ChrisWeigant.com

Will Hillary Show Up To Netroots Nation?

[ Posted Monday, April 13th, 2015 – 16:54 UTC ]

And so it begins. Hillary Clinton is now officially in the race for the White House. Her announcement, like pretty much everything else about her upcoming campaign, will be microscopically analyzed within an inch of its life. Was she too generic? Was she appealing enough? Where were the specifics? What about Bill? And what was up with that laughably 1970s campaign logo? Most of these deep-dive analyses won't make a tiny bit of difference, in the long run (well, OK, that logo is pretty bad, hopefully that's the first thing Team Hillary decides to change...). But it'll certainly give all the pundits something to do in the meantime.

As campaign rollouts go, Hillary is obviously going for the lowest key she can manage. She hasn't even scheduled any big rallies or events for the first few months, and her announcement video didn't even show her face until the minute-and-a-half mark. She has, obviously, learned her lesson about the whole "inevitability" thing from the last time around. She is going to start campaigning by going on a "listening tour," starting in Iowa. This worked wonders for her as a senator, and it could be valuable if she meets some interesting people and does actually listen to their concerns along the way. The most interesting thing about her launch is that she's actually driving from New York to Iowa. Well, not personally driving (she's still got a Secret Service escort, like all former First Ladies), but still -- traveling the country's Interstates is a lot better way to reconnect to the common man and woman than chartering an airplane. Sure, it's a stunt, but it could turn out to be more than that, depending on the people she meets in the rest stops of the Midwest.

Hillary Clinton, like all presidential candidates, is going to have to perform a balancing act. She's got to reach out to the undecided voters that will be crucial for the general election, and she's also got to shore up her base. Right now, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is somewhat leery of Clinton (and that's putting it politely). Hillary is seen as being much more hawkish than the base is really comfortable with, and much closer to Wall Street than any Elizabeth Warren fan wants to see. That first one is pretty much of a given -- Hillary can transform herself in many ways out on the campaign trail, but she'll never be able to go back and erase her vote for the Iraq War. In her recent book, she stakes out a more aggressive foreign policy stance than President Obama, so it's pretty hard to see her walking this back all that much. But then again she's still going to have to work hard to be an acceptably-tough president for some voters, seeing as how she is the first woman to ever have a decent crack at winning.

Many Democrats are ready and willing to, if not actually forgive her for her hawkishness, at least accept it as part of the Clinton package. But when the subject turns to domestic issues, progressives are going to push a lot harder for Clinton to champion the causes of progressivism. Giving either Robert Reich or Elizabeth Warren a prominent place among Hillary's close economic advisors would go a long way towards quelling progressive fears that Hillary is but a reluctant progressive, at best.

But there's one other big thing Hillary could do to build bridges with the left of the Democratic Party -- attend this year's Netroots Nation conference. Because if you're going to woo liberals, the best way to do it is to travel to where the liberals will all be, in mid-July.

Eight years ago, the second annual Netroots Nation conference was held in Chicago (it was actually called YearlyKos back then, the name wouldn't change until 2008). Seven of the eight Democratic candidates appeared at the 2007 conference, including both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It was a different time, of course, since the primary race was a lot more openly contested than it likely will be this year. Since that time, the conference has grown into the premiere event for the "netroots" -- liberal bloggers, progressive activists, Unions, progressive politicians, and many other lefty influences (and influencers). It's the one time of year all of them can be reliably found under one roof.

This is why it is almost imperative for Hillary Clinton to attend this year's Netroots Nation in Phoenix. There is already some degree of controversy about the choice of site this year (some people are still boycotting Arizona over the anti-immigrant law they passed a few years back). But that shouldn't deter Hillary, who (after all) is going to have to campaign in all 50 states.

Hillary Clinton is not the netroots' favorite candidate. That's about as politely as I can put it. Instead, many progressives are putting a whole lot of time and energy into what is almost guaranteed to be a futile effort: convincing Senator Elizabeth Warren to run and be their champion. Warren has said -- over and over and over again -- that she is not going to run. Sooner or later, her fans are going to have to come to grips with this. If Hillary Clinton truly is the only viable candidate from the Democratic side ("viable" meaning "polling above ten percent," say), then the only real option is going to become trying to influence Hillary to be the most progressive candidate possible.

