A lot of pundits seem truly shocked that Hillary was able to put in such a strong performance yesterday in her takedown of Donald Trump.
She had some epic lines like:
"I will leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants." -- Hillary Clinton on Trump
https://twitter.com/TheFix/status/738451451899445258
There was this palpable worry among a lot of bed wetting liberals that somehow, she can't do a street fight. How much of this is gender based is a fair question. A lot of the liberal hand wringers have had something of throwing a life perserver at her head about their attempts in their 'friendly advice'-or not so friendly. I mean constantly worrying publicly that she's a 'weak candidate' does little to help her win.
For my part, I never doubted she had it for a second. Hillary is a tough biatch. How quickly the lesson of the Benghazi hearings are forgotten.
Harry Enten sums it up well:
"Just shocking that Clinton who crushed in NY, fought Obama to a near tie, & nearly cleared the field in 2016 may be a decent politician."
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/738458789066706944
Huffington Post was very impressed:
"Hillary Clinton Eviscerates Donald Trump In Her Best Speech Yet."
"She called his foreign policy “dangerously incoherent” and said he was “temperamentally unfit” to serve as president."
"Clinton had a lot of material to get through. She recited some of Trump’s past statements on foreign policy, provoking laughter from the audience when she noted that he said he understands Russia because he held the Miss Universe pageant there. She also mentioned his past support for increased nuclear proliferation, taking out the families of terrorists and defaulting on the national debt, and mocked his remark that his primary consultant on foreign policy issues is himself, because he has a “very good brain.”
"She ridiculed him for saying that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese and criticized his statement that he prefers prisoners of war who weren’t captured, like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was."
“This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes, because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because someone got under his very thin skin,” Clinton said. “We cannot put the security of our children and grandchildren in Donald Trump’s hands, we cannot let him roll the dice with America.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-donald-trump_us_57508150e4b0eb20fa0d31f9
In every sense of the word, a Donald Trump Presidency presents a danger to Americans and the world. There's the issue of his Twitter loving fingers with the nuclear codes.
Does he not represent a danger to Americans? You can't say that if you are Black, Latino, female, or LGBT.
Bear in mind that Trump has already vowed to only consider white male candidates for Vice President. Isn't it clear that a Trump Presidency will be a major rollback on anti discrimination policy?
But it seems to me that we will all be in grave danger with this guy in the White House. Just allowing someone like him to touch the awesome power and machinery of the US Presidency is chilling.
We are a nation of laws but Trump doesn't understand that. In his first day in office he will overstep his limits in 87 different ways big and small.
Other strong reviews for Hillary from Slate
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/02/hillary_clinton_unloads_on_donald_trump_during_foreign_policy_speech.html
and Matt Yglesias at Vox
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11843550/hillary-clinton-trump-risk
Hillary Clinton Just Kicked Trump in the Shins
And showed that she’s certainly tough enough for the long haul. "
She had some epic lines like:
"I will leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants." -- Hillary Clinton on Trump
https://twitter.com/TheFix/status/738451451899445258
There was this palpable worry among a lot of bed wetting liberals that somehow, she can't do a street fight. How much of this is gender based is a fair question. A lot of the liberal hand wringers have had something of throwing a life perserver at her head about their attempts in their 'friendly advice'-or not so friendly. I mean constantly worrying publicly that she's a 'weak candidate' does little to help her win.
Harry Enten sums it up well:
"Just shocking that Clinton who crushed in NY, fought Obama to a near tie, & nearly cleared the field in 2016 may be a decent politician."
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/738458789066706944
Huffington Post was very impressed:
"Hillary Clinton Eviscerates Donald Trump In Her Best Speech Yet."
"She called his foreign policy “dangerously incoherent” and said he was “temperamentally unfit” to serve as president."
"Clinton had a lot of material to get through. She recited some of Trump’s past statements on foreign policy, provoking laughter from the audience when she noted that he said he understands Russia because he held the Miss Universe pageant there. She also mentioned his past support for increased nuclear proliferation, taking out the families of terrorists and defaulting on the national debt, and mocked his remark that his primary consultant on foreign policy issues is himself, because he has a “very good brain.”
"She ridiculed him for saying that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese and criticized his statement that he prefers prisoners of war who weren’t captured, like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was."
“This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes, because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because someone got under his very thin skin,” Clinton said. “We cannot put the security of our children and grandchildren in Donald Trump’s hands, we cannot let him roll the dice with America.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-donald-trump_us_57508150e4b0eb20fa0d31f9
In every sense of the word, a Donald Trump Presidency presents a danger to Americans and the world. There's the issue of his Twitter loving fingers with the nuclear codes.
