The Inauthenticity of So-Called Progressives Repeating Right Wing Talking Points
So let’s take a look at where this “Clinton is inauthentic” talking point comes from. Because with the exception of one thing, we’re going to be listening to so-called progressives lazily repeating bullshit talking points that most of us paying attention have heard ever since the whole “not baking cookies thing” from wingnuts for a few months. So if so-called progressives can’t come up with their own arguments against Clinton, let’s at least be clear where they are stealing their work from. For this cycle, it seems to have started as early as 2 years ago:
August 2014 James Varney is not at the top tier of wingnuttery — he is a fairly respected muckracking reporter in Lousiana, but does have an affinity for wingnut political positions. I mean, he’s got the sneering on climate change down pat, right? This stalwart manages to pack in all of the right words AND link them to something which probably is making some SEO person somewhere very happy.
April 2015 — Charles Krauthammer spins up his take on Clinton’s authenticity that launches off of a Marie Antoinette metaphor — you know, for the Dem nomination coronation? He spills alot of ink trying to convince you that he knows something about how inauthentic HRC is, but he does know:
But she has her strengths: discipline, determination, high intelligence, great energy.
I think we are meant to know that these attributes are authentic, but somehow her motivation and overal raison d’etre are phony. Or something. This from someone who was a BushCo Ride or Die — the judgement of *this* guy was that BushCo was as authentic as it gets. Back in the day, progressives used this kind of bad judgement as a signal of the fundamental untrustworthiness of the messenger.
April 2015 — Powerline thinks Hillary is inauthentic! This time because she spoke of both of her grandparents as being immigrants when one was. As far as I can tell she hasn’t repeated this, so this looks like she misspoke. Like 57 states. Still, take note of the effort to showcase this presumed inauthenticity by declaring that this is worse than Elizabeth Warren’s justification of her claim to be of Native American descent. Got that? You reinforce the authenticity of your talking point by referencing a previous talking point. *THIS* is how it is done, guys. Of course, Powerline has plenty of practice in defending the worst of the GOP and running point in the effort to delegitimize President Barack Obama for almost 8 years. Not exactly a source I’d place much credibility in, but then, I’m not susceptible to Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
September 2015 — The deranged Jennifer Rubin (who still defends BushCo) wrote this column about HRC being inauthentic — squinting at an interview HRC did on Face the Nation answering some questions about voters looking for outsiders this cycle. This bit of writing comes complete with a cheap shot at pantsuits and more bullshit about the email server. Bonus points for cruising through the comments, looks like a more practiced version of the Clinton Derangement Syndrome in some of DL’s threads. Seriously guys, spin through and see how it is really done.
There’s more, of course. And not a new observation. What is new is that so-called progressives — who wouldn’t normally give this bullshit the time of day — have suddenly found the very old GOP talking points on HRC very credible. I mean, who doesn’t love Jon Stewart, but I don’t know how anyone judges that someone you see on TV (Stewart) is more “authentic” than someone else you see on TV (Hillary). Everyone is performing here — for different stakes, but still performing. And invoking “inauthentic” against HRC is a way of invoking the litany of old VRWC complaints against her: cold, calculating, measured, corrupt, dishonest, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
Brendan Nyhan gets to the problem with the “authenticity” narrative for candidates:
Once these narratives develop, candidates like Mrs. Clinton can get stuck in what I’ve called the authenticity doom loop — the same fate that plagued Mr. Gore and Mr. Romney. In this phase, candidates are criticized for not being sufficiently authentic and urged to reveal their true selves. But any efforts to demonstrate authenticity prompt the news media to point out that the candidate is acting strategically and is therefore actually still inauthentic. This coverage in turn motivates further efforts to reveal the “real” person, and the pattern then repeats.
And this is right:
In the end, candidates like Mrs. Clinton who are labeled inauthentic are unlikely to change those perceptions, while the sincerity of other politicians typically goes unchallenged. Maybe we should stop pretending we can tell the difference.
Which won’t make one bit of difference to the so-called Progressives who have decided that the VRWC narrative on HRC is one they can suddenly get behind. And Charles Krauthammer thanks you.
Tags: Bamboozled!, Clinton Derangement Syndrome, So-Called Progressives
There have been two enduring disappointments of this election: First, the revelation that many progressives are just as resistant to facts as their right wing counterparts if it doesn’t fit their narrative. Second, the wholesale adoption by some on the left of false right wing talking points.
It is simply disgusting. No longer can the left say they are the reality-based fact-full community.
1. Cassandra_m can use The Google.
2. Many criticisms of Clinton will be resorted to right-wing talking points because of (See Number 1)
3. I know Andrew Sullivan calls himself a conservative which many people find odd in the his is an openly gay man practicing Roman Catholicism. From endorsing Obama to Paul for president, Sullivan is an odd duck on the political spectrum. Why do I bring this up, because it turns out I too can use The Google, all the way back to 2007.
“Reagan spooked people on the left, especially those, like Clinton, who were interested primarily in winning power. She has internalized what most Democrats of her generation have internalized: They suspect that the majority is not with them, and so some quotient of discretion, fear, or plain deception is required if they are to advance their objectives. And so the less-adept ones seem deceptive, and the more-practiced ones, like Clinton, exhibit the plastic-ness and inauthenticity that still plague her candidacy. She’s hiding her true feelings. We know it, she knows we know it, and there is no way out of it.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/12/goodbye-to-all-that-why-obama-matters/306445/
Many criticisms of Clinton will be resorted to right-wing talking points because of [Google].
So you are proud of using usually false right wing talking points, so long as they are anti-Clinton. Is that what you are saying, Nemski? Being anti-Clinton is all that matters? Screw facts, integrity and honor.
And Andrew Sullivan was certainly a part of the RW echo chamber until the sins of BushCo made him change his mind.
If the only way you can have your tantrum is to revisit that echo chamber, you need to wrap your mind around what progressive means to you. Or at the very least improve on that echo chamber’s bullshit.
But then, that would require some work and we know how that story goes.
I never said using false criticisms, that’s your unfounded stance. I, as well as milions of other people, perceive Hillary as being inauthentic.
What I probably should have said in point 2 is that Clinto supporters can twist any criticism of Hillary as a right-wing talking point because of The Google.
And real classy with your last sentence, “Screw facts, integrity and honor.”
And
@c wrote, “But then, that would require some work and we know how that story goes.”
Nice and condescending.
Your welcome! Thought you’d like the tribute to your recent work…..
I’ve come to realize nemski’s points are more often about style over substance. The quote above is another “I feel it in my bones” and “I can read people’s minds and hearts” example of this.
These are the posts I wrote:
Why I Did Not Vote For Hillary: Self-explanatory
Elections Are Not Binary: A post that states just because I’m not a Clinton fan, doesn’t mean I’m voting for Trump
4,497 Reasons Why There Are No Do-Overs in War: A post about Clinton’s shitty war vote
A Not So Brilliant Disguise: DSW shutting Sanders people out of DNC Philalelphia positions
The Dislike Is Strong In This Election: A post regarding how these two candidates (Trump and Clinton) are the most disliked in history
To The Left, Hillary, To The Left: Okay, I admit, I was fucking egging you all on with this one
The Inauthenticity of Hillary Clinton: Obviously a right-wing talking point
@pandora: FYI, substance doesn’t always win elections. Style does come into play a lot.
I get that substance doesn’t always win elections. The posts on this site prove that.
Your recap of your posts doesn’t tell the whole story. If they actually were as you described them there wouldn’t be a problem.
Aren’t you all tired if this? A few times a week you dismiss most criticism as “right-wing talking points.” Fine, keep dismissing them. I actually made a very specific criticism yesterday (from the far left!) about the DNC putting Healthcare executives on the convention Host Committee who belong to boards and organizations that actively lobby against Obamacare. You don’t care. Again, that’s fine. But saying the same tired, condescending, know-it-all, bullshit day after day after day after day isn’t convincing anybody. Insulting us as pseudo right-wing isn’t convincing us either because whatever your personal definition of ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ or whatever may be we are to the left of you. Pretending you are privy to things we don’t know isn’t convincing us. Pretending your smarter isn’t convincing us. Your candidate is weak and your arguments are weak. Just grow up and figure out how to convince us beyond Trump fear. Because right now you haven’t come close.
