1
   

Democratic National Convention Autopsy

 
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 06:16 pm
@giujohn,
There tax forms are publicly available. Why don't you check that yourself?
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 06:20 pm
@maxdancona,
Where pray tell will I find the transcript of all the speeches she gave you know the ones where she talked for 20 minutes and got $250,000?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 06:46 pm
@giujohn,
See... you can find the answer to your own question if you try.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 06:47 pm
The point is that the DNC is the first step in shutting down Trump hard (and pushing back the conservative movement at the same time).

You will see the polls confirm this next week. The time where White Supremacy can win elections is now past.
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 09:08 pm
@maxdancona,
Yes of course... Hillary being the third black president... We all know that bill was the first Berry was the second so that means Hillary's the 3rd.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 09:32 pm
@giujohn,
You say that as if it is a bad thing. I don't see anything wrong with a Black president, and I think Barack was the best of the three.
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 10:21 pm
@maxdancona,
I don't think history will agree with you. At best if he's lucky they will say he had a mediocre presidency... And I'm being extremely kind with the word mediocre.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 10:24 pm
@giujohn,
History has been very kind with the Bill Clinton administration. The economy was great. His approval ratings are high. This is in spite of the Monica Lewinsky scandal where the Republicans overplayed their hands and got beaten.
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2016 10:26 pm
@maxdancona,
Being the first black president and a Democrat at that, history will ask, was the black community any better off because of his presidency... The answer would be no they're actually worse off than they were.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2016 04:32 am
@maxdancona,
I thought it quite ineteresting how, fter all these years of single ownership by the GOP, the Dem party has been able to easily recapture the use of things like patriotism and freedom. The GOP has only itself to blame. Tying its near future to the coattails of a little narcissistic demagogue is actually a natural arc of the conservative wing of the party.

Gooeys head's gonna explode like a fresh egg in a microwave..
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2016 06:21 am
@farmerman,
Recaptured patriotism? If you mean they had to be shamed into a display of patriotism then you got it right. Additionally recaptured denoted that at one point they had it... Which we all know is total bullshit. On the first night of the convention not one American flag but we did see the Palestinian flag flying ...they had to be shamed into flying the flag subsequently. Hint... Don't try to rewrite history when it's only been 3 days... try waiting a little longer and you might find it easier to float such bullshit.
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2016 08:47 am
POLICY & POLITICS


The question I hope everyone who booed Hillary Clinton at the DNC asks themselves
And no, it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
Updated by Dara Lind on July 30, 2016, 1:00 p.m. ET @DLind [email protected]


Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty
PHILADELPHIA — I was there, in the arena of the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia, when a woman accepted the nomination of a major American political party for president. But don’t envy me for witnessing history, because that’s not really how it felt.

To people watching Hillary Clinton’s Democratic National Convention speech on TV, like my colleague Dylan Matthews, “The first speech as nominee of the first woman nominated by a major party was always going to be a moment. And sure enough, Clinton delivered [...] She nailed it.”


She delivered the speech fluidly. The crowd’s enthusiasm seemed to boil over spontaneously into chants of “HIL-LA-RY!.” The speech ended with a spectacle that included not only more balloons than Bill Clinton or anyone else had ever seen, but fireworks.

But in the arena, Clinton couldn’t hold the audience; it wasn’t hers to hold. There were just too many pockets of dissent and rejection.

Chants of “No more war!” and “No TPP!” felt liable to erupt at any moment. The back of the California delegation booed for 20 or 30 seconds at a time.

What sounded on TV like oddly-timed “Hillary” and “USA!” chants were usually attempts by Clinton supporters to drown out attempted disruptions. In the arena, you’d hear a buzzing undercurrent for a few seconds, then an over-strident “Hillary!” chant surge dutifully to meet it.


Pockets of Bernie Sanders supporters in Day-Glo T-shirts refused to participate in the “card stunt” at the end of the speech. Cards distributed to audience members was supposed to turn the audience into a living bunting of red and white; it ended up looking like an awning someone had tried to deface with a highlighter.


The interruptions weren’t constant, but they were frequent enough. Even after one round of boos subsided, it was hard to return attention to the speech instead of bracing for the next one. The arena never felt uncontrolled, in the literal sense. But despite the amount of energy the Democratic Party poured into the spectacle, the dissenters managed to signal-jam the vibe.

The Democrats wanted transcendence. But politics is about dissent.
It’s ironic that Clinton’s speech felt a lot more momentous on television than it did to those of us who were in the room. (And I can’t help but feel bad for the delegates who’ve exhausted themselves for months, only to see or hear less of the speech than their less-invested peers who were watching at home.) But in a way, it’s fitting.

