Yves here. Um, this presupposes that Clinton wants votes of Millennials…beyond the graduates of elite schools and children of the top 5% whose parents have paved the way for them securing upper middle class jobs.
By Gaius Publius, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius, Tumblr and Facebook. Originally published at at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here. Originally published at DownWithTyranny
“I feel like a lot of the stuff Hillary does, you can see when she is trying to, like, earn the youth vote, and it just doesn’t work,” Nick Chanko, 20, who goes to school in Montreal but votes in New York, told the New York Times. [source]
It’s not news that Hillary Clinton is struggling, struggling mightily in fact, to attract millennials in sufficient numbers to put the election out of reach:
The youth vote was one of the pillars of the Obama coalition. But thus far it’s proven perhaps the most difficult one for Clinton to rebuild. Polls show the nominee failing to earn the confidence of young voters—only 33 percent of those between ages 18-29 told Gallup this month that they approved of her—and running far behind where she would hope to be against her Republican opponent. The polls also show Clinton currently winning under half their votes, while Obama got over three-fifths of that demographic in both of his campaigns.
Many people in the Dem establishment are asking the question: How can we get millennials to vote for us?
There are a lot of plans that don’t work and won’t work, like appearing on an impossibly awkward edition of Between Two Ferns (awkward for both her and the host; Clinton actually had the best ad-lib), or rolling out Bernie Sanders at colleges. Regarding Sanders, Bernie stood for what Bernie stood for, and people, not just millennials, loved him for it. Will they love Clinton if the solution is Bernie Sanders now saying, “Hillary Clinton is a strong progressive too”?
Millennials won’t be swayed if Sanders says it, true or not. In this transaction, it has to start with the candidate. Clinton has to make it true. In other words, no matter what changes the DNC makes to, say, its super-delegate rules, or (god forbid they should even consider it) the way they go about raising money, if Hillary Clinton wants to attract Sanders supporters, the move must be hers to make.
The good news is, there is a plan that will work. In this plan, Hillary Clinton gives the following speech about four simple issues. I picked these four. She could have picked others. But either way If I heard as speech like this, I would find it very convincing.
Do you agree? Read on.
Hillary Clinton’s Pitch Speech to Millennials
How would you respond if Hillary Clinton gave the following address?
Good evening.
Tonight I’d like to lay out four proposals that I think are important, both for the nation and for the nation’s young people, the next generation for whom we are preparing the world. These are the people who will inherit the world we’re building — indeed who are starting to inherit the world even as we speak.
These are the people in our nation’s colleges … the youngest people in the nation’s workforce … the youngest in our country’s military. And yes, sadly, these are also the youngest people among the millions suffering from joblessness.
I’m keeping this … conversation … to just four issues this evening because I don’t want to focus on too many at once. I’ll address other critical issues, like climate change and racial justice, in due time. But the ones I will focus on tonight should give everyone watching a very clear idea of where I stand — on jobs, on justice for economic criminals, and on the burden of student debt.
I know these are issues of critical importance to everyone tuning in. Please hear me out.
Issue One — TPP.
Clinton is still speaking:
There is no question that our jobs are going overseas, and no question that unfair trade deals are one of the major causes. I’ve already said NAFTA didn’t work, that it was a disappointment. For the same reason, I’ve already announced that I oppose TPP as it’s currently written, and I said publicly that changes need to be made in it to protect the future of jobs in America.
I still think that. So here’s what I will do about TPP as your president:
First, if Congress passes TPP and President Obama signs it, I promise to invoke Article 30.6, called the Withdrawal clause, and immediately withdraw from the TPP.
I will then order that it be renegotiated — under the public eye, in full transparency — so that the higher standards I’ve already set for this treaty are met.
Next, if Congress does not pass TPP before the election — and I strongly urge them not to — I will start renegotiations as soon as I take office; again, in full view of the public.
Finally, whether I’m the president-elect or not after November 8, I promise to vigorously lobby Congress members not to pass TPP as written if it comes up in the lame duck session.
You can watch me do it.
From the TPP Agreement text:
Article 30.6: Withdrawal
1. Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement by providing written notice of withdrawal to the Depositary. A withdrawing Party shall simultaneously notify the other Parties of its withdrawal through the overall contact points designated under Article 27.5 (Contact Points).
2. A withdrawal shall take effect six months after a Party provides written notice to the Depositary under paragraph 1, unless the Parties agree on a different period. If a Party withdraws, this Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.
Issue Two — NAFTA.
Clinton is still speaking:
What I said I would do about TPP, I will do about NAFTA as well. We’re all disappointed with the result. As your president I will act on that disappointment and force it to be renegotiated, as I promised to do in 2008, by threatening to use Article 2205, the Withdrawal clause, in order to start immediate renegotiations.
I gave my word in 2008. I will keep my word in 2017.
From the NAFTA Agreement text:
Article 2205: Withdrawal
A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.
Issue Three — Bankers and Fraud.
Clinton is still speaking:
Next let’s look at justice, for now just one aspect — evenhanded criminal justice.
I know that many people are frustrated with what has seemed to them my overly close relationship with Wall Street. I’m here now to prove those people wrong.
I also know that may people think that much of what has been going on in the run-up to the 2008 crash and afterwards is fraudulent, in many cases, fraudulent on its face.
Many Wall Street firms and other major banks have paid heavy fines for their actions — for example, the HSBC money-laundering case in 2012; the Standard Chartered Iran sanctions case, also in 2012; the Barclays case in 2010; and the Credit Suisse case in 2009.
But fines are not enough. If similar actions were performed by the small business women and men of middle America, they’d be facing criminal charges and would be forced to defend their their in court, as is their right, and would face jail if found guilty.
So I promise to you, the days of Wall Street executives — or indeed, executives of any powerful firm — not having to appear in criminal court for actions that would put any ordinary American citizen in court … those days are over.
I will start, as soon as I enter the Oval Office, with a criminal investigation of Wells Fargo and its executives conducted by the Department of Justice. Yes, I said criminal investigation.
Issue Four — Student Debt and a Debt Jubilee.
Hillary Clinton is still speaking:
I want to close with this, how I will address the unconscionable magnitude and weight of student debt.
Both Senator Sanders and I agree that the burden of student debt in this country is beyond unbearable. Student loan availability drives the cost of tuition in this country, which has sextupledsince the 1980s. Sextupled!
In fact, tuition in the U.S. has risen at almost twice the rate of medical care, more than twice the rate of gasoline, at three times the rate of most consumer goods — all while the incomes of most Americans are essentially flat.
Student debt also drives the rate of despair among our young people, who leave college with what feels like a mortgage, but without the house, and often, without a job in the career they prepared for. And they see no hope in sight, not from their president, nor from their Congress.