That's a disappointing prospect for many. Other Democrats may become favorites of the progressives who will be looking for "anyone but Hillary," but the question will become whether they'll get any real traction beyond the halls of Netroots Nation. A much more possible outcome is trying to get Hillary to see that progressive ideas are popular ideas, and indeed the ones she should be eagerly running on.

The differences between Hillary Clinton (and even Bill) and the netroots are not as great as some may think, however. After all, it is not radically leftist to be in favor of a higher minimum wage -- it's in fact been a standard Democratic position for decades. Most of the real friction comes over how to treat Wall Street and the big banks, where progressivism becomes downright populist in nature. Hillary Clinton may get a little squishy on the question of taxing hedge fund managers and the one percent, and on strictly policing Wall Street in general. But her positions on women's rights and equal pay should be completely in tune with progressives. So while she's got some work to do to convince the netroots that she hears their issues and supports most of their agenda, it doesn't mean she has to completely reinvent herself to do so.

Ignoring the netroots (and skipping Netroots Nation), though, would be a big mistake for Hillary. Because she's going to need not only the independent voters in the general election, she's also going to need a big turnout from the coalition that Barack Obama put together -- the same coalition that largely didn't show up at the polls in 2014. What 2014 proved is that when the base shows no excitement, Democrats can lose elections in a big way. The people who attend Netroots Nation are, to a large extent, the people who can actually generate this excitement. These are the people who walk precincts and get heavily involved in Democratic politics, after all. They need convincing so that they can go out and convince others, to put this another way.

Personally, I will be attending Netroots Nation this year. I truly hope to see Hillary Clinton there as well. I think it's the best thing she could do to shore up those in the Democratic base who still have reservations about supporting Hillary wholeheartedly. Sure, not everything she'll have to say is going to be wildly applauded -- she might even get booed a few times. Hillary Clinton is already a known quantity, and parts of her political persona aren't going to be in line with everyone in a Netroots Nation audience. The question for her is whether she can get beyond that and get the crowd a little fired up on the issues where Hillary does see eye-to-eye with progressives. Hillary needs the netroots to be not just begrudgingly for her, but to actually get excited about the prospect of four (or eight) years of her in the Oval Office. The best way for her to accomplish this is to show up, explain her positions, and let people see she's listening not just to people along the Interstates of America and in Iowa living rooms, but also to the folks in the big keynote hall of Netroots Nation.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

54 Comments on “Will Hillary Show Up To Netroots Nation?”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, comment-answering is caught up back to the middle of last week, so go back and check it out.

    In particular, I point out this comment for those who use modern technology (unlike myself):

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/04/08/a-hard-look-at-the-big-blue-wall/#comment-58680

    Anyway, I'm caught back up. Go read the comments...

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Time for another Hillary prediction...

    The Left in general and Weigantians in particular will spend the entire primary season grossing and complaining about how bad Hillary is for this country...

    Once we're past the primaries, the Left in general and Weigantians in particular will marvel at how awesome Hillary is and how she is going to be so good for this country...

    :D

    I have a good feeling about this prediction.. :D

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    What exactly is the H Clinton logo? I think it's getting lost in a sea of memes.

    Michael, you should feel good about your prediction.
    Pretty much on rails, that one.

    Speaking of rails, Father Ted is to sit-comedy what Wild Mouse is to Roller Coasters.

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:
  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    And so it begins. Hillary Clinton is now officially in the race for the White House. Her announcement, like pretty much everything else about her upcoming campaign, will be microscopically analyzed within an inch of its life. Was she too generic? Was she appealing enough? Where were the specifics? What about Bill? And what was up with that laughably 1970s campaign logo? Most of these deep-dive analyses won't make a tiny bit of difference, in the long run (well, OK, that logo is pretty bad, hopefully that's the first thing Team Hillary decides to change...).

    "Hillary fought children and families all her career"
    -Hillary Clinton Campaign Announcement

    Yea, I know.. It's a simple typo...

