Hillary Clinton’s Lunch with the Financial Times

By Lambert Strether of Corrente.

The Financial Times bills “Lunch with the FT” as “a weekly interview with leading cultural and business figures.” The conceit is that an FT reporter takes a celebrity to lunch, and interviews them, while also describing the (posh) venue and meal choices. Sometimes I buy a printed copy of the paper on the weekend, and relax with coffee while reading it; I always enjoy “Lunch with the FT.” The interviewees are mostly B-List celebrities like Jarvis Cocker, Cyrus Vance, Albert Bourla, and Heather Cox Richardson (!), with an occasional A-lister like Stephanie Kelton, and the occasional sop to The Blob like (ugh) Eliot Higgins. Clinton is another rare A-lister, although as a figure I don’t know which bucket to throw Clinton in: cultural, or business. Business, I suppose.

For the interview with Clinton, the FT — or Clinton’s staff, I don’t know — chose the Blue Duck Tavern at the Park Hyatt Washington D.C., “the hotel’s Michelin-starred, locally sourced restaurant.” I’m all for local sourcing, but the Blue Duck lost its star in 2019, when “a Michelin inspector told the Washington Post that the restaurant was lacking in ‘technique and quality.'” In fact, the most recent date on the Blue Duck’s awards page is 2019. The reporter might have said, though granted “starred” is in the past tense. Rather like Clinton herself? Perhaps Clinton’s security detail liked the arrangment of the entrances and exits.

The reporter’s write-up has a lot of paraphrasing, and I’m just going to leave all of it out. What follows will be only direct quotes from Clinton herself, and lacking in technique and quality they too are.

So. I’ve pulled on my yellow waders. Let’s go through “Hillary Clinton: ‘We are standing on the precipice of losing our democracy.

* * *

REPORTER: Lunching with Hillary Clinton is no routine affair. When I arrive at Washington’s sleek Park Hyatt hotel, the somewhat jittery[1] manager steers me to a discreet side door to await her arrival.

[1] Jitttery? I wonder who gave him the jitters?

* * *

CLINTON: “Oh, I really like wine, but not today. But I am a happy observer of other people’s drinking, so you go ahead…. You guys should have more wine.”

Clinton transparently trying to get her interlocutors plotzed while she remains sober.

CLINTON: “I have to confess I thought chips were kind of fancy potato chips. I thought they were with round cuts of potatoes. You call them chips but they’re fries[1].”

[1] First, chips are not fries: “In the UK, chips are considered a separate item to french fries. Chips are a thicker cut than french fries, they are generally cooked only once and at a lower temperature.” Second — although I did search Hard Choices for “chips” and “fries,” finding nothing — it’s inconceivable to me that anyone of Clinton’s class, and as well-traveled as Clinton, could not know this. I don’t want to harp on it, but surely it’s odd?

CLINTON: “Whether they were from West Virginia or Tyneside, their lives were so grim and disease-prone and unhygienic[1] — but the nostalgia for those days. I don’t know.”

[1] Of miners. The “deplorables” thing runs deep, doesn’t it?

REPORTER: “I tell Clinton that on learning of her defeat in 2016 my then nine-year-old daughter stopped taking my word as gospel.”

CLINTON: “It’s really remarkable how often I’m told stories like that[1] and how often I’m reading something like a work of fiction set in modern times and 2016 is a traumatic event[2] — it’s almost eschatological. It is a break in history. It’s such a piece of unfinished business.”[3]

[1] This says a lot about the bubble Clinton lives in; a large part of the country doesn’t feel this way at all.

[2] One can only imagine what would happen if the people in Clinton’s bubble (including, sadly, William Gibson) suffered real trauma. Black lung disease, for example.

[3] To be finished how, exactly? The 1/6 Committee?

CLINTON: “If you go down the rabbit hole of far right intellectuals, you see that birth control, gay marriage — all of it is at risk[1].”

[1] So presumably (see below) there are tranches of voters that Democrats should not throw under the bus? On principle?

CLINTON: “The level of insidious rulemaking[1] to further oppress women almost knows no end. You look at this and how could you not but think that Margaret Atwood was a prophet? She’s not just a brilliant writer, she was a prophet.”

[1] Well, “insidious rulemaking” is what the Democrat base, the PMC, does. So the otherwise odd framing makes sense.

CLINTON: “I found Alito was the kind of young man who when he was at Princeton railed against coeducation, railed against letting women into the eating clubs, and that was all in the background that I read. He honestly struck me as one of those very self-righteous types seeking to remake society[1].”

]1] Heaven forfend that one should attempt to “remake society” through politics!

CLINTON: “Literally within hours of the polls closing in 2016, we had so much evidence pouring in about voters being turned away in Milwaukee[1] and not being able to vote in Detroit[1],”

[1] Low Black turnout lost Clinton Milwaukee, not voter suppression.

[2] Trump won Michigan in 2016 by flipping 12 counties that had voted for Obama. In Detroit specifically, the issue was that “37 percent [of precincts] tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books.” It should not, I suppose, surprise us at this point that Clinton is outright falsifying history, but here we are.

CLINTON: “These states were run by Republicans so there was no way to find out the truth about any of them. I also believe in peaceful succession and transition[1] and all of that.”

[1] In all fairness, the Democrats’ faithless elector scheme, and RussiaGate, were both peaceful. The latter was designed to render the Presidential transition a nullity, but peaceful it was.

CLINTON: “Even in his reptilian brain[1], Trump has to know that he lost this time. He refuses to accept it because it wasn’t supposed to happen[2].”

[1] We all have reptilian brains; I know I do. If, however, a voter wanted (unlike Clinton) no TPP and (unlike Clinton) no war with Russia, and got that plus the CARES Act plus Operation Warp Speed, then the case can be made that we need more lizards in office. (Not to sugarcoat Trump’s many stupidities and sins in his response to Covid, especially with masking, but he had plenty of help, and Biden’s sclerotic response, which has boiled down to “Let ‘er rip,” is arguably worse.)

[2] Project much?

CLINTON: “I think if [Trump] can he’s going to run again. Follow the money with Trump[1] — he’s raised about $130mn sitting in his bank account that he used to travel around, to fund organising against elections[2] . . . I don’t know who will challenge him in the Republican primary[3].”