This is unacceptable. As president, I will not only address the whole issue of student loans and college tuition — as I said I would do in my platform — but I will do one more thing.
This may not endear me to the bankers some say I’m too close to, but it must to be done. We must free this generation of young people … and I mean to do it.
To the greatest extent I can, using the power of the executive branch, I will announce and implement a policy of debt forgiveness — a student loan jubilee. And I will challenge every lending institution in this country to follow my example.
This will happen within the first 90 days of my administration. You can watch if you like.
Me again. Four simple issues, four of many I could have chosen, all of great importance to prospective millennial voters, especially given their popularity during the Sanders campaign. And note — no hedging, no loopholes, no equivocation. Language like this would be a direct challenge to the voters; they will either believe her or dismiss it completely. Language like this would leave no middle ground.
Don’t you think, if millennial voters heard this stark, plain speech, they’d give her candidacy a second chance, their serious consideration? I do.
Donna Brazile and the folks at the DNC, you might give this approach some of your own serious consideration. It’s so direct and clear, it’s almost guaranteed to work. It’s certainly better than what’s been going on lately. And no one wants The Donald to win this race.
I’m no millennial (63) but this is exactly the speech I need to hear in order to pull the lever for HRC.
As a millennial, I believe nothing that the woman says.
Even if Yves was hired as her speechwriter and the language was crystal clear, I couldn’t take it at face value.
I’m not alone here, either. I don’t think my generation will vote for Trump, or Johnson, or Stein. I think they will note vote at all.
If she had a real come to jesus moment, laid out her faults and hubris while giving us a way to hold her accountable (vote her into prison?) Then I would listen. No guarantees though.
Someone who has learned the lessons of the past! Anything coming out of a politician’s mouth should be assumed to be a lie, until proven otherwise by events.
Co-sign on this.
HRC will pass the TPP, steer SSI into the “Chained CPI” program (and maybe even raise the retirement age), start a proxy war in Syria, and continue to let bankers and corporations run scot free in terms of fraudulent behavior and tax schemes.
And EVERYONE this time knows it. We millennials gave Obama a chance, and he failed us….the only reason why people like him is because he isn’t AS corrupt as HRC. She’s the worst, we know it, and the country is going down the tubes.
Obama is at least as corrupt as HRC. Remember, it was his policies that she instituted in the Middle East and North Africa.
While Obama was running in ’08, he promised to filibuster the FISA Amendments Act if it gave immunity to the telecomm companies that helped W spy on the country without warrants. Not only didn’t he filibuster the bill, he voted for it. That was BEFORE he was elected. And you voted for him!
Obama refused to push for single payer health care and pushed the lied of a public option while he was working with the drug and insurance crooks to make sure they got even more guaranteed money from the public.
About the only ’08 promise he fully kept was to enlarge the Afghan war.
Then there was the drone murders that he instituted and carried out. There was the torture of Chelsea Manning that was carried out under Obama. There was the continued spying revealed by Edward Snowden that Obama used to charge him with espionage, although Snowden did NOT commit espionage at all.
It goes on and on.
“Let me say from the very beginning that we at Black Agenda Report do not think that Barack Obama is the Lesser Evil. He is the more Effective Evil.”
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/why-barack-obama-more-effective-evil
Given what we know about campaign promises (they are meaningless) why would any speech get you to vote for her? How would anything she might say change her objective record?
Being convinced by speeches is a major failing of the US electorate, imho. Just sayin’…
diptherio, the symbol manipulators do seem a bit more desperate than usual to declare that their symbols are meaningful to someone outside of symbol land.
Being convinced by speeches is probably the defining trait of the liberal.
Dispense with the “imho” and I wholeheartedly agree. The problem with the media and all writers really, is they think words matter. No they effin don’t. Facts matter. Unless you can use words to point to facts, forget it. This whole post is barf from start to finish. We know HRC from her actions. Neoliberal and neocon. End of story.
I reccomend the Pre Coup Coup since a post election coup this time might not happen.
So many things put people down the ice is metaphorically thin.
Looking at all the fronts the US Empire is fighting on all I can hope to do is cry for the UN to do some heavy lifting before it is too late.
I’m 58 and, yes, I would vote for Clinton if she made this speech.
in other words, the only way clinton can gain the support of millenials is to lie to them.
to imagine that she might revoke the tpp or go after the banksters is astonishingly naive.
Who here would believe her after the audiotape of her calling the millenials gullible basement dwellers who naively believe the government can do something about college costs and health care?
Not me.
The HRC that excoriated the “basket of deplorables”, the HRC that tried to scold millenials into voting for her, that is as close as we will ever get to a window into the real HRC, speaking to her people.
Even if she really did come to Jesus (can the sociopath change its spots?), as it were, she remains a criminal and should receive a punishment like that handed out to others of her ilk at Nuremberg.
I don’t.
‘Don’t you think, if millennial voters heard this stark, plain speech, they’d give her candidacy a second chance, their serious consideration?’
No.
Forty-plus years of falsehoods, clueless narcissism and proven incompetence at anything besides sociopathic grifting mean that till evidence emerges to the contrary any time the individual in question moves their lips the a priori assumption is going to be that they’re lying. At this stage, here is literally nothing Hillary could do to make herself credible to those to whom she isn’t credible.
‘Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.
And on TPP and the criminally prosecuting bankers, if that were going to happen, it would have already happened.
Mark P., I’m with you … almost. I might think about believing it if it concluded thus:
HRC: “In conclusion, I hereby swear under oath and the laws of the United States, that I will do precisely what I have stated above without equivocation or compromise and in the timeframes I have given. Should I fail to do so in any regard, I hereby commit to resign my office at the first such failure. Should I not do so, my breaking this oath should be regarded as a Constitutionally-defined high crime by the Congress, which should proceed to impeach and convict me.”
Nothing less (and surely not the slightest equivocation in wording) would lead me to even think about believing statements such as the four issues described above, and I’m no millennial: 68 yo, comfortably retired 5%er, and recovering lifelong yellow-dog democrat (yep, the big O fooled me, too, but even at this age I can learn a little … it just takes a bigger 2×4 upside the head).
i don’t care how she words it, i wouldn’t believe her. that isn’t who she is.
She and Bill are aficionados in the art of “It depends what the meaning of is is.” So this essay is reminiscent of a person caught in the denial stage of an abusive relationship.
I can hear the Clinton press secretary say in the future,
“For the good of the country, and the new crisis in the Ukraine/Middle East, HRC’s earlier oath is “no longer operative”. The country needs her more than ever and she should not be fettered by any earlier oath.”
“Let us look to the future and not dwell in the past.”