    But jeezus... Hillary is spending 2.5 BILLION (Yes, with a "B") dollars this election.

    Ya think she could hire a proof-reader...

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what was up with that laughably 1970s campaign logo?

    It's retro...

    Just like Hillary....

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-4

    Ah, so that's the one....except you're showing a truncated version without the "for America hillaryclinton.com" text, which balances the graphic and makes it look retro 90s rather retro 70s. The truncated version looks like roadside instructions to the hospital.

    http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/9Tz/zLM/9TzzLMrTE.png

    On the other hand, the full-up version looks like something capping the roof line of a skyscraper, or a sports multiplex. That's subliminally brilliant, since Hillary and Bill are card carrying corporate Democrats.

    Am I reading too much into this? Of course !!!!! but so is everybody else at this early date in the election process. It's part of the fun.

    Graphic courtesy of TurboMeme

  8. [8] 
    TheStig wrote:

    A rather amazing video I just saw at the HuffPO. Truth meets Jim Beam and emerges largely intact.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/13/redneck-dixon-white_n_7059414.html

    Amazing

  9. [9] 
    TheStig wrote:

    ...and in further breaking news, it looks like a system of compromise may still be working over at the Senate. In the same sense that my classic '67 Volkswagen Beetle worked after losing the front wheel going down an exit ramp. Car stayed upright long enough to get me and my white knuckles to the bottom of the ramp, slightly behind the loose wheel.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ah, so that's the one....except you're showing a truncated version without the "for America hillaryclinton.com" text, which balances the graphic and makes it look retro 90s rather retro 70s.

    Again... Just like Hillary.. :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Paula wrote:

    I have some concerns about Hillary's positions (those that lean right) but in terms of her as a human being I have tremendous respect and regard for her. She was put through an excruciating wringer during the Clinton years; she chose to pursue her own political path and was willing to do the work (in contrast, for example, with Caroline Kennedy, who was willing to be appointed to the Senate) and she served with competence and integrity. She lost to Obama in 2008 and went to work in his administration -- I just think she's very, very strong. The best politician in the world? No -- Bill might be -- but a person worthy of respect -- Yes.

    If she goes to Netroots that respect will only increase. I'm liking Martin O'Malley -- possible veep?

  12. [12] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That would be cool. One of my friends just posted that he got to ask Hillary a question in 2008. Here was his question:

    Thank you for saying that as President you will repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. As you know, that was your husband's legacy. So I'd like to ask you about 4 other laws that were part of the Clinton legacy, and whether you would advocate their repeal: the Defense of Marriage Act, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, NAFTA and the Welfare Reform Act of 1996.

    Here is what Hillary said (according to Paul):

    (1) DOMA "served a real important purpose" bc it set marriage at the states to prevent a constitutional amendment but she did say Part 3 of DOMA should be repealed (that was overruled by Supreme Court, so it's a moot point now), (2) Telecommunications Act: "you'll have to ask Al Gore. He's an expert on that, I'm not"; (3) NAFTA - not all the promises were realized but we have to carefully evaluate, and (4) Welfare Reform - "I think the benefits outweighed the negatives."

  13. [13] 
    akadjian wrote:

    p.s. I don't think I'm going to make Netroots this year, CW. dKos is not going (This was big news last year). And I just don't think I can justify the funds right now for Phoenix.

    May have to read your updates instead!

    -David

  14. [14] 
    Paula wrote:

    Chris:

    I saw you were asking about your site in the Blue-Wall thread -- your site isn't responsive and you don't have a separate mobile site, right?

    You can look at your site through this link to see how it fits on various devices: http://cybercrab.com/screencheck/

    In point of fact phones and tablets will typically shrink your site to fit so you can see everything but have to zoom to make things readable and then scroll horizontally. Stuff is readable on ipads; will start to be less so on smaller tablets and not at all on smartphones.

    Send me an email re: responsiveness if you want to know what to do -- you may want to consider moving to a responsive theme, etc. (Better to use a responsive site versus having a separate mobile site.)

    Google is now going to be adding a symbol to sites indicating whether they are mobile-friendly, fwiw.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    and {Hillary} served with competence and integrity.

    Damn....

