Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee

[Hanahope]

I'm sure trumpettes and faux news will snark and malign the Clintons no matter what they do, so I suppose its better to hold their head high and attend to tradition, with the hope that they can force Trump to do the same in 4 years (or god forbid 8), though I'm pretty sure Trump will use whatever excuse he can to not attend anyway.

[Spartan Girl]

Maybe she's going so she can laugh to herself how much of a shitshow the ball will turn out, with the lack of A-list entertainment and guests.

[izabella]

I'm glad Hillary Clinton is going to the inauguration.  Among other things, she is a former First Lady and belongs there.   But Hillary also has a lot to be proud of, including the support of millions of people who voted for her for President, and has no reason to hang her head or hide. 

Like her or not, agree with her or not, vote for her or not, she has earned her place in history as a leader, as a fighter, and as a representative of the potential women have to lead this country.  Her opponents threw everything and the kitchen sink against her, and she stood her ground and fought through it all, and gave me an opportunity to do something I'd never done before - vote for a female Presidential candidate with great qualifications who could do the job.  I'm 49 years old, so that's pretty cool to me.  It's meaningful to me. 

Lots of men lose elections.  When we have lots of women losing elections, it means lots of women keep running in elections, and that will mean lots of women will win elections, too.  Hillary kept on keeping on, and took it as far as she could.  Who's next? 

I know the media won't portray her as a leader and as someone who achieved something no other woman has in America, and they wont' talk about how meaningful that is to other women out there.  I know instead they will just talk about how hard it must be to be in her position at the inauguration as the candidate who lost, and that frustrates me.  It's too bad journalists - their media bosses - no longer have a sense of history, and of pride in their work, and have to turn historic events into a "reality" show for ratings. 

[stillshimpy]

7 minutes ago, izabella said:

Lots of men lose elections.  When we have lots of women losing elections, it means lots of women keep running in elections, and that will mean lots of women will win elections, too.  Hillary kept on keeping on, and took it as far as she could.  Who's next? 

 

Truly, and that's why it's actually really important that she does go.   If we have any kind of future in democracy here, it really is important for her to be seen as strong, unashamed, unbowed, unbroken....this is not the candidate that gets to be petty on any level.  God help the woman, she's clearly going to try and do one more thing for the team.  

[stormy]

Is Andrew Cuomo running for re-election?  I don't live in NY but I'd like to see Hillary run for governor. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by stormy

[stillshimpy]

56 minutes ago, stormy said:

Is Andrew Cuomo running for re-election?  I don't live in NY but I'd like to see Hillary run for governor. 

She can't ever run for a lesser office again, stormy.   She's spent her entire life in public service, she's going to have an eye on what this will mean to women who come after her.   She cannot be seen to run for a lesser office as if she has learned her place.   I mean, the woman has been through a lot to try and advance women, she can't compromise at this stage.   As horrible as it is to even contemplate, after all the flatly made-up shit she had to weather throughout this, she's going to care how this will look historically. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by stillshimpy

[stormy]

^^^   I agree, unhappily

[backgroundnoise]

I'm confident she will find a cause close to her heart and become a goodwill ambassador that will win the respect of the world, like Diana with her land mines or Carter with Habitat for Humanity.  She will go down in history much more favorably than will Trump, IMO.

To me, her biggest "flaw" in her campaign was to think too well of the people in the blue wall.  That we would appreciate not being lied to to or humored, and could actually read something longer than 140 characters.

[Chicken Wing]

13 minutes ago, backgroundnoise said:

To me, her biggest "flaw" in her campaign was to think too well of the people in the blue wall.  That we would appreciate not being lied to to or humored, and could actually read something longer than 140 characters.

You can tell that from the fact that the majority of her ads, the majority of her campaigning rhetoric, focused less on why she was the better choice and more on the many, many, maaaaaaaany reasons why Donald Trump was a bad choice. The strategy appeared to be to appeal to people's sense of reason. This is an inherently flawed proposition, as anyone who lives out in the real world at all would know very well that people have neither sense nor reason.

You know, I remember sitting with some family members in early fall and we were talking about the campaign and how ridiculous Trump and his "campaign" were and, dear God, could it be possible than he might actually win this thing? And my mom was like, "There's no way people can be that stupid." And I think that was the moment, the very first moment, where it dawned on me that me really might possibly actually win. Because of course people are that stupid. I didn't want to believe it really would happen. I thought, like most people, that it very likely wouldn't. I followed the data, the electoral math, the state polls. Those blue wall states she shockingly lost were the only ones whose polls were way off. It's funny, had those polls accurately showed how close the race was, she would have actually campaigned there, reached out to those people directly and might have turned enough of those voters around to hang on to the states. But she, and I and most everyone else, believed in the data, believed the science. We should have remembered that humans' inherent tendency toward stupidity trumps logic every time.

