It certainly feels like Hilary Clinton is going to run for President

Yeah it has gotten a bit ugly.

At the risk of talking, you know, about Hillary...

Yeah, of course she's setting up a run. I'd certainly rather not have another political dynasty candidate, but she has a pretty clear set-up at this point. Because so many people know her, she can probably get a pretty good idea of how she might do in the various demographics too, so she's able to go in eyes open to where her challenges are.

She certainly has a lot of baggage too, but what does that translate into? I think it's a little bit of a trap for the GOP to assume that a campaign based on dragging out Benghazi/Lewinsky/Whitewater will work...it's a pretty easy set up for the Democrats to then pivot that energy into the "Party of No" and "War on women" attacks on the GOP that are well established themes at this point. It may make the Republican base that is apoplectic at the thought of another Clinton in the WH feel good to shout that message, but those aren't the voters they need to persuade.

Let me start off by saying I suck at making my point with equanimity. I know this yet when I reread before posting, I honestly do not see it. Something's up in the old noggin'.

I don't think it's quite the same, Farscry, just inserting "sexism" in place of "racism". First of all, I haven't presumed to know anything about sexism. I'll admit it exists but don't know enough about it's subtleties to comment on it. I do know about racism and, as it pertains to this discussion, how much of a factor it played in the Democratic Primary and the Presidential races of 2008 and 2012. And I can provide detailed data which shows that in the 2008 Democratic Primaries where Obama and Hillary were the frontrunners across many states, it was far more detrimental to be black than it was to be a woman. The data reveals that when people voted for Obama in the primary, they thought he was the better candidate and when people voted for Hillary, much of the vote wasn't for her so much as it was against the black guy running against her.

Farscry wrote:

This is what Jigoku was getting at. To try to "rank" racism, sexism, sexual orientationism, etc is a waste of effort that is better spent educating on the particulars of each form of bigotry.

Racism is definitely my hot button issue. I tend to stay out of conversations here, despite reading them, because I feel that I can learn more than I can contribute thanks to guys like Robear who is a frikkin' encyclopedia of knowledge. Racism gets me involved though because it might be the one issue I have the academic legs to stand on.

That said, I still do not feel as if Yonder and I were ranking anything. She made some statements to the tune of it's more detrimental to be a woman in a political race than a black person and I was providing data which showed otherwise. I went down the rabbit hole a bit when she brought up the right to vote and drastically oversimplified it to "blacks had the right to vote far earlier than women" as reasoning behind believing that being a woman was more detrimental to a politician than being black.

Farscry wrote:
Yonder wrote:

I think that being black is less of a penalty than being a woman.

As a white male who's been getting a lot of information over the last couple years in the P&C in particular but across life and the web as well, I think this is a profoundly silly statement. Blacks and women are both highly disenfranchised groups who have faced institutionalized and culturally accepted bigotry for centuries. To try to claim that being one is less of a penalty than being the other is a disservice to the experiences of both groups.

We can engage in some serious data analysis if we want to try to dig in and prove which group has managed to gain more agency in representative government positions, but they're both so underrepresented and marginalized that it is a waste of effort that would be far better spent in working to overcome the ignorance that keeps both forms of discrimination acceptable and commonplace in our nation.

I agree that your version is far more amicable. I aspire to get there one day...

Sorry, I'll bow out and let the discussion resume without my input. Just don't downplay the data which shows how much importance having the right skin color is to American voters.

In my opinion Obama as an easier time overcoming the bias against his minority status because he's just... better than Hillary in many ways. A better communicator, more likeable, when he gets worked up, he becomes more eloquent.

Cod wrote:

At the risk of talking, you know, about Hillary...

Yeah, of course she's setting up a run. I'd certainly rather not have another political dynasty candidate, but she has a pretty clear set-up at this point. Because so many people know her, she can probably get a pretty good idea of how she might do in the various demographics too, so she's able to go in eyes open to where her challenges are.

She certainly has a lot of baggage too, but what does that translate into? I think it's a little bit of a trap for the GOP to assume that a campaign based on dragging out Benghazi/Lewinsky/Whitewater will work...it's a pretty easy set up for the Democrats to then pivot that energy into the "Party of No" and "War on women" attacks on the GOP that are well established themes at this point. It may make the Republican base that is apoplectic at the thought of another Clinton in the WH feel good to shout that message, but those aren't the voters they need to persuade.

I don't care for Hilary at all (so much so that I'm actually researching policy positions of potential opponents) but she's a shoe-in for me compared to any of the sh*theads likely running on the GOP ticket.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

In my opinion Obama as an easier time overcoming the bias against his minority status because he's just... better than Hillary in many ways. A better communicator, more likeable, when he gets worked up, he becomes more eloquent.

Are you still technically allowed to vote Republican after saying something nice about Obama?

Cod wrote:

think it's a little bit of a trap for the GOP to assume that a campaign based on dragging out Benghazi/Lewinsky/Whitewater will work...

It would be such a dumb tactic...but that doesn't mean they won't use it.