    Now I have a replace a beer-spewed keyboard!!

    The words "integrity" and "Hillary Clinton" should never be on the same PLANET, let alone in the same sentence...

    I mean, honestly...

    The woman said they were "dead broke" when they left the White House, yet they could afford TWO... not one, but TWO... multi-million dollar homes...

    Hillary Clinton epitomizes the 1%.....

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, honestly...

    The woman makes over a MILLION dollars just in 4 speaking engagements...

    And we are supposed to believe she knows how rough it is for Joe and Jane Sixpack???

    There are MANY words I can use to describe Hillary Clinton...

    "Integrity" is way way way way WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY down on the list..

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, the gist I am getting from all the comments is that the Primary is already over...

    Now we just have to wait for the inevitable coronation...

    Which, of course, will leave Clinton woefully unprepared for a Presidential Campaign...

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The gist I am getting from all the comments is that the Primary is already over.

    I hope not! I'd like to see someone challenge HRC.

    -David

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hope not! I'd like to see someone challenge HRC.

    Oh, I am sure you would...

    But you know and I know that there won't be a viable challenger..

    Not even Warren would have a chance against the Clinton Juggernaut....

    Let's face it..

    Clinton is the best the Democrat Party can offer...

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    and {Hillary} served with competence and integrity.

    We don't know that for sure...

    We have no emails from her time as SecState, save those chosen BY Hillary herself...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's face it..

    Clinton is the best the Democrat Party can offer...

    Don't hate me because I am right... :D

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    I just think she's very, very strong.

    I hope she is strong enough as a leader to be able to execute a smart foreign policy and to resist all attempts by those, of all political stripes, who will call her weak.

    I remain unconvinced that she is strong enough for that or that she is the best candidate to pick up where the Obama/Biden administration has left off. But, it's early days in the campaign and I am prepared to see things differently, if warranted.

  23. [23] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    RE: the logo...

    I almost downloaded and posted the two historical logos Hillary's reminded me of, but then considered it to be too snarky for the first column on her campaign. In any case, they are:

    1970s NBC logo (very triangular)

    and the last (end-60s, through 70s) logo AMC ever had (that's the car company, for those too young to remember, search on "American Motor Corporation" otherwise you'll get a bunch of stuff from a TV channel...).

    Am I wrong? Or do those two immediately seem comparable?

    -CW

  24. [24] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    (that's the car company, for those too young to remember, search on "American Motor Corporation" otherwise you'll get a bunch of stuff from a TV channel...).

    Old people rock!!! :D

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hope not! I'd like to see someone challenge HRC.

    It's actually ironic, David..

    Because the one thing that you decry so much in political elections is the ONE thing that is preventing anyone from seriously challenging Hillary...

    $$$$$

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, that, Michale, and any sense of well-earned respect. Ahem.

  28. [28] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    It's retro...

    Just like Hillary....,

    Kudos on how quickly you have picked up parroting the Rubio Meme....

    Yea, I know.. It's a simple typo...

    As a working mother it could have been true:D
    But more than likely a typo like you said, at least though I found some very good stuff on Rand's website gave gave me good insight into his his veiws on "eductation".

    Personally, I think I have gone to the dark place of the agnostics. The next 18 months will be filled with nothing but ideological platitudes meant to sooth the masses all financed by large corporate interest blocks, all but guaranteeing that the ideological platitudes from both the left and the right will be left on the ever-growing trash heap of politicians broken promises while the ones that bought them get an ever increasing piece of the american pie.

    Will the next 18 months be fun, sure....Will I participate in the process, sure though not as much as I would like...

    My prediction for this election cycle is that we will all need to hold our noses as we pull the lever and hope we have picked the more benevolent corporate interest block.

    Have fun it's off for three weeks of OPSEC and spotty WIFI in developing nations....

  29. [29] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: Good to see your new sensitivity to One Percenters. I'm sure you'll extend your distaste to every One-Percent republican in the field.

    Elizabeth: yes, I worry Hillary will be too hawkish. There's no doubt bloodthirsty folks will attempt to pressure her and they will use "strength" as their club. We'll see.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    Kudos on how quickly you have picked up parroting the Rubio Meme....