[Keepitmoving]

17 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

Truly, and that's why it's actually really important that she does go.   If we have any kind of future in democracy here, it really is important for her to be seen as strong, unashamed, unbowed, unbroken....this is not the candidate that gets to be petty on any level.  God help the woman, she's clearly going to try and do one more thing for the team.  

Yep, I agree.

 I'll watch the clips on the evening news just so I can see Hillary,  President Obama, and First Lady Michelle sign off. But I won't be watching  live. But I do agree, it is important that unbreakable Hillary show her face.  She, Obama and the rest of the former presidents are showing what patriotism looks like, and she's a true patriot. This is about the country we are trying to save and with that you try to save our institutions and our ceremonial procedures/customs, I get this and that's what they are doing by attending.  It's not about them, something that our soon to be 45th president will NEVER be able to grasp because he sure as hell is no patriot.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Keepitmoving

[Hanahope]

I think what is most annoying these days are so many of the details that have come out about Trump's business dealings in various locales over the world and the impact that certain political events have/will have on his businesses, and I'm wondering why so much of this information wasn't out there during the campaign.  I know parts of my family referred to 'crooked Hillary" and how she 'sold SOS access for donations to the Clinton Foundation", yet this is exactly what Trump is doing now, with selling access to him via his DC hotel, the planned resort in Indonesia, the connection to businesses in Turkey, etc.  Most of these things could have been raised during the campaign, but I don't recall hearing much, if anything, about it.  Sure, somethings perhaps couldn't be surmised previously, like how could we know he'd choose the head of Exxon, who has significant business dealings with Russia, to be the new SoS.  But others were more obvious.  I just feel that the Dems should have been hitting way harder than they did.

[Lana X]

13 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

I think what is most annoying these days are so many of the details that have come out about Trump's business dealings in various locales over the world and the impact that certain political events have/will have on his businesses, and I'm wondering why so much of this information wasn't out there during the campaign.  I know parts of my family referred to 'crooked Hillary" and how she 'sold SOS access for donations to the Clinton Foundation", yet this is exactly what Trump is doing now, with selling access to him via his DC hotel, the planned resort in Indonesia, the connection to businesses in Turkey, etc.  Most of these things could have been raised during the campaign, but I don't recall hearing much, if anything, about it.  Sure, somethings perhaps couldn't be surmised previously, like how could we know he'd choose the head of Exxon, who has significant business dealings with Russia, to be the new SoS.  But others were more obvious.  I just feel that the Dems should have been hitting way harder than they did.

I think they were talked about, but not enough. (emails. come on now)

Many just didnt think it would become a reality. sadly, we have learned the hard way. 

[Chicken Wing]

One of the few comments Stupidhead has said about his business conflicts was how it's no big deal, and the American people knew perfectly well that he was a wealthy individual who had a lot of businesses when they elected him. Well, yeah, sure, but they didn't really understand the issue about conflicts of interest, the Emoluments clause and how his business dealings in foreign countries present an obvious issue with his simultaneously governing the United States. Because none of that was ever brought up before Election Day. And yet polls since show that a majority believe Trump will not be able to separate his business life from the presidency and that his business interests will influence his decisions as president, and a near majority think that he should have to sell his business interests to avoid even the appearance of conflict. They voted for him knowing he had all of this business wealth, yes, but they expect him to do the right thing about it. He won't. And no one will make him.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Chicken Wing

[Bastet]

Quote

To me, her biggest "flaw" in her campaign was to think too well of the people in the blue wall.  That we would appreciate not being lied to to or humored, and could actually read something longer than 140 characters.

President Obama said, in an interview during his first few months in office, "The American people, I think, not only have a tolerance but also a hunger for explanation and complexity, and a willingness to acknowledge hard problems.  I think one of the biggest mistakes that is made in Washington is this notion you have to dumb down things for the public."  And I thought, "What a refreshing and lovely way for the president to think of the American people. Unfortunately, I'm almost certain you're wrong."

Edited January 6, 2017 by Bastet

[izabella]

12 minutes ago, Chicken Wing said:

One of the few comments Stupidhead has said about his business conflicts was how it's no big deal, and the American people knew perfectly well that he was a wealthy individual who had a lot of businesses when they elected him. Well, yeah, sure, but they didn't really understand the issue about conflicts of interest, the Emoluments clause and how his business dealings in foreign countries present an obvious issue with his simultaneously governing the United States. Because none of that was ever brought up before Election Day. And yet polls since show that a majority believe Trump will not be able to separate his business life from the presidency and that his business interests will influence his decisions as president, and a near majority think that he should have to sell his business interests to avoid even the appearance of conflict. They voted for him knowing he had all of this business wealth, yes, but they expect him to do the right thing about it. He won't. And no one will make him.