Lewinsky was 18 years ago! Whitewater 26. Is that really going to resiinate with voters who were either not born or under 10 at the time? Benghazi would be a hayday for her to rip into since Rs have spent a ton of money looking and found nothing of note.

Those are just terrible strategies but like I said I am sure they will use it.

Nevin73 wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

In my opinion Obama as an easier time overcoming the bias against his minority status because he's just... better than Hillary in many ways. A better communicator, more likeable, when he gets worked up, he becomes more eloquent.

Are you still technically allowed to vote Republican after saying something nice about Obama?

The loophole is, as long as you're saying something bad about a Clinton, anything goes.

jigoku wrote:

Oh f*ck you, FSeven. Maybe let's have a conversation about how America marginalizes the disabled and mentally ill far more than African Americans. Far more than women. How on earth is that useful?

I don't like your attitude and derailments. One week ban, you can use the contact form in a week if you'd like your account unlocked.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

In my opinion Obama as an easier time overcoming the bias against his minority status because he's just... better than Hillary in many ways. A better communicator, more likeable, when he gets worked up, he becomes more eloquent.

I liked Obama better than Hillary, but what a mistake the Democrats made, choosing him as the nominee. 20:20 hindsight and all, but I think Hillary would have been better able to see through the snow job being pulled by the alphabet agencies.

I don't remember if I voted in the primaries or not, anymore. If I did, I'm sure I would have voted Obama. I don't blame anyone for helping to nominate him, because I would have done it, too. But it remains a tragic mistake, nonetheless.

Malor wrote:

I liked Obama better than Hillary, but what a mistake the Democrats made, choosing him as the nominee. 20:20 hindsight and all, but I think Hillary would have been better able to see through the snow job being pulled by the alphabet agencies.

I don't think there is any particular reason to believe that the alphabets tricked or evaded the President's interest in any way.

I am in no position to judge anyone's decision, considering that I went with Edwards in the Iowa caucus. Now let's face it, he really did have the best hair.

concentric wrote:

I am in no position to judge anyone's decision, considering that I went with Edwards in the Iowa caucus. Now let's face it, he really did have the best hair.

It was pretty.

Jayhawker wrote:
concentric wrote:

I am in no position to judge anyone's decision, considering that I went with Edwards in the Iowa caucus. Now let's face it, he really did have the best hair.

It was pretty.

Oh so pretty.

I don't think Hillary would have resisted the power of the drone or the phone tap, Malor. I'm with Robear in thinking that nobody's going to slam shut the lid on the Pandora's Box that the Bush Gang jimmied open.

EDIT: I believe what I said so goddamned much I posted it twice.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

I'm with Robear in thinking that nobody's going to slam shut the lid on the Pandora's Box that the Bush Gang jimmied open.

Sad but true, and something that many of us were pointing out would happen when we learned of these issues during the Bush administration, but our concerns were poo-poo'ed by Republicans at the time.

farley3k wrote:
Cod wrote:

think it's a little bit of a trap for the GOP to assume that a campaign based on dragging out Benghazi/Lewinsky/Whitewater will work...

It would be such a dumb tactic...but that doesn't mean they won't use it.

Lewinsky was 18 years ago! Whitewater 26. Is that really going to resiinate with voters who were either not born or under 10 at the time? Benghazi would be a hayday for her to rip into since Rs have spent a ton of money looking and found nothing of note.

Those are just terrible strategies but like I said I am sure they will use it.

There's two things that don't make that such a dumb tactic.

One is that older people vote. And they vote a lot more than younger people. The average age of a "strong Republican" is just shy of 54 years old. The average age of a FOX News viewer is 68 years old.

IMAGE(http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2013/05/PF_13.05.08_VoterTurnout_03.png)

And the other is that strong conservative partisans vote at rates more than double those who hold less fired up political convictions.

IMAGE(http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/06/PP-2014-06-12-polarization-5-05.png)

So hammering on Clinton about things that happened decades ago would directly appeal to the people who are most likely to vote against her. And all that hammering is going to raise enough of a stink cloud about Clinton--even if it's just questions about her ability to lead or her ethics--that younger and less conservative voters might be persuaded to vote against her or simply not vote.

Kucinich might have closed it, but only because he was convinced that the NSA was a front for the Reptilians.

True, OG, but population figures would say that trying to get those 70% of older voters would really be a wash, ultimately, if you turn the 18-30 crowd against you. Getting all of the older voters won't matter if you alienate a large percentage of younger voters.

Demosthenes wrote:

True, OG, but population figures would say that trying to get those 70% of older voters would really be a wash, ultimately, if you turn the 18-30 crowd against you. Getting all of the older voters won't matter if you alienate a large percentage of younger voters.

And I would say that it's a pretty big "if" to turn the 18-30 crowd against the GOP.

Especially turning them against the GOP in the only way that matters: getting a lot more than half of them to vote on election day. All the historical data we have says that most of that age group can't be assed to vote, let alone vote Democratic.

