I’m starting to think that Hillary is the best candidate that the Democrats could possibly run against Trump. He showed during the primaries that he could emasculate a wide range of governors and senators like the journeyman school -yard bully he is.
Bush, the wimpy rich kid; Little Marco, the short, sweaty little forensics kid; Christie, the fat kid; and, well, he just came out and called Carly an ugly girl.
And, looking back, what a bunch of terrible politicians. One of the good things about the extended American election campaign is that it sorts out who is tough enough to be president. I get that no one saw Trump coming, but I think that JFK, or Bill Clinton, or Reagan, or Obama, or even the first Bush could have handled this guy, because they were all cooler and tougher than the bully.
JFK, wealthy, handsome, war hero, dismissing him with an existential smirk. Reagan, “there-you-go-again-ing” him. Clinton, like he did with Bob Dole, walking over and leaning on Trump’s podium, maybe even covering the microphone, while he leans over and whispers a threat in Trump’s ear. Obama, like he’ll do this fall, the cool, smart kid making the other kids laugh at Trump.
Hillary doesn’t have the political skills of JFK, or Reagan, or Clinton, or Obama. But, unlike “little” Marco or Jeb!, she’s a tough customer. Go back and watch the last few hours of the Benghazi hearings if there’s any doubt about that. They came at her with everything they had for over 12 hours, and, to quote Robert Deniro in The Untouchables, “You have an all-out fight, you wait until the fight is over, one guy (or woman) is left standing. And that’s how you know who won.”
It’s kind of cute when reporters refer to Trump’s “war room” because he’s still just tweeting and doing phone calls from his bath tub. Yesterday, Trump reiterated his suggestions that Bill Clinton is a rapist and, in an interview with the Washington Post, resurrected insinuations that Bill and/or Hillary had a role to play in the death of Vince Foster.
This is all Trump’s got? A seventy-year old man’s thirty-year-old sexual indiscretions? Vince Foster? Even Gingrich didn’t go after this when it might have made a difference in 1993.
I’d remind Mr. Trump that voters knew all this stuff when they re-elected Bill in 1996. And, that Hillary’s approval ratings soared all through the Monica and Gennifer Flowers stories. She’s saving this one up for later in the campaign. That moment when, with dignity and disgust, this grandmother reminds the over-the-hill playboy that she doesn’t need him to lecture her about infidelity. We’ll put that moment up there with Lloyd Bentsen’s take down of Dan Quayle.
Hillary’s disapproval numbers by voters are already at 60%, historically bad for a presumptive nominee of a major party; except for the jackass who is the presumptive nominee for what we once called the Republican Party.
People have made their decisions about her a long time ago. She’s had millions of dollars spent over twenty-five years to destroy her. It’s going to take a lot more than tabloid-level insinuations from Donald Trump to take her down. She really might be the ideal person to take this guy down.
In at The End of The World 
Nice work — now the image of Trump tweeting from his tub is seared on my brain. Happily it’s a bubble bath.
I want to agree with this. So I do. And if you like the Benghazi hearings, check out another greatest hit, a golden oldie: Whitewater testimony. I can’t find it anywhere, but I swear I have a memory of seeing at least some clips when it happened, and I remember thinking “damn, this woman is good.” And that’s back when she was just a crazy kid!
LikeLike
I’ll be the dissenter. Can she take the heat from Trump? Yes. Can she give back as good as she gets? You betcha. Will she whip her base into a frothy cash-flowy rage? Hellz yeah. Can she win back disaffected voters whose lives have been wrecked economically by whatever? … Can she win young voters for whom 2008 and/or incarceration and/or welfare are the defining moments of their lives? … She’s well equipped to beat Trump, but ideal or the best? …
LikeLike
“…a frothy cash-flowy rage.”
LikeLike
I meant ideal in that she’s well equipped to beat Trump, as you note. Not the ideal candidate. That would be Obama.
“Incarceration?” “welfare?” “Defining moments of their lives?” Is this 1972?
LikeLike
Incarceration and welfare bubble up in BLM, emerging black writers, and a surprising number of young bloggers’ posts. I compare it to when my father died and we were collecting Social Security survivor benefits. Those benefits were cut dramatically in the reforms of the 80s and we had to make serious adjustments. It opened my eyes and prompted some activism. I was surprised how many fellow staffers and activists had similar experiences – it was like a secret society, and a touchpoint where life was diminished by politics that happened elsewhere. My situation was nothing compared to:
Fast forward to the late 90s and 2000s and you have a generation of kids (white and of color) who saw their lives change dramatically due to changes in AFDC (welfare) and the lengthy incarceration of a man in their family (incarceration). A particular subset was hit by both when the working women in their family had to carry the burdens of child care (or finding them a home for their kids with another woman in their family) and the work demands of the end of welfare. Not ancient history at all – though many Dems wish it were and they’re baffled like the Clintons when confronted about it as to why it’s so important. And defining moments that don’t end, given the difficulties incarcerated men have getting into a regular life.