Those potential conflicts of interest become CORRUPTION the day he takes office.  I hope the Dems and the media call it out simply and clearly for what it is then:  CORRUPTION and GRAFT and BRIBES.

[Padma]

16 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

She can't ever run for a lesser office again, stormy.   She's spent her entire life in public service, she's going to have an eye on what this will mean to women who come after her.   She cannot be seen to run for a lesser office as if she has learned her place.   I mean, the woman has been through a lot to try and advance women, she can't compromise at this stage.   As horrible as it is to even contemplate, after all the flatly made-up shit she had to weather throughout this, she's going to care how this will look historically. 

I'm not sure.  (Not that I think she wants to run for anything again. She held her head high, but that loss--to Donald Trump in the EC--would be extremely painful.)

But, just in principle, I think she could if she wanted to. Why not?  Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960 and two years later ran for California governor. He lost there, too, and bitterly gave that speech to the press that "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore because I'm through with politics."

Six years later he ran again and won. (Then of course, later resigned in disgrace.  Then even later, made a political comeback as a Republican "wise man" that even Bill Clinton consulted with).

Of course, Nixon was a lot younger than Hillary when he lost to Kennedy. But if a man can lose and run for a lesser office, why shouldn't a woman feel free to do the same?

[stillshimpy]

13 minutes ago, Padma said:

But, just in principle, I think she could if she wanted to. Why not?  Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960 and two years later ran for California governor. He lost there, too, and bitterly gave that speech to the press that "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore because I'm through with politics."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because she's already been secretary of state, Padma.  She took two runs, eight years apart, at the highest elected office in the land.  If she runs for a lesser office, as the only woman to have ever actually stood a chance of winning the presidency, after holding a globally important appointment *  it can be too easily interpreted as accepting the limitations of gender. 

She might want to because she has spent her entire life in public service.  Her best bet would be another high-level appointment.   It's also complicated by the fact that she's married to a former president so having Bill Clinton be the first dude of a state, rather than a country after that is problematic for legacy reasons also.  It would look too much like defeat, on many levels.   Like downsizing for politics.  

If we'd already had a bunch of serious women contenders for the presidency, I agree, she could do it.   

If she hadn't already been secretary of state she could do it.   If she wasn't the spouse of a former president in combination with those things, yeah, it's still not likely after being secretary of state * and she will be judged by the fact that it was an appointment and then there are other concerns with that.   But anything she runs for now, will be because she could not be elected president and viewed that way. 

Nixon did not have anywhere near the kind of complicated and "I'm making historical points and setting precedents" kind of stuff to deal with and neither did the multiple run Reagan.   

Then there's one more thing, she can't fucking risk another loss.  She just can't without destroying everything she was trying to prove.  And before anyone thinks, "Oh this would be a guarantee...." Dude, this election the DNC practically anointed her.  She was running against....that...Thing....and if anyone has learned there are no guaranteed wins, it is poor Hillary Clinton. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by stillshimpy

[Padma]

Stillshimpy, you may be right. But Nixon had been VP so I don't know if SOS is that much different.

Overall, though, I think we're coming from the same place in one way--not wanting Hillary to be limited by gender or gender stereotyping applied to politics. If I were her, though, I wouldn't worry about Bill's role, or my having held an exec office before or "losing" (with an asterisk) twice for the presidency.  If I wanted to be governor, I'd run.

However, it's hard for me to think she'd want to do that. That campaign must be like an emotional sucker punch that I don't know if you'd ever fully get over enough to feel like getting "back in the fray".

A prestigious high-level appointment would be one thing, but of course, won't be coming from this group.

Or, just making the Clinton Foundation that kind of legacy that the Carter Foundation is. (It'd be something to see her and Bill receive a joint Nobel Peace Prize, if their impact was ever deemed significant to that level.)

[backgroundnoise]

1 hour ago, Chicken Wing said:

One of the few comments Stupidhead has said about his business conflicts was how it's no big deal, and the American people knew perfectly well that he was a wealthy individual who had a lot of businesses when they elected him.

Whenever Trump or one of his mouthpieces say something like this, it needs to immediately be turned around, as, "No, you ran for President knowing there was going to be a conflict and promised to do something about it."

They cannot make it sound like the American public is tacitly okaying conflicts simply by acknowledging that Trump owns businesses.

Edited January 5, 2017 by backgroundnoise

[stillshimpy]

Quote

Overall, though, I think we're coming from the same place in one way--not wanting Hillary to be limited by gender or gender stereotyping applied to politics. If I were her, though, I wouldn't worry about Bill's role, or my having held an exec office before or "losing" (with an asterisk) twice for the presidency.  If I wanted to be governor, I'd run.

