Hillary gets creamed for allegedly lacking people's trust and it's true that the recent Nevada polls seem to back this up. Bernie Sanders won a huge victory among those for whom 'trustworthiness' is a very important consideration.
Here is another piece in the Atlantic taking pleasure in her problems with trust. Yeah, that's my opinion. The Beltway loves this.
She was criticized by some for a recent CBS interview she gave:
Here is another piece in the Atlantic taking pleasure in her problems with trust. Yeah, that's my opinion. The Beltway loves this.
She was criticized by some for a recent CBS interview she gave:
Scott Pelley: You talk about leveling with the American people. Have you always told the truth?
Hillary Clinton: I've always tried to. Always. Always.
Pelley: Some people are going call that wiggle room that you just gave yourself.
Clinton: Well, no, I've always tried—
Pelley: I mean, Jimmy Carter said, “I will never lie to you.”
Clinton: Well, but, you know, you're asking me to say, “Have I ever?” I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever will. I'm going do the best I can to level with the American people.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/hillarys-challenge-with-trust/470289/
Ron Fourier has a problem with that:
"The only appropriate answer is, “No, I’ve never lied to the American people and I never will.” Clinton could have explained that withholding the full truth is something all presidents do—indeed, must do. On national security, internal deliberations, details of their private lives, and other matters, presidents simply cannot be fully transparent."
Hillary Clinton: I've always tried to. Always. Always.
Pelley: Some people are going call that wiggle room that you just gave yourself.
Clinton: Well, no, I've always tried—
Pelley: I mean, Jimmy Carter said, “I will never lie to you.”
Clinton: Well, but, you know, you're asking me to say, “Have I ever?” I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever will. I'm going do the best I can to level with the American people.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/hillarys-challenge-with-trust/470289/
Ron Fourier has a problem with that:
"The only appropriate answer is, “No, I’ve never lied to the American people and I never will.” Clinton could have explained that withholding the full truth is something all presidents do—indeed, must do. On national security, internal deliberations, details of their private lives, and other matters, presidents simply cannot be fully transparent."
"But to misled the public knowingly is a lie, a breach of trust, and something that a former first lady, senator, and secretary of state should be able to rule out. Clinton can’t—at least not honestly. From the firings of White House travel office employees in 1993 to the 2015 email scandal that still haunts this campaign, Clinton has a history of deflections, deception, and untruths."
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/2/22/11086292/bernie-sanders-political-revolution-wonks
I don't know. I still feel that this is hairsplitting. What gets me is how often she is attacked for doing things that other politicians do and no mountain is made over it. The reality is that most high ranking government officials have used private email-even after the new rules some have slipped like Ashton Carter and nothing was made of this.
Colin Powell used it, Condeeleza Rice used it. Yet only her email use has been blown up out of all proportions.
Let me digress for a moment.
One thing that fascinates me is the study of counterfactuals. Like for instance a lot of us Dems feel Al Gore was robbed in 2000. We also feel that things would have been so much better had he been the recognized winner. Interestingly Scott Sumner agrees with this narrative.
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31500#comment-530244
Here is Lorenzo from Oz says something I myself always say:
"Of course, in Hillary’s favour, you had to have worked quite hard not to be the Democrat nominated to succeed her husband (a much better politician, IMHO) and not get elected, but Al Gore was up to the task of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. All he had to do, was put his arm around Bill and say “I’m his VP, you like him, so vote for me because that’s the only way you can”. It worked for Bush Snr, but dear old Al was too much of an Aspergers Egotist to do the bleeding obvious."
"And yes, I know he won the popular vote, but he should have done SO much better, and a more competent politician would have."
I agree that Gore''s big mistake was run against his Administration rather taking credit as Clinton's VP. Running against your own record is tough. He wanted to be the outsider populist when he wasn't. At least Hillary is smarter than that.
