clearly visible.
My question is, and the question for our democracy is, what will the Republican Congress do if and when they do find the fire?
Also, such a seriously Russian idea: for the propaganda machine, aka the fake press, which has palpable connections to DT’s brain, to refer to legitimate journalism as the “fake press.” If we or the Press listened to Trump, we’d all think the whole thing is just sour grapes for the Democratic loss. Right. And I have some land in Florida I want to sell you?
More Rabbit Hole Stuff
BTW, I just saw a slick ad on a national news program saying how wonderful the Republican health care proposal is. They still think we are all stupid. If they haven’t paid for that ad with our tax money, then the Randian oligarchs behind the bill have employed a professional ad agency to provide the illusion for apparently deliberately obtuse people and to do their propaganda for them. Welcome to the rabbit hole.
Catherine BK
I noted that you see me having a penchant for false equivalencies. Thanks for the observation but they are the facts on both
There were crimes committed in the Obama administration, all of these back channel communications. Those are not crimes per se, but spying on a presidential candidate! Lois Lerner turned loose at the IRS to purposely discriminate against Tea Party organizations.
But the crimes that don’t exist are being invented by the media. They’re getting ludicrous. Even if the Kushner report is true is it now a crime to have back-channel communications? Especially in this media atmosphere — and if you’re serious about having secure, private conversations — wouldn’t you want a back-channel technique that only the participants are aware of so that it can’t be leaked, given all that’s happening here? It certainly is not criminal!
What they’re trying to do here is criminalize behavior. Remember the original premise: The Russians hacked the election; the Russians screwed Hillary out of the presidency; the Russians wanted Trump to get elected, and Trump got elected!
And the Russians, therefore, have Trump blackmailable. They have Trump in their back pocket — Trump this, Trump that — and so any time there is any kind of communication with anybody with Russia, it’s a crime. This is the perception that has been established
We know for a fact that candidate Obama had back-channel communications with the Iranians. Obama wanted the Iranians to be able to invest in and grow their nuclear program, both domestic power production and weaponry.
He wanted that for the Iranians. He was working on establishing these back-channel communications with the mullahs as a candidate, and the medias all know it, and they don’t have a problem with any of it. And then that back channel continued when Obama was in the White House. Iran is a mortal enemy of the United States.
Has Trump discussed lifting the sanctions on Russia? Has Trump done anything to ease or make life easier for Putin? What actually has happened between Trump and Russia?
Where have we been sold out? Where has Trump sold us out anywhere? It hasn’t happened. Obama even used Henry Kissinger to open up back channels with Russia. This is when Obama and Putin were supposedly on the outs over Crimea.
This is one more story thrown to the wall to see if anything sticks – lame stream media assassination – deplorable
More Rabbit Hole Stuff –
I remember the architect of the Obama Care deal calling Americans STUPID – and you can U-tube it – and Pelosi telling us You have to pass it to find out what is in it – REALLY?
jscheidell I’ve said this before here–if it’s wrong Obama (as you say), it’s wrong for Trump also–so your arguments are self-defeating. And your comparisons don’t do anything but cloud the issue–again, sounds like middle-school play-yard. Let’s just wait for the independent investigation and watch him self-destruct. It’s sickening.
“I hope she returns to public life, not as a candidate, but as a voice of reason. We need her now, more than ever.”
Here is something forgotten from that “voice of reason”: “We came, we saw, he died,” she joked when told of news reports of Qaddafi’s death by an aide in between formal interviews …[Oct 20, 2011 | CBS News – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared a laugh with a television news reporter moments after hearing deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had been killed.]
I had to sign-off and leave the screen blank after I read that comment of yours. Spending the next few hours as my father’s caregiver helped me to restore calm; now to return with this comment.
When will the extremely intelligent thinkers and leaders such as yourself step away from the Clinton bandwagon? How readily you forget while attempting to endear readers to the political farce she and husband what’s his name perpetrate. First, it incites and inflames the Trumpanzees who themselves need to wake up; second, it continues to show continued disregard for the true U.S. political heroes that we need more than ever. Here are a few words about one such admirable citizen:
“Ralph Nader has done so much good in his career, exposed so much corporate and government corruption—so much bribery, law-breaking, malfeasance, malpractice, product defects, drug company-subsidized science. And he has a remarkable record of laws that resulted at least in part from his exposés. One wonders what we’d do without him and the numerous watchdog agencies he’s given birth to; the generations of idealistic public interest lawyers and activists he’s inspired; the tireless work that has led to legislation, regulation, reparation, prosecution, public outrage, all of which have—or should have—changed the way we look at the unchecked operation of naked capitalism.
[…]
He genuinely believes both parties are in the pocket of profiteering corporate interests and their lobbyists. The Democrats do little more than impotent whimpering, which merely serves as bipartisan window dressing for Republican corporate puppets.
[…]
But Ralph Nader’s a good man. He doesn’t deserve the hostility he gets from some. Don’t hate him. He’s still a hero.
~ Ron Rosenbaum, June 26 2012, SLATE
H.R.C. is nowhere near Ralph Nader’s equal in accomplishments for ‘We The People’ and a better society. In fact, the record shows that she was, and continues to be, in league with many of the ‘trouble makers’ that continue to tear down our country in the name of greed.