It’s often true in politics that things that look very smooth and unified from a distance are actually, up close, the result of a lot of scuffling and scratching: a coalition held together with athletic tape and bruises.

As others have pointed out, Democrats’ convention presented democracy as a kind of civic religion; it was designed to give everyone watching at least one reason to feel proud to be American. It was brilliant stagecraft. Hillary Clinton is not a candidate who inspires the ecstasy we’ve seen this year at rallies for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump; her party built up an ecstasy around her.


(Stan Honda/AFP/Getty Images)
It made sense as a declaration, over the next three months, of a unified threat against Donald Trump; it was not in any way a coherent expression of who the party will be if Trump fails. At a certain point, it will have to choose between the patriotism of the Chamber of Commerce lobbyist who spoke against Trump on Thursday and the patriotism of the Sanders supporters who Clinton, and everyone else, bent over backwards to praise.

Actual politics is about making choices. It is about dissent. Things only happen because people disagree and someone wins.

For eight years, we’ve had a president whose rhetoric, almost to a fault, always emphasized unity and endorsed the middle path between two competing extremes. But the things he’s done of consequence are the result of fights his side won. And Obama and his administration, in turn, have been pressured to change along with the rest of society — in how it views same-sex couples, transgender people, unauthorized immigrants, black communities’ relationships with the police — by activists challenging the status quo.

It’s impossible to say, especially after the last several years, that dissent and disruption — whether it’s Black Lives Matter activists blocking intersections, or Lt. Dan Choi chaining himself to the White House fence to protest “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — don’t work as tactics. It feels inappropriate, honestly, to get mad when a political event is interrupted by a reminder of how politics actually works.

Clinton’s going to continue to be challenged from the left — but she’s shown she responds to strategic demands
So far, the media has characterized dissenters within the Democratic Party as Bernie Sanders supporters. So far, that’s made sense. Sure, Clinton formally defeated Sanders during the roll call vote on Tuesday, but hundreds of delegates had come to Philadelphia for the purpose of supporting Sanders over the course of the week.

After this week, that won’t make much sense. Opposition to Hillary Clinton, from the left or right, is going to be about opposition to Hillary Clinton. (Support for another candidate, like Jill Stein, isn’t necessarily about Clinton — but protesting Clinton rallies with Stein signs is.)


Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty
It’s going to continue. Maybe not over the next few months, during the general election (though maybe so). But definitely after the election. Winning for Clinton doesn’t mean her leftist dissidents will go away. The American public may like Hillary Clinton better when she’s holding office than running for it, but activists of all stripes have been aware from the start that they’re going to have to mobilize to pressure a President Hillary Clinton to do right by them.

There were times during the Obama administration when it was fair to assume he’d be interrupted during a big public speech: before the repeal of DADT during his first two years; before he implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for young unauthorized immigrants in 2012.

Whenever it happened, you could almost feel Obama stiffen in annoyance. President Obama usually believes he’s doing something (or not doing it) because it’s the right thing to do; that always makes it hard not to take a heckler personally.

But in private, he more or less acknowledged it worked. In meetings with progressive activists, Obama often tells a story about Franklin Delano Roosevelt telling labor leader A. Philip Randolph, "I agree with you, now go out and make me do it." Ironically, FDR probably never said that — but Obama's use of it reflects how he himself understands politics. And when pressured enough, on immigration or the Keystone XL pipeline, he delivers.

Hillary Clinton has also shown that she can be made to do it. She's a transactional politician; her biggest selling point is that she can deliver things to her constituents. If her constituents demonstrate that she'd better show an awareness of mass incarceration to earn their trust, she'll call for criminal justice reform and become the first nominee to use the phrase "structural racism" when speaking to a primetime convention audience.

Is there anything Hillary Clinton can do to redeem herself to you?
Here’s the thing, though, about working to get a politician to move to the left (or in any other direction): when the politician tells you what you want to hear, and supports a policy to pander to you, that’s a victory. It doesn’t matter whether they actually believe the sentiment. It matters that they know you believe the sentiment, and they’ve decided the most important thing is to do what you want.

That usually means that the most effective activists in this style make clear demands of politicians about what they want to see, and then praises the politician when it happens.

When Bernie Sanders was asked to say that black lives matter, and did — and started name-dropping Sandra Bland in speeches — that was a victory. The activists who’d criticized Sanders and his campaign acknowledged and praised it (even while remaining annoyed with some Sanders supporters).