[1] Well — ***cough*** The Clinton Foundation ***cough*** — naturally we follow the money. We’re not six-year-olds. Trump might have other motives, of course: revenge, an aversion to losing, the joy of battle, his place in history

[2] I hold no brief for Trump’s views on election 2020, but “organizing against elections” is not what he’s doing.

[3] DeSantis, for one. How can she not know is? Is Clinton paying attention at all? (Oddly, the interview never asked her about her bout with Covid.)

REPORTER: “Could you imagine running again, I ask.”

CLINTON: “No, out of the question. First[1] of all, I expect Biden to run. He certainly intends to run[2]. It would be very disruptivet[3] to challenge that.”

[1] “Clinton does not get around to her second point about why she will not seek high office again. The first seems final enough.” One can only imagine what the second point was.

[2] Hardly a Sherman Statement, hence not final at all. Would she turn down the nomination if it were offered to her?

[3] So, avoiding “disruption” is the ultimate value?

CLINTON “You’ve got to give Kissinger credit for longevity if nothing else. He just keeps going. I never thought Brzezinski had a romantic view of the Russians the way Kissinger did.[1] He values his relationship with Putin so much[2].”

[1] I think Clinton is reacting to Kissinger’s pronouncement at Davos — sadly, Clinton was not there — that “negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome.” Here’s the video; listen, and see if iyou think it’s “romantic” (!). Brzezinski has also advocated breaking up Russia, which isn’t so much romantic as Quixotic or delusional. Who does he imagine would feast on the carcass?

[2] Kissinger’s 98 years old. He doesn’t buy green bananas at the supermarket, let alone trim his words to fit what somebody want to hear later.

REPORTER: “[Clinton] relates an anecdote about a restaurant dinner in London several years ago [chips not on the menu, presumably], where the guests debated the wisdom of NATO’s post-cold war expansion. After a while, the waiter interrupted”–

CLINTON: ” [WAITER]’Before I take your order, I am from Poland and I have one thing to say: never trust the Russians'[1]…. I always believed in expanding NATO and I find the arguments against that to be naive at best, because what we have seen is proof positive of why it was necessary[2] .”

[1] If this actually was allowed to happen, it’s amazing, and it’s also amazing that a waiter at a (presumably) high-end restaurant would presume. Also amazing that Clinton takes the waiter’s perspective as unmotivated by Poland’s history and geographical context, which is not ours. Finally, Clinton’s position is childish, especially for a former Secretary of State. Contrast Lord Palmerston: “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” Trust is all very well, but comes far behind arrangements for mutual interest. (For example, the United States and Russia certainly trusted each other on the International Space Station for many years.)

[2] Not a realist perspective, needless to say.

CLINTON: “Yes, he was very sexist towards me. We had some interesting, even helpful, interactions in private and then the press would be invited in and he would say something insulting about America[1]. He would then manspread[2] for effect[3].”

[1] Insulting America isn’t sexist.

[2] Manspreading isn’t a cultural universal, for pity’s sake.

[3] Well, when you’ve got stones the size of Putin’s…. Clinton is, apparently, a telepath. How does she know it’s “for effect?”

CLINTON: “If Trump had won in 2020 he would have pulled out of NATO — I have no doubt about that.”[1]

[1] Quelle horreur! Obviously, a nice long war to the last Ukrainian is infinitely preferable.

CLINTON: “We are standing on the precipice of losing our democracy[1], and everything that everybody else cares about then goes out the window[2]. Look, the most important thing is to win the next election. The alternative is so frightening[3] that whatever does not help you win should not be a priority.”

[1] That is the Democrat talking point, true. One of the most interesting aspects of the Republican 2022-2024 strategy is that the Republicans are running for office (e.g., election offiicials and Secretaries of State). Wouldn’t it be possiible — hear me out — for Democrats to run opposing candidates?

[2] Gay marriage? Suppose breaking up Google was a political winner. Would Clinton support that? Suppose Republican opposition to Biden’s war in Ukraine got real traction. Would Clinton flip fllop on that? Even assuming Clinton would do any or all of those things, what kind of party is it that will say or do anything to “win the next election”? A losing party, I would say.

[3] It does seem that fear is what primary motivates Democrats, at least in public (greed being a private matter).

CLINTON: “You need accountable measures. But you also need policing. It doesn’t even pass the common-sense politics test not to believe that. Some positions are so extreme on both the right and the left that they retreat to their corners . . . Politics should be the art of addition not subtraction[1].”

[1] I’m sure Bernie Sanders will be glad to hear that.

* * *

Here’s the concluding paragraph:

It has been an intensive 100 minutes but I am not sure I have persuaded Clinton to take off her proverbial mask. As we stride across the busy restaurant floor — Clinton waves gamely and returns a barrage of shouted greetings — I notice that she did not bring an actual one, an omission still viewed askance in some circles.

“Some circles” like the Blue Duck itself. Here are the rules:

Guest and colleague safety is our highest priority. We continue to evolve and enhance our safety and cleanliness protocols adhering to Hyatt’s Global Care & Cleanliness Commitment as well as following the guidance from D.C. government. Please note that guests must wear masks while not eating or drinking and employees are required to wear masks at all times.

Of course, the rules are different for somebody at Clinton’s exalted level (see Invariant #1 here); and for the Clintons, they always have been. Bill and Hillary Clinton crossed a picket line on their first date. As then, now.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Garrulous insolence, Guest Post, Politics on by .

About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism (“Because markets”). I don’t much care about the “ism” that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don’t much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue — and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me — is the tens of thousands of excess “deaths from despair,” as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics — even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton’s wars created — bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow — currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press — a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let’s call such voices “the left.” Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn’t allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I’ve been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.

109 comments

  1. super extra

    Reading Hillary’s facile and fatuous commentary on Putin… the world really dodged a bullet in 2016. Shameful she was allowed to be Secretary of State.

    Thank you Lambert for donning your waders!

    Reply
      1. Martin Oline

        You say the interview never asked her about her bout with COVID. Your remark about her shoddy thinking made me think of Michael Hudson’s observation about the effects of long COVID: “There are now a million Americans with long COVID. They also say that long COVID lowers your IQ by 10%. It’s almost as dangerous is inheriting a trust fund when it comes to impairing your IQ. It’s debilitating.”

        Reply
        1. nippersdad

          She is already on blood thinners for blood clots in the brain, I wonder if COVID exacerbated the problem. I imagine there is a point where ingesting rat poison ceases to have any advantages.

