Sukhov Posted June 8, 2018 https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/clinton-policies-have-hurt-women.html Yves here. This post is an indictment of the policy positions that Clinton has taken on issues that affect women. Another disingenuous element of the “women should vote for Hillary” campaign is that the efforts she’s been touting to prove her bona fides, such as her intent to name a Cabinet withhalf the posts filled by women, is that she’s selling trickle-down feminism. The tacit assumption is that breaking the glass ceiling is an important breakthrough for women. In fact, that is a concern of elite women. As Hillary’s own record attests, and that of women CEOs (Linda Wachner to Marissa Mayer) or women in Congress (Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi are prime examples, as are Republicans like Joni Ernst from Iowa and Shelley Moore Capito from West Virginia), women in positions of influence more often identify with members of their class (well off, well educated women) than middle and lower class people of either gender. Although there is much to be said for the critique in this article, I’m leery of the “feminist values” framing. It reinforces gender stereotyping. And Hillary making her status as a female candidate a prime reason for voting for her preserves all of that cultural baggage. tIn classes as big as men versus women, the differences among the members of the class are greater than the differences between classes. - Hillary is that rare combination, even in our grotesque political landscape, of a smooth-talking neoliberal with the worst tendencies of a warrior-neoconservative. You couldn’t say that about Bill to the same extent, but there isn’t a regime change opportunity, a chemical or conventional arms deal, an escalated aerial (or lately drone) war, or an authoritarian friend in need, that Hillary hasn’t liked. If we get her, we will only be setting back feminism by decades, because her policies—like welfare “reform”—have always come packaged under the false rubric of caring for women and children. It’s like George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism,” the rhetorical cover she needs to enact policies, time after time, that erode women’s and children’s standing even as she claims to be their steadfast advocate. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darkblue Posted June 8, 2018 Thanks for bringing back this thread with a great post, Gersh. Threads about the she-demon are always precarious - as the title of this one suggests, 3 previously couldn't survive the objections hurled by her sycophantic supporters and got unceremoniously ripped away. It's a credit to our dear departed member DGF (nee finance) that this one has managed to survive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hamradio Posted June 8, 2018 1 hour ago, darkblue said: Thanks for bringing back this thread with a great post, Gersh. Threads about the she-demon are always precarious - as the title of this one suggests, 3 previously couldn't survive the objections hurled by her sycophantic supporters and got unceremoniously ripped away. It's a credit to our dear departed member DGF (nee finance) that this one has managed to survive. Even "he" can't take anymore of the complaining why she lost. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sukhov Posted June 11, 2018 https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/06/amy-chozicks-chasing-hillary-scoop-missed-story-life-10.html Amy Chozick’s Chasing Hillary: A Scoop, a Missed Story, and Life in the 10% Posted on June 10, 2018 by Lambert Strether By Lambert Strether of Corrente Yes, I read New York Times reporter Amy Chozick’s Chasing Hillary so you don’t have to, while traveling back to Maine on the train and then the bus. Combining Chasing Hillary with Shattered gives a good parallax view of the omnishambles that was the Clinton campaign. I dog-eared rather a lot of pages for future attention, but I’m only going to call out what I see the high points here. So, this post is not a review, though I have to say that Chasing Hillary is a cracking good read, as they say: It’s a well structured and vivid portrayal of life on the campaign trail, especially life on the trail as experienced by a professional woman. (The press corps trailing Clinton was mostly women, interestingly.) From the Times review, “The Walls That Hillary Clinton Created”: ...... As the slogan goes (and I’ll have something to say about “personal”). So the high points: One is a scoop that nobody seems to have noticed; one is a story that, oddly, was never written; and the third is Chozick’s character as a fully paid-up member of the 10%. (Here are two interviews with Chozick, from Rolling Stone and Cosmopolitan.) - Conclusion Chasing Hillary is well worth a read, especially if you’re a political, history, and/or media junkie, as I am. However, what Chozick does not say — or cannot feel — is often more revealing than what she does descibe, entertaining and awful though that is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Princess of Tap Posted June 11, 2018 41 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/06/amy-chozicks-chasing-hillary-scoop-missed-story-life-10.html Amy Chozick’s Chasing Hillary: A Scoop, a Missed Story, and Life in the 10% Posted on June 10, 2018 by Lambert Strether By Lambert Strether of Corrente Yes, I read New York Times reporter Amy Chozick’s Chasing Hillary so you don’t have to, while traveling back to Maine on the train and then the bus. Combining Chasing Hillary with Shattered gives a good parallax view of the omnishambles that was the Clinton campaign. I dog-eared rather a lot of pages for future attention, but I’m only going to call out what I see the high points here. So, this post is not a review, though I have to say that Chasing Hillary is a cracking good read, as they say: It’s a well structured and vivid portrayal of life on the campaign trail, especially life on the trail as experienced by a professional woman. (The press corps trailing Clinton was mostly women, interestingly.) From the Times review, “The Walls That Hillary Clinton Created”: ...... As the slogan goes (and I’ll have something to say about “personal”). So the high points: One is a scoop that nobody seems to have noticed; one is a story that, oddly, was never written; and the third is Chozick’s character as a fully paid-up member of the 10%. (Here are two interviews with Chozick, from Rolling Stone and Cosmopolitan.) - Conclusion Chasing Hillary is well worth a read, especially if you’re a political, history, and/or media junkie, as I am. However, what Chozick does not say — or cannot feel — is often more revealing than what she does descibe, entertaining and awful though that is. Gersh-- you really are a political junkie and I admire you for it. But you just selected a book about a subject that not very many people have ever been interested in. To quote one of my favorite Gershwin songs, which I know you love too --" Who Cares?" Gersh-- My hat is off to you! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sukhov Posted June 11, 2018 10 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said: Gersh-- you really are a political junkie and I admire you for it. But you just selected a book about a subject that not very many people have ever been interested in. To quote one of my favorite Gershwin songs, which I know you love too --" Who Cares?" Gersh-- My hat is off to you! I never said you had to care or be interested in it. If you want to talk about different topics there are other threads available. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Princess of Tap Posted June 11, 2018 3 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said: I never said you had to care or be interested in it. If you want to talk about different topics there are other threads available. My dear boy lighten up-- I was joking, but also expressing my freedom of speech. You're doing a great job! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vautrin Posted June 11, 2018 Lady Gaga, still not Jewish. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darkblue Posted January 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, HIGHWAY said: Psychopathy 101. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bogie56 Posted February 29 The theory here is that as the polls closed in the east and Clinton was predicted as the winner enough people didn't bother to vote in key swing states to hand Trump the victory in 2016 Did Trump win in 2016 because people are bad at probability? Supporters rally for Donald Trump in Grand Rapids, Mich., on Nov. 8, 2016. (Paul Sancya/AP) By Philip Bump Feb. 28, 2020 at 10:12 p.m. GMT Like one of Pompeii’s more unfortunate residents, the Web page where the New York Times estimated that Hillary Clinton had an 85 percent chance of winning the 2016 election can still be visited. The number is frozen in place, stamped as having been updated at 10:20 p.m. Eastern on election night — after polls closed in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, the states that handed Donald Trump the presidency. For some time, I’ve been curious about whether there was a causality between those two things. It seems clear that some number of people saw forecasts from the Times and FiveThirtyEight suggesting that Clinton had a high probability of winning and assumed, with some justification, that she would. Did that make them less likely to vote? And did that, in turn, contribute to Trump’s skin-of-his-teeth wins in the upper Midwest? Did that Web page give Trump the presidency? ...more Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