Does he not represent a danger to Americans? You can't say that if you are Black, Latino, female, or LGBT.
Bear in mind that Trump has already vowed to only consider white male candidates for Vice President. Isn't it clear that a Trump Presidency will be a major rollback on anti discrimination policy?
But it seems to me that we will all be in grave danger with this guy in the White House. Just allowing someone like him to touch the awesome power and machinery of the US Presidency is chilling.
We are a nation of laws but Trump doesn't understand that. In his first day in office he will overstep his limits in 87 different ways big and small.
Other strong reviews for Hillary from Slate
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/02/hillary_clinton_unloads_on_donald_trump_during_foreign_policy_speech.html
and Matt Yglesias at Vox
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11843550/hillary-clinton-trump-risk
Hillary Clinton Just Kicked Trump in the Shins
And showed that she’s certainly tough enough for the long haul. "
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/06/hillary_clinton_s_anti_trump_speech.html
Thank you. I've never understood the doubts that she's tough enough. If you look at her Benghazi testimony or even the campaign she ran against Obama in 2008. The President himself has admitted that even in beating her, he came away really impressed with how tough and smart she is.
The question is not whether Hillary is tough enough. You wonder how her opponent will deal with this.
Hugh Hewitt and other Republicans have absurdly argued Hillary won't show up for a debate against Trump.
Rick Perry yesterday declared that Trump will 'rip off her skin' in a debate. It's amazing how GOPers make everything sound like a war crime.
But Trump bailed on a few debates in the primary and I certainly wouldn't be shocked for him to bail in October. It might depend on the polls. If he's far back enough, he might figure he has no choice.
Mike, did you mean to write "Hi's" in the title?
ReplyDeleteThanks Tom
ReplyDeleteStrong statement here about Trump from Erickson:
ReplyDeletehttp://theresurgent.com/donald-trump-whose-father-was-arrested-at-a-kkk-riot-goes-full-racist/
Although in the next piece he doesn't let Dems off the hook for not condemning bad behavior (by anti-Trump protesters) either.
Also Steve Berman, of Jewish ancestry, is tired of being "marked" as a Jew on twitter by Trump supporters:
http://theresurgent.com/online-anti-semitism-is-a-real-problem-why-does-twitter-allow-it/
This is interesting to me because in the past the right wingers have often poo pooed the ADL's attempts at going after this kind of thing because it was criticism of their side. So now at least Berman seem to appreciate the ADL's efforts in this regard.
DeleteI'm sure David Horowitz wouldn't agree, since he's a Trump supporter. Maybe Adelson contributes to the ADL? That'll be interesting.
Yes. I mentioned Fred Trump the other day and Art Deco dismisses it. Maybe I'll point out to Deco that Erick Erickson is with me on this one. LOL
DeleteI've had some fun taking the Mickey out of Art Deco the last few days
DeleteHere is Deco:
Delete"“Your example was flagrantly silly, but since you’re in tune with the moderator, you’re the one not called a moron.”
I had to laugh. He thinks that I'm in cahoots with Scott Sumner?! My response:
"I knew the Trump supporters have a innate propensity for absurd conspiracy theories-after all look at their candidate. He’s gets all his ‘facts’ from conspiracy theories out of the Enquirer and Alex Jones."
"This is the guy who Politifact shows to be saying something false 84% of the time and who is like the Grand Wizard of Birtherism."
"But I have to say that this is a real doozy. You think Scott Sumner called you a moron because I told him to?"
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31749#comment-793000
I could keep winding him up, but have decided not to leave any more comments in that post.
What I've learnt through time with Sumner is that you got to know when to say when.
That comment section already has 155 comments. Let me not be the one to add more comments to it. LOL
"Yes. I mentioned Fred Trump the other day and Art Deco dismisses it."
DeleteYeah, I didn't understand his response to that really. I had the impression he dismissed it because Trump's dad was merely caught up in a sweep of arrests or because he associated with a Klan member. I don't recall, but the words he used made me think that.
"Maybe I'll point out to Deco that Erick Erickson is with me on this one. LOL"
I considered doing that myself. Although he's well aware of Erickson's position in general. I've pointed it out on numerous occasions. As an aside, it's funny because just last Summer (after Erickson disinvited Trump to his event) Erickson semi-defended Trump against accusations he was a racist. In fact I'm pretty sure he wrote a post on RedState with the title "Donal Trump is Not a Racist." Still I give him credit: he was one of the the first on the right to amplify the meme that Trump is a fascist. And now he's come full circle on the racism thing since last summer.