Problem? Is there some sort of Delaware Liberal litmus test now?
Kudos Dorian.
Is there some sort of Delaware Liberal litmus test now?
Excellent question that you should be answering. Because the litmus test is coming pretty much entirely from the Bernie supporters.
It’s like when you put up a post on Iraq and call Hillary a warmonger, but tell me not to comment on the other candidate’s war/military action votes, nemski.
You guys point out there’s still a primary going on when it’s convenient, and then say we shouldn’t discuss the candidates’ records when it doesn’t fit your narrative. You want it both ways.
There is enough material on the left without resorting to bogus right-wing talking points.
“Inauthentic” isn’t exectly the right word, but it is close. I think the authentic Hillary is the flower-power hippie chick in granny glasses we see in her college photos. But Clinton is of the generation of Democrats that repeatedly got their butts kicked by Reagan and the Reaganites and experienced the betrayal by Reagan Democrats. So she has an insuperable fear of being identified as too overtly liberal. And if she forgets her fear, her donors will remind her.
Are we going to pretend that anyone believes Sanders is equally or more hawkish than Clinton? Is that what we’re going to do? Mark Landler just wrote like 15,000 words in the NY Times Magazine on this topic only 2 weeks ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0
What I’d do is accept as a fact that Clinton is more hawkish than even the run-of-the-mill Democrat (because it’s so obviously true) then figure a way to position that. Like say she supports liberal rights and wants to kill bad guys. (I’m actually open to that.)
This is why the word inauthentic is used, by the way. Everyone knows these things (like HRC is very hawkish relative to almost all Democrats and some Republicans). If you don’t admit what is plainly in front of us you may be labeled… inauthentic.
I would say that Hillary faces the same thing Obama faced. Barack had to be very careful not to be viewed as the “angry, black man” while Clinton has to prove that a woman isn’t weak. Both have to play by different rules.
So one of the things that has been most consistent about Clinton’s government career is the thing that makes her inauthentic. Got it.
What you mean to say is that she doesn’t meet your checklist progressivism. It doesn’t make her inauthentic as the word has been used here.
And it’s fine if she doesn’t meet your checklist. But invoking wingnut talking points to say that is just plain stupid.
“Clinton has to prove that a woman isn’t weak”
Well, she certainly has to prove she isn’t a weak liberal. If by “strength” you mean affinity for military action, she’s already got that in the bag.
And she’s not the only one with an affinity for military action. If that’s the bar…
No, the inauthenticity comes from the response. Person A says Clinton is very hawkish. Person B says, “No, she’s not! Sanders voted for the war in Afghanistan.”
Person B has made an illogical, inauthentic argument. Does the response of Person B sound familiar at all?
And again, insulting us with your vapid internet lingo very likely won’t convince us to support your candidate. I eagerly await the next reference to a “Bro” or usage of the suffix “-splaining”. It really elevates the discourse.
Come on, Dorian. Are you complaining about micro-aggressions?
And it wasn’t just Afghanistan. If past actions predict the future…
Only on DL have I heard the desperate argument that Sanders is hawkish.
Does the response of Person B sound familiar at all?
It sounds like your usual discourse, really.
Labeling someone “inauthentic” for voting for war is itself inauthentic. These people are elected to govern the entire country. There aren’t many of them that you could point to that haven’t voted or endorsed military or police actions. Maybe Dennis Kucinich back in the day. Or Paul Wellstone. You can agree or disagree with their positions, but just taking the position is not an indicator of inauthenticity.
And while I am at it — why should anyone think that you are an arbiter of what is “authentic” ? You have no knowledge or any of these candidates other than what you get from the media. I have a higher confidence in the authenticity of most of the commenters on this site than I do in off-the-cuff pronouncements of “inauthenticity” from people who have no direct knowledge of the people they are labeling. And I don’t know most of the people commenting here, either.
“I would say that Hillary faces the same thing Obama faced. Barack had to be very careful not to be viewed as the “angry, black man” while Clinton has to prove that a woman isn’t weak. Both have to play by different rules.”
Wow…i mean really Pandora… That’s pathetic. She got beat by Obama, out of nowhere in 2008. She has to prove that a woman isn’t weak? Such utter bullshit
Ha! No. I’m complaining because I think internet slang is fucking worthless and stupid. I abhor the “-splaining” suffix construct. If the person you’re arguing with is a misogynist pig, just say so. Everyone argues like a fucking child now. Twitter has everyone writing like I wrote in the 3rd grade. It’s embarrassing.
On a personal note, and I think you know this, although I am a leftist/socialist I am not a pacifist. I could be persuaded by a candidate with a hawkish foreign policy. But instead of embracing what’s obviously true (that Clinton is this candidate) everyone runs from it, makes excuses for it, and deflects the attack onto others. Strange move.
I guess now’s not the time to post my “Hillary Clinton Body Count” story.
Your foray into history falls far short of the mark, because it doesn’t go back very far into history.
Hillary’s authenticity problem springs from her sham marriage. Those of you who think her personal life is off-limits are those in the Graveyard Whistling Choir — you just don’t want to hear any criticism of her. The notion that people’s marriages aren’t of interest to others is belied every day by the media that cover such stuff.
Most people have little difficulty in seeing that she made the calculation to stay with her husband for the access to power it brought her. When your marriage is inauthentic, it’s pretty hard to pretend you’re a straight shooter on anything else.
I know you don’t like to hear these things, but it’s how others see her. Or are you not actually interested in that?
It doesn’t seem so. Like most Graveyard Whistling Choir posts, it aims to tell people you disagree with to shut up.
Hillary’s authenticity problem springs from her sham marriage.
Frankly, you don’t know much about her marriage. Or anyone else’s, other than yours.
And the state of her marriage or whatever deal she made to be in it isn’t a qualification for President.
So this is an entirely made up rationalization for this “inauthenticity” judgement — and that comes from the right too, who were entirely incensed that she did not help their narrative on Bill Clinton by leaving him.
I thought telling people how to be married was a GOP thing.
I can’t wait for the next 4-8 years here on DL… One of these scenarios will play out: (1) Trump wins and DL spends four mind-numbing years of endless tit-for-tat posts about how it’s all Clinton and her supporters’ fault for not stepping aside and letting Bernie defeat Trump; (2) How Clinton is a corporate, criminal, shill of a President who, now that she’s been elected, will pull of her fake Progressive mask, a la a scene from Monday Night Raw, and reveal herself to be a Mitt Romney clone… I could come up with some scenarios where Bernie wins or loses in November, but a Bernie loss in November will still be blamed on Clinton.
DD: Put the Civil War graphic back up… Because, let’s be honest, that shit ain’t over.
Good luck everyone…
I know as much as everyone else, and everyone else knows plenty. You are not the arbiter of what matters to people, much as you long to be.
Bill’s pussy-hunting plane trip tales are easy to find. Google a bit. She knew in ’92 that the Flowers affair was true. She lied about it on TV. C’mon, are you going to hide your head in the sand and pretend nobody talks about this, whether they “know” or not?
This is not entirely made-up. You simply dismissed it because you refuse to believe that anybody else’s thought processes differ from yours.
I’m sure you don’t want to get into what this says about her “feminist” credentials for being the first female president.
Many of us on the left made these points in ’92, long before DL was a gleam in Jason’s eye. Just because you weren’t around to dictate to others during that time doesn’t make it disappear.
@Ben: You can be married however you want. I’m not turning off my ability to see and analyze duplicitous behavior just because we didn’t want someone impeached because he lied, yet again, over a sexual dalliance.
There’s a big difference between saying it isn’t impeachable and saying it doesn’t matter. It most certainly does matter. Ask Gary Hart and a hundred others who have followed him down that walk of shame.