But what might have happened had their been a President Al Gore? Here is an interesting application of counterfactual theory-it's a whole discipline it turns out.
http://www.amazon.com/43-When-Bush-A-Political-Fable-ebook/dp/B00LLO83OY/ref=as_sl_pc_tf_til?tag=lameanov-20&linkCode=w00&linkId=T43EXU7CSXXPNJZW&creativeASIN=B00LLO83OY
I've come across an excellent book called Game Change by John Heilleman and Mark Halpern about the main candidates of the 2008 Presidential race. For the rest of this piece I will refer to them as H-H.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061733644?keywords=game%20change&qid=1456174695&ref_=sr_1_2&sr=8-2
It looks at John McCain and the disastrous nomination of Sarah Palin. But a large part of the book focuses on the Clintons and the Obamas, especially, of course, the candidates, Hillary and Barrack.
I think H and H are very perspicacious in calling the relationship between Obama and Hillary a 'love story.'
Bernie Sanders has gotten frustrated lately about the 'Game about how much the Secretary loves President Obama and how much he loves her'-Al Sharpton doesn't appreciate Bernie accusing her of pandering here.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/sharpton-trump-is-the-white-don-king-219601#ixzz40tkVY0w2
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/02/al-sharpton-donald-trump-is-white-don.html?showComment=1456162358048#c6538466304662354942
But as H-H show, Hillary and Obama have a lot of water under the bridge. I do feel that the two are now star-crossed in a rather beautiful way. Yes, he rained on her parade in 2008 but then she still earned his respect and he made her his SOS.
Bill who was castigated for his words in 2008 during the campaign in South Carolina went on to have Obama's back at the 2012 convention and now, Obama's legacy is in Hillary's hands.
However, one thing they touched on early in the book makes me think. In 2004, before John Kerry took command of the primary-in late 2003 then-there was worry that he wasn't up the task of beating Howard Dean who in some ways was this year's Bernie Sanders. Of course, now Dean is a huge Hillary supporter and surrogate.
But much like this year's whisper campaign about Biden in the fall-and again in recent weeks after Bernie's big NH win-though it's clearly too late for Biden-there was some Hillary talk in 2004. Maybe she should step in. In late December she was being urged by some in the party to step in before the deadline.
She had all her close confidants and advisers around her at a meeting and everyone including Bill told her to run. There was one no vote: her daughter, Chelsea.
Chelsea felt that she would be punished by voters for breaking her word on her 2000 campaign promise to not run for President or leave the Senate for any reason before her Senate term was up.
She decided that Chelsea was right and that she'd be castigated if she were to break the pledge. Once again she'd be accused of being power mad and unprincipled, an ambitious, lying bitch, etc. She bowed out.
Here's where the counterfactuals come in. What would have happened had she not worried about this and stepped in? Would this have been the right choice?
1. It could be that Chelsea was right and she would have been castigated and her candidacy fallen flat and maybe she would have been damaged from further runs.
2. Maybe that was her moment. He-or she-who hesitates is lost and she lost in 2008-and who knows?-maybe she doesn't make it this time again. I have to add I think she will and the prediction markets agree.
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31500#comment-530244
3. My guess is that her real problem was that it was too late to run-just as Biden talk late last year was way too late.
What is interesting though is that Barrack Obama after his big Senate win and big 2004 convention speech was asked in late 2005 would he consider running for President in 2008 rather than finishing out his Senate term? His 2004 speech singlehandedly made him a 2008 contender.
His answer was to categorically say there was no chance he would run.
So he did exactly what she was afraid to do. So back to Ron Fourier's rule: you must never 'knowingly mislead the public' was Obama doing this when he said there was no chance of him running when the idea had occurred to him?
According to H-H, Obama had considered the possibility but it was a very remote one for him that the time. Some on his team worried about him making such an unequivocal vow not to run for POTUS.
But he reasoned that people as opposed to pundits wouldn't worry about this. He would certainly be proved right.
But for another counterfactual:
If she had done the same thing in 2004 would she have been savaged for something that didn't hurt him at all?
I'm not sure. What I've seen throughout her time in national life since 1992 is that so often things that aren't a big deal for others are made a big deal for her.
I mean all high ranking government officials use private emails, and speaking for a fee is very common among former politicians, athletes, actors, etc. But only she receives a demand that she has to release everything said in her speech.