I'm certainly not saying that the GOP's strategy is smart. Hell, I wouldn't even call it a strategy because if they were actually thinking strategically they would be pissing their pants about demographic changes and working hard to make their tent a heck of a lot bigger.

Instead, they're purely in the tactical mode of trying to win the mid-terms and 2016. And that means sticking with their tried and true method of courting the hell out of older white dudes and ignoring (or demonizing) everyone else.

Yonder wrote:
Malor wrote:

I liked Obama better than Hillary, but what a mistake the Democrats made, choosing him as the nominee. 20:20 hindsight and all, but I think Hillary would have been better able to see through the snow job being pulled by the alphabet agencies.

I don't think there is any particular reason to believe that the alphabets tricked or evaded the President's interest in any way.

My personal guess is that they argued their case, using misleading and/or incorrect information, and he bought it, and hasn't fundamentally been willing to back down and realize how wrong he is.

Of course, he may totally be on board with the whole surveillance state thing, he may natively think it's a great idea. No real way to tell, but I do think Hillary would have been much better qualified to realize when she was being lied to.

How much are Republicans trying to go after the 18-30 crowd? I know that I saw lots and lots of campaigning by Democrats in 2008 and 2012 on the campus where I work.

Clinton has been giving speeches at various campuses, and is being criticized for the size of the honorarium, varying from $225,000 to $300,000:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...

Malor wrote:
Yonder wrote:
Malor wrote:

I liked Obama better than Hillary, but what a mistake the Democrats made, choosing him as the nominee. 20:20 hindsight and all, but I think Hillary would have been better able to see through the snow job being pulled by the alphabet agencies.

I don't think there is any particular reason to believe that the alphabets tricked or evaded the President's interest in any way.

My personal guess is that they argued their case, using misleading and/or incorrect information, and he bought it, and hasn't fundamentally been willing to back down and realize how wrong he is.

Of course, he may totally be on board with the whole surveillance state thing, he may natively think it's a great idea. No real way to tell, but I do think Hillary would have been much better qualified to realize when she was being lied to.

Maybe, but I see no reason to think she would have had a problem with what they were doing/were wanting to do.

concentric wrote:

Clinton has been giving speeches at various campuses, and is being criticized for the size of the honorarium, varying from $225,000 to $300,000:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...

That doesn't seem too far off for an A-lister on the speech circuit.

A tech company I worked for back in 2001 hired Colin Powell to speak at one of our events. We paid north of $150,000 for him, not including his chartered flight to our event and the hotel stay for him and his (admittedly small) entourage.

Right. The point is the contrast between the Obama administration focusing on the high cost of tuition and the austerity measures in place for faculty and staff salary raises, vs. such high fees, which I agree are in line with what private industry etc. would pay. A lot of this stuff goes on all the time, but I admit I am somewhat uncomfortable with it, because I'd like to see someone like her more obviously walk her talk.

Part of the tension comes from such austerity measures being addressed through tuition going up, fewer full-time faculty being employed, and fewer or no raises being granted at large, while the numbers of people in administration continue to rise, and their pay raises are often much larger than what those lower down receive. That's in line with the generally corporate sympathies the Clintons have often shown through the years.

Malor wrote:

My personal guess is that they argued their case, using misleading and/or incorrect information, and he bought it, and hasn't fundamentally been willing to back down and realize how wrong he is.

I'm not sure there's a body of evidence to support the idea that Obama's easily duped vs a rather large selection that points to "does politically expedient thing regardless of stated position".

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Malor wrote:

My personal guess is that they argued their case, using misleading and/or incorrect information, and he bought it, and hasn't fundamentally been willing to back down and realize how wrong he is.

I'm not sure there's a body of evidence to support the idea that Obama's easily duped vs a rather large selection that points to "does politically expedient thing regardless of stated position".

You could absolutely be right. Whatever the actual reasons are, he doesn't belong in the big chair.

Hillary would, I think, have been more resistant to at least one possible reason for his, well, I consider it outright villainy, to be honest. It doesn't mean that things would be different today, but they at least might have been.

In my opinion Obama as an easier time overcoming the bias against his minority status because he's just... better than Hillary in many ways. A better communicator, more likeable, when he gets worked up, he becomes more eloquent.

I know the conversation has moved on but I agree with this.
In fact the most charming I have seen Hillary is in more academic style discussions which probably is something the general public doesn't latch on to. Maybe if she tried mimicking Neil Degrasse Tyson's approach, it would reach more of the populace better.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'm not sure there's a body of evidence to support the idea that Obama's easily duped vs a rather large selection that points to "does politically expedient thing regardless of stated position".

Sure there is - the Obameter. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...

Promises Kept - 45%.
Compromises - 24%.
Promises broken (ie, duped or expediency) - 22%.

In other words, Obama acts according to what he says almost 70% of the time.

I was more asking why someone would assume he's being tricked into lying when most of his other lies are plainly expedient or claculated.

But sure, otherwise he seems super-trustworthy.