3) Clinton wins and it turns out the Brandnewcongress movement actually works, she is able to sign into law progressive legislation (whether or not she agrees with it), while getting revenge on the GOP for 30 years of bad policies and personal attacks.
Her final action as president is nominating Obama to fill the seat vacated by a retiring RBG, then campaigns for the election of her VP, Elizabeth Warren.
I was never concerned about Bill lying about his affair, because the question never should have been asked publicly.
I’d like to address the nonsense that only her vote for the Iraq war marks Hillary as a hawk. That’s actually the weakest evidence, because most Democrats cast similar votes for defensive purposes.
The strongest evidence is her positions on Libya and Syria, which are ongoing hot spots. Look them up. I have posted links previously.
“be married however you want, as long as you do it the way I think you should”
@puck: That’s not the point. The point is she sold out, in the most intimate way, for access to power.
That’s where the meme about her phoniness got started, and it’s why it will never go away.
Sham. The word is sham. Awfully close to shame, isn’t it?
I dont give a crap if the first couple are swingers or Shakers. Like puck said, it should never have been a public discussion. Lying about a personal issues isn’t nearly as bad as say…. rounding up all the Japanese and throwing them into camps.
“Her final action as president is nominating Obama to fill the seat vacated by a retiring RBG, then campaigns for the election of her VP, Elizabeth Warren.”
She’d better do it quick. I predict a mild recession before 2020, maybe even by the midterms, followed by a Republican restoration and a return to triangulation. That’s my cynical prediction, which I reserve the right to revise as events unfold.
@ben: your comprehension abilities aren’t the best.
I am trying to explain why she’s seen as inauthentic. You can run around the entire country trying to counter this line of thought in every person who holds it, but it’s going to take a while. Meanwhile, kudos to you for being so, so open to sham marriages.
In short, we all judge. Even those of you pretending not to judge are judging me for daring to judge. None of you is in any position to police hypocrisy.
You have a problem with someone forgiving their partner over what you perceive to be a marital transgression.
Progressives… Democrats… Tea Party… Evangelicals… Establishment Conservatives… Is there really a tangible difference? Members of those “wings” build for themselves Truman Show-eque realities, echo-chambers where difference of opinion is eviscerated, often in a condescending and demeaning fashion… Sure the reasons why people hold to those “wings” might be different, but the way the “Pie-in-the-Sky Progressives” on this site react to the “Corporate Democrats” really isn’t all that different than how Tea Partiers react to Establishment GOP.
Is Ted Cruz’s yarn about how the reason the GOP has lost is because they haven’t elected a true conservative really that different than the “they’re not truly progressive” bs?
again, your use of the term “sham marriage’ shows you have a very narrow definition of what is an acceptable marital arrangement. You have no idea what their personal arrangement is. And now you think Hillary should be SHAMED because she forgave her husband.
@anon: agreed her positions on Libya and Syria are the problem. I wrote several comments on that in a recent post. Maybe it’s time for a new post on Libya. I need to check my right-wing blogs first though.
@Ben: My goodness, but you’re a hopeless ninny. My “narrow” definition is the one pledged at traditional marriages. I guarantee you Bill and Hillary pledged it.
The thread is about authenticity. I’m trying to explain why she’s seen as inauthentic. Try to put away your childish glee at finding a marriage traditionalist and concentrate on the topic at hand.
Just because you don’t find this meaningful doesn’t mean you get to declare it meaningless. I have no idea if you’re married or if you have married friends, but see what happens once some of those friends get divorced. See just how non-judgmental your American friends are about it. If nobody picks sides, then I guess your worldview is affirmed. My strong guess is it won’t be.
This nonsense that we don’t care about others’ marriages is a lie that was cooked up to protect Bill Clinton. Any of you who has said anything about Newt Gingrich or any of the umpteen million GOP philanderers had better take it back.
The fact is you don’t think it matters because you don’t want it to. It still matters to lots of other people. You apparently can’t stand having that pointed out, either.
BTW, “she forgave him” is a pile of bullshit. He does it continuously and always has. It’s an open marriage, at least on his end. And it gives lie to the bullshit family pictures that are taken all the time, which makes it — inauthentic.
anonymous was present at the Clinton’s wedding and has seen every aspect of their relationship. my bad.
“That’s not the point. The point is she sold out, in the most intimate way, for access to power.”
This is your opinion. Nothing more. I (and I’m sure you) know plenty of marriages that have survived infidelity, some quite publicly. It seems like Hillary is now responsible for her husband’s behavior – it was her job to police her man.
Someone lying about sex never happens, right?
BTW, kudos for bringing up Bill’s sex life (and your ugly term for vagina. Message received on that usage.). That’s not a GOP talking point, right?
The fact is, I dont think it matters, because it doesn’t matter to me. FTR, I AM married, and no one is going to tell me how to be married other than my spouse. Which is how it should be.
You are arguing the same way as the religious right argues. You equate my assertion that it doesn’t matter, with me telling you how you should act. It’s like Christians saying they are persecuted because they aren’t allowed to persecute.
The FACT is, you clearly have an intolerant view on this and think that a tolerant view is a threat to you. It’s a weak argument and a disingenuous one. There are plenty of reasons to be unhappy with Clinton (both of em) but their personal lives are not yours to dictate.
@P it is, not only a GOP talking point, but directly a Trump talking point.
“and your ugly term for vagina”
You know I had to go looking for it, since I learn all my microaggressive slang from DL.
When anon mentioned “hot spot” I thought he was talking about Libya and Syria. Now I’m not so sure.
Not trying to get into the argument in the liberal/progressive household, but I think everybody here is missing the point on why Clinton’s marital record has re-surfaced at this time and in this campaign. We wouldn’t be talking about it at all at this point had not Trump used the “enabler” line and pushed the issue back into the public discourse.
And why he did so is very simple: he’s inoculating himself against attacks on his own marital/sexual records later in the campaign. This is particularly true if, as part of the speculation now runs, he’s seriously talking to Newt Gingrich about the VP slot.
The inauthentic list is a lot shorter than the authentic one that’s for sure
They pretend to have a traditional marriage. They don’t. That’s inauthentic. Is this really that difficult for you to understand?
Do I have to preface everything with “some say” to forestall people telling me — quite judgmentally, I would point out — that I am “wrong” to think as I do?
These are the reasons she’s seen by many, many people as inauthentic. Your inability to come up with a counter-argument better than “it’s none of our business” — this in a culture in which every other headline is about the personal lives of our media stars — demonstrates that you, like she, has no convincing answer to the criticism.
Your argument is a losing one. People consider her inauthentic because she is, in fact, inauthentic.
@pandora: It wasn’t one time, it has been continual throughout their relationship. You know that as well as I do, yet you want to pretend she “forgave” him.
It’s a sham, and most Americans know it. You can tell them it’s just their opinion all year long, it won’t change anyone’s mind. You have to be Hillary-crazed to pretend it doesn’t exist.
Trump is making arguments that many people, including real feminists (not the political-posturing kind) have made for 25 years.
You are obsessed with what goes on in their bedroom.
“Is Ted Cruz’s yarn about how the reason the GOP has lost is because they haven’t elected a true conservative really that different than the “they’re not truly progressive” bs?”
Yes, quite different. Lots of conservative policies have been cemented in place by the not-true-conservatives. Not so many progressive ones, because the left can’t pressure its candidates to move left.
Why? Because so many half-loaf settlers keep parroting the line that “we can’t ask for that, it’s impossible.” You’re the problem there. You claim to want progressive stuff, but don’t want to pressure your politicians to get it because “they have to move to the center to win.”
That’s fighting wars from the last century. Politics doesn’t work that way anymore, and hasn’t since Karl Rove.
You’re right about one thing. This country is intolerant of anything but strict Biblical monogamy. It only very recently became ok to be homosexual.
By your rationale, we should have been outing all the closeted gay politicians who had to be “inauthentic” about their private lives in order to get elected… then shaming them for not being open about something they surely would have been judged for.