          Reply
        2. drumlin woodchuckles

          Her thinking was always nasty. Is it shoddier than it was? No amount of shoddiness will mask the underlying nastiness.

          The only thing that could make Hillary Clinton’s thinking non-nasty and nice would be late-stage Alzheimers Disease. Her essential nastiness goes that deep.

          I will offer a suspicion that I don’t hold quite strongly enough to call a prediction. I suspect that Clinton will be the DemParty nominee for Election 2024. And Ka. . . Moolah Harris will be her running mate. R. Atface Cuomo will contest that strongly. But he will lose most of the primaries he tries to enter. So I don’t expect R. Atface Cuomo to be the DemNom.

          I can see why Sanders has already said that he will support Biden if Biden runs again. He is trying to pre-emptively lower the others’ chances of getting the DemNom. He knows that Biden is the very best the DemParty has to offer at this time. I wonder how that makes him feel in the quiet darkness of the night.

          Reply
      2. clarky90

        Re; CLINTON: “We are standing on the precipice of “Losing Our Democracy.”

        Democracy….”literally, rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek dēmokratia, which was coined from dēmos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”) in the middle of the 5th century bce to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states..”

        Democracy has been a life-giving concept, central to many Civilizations for more than 2500 years. (much longer when you consider that hunter-gathers were essentially, “democratic”.)

        Hillary Clinton, and her cohort of merciless Barbarians, are attempting to break down “our” gates, and steal (redefine) the word; “democracy”; to…………
        not what the people want, but what her marauding gang “want”.

        The integrity of the meaning of words is imporant and precious!

        Here is a much less critical, but very material example of the worth of “words”.

        “EU: Stop using the terms Parmesan, Feta, Gruyere……..”

        “The European Union has asked the United States to block the use of terms like Parmesan, Feta, Gruyere and similar terms applied to American made products.”

        Reply
        1. drumlin woodchuckles

          Let them sue us in court. If they want us to call our Parmesan/ Feta/Gruyere/ etc. cheeses by names like Parmesoid/ Fetaform/ Gruyerish/ etc. . . . . let them come over here and make us do it.

          Reply
      3. DJG, Reality Czar

        Lambert Strether:

        This is practice, LS: I have a vision of you tossing up a softball (the world of Clinton) and hitting a home run every time. Hmmm. Almost too easy for you.

        The term “manspread” was not used casually. Clinton is addressing her main public, diehard upper-middle-class white ladies who lined up with Clinton’s book, which as I recall was called What Happened, eagerly dropping hundreds of bucks for an evening of “conversation.”

        This is the same self-selected group that believes that Heather Cox Richardson, mouthpiece of the “intelligence community” and friend of the Vindmans, is writing a first draft of history.

        The wine comment–y’all can drink and I’ll watch–is classic passive-aggressive behavior. Yikes, she is a wet blanket.

        Reply
    1. digi_owl

      Something about that short passage gnaws at me.

      The language used seems almost specifically tailored to find fault with otherwise innocuous actions.

      And that in turn seems more befitting schoolyard popularity contests and cliques than international politics with nukes on the table.

      Reply
  2. Dr. John Carpenter

    Biden claimed he almost jumped in the race in 2016 because Hillary was floundering and expressed regrets he did not. Does anyone really think she wouldn’t relish the opportunity to return the favor with a follow through?

    Reply
    1. Oh

      Hilly knows that Biden’s gonna lose and she sure as hell knows she’s lose if she ran. She can’t take a second rejection. The first rejection led to Russia! Russia! Russia! The second one will result in China! China! China!

      Reply
  3. Michaelmas

    I happened to be in the audience at a senate hearing some years back and watched her parade around about twenty feet from me. It was clear to me then that there was something wrong with the woman.

    Malignant narcissist or psychopath? The line is thin and, anyway, the difference maybe academic. But I’m experienced and she’s at least one of those things.

    Reply
    1. Stick'em

      It’s not just you who noticed, Michaelmas…

      Q: I was captivated by your description of Hillary Clinton being surrounded by “a microclimate of virtue. The presenters called out to one another in tones of gracious supportiveness and flattery so sweet it bordered on idolatry.” Can you describe what you mean by that?

      Thomas Frank: Every biography of Hillary Clinton talks about her goodness, her high-mindedness, her rock-solid dedication to principle. Reading those books, I couldn’t imagine what they meant, since Hillary is as much of a shape-shifter and a compromiser as any other politician.

      When I saw her in person, however, it all made sense. It was at a Clinton Foundation event, as you mention. Everyone took their turn on the stage, praising everyone else, in the highest and most gracious forms you can imagine. There was an almost intoxicating sense in the room of the goodness and virtue of everyone present, with Hillary herself anchoring the swirl. It must be hard for someone who wasn’t there to believe, but these people seemed to regard her with an idealism that was almost cult-like.

      The exaggeration of it all showed me this sense of virtue is not only central to Hillary Clinton’s appeal, but to liberalism generally. This movement has done tremendous harm to minorities and working people over the last few decades, and yet liberals have such an elevated sense of what fine people they are. It is a precious self-image.

      https://truthout.org/articles/thomas-frank-bill-clinton-s-five-major-achievements-were-longstanding-gop-objectives/

      ^ This liberal precious self image of being virtuous despite so much evidence to the contrary is a hallmark of collective narcissism:

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230058860_Collective_Narcissism_and_Intergroup_Hostility_The_Dark_Side_of_%27In-Group_Love%27

      There is no question HillBillary, Trump, and Obama are all flaming narcissists. Group narcissism drives much of the behavior of members of both political parties as well. For the Blue people, it typically takes the form of virtue. For the Red people, it typically has an authoritarian flavor.

      Reply
      1. Duke of Prunes

        “Blue people, it typically takes the form of virtue.”. I think it is more authoritarian cloaked in virtue.

        Reply
              1. Yves Smith

                If so, then why did he cherry pick the results from one state?

                And 264 from South Carolina is grossly disproportionate to South Carolina’s voters as a % of either total voters or their weighting in the Electoral College. That’s 14.7% of the total. That alone proves bad/biased sampling.

                The UMass Ameherst is not a recognized polling organization, raising the question of how developed his list of who to call. This looks like a poor amateur effort that he’s presenting as legit because he could present it as under “UMass auspices” because part of his PhD, and the calls likely being made from university buildings.