"I've had some fun taking the Mickey out of Art Deco the last few days"
What does "taking the Mickey out of" mean? Is that a NY thing? =)
"That comment section already has 155 comments."
Yeah, I usually get to the point where I write a comment that I don't really want to see the responses to, and that's where I call it quits. =)
BTW, did Sumner call Art a moron? Lol... I'd say is highly likely that Sumner in the past has called you a moron... not because you are, but because that was the general tone of many interactions I've seen you have with him in the past so it wouldn't surprise me. To my knowledge he's never called me one, although I think I probably deserved to be called one a time or two, especially when I first started commenting there.
DeleteIf he has called you a moron, you could have told Art "welcome to the club!"
Taking the Mickey out of it is actually a British phrase-I was born in England as I've revealed.
DeleteBasically trolling someone
Exactly, welcome to the club. I've been called a moron by Sumner enough times to write a book. LOL
DeleteNot so much lately as I've figured out how to approach him a little better. Don't contradict him directly about economics as he'll just say I don't know anything about economics.
I do have to admit econ is a difficult field and that I am a layperson.
So like you said, I found Deco's accusation ironic. Join the club Art.
Mike, even though this is ostensibly a criticism of Hillary (and Bernie), reading between the lines it's an acknowledgement of how effective her speech was. See if you agree:
ReplyDeletehttp://theresurgent.com/hillary-clinton-needs-to-forcefully-condemn-this/
Maybe (what reads to me) as mild criticism of Hillary is as close as Erickson can get to actually praising her. Rubin, in contrast, doesn't hold back:
Deletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/06/03/hillarys-best-speech-to-date/
Erickson went on to write a much more critical piece on Obama along those lines (that he introduced in my above comment against Hil and Bern). I think he felt he had more to complain about there (some of it justified: in regards the protesters behavior at times), but decided that Hil and Bern didn't really deserve it, so he put it at Obama's door step. Interesting!
Interesting because is Erickson "pulling his punches" with Hillary? That would be interesting. In that case Obama serves as a convenient punching bag for him.
Delete... Hillary might be able to use that to her advantage to make conservatives feel better about being #NeverTrump (and thus not voting for Trump). After all she's not responsible for what they hate most about Obama... Obama is.
DeleteMike, this one is interesting:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/06/03/shifting-sands-on-the-right/
I doubt you'll agree with all that, but I think it's interesting nonetheless. One thing she says in there that I really like: The evangelical leaders may well end up beclowning themselves.
What I learned from that Samantha Bee show a week or so back was that the anti-abortion movement was really an invented outrage to unify the evangelicals together and with conservative Catholics in a political force that was in danger of dissipating after they'd rallied to defend segregationist Bob Jones U, and similar institutions. Since then the overtly racist angle of evangelical political power has been suppressed. Maybe this election will force them to put their white sheets back on. I certainly hope so.
I have a new post about Jennifer Rubin's review of Hillary's speech.
ReplyDeleteJennifer Rubin: Hillary's speech was total success
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/06/jennifer-rubin-hillary-clintons-speech.html
Mike, what do you think about the political pros and cons of HRC having her own "Sister Souljah moment" in criticizing the disorder caused by some of the anti-Trump protesters? I think it might be a smart move. I'm not sure about timing though. I think it would be a move aimed at those in the middle only because they experience some cultural anxiety, and are afraid that HRC and the Dems will stoke more of it. Those people I'm imagining are aware what a clown Trump is, but they're have this anxiety nonetheless. If she could make a move to sooth that a bit, all that would be left is Trump's clownhood, and thus no reason to support him.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, maybe Erickson's onto something here:
Deletehttp://theresurgent.com/hillary-clinton-needs-to-forcefully-condemn-this/
I have to say I disagree with that. She's been in a very tough fight on the Left.
DeleteHer base is minority voters. This is not 1992.
She shouldn't get into the false equivalence game.
Certainly she doesn't condone anyone getting violent at protests. But these folks have nothing to do with her or her campaign.
They aren't Hilary supporters.
Besides there are legitimate reasons that some may protest Trump. She doesn't need to say there's not.
The protests are Trump's problem. He creates this environment.
She doesn't have to make it a case of false equivalence. She can just condemn all rioting, violence and unlawful destruction of property and those who condone it (implicitly or explicitly). That sets her apart from both Trump and Bernie.
DeleteSpeaking of false equivalence, this piece from RedState contributor "streiff" is dripping with it. It's utterly ridiculous:
Deletehttp://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/06/03/hillary-clintons-attack-donald-trump.-pot-calls-kettle-black.-video/
But even there it's clear he suspects that Trump could actually be even worse. Overall it's a good thing: streiff used to be one of the RedStaters who rejected #NeverTrump, but now he's on the #NeverTrump train. Obviously he went kicking and screaming, given his disdain for HRC.