@Ben: No, I’m obsessed with trying to get an idiot like you to understand that what’s under discussion is authenticity, and that having a marriage that most people would consider a sham is the bedrock on which that perception rests.
“By your rationale, we should have been outing all the closeted gay politicians who had to be “inauthentic” about their private lives in order to get elected… then shaming them for not being open about something they surely would have been judged for.”
If they posed for pictures with their families while running for president, then yes, I would be all in favor of outing them.
A lot of people here seem to think that being a progressive is about letting people do whatever they want in their private lives, including lying to the public. That’s not progressivism. That’s libertarianism.
At this point, YOU are the one keeping this going on the marriage front.
@Steve Newton: “We wouldn’t be talking about it at all at this point had not Trump used the “enabler” line and pushed the issue back into the public discourse.”
Sorry, that’s not the reason I brought it up. I brought it up because I believe it is the bedrock foundation of the charge of inauthenticity. I will leave it to the feminists to make the rest of the argument along the lines of what their arrangement says about her feminist bona fides. I will say this — standing on the platform of her husband’s career sure isn’t my idea of someone making it on their own.
“Hillary’s authenticity problem springs from her sham marriage.”
@Cassandra, Am I on the right website? Did somebody hijack this place? I should be reading this sentence on someplace like DP, Red State, or Hot Air. Is it now liberal to characterize someone based on their marital status, or the quality of their marriage, or what happens in their bedroom?
That is so far out of line for liberals, I can’t even process it.
A typically useful comment from the timid little mouse in our house.
Ruling topics off-limits is as liberal as it gets, right?
This is trolling, pure and simple, given that you’re not a liberal and are merely trying to provoke a fight.
What’s under discussion is her authenticity. None of you can apparently stick to that topic.
Let me try to explain this from the top for the tiny minds here:
You want to know why she’s seen as inauthentic (actually, you want to pretend that only right-wingers think that). I explain one big reason, and you respond by saying that reason is out of bounds, unthinkable for a liberal. At what point were we discussing how liberals should view her marriage? The question was about her authenticity.
By traditional standards — ones she gives every indication of believing in — she has a non-traditional marriage.
Do you people think that non-liberals cannot do this math? Telling me to shut up, or that these topics are off-limits, isn’t going to change the minds of all the people who think this.
I would also like to point out that by your rules, Donald Trump’s personal life is off-limits. Are you going to pretend that the best way to defeat him is to focus on his policies?
And, on a personal note, what the fuck? I am making arguments, not spilling my soul. I couldn’t care less about their marriage. But if you think that nobody else does, you are…
Whistling Past the Graveyard.
Her authenticity that you claim is linked to her husband’s affairs. Somehow you’ve reached the conclusion that they have an open marriage (your opinion) and that she stayed with him to benefit herself (your opinion again). You aren’t dealing in facts because you have no idea what goes on inside their marriage.
Don’t try and stake out the feminist position on this issue because you haven’t stated it. If you want to seriously have that conversation, let’s have it. In depth. Not just as a political football.
And Dave has every right to comment. He hasn’t broken any DL rules – and, as far as telling people what can be discussed on a topic, he’s in good company around here.
It would be nice if we could have a discussion without all the over-the-top language and emotionally driven rhetoric, but we’ve avoided detailed policy discussion this entire primary season. And we use to mock Republicans for bumper sticker politics.
Is it authentic to say NAFTA is great and now it isn’t? Or to suggest TPP is a great plan, now it isn’t? Inclined to support the KXL now she doesn’t?
For a progressive, she sure is the last person to progress in the room after either violating her progressive values or somehow finding them after making bad statements. Authentic or not, she is not a trailblazer. 3 days to comment on black lives matter? Really?
“You aren’t dealing in facts because you have no idea what goes on inside their marriage.”
And neither does anyone else. This does not stop people from forming opinions. It certainly does nothing to counter the argument.
The perception that she’s inauthentic — and let’s state it plainly, that she’s a phony — is an opinion. You cannot refute it with facts. It mostly isn’t formed on the basis of facts.
The positions I have cited are quite common among people who don’t chastise themselves for wondering how a marriage with a permanently philandering partner works.
The feminist position has been debated for years. Again, you want to pretend it never happened. Go look it up yourself, and then declare it invalid and unfurl the “Mission Accomplished” banner.
On top of it all, you claim she’s been fully vetted. Really? And part of that “full vetting” is to proclaim that certain things ought to be off-limits in voters’ decisions? That’s not vetting, that’s surrender.
Yes, Dave has every right to comment. And I have every right to tell him that his opinion is horseshit because he’s already stated that he’s an independent centrist, so he wants exactly the opposite from Hillary than what I want.
Everyone stumbled on BLM. Everyone.
“we’ve avoided detailed policy discussion this entire primary season.”
I’ve posted plenty of things about policy. You’re the archive master, look them up. You have nothing to say about them because you’re entirely focused on protecting Hillary, as is the entire Graveyard Whistling Choir.
I posted earlier on the open thread about the big drop in Republican voters who say social issues matter most to them. Take a look.
“Everyone stumbled on BLM. Everyone.”
This is the “but officer, everyone else was speeding too” argument. Lame, yet it’s a key component of the Maginot Line here.
If they posed for pictures with their families while running for president, then yes, I would be all in favor of outing them.”
you’re a fascist wingnut.
“This is trolling, pure and simple, given that you’re not a liberal and are merely trying to provoke a fight.”
I don’t troll. Nor do I provoke fights. I am not a liberal because I can’t pass the purity test. But that doesn’t mean I don’t share the same values.
I praise the people at DL to many others because of the quality of the discourse compared to almost anywhere else. But there are things that are beyond the pale for people whose value system is supposed to be above that. And when it is beyond the pale or has jumped the shark, I’m gonna call it, whether I am a liberal or not.
You don’t like Clinton, everyone gets that. But you don’t get a pass in attacking her personal relationships. No one gets a pass on that. Stick to her politics and the issues and we can argue all day long.
“But you don’t get a pass in attacking her personal relationships. No one gets a pass on that.”
Politics as beanbag is your preference. Sorry, it doesn’t come in that flavor. The subject is authenticity. Do you have anything to say on the topic? No? Didn’t think so.
By the way, you can frame it however you like, but that’s censorship, and as usual, the left is all for it.
@Ben: And you’re a brainless sissy.
the only, ONLY way your fascist ideas would have ANY merrit, is if Clinton agreed with you that cheated-on women should be shamed into leaving their partners.
You are totally obsessed with the personal lives of politicians. And know what? My philosophy says you’re allowed any kink you want (as long as it doesnt harm people, or involve children). So keep fantasizing about the Clinton’s sex lives. Here in the real world, we have all moved past it and care about things like a SCOTUS stacked with Trump appointees. (btw, where is all your rage for Trump and his wife?)
sissy? now you’re being sexist or homophobic. Jesus, get to your Trump rally or cross burning already.
The interesting thing about this post on phoniness is how many phonies showed up to claim that the whole subject is phony.
No, just don’t like timid little sissies who change their minds every two seconds. You want to call names, you’ll have to take it. Of course you can’t, because you’re a — quick, what’s the liberal word for sissy?
change their minds?
Please provide me with the time I was pro-shaming women for staying in a relationship I didnt agree with. Know what’s messed up, Fascist? I question Hillary Clinton’s authenticity on a few issues. But as soon as you start bringing up personal lives, or projecting your own arch conservative view on a woman’s place in a relationship, you lose me.
It’s funny you keep saying “phony”. you’re about as original and mature as someone else who liked that word a lot. fascist pig.
I can always tell when you’re losing an argument – you call names.
Here’s what you don’t get: If Hillary was lecturing people on marriage, and how it should be done, I’d be calling her out for the same reason I call Republicans out who do this – hypocrisy. Glass houses and all that.