Compare that with, say, Code Pink — which is very good at interrupting speeches, but less good at articulating what it is asking politicians to do (beyond ending war). It’s worth noting that, by the end of the week in Philly, the loudest and most constant protests in the arena were from antiwar protesters even though Sanders barely touched on foreign policy in his campaign (another indication that ultimately, this is about Hillary Clinton).

If you believe that Hillary Clinton is a fundamentally corrupt politician in a fundamentally corrupt system, this makes sense. In fact, Clinton’s willingness to tell you what you want to hear merely confirms your thesis that she’s insincere and not to be trusted. But at that point, your problem is not with the things that Hillary Clinton is saying or not saying — it’s with Clinton herself.

At a certain point, moving a politician to the left is not the goal anymore. The goal is to demonstrate that the politician is illegitimate. When protesters interrupt speeches as part of a pressure campaign, the interruption is usually finite; they know they’ll make their point and be escorted out. Constant booing and chanting doesn’t communicate a discrete point; rather, it delegitimizes the politician, and the whole pageant. (Think of the Chicago protesters who successfully shut down a Donald Trump rally before it began.) Breaking the spell of the Democrats’ convention stagecraft was a goal itself; it exposed the whole thing as a sham.

Denying a politician’s legitimacy is a very, very big deal. You can no more be half-legitimate than half-pregnant; you can’t make fine distinctions between two illegitimate politicians (or rather, you can make them in your head, but you shouldn’t be surprised when you fail to communicate them clearly).

It’s essentially a call for revolution. And if the revolution fails to materialize, it’s just an expression of belief that it should.

This is the question that left dissenters need to ask themselves about Hillary Clinton, if they haven’t already: is there anything that Hillary Clinton can do to redeem herself to you?

If there isn’t, you can continue to protest her existence, but don’t be upset if she doesn’t respond — you wouldn’t accept a response if you got it.

If there is, figure out how you can make her do it — especially (if she is elected) in January. You won’t be alone. In fact, you might be surprised to see that some of the people who supported Clinton in 2016 are right alongside, waiting to remind her of what she owes
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2016 09:18 am
@giujohn,
I se the Kochs have washed their hands of Trump and publically too.

The Demd have retaken all the American values on the stump because Trump has made a mockery of them. Even his VP is distancing himself
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2016 09:34 am
@farmerman,
What you refuse to grasp is why regardless what Trump says or does his supporters do not leave him. It's about the status quo and Politics as Usual and political correctness... it's not about what the pundits say it's about the people's perception and between the two there is a huge divide... Make no mistake this election is about a movement a revolution... And you better get used to it because politics have changed.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2016 09:54 am
@Miller,
I thought you supported Clinton back in 2008 and during this years democrat primary? What changed your mind if you don't mind me asking?
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2016 10:01 am
@maxdancona,
The polls are already out, when you look at the race with all four candidates it's a statistical Dead Heat. Not that you should really put much Credence in the polls at this point. The debates May produce a more reliable indication but it will be interesting to see what will happen if the libertarian candidate achieves 15% and a place on the stage.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2016 10:16 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
I don't think so GiuJohn. This election isn't about Hillary. It could have been about Hillary... but it isn't.


Ezra Klein: This election isn’t just Democrat vs. Republican. It’s normal vs. abnormal.
Quote:

What we just witnessed in Cleveland and Philadelphia defies our normal political vocabulary. We are used to speaking of American politics as split between the two major parties. It’s Democrats versus Republicans, liberals versus conservatives, left versus right.

But not this election. The conventions showed that this is something different. This campaign is not merely a choice between the Democratic and Republican parties, but between a normal political party and an abnormal one.

The Democratic Party’s convention was a normal political party’s convention. The party nominated Hillary Clinton, a longtime party member with deep experience in government. Clinton was endorsed by Bernie Sanders, the runner-up in the primary. Barack Obama, the sitting president, spoke in favor of Clinton. Various Democratic luminaries gave speeches endorsing Clinton by name. The assembled speakers criticized the other party’s nominee, arguing that he would be a bad president and should be defeated at the polls.

That isn’t to say that Democrats didn’t show divisions or expose fault lines. They did. Political parties are chaotic things. The Democratic Party’s primary was unusually bitter, and listening to the loud "boos" of Sanders’s most committed supporters, there’s real reason to wonder whether Democrats will fracture in coming years. But for now, the Democrats nominated a normal candidate, held a normal convention, and remain a normal political party.