                To put it another way, if you think Democrats are not authoritarians, you have lost your mind. Vaccine mandates? Cancel culture? Widespread censorship? Tell me what Trump has done that remotely resembles stunts like deplatforming people who buck his narrative. Calling people bad names, however unPresidential, with no followup is not in the same category.

                Reply
                1. hk

                  Even bigger problem is the concept of “authoritarian” personalities, which is shoddily and carelessly defined. It is perfectly possible (I think it has been done) to rephrase the questions and test for “liberal” authoritarianism.

                  Reply
                2. Susan

                  Thank you, Yves.

                  Democrats as authoritarians is a perfect rendering of their recent past and the answer to the LeaveDems movement.

                  Stick’em nails the virtuous losers as proud flaming narcissists who only live on to lose again and look good to their friends and supporters.

                  As I’m educated but homeless and hungry, please donate at my Cash App: $NeedsHelp999.

                  Thanks so much for your understanding and help.

                  Susan

                  Reply
              1. Yves Smith

                As Scott Ritter has repeatedly pointed out, Russian departments in the last 20 years have become “Putin hating studies”. It looks as if there is now an niche in what, sociology or political science for “Trump hating studies”.

                More generally, this sort of armchair analysis is analytically bogus. There are virtually no written diagnostic tools in psychology that are validated (this from a prof who take umbrage at the use of crap diagnostic “instruments” for all sorts of important assessments, particularly related to prescribing psychoactive drugs). And personality tests are particularly sus. You might as well use astrology, it has pretenses of rigor when properly done.

                Reply
                1. ambrit

                  I knew someone who did proper astrological charts. She had serious talents in mathematics and had the ephemeris going back to the turn of the Twentieth Century. I believe she ended up working as a programmer in computers. Similarly arcane arts.
                  As for “personality tests,” well, all I can say is that I took one once. There was a CIA talent scout at our High School who had you come in and ran you through several ‘personality tests’ and other mental games. The man was a teacher by day, and at night…. Another of his ‘tests’ was an evaluation of your reaction to various ‘subversive’ narratives. I got the one about bombing the Pentagon. The questions after reading the text were about the ethics of said action. Very early 1970s. One friend in High School went to Georgetown and later worked in the State Department, usually overseas as a ‘commercial attache.’ He just happened to be posted in several countries when ‘regime change’ was attempted there.
                  Am I being paranoid? I dunno. It has become a survival trait today.

                  Reply
                2. Stick'em

                  Yves ~ No worries. Our views are more similar than different.

                  Let’s start from an assumption what we are seeing and hearing from these politicians is political theater. Kayfabe as it is called in WWF wrasslin’.

                  Then let’s return to the Thomas Frank article above: Bill Clinton’s 5 major accomplishments were all on the GOP’s agenda. Now, different people are going to define “authoritarianism” in different ways. That said, take a policy such as the 1994 Clinton/Biden Crime Bill.

                  While not everyone is going to agree on the exact same definition of what being “authoritarian” means, we can say comfortably whatever it is, being “tough on crime” and “increasing law & order” are something any genuine authoritarian is going to be in favor of doing, right?

                  So what does Bill Clinton say about his authoritarian-approved crime bill?

                  “We cannot take our country back until we take our neighborhoods back. Four years ago this crime issue was used to divide America. I want to use it to unite America. I want to be tough on crime and good for civil rights. You can’t have civil justice without order and safety.”

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act

                  What Slick Wilie is doing here is passing an “authoritarian-approved” policy is shoveling money to the police departments and penal systems.

                  As a practical measure, he’s funding more cops and more prisons, but as a marketing gimmick, Willie’s deliberately conflating this law & order act with “civil rights & justice” to sell it to Democratic voters.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act

                  Thomas Frank pointed out back in 2016 how Hillary Clinton’s persona is all about selling virtue. Now all everyone can talk about is “virtue signalling” on the behalf of the “Social Justice Warriors,” right?

                  So yes, of course the Word Police are something straight out of a George Orwell book. Again, without defining exactly what authoritarianism is, we all can agree telling us what words we can and can’t use is a straight up “authoritarian” move, right?

                  However, when asked to justify this authoritarian Word Police move, Hillary’s going to do what Bill did, which is appeal to “social justice” and “political correctness” to sell it, right?

                  Hillary’s not going to call the cancel culture a good thing “because I said so” the way an authoritarian does. Instead, she’s going to say it’s virtuous, like she is, because that’s “her brand.” That’s what she’s selling to her voters because that’s how they see themselves.

                  Hillary is playing the “baby face” in the kayfabe as far as Democratic party members are concerned. But her call to cancel people who use bad words is undoubtedly an authoritarian move.

                  Meanwhile, Trump is playing the “heel” in the kayfabe. Trump is marketing himself to the authoritarian demographic. Again, without defining exactly what an authoritarian is, we can safely say screaming “Lock Her Up! at his fan base is a classic authoritarian move, right? So is building a wall to keep “the dirty Mexicans” out.

                  Trump is marketing himself to the authoritarian fan base. Hillary is marketing herself to the virtue fan base. Neither politician or party is authentic. The marketing doesn’t match their policies because they are chamelons.

                  After all, Trump tried to run for president back in 2000 and said he wanted Oprah to be his VP at that time. Again, without defining exactly what a “Social justice Warrior” is, we all agree what could be more SJW than Oprah?

                  https://youtu.be/bc90K7Kieek

                  tl;dr both American political parties in America pass neoliberal policy, and their symbolic representatives, Hillary and Trump are both neoliberals. However, the two parties market this neoliberal scheme to different demographics of Americans, which we could conveniently label the “authoritarian crowd” and the “virtue crowd” based on their shared attitudes, beliefs, and values.

                  Reply
          1. Lambert Strether Post author

            > “Authoritarian beliefs predict support for Trump more reliably than any other indicator.”

            This has been a trope in Democrat circles for a long, long time, going back to the first Bush administration, when I began blogging. As usual, proponents of the trope are remarkable for their lack of self-reflection:

            MacWilliams studies authoritarianism — not actual dictators, but rather a psychological profile of individual voters that is characterized by a desire for order and a fear of outsiders. People who score high in authoritarianism, when they feel threatened, look for strong leaders who promise to take whatever action necessary to protect them from outsiders and prevent the changes they fear.