I’m with Ben. Outing gay people? Really? You okay with that? Is there any length you won’t go to to admit you might be wrong about something? Or just admit that relationships and people’s lives are complicated? I’d suggest you walk this back, but you’ll just call me another name – and when you do that I know I’ve won because people with strong points don’t need to call names. Just sayin’
“the only, ONLY way your fascist ideas would have ANY merrit, is if Clinton agreed with you that cheated-on women should be shamed into leaving their partners.”
You are a fucking moron. Can you discuss ideas without labeling them? I don’t care about their marriage. BUT PEOPLE WHO THINK SHE’S A PHONY WILL POINT TO IT AS THE ULTIMATE PROOF. Can’t you fucking morons distinguish between an argument and a personal position? Telling me I’m a fascist does not deal with the issue, and does not answer the criticism. Neither does saying the criticism is invalid. No, to many people, it’s not.
“You are totally obsessed with the personal lives of politicians.”
No, you are totally obsessed with making this about what actually happens in their marriage versus what everyone sees. Everyone sees his philandering. Did you miss his flights to the island of the 14-year-olds?
By the way, you have no idea what any of the terms you toss around actually mean. By your definition, Michelangelo Signorile is a fascist.
“Everyone stumbled on BLM. Everyone.”
Maybe. But not everyone stumbled on KXL, TPP, NAFTA.
Comparatively, BLM was a flash in the pan. It came and went. But KXL, TPP and NAFTA should be and have been in her wheelhouse for being a progressive.
Aaargh! I’m not “losing an argument” because a bunch of liberals want to pretend that nobody else notices the Clintons are in what most people would call an open marriage.
I call names when I get frustrated with the stupidity exhibited by regular contributors to this site. And you’ll notice I called names here in response to being called a couple of highly inaccurate names myself. So allow me to point out that you’re being hypocritical.
But then you always only read what you want to read and ignore the rest. And it seems like the only way to get any response from any of you is to violate liberal pieties. That’s the only thing most of you respond to.
Yeah, you’re above the fray.
“Comparatively, BLM was a flash in the pan.”
If people didn’t make decisions non-rationally, it would be the centerpiece of Clinton’s campaign. But that would make her look too minority-friendly, so the American police state will continue.
Please. Just once, try to connect on the level of the discussion, instead of making it about me.
Explain to me why her marriage arrangement is not a symbol of her phoniness. Saying “it’s none of our business” does not do that. Yet that’s the only response I’ve gotten, and from several of you.
If someone wants to find me a poll showing that most people don’t care about the sex lives of the presidents, I’ll acknowledge that this is no longer a subject of import in elections.
Of course, all those retirements in the wake of sex scandals would stand as opposing evidence.
“I don’t care about their marriage. ”
mkay, sport. If you care so little about what goes on in their private lives, prove it by talking about something else.
“Did you miss his flights to the island of the 14-year-olds?” (now Bill Clinton is a pedophile)
See? you proved it. You just care about Bill’s sex life apparently.
Like I said, your kinks are your own. I’m not the one trying to make people define and explain their sex lives. You just cant get over it! It would be funny if it werent so sad. And Pandora is right. as soon as people started calling you out for being a sex-nazi, you got all defensive and huffy.
“Explain to me why her marriage arrangement is not a symbol of her phoniness. ”
1 Because you do not know her “marriage arrangement”
2 Because what 2 consenting adults decide to do is NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS
3 See 2
4 You’re a sex fascist who cant handle not knowing what people do behind closed doors.
Sex-nazi. Is that a clinical term? You’re too stupid to even see your own hypocrisy. Beyond that, you apparently can’t resist jumping to conclusions about my level of interest in something simply because I know it. I was asking if you saw the allegations — accurate, apparently — that Bill Clinton was a frequent visitor to the private island of a pedophile pimp. I cited it to show that this was not a one-time affair that Hillary “forgave.”
I posted something else on the open thread. I post something else every day. Nobody notices until I transgress on the liberal social pieties. That’s all you ever notice, apparently.
The post wasn’t about me. It became about me because you don’t want to talk about the fact that lots of people would see their arrangement as perverted. If she talked about it in frank terms, she’d never get elected. So you want us to ignore it.
As Steve Newton pointed out, Trump is raising the sex stuff because his skeletons won’t even fit in his closet.
“If someone wants to find me a poll showing that most people don’t care about the sex lives of the presidents, I’ll acknowledge that this is no longer a subject of import in elections.”
Donald Trump, a man who routinely divorces his wife for younger women, and had bragged ENDLESSLY about his philandering ways (his choice) has won the nomination from the party of “family values”. What more proof do you need? fascist. Dont you have some closeted gay people to harass?
Other than Republicans, Bill Clinton didn’t receive this much crap for actually, you know, committing infidelity. I cannot understand how you (not Republicans) and others have turned this into Hillary’s fault. And I’d bet in your (general your) personal lives you don’t blame the person who who was cheated on. Yep, no sexism or double standard here.
Wow, Ben, those arguments are so convincing. They really address the problem of her inauthenticity.
YOU see, what YOU term as their “arrangement” as perverted. You want the rest of us to see it as perverted, but we dont and now you’re all mad.
You went on to say that you would out gay people if you werent happy with their decision not to come out… that’s why I’m calling you a sex-obsessed fascist pig.
You yell and scream and curse about not being exactly what you keep proving you are. Move on to a different thing, or keep getting made fun of.
This. Is. Not. About. Me.
Either show it’s not a sign of phoniness or give up. Cassandra pretended there was no basis for calling her a phony. I maintain there is.
And Ben, your ignorance of Bill’s philandering does not mean it doesn’t happen.
I am not blaming Hillary for his philandering. I am blaming her for pretending it doesn’t exist and then wondering why she’s considered a phony.
Do you think Camille Cosby is a phony? I do.
I though the problem was America not approving of women who stay with cheating husbands. Get your argument straight, Corey Lewandowski (oops, did i just out you?).
@Ben: It. Is. Still. Not. About. Me.
I don’t care whether the blinder-wearing Hillarybots here agree with me or not. Show me why it’s not phony or acknowledge you can’t.
You are just pig-ignorant. You should quit while you’re behind.
The issue is her authenticity, not her sex life.
I dont care if it happened. I dont particularly want to know (unlike SOME* people)
I dont care if the Clintons go to key parties, or if they are celibate (guessing not) You’re the one who is demanding they “fess up” about their private lives. Like i said, there is much to question about Hillary’s authenticity, but you YOU.. are tying it to her husband’s penis.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/06/in-an-unusual-allusion-to-bill-clintons-sexual-affair-hillary-clinton-speaks-of-forgiveness/ Hillary being a phony.
Let’s dissect the arguments of a moron, just for fun:
1 Because you do not know her “marriage arrangement”
We have, on the record, something like a dozen women saying they had affairs with Bill Clinton, a couple of them lasting more than a decade. If the public knows about them — through court filings, for example — Hillary certainly does. Therefore, if they are not mutually faithful, they have an “arrangement” that does not fit the traditional marriage mold.
2 Because what 2 consenting adults decide to do is NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS
This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I have no idea what they do, nor do I care; the issue is the consent. If she has consented to his philandering, she should say so. Then there would be no issue of inauthenticity.
3 See 2
More convincing than words can convey.
4 You’re a sex fascist who cant handle not knowing what people do behind closed doors.
You are an upset little sissy who can’t handle being wrong. Just because you say something is none of anybody’s business doesn’t make it so.
This is a particularly unconvincing argument given that we’re talking about perceptions of a politician. You want to pretend that, because you read mostly liberal material, that those liberal laissez-faire attitudes permeate the public. They do no.
Your opinions = about you.
And I sure don’t blame Camille Cosby for her husband’s actions or think she’s a phony (and I wouldn’t blame a husband in her position). I think she’s probably devastated and trying to cope as her world explodes. Which means I cut her slack because she didn’t create this mess – she’s just trying to survive it, which in most real life cases involves denial.
“YOU.. are tying it to her husband’s penis.”
No, I’m tying it to her lack of transparency.
You’re too stupid to realize that the “none of your business” answer BUTTRESSES the idea that she has something to hide. Which she probably does, and what she probably wants to hide is that any self-respecting “feminist” would have struck out on her own, but she was unwilling to give up the access to power for both of them.