There are a few possible ways to read this.
1. Take the demand at face value and release the speech to show that she didn't give a speech to bankers on how to end all banking regulations in three easy steps.
2. But would that really shut down the 'artful smear?' Recently part of what she said at a speech was on the Internet and some Bernie Bro sniffed that 'Of course, nothing important is said here.'
3. So for some even doing this won't help.
4. Then there is the dimension of Josh Marshall's Bitchslap Politics.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/--97767
Here the issue is not the substance of the demand but a contest for dominance. It's why Trump is running away with the GOP primary right now.
But in 2004, Kerry showed himself as unwilling or unable to defend himself against the Swiftboat attacks. Hillary herself was contemptuous of his inability to fight back.
If she were to release her speech this would be less about substance than that the press and Sanders have managed to browbeat her into responding to things on their terms. Think about a situation where you were at work but only you but not your coworkers have to give a urine sample every month-though you've been caught doing nothing they haven't done.
Sometimes to dignify something with a response weakens you and elevates your opponent.
Overall, though I don't agree that she has shown herself to be untrustworthy. The ones I don't trust are those who continually make the claim-the Beltway pundits that were selling the email thing as meaningful for months.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/2/22/11086292/bernie-sanders-political-revolution-wonks
I don't know. I still feel that this is hairsplitting. What gets me is how often she is attacked for doing things that other politicians do and no mountain is made over it. The reality is that most high ranking government officials have used private email-even after the new rules some have slipped like Ashton Carter and nothing was made of this.
Colin Powell used it, Condeeleza Rice used it. Yet only her email use has been blown up out of all proportions.
Let me digress for a moment.
One thing that fascinates me is the study of counterfactuals. Like for instance a lot of us Dems feel Al Gore was robbed in 2000. We also feel that things would have been so much better had he been the recognized winner. Interestingly Scott Sumner agrees with this narrative.
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31500#comment-530244
Here is Lorenzo from Oz says something I myself always say:
"Of course, in Hillary’s favour, you had to have worked quite hard not to be the Democrat nominated to succeed her husband (a much better politician, IMHO) and not get elected, but Al Gore was up to the task of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. All he had to do, was put his arm around Bill and say “I’m his VP, you like him, so vote for me because that’s the only way you can”. It worked for Bush Snr, but dear old Al was too much of an Aspergers Egotist to do the bleeding obvious."
"And yes, I know he won the popular vote, but he should have done SO much better, and a more competent politician would have."
I agree that Gore''s big mistake was run against his Administration rather taking credit as Clinton's VP. Running against your own record is tough. He wanted to be the outsider populist when he wasn't. At least Hillary is smarter than that.
But what might have happened had their been a President Al Gore? Here is an interesting application of counterfactual theory-it's a whole discipline it turns out.
http://www.amazon.com/43-When-Bush-A-Political-Fable-ebook/dp/B00LLO83OY/ref=as_sl_pc_tf_til?tag=lameanov-20&linkCode=w00&linkId=T43EXU7CSXXPNJZW&creativeASIN=B00LLO83OY
I've come across an excellent book called Game Change by John Heilleman and Mark Halpern about the main candidates of the 2008 Presidential race. For the rest of this piece I will refer to them as H-H.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061733644?keywords=game%20change&qid=1456174695&ref_=sr_1_2&sr=8-2
It looks at John McCain and the disastrous nomination of Sarah Palin. But a large part of the book focuses on the Clintons and the Obamas, especially, of course, the candidates, Hillary and Barrack.
I think H and H are very perspicacious in calling the relationship between Obama and Hillary a 'love story.'
Bernie Sanders has gotten frustrated lately about the 'Game about how much the Secretary loves President Obama and how much he loves her'-Al Sharpton doesn't appreciate Bernie accusing her of pandering here.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/sharpton-trump-is-the-white-don-king-219601#ixzz40tkVY0w2
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/02/al-sharpton-donald-trump-is-white-don.html?showComment=1456162358048#c6538466304662354942
But as H-H show, Hillary and Obama have a lot of water under the bridge. I do feel that the two are now star-crossed in a rather beautiful way. Yes, he rained on her parade in 2008 but then she still earned his respect and he made her his SOS.