 

 

 

 

 

That's entirely true, I don't want anyone to be held back by inequality in any area.  If this had happened ten years ago, I think you'd have a shot at being dead right.  That she'd eye the mid-terms and say, "Screw that, I want my voice to be heard, I still want to make a difference....and I'm going to."  

She's never really lived a private life, I can't see her deciding to hang out and play with brio trucks with her granddaughter as a full-time commitment.  

I agree that because she's married to Bill Clinton, for good or ill, that she can still make a big difference without having to go through campaigns any longer.   I even think that Bill Clinton is kind of itching to try and upstage Carter's defining role of "what you can do with your life after you're president" so I hope she gets to do a lot of things that she finds fulfilling. 

If you're right and that's hitting the campaign trail in two years, I'd do nothing but cheer her on.  However, I do think that with her body of work, she is now really contemplating what her legacy will be.   Trump ran the filthiest campaign anyone has ever seen in this country.  Hillary actively chose not to.  I don't know how much of that had to do with, "give him enough rope...." which should have worked....and how much it had to do with "I really cannot stoop to that level because the kind of campaign I run matters to the women who come after me and will, like it or not, be compared to me for their good or ill."  

It's kind of like how Obama had to be an absurdly good man, pretty much never stooping except he called Kanye West a jackass once, but I think we can pretty much all concur, deservedly so.   He didn't just man the desk and do what he wanted, he respected democracy to a degree that was almost superhuman because he knew that his presidency will be judged differently. 

I don't know what Hillary will do, I think I understand what she might not do and why, but she is made of steel and things stronger than that, whenever she needs to be.   She might decide, "I can take it, do your worst, again....some more...." and head to the smaller stage again.  

But I think of her walking out to that graphic of a shattered glass ceiling and I think she'll have a pretty close eye on how she will also be viewed historically.  Someone who is actually pretty freaking kickass, with a strong record of helping women and children.   That's that part that makes me wonder if maybe you're right.  She ran for the White House, thinking she had at least 8 more years of fight in her to get stuff done.  Maybe she'll just swerve and do it all a different way.   

Admittedly, that was before she lost to the least qualified creature to ever run for the presidency.  You know, mainly, I would like that poor woman to stop being the kickball of the Republican party and the American public.  She's never deserved it and I guess I'd love to see her be able to do something to help people, without constantly being abused for the temerity of trying to do so. 

When I think of it that way though, it's been the defining animating force of her life, so yeah, she may very well continue to steam ahead with a battlecry of "don't let the bastards get you down!"  

Edited January 6, 2017 by stillshimpy

[kokapetl]

Can the rich foreigners who buy condos they don't live in vote for mayor?

[izabella]

26 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

Can the rich foreigners who buy condos they don't live in vote for mayor?

Nope.  Contrary to popular belief (Trumputin), the only people who can vote in any election are US Citizens.  Not immigrants with a green card, not illegal immigrants, not foreigners who own property, nobody but a US Citizen.  You have to PROVE you are a citizen before you can register to vote using either a birth certificate or passport or, for naturalized citizens, their Naturalization papers.

[Padma]

I think history will record that she won the popular vote handily and, if not for Russian intervention and the FBI, would have won the presidency. I think there will be a major asterisk by Trump's election--a cloud much greater than what happened in 2000 which, at least, was unethical but transparent and completely by the rules.

[stormy]

Yep as soon as fat ass insulted John McCain and no one, not even John McCain, stood up to him, I knew his chances of winning were real.

When he picked a fight with the Pope, and I said to my husband, who picks a fight with the Pope? I said he's going to win this thing.

In May we were in Portugal and a man from the UK asked us about fat ass.  I said, OMG, if he wins, it's going to be disgraceful.  My husband said, he'll never win.

The only positive thing coming out of this for me, is that my husband had not voted in 16 years and he registered and voted for Hillary because he said he didn't want it on his head if fat ass won.

So, I hope Hillary does find a cause of her own and embraces it and runs with it and the rest of us can get on board with her.

[editorgrrl]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/hillary-clinton-state-department-event-january-10/index.html

Quote

Hillary Clinton will speak at the ceremonial opening of a new exhibition bearing her name next Tuesday at the State Department, Clinton spokesman Nick Merill told CNN Friday.

Clinton has kept a low profile since losing November's election and this will be only her third public appearance in Washington since her defeat. She will be joined January 10 at the event by former secretaries of state Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell. 

The event will open the Hillary Clinton Pavilion, one of four exhibition halls at the US Diplomacy Center.