You can disagree with the conclusions, but attacking me for making them doesn’t make them go away.
“Your opinions = about you.”
My opinions aren’t being attacked, I am. Check again. I am giving my opinion on why others have the opinion that she’s a phony, and you are claiming that my opinions are invalid because they’re just opinions. Try to maintain something like consistency.
“Which means I cut her slack because she didn’t create this mess – she’s just trying to survive it, which in most real life cases involves denial.”
And if you expect me to buy that she just looked the other way for 40 years because she’s a swell person — and not because she liked being married to Bill Cosby and his dalliances just made it less work for mother — you go right ahead.
But you don’t get to tell others what opinions they’re allowed to form. And if forming those opinions means I’m not your kind of liberal, good.
yeah, but I’m not wrong…. so.. that’s kind of awkward and embarrassing for you.
You obviously care about their sex life because, even after pretty much everyone here has said they DONT care, you KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT. You just wont stop.
Also it is very telling about what kind of person you must be, that you attack Hillary Clinton for forgiving a cheater (or not, maybe Bill’s big mistake was getting caught by the public), but you seem to be ok with Trump. You also ignore the fact that the party of “family values” made him their standard bearer. People dont care.
” and what she probably wants to hide is that any self-respecting “feminist” would have struck out on her own, but she was unwilling to give up the access to power for both of them.”
That’s not true.
Sheesh, you’d call language like this out if someone said, “any self-respecting black person…” Why are you lumping feminists/women together? That’s the definition of anti-feminist.
Did I say she was a swell person? Nope. Moving on.
I think anonymous is being a phony about their deep-seated conservative and misogynistic views. How dare you masquerade as a “liberal”! Just be honest about it! tool.
Pandora, stop weakening the candidate 😉
sorry, couldnt resist. I’m all riled up from dealing with this sex-cop.
Yes, moving on without addressing the subject. As usual.
I don’t blame Camille Cosby for her husband’s affairs. What she must explain are HER choices, not his. Same with Hillary. Saying you “forgive” someone when they just keep doing the same thing afterwards is not transparent.
She has a non-transparent marriage arrangement that she won’t talk about. If you can’t see where that might further the image of her as a phony, it’s because you don’t want to see it.
“She has a non-transparent marriage arrangement that she won’t talk about.”
She doesnt owe you shit, son. And you are the only one who cares.
How is pointing out that she has gone along with his philandering “misogynist”? You use terms you don’t know the meaning of, and do it consistently. Hence my opinion of you as a moron.
How is it conservative to point out that she took a traditional marriage vow but has excused her husband from obeying it? That’s just a fact.
It hasnt been addressed the way you want it addressed. Stop making this about your personal crusade to shame women into leaving men who arent you.
“She doesnt owe you shit, son. And you are the only one who cares.”
If I were the only one who cared, she wouldn’t be widely regarded as a phony. And despite Cassandra’s morning of research, those charges have been around since at least 1992.
I would bet that anyone looking at our marriages/relationships wouldn’t understand all our choices either.
you have a copy of their marriage vows? You know their exact arrangement?
@Ben: I keep pointing out what this thread is about. You could engage on that level at any time, yet you keep coming back to this sex you claim not to care about. I’m trying to make a point, but it apparently can’t penetrate the thickness of your skull.
“I would bet that anyone looking at our marriages/relationships wouldn’t understand all our choices either.”
I would bet that too. But we aren’t running for president and asking people to ignore those choices.
penetrate? man, this is really a subconscious thing for you isnt it?
All I’m doing is responding in-kind to your demands to know what they do privately…. sorry, you anger that you weren’t told. Is that what this is about? You feel left out?
Know why you arent getting me “conversing you your level?” (whatever that might be) Because your level is crap and only deserves to be mocked. I’m having a fantastic time, please keep it up.
“you have a copy of their marriage vows?”
No, but they were married by a Methodist minister.
“You know their exact arrangement?”
Don’t have to. The evidence of his philandering is thick on the ground.
These arguments are bullshit. The point isn’t to “defeat” me on this blog. These memes are everywhere. Here’s the intro to an article from a Canadian magazine:
“with Hillary Clinton presenting herself as a champion of women’s rights around the world, her past reaction to her husband’s infidelities—and in particular, her shaming of the women he dallied with—have become raw meat for others who seek the same prize.”
This is the point: Lots of people think this. Yelling at me won’t counter it.
So you get your political views from memes?
I’m not yelling, If we were in person, my tone would be amused snark with condescending laughter.
“All I’m doing is responding in-kind to your demands to know what they do privately”
I have demanded no such thing. I don’t care what they do privately. The point is that she doesn’t acknowledge their unconventional agreement, whatever it is. That’s where the inauthenticity charge comes from. Is this too many steps for you to follow?
Are y’all pretending not to be able to understand this?
By the way, you’re laughing because you’re stupid. Stupid people laugh a lot.
Why does it make you so uncomfortable to talk about this? And I should stop talking about it because the other three people reading don’t want to talk about it?
You’re even stupider than I thought.
no, YOU’RE stupider than I though. You’re also a poopy-head.
“So you get your political views from memes?”
This. Is. Not. About. Me.
The post was about people perceiving her as inauthentic. Have you, at any point, understood that?
Look, Ben, you’ve proven your liberal credentials. If you understand the point I’m trying to make, just say so and I’ll stop. But I get no signal that you even understand the point.
Hence my opinion that you’re stupid. And stupider.
and you keep bringing up the same thing to prove it. Do you have any other example of her inauthenticity that doesn’t involve your DESPERATE need to understand their private life?
I don’t need to understand it. I just need to see the public side of it. Why can’t you get that distinction?
And no, I’m not interested in all the reasons she’s perceived as a phony. Others have covered that. I maintain that the Sixty Minutes interview about Gennifer Flowers sowed the seeds that have flourished over the past 25+ years.
If you can’t counter that one example, why ask for others?
OH, i understand you point just fine.
If Hillary Clinton lies about being in an open marriage, what else is she lying about. is that it? I’ll leave some space to make sure you see that before firing off your response.
I would venture to say you have, what is approaching a point. I would also say that i think it’s a dumb point, and if that’s all you have, all you have done is convince a person who voted for Sanders, to be more OK with the nominee.
I know there are other examples that dont drag her personal life into it, but you seem to like this one… and since it is a ridiculous point, I’m ridiculing it.
“and no, I’m not interested in all the reasons she’s perceived as a phony. ”
So you’re only interested in her marriage… but you’re also not. get it together.
Ridicule it all you like. That won’t make it go away, either.
“If Hillary Clinton lies about being in an open marriage, what else is she lying about. is that it?”
Almost. If she won’t be honest about her marriage, it makes her look like a phony. Is that so hard to acknowledge?
I’m not ONLY interested in her marriage. Your ability to reason is minimal. I’m saying that if you’ll hide the truth about something that fundamental, you are going to be mistrusted.
But then, saying it that way would force you to stop parading your liberal bona fides around the blog.
I keep coming back to this point because it has not been countered in any way except to say it’s none of our business, an untenable position in a political campaign.
you don’t like Clinton because you’re wrong
That too. I’m apparently not allowed to think she’s a phony, at any rate.
As if posting an insulting thread like this is going to make people like an inherently unlikeable person better.
“and no, I’m not interested in all the reasons she’s perceived as a phony. ”
“I’m not ONLY interested in her marriage. “
I guess that means you’re just fine with her ties to big Oil and Coal. I’m not. Those are the inauthenticities I care about.
Why do you care more about her marriage than our planet?
But we aren’t running for president and asking people to ignore those choices.
And her choices in her marriage are still none of your business. Or anyone else’s who thinks that “they know plenty”. Because plenty of those people voted for Bill knowing he may have adultery issues, but apparently we are going to hold Hillary accountable for all of that adultery. Because that somehow makes her “inauthentic”.