            For example, the putative threat posed by “Putin” to “our democracy,” and the way this demon figure deprived us of our desired leader.

            Of course, that could simply prove that the entire country has gone authoritarian, which if true, nevertheless contradicts the author’s thesis.

            * * *

            I’m not sure how solidly grounded this theory is:

            According to Stenner’s theory, there is a certain subset of people who hold latent authoritarian tendencies. These tendencies can be triggered or “activated” by the perception of physical threats or by destabilizing social change, leading those individuals to desire policies and leaders that we might more colloquially call authoritarian.

            It is as if, the NYU professor Jonathan Haidt has written, a button is pushed that says, “In case of moral threat, lock down the borders, kick out those who are different, and punish those who are morally deviant.”

            I’m not asking for an RCT, but when I hear words like “triggered,” “activated”, “a button is pushed,” I think a thesis is being proposed that is more mechanical than people on the ground really are.

            Further, I’m very dubious about the concept of a “personality profile” with “latent tendencies.” Sounds like FBI profiling to me, an inexact science to say the least. And whatever this “personality profile” might be, I’d want to know the material circumstances that created it: Class, jurisdiction, ancestry, etc.

            Reply
          2. ghiggler

            >Authoritarian beliefs predict support for Trump more reliably than any other indicator

            To the extent this is true, it is not that authoritarian beliefs lead to support for Trump; it is that Trump stoked fear in conservatives and pushed them toward authoritarianism by promising safety if they believed in him.

            For years I had difficulty understanding why the left-right spectrum appears naturally in politics. I always thought this spectrum too limited to express the full range of preferences that people have.

            Then I came to understand the social and biological underpinnings: you need conservatives in a society, so that most people naturally take care not to be eaten by lions; you need reckless people to, in the end, find out how to kill them.

            Without conservatives too many people in society die just because they try new and stupid things. Without the reckless, society doesn’t try new things, can’t adapt to change and dies out. A society with mechanisms to maintain and support both has the best chance to survive.

            This maps directly into the left-right spectrum.

            Conservatives are naturally conforming. They just won’t eat that unknown plant because it is unknown. That it might poison them is a subtext. They’re happy with the way things are, unchanging, under control, lean more to a structured, even authoritarian, society than one where anything goes. Ultimately, though, they are challenged by change, emotionally they fear it.

            Trump stoked fear and promised a return to the perfect past. That captured the attention and support of the conservatives and pushed them further into authoritarianism.

            So, it’s not that authoritarians supported Trump; Trump created them to be his supporters.

            Reply
            1. hk

              Trump drew support from a lot of people who wanted to burn down the “existing order” of neoliberalism. Now, they might (and did) justify themselves by wanting to return to some primordial “good old days.”. But those days are mythological, of relatively recent construct. This is not just true of these folks, if course, but a common justification thrown up by any advocates for any “change”–heck, the Chinese “modernizers” and Japanese reformers of 19th century justified their actions on the bases of writings by Confucius, at least in some cases. I think you are right that every mass movement has a “conservative ” slant, in that they are ultimately powered by people who fear losing their “rights”: successful revolutions somehow address these fears, while unsuccessful ones don’t. But this is not exactly “conservative” or “authoritarian.”

              Reply
        1. IM Doc

          Being an adult when Deep Space Nine came out in the 1990s I always believed at the time that the Kai Winn character was actually modeled on Hillary Clinton. She kind of looked like an older version and had that rattlesnake eye look that Hillary has when she is going for the kill shot. They could not have picked a better actress. As phenomenal in Deep Space Nine as she was as Nurse Ratchet.

          Furthermore, Kai Winn would put on a big smile while completely destroying someone verbally. Hillary had that same look down perfectly – the best example was when she was calling Tulsi Gabbard a Russian agent.

          It is not just me. My nephews were over at the house watching Deep Space Nine with their parents a few weeks ago – and the 9 year old stated, “Wow, Kai Winn looks and acts just like Hillary.”

          We can only hope that Hillary may one day share a similar fate as Kai Winn did in the show. It would do wonders for our national morale. That show was quite unusual for serial sci fi TV in that at the end everyone got what they deserved. It was a very satisfactory conclusion.

          Reply
      2. midget

        Here is a translation of a telegram post by Alexei Chadayev (a former Putin speechwriter, telegram @chadayevru) on the Russian class of “people with shining faces”. It is honestly one of the best descriptions of a government “by the People for the People”, and why Putin causes liberal-internationalists everywhere to start foaming at the mouth.

        What is the main difference between Ukraine and Russia in the post-Soviet period of history? The main thing is that at least twice – in 2004 and in 2014 – the power in and even the “geopolitical course” of Ukraine have changed under the dictates of the political “street”. This has never happened in Russia. The political “street” is not the “majority” or the “will of the people.” It is the will of a passionate, organized and motivated metropolitan minority, orchestrated by elite clans – through money, media and “humanitarian influence” (the NGO machine). In other words, it is a state where this “elitorate” – monetary, political, media and last but not least criminal – has its share in power, and it conceptualizes itself as nothing less than “civil society”. “It’s not the people, it’s worse than the people — it’s the best people in the city.” The fact that they often go directly against the interests and aspirations of the majority, not only does not stop them, but does the exact opposite – pissants should not have a voice, no matter how many of them there may be.
        In this sense, Ukrainianism is, first of all, the idea of the state as existing in the interests of an active minority, “the worthiest people”. Moreover, the criteria for why some are “the worthiest people”, and others are pissants, are always determined by the worthies amongst themselves: for this there is a developed ethic of “handshakeworthiness” and “comment-il-faut” with the cruelest cancelling of renegades. “Democracy” is understood, firstly, as a continuous and expensive propaganda campaign to impose on the unwashed masses initially alien views on life, and secondly, the regular “alternation of power”, understood as a release of tension: the cycle “came to power – stole enough – exposed – removed – carry the next” and so on ad infinitum. At the same time, the possibility of “not stealing” is excluded – since the state, by definition works for “the worthiest people”, and not for the pissants, anyone who tries to behave not according to the template is a violator of the convention.
        Thus, if Heidegger understood Dasein as “for-oneself-being”, then the construct “for-oneself-state” is included: Daseinstaat. Ukraine was supposed to be a kind of benchmark for Russia, too, the “beautiful Russia of the future.” And Putin’s period is a kind of reversal: they came, they stole, but they do not want to leave like decent people ought to, the bastards; and they don’t want to listen to the “conscience of the nation either”, and instead think they’re better than us.