> The youth vote was one of the pillars of the Obama coalition. But thus far it’s proven perhaps the most difficult one for Clinton to rebuild
Feh. The “Obama Coalition” is a crock. What kind of a coalition is it that you have to rebuild from scratch every election? Or that can be shattered by an elderly socialist?
The kind of “coalition” built around a cult of personality and identity rather than ideology. Which has plagued the Democrats for decades.
All I can say is, don’t hold your breath…
How would you respond if Hillary Clinton gave the following address?
I’d shout LIAR at the TV, the dog would leave the room and take cover in the sauna. Then, I’d calm down, pour me a drink to celebrate that Hillary is losing because that woman speaking in clear sentences and using terms that cannot be lawyer-ed into three of four entirely different meanings later has indeed never happened before.
Straight-up lying from a politician is a sign of utter desperation – except when Trump does it ;)
And no one wants The Donald to win this race.
I do. We all do, in a way. The Democrats will never change their ways on their own and the Republicans are just … lost in hyperspace somewhere.
If Hillary somehow wins, they will be so bloated up with the Holy Glory of Self-righteousness that they will double down on all the stupidity, graft, interventionism, tribalism and corruption that is all that the Democrats stand up for now.
These people *desperately need & truly deserve* the humiliation of having their faces rubbed in the dirt by a fat, orange, buffoon shouting “LOSER”.
I hear you, but I have recently concluded it’s best if Hillary wins. IF The Donald wins, he’ll be blamed for the unavoidable series of crises ahead. That is, he and not the system will be faulted. If Hillary wins, the status quo has its chosen leader. This will make it infinitely more difficult to justify the system with Hillary, its archetypical proponent, in the Whit House. However, she promises to be a dangerous president in multiple ways, so I’m not voting for her.
The loyal minions down at MinTrue will find a way.
Look at how many people blame Mean Republicans® for Obama’s failure to carry out his promises or even not govern as the Second Coming of W, even though he entered office with a filibuster proof majority in both houses, a friendly Supreme Court, Wall Street begging for rescue on any terms, and the biggest mandate for change of any president since 1932.
And people refuse to admit that the man fucked it up.
The filibuster is an organizational rule of the individual Senate. The Democrats authorized the filibuster in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013 (dont let them off the hook), and since the Constitution speaks of a tie, the only constitutional threshold for the Senate to pass legislation is 50+VP.
The House doesn’t have filibusters. I would say Obama screwed it up as much as his voters projected their values onto the man. Ken Silverstein formerly of Harper’s had a few interesting reads.
“I hear you, but I have recently concluded it’s best if Hillary wins. IF The Donald wins, he’ll be blamed…”
I believe this is a self defeating rationalization. If the financial crisis has taught me anything, it is that TPTB have greater ability to maintain the illusion of normalcy in the face of nearly any disaster than most want to believe.
So in 2011 when a fair few here were certain that the housing market was about to take another leg down (however justified that would have been based on previous realities) TPTB were busy “creating new realities” for us to study, as Dick Chaney said. And damn if they didn’t pull a rabbit out of the hat. So there will not be any dramatic, obvious collapse of capitalism on *anybody’s* watch.
They are indeed powerful enough to ignore whatever rule, regulation, law, administrative procedure and many other potential crisis resolution constraints, eg. when ‘mark to market’ was suspended. But neither they nor the complex of systems upon which they are entirely dependent are remotely fail-safe. And they are not nearly as smart as they think they are.
But what if the Prexy Hillary system failure takes the form of a nuclear war with Russia?
In the light of the two wretched presidential candidates, and two others having been excluded from the debates, the election this year must be canceled.
We should beg President Obama to continue for another term in the hope that more and better candidates can be found next time.
Sounds good.
He should at least throw an executive order proclaiming it up against the wall, to see whether it sticks.
If 0bama would replace Biden with Rudy Giuliani as VP, thus invoking the holy, universally admired principle of bipartisanship, probably the R party would be okay with it too.
Four more years!
Well now, on the ‘Tinfoil Hat’ fringe, the thinking is that some false flag ‘event’ will enable Obama to suspend the Constitution for the “Duration of the Emergency,” and rule by decree. “Election? What are you thinking? When Russian backed Jihadis set off a pocket nuke at the Stonewall Inn?” Etc. etc.
This election cycle is an object lesson in the proposition that; “One can never be too cynical.”
Step 1 – understand the nature of the beast – capitalism itself.
Capitalism is in crisis for a very good reason, we don’t understand it.
Today’s ideal is small state, raw capitalism, which is actually how capitalism started, and we chose to ignore the work of the Classical Economists that studied it first hand in the past.
They realised capitalism has two sides, the productive side, where “earned” income is generated and the unproductive, parasitic, rentier side where “unearned” income is generated.
Today’s neoclassical economics is missing this distinction and everyone is going for the easy money in the unproductive side of capitalism.
The UK now dreams of giving up work and living off the “unearned” income from a BTL portfolio, extracting the “earned” income of generation rent.
The UK dream is to be like the idle rich, rentier, living off “unearned” income and doing nothing productive.
Adam Smith:
“The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers.”
Capitalism incorporates a welfare state for the idle rich and we can see our Aristocracy living in luxury and leisure off “unearned” income today.
In our ignorance of the reality of small state, raw capitalism, we have been busy promoting the unproductive side of capitalism to the masses by encouraging the BTL investor.
When you encourage too many people into the unproductive side of capitalism they are going to bleed it dry.
Adam Smith would think we are on the road to ruin:
“But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin.”
Exactly the opposite of today’s thinking, what does he mean?
When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalising itself by:
1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services
In the 18th Century they would have understood today’s problems with growth and demand.
Having forgotten the work of the Classical Economists, we set today’s goal as maximising profit which actually undermines, and eventually destroys, capitalism itself.
Amazon didn’t pay out profits as dividends and re-invested them, look how big it’s grown.
Just imagine if all companies were doing that.
We have undermined, and are destroying capitalism itself, because we didn’t understand it.
Small state, raw capitalism existed before and we should have taken on board the lessons the economists learnt at the time when they studied it from first hand experience.
The Classical Economists always expected the bankers to get behind the productive side of capitalism.
Everyone has now forgotten the two sides of capitalism and about 80% of lending goes into real estate, inflating the cost of living with high mortgage payments and rent.
This in turn raises the minimum wage, making Western labour uncompetitive in international markets. It also reduces the purchasing power within the economy, reducing demand for products and services.
The US has probably been the most successful in making its labour force internationally uncompetitive with soaring costs of housing, healthcare and student loan repayments.
These all have to be covered by wages and US businesses are now squealing about the high minimum wage.
All known and seen over two hundred years ago in the first round of small state, raw capitalism.
(In those days it was just high rents, but the effect is the same).
When you understand Capitalism you know how to harness the power of its productive side and utilize its unproductive, parasitic side as the source of taxation.
You tax “unearned” income to subsidise the productive side of capitalism with:
1) Low cost housing
2) Free or subsidised education
3) Free or subsidised healthcare
4) Free or subsidised services
All these services reduce the cost of living and the minimum wage making business and industry internationally competitive.
There should be little or no tax on “earned” income (income tax).
It’s good for business and works in a globalised world unlike today’s nonsense think.
Classical Economics is only the enemy of rentiers (those who want their money with no effort), who went to great lengths to hide it at the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century.
Michael Hudson “Killing the Host” for more details.
Milton Freidman made a lot of uneducated guesses about small state, raw capitalism.
He really should have opened a history book.
Classical Economics is only the enemy of … (those who want their money with no effort), Sound of the Suburbs
Well, a certain amount of income without effort for all citizens is justified since what is, in essence, the publics’ credit has been used to finance a lot of so-called private material progress. This could come in the form of a citizen’s dividend to all adult citizens.
I wish Herbert Hoover had understood the difference earlier, and realized the numbers and “differential accumulation of wealth and power” that let what he came to call “anarchical” capitalists, promote so much of an increase in leveraged unproductive capitalism. (He and FDR considered running on the same ticket in 1920, but decided they had not established good enough experiences and reputations to carry it off.) By the time Hoover tried public works solutions it was too little and too late,at least partially due to not having enough support in the administration, congress, or the business community, much less nearly enough public support. Even FDR could not get the public and other support without making his old friend into a scapegoat to make a dramatic enough difference. The last thing he could do was enlist Hoover’s abilities to help his administration (though Harry Truman did, in secret, do just that in his administration).
Regarding the Education funding more inline with the article, I’ve been wondering how much of the increases can be attributed to the huge hit taken by more adventurous college endowment funds. A former classmate ran one endowment fund that was slightly more than Donald Trump’s 1995 losses, but was fired and replaced with a Hedge fund wizard that quickly got what I prefer to call the “notional” value something like 65% greater, before he exited to start his own Hedge fund a bit before the ’08 crash, which lost all of the supposed gains.
Perhaps Hillary could use her college’s endowment fund performance (which I know nothing about, yet) to explain what should be done to increase their long term sustainability and reliability (and serve as a model for others that want to limit their retirement investments to similarly sustainable (less high yield?) areas that should form a better part of the three legs so many seniors (passed their peak productive earning years) could rely on.
Though not as productive earners, we seniors with a bit more of the other 2 legs FDR imagined, could at least make an even better base of consumers that will spend far more of our “hoarded” funds in favor of those that are still engaged in far more productive capitalism.
[Forgot to include a reference to an article that got me thinking about this.] It’s at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658555/
I think she’d have to choose somewhat different language. De-construction language would scare current supporters away. She’d have to position her new policy directions as building next generation prosperity at home.
She could provide “relief on student loans” and unsustainable college tuition as opposed to “debt juibilee”. But “debt jubilee” sounds like a revolution she could not support.
For the treaties, maybe she could call for full public transparency and public comment.
As opposed to threats of locking people up, she could say instead that regulators must be more effectively supported and vetted so they have capacity to protect American business and workers from unethical practices.
Having a revolution come out of her mouth is unlikely. If she comes across as calculating, there has likely been no other way for a woman to get where she is today. What seems possible is more commitment to effectively level the playing field for struggling Americans, including young adults.
There is one fundamental flaw with this: Hillary Clinton.
She is not the person who will ever say any of these words. She does not have the sincerity or credibility to communicate these words. As much as she tries to spin it onto voters, shouting questions into the void like, “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead!?”, it is all her responsibility that she is losing. She isn’t a person people want and she only wants to be herself. The sooner she accepts that, the sooner everyone will be better off.
Right. This was nothing more than an intellectual exercise for the writer. I share his ennui, but I wish he’d avoid enlisting himself to the pundit campaign adviser ranks.
Yes, what a waste of space — stuff like this makes we wonder, given the usual high quality articles.
As everyone points out, she has zero credibility which is impossible to address, short of seppuko.
sometimes it’s good to look a things from a different angle, and in this case the other angle just makes the candidate running as a democrat look worse…actually found it tough to read considering the improbability of the claims she would have to make and the rice bowls she’d have to break…
she’s going to tank the base of her support (banks, neoliberals) to appeal to millenials? why would they believe her? she would be giving up something for nothing. clintons don’t do that.
There it is.
I respect you a lot, but I think you need to write off the section of millennials who do not find her trustworthy for this to work. I’m not one, but my distrust of Clinton would have that presentation sounding alarms enough to wake the dead. And my conclusion would be ‘she doesn’t think she can make it to two terms, so she has nothing to lose for out right lying”. Clinton introducing Clinton Mark 2300 is not going to work for those that have noticed her constant lying, and that would be what that is. Would it be enough to drag her over the finish line, perhaps. But a whole lot of us would be going “you believed that…” when Clinton jettisoned all of it the day after the election.
Mind you, I’m not your audience as I honestly do not think Clinton is a modicum better than Trump. Neither of these people have any business being President. I don’t know who I prefer. Most of the time it is Trump, as I see WW3 as a very real possibility with the rash, sociopathic Clinton at the helm, but other days…
A very large portion of the audience here tends to agree with you in regards to Clinton being just as bad if not worse then Trump, some for the very reasons that you state. The reality is likely that whoever gets in, the underlying rot that is in power will still be there and until that, and the various societal and environmental tipping points we likely already have passed are addressed, it will only get worse.
It is not the lies, it is the Clinton Unit goals when it comes to their obvious double dealing that so sends the message things will get worse for the majority one way or the other.
As a millennial I can say my number 1 concern is being drafted and getting vaporized during a Russian winter.
There’s nothing Clinton can do to roll back her foreign policy record, which I suspect is a much bigger issue among millenials than this writer cares to acknowledge
Obama had no record prior to becoming president… seems such processes of deduction are fraught with counter intuitive outcomes….
Disheveled Marsupial…. sorta like the economics over some decades….
clinton has a record, though.
Still does not square with Obama’s pre and soon post e.g. weak reasoning or critical thinking. Again if someone like Obama can come in with a clean record, plus less we forget all the campaign rhetoric and extend – expanded on Bush Jr record +….. maybe people would get out of the mental prison they have come to occupy.
Now that does not mean Hillary is any better, its just mind numbing watching people engage in self delusions about the past few decades and the trajectory, regardless of POTUS.
Dishevled Marsupial…. almost as bad as watching people describe others in generational terms or self identify with such terms…. self inflicted mental kettling… worse doing the work for the psyopts posse…
As a millennial I can say my number 1 concern is being drafted and getting vaporized during a Russian winter.
Myron, if that your no.1 concern, you’re in good shape feel free to swim in the pool during the thunderstorm.
The time for this speech was Spring 2015, but actions speak louder than words. She has been on the national stage for a generation.
I’m not sure why anyone believes there is a magic spell Hillary can cast to change the minds of people who don’t trust her. Trust is easy to develop between strangers which 1992 Hillary is, but we have 2016 Hillary who is widely distrusted. Once trust is lost. It doesn’t come back without contrition. She could build homes with Jimmy for a few decades and then try her hand again, or she could spend her speaking fees on rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq for free, actual charity.
Here are some concrete actions or at least words that might matter:
-Donna Brazille and any one connected to third way politics and policy is gone.
-Podesta is out
-Hillary can’t speak for elected Dems, but she will lobby to replace the incompetent Pelosi.
-she needs to reject her husband’s policies such as capital gains tax cuts, and she needs to be explicit about her husband and the third way
-then of course she could address the litany of her sins such as negotiating the TPP, Iraq, Libya, etc.
It’s too late for action on Hillary’s part for November, so she needs to trash corrupt Democrats to demonstrate she even gets there is a problem. Her closing speech in 2008 was quite good. If she had just given that for the last two years and did nothing else, she might be up 50 points, but the Internet exists. Hillary cant reinvent herself.
The Democrats going forward have a huge problem with trust especially when those ACA premiums increases come at the end of the month.
T’is a pity. We have all been reduced to imagining what we want our supposed leaders to say.
Methinks its a silly exercise. A lot of imagining like this happened before a certain Senator from Illinois unrolled his magic carpet ride and he spoke all the ‘imaginings’ of the populace.
Q.E.D
Verily.
To be fair to Obama, he didn’t have to say all that much in the way of specifics.
His self-deluded audience wanted so badly to believe, that they did it for him.
desperation recreates severe cognitive dissonance.
Ditto…
This piece could have just been a straightforward articulation of the issues that are important to a broad array of young voters in the 2016 election. It didn’t need the rhetorical gimmick of being portrayed as a Clinton speech, especially one that she would never, ever give. These are just so blatantly and intentionally not her policy positions. She and the Democratic party will continue to bet that being superficially concerned with social issues is sufficient to attract young voters because otherwise they’re voting for evil bigots.
Might as well say, “Donald Trump speech to millennials that will work.” It wouldn’t make it any less possible.
Why not vote for the candidate who is actually SAYING and BELIEVES these things?
I’m still voting for Jill Stein, damnit.
No, that’s not the speech. Many millenials are worried about paying off college debt, jobs, and inspired by people with great vision and concern for the future. Just look at the SRO crowds that greet Jane Goodall. Hillary should focus on college debt reform, global warming, and more jobs through investment in science and rejection of global trade agreements that move too fast and give away too much. Globalization is inevitable and must be dealt with, but slowly.
IOW, she should become Bernie?
If Hillary Clinton actually believed in the things enumerated in that proposed speech, or had expended even a minute of effort actually working on these things, she would not need to be making a last-ditch effort to woo millennials – she would already have them in her corner, Sanders would have languished in Jill Stein-3%-territory, and she might actually be leading Trump by 50 points.
But she doesn’t believe any of that. There is no authenticity or credibility in her taking those positions and making those promises.
There is no speech that is going to transform Clinton into the candidate we could all happily vote for, not at this late date, not with her record, not with the baggage she has and may never get rid of.
+1
It’s simply too late.
If Hillary got “Student Loan Jubilee” tattooed on her neck in bright red ink — where you could see it every time she went on TV — THEN would you believe her?
The ancient Hebrews had a Jubilee year every generation or so, series of seven sets of seven year ‘resets’ were involved.
Now, to “triangulate” this, she should have the Hebrew word for ‘Jubilee’ tattooed on her forehead, sort of like a modern day Golem. I wouldn’t suggest having her ingest a scroll with the secret name of God written on it because she might spontaneously combust. Just sayin.
The problem I’ve seen whenever similar proposals have been discussed is that most HRC supporters claim that these ideas are “unrealistic.” Even if she herself did somehow turn on a dime and somehow support them, I doubt her entourage would allow her to push for such left-oriented policies.
I can imagine that even the sycophants would be hesitant to allow for such thinking. After all, they’d lose the Republican votes they’re going for.
Gaius, Gaius. There is no speech that Hillary could give that will change who she is, and *that* is what ‘millenials’ and so many other people, cannot abide. Bernie *did* say this sort of thing, people believed him and he got (IMHO) shafted by the Hillarians. Now he is saying other things and no one is buying that, now. Dems coulda had Bernie, or at least used Bernie, but (shrug) apparently they preferred to break him.
A summary of the comments: no, absolutely not and never. Did I get that right?
Yup :).
The key is how we address climate change – an issue GP left out. We need minimally $100 trillion in new investments to build a world industrial base and energy and transport systems that do not pollute. That huuuge amount of funding will NOT come from the financial system under present arrangements, for reasons some commenters have already noted (production v. predation) . But it will spark an intense world economic boom that will later be called the second golden age of capitalism. A $100 trillion program is the basis for replacing TPP, NAFTA, WTO, IMF, World Bankn etc. And it is the only way to provide HOPE that we can save the planet, save our species, rebuild our economies, and provide prosperity for everyone. Where there is no vision, the people perish.
Yes. This shoulda been in there. Which was strange to leave out since I know from reading him over the years that Gaius almost certainly agrees with you. And Hillary probably even agrees with us all about the problem, and she has grandkids now, so maybe she would actually want to fix this, and maybe there would be some sincerity. But, she hasn’t made the case, at all, and which fits with her apparently willing to sell out any principle for corporate $ and election-rigging on her behalf.
And that is why “nope, not gonna work” is the answer to her winning anyone over. Trump has a better chance of winning my vote away from Stein. (highly unlikely, and I don’t have to worry about “vote strategically to stop Hillary/trash the DNC” unless Cali gets close).
“since I know from reading him over the years that Gaius almost certainly agrees with you [about climate]”
Exactly, MojaveWolf. You can’t put every cherry in every pie, and I wanted easy-to-understand, easy-to-sell proposals that could be implemented without Congress. Executive Branch–only actions.
The highest-leverage, simple-to-explain Exec Branch action on climate is dead-stop ending all extraction from public land and waters, but I didn’t think that was as catchy-to-millennials a proposal as the ones I chose. Good comment, though.
At some point I might go more into why I wrote this. It has a lot of layers, including an ironic layer and a non-ironic layer.
For example, I wrote it without irony knowing that the irony was baked in and couldn’t be removed. Also, I wrote it in response to someone currently tasked with dealing with the “millennials problem” at the Party level. The fact that this speech, stated this plainly, is (a) really the solution, and (b) a brick laid at the door of someone looking for a bag of candy … that built-in tension states by itself the impossible character of the problem.
I enjoyed the fact that the piece really captures both sides of that tension without me having to say so directly. Plus, it was a lot of fun to write, since I enjoy doing dialog and get so little chance.
HTH. As always, I’m a big fan of this comments section, and read every one. Thanks, all!
GP
I’m looking forward to more of your irony. World events are leaving something to be desired.
Good points all. This site may not have been the best place to win people over (some people simply see “what Hillary needs to say” and tune out, viewing “good Hillary speech” in the same way as they view “good Obama speech” with regard to sincerity and likelihood of follow-up) but there are people who are wavering. Even though they hate both candidates they want their vote to influence the election, but find voting for either unconscionable (I’m the same way without so much wavering) and would be happy if one candidate or the other gave them a believable reason. (believable is important here; the people inclined to give the benefit of the doubt have already done so)
FWIW, at least some of these people are concerned with climate and the environment–I ran into one of the people from the “Our Revolution” meeting over the weekend, and she was in a state of disgust and despair over both candidates (and both the major parties) about exactly that. In her words, if we make the planet uninhabitable, none of the rest matters. She’s not wrong. * & **
*If we screw up our sudden cold war re-ignition, that could also make nothing else matter. I don’t really think it will get to a shooting war at all, much less into bombs bursting in air territory, but even the outside possibility disturbs me enough that this issue is co-equal with the TPP in “why I would rather Trump won.” Could our various war profiteers who are giving money to buy candidates please just take their winnings and go home? If things get nasty that could accomplish all the ill effects of climate change in their immediate present, and then that extra money they don’t need in their bank account will cease to be of any use to them.
**To the HRC/Obama apologists who will point out all the nice things both have said about fixing climate change, which are inarguably and unquestionably better than what Trump has said, I will again mention the credibility problem. There is no way to undo the past discrepancy between words and actions. That Trump’s actions MIGHT be slightly worse is meaningless (and would still be meaningless if we could be certain he would be slightly worse), unless what Hillary/Obama are doing is actually enough for the difference to matter. It’s not even remotely close, and anyone paying attention knows that.
For example, if someone cuts off my leg, and bystander Trump says “No, your leg is still there! You’re not spouting blood!” and Bystanders Hillary/Obama/DNC says “You’re delusional! He’s about to die. Here, you poor person, I keep band-aids for when I cut my thumb. Here’s a nice little band-aid to make it all better!” I’m going to regard both parties with equal horror.
I notice quite a few people would “like Trump to win.” But they don’t want to dirty their own hands by voting for Trump. They would “like Trump to win” with “other peoples’ votes.”
That is understandable. My cultural-liberal family members would be very nasty to me for a long time if I told them I was voting Trump. Even if I explained that I was doing it only to keep the wannabe-Assad-toppling, cannibal-liver-eater-jihadi-supporting, Nazi-Nazi-Banderazi-supporting Free Trade Treasonist Warpig Clinton from winning the election and starting World War Nuke with the Russian Federation.
My relatives would just scream ” Supreme Court! Trump Rayciss! Basket of Deplorables! Obama’s Legacy! Misogynist! etc.”
But if the only way for people who would like to “see Trump win” is to vote for Trump themselves ( ourselves) . . . how many people are prepared to Eat Bitterness and cast that vote?
You are misunderstanding me (and probably some others). I would NOT “like to see Trump win.” I very much DON’T want “to see Trump win.” I would rather Trump won than Hillary. Not the same thing. I would also rather see Trump than Pence or Kaine. That does not mean I actually want him to be President.
It has nothing to do with people being nasty to me. All those people are already mad at me because I’ve already told them I want Hillary to lose more than I want Trump to lose.
Stein is far from perfect, but I would much, much rather she actually be our President than either Trump or Hillary. Therefore I am voting for her.
At the moment, California is not even close, so I don’t have to think about “best strategic vote.” If I thought my single vote was going to make a difference between Trump winning or it going into the House, or, conversely, Hillary winning or it going into the house (what would happen if California was a dead heat? I… might be very, very tempted to bring about that outcome if I could just to watch the arguments), then I would have to really think very hard about Stein or Trump. I have already given this much thought. It’s a harder call than you might think. There’s a LOT to be said for a “pox on both your houses” vote, not least that I literally wish a pox on both their houses and anything I can do to make them aware of that has a certain pleasurable cathartic effect.
I *think* Trump will do less damage than Hillary on the international scale, but it’s a much harder call on the domestic. I’m not sure at all that she won’t be better there. I think with slightly more assurance that a Trump victory gives us a better chance to get someone good in sooner than a Hillary win, but I’m not entirely confident that anyone good is EVER going to get in, or that my particular take on the game theory aspects of this are correct, and who knows what weird thing is going to happen next. “When unsure which evil is lesser, vote for the person who’s not evil” makes sense.
Of course, Trump didn’t cheat to win his primary. Hillary did. That matters. Has nothing to do with who’s going to be a better president, but letting cheating go unpunished sets a very bad precedent.
Truth to tell, I have many times wished Trump would give me an excuse to think he would do a decent enough job that I could vote for him with a clear conscience. He has not done this.
(all that said, I would be slightly more likely than not to vote for Trump if I could somehow be sure that my vote for Stein meant Hillary would win, whereas my vote for Trump meant he would win; but I really couldn’t say till I got in the voting both; I waited till I got to the polls to decide tween Jackson and Gore in the 88 primary–and stayed indecisive until the poll worker outside actually asked me if I was having problems and told me to hurry up–and between Clinton and Perot both 92 and 96; I very, very deeply regret not voting for Perot both times)
A day late, but since I just saw this comment, I did want to say that my discussions with holdout voters strongly suggest that a commitment to a dead-stop end to all extraction of fossil fuels from public lands and waters would be very, very catchy. Millennials get it, IME, and furthermore the younger somebody is, the more of a stake they have in dealing with climate change in a meaningful way. And yeah, of course it will be expensive and disruptive to do it now — but not as expensive and disruptive as it will be if we kick the can down the road until HRC and her cohort are gone and can no longer be inconvenienced by it. Younger generations will still be around to be handed the bill, and we/they know it.
If you’re still talking to the Party functionary who’s tasked with dealing with the “millennials problem,” I hope you have a chance to tell them so. But then, the apparent fact that 35 days out they still need to be told that Clinton needs to offer substance, and that the problem can’t be addressed via some new set of code words or marketing gimmicks, suggests that not only does the Party not want to hear this, it may not even be capable of it.
But then wouldn’t she lose the votes of the anti-sparkle pony prag progs? Awkward.
Apparently Gaius didn’t get the memo: MILLENNIALS DON’T EXIST (outside the minds of pundits, leastways).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HFwok9SlQQ
Far too late for this hypothetical speech, even if the candidate were suddenly to transform herself and these policies were truly representative of her genuinely held policy positions. Instead, Schadenfreude is in the air as reflected in a post by James Howard Kunstler yesterday:
“Here’s something to consider: a proposition put out by David McAlvany on his podcast last week: ‘To Understand Election 2016 You Have to See 2020’… The salutary part of the story is that such an epochal crack-up will sweep the establishment out of power. In the present case, this means discrediting the crony-capitalist, revolving-door grifters of the Wall Street / Washington axis, plus the neo-con military empire-builders bent on starting World War Three for profit, plus the economic central planners of the Federal Reserve whose desperate meddlings have nearly destroyed the necessary operations and meaning of money. And the cherries on top to get thrown out with the rest of this giant shit sundae would be the campus cultural Maoists. In short, vote for Hillary and let history flush them all out of the system. … They just don’t know when to stop. It’s history’s job to stop them now, nature’s way, by seating them at the banquet of consequences…”
Vote for Clinton on the theory that our only hope is to “fly the plane into the side of the mountain” and that
Clinton is uniquely suited to be the pilot to do it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nSKkwzwdW4
Well . . . it could work, if it doesn’t result in nuclear war. Or the perma-passage of TTP, TTIP, and other International Corporate Plantation Slavery trade-treason agreements. or . . . or . . . or . . .
I don’t think that David McAlvany or James Klunster has made the sale, personally.
Voted for Obama twice as a lefty Boomer… if he ran for a third term I wouldn’t vote for him again. Barely voted for Clinton’s second term for the same reasons.
Not enough attention paid to his performance over two terms: let the banksters slide, compromised the ACA so badly to get it passed that it’s falling apart now, no environmental progress until AFTER Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf, no social justice progress until AFTER marriage equality, blunders galore in foreign policy, etc. He managed to avoid Syria, sort of, and wind down Iraq and Afghanistan, sort of – but Pentagon and SoS Clinton have both made the above into yet another expensive, bloody quagmire. May have broken the EU in the process.
Skin color about the only progressive thing about this guy. Oh, and he has a nice family and seems to avoid scandals like no president in generations. Pretty thin legacy though.
So electing Hillary is just business as usual. Voting for Trump is disaster capitalism at its finest – we know he’s a lying schnook but because he makes so many groups crazy, he must be doing something right! (He isn’t.)
Mercifully Trump’s destroying his own campaign himself, no need for Kochs or Democratic PACs to do so though they’ll spend the money anyway.
As a caucus captain for Sanders I’m now trying to work for down ballot Dems and local social justice. Married to a pastor so the latter is a lifelong project… perhaps longer!
I hope the Trump campaign is reading this.
Mr. Trump, take Nigel Farage’s advice and just ignore Hillary’s personal attacks on you.
Only discuss policy around avoiding war, trade and the economy.
Unfortunately, Trump isn’t smart enough to take your advice. Or any other very good advice people would love to give him.
Trump isn’t really very smart at all in any deep civilizational knowledge sense. He is narrowly shrewd, shallowly cunning, and is idiot-savantfully talented at one particular thing, making money in his line of bussiness.
Two words.
Dynasty. Candidate.
What would happen if the Trumpkin made such a speech?
The advice to Clinton is always to lie better.
I’ve seldom read such naivete on Naked Capitalism. No one seems to have been thinking of the dangerous cranks and psychopaths that Trump brings with him. Make Georgie W’s look sane, at home and abroad. Not to speak of Ike’s guys in Iran and Guatemala. And the Supremes for women, children, and ordinary voters.
No doubt the Dimocrats are terrible in many respects. But the Republicans have proven themselves again and again to be dangerous–to say the least of it. An administration isn’t one person, even HRC, but a collection of people and forces, and I just don’t see that we can afford to let the forces of chaos loose again. The implication of Trump’s vision of America as on the precipice is this: better get mine while I can, and the hell with the next person. Check out the charter school story in Florida and Ohio, just for a small example. Or reread “It Can’t Happen Here.”
I’m too busy thinking about the dangerous cranks and psychopaths that Clinton has brought with her and would keep with her if she got elected. Neo-nazi Banderite-sympathizers like Power and Slaughter and KagaNuland and so forth. Supporters of cannibal liver-eater jihad in Libya and Syria and seekers of war with Russia.
People who say “I’m voting for Jill Stein” or “I’m voting for Gary-what’s-Aleppo Johnson” or “I’m not voting” amaze me. “You amaze me,” as Shakespeare says.
Mr. Trump has said that he doesn’t believe in global warming–that it’s a Chinese hoax–and that he’d find somebody like the late Antonin Scalia to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. And there’s only one way to prevent him from getting into office and doing his brainless worst, and you know perfectly well what it is.
I can’t regard the end of the republic and the end of civilization with the same equanimity that some of you seem to maintain.
“Forgive me, but such reckless people as you are–such queer, unbusinesslike people–I never met in my life. . . I tell you every day. Every day I say the same thing.” –Chekhov, The Cherry Orchard
So Hillary claiming to believe in global warming while pursuing policies such as racking which release greenhouse gasses is different than Trump’s position?
Timmy Kaine isn’t known as Governor Coal for his environmental positions, but he will say he believes in global warming.
This goes to the electorate’s view Hillary is a liar.
Your vote is legitimate only if you vote exactly like me for the same reasons I do.
Deloss Brown, that’s because you’ve managed yourself onto the entitled side of the republican system. Anarchy will be better than listening to pompous symbol manipulators building broken systems and telling me that I’m embarrassing their imaginary friend.
Many of us reject liberalism. What are you going to do about that, hmm? You own the finish line but nobody gives a frack about your race. How does that make you feel?
( hunkerdown, I suspect that by “race”, you mean the “track and field event” kind of race. Other people might pretend to think you mean some other kind of “race”. If you think having your comment subjected to that sort of malicious disinterpretation could be a problem, you might consider clarifying which kind of “race” it is that you mean here. Or not, as you see fit. Just a suggestion . . . )
Glad you’re amazed by something this sorry election season, Deloss.
Me, I’m rather disappointed so many will be, yet again, voting their fears. Yes, indeed, you may suppose civilization itself will come to an end if Trump is elected. It won’t get any better, that much is true. And if instead it is Clinton? Well, we have the prospect of war with Russia to drive our fears. And in either case, the certain continuance of growing income inequality and the hollowing of the middle class. What a choice!