🙄
Maybe this completes your Opus Dei application, because it sure doesn’t help whatever argument you are trying to make for “authenticity”.
Those have been discussed previously.
I’ll try to walk you through this again. Cassandra’s post claims that HIllary’s phoniness was invented by conservatives. I am saying that it was not invented, it was there for the finding, and it started with her lying on TV about the Flowers affair.
That’s it. That’s my whole point. The rest of this has come about because you don’t think it’s a valid point, even though it will be all over the media for the next six months.
My further point is that excoriating me for bringing it up is not an effective or convincing defense.
” Because plenty of those people voted for Bill knowing he may have adultery issues, but apparently we are going to hold Hillary accountable for all of that adultery. Because that somehow makes her “inauthentic”.”
Wrong. Only the last sentence has anything to do with the post. I do not think people will hold her accountable. I am talking about where the perception of her as inauthentic comes from. Lying to people on TV about your marriage tends to have that effect.
You are not the person who gets to decide — and liberals are not the group who gets to decide — what other people consider their business. That’s your god complex rearing its head again. I could tell by the Opus Dei reference. I’m not even Catholic.
You aren’t worth discussing anything with, because in your own mind you are never wrong. If I’m wrong about that, please post a link to the time you said you were wrong. Or is that Pandora’s job?
@Ben: Read this. You will understand yourself, and your reaction to this thread, better once you do.
https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
You picked the least valid thing to try to make your point. I even tried to help you by providing you with less ridiculous points…. you said you didn’t care about them. You only care about the private stuff. But who cares. It’s a blog. this whole conversation will be in the shredder of history in a few hours.
@anonymous – speaking as a fan of your work, there’s a damp spot in the sand where that horse you are beating used to be. If you continue this thread, what would “victory” look like to you? Nobody cares about the Clinton marriage except Republicans and late-night comedians.
I havent altered my opinions at all. (I followed your link!) I have never given anything CLOSE to a crap about Bill’s personal time… or how Hillary reacted to it.. other than ridiculing people who think they know how she SHOULD have reacted. You wanna talk about inconsistencies in policy ideas or social/economic positions, I’m happy to take your side and fight big bad DL contributors. But right now, you’re acting like Newt Gingrich.
Lying to people on TV about your marriage tends to have that effect.
Since you can’t know anything about their marriage, what on earth could you construe as lying about it? Because the person who clearly lied about the state of his marriage was Bill. And lying comes with the territory of adultery.
You are not the person who gets to decide — and liberals are not the group who gets to decide — what other people consider their business.
No one is deciding, it is just a fact. Like the deal of your marriage is not my business, so is theirs. And has nothing to do with how she might govern. Fact. Kennedy was a known philanderer, Eisenhauer had a mistress and so did FDR — and their affairs or the state of the marriages isn’t a factor in how people judged their performance. But somehow Hillary is “inauthentic” because of it.
You aren’t worth discussing anything with, because in your own mind you are never wrong.
I take my cues from you, Mr. Man. Because this is how I know you are clearly losing this argument. And if you can’t make a better case for “inauthentic” other than you don’t know the state of her marriage then you need to stand down here. Trump is a known and well-documented womanizer and I don’t see anyone here making the case that he is somehow “inauthentic” because his marriage(s) is (are) clearly a *sham*.
Wow. First the Misfits reunite, now I agree completely with a Cassandra comment. Hell must be frozen over!
Her marriage has little to do with her being perceived as inauthentic. Doubling back on things she has said now that she is running for president is a bigger problem for those not absurdly focused on her marriage because she didn’t say some magic phrase about her relationship.
She has always been a feminist. I do not question how authentic she is on that issue. Everything else seems puzzling to me. Hawkish, KXL, TPP, NAFTA, healthcare, banking, all make me wonder where she REALLY is on an issue.
No, they don’t have to say that about Trump. Everything he does screams “inauthentic.” Would my criticism be more valid if I prefaced it with points about Trump? If so, it says more about you than me.
“Losing” the argument? What, there are trophies? I’m making a point. You say you don’t agree with it, which is fine, but the only reason you can summon is that it’s none of our business. By definition, that’s not a very convincing answer to people who don’t already agree with you.
I was very young when my father told me this story:
He was in his early 20s, sitting in a neighborhood bar where a couple of older guys were arguing about the “five races of man” (shows you how old this story is).
They named the four obvious ones (red, yellow, black, white for short) but were stumped for number five, until one of them said, “I’ve got it! The magnolias!”
My father tried to explain that the word was “Mongolians,” which still is warped race theory, but magnolias are a flower; Mongolians are the people from Mongolia.
They considered this for a moment, then turned their backs on my father and agreed: “It’s the magnolias.”
@puck: You’re right about the horse. I have to leave now anyway.
Only Republicans? Is that why her support among independents dropped from 60+ a few months ago to 20+ today?
You want to know where this “vague” air of phoniness came from. I told you. You don’t want to believe it. It’s not about the specifics. It’s about the fact that she was willing to go on TV and be less than truthful about the Flowers affair and his philandering in general. And she reacted the same way to Lewinsky, and Jones, and all the others she knew about. She attacked them.
What y’all have demonstrated is that you’re all pretty damn sensitive on this point, which indicates to me that Trump is going to hit pay dirt by harping on it.
And don’t go on about me harping on it. That’s for the few hundred on this blog. This is now part of the national conversation, and if Team Hillary is any indication, this path of defense is going to do more harm than good. “It’s none of your business” is not a path she wants to go down, because down that path lies her internet server.
I’ve showed you where you are wrong in not liking Clinton, now you are discredited and you’re perceived reasons for not liking are clearly partisan at best.
Now that your don’t like Clinton is purely wrong, you’re wrong, she’s right, Clinton is progressive.
Proof. Fact. Progressive Conservative = Liberal = Clinton
All other facts withstanding
@DV: Her picture is in the dictionary. Check “imperious.”
Authenticity is part of the national conversation. Superfans like you are the only ones obsessed about Hillary’s marriage.
Just admit it, you secretly love her.
And next up… BENGHAZI!
I was going to say the emails, but I see we’re already onto that GOP talking point.
I heard that Hillary had an affair with a guy named Ben Ghazi. Those are the real emails investigators are after.
I think I need a shower after all that. I’ve never seen that level of obsession with anyone’s sex life before. How very weird and uncomfortable. I am thankful he didn’t start discussing Clinton’s favorite position. See my glass is always half full!
I want the past 10 minutes of my life back that I spent reading this entire comment thread… I’d love it if whatever platform is hosting Delaware Liberal allowed for users to be able to block the comments of other users… Dreams, dreams, dreams…
The comment threads here at DL lately seem to be veering dangerously close to needing a picture of Arthur Fonzarelli jumping over a shark while on waterskis…
My, this has been a long thread of comments. I’ll try to sum all of them up and clarify. If I am correct it, its general theme is the inauthenticity of one Hillary Clinton. There seems to be nothing here (at the time I started this) about Sanders; nothing about Trump (except to be called the instigator).
Most of the thread appears to be a battle over the definition of inauthenticity but instead of using words, actual historical events are being thrown around to establish whether or not she is….
Am i close, here?
Now from the viewpoint of someone with nothing personal at stake here, this entire argument appears to be a battle of inconsequence, as would be a very heated argument over how many angels would fit on the head of a pin. Bottom line, since inauthenticity is a subjective feeling, (every individual has different levels at where such would kick in), in the end there is no way to decide if the person being discussed is inauthentic or not… It’s like if the phrase “having no money” for me meant less than $1 million, but for you that phrase would mean having less than $5 dollars, we would argue back and forth forever whether I “had money” or not… i would say I have no money while pulling out my Visa in ShopRite to swipe $200 in groceries, and get called a hypocrite… How dare I say I have no money when i just paid for what you have to stretch across an entire month for food… Hypocrite you call me, and within your definition you would be right… whereas in my world, one can’t invest in anything substantial with less than $40 million, so having just one million, IS no money. The breakdown in communication came from first not defining what each of us meant by “having no money”. Had we discussed that first, and set it at $100 perhaps, there would be no argument….