This is by no means representative of the next/younger generation of activists, but I was surprised at the personal nature of welfare in this tussle:
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/21/11724298/bruenighazi-matt-bruenig-neera-tanden-demos
LikeLike
Yes, I’ve been following the Breunig matter too — I was following the *tone* of the Breunig vs. Joan Walsh thing before the whole thing blew up — and agree that well beyond Breunig himself, “carceral state,” “welfare reform,” and other 90’s references play huge in the tweets and blogging of the most passionate young activist intellectuals, some of whom are also high-powered academics. I’m not sure Laska’s link isn’t pretty representative, really (and having followed the whole thing closely, I have to say I find Yglesias’s ‘splain here pretty thorough and accurate). I find social media creates a space where people who are writing very smart, challenging stuff elsewhere code-switch into thin-skinned, meanspirited, ad hominem vituperation. And defend that tone as part of the activism. (“Geriatrics” like Walsh and Tanden are younger than me, so I can only observe that I’ve seen something like this sense of incredible license combined with incredible touchiness among some of the bright 20-somethings I’ve worked with in the business world. UPDATE: I also remember being a heedless young loudmouth with the gift of gab, so I have a weird, pained fellow feeling for Breunig.) Anyway, tone aside, I think Laska’s correct that in their own definitions, many young activists excited about the Sanders campaign define welfare reform and the crime bill as benchmarks of their political educations. They hate 90’s neoliberalism more than they hate anything else. And they’re very practiced, articulate haters.
LikeLike
I just like quoting other people: “And they’re very practiced, articulate h8ers.”
LikeLike
My original post had nothing to say about policy. Just that Hillary was likely immune to Trump’s abuse. I’m not sure that’s even a compliment: that she’s been in the mud so long that even a jackass like Trump can’t hurt her.
She’s far from my ideal candidate. And I’m all in on defending the welfare state and social safety net. The only reason I partly support gun ownership is that it’s not a bad idea to have a few of them at home the next time the GOP tries to privatize Social Security or turn Medicare into a voucher program.
And, I’m showing my generation gap(s) when I say that I had no idea that younger liberals see welfare reform and the crime bill as key moments in their own political development.
I guess I responded to Laska’s post because, if, at the end of eight years of our first black (o.k., half-black) president and the most liberal administration that we might possibly see again in our lifetimes, two of our leading issues are incarceration of black men and welfare . . . . that doesn’t feel like success to me. Or issues that help win any election.
Though, I would point out that there is a bi-partisan effort in congress to roll back a lot of the nineties era mandatory sentencing laws. They are that bad, that the House might actually do something about it. But, I don’t recall Obama expending any effort to roll back the Clinton welfare “reforms.” I’m just asking. I might have missed it if it was an executive order or something.
LikeLike
I don’t remember Obama doing any of that stuff either. A lot of these Sanders folk are anti-Obama too, as Sanders himself has been. But I think we got on this path because of the tactical question. Can HRC bring these people, alienated from party, the ’90s, and in many cases from Obama, jnto the tent? I guess possibly not, but
tactically, in order to be pretty ideally suited to withstanding the kind of attack T is already launching — the original topic — maybe she doesn’t have to.
LikeLike
“The only reason I partly support gun ownership is that it’s not a bad idea to have a few of them at home the next time the GOP tries to privatize Social Security or turn Medicare into a voucher program.” True. You might want to shoot yourself in the head, and the first gun might misfire.
LikeLike
Firearms, canned goods, bottled water, condensed milk. Oh, and wifi so that i can still get Netflix. Have I posted anything about the coming military coup? Not sure.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agreed on Obama.
I think I was responding to certain voter blocs that HRC will have trouble winning back and the word ideal. (I took it to mean best overall, not, as you mentioned, best-suited to handling the bullying braggadacio and bravado of Trump. You are absolutely right that nobody, outside of Obama, could take that kind of heat and then fight back hard.)
This thread is therapeutic for me in unraveling the swirls of anger around HRC/Sanders. HRC is in the tricky position of being connected to several controversial Presidential policies of previous administrations:
– she’s connected to 2008 by association with WJC’s financial de-regulation and directly by ongoing relationships with Goldman Sachs
– she’s connected to the crime bill by being a senior domestic policy advisor in the West Wing during the vote and one monumentally horrific public speech
– she’s connected to welfare reform by actively working on it and marking it as a source of pride in her memoir
Many HRC supporters dismiss these concerncs as: in the past, sexist (it was her husband, don’t be sexist!), or unintended/unknowable consequences. I would recommend that people who are confused by the heat she’s getting about the ‘super-predator’ line listen to the podcast “Another Round” where the hosts ask HRC directly about whether she owes the black community an apology.
My personal take is that the first and last thirds of the podcast show HRC to be a total badass, a role model for our daughters, and a warm, compassionate person with a lot to teach us all. The middle part – where she’s given a chance to address the real pains caused by the crime bill – is a total dud. Left the hostesses unmoved.
This is turning out to be a valuable thread (for me) because it helps explain something that is so exasperating to HRC supporters: “they’re not that different, why can’t they just vote for HRC already?” If you were damaged by 2008, incarceration, welfare changes they are very different – and it’s hard not to see her as active or complicit in those outcomes. It’s even harder to shake when you see WJC aggressively ____splaining all three things when he takes on the BLM protesters.
Last quick note, as we talk about deeper divides that the internet highlights and conceals. This election is marked by a couple of separations within groups:
– elected black officials and church leadership (HRC) || young black activists and a new generation of black intellectuals, plus Cornel West (Sanders)
– elected union leadership (HRC) || actual union members (Sanders)
– older voters (HRC) || younger voters (Sanders)
– people still recovering from 90s economy and 08 (Trump and Sanders, never HRC) || people who weren’t hit that badly (HRC)
– negatively impacted by incarceration or welfare changes (Sanders) || not impacted (HRC)
Too broad brush strokes to be sure, but I think these help unpack the (to some) maddening inflexibility of Sanders voters.
LikeLike
Great post. I think you nail the divisions within groups pretty accurately.
LikeLike