Doubtless that Chekhov quote can be equally applied to the sorry LOTE voters. What a sad lot indeed.
Better flying brockmonkeys, please.
Unlike most of the commentariat, I can see something along these lines at least breaking through. Even a clear, “I’m with you on Thing X and I’ll tell you what I’m going to do about it [I’d pick the TPP, because it’s something within the powers of the office and if she were that specific and that firm, she’d take a huge political hit by breaking the pledge — she could still do it, obviously, but it would cost her]; I’m not going to be entirely with you on Thing Y but I understand why this is an issue that has to be addressed somehow, and I’ll work as hard as I can with you to find a solution that can actually be implemented given fiscal and political realities; we won’t always agree but we can be coalition partners and often allies, you won’t get that from my opponent.”
The potential value being, of course, that she’d be speaking clearly about the issues, and making her case based on the issues, and not quadrupling down on the identity dog-whistles and attempts to shame voters who don’t respond to them. ‘Woman woman woman, it’s time for a female woman, don’t you know she’s a woman running to be the first woman president, if you weren’t a sexist you’d know this is SO IMPORTANT’ would have worked by now if it was going to; repeating it in ever louder and angrier tones, and from more and more voices, isn’t likely to make it more effective.
This.
I think you’re absolutely right that she would suffer a huge amount of political damage by walking back a pledge to scrub the TPP once and for all. Speaking about an actual issue that affects actual people instead of corporations would be a big change.
I’m older than a millennial, so maybe the speech that would have worked for me is a little different. Maybe millennials would also like this speech, which could have been given by Hillary Clinton in July; I know I would have responded positively:
That’s the speech that she should have given.
This speech would work. =)
I don’t think that politicians need to be “selling” their policies to voters. If voters can’t figure out how to make the right decisions, then the repercussions of those bad decisions should be felt. Millennials seem to implicitly feel like they should somehow be protected from their own bad decisions, preferably by their parents. What a strange, conservative generation they’re turning out to be.
Hillary Clinton has made a whole bunch of bad decisions in her life; here are a few examples from her time as a U.S. Senator. I don’t think that she should be protected from the consequences of these bad decisions. And this list doesn’t even include her bad decisions as Secretary of State.
Her vote in favor of the unfair bankruptcy reform act:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?&congress=107&session=1&vote=00236
The 2001 bill did not become law, but it was similar to the 2005 bill (S. 256) which did become law. Hillary Clinton was not present for the 2005 vote, because her husband was having surgery for a partially collapsed lung:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044
Her vote in favor of the original Homeland Security Act:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00249
Her vote in favor of the Patriot Act:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313
Her vote in favor of the Patriot Act reauthorization of 2005:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00029
She voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
Her vote for the TARP bank bailout:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213
You can also add that HRC voted against the Levin amendment to the Iraq War resolution.
This was the “try diplomacy first” before going to war.
Even noted neocon Dianne Feinstein voted FOR the Levin amendment.
HRC was even more of a neocon than Feinstein in the Iraq War Resolution matter.
You seem to believe that voters and politicians aren’t rivals. Have you been on the cosseted end of power relations all your life, or do you actually believe in republicanism as a good for the ages? Either way, you can be voted off the island and it would be most salutary for you if you remember that before you open your bourgeois authoritarian gob.
Not that I disagree that sales rhetoric ought to be subject to the opprobrium that sexual rhetoric usually carries. Certainly, at the very least, keep that garbage after the watershed hour.
“Selling” is simply the regrettable idiom of the day. “Clearly explaining” would have been a more uplifting choice of words.
What bad decisions do you believe millennials seem to implicitly feel they should be protected from? Can you name any of those decisions?
Here’s the Hillary speech that can stop Trump instantly:
“My friends, after discussions with my doctors and advisors it’s become clear that I can’t continue with my campaign. I have to withdraw from the race for “health reasons” and endorse the runner-up for the nomination, Bernie Sanders, as the new nominee. I am grateful to all my supporters and I will never forget you. Now Bill and I are going to retire to our money bin and we’ll be careful to not let the door hit our butts on the way out. So long, suckers!”
First, it would help if you didn’t call us f**king ‘millennials’.
Second, words are wind. The only way Hillary Clinton could get my vote is if she stopped being Hillary Clinton. I’ve seen her record, I know who she surrounds herself with, I know her policies and ‘ideals’. I won’t vote for her, ever. Politicians lie, especially on the campaign trail. You could argue that having said all these things she might feel the tiniest bit compelled to follow through on some of them, or that others would hold her to account for things she said that there are crystal clear, HD video records of. But that will never happen. There is an equally strong audio-visual record of all the horrible crap she said during the 2008 primary, and yet it’s all gone straight down the g*dd*mn memory hole.
As always, an excellent comment thread. Thanks to all.
I put a general remark about this piece in a sub-comment here. If you want to reply to it, you might put your reply down here, so it will be easy to find.
GP
“Regarding Sanders, Bernie stood for what Bernie stood for, and people, not just millennials, loved him for it.”
If only we could bottle this. But what this is is somebody who just refuses to tell lies. It’s unbelievably compelling, and so simple to remember. But apparently, all too rare. Maybe the most helpful thing is to say, “Hey kids! Don’t be a grifter!”
if she breaths and forms words with those breaths, she is lying. The rest is mental masturbation
To the, admittedly few, people who said they’d vote for Hillary if she gave that speech: glad you came around! Now before you do anything else I have some prime land in Florida and a bridge I am willing to sell for an extremely competitive price. It’s an offer you cannot afford to miss out on..trust me!
Seriously there are people who listen to campaign speeches and think “Gee that sounds reasonable and the candidate comes across as really sincere and stuff so, yeah, they’ve totally got my vote!
Really? And in HRC’s case it’s even more preposterous. Given her truthphobic track record how can an informed individual take at face value anything that comes out of her mouth, even if she says she is “sorry” and “sincere”? I mean if she says she is going to bomb Russia or oust Assad personally…that is believable given her actions and history of war hawking. But if tomorrow she starts preaching an anti-Wall Street mantra targeted at Millenials and slamming the TPP….my bullshit detector would blow a fuse.
HRC…who says what her advisors and focus group data tell her to say in order to “win over” whatever group of voters she thinks she needs to become POTUS…suddenly shedding her mechanical robot lady act and behaving like a reasonable human who understands empathy and stuff…how could anyone buy this? What was the author of this piece trying to say? Maybe I’m slow on the uptake here but does he think that a well-delivered campaign speech telling a group of voters what they want to hear is what Clinton SHOULD do? Or that it would be a sign that she is now an honest and trustworthy politician?
The speech I want to hear is the one that fails at St. Peter’s Gate – likely an offer to split the ‘business’ 60/40.