Unlike a dollar figure on money, with “inauthenticity” there is no standard. it’s strictly subjective; it’s a “felt” thing. At what point does one become inauthentic? Well…. it depends. It depends on what you do; it depends on how you were raised; it depends on what morals you were taught; it depends on whether your own financial success is determined by how straightforward you are, or how duplicitous you are… So any argument making “inauthentic” statements, is bogus, as was how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
And that is where this thread went. Everyone is well meaning and it can continue on forever… (as did Whitewater)…. as long as there is someone out there who will continue to bring it up…
Because we are people, we are all different. What is rather more amazing is that despite none of us having exact DNA, we tend here for the most part to agree on the same widespread overall values.
So when you look at the above thread, not as an argument but as an insight into people, it becomes rather illuminating indeed. From planks taken on both sides, one can get a sense of where each person draws the line on their interpretation of “inauthenticity” .. Neither person here is better than the other; that is pretty obvious. All write well; all are educated; all (when compared to Republicans) are respectful. So it is a balanced conversation; one that just seems misguided.
Because Hillary will never be “inauthentic”… Think about that for a minute…
Hillary will be Hillary, Bernie will be Bernie, and Trump will be Trump… That is actually how politics are supposed to be run. Having each person represent themselves to the best of their ability, is what gives us each a better understanding of which one WE will have the most confidence in as a leader… WE may find ourselves in the majority. WE may be in the minority. That is out of our hands; that is based on how everyone else votes… In fact, if we switch our votes to someone to whom we don’t approve because we “want” to be on the winning side, we are messing with all -important data showing us which direction most of America wants to go. We are changing the “read” on the country that is so necessary to effectively govern in a majority run Democracy.
To see things deteriorate this way is rather sad for those of us who hailed from more idealistic times. Times where elected officials knew they were there at the behest of their constituents and win or lose, took it as the People’s will and not their own personal fault, and more or less tried to keep to their personality since that is what put them in office to begin with…
Now things are the exact opposite. Today, the expectation is that one takes a read on the populace and molds themselves into what their handlers tell them will gain the most votes. This does open all our politicians to the charge of “inauthenticity”. They say some things, don’t say other things, then hope that what they crafted themselves to be, gets them elected.
What might better serve us, would be to forget about all of that, have each candidate be themselves, and we then just vote for the person we feel represents our values as to what would be the best for our nation. End of argument.
And I recognize such is idealistic, but idealism is only the cumulative of what everyone wishes could happen; if everyone works at it, usually it comes to fruition. If we could return to such a time (and this might be the ideal median for it to start), to where we stop talking about how bad the other candidates are, and instead talk about how good our candidate is… we would probably a) win more converts to our candidate; b) increase our audience’s participation in elections; c) create a better environment inside our government between election cycles….
if this is ever to take place, and it may be too late, it needs to start somewhere… Since discourse on threads in this medium is usually civil, this is just as good a place as anywhere else….
I guess after reading this to its bottom, makes it sort of become quite clear… If you are going to have a long thread of comments that tie up a lot of your time, …. shouldn’t they truly mean something and make a positive difference in the long-term argument down the road, instead of wasting an inordinate amount of time discussing something that can never ever be precisely defined?
@b “sissy? now you’re being sexist or homophobic. Jesus, get to your Trump rally or cross burning already.”
So apropos. But this thread really was a waste of time reading.
Though I must say… I can’t remember ever seeing anyone losing so spectacularly here at DL.
What Kavips said…
As I said, here it’s magnolias. But only here.
My, what imaginations you all have. I never mentioned sex. I was talking about marriage and its traditional interpretation — you know, the one most of us mean when we talk about it.
The projection is strong on this thread. But it does mark you all with the same basic attitude as Trump fans — drown out dissenting voices rather than discuss anything with them.
But you don’t use violence so you’re so much better than them. Keep telling yourselves that. You’re going to need every possible point to distinguish yourselves from them.
Pretty sure folks here would be happy to have a reasoned discussion with you if didn’t behave like such a dick… When you maintain that tough-guy, condescending, Insulting, Trumpian way of discourse, people are going to treat you like the ass you behave like.
But, by all means, please continue with your insulting, aggrieved diatribe about how much of a poor misunderstood soul you are.
@a “you know, the one most of us mean when we talk about it.”
Seriously?
In what decade did you go to grade school? You’re a throwback to a time where things like “sissy” could actually be said as an insult.
Why don’t you bring your insults up to the 21st century.
“drown out dissenting voices rather than discuss anything with them.”
They DID discuss it with you. They just didn’t agree with you. …and then you went off the deep end in a rather spectacular manner.
I’ve got an old insult that dates from circa 1955 for you (e.g. TMRC dictionary): Loser.
That one still works in the 21st century.
@PJ: Check my first comment. What’s unreasonable about it?
As I have often noted, I post comments and links to many other stories. But until I insult some of the residents here — a group so thin-skinned this site should be sponsored by dermatologists — nobody wants to talk about anything that doesn’t include the waving of pom-poms for Hillary.
On the open thread I posted a link to the attorney general’s report on the McDole shooting. Crickets.
Mote in my eye, beam in yours. Etc.
nobody wants to talk about anything that doesn’t include the waving of pom-poms for Hillary.
Cue the World’s Smallest Violin.
Lots of us post things that don’t get much discussion. Most of us don’t get our victim on over it. It just wasn’t something that interested the group (or, will interest them later).
It’s about the fact that she was willing to go on TV and be less than truthful about the Flowers affair and his philandering in general. And she reacted the same way to Lewinsky, and Jones, and all the others she knew about. She attacked them.
So she didn’t behave the way you would have prescribed for a woman facing her husband’s adultery. Which circles back to the wingnut issues with her — she didn’t provide them with the satisfaction of repudiating Bill. And still won’t. The Clinton marriage is not a telenovela for your entertainment. Trump will make a point of it, not because of anything we think, but because there are alot of Americans like you who *do* see themselves as judge, jury and chief high executioner on the state of the Clinton marriage — and can be distracted from thinking about the problems we face by the stories spun up about the Clinton’s personal relationship.
163rd!!!
I have simple question for Nemski that will tell me everything I need to know about how to evaluate his posts and comments …. If the choice is between Clinton and Trump, will you not vote for Clinton?
Yes or no. No long rationalization a required.
If he says. “I will vote for Clinton” then this his posts are sincere critiscim. If he says “I will not vote for Clinton” he has taken leave of his senses and should be ridiculed like any idiot.
History speaks authoritatively on this topic.
This entire discussion was overrun by a person who claims to know something she or he can’t possibly know. (I agree with Cassandra on this one.)
I’m no supporter of Clinton and I have made that quite clear, but this entire 150-odd comment mess is worthless and dumb. We don’t know what Bill and Hillary have between them. Anonymous calls it a “sham” arranged for political expedience. I could just as easily make up another story. Something like, Bill is a depressive and a sex addict. He’s ill. He decided to ask for forgiveness and get treatment. Because Hillary is a stand-up person she forgave him and supported him in his recovery.
Totally hypothetical and just as made up as anonymous’ bizarre theories. There’s zero evidence either way except for rumour and conjecture. Yet we are treated to this ridiculous and embarrassing thread.
Just challenge Clinton from the left. It’s actually incredibly easy and you can use like actual evidence. I did it yesterday morning about 145 comments to the due north of this. But all that is lost because one anonymous weirdo has a strange fixation.
“My, what imaginations you all have. I never mentioned sex.”
oh no? Here’s a couple.
“Bill’s pussy-hunting plane trip tales are easy to find. Google a bit. ” – 10:39
“I’m not turning off my ability to see and analyze duplicitous behavior just because we didn’t want someone impeached because he lied, yet again, over a sexual dalliance.” 10:40
Polite suggestion, if I may. Ben – I know your heart’s in the proper place, but just let this die. The entire thing makes us all look like idiots. I think it’s clear what happened here.
fiiiiineeee. I’m done. 🙂