Republicans held an abnormal convention and nominated an abnormal candidate
The Republican Party’s convention was not a normal political party’s convention. The party nominated Donald Trump, a new member with literally no experience in government. Ted Cruz, the runner-up in the primary, gave a primetime speech in which he refused to endorse Trump, and instead told Americans to "vote your conscience."

The Republican Party’s two living presidents, George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush, declined to endorse Trump or attend the convention. The party’s previous two presidential nominees, Mitt Romney and John McCain, declined to endorse Trump or attend the convention. The assembled speakers — including Chris Christie, a prospective attorney general — argued that the other party’s nominee was a criminal who should be thrown in jail.

Even the normal parts of the convention felt abnormal. The prospective first lady’s speech included a passage plagiarized from the Democratic Party’s first lady. Trump counterprogrammed the first night of his own convention by doing a phone interview with Fox News and an hour-long discussion with the Golf Channel. He distracted from his running mate’s acceptance speech by telling the New York Times he would not automatically honor America’s commitments under the NATO treaty.

Trump’s speech was enthusiastically endorsed by David Duke, the former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. "Couldn’t have said it better," he tweeted.

Trump’s post-convention was even worse

The strangeness didn’t end with the convention. The next day — the very next day! — Trump gave a press conference in which he said Ted Cruz’s father was likely involved in the assassination of JFK, swore he wouldn’t accept Cruz’s endorsement even if it were offered, and argued that the National Enquirer deserved a Pulitzer Prize. It was one of the strangest and most self-destructive political performances in recent memory. The conservative Weekly Standard was left agog. The Republican Party’s nominee, Stephen Hayes wrote, "is not of sound mind."

Then, befitting the dignity we expect in our presidential aspirants, the Republican Party’s nominee spent his week live-tweeting the Democratic Party’s convention, with deep, thoughtful commentary like:

The invention of email has proven to be a very bad thing for Crooked Hillary in that it has proven her to be both incompetent and a liar!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2016

And:
Elizabeth Warren, often referred to as Pocahontas, just misrepresented me and spoke glowingly about Crooked Hillary, who she always hated!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2016

He followed that up with a press conference at which he blasted the job Tim Kaine had done in … New Jersey? Of course, Kaine was the governor of Virginia. Trump seems to have literally confused the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee with Tom Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey.

Unwilling to stop there, Trump went on to comment on the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s emails, which most experts think was conducted by Russia. "Russia, if you are listening, I hope you are able to find the 33,000 emails that are missing — I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press," he said.

Let’s stop there for a second: Donald Trump went out and asked a foreign government to conduct cyber espionage in order to help his campaign. His supporters initially tried to laugh it off as an ad-libbed joke, but then Trump tweeted the same thing. This came only hours after his running mate, Mike Pence, had warned of "serious consequences" if Russia truly was behind the DNC hack.

None of this is normal.

A new cleavage in American politics: normal versus abnormal
America’s main political cleavage is between the Democratic and Republican parties. That split has meant different things at different times, but in recent decades it primarily tracks an ideological disagreement: Democrats are the party of liberal policies; Republicans are the party of conservative policies.

But in this year’s presidential election, the difference is more fundamental than that: The Democratic Party is a normal political party that has nominated a normal presidential candidate, and the Republican Party has become an abnormal political party that has nominated an abnormal presidential candidate.


giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2016 10:24 am
@revelette2,
That very well may be... but you use the word abnormal as a negative commentary... And that's just your opinion... I much rather prefer to say that Trump is a different kind of candidate... prepare yourself for a different kind of president.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2016 11:45 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
...The Muslim father of a fallen hero who offered Trump his copy of the Constitution to read... what a burn! That is going to smart for a good while.

There seems to be an implication here that Mr. Trump has done or proposed something unc0nstitutional. I would like to hear what, specifically, that is.
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2016 01:17 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

maxdancona wrote:
...The Muslim father of a fallen hero who offered Trump his copy of the Constitution to read... what a burn! That is going to smart for a good while.

There seems to be an implication here that Mr. Trump has done or proposed something unc0nstitutional. I would like to hear what, specifically, that is.


On CNN today Mr Khan said the way that Donald Trump violated the Constitution was by disrespecting a gold star mother... He said that was in the Constitution... Having respect for gold star mother... I wish he would have cited which clause he was referring to... I think he's the one that needs to read the Constitution and I wonder which Democratic political hack gave them the copy of the Constitution just prior to him walking on stage.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/12/2021 at 08:39:46