    Actually, he picked it up from me.... :D

    Must be an avid reader of CW.COM

    Paula,

    Good to see your new sensitivity to One Percenters. I'm sure
    you'll extend your distaste to every One-Percent republican in the field.

    I have never held anything but contempt for 1%'ers who claim they are not... regardless of whether there is a '-D' or a '-R' after their name..

    You know how much Warren made as a Harvard Professor?? Over half a mil a year.. Add in speaking fees etc etc etc, she pulled in over a cool million a year..

    Ya'all seem to only despise the 1%'ers who have the '-R'....

    If the GOPers you are talking about truly ARE 1%ers and try to claim they are "dead broke" or know what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck???

    You bet yer bippy my distaste will be extended... Loudly and often.... :D

    Let me put it this way...

    Hillary Clinton is this elections Mitt Romney...

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all gross on and on and on about the millions and billions spent by the GOP...

    In the last 2 elections, it was the Democrats who far outspent the GOP...

    16 of the 20 top corporate donors donate to Democrats....

    Citizens United?? Has helped Democrats 20 times more than it has helped Republicans..

    "These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
    -Kevin Bacon, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: your comments betray your superficial understanding of the issues surrounding the "One Percent" and the way our economy has been engineered to produce it. You are simply adopting a rightwing talking point. You target Elizabeth Warren and her Harvard salary. I guess she's the only Harvard Prof making that much, right? (Elizabeth Warren probably doesn't actually fall into the One Percent --though she's in the top ten, maybe even 5 percent.) But for you she's simply a liberal who makes some good money and you express a resentment towards her that, I suspect, has nothing to do with Income Inequality or the Rise of the Rentier class, but instead is because hysterical republicans hate and fear her because she's been effective at actually trying to do something about many of the issues that surround Income Inequality and corporate predation.

  33. [33] 
    Paula wrote:

    Testing: tried a comment and it seemed to disappear.

  34. [34] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: Your comments betray your superficial grasp of the systemic/legal/tax-code issues that have created and sustain the "One Percent" and the reasons why the existence of the "One Percent" is a problem. You descry the One Percent in this case purely because it is a republican talking point and you served it up right on schedule. Your selection of Elizabeth Warren and her Harvard salary makes that additionally clear. (Is E. Warren is the only Harvard Prof with that salary?) E. Warren is on the firing line from the right because she's actually been somewhat effective in her attempts to address Income Inequality and Corporate Predation. May her efforts magnify in all directions!

  35. [35] 
    Paula wrote:

    Lost two now.

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hmmm, Paula, is this something that happens to you often? Heh.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lost two now.

    It happens..

    Certain key words trip the NNL filter...

    Like Kirk's entry into the obelisk on the American Indian planet in the TOS episode The Paradise Syndrome... :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here is one Iowan's perspective of the Hillary visit..

    http://www.ijreview.com/2015/04/296973-everyday-iowan-close-got-hillary-clinton-today/

    Locked down the classrooms??

    Students LOCKED IN their classrooms along Hillary's path??

    Really???

    THIS is the best the Dem Party can offer??

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like the NNL filters snatched one up of mine as well, CW... :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I think you're right about the logos, CW. Must be something to that color combination.

    I saw this this morning and it's too funny not to post. Apparently someone developed a new font they call Hillvetica.

    http://also.kottke.org/misc/images/hillvetica.jpg

    It's humor like this that restores my faith in humanity.

    -David

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:
  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    The truncated version looks like roadside instructions to the hospital.

    Maybe it's a Freudian Slip that her campaign will likely be on life support... :D

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know, it doesn't bug me that Hillary stages campaign events..

    That's what one expects from a politician...

    What bugs the hell out of me.. ("hill out of me"?? :D) is that she thinks that Americans are so utterly stoopid to fall for it...

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TheStig [3] -

    Check her campaign site out, it's all over that.

    [9] -

    You still have a '69 bug? I'm impressed! Or was that a "from my own history" story?

    Paula [11] -

    A couple of comments. First, nice (and correct) use of "wringer" -- I see this misspelled as "ringer" even in official press stories, far too often.