        If one makes the appropriate changes, one understands the rage over Brexit and Trump, and the terawatts of hate emitted towards Putin, who is not only a pissant, but a Russian (i.e., not Western) pissant, and not only a Russian pissant, but a Russian pissant who is beating the Possessors of Grace.

        Reply
        1. Lambert Strether Post author

          > The political “street” is not the “majority” or the “will of the people.” It is the will of a passionate, organized and motivated metropolitan minority, orchestrated by elite clans – through money, media and “humanitarian influence” (the NGO machine). In other words, it is a state where this “elitorate” – monetary, political, media and last but not least criminal – has its share in power, and it conceptualizes itself as nothing less than “civil society”. “It’s not the people, it’s worse than the people — it’s the best people in the city.” The fact that they often go directly against the interests and aspirations of the majority, not only does not stop them, but does the exact opposite – pissants should not have a voice, no matter how many of them there may be.

          Acute. And correct, at least for the pink pussy hats. Not correct for the Capitol rioters, who were petty bourgeoisie/American gentry, and not “metropolitan.”

          The elite clans notion is important, too. From the perspective of doping out elite networks, it’s really unfortunate that bourgeois feminism did away with the custom of wives taking their husband’s last names; we cannot immediately know or suspect that Nuland is a member of the Kagan clan, for example. And official Washington is peppered with power couples who, being married, are conflicted.

          Reply
    2. BeliTsari

      I’d remembered DSM V removal of her icon beside NPD/ BPD, during her first run? They really were like Inuit having no single word for snow? I’m guessing folks are SEEING Bernie’s role as perpetual fantasy delusion to keep proletarian victims LOTE-ing for senile, neoConfederate klepocrat zombies & installing multinational oilgarch puppets? How many of us, old enough to remember Goldwater Girl, will survive through 2024?

      Reply
  4. Wukchumni

    Is this a nomination which I see before me,
    The votes toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee.
    I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
    Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
    To feeling as to sight? or art thou but
    A dagger of the mind, a false creation,
    Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?
    I see thee yet, in form as palpable
    As this which now I draw.

    Reply
    1. flora

      LADY MACBETH
      Out, damned spot! out, I say!—One: two: why,
      Then, ’tis time to do’t.—Hell is murky!—Fie, my
      Lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we
      Fear who knows it, when none can call our power to
      Account?—

      / ;)

      Reply
  5. Lou Anton

    Thank you Lambert for doing what I couldn’t do…reading the whole interview. When FT came out on Saturday, the front page had the “losing our democracy” quote across the top. I figured it could only get worse from there.

    And the Polish waiter interjecting: how contrived! I wonder if the jittery handler orchestrated the setup for that one.

    Reply
    1. nippersdad

      It sounds like a transparent attempt at getting a Friedman cab driver of one’s very own to point out how you have the pulse of the nation within your grasp.

      Reply
      1. Late Introvert

        A phony story that shows she cares more what some random Polish person thinks than she does citizens of the US. So glad I didn’t vote for her…. oh, wait. Sorry world! I did learn from my mistake and can gladly report no vote(s) for Slow Mo Joe.

        Reply
        1. Michael Ismoe

          If that waiter did what she says, there would have been a new waiter before the entree was served.

          Reply
          1. ambrit

            I worked as busboy and later waiter in a top class restaurant in New Orleans and I agree with you. That waiter would have been, at the best, back in the kitchen peeling spuds for the legumier for the rest of the week.
            I always shelled out a few bucks for the kitchen staff at the end of my shift, (not always mandatory back then.) I thought of it as a peace offering to the chefs. It saved my a–e several times when a chef would step in and do something ‘special’ for one of my customers. I’m thinking of the time I had a table of college professors from Loyola and a visiting specialist in Zen suddenly mentioned that he was a vegeterian. This at a place known for it’s seafood and steaks sourced from an ‘artisinal’ cattle ranch. (They were around way back then.) The sous chef really helped me out by cooking up a special asparagus dish, (not what you might be thinking of, as in not involving special sauces,) that the Zen acolyte devoured and asked for more of. Later, the sous chef wryly told me that the professor had thus eaten the portion that had been cooked for himself too. I tipped out the kitchen big time that night.

            Reply
        2. nippersdad

          I wonder if the State Department got the Ukrainian memo to deport all men of serviceable(!) age to protect us from the Russian hordes. He may not end up thanking her for placing him in such a high profile article.

          But, as Madeleine once said, “Losing good waiters is a high price to pay, but we think it is worth it.” Or something along those lines. Hopefully they will manage to get through brunch without him.

          Reply
      1. JBird4049

        Just shows how much of a fool Clinton is as Kissinger is a vile, evil man guilty of crimes against humanity; he is also highly experienced, far more capable than the other fools, and from the very little I figure out both wants the United States and its satrapies to “win,” and he does not want the world to burn. I guess keeping the grift and maintaining that façade of angelic stewardship while shiving those trying to rise above their station or to be something other than a vampiric squid ghoul
        is more important than having an effective adviser.

        Reply
  6. Henry Moon Pie

    ” So, avoiding “disruption” is the ultimate value?”

    I would be a sacrilege to disrupt a system running with such efficiency and beneficience.

    Reply
  7. flora

    Thanks, Lambert. It feels to me like I’ve lived long enough to see the rise and fall of a particular political/economic philosophy – neoliberalism. (Jeez, I’m old.) I hear Hillary has said she won’t run in 2024.

    (By the way, did anyone get a copy of the lunch receipt? / heh)

    Reply
    1. ambrit

      “I hear Hillary has said she won’t run in 2024.”
      Didn’t anyone think to get it in writing? And notarized?

      Reply
      1. drumlin woodchuckles

        I’m not so sure. I hope she doesn’t. But I fear she may.

        Maybe Kamoolah Harris will run. And Hillary will be her VP running mate.

        Reply
  8. ChrisRUEcon

    #SansWaders

    … since you’ve done the dirty work! LOL

    > It’s such a piece of unfinished business.”[3]

    LOL … what would this entire farce be without a trial ballon (of sorts), good sir? She can’t let it go … and she’s always looking towards her team in the crowd, like a tennis player getting helplessly blown out at love.