But in saying it she might also be seen as taking sides with cultural gripes of the Trumpists.
DeleteIn any case I think it could alienate some on the Left which seems to me to serve little purpose.
She isn't telling anyone to riot and is totally against that. Hillary supporters are not the rioting kind.
On the other hand there is a legitimate right to protest and Trump's wildeyed racism is getting a lot of people stirred up.
Trump may claim that it's Hillary voters rioting but this is total nonsense like most of what Trump says.
DeleteTrump even accused the Trump U judge of being in cahoots with the rioters just because he's Mexican-American
"Overall it's a good thing: streiff used to be one of the RedStaters who rejected #NeverTrump, but now he's on the #NeverTrump train. Obviously he went kicking and screaming, given his disdain for HRC."
DeleteThere is this tough debate for such conservatives. Who do you hate more? Hillary Clinton or Hitler 2.0?
"Who do you hate more? Hillary Clinton or Hitler 2.0?"
DeleteYes, and his answer used to be Hillary by a hair (so I'll very very reluctantly vote for Trump), but it's now "they're equal, and I won't vote for either" which is progress.
Trump's problem with protests is a reflection of the toxic nature of his own campaign. His supporters and some of the protesters are kind of mirror images of themselves.
ReplyDeleteI worry that if she did that, she's actually hurt herself on the Left.
ReplyDeleteIt's a balancing act. She wants to speak to independents and some disaffected GOPers but not go too far and then lose her own base.
I don't think criticizing violence among protesters with Mexican flags and placards expressing their desire to return California to Mexico (apparently there were some? Steve Berman at TheResurgent claims there were.) will hurt her in the other 49 states... probably not even in CA. Mexicans who are here voted with their feet to NOT be in Mexico. Also, their children don't want to live there (for the most part). I could be wrong, but I think that's a pretty safe bet for her. Now whether or not she does it after June 7 is another story.
DeleteAnd yes, she should criticize those calling for riots too (like that Vox editor).
I read about that on TheResurgent. Interestingly enough, they did make a distinction between the Vox guy (calling for riots and excusing property damage) and Trump supporters calling for violence against people.
I think there's such a tiny minority of people and demonstrators who support riots and violence directed at peaceful people whom they disagree with, and directed at police trying to keep order, that she has nothing to worry about there. She can make it abundantly clear that she supports protesters against Trump in general, just not violence and rioting.
She could effectively do something Trump finds very difficult to distance himself from with the violent and hateful messages on his side. Think of all the stupid dancing around he did regarding claiming not to know who David Duke was. It made him look ridiculous and reinforced the con artist view of him.
If Hillary can freely and easily criticize the worst of the anti-Trumpers, she can draw yet another distinction between herself and Trump. Again show herself to be the grown up.
I don't think the worst of those protesters (i.e. rioters) are helping. I think they're helping Trump, even though they may not realize it. She should make it clear she's not going to condone it. As opposed to trump who actively stokes that kind of thing. So yes, there's already a contrast, but she could sharpen it.
Did you watch that lunch counter protest video (with video from the 1960s) I gave you a link to the other day (Erickson posted it on TheResurgent I think). It was VERY good, I must say.
... also having read the transcript of what went down on Glenn Beck's show, it's clear he should not have been suspended from Sirius for that. So that's where I'd draw the line I guess: Beck's suspension from Sirius is too far, but I'm OK with the Vox guy's suspension. Calling for riots is a bit much, at least at this stage. Calling for protests is entirely different!
DeleteEzra Klein did do what Erickson wants.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vox.com/2016/6/3/11853096/statement-on-emmett-rensin?utm_campaign=ezraklein&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
To be sure this is someone who as a member of Vox, called for people to deliberately cause riots at Trump events.
Chris Hayes:
ReplyDelete"This plays into Trump's hands" is beside the point. People have a *fundamental* right to attend a political rally."
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/738574445221187584
Sure they have a right to attend a political rally, and HRC should encourage *peaceful* protests against Trump, and say he deserves to be protested because of what he stands for. But she should also make it clear that she does not condone unlawful rioting, destruction of property and violence against those you disagree with or police.
DeleteMaybe she can put some light between herself and Bernie on that score as well. Both Trump and Bernie have been hesitant to condemn violence I've noticed. Trump more so that Bernie, but still...
This is a pretty good article on Dems who are worried about these riots:
ReplyDeletehttp://theresurgent.com/from-the-oppo-file-trump-dumped-vets-for-reserve-duty/
Hillary said all the right things there (where she's quoted), but I think it could only help her to emphasize that, and perhaps include that in a major speech. The sooner the better. Think of the contrast:
Trump: "I'd like to punch him in the face. Get him out of here!"
Bernie: [crickets]
Hillary: "I condemn in the strongest possible terms violence against those we disagree with. Free speech is protected by the 1st amendment. I encourage everyone to exercise it, and that includes lawful protests of Mr. Trump's hateful rhetoric. But I in no way condone violence, rioting, destruction of property or assaulting police, who are there to keep the peace. We're better than that!"
Trump can't follow her there because his whole shtick is flirting with neo-Nazis, alt-rightists, anti-semites, white nationalists and white supremacists. If he loses them, he'll drop 10% in the polls at least.
DeleteSteve Berman at TheResurgent (a so called ethnic Jew [although I agree with American Atheists president David Silverman that isn't really a thing]) who's probably got 10,000 death threats from social media from the alt-right crowd for his #NeverTrump stance), post a helpful (through probably speculative) graphic.
Here's where I found it:
http://theresurgent.com/street-violence-in-june-where-will-we-be-in-october/
Try to imagine Trump giving a speech where he strongly urges his supporters NOT to send death threats or resort to violence. Imagine him condemning neo-Nazis, white nationalists, white supremacists and white supremacists. If Berman's Venn diagram is accurate, probably half those in the smallest circle might stay home. They might get mad at Trump and not even support him in polls anymore.
ReplyDeleteNow imagine that half the violent anti-Trump protesters get mad at Hillary... how much damage does that do her? Will it even be perceptible?
Trump has WAY more to lose, so she has plenty of room to be the hero.
That's my guess: of course I don't know. I wonder what Nate Silver would think.... Hmmm.
DeletePlus I think that Trump thinks that being perceived as playing nice and urging non-violence is unmanly... not in keeping with the persona he's selling. He might actually think it would damage his brand!
DeleteI mean I get what you're saying. It's true, protests against Trump are earned but those who commit violence or riot are dead wrong.
DeleteStill, sometimes these find distinctions aren't appreciated in politics.
I love the anti Trump ardor and she definitely doesn't want to throw cold water on it.
Some might see her as saying not to protest him at all.
Not sure if it's worth the risk.
Yeah. I just think she be the hero and yet not say that.
ReplyDeleteI just worry somehow that hurts her with liberals.
She might be seen as cooing their ardor, their anti Trump passion.
To me, the riots and stuff are his problem not hers.
My instinct tells me there's risk for her while she can achieve her goals without delving into it.
Maybe she can clear that up by attending an anti-Trump protest. =)
DeleteWell we'll see. Maybe she will say something. I don't feel as strongly as you do that she needs to say it tough I'd be fine if she did.
ReplyDeleteBut then I''d be fine if she didn't...
Bernie got a chance to do just that. I saw it on Chris Hayes' show: he was asked about it and he condemned the violence. Pretty strong condemnation too. The violence also got poor coverage on Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes, and Rachel Maddow's shows (i.e. the hosts of those shows were not keen on it). Hayes's show though did point out something interesting the other shows did not: a groups of what appeared to be Hispanic women (young women) surrounding lone Trump supporters, but facing outwards to the crowd and shouting "No violence!!!" ... essentially there were trying to protect the Trump supporters. I'd like to see a lot more of that at future rallies. I noticed there were a group like that in San Diego with shirts and signs that said "Free Hugs!" who tried to act as a buffer between the opposing sides.
DeleteThe other hosts on MSNBC should have highlighted those women in San Jose. You didn't see many Trumpsters trying to protect protesters inside Trump events. But on the other hand, you didn't see many bloody faces at Trump events, nor did you see burning American flags, or waving Mexican flags.
There was one clip of a Trump supporting woman with blonde hair that they played over and over again which was very unfortunate: she got egged. She even took an egg to her face. I had to hand it to her though: she didn't get mad, she just kept smiling the whole time. I'd like to ring the necks of the people that egged her though.... er, well, at least egg them. I don't want to start over reacting myself now do I. =)
Overall though: an excellent week for the Democrats, and Hillary in particular, and a spectacularly bad week for Trump.
DeleteDavid Axelrod criticized the violent protesters as well
ReplyDeleteGood. Trump (I think) will find it impossible to do the same if the shoe's on the other foot. At least not in a convincing way.
DeleteAnyway Hillary listened to you and Erickson.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/clinton-trump-rally-violence-223885
Trump for his part said 'The protesters are lucky my supporters are nice'
LOL