    Good contrast to Caroline Kennedy, too. Excellent point.

    akadjian [13] -

    We skipped last year's, because we knew that the 2015 Netroots would most likely draw Clinton and all challengers. We will miss you in Phoenix, that's for sure. If you manage to make it, PLEASE let us know so we can touch base!

    Paula [14] -

    Thanks for the link. Yes, I am considering making the site more friendly to other devices, which is why I'm thankful for all the feedback I've gotten so far on the issue. A friend pointed out the Google thing, which is motivating me to redesign the site a bit, I must admit.

    Everyone who has responded to my "what does CW.com look like on portable devices" -- thanks for the feedback, it is helping me a lot!

    Michale [15] -

    You disappoint me. I thought you'd be one to see through the whole "if a Republican is rich, it's OK, but any Dem who is rich is a TRAITOR TO THEIR PARTY and a FLAMING HYPOCRITE!" nonsense.

    I have three initials to counter such moose poop:

    FDR

    Personal wealth means little to what a politician's actual policies are.

    [15] -

    So, Jeb Bush knows the common man's plight better? Oh, puh-leeze...

    [20] -

    You mean, "Just like Jeb Bush's emails as governor," don't you?

    Heh.

    LizM [22] -

    I am with you. I am not totally convinced about Hillary, but I am keeping an open mind. Maybe she'll surprise us, who knows?

    Michale [25] -

    No, "old AMCs rock!"

    https://www.google.com/search?q=amx+photos&biw=1366&bih=608&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=uFwvVbKjOc-4oQTesoCoBQ&ved=0CB0QsAQ

    or maybe:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=amx+photos&biw=1366&bih=608&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=uFwvVbKjOc-4oQTesoCoBQ&ved=0CB0QsAQ#tbm=isch&q=amc+scrambler+photos

    :-)

    Michale [30] -

    So, just to hold you to your own standard of anti-hypocrisy: do you support a candidate of either party from the one percent, or does it matter to you whether they come from the left
    (Hillary) or from the right (Romney)?

    I'm curious.

    Paula [32] -

    Exactly the point I just tried to make. Well done!

    Paula [33, 34, 35] -

    Sorry, a few of your comments got stuck in the auto-moderation filter. I've now freed them, and I apologize for the delay.

    LizM [36] -

    No, no, this was wholly my fault... Paula is blameless... still tweaking the filters....

    akadjian [40] -

    OK, now that was freakin' hilarious! "Hillvetica" is a perfect spoof, as far as I'm concerned...

    :-)

    You're right, this does restore my own faith in humanity as well!

    Michale [43] -

    You'd be amazed at how often stunts turn into the whole theme of a politician's campaign... just sayin'...

    OK, that's enough for now.

    -CW

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Michale: your comments betray your superficial understanding of the issues surrounding the "One Percent" and the way our economy has been engineered to produce it.

    My concept of the 1% are exclusively borne of the Leftist talking points regarding same..

    So, just to hold you to your own standard of anti-hypocrisy: do you support a candidate of either party from the one percent, or does it matter to you whether they come from the left
    (Hillary) or from the right (Romney)?

    Any "problem" I have with the 1% is borne solely and completely from the Progressives' talking points on the 1%...

    *I* don't have a problem with wealth, in and of itself..

    Unlike progressives, I don't automatically assume that one is evil just because they are wealthy...

    My point is, and always has been, the hypocrisy of the Left and progressives who slam the Mitt Romney's of the Right but ignore the Mitt Romney's of the Left.. Like Hillary Clinton..

    My point is and always has been the hypocrisy of the Left that slams the Kochs but ignores the Soroses...

    That slam the Adelsons but ignores the Buffetts...

    That's my point now and forever.. :D

    Or until the Left starts being equal in their condemnation of wealth and money...

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    My only point is if ya'all are against money in politics, be against money in ALL politics..

    Not just against money in REPUBLICAN politics...

    "We're for disarming the world!!!"
    "But the Western Democracies come first, right!!??"

    -The Final Option

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    You disappoint me. I thought you'd be one to see through the whole "if a Republican is rich, it's OK, but any Dem who is rich is a TRAITOR TO THEIR PARTY and a FLAMING HYPOCRITE!" nonsense.

    I have three initials to counter such moose poop:

    FDR

    Personal wealth means little to what a politician's actual policies are.

    We're not talking about policies.. We're talking about integrity..

    A person who claims they are "dead broke" but then goes out and buys not one, but TWO multi-million dollar homes???

    THAT is a person with no integrity...

    So, Jeb Bush knows the common man's plight better? Oh, puh-leeze...

    Never claimed that..

    Once his hat is in the ring, we can compare his words to his actions..

    So, just to hold you to your own standard of anti-hypocrisy: do you support a candidate of either party from the one percent, or does it matter to you whether they come from the left
    (Hillary) or from the right (Romney)?

    I'm curious.

    That's exactly my point. A candidates position in the 1% is irrelevant to their value as a leader.... Ya'all are following the Leftist meme that 1%'er = BBP..

    But, as I have pointed out (and no one, incidentally, can refute) ya'all only slam the Right Wing 1%'ers.. The Left Wing 1%'ers, Hillary, Warren, etc etc get a pass...

    *MY* beef is those 1%'ers who claim they are "dead broke"...

    You'd be amazed at how often stunts turn into the whole theme of a politician's campaign... just sayin'...

    But they are just stunts... They don't show the REAL candidate....

    Come to think of it, they DO show the real candidate.. A candidate who has no integrity and has to rely on "stunts"...

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's exactly my point. A candidates position in the 1% is irrelevant to their value as a leader....

    As a matter of fact, their position as a 1%'er might ENHANCE their qualification as a leader..

    Just depends on how they became a 1%'er..

    If they are a 1%'er because they can travel around the country flappin' their jaws and pulling in a third of a mill for a single speech???

    Well, that hardly qualifies them as a leader...

    If they actually created their wealth thru hard work and discipline??

    Well, those are leadership qualities...

    But, as I have said, the point isn't the 1%'ers per se...

    My point is how much ya'all despise 1%'ers... But ONLY the 1%'ers who are against the Leftist/Progressive agenda..

    Those 1%'ers who support the Leftist/Progressive agenda??

    Ya'all love them....

    Koch?? Bad

    Soros?? Good

    Adelson?? Bad

    Buffett?? Good

    You see the point??

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Koch?? Bad

    Soros?? Good

    Adelson?? Bad

    Buffett?? Good

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_pqnsKWlpc

    :D

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    akadjian wrote:

    We skipped last year's, because we knew that the 2015 Netroots would most likely draw Clinton and all challengers. We will miss you in Phoenix, that's for sure. If you manage to make it, PLEASE let us know so we can touch base!

    Will do, CW. Missed you guys in Detroit. The East Coast/West Coast thing is tough.

    I bet they have the A-team there this year. Should be a good time.

    -David

    Btw, HuffPo published "I'm a liberal. I eat at Applebee's". Heheh.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-akadjian/im-a-liberal-i-eat-at-app_b_7032862.html

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Btw, HuffPo published "I'm a liberal. I eat at Applebee's". Heheh.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-akadjian/im-a-liberal-i-eat-at-app_b_7032862.html

    Bravo, David!! :D

    If I had the time, I would write a comparable, "I'm a Right Winger. I eat at Hooters." to complement your commentary...

    Of course, I am not a Right Winger so I would just have to go by stereotypes...

    Which, if I am not mistaken is the whole point of your commentary, eh? :D

    Well done.....

    "Well done???"
    "Well done...."

    -My Favorite Martian

    Had to reach WAY back into the dusty memory files for THAT little gem... :D If I recall, it was in black and white... :D

    Michale

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If I had the time, I would write a comparable, "I'm a Right Winger. I eat at Hooters." to complement your commentary.

    Glad you enjoyed, Michale! You might have to change it to "Vegan Hooters" though ... heheh.

    -David

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Glad you enjoyed, Michale! You might have to change it to "Vegan Hooters" though ... heheh.

    Yea, I see yer point.. :D heh

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No, no, this was wholly my fault... Paula is blameless... still tweaking the filters....

    Really?

Comments for this article are closed.