    >It would be very disruptivet[3] to challenge that.”

    Yep, leaving the key under the back doormat. Can totally see her running if Biden does not, rendering her “disruptive” excuse moot.

    > He [Kissinger] values his relationship with Putin so much[2].”

    LOL … #OMG … Putin! Putin! Putin! How pathetic! Out-warmongering Kissinger (albeit that he’s 98!) is a helluva trick to pull … Jeeeeeeeez.

    *

    > Lambert: … what kind of party is it that will say or do anything to “win the next election”? A losing party, I would say.

    Yep! Paid to lose …

    > Lambert: It does seem that fear is what primary motivates Democrats, at least in public (greed being a private matter)

    Fear is the carrot … Greed is the stick

    > I notice that she did not bring an actual one, an omission still viewed askance in some circles.

    Yep … chef’s kiss (my ass) from Hill as she saunters out cheers of recognition. Silly rabbit! Rules are for proles!

    The big question still remains – is Biden gonna run or not?! Dude forgot how to stop a bike and stand this weekend … how long before his brain is too much mush to juice up? Hill’s always there, biding her time. I give zero credence to her “out of the question” response. Her tell was the “unfinished business” part. Unless the big money has conceded that she’s too toxic to run, it’s still a possibility. Kamala’s a dud, ButtItItch same. If Biden falters, Bernie will want to run again, but I don’t think he’ll amass the same support as 2020. Eric Adams has the ambition and the dossier Centrists like … so … let’s see who gets summoned out the Hamptons first.

    Thanks for the write-up, Lambert!

    Reply
    1. JustTheFacts

      LOL … #OMG … Putin! Putin! Putin! How pathetic! Out-warmongering Kissinger (albeit that he’s 98!) is a helluva trick to pull … Jeeeeeeeez.

      Here we compare RealPolitik versus EgoPolitik…

      Reply
    2. Lambert Strether Post author

      > If Biden falters, Bernie will want to run again, but I don’t think he’ll amass the same support as 2020.

      I don’t think he will. And I don’t think he should. Even if the bench is weak, which it is, it’s time to give them some playing time on the field.

      Reply
      1. drumlin woodchuckles

        I hope Sanders does not run. He does not have the essential meanness and flesh-eating blood hunger to be an effective President. Or even Nominee.

        He showed that by failing to “verbally concuss” Biden in that debate when he had the chance . . . a wide open ” lethal head-shot” not taken, because Biden was his “good friend”.

        Reply
    3. DJG, Reality Czar

      ChrisRUEcon

      When I read this:

      and how often I’m reading something like a work of fiction set in modern times and 2016 is a traumatic event[2] — it’s almost eschatological. It is a break in history. It’s such a piece of unfinished business.”[3]

      [1] This says a lot about the bubble Clinton lives in; a large part of the country doesn’t feel this way at all.

      And I see “eschatalogical” (che Iddio ci protegga from Americans with eschatology), plus “a break in history” (what, a badly managed electoral campaign isn’t Constantine winning the Battle of the Milvian Bridge).

      So I sez to myself: She’s completely off her nut.

      Which means: She’s running.

      Reply
  9. Lex

    Thanks, Lambert. Talk about an unhygienic lifestyle, mining FT pieces for Clinton statements is an exposure group for the intellectual equivalent of black lung disease.

    She is really the worst. Part of me hopes she decides to run again for some reason and loses again, because at least then she’d spend her golden years feeling like a failure. It doesn’t matter how hygienic her bubble is or how much she blames everyone but herself, she knows she could have been president but isn’t.

    Reply
    1. YankeeFrank

      If she doesn’t feel like a failure after losses to a black dude with the middle name Hussein and then Donaldo Trumpo…

      She will only run a third time if the deep state can guarantee her a victory. Either that or if she can wrestle the nuclear football out of Biden’s bony hands and nuke the world to teach it you don’t cross Hilldawg thrice.

      Reply
  10. LawnDart

    If you survived this post, retraumatized by suppressed memories of… …her… and finding yourself hugging the toilet, you deserve to read this and to then heal yourself appropriately:

    Lager beer, whether it contains alcohol or not, could help men’s gut microbes

    In a pilot study, researchers in ACS’ Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry report that compared to their pre-trial microbiome, men who drank either one alcoholic or non-alcoholic lager daily had a more diverse set of gut microbes, which can reduce the risk for some diseases.

    https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2022/acs-presspac-june-15-2022/lager-beer-whether-it-contains-alcohol-or-not-could-help-mens-gut-microbes.html

    Reply
  11. jake

    Well, jeez, I lived in Britain 4 years and was poor enough to eat my share of chips. It never occurred to me that they were anything other than a variety of what we Yanks used to call “french fries”.

    Here’s also a vote forgiving Hillary her apocalyptic reading of current affairs. Political analysis which can’t permit itself to acknowledge even that much, notwithstanding the source of the claim, is a wilderness perhaps better left unbroached.

    Reply
    1. Yves Smith

      I was staggered by Hillary not knowing what chips in fish and chips are. How can you be THAT unobservant? Photos of them show up in all sorts of places. If you look at the images of this dish, you might first think that the chips are the fish (as in they look like American fish sticks), then you work out that no, there’s fish that looks like fish on the plate, so the fried brown rectangular thingies are the “chips” and they don’t look at all like our potato chips.

      Reply
      1. PlutoniumKun

        It reminds me of the story of Tony Blairs hatchet man Peter Mandelson being shown around the working class safe Labour seat constituency he was being parachuted into. He went with his handlers into a fish and chip shop, chatted to the locals, ordered his fish and chips, and then pointed to the tub of mushy peas. ‘I’ll have some of that avocado dip please’, he ordered.

        Reply
  12. Punxsutawney

    So funny that She complains about us losing our democracy, and voters being turned away. But per the DNC testimony in defense of their 2016 primary lawsuit, they can do whatever, and chose whomever they want as a presidential candidate. Clearly democracy only applies to those Neoliberals that the Democratic Party wishes it to.

    The primaries are just window dressing for those already chosen. Also, no mention of the corrupting influence of big $ in the primaries, or elections either.