Bill who was castigated for his words in 2008 during the campaign in South Carolina went on to have Obama's back at the 2012 convention and now, Obama's legacy is in Hillary's hands.
However, one thing they touched on early in the book makes me think. In 2004, before John Kerry took command of the primary-in late 2003 then-there was worry that he wasn't up the task of beating Howard Dean who in some ways was this year's Bernie Sanders. Of course, now Dean is a huge Hillary supporter and surrogate.
But much like this year's whisper campaign about Biden in the fall-and again in recent weeks after Bernie's big NH win-though it's clearly too late for Biden-there was some Hillary talk in 2004. Maybe she should step in. In late December she was being urged by some in the party to step in before the deadline.
She had all her close confidants and advisers around her at a meeting and everyone including Bill told her to run. There was one no vote: her daughter, Chelsea.
Chelsea felt that she would be punished by voters for breaking her word on her 2000 campaign promise to not run for President or leave the Senate for any reason before her Senate term was up.
She decided that Chelsea was right and that she'd be castigated if she were to break the pledge. Once again she'd be accused of being power mad and unprincipled, an ambitious, lying bitch, etc. She bowed out.
Here's where the counterfactuals come in. What would have happened had she not worried about this and stepped in? Would this have been the right choice?
1. It could be that Chelsea was right and she would have been castigated and her candidacy fallen flat and maybe she would have been damaged from further runs.
2. Maybe that was her moment. He-or she-who hesitates is lost and she lost in 2008-and who knows?-maybe she doesn't make it this time again. I have to add I think she will and the prediction markets agree.
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31500#comment-530244
3. My guess is that her real problem was that it was too late to run-just as Biden talk late last year was way too late.
What is interesting though is that Barrack Obama after his big Senate win and big 2004 convention speech was asked in late 2005 would he consider running for President in 2008 rather than finishing out his Senate term? His 2004 speech singlehandedly made him a 2008 contender.
His answer was to categorically say there was no chance he would run.
So he did exactly what she was afraid to do. So back to Ron Fourier's rule: you must never 'knowingly mislead the public' was Obama doing this when he said there was no chance of him running when the idea had occurred to him?
According to H-H, Obama had considered the possibility but it was a very remote one for him that the time. Some on his team worried about him making such an unequivocal vow not to run for POTUS.
But he reasoned that people as opposed to pundits wouldn't worry about this. He would certainly be proved right.
But for another counterfactual:
If she had done the same thing in 2004 would she have been savaged for something that didn't hurt him at all?
I'm not sure. What I've seen throughout her time in national life since 1992 is that so often things that aren't a big deal for others are made a big deal for her.
I mean all high ranking government officials use private emails, and speaking for a fee is very common among former politicians, athletes, actors, etc. But only she receives a demand that she has to release everything said in her speech.
There are a few possible ways to read this.
1. Take the demand at face value and release the speech to show that she didn't give a speech to bankers on how to end all banking regulations in three easy steps.
2. But would that really shut down the 'artful smear?' Recently part of what she said at a speech was on the Internet and some Bernie Bro sniffed that 'Of course, nothing important is said here.'
3. So for some even doing this won't help.
4. Then there is the dimension of Josh Marshall's Bitchslap Politics.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/--97767
Here the issue is not the substance of the demand but a contest for dominance. It's why Trump is running away with the GOP primary right now.
But in 2004, Kerry showed himself as unwilling or unable to defend himself against the Swiftboat attacks. Hillary herself was contemptuous of his inability to fight back.
If she were to release her speech this would be less about substance than that the press and Sanders have managed to browbeat her into responding to things on their terms. Think about a situation where you were at work but only you but not your coworkers have to give a urine sample every month-though you've been caught doing nothing they haven't done.
Sometimes to dignify something with a response weakens you and elevates your opponent.
Overall, though I don't agree that she has shown herself to be untrustworthy. The ones I don't trust are those who continually make the claim-the Beltway pundits that were selling the email thing as meaningful for months.
No comments:
Post a Comment