    Reply
    1. digi_owl

      Perhaps why Trump rankled them so much. As he bypassed all the pomp and circumstance by funding it all himself. And that, mixed in with him speaking about economic issues (though promising the impossible in the process), gave a “middle finger” of sorts to DC formalities and decorum. The same kind of decorum that Clinton et al wield as a weapon. And the same decorum that was so tarnished recently. Congress has really become a forbidden city…

      Reply
    2. LifelongLib

      I’d be OK with parties picking their own candidates if we had more parties to pick from. And when I compare the candidates of the last 50 years to those of the previous 150, it’s hard to believe that primaries give us a better bunch than the old smoke-filled rooms did. Maybe the wire pulling and deal making were better selectors than looking good on TV.

      Reply
      1. digi_owl

        In the end what is busted is the campaign financing.

        That is why only someone like Trump, who has cash of his own to torch, can really rankle their bones.

        Reply
    3. drumlin woodchuckles

      Only the Democratic Primaries are window dressing for the already chosen.

      The Republican Primaries are real primaries. Trump showed us that by #1: winning and by #2: destroying the chosen Jeffie-poo Bush on the way to winning.

      If Sanders wanted to conduct a bit of mischievous political performance art, he could try running in all the Republican primaries as a Republican . . . . unless the Republicans can keep him out of their primaries.

      Reply
  13. XXYY

    CLINTON: “We are standing on the precipice of losing our democracy.

    This is actually true, I think, if we understand the technical mean meaning of the word democracy in US political discourse. The technical meaning is a system where US elites run things. This is how we can read that the US is supporting a tyrant or an autocrat in the name of democracy, or one or another hellhole is a “fledgeling democracy” when shutting down elections or whatever. It’s also how the US itself is a “democracy” even when US electoral candidates are privately financed by the rich.

    In this (widely accepted) sense, the US is on the precipice of losing it’s “democracy” as our empire continues to collapse and other countries and economic spheres rise to the fore.

    Reply
    1. Big River Bandido

      I think you bored in on the wrong word. The key word to parse in Clinton’s sentence is “our”.

      Reply
      1. John

        Given the state of congress, gridlocked, pusillanimous, leaving it to the executive to initiate legislation, the President has become by desire and default the key actor in the government since FDR. Hence, this paraphrase from a Gore Vidal novel. The government has become a presidential dictatorship in which we get to change the dictator on occasion but not the dictatorship itself. I find that rather apt.

        Reply
  14. Elizabeth

    This woman lives in a delusional world. Wonder what the unfinished business is that she refers to? Of course she’ll run again to save “our democracy.” The part about the waiter interjecting himself is so contrived, just like the chips she thought they were potato chips. Hillary needs professional help to deal with her messianic, narcissistic, and psychopathic personality. On top of that she’ a horrible human being

    Reply
  15. Librarian Guy

    Thank you for this piece. I laughed with such mad glee just reading the headline/link I nearly shot snot out of my nose! & your artful dissection of the piece did not disappoint. Too much to comment on, really, beyond what you caught, but a few things that engaged me were HRC’s hypocrisy on the R’s desire to end gay marriage– something she virulently opposed for years, including the pathetic speech where she repeated “I believe marriage is sacred between a man and a woman” ad nauseum, as if social policy should be determined by personal (or majority) prejudices. Also of course “horrible” things happened in 2016, her tragedy of not being crowned as expected obviously the worst!! I think her solution to this will be Joe stepping aside and Herself belatedly assuming the crown she so deserves . . . about as likely a “success” as the “prosperity & democracy for the Iraqis” her Neocon class promised for that wondrous, blood-soaked war she went all in for. Versailles’ court had its scribes & courtiers, it’s great that as the American Empire crashes and burns someone like the Hillary is out there to unreflectively spout her entitled fantasies, so future historians can scratch their heads & wonder how the Plebs ever stood by passively and accepted such Rulers.

    Reply
  16. digi_owl

    The lady will burn the world to nuclear cinders, just to prove that girlboss is best boss.

    Makes you wonder if Bill did the deed back then to spite the real ruler of the white house.

    Reply
  17. Lemmy Caution

    >Pulling on my yellow waders for Hillary Clinton…

    Perhaps muck boots would be more appropriate attire.

    Reply
  18. Michael Ismoe

    “If Trump had won in 2020 he would have pulled out of NATO — I have no doubt about that.”

    By 2024, Trump will be quoting her in his ads.

    Reply
      1. The Rev Kev

        Why is it that when I see the word ‘float’ and Hillary Clinton together, that I immediately think of Pennywise the Clown.

        Reply
  19. orlbucfan

    Ugh! I worked Sanders’ 2016 campaign so I had a front row seat to how corrupt, stupid, and underhanded, the DNCrooks/$hrill was. A barf/diarrhea bag is much needed.

    Reply
  20. Mike Elwin

    Well, there’s more than one Hilary-hater here. Of course she lives in a delusional world, every powerful or wealthy person does, why else put up with all the attendant bullshit. But if her defeat and Trump’s election aren’t a break in our history, I don’t know what would be.

    Reply
  21. The Vole

    HClinton cant ever leave at at a “simple No”, whether it is:
    ——————-
    “You don’t believe that Senator Obama’s a Muslim?” Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

    “Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that,” she replied.

    “You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not…a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s…,” Kroft said.

    “No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said.
    ——————-

    OR …

    REPORTER: “Could you imagine running again, I ask.”

    CLINTON: “No, out of the question. First[1] of all, I expect Biden to run. He certainly intends to run[2]. It would be very disruptivet[3] to challenge that.”

    Reply
      1. The Vole

        >Hillary Clinton is very Nixonoid.
        >Her non-accusatory accusation/ accusatory non-accusation there is pure Nixon in form.
        >
        Hmm, possibly. Although I dont think HRC 2022 would embrace this Nixon-form:

        ‘Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.’

        Reply
  22. Sandra Ericson

    Yves, I am ending my newsletter feed — reading all this B.S. from so many weird men about a woman who opposed Trump is the last straw. None of them took the risk. In the time I have subscribed, it seems as through the bell curve has gone to the downside here.

    Reply
    1. drumlin woodchuckles

      You conveniently overlook how Clinton and the DemParty conspired to cheat Sanders out of the nomination. He was ready to oppose Trump.

      Your support for the very weakest and most widely hated and despised of all the possible DemParty candidates is very telling.

      (I guess you can sense that I don’t care about the Tiffany Glass Ceiling when I have Cinder Block Ceilings of my own.)

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *