Anything to avoid admitting the truth…
Apparently Mark Halperin still has a job with Bloomberg after his atrocious interview with Ted Cruz, since he is back in the news. He held a discussion with some Iowa voters who think Hillary Clinton is just wonderful—you know, morons—and when he asked them to name her accomplishments in the one job she has held requiring leadership and management, Secretary of State, they couldn’t come up with anything. None of them. This has caused comment among pundits and consternation among Democrats.
Well, what did Halperin expect them to say? Clinton was a disaster as Secretary of State, as evidenced by the fact that President Obama’s foreign police has reaped the wild wind. Hillary’s tenure left the U.S. with ISIS, a failed state in Libya, chaos in Iraq, a more nuclear Iran, Hamas attacks on Israel, a North Korean government that felt it could threaten a U.S. corporation with impunity, Russian incursions into the Ukraine, continuing violence in Syria, and, of course, a Mexico that encourages its citizens to have contempt for the laws of the United States. Meanwhile, she used her office to attract foreign and domestic interests to give large amounts of cash to her foundation, while paying her family large amounts of money through speaking fees that look suspiciously like access fees. Of course, it’s doubtful that these classic low information voters knew anything about her failures and misdeeds, either. The incident was nothing more nor less than supplementary proof that Hillary Clinton’s supporters have turned their brains and/or consciences off, and want her to be President in the absence of evidence or in defiance of it, not because of any rational analysis.
Nonetheless, the Hail Hillary team in the news media rushed to explain what needed no explanation, using a lot of rationalization and spin. In the Washington Post, Hunter Schwartz does himself proud with his skill in rationalizing and changing the subject:
“[N]ot being able to name specific things politicians have done isn’t that unusual for the average voters. Quick, name something that John Kerry has done as Secretary of State. Right. Think Iowa Republicans could do much better naming significant things Jeb Bush did as governor or Marco Rubio has done in the Senate? So, yes, while the stumped Democrats’ response might be short-term vindication for Republicans, it not necessarily that damaging for Clinton.”
Ugh.
1. Everybody’s ignorant, so it’s OK to be ignorant.
2. She’s no worse than John Kerry, whose tenure in the same job has also been a disaster.
3. Marco Rubio hasn’t done anything of note in the Senate, and those who support him for President among Republicans have a case to make that hasn’t been made. Then again, nobody’s claiming he’s a lock to be President either.
4. A successful, multiple term governor, like Bush, has earned the rebuttable presumption that he or she is an effective leader and a competent administrator, since it’s an executive position. If Florida had gone to rack and ruin immediately after Bush’s tenure like the world did even before Clinton left office, this might be a fair analogy. But Florida didn’t, so it’s not.
5. Here again we have the subtle jiujitsu of the corrupted: what doesn’t hurt Hillary doesn’t count. She breached policy, endangered U.S. security, lied and destroyed evidence with her secret e-mail server schemes, but most of the public doesn’t understand what happened, so it won’t hurt her, and thus is perfectly acceptable, in the eyes of the biased punditry. This is rank consequentialism: the only misconduct that matters is what is recognized and compels negative consequences.
6. In a larger sense, Schwartz is suggesting that it doesn’t matter that Hillary’s fervent supporters are fervent for no apparent reason, as long as they vote with their vaginas, or someone’s vagina, on election day. That, unfortunately, is true.
Then, on MSNBC’s Hardball, Chris Matthews took on the challenge, beginning by saying that President Obama didn’t have a lot of accomplishments to point to when he ran, either. Yes, and we now know why that should have been a warning. Then Susan Milligan, a U.S. News & World Report reporter, delivered this gem:
“And most secretaries, you know, most people, when they ask what accomplishment did she have as secretary of state, I think most people could not look at a secretary of state and point to an accomplishment. Frankly, mostly what a Secretary of State does is keep something from, you know, becoming a massive crisis. So that, in a way, wasn’t, you know, a terribly fair question.”
Oh, brother.
1. There were plenty of massive crises under Clinton, most of which only bloomed after she left State.
2. There hasn’t been a President elected who had served as Secretary of State in almost 200 years. Only two such Presidents, John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren, weren’t Founders; the Founders essentially passed the important jobs back and forth among themselves until real democracy arrived along with Andrew Jackson. Adams and Van Buren were hardly whiz-bang Presidents, either.
3. The public often notices when a Secretary of State does something important (The Marshall Plan), something controversial (Henry Kissinger’s foreign policy), something bold (Jim Baker’s threat to stop supporting the UN if it legitimized the PLO) or presides over a multi-level botch (like Benghazi).
4. Of course it’s a fair question. These boobs said that Hillary would make a great President, and the question plumbs the basis on which they make that assertion. Their answer was “Duh…” It would have also been “Duh…” if the question was “What were Hillary’s major accomplishemnts as U.S. Senator?’ and for the same reason. There were no major accomplishments.
Halperin’s exchange with the prospective Hillary voters was significant, and the news media is obscuring the significance by focusing on the wrong issue. The problem isn’t that Hillary doesn’t have the credentials to be President. She obviously doesn’t, but that isn’t what’s alarming. What is alarming is that so many Americans are willing to turn the fate of their nation and the their family’s future to someone they have every reason not to trust and no reason to trust.
This isn’t about what’s wrong with Hillary. This is about what’s wrong with our lazy, ignorant, irresponsible voters.
Ethics Alarms 
The irrational response to Clinton is most memorable. Every excuse available for 9/11, the Iraq disaster, the SELA levee under funding is used to justify the THOUSANDS of unnecessary deaths during the Bush boy’s NAP in office. But agree Clinton isn’t satan incarnate and the rabid right goes….RABID.
Not… Sure… If…. Trolling…. Or…. Serious.
Not sure I understand the comment…
With all due respect, darly, that is the second ridiculous comment you have made today. If you are not going to add to the conversation by posting intelligent, coherent responses, then don’t waste everyone’s time. Go somewhere else.
jvb
You really don’t get how this works do you.
The next time you use that kind of non sequitur as an argument, you’re gone. And if you don’t back up “irrational response” with a substantive, not absurd rebuttal in 24 hours, I’m going to ban you anyway. It’s fine to play devil’s advocate, but actually have to advocate something. Please give a rational argument–I don’t have to agree with it– why the accomplishments of Hillary Clinton’s career justify overlooking her undeniable dishonesty, greed, corruption, and absence of integrity, which are a matter of record. Your clock starts running when I post this. GO.
Oh, I wouldn’t hold your breath. This is a classic from the liberal playbook. She will likely not come back, believing that she’s left you with the impression that her smug, condescending snarkiness equates to an understanding of these matters way above your level of sophistication. Or, maybe she realizes that one of her golems is a fraud, and this hit and run is all she’s got.
It is amazing how such people have invincible ignorance.
On the contrary, I am desperately eager to listen to anyone explain substantively why they believe the evidence of Mrs. Clinton’s hypocrisy, perfidy, greed and corruption doesn’t disqualify her as a potential POTUS and justifies his or her unwavering support. (Is darley female? I have forgotten. If so, maybe her vagina is handling the voting. That’s not a rational reason, but at least I understand where the support is coming from, and that it doesn’t involve a brain.) “Haters gonna hate” is not an explanation. “It’s all anti-Clinton propaganda” is just simply untrue. “She’s better than every Republican alive” is idiotic, but even if it is true, it doesn’t explain why the most dedicated Democrat wouldn’t react by seeking some, any alternative to Clinton. “She can win” shows a Harry Reid level of moral and ethical darkness, and doesn’t answer the question. “She’s the best the Democrats have” is such an indictment of the Democratic Party–if any party’s “best” is a a corrupt, aging, pandering, dishonest sociopath whose only true qualification is her strange marriage to the only President impeached during the 20th Century, then it deserves to go the way of the whigs, and the sooner the better—that it would be helpful to have on the record.
No, I won’t hold my breath. But I would really like a serious answer. I do doubt that even a team of Democrat spinmeisters and the political science faculty of Yale, Stanford, and Duke could come up with a convincing answer in 24 hours though. Maybe I am being unfair.
You might get one or at least something resembling one from the liberal “hitters” here. You won’t get one from this person. This is a chess with a pigeon situation. You may be superior master level and play a great game, or even grand master level (I understand the ranking system for masters is somewhat complicated), but in the end the pigeon is going to ignore you, knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and then strut around acting like it won. Frankly I think “chess pigeon” would be a good title for anyone who just doesn’t listen to what the other side says.
Jack,
“A successful, multiple term governor, like Bush, has earned the rebuttable presumption that he or she is an effective leader and a competent administrator, since it’s an executive position. If Florida had gone to rack and ruin immediately after Bush’s tenure like the world did even before Clinton left office, this might be a fair analogy. But Florida didn’t, so it’s not.”
I’m confused as to your argument? It’s okay that voters don’t know Jeb Bush’s specific policy decisions because, as a whole, his job was successful? Still sounds like ignorance to me. This is akin to those laud Reagan because of his successful handling of the economy, all the while ignorant of the fact that he doubled the national debt and a recession soon followed his leaving office. I’m not bashing Reagan, only pointing out that someone who thinks he’s a “success” without knowing specific policy decisions is just as ignorant.
Even if Clinton’s tenure as SOS had been immaculate, if her supporters couldn’t identify why or what worked, I’d still doubt their grasp of the political landscape as a whole.
Finally, and I’m sure you or someone here will take issue with this (and has nothing to do with the main point of your article) Jeb Bush sucks. Aside from needing another Bush in the White House like we need another Vietnam, his understanding of the world is filtered through the same “good and evil” worldview as his brother’s. Moreover, he’s a terrible politician who did well in Florida, yes, but has proven clueless on a national scene. In other words, no thank you.
Sincerely,
-Neil
I’m saying, and I think this was clear to most who read the post, that all citizens are directly involved in national affairs and have an obligation to be at least minimally aware of them, while state matters are primarily of interest to the citizens of those states. I am pointing out that being a governor is directly related to being a President, both roles being heads of a “state”, and thus —if you are not going to jail, like a typical governor of illinois, aren’t involved in a scandal, like Chris Christie, and were not defeated or run out of office on a rail—that is sufficient, to begin with, for a rebuttable presumption of at very least competence and completion of a difficult assignment with some success. That does not hold for Senators, for example. And as I also said, but will say again for your benefit, nobody is raving about Jeb Bush as having already proven that he’s the best option for the job. Nor do non Floridians know much about him yet, accounting for his low poll numbers. Get it, Neil? To be an equivalent of the Clinton dolts, a Jeb fan would have to a) be a non Floridian who raves about Bush’s qualifications and b) not know that he was a re-elected governor who left office relatively respected and popular.
Your last paragraph is gratuitous to the issue at hand. If someone says, “I support Jeb Bush because he ran a state government for 8 years,” that is, all by itself, an accomplishment, and provides at least prima facie evidence that a supporter has something to support. Most Presidents were governors, and it is generally and traditionally felt to be the best training for the Presidency. Personally, I am well-enough acquainted with Jeb to say with confidence that I would not vote for him given a minimally qualifies and non-sociopathic alternative, which is to say, a lot of Republicans and Democrats, but not Hillary Clinton.
By the way, Reagan ran up the deficit in the process of spending the Soviet Union out of existence, and it was an excellent plan for which any objective observer should be grateful. And the recession you refer to occurred over 18 months after Reagan left office, was a short and mild one, and hardly cancelled out the economic benefits of the 80’s boom. Talk about a reach for tangential Reagan-bashing.
You designed all of this to take shots at Bush and Reagan, unrelated to the point of the post. Fascinating.
Susan Milligan’s quote “Frankly, mostly what a Secretary of State does is keep something from, you know, becoming a massive crisis. So that, in a way, wasn’t, you know, a terribly fair question.”
Is very relevant whether she realized it or not. Ms Clinton’s job was preventing massive crises. If the job of secretary of state is any path toward the presidency, they should show their ability to handle a crisis at the highest caliber. The president has had unending crises, so she did not do that job very well, why give her the higher level of responsibility? I once approved of her, but her actions in the last few years have voided that.
I reacted the same way. Even by that definition of success, the evidence on Hillary’s performance is unimpressive at best, damning at worst.
To your point, Jack:
“But the ISIS crisis, Russia’s interference in Ukraine, the festering Libya dilemma, the loss of U.S. credibility in the Middle East and other of today’s headaches are the result of decisions made when Clinton served in the Obama administration.
She is, in effect, running for president on the premise that she is the best person to clean up the foreign policy mess that she is in no small measure responsible for.”
From a Chicago Sun-Times article in RCP
I’ve never been able to tell whether the Clintons are blind to irony or its masters.
“This isn’t about what’s wrong with Hillary. This is about what’s wrong with our lazy, ignorant, irresponsible voters.”
You could have saved yourself a lot of time by writing just that sentence. I couldn’t agree more.
Democrats. Democrats.
See how they spin. See how they spin.
They all went after the Republicans,
“They just do not like the Clint-i-ons”
Did you ever see such a rat in your life,
as Democrats?
Jack,
I try being mean, and you’re mean back. I try being friendly and tell you stories about my family, and you don’t respond. Finally, I ask an honest question (I used Reagan as an example and CLEARLY said I wasn’t bashing him. I never said the recession was major, or that his spending wasn’t justified. ALL I said was that most people who defend him don’t know that) and still you seem perturbed.
I don’t get it. Why all the snark? I have been a reader and (despite the fact that I’m not always coherent) respectful commentator in these forums for longer than most of your current readership. I’m not asking you agree with me or treat me with kid gloves, but there’s no need to be condescending. I’ve said before, if you would prefer I keep my thoughts to myself, I will.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go to a funeral.
What? You think that response was mean? It was direct, that’s all, and un-sugar-coated. You know what my “mean” is like—read the response to darly.
This is akin to those laud Reagan because of his successful handling of the economy, all the while ignorant of the fact that he doubled the national debt and a recession soon followed his leaving office. I’m not bashing Reagan, only pointing out that someone who thinks he’s a “success” without knowing specific policy decisions is just as ignorant.
Even if Clinton’s tenure as SOS had been immaculate, if her supporters couldn’t identify why or what worked, I’d still doubt their grasp of the political landscape as a whole.
“Finally, and I’m sure you or someone here will take issue with this (and has nothing to do with the main point of your article”—Jeb Bush sucks.
Which means it was gratuitous…and come on, disingenuous. If you wrote, “Go Bears!” instead of “Jeb sucks” and I said you used the article to make a cheap pro-Bears plug, would you call that description unfair?
“Aside from needing another Bush in the White House like we need another Vietnam, his understanding of the world is filtered through the same “good and evil” worldview as his brother’s. Moreover, he’s a terrible politician who did well in Florida, yes, but has proven clueless on a national scene.”
I happen to think your assessment is correct over-all, but he’s not on the national scene until he has some national tasks, responsibilities and duties. He’s just talking now. Every local and state official is clueless on the national scene, until he’s actually on the national scene. With luck, he’ll never get to mess up the national scene.
I’m sorry if you saw that response as snarky or disrespectful, because it was not my intent to upset you. I didn’t see it that way, and don’t. I saw the comment as employing irrelevancies to undermine the argument in the post, and I criticized it on that basis.
PS: I ALSO said that my comments about Bush were gratuitous and unrelated to the post at hand. Yes, that was a pot-shot but, being a lifetime resident of Texas and an American, I get irritated by the mere mention of the family (especially in relation to the Oval Office) — and that’s from someone who voted for both father and son.
I guess what irritates me is that comments here go astray all the time without even being aware. Yet, I post a genuinely apropos question, and preface both my example and aside with caveats that one is not an attack and the other is just a rant, and then you malign me for making unfair attacks and ranting.
???
“It’s okay that voters don’t know Jeb Bush’s specific policy decisions because, as a whole, his job was successful? Still sounds like ignorance to me.”
Really? Voters are obligated to know the details of the policy accomplishments of the governors of all 50 states, on the chances that they’ll run for President? Since I don’t live in, say, Montana, I pay little attention to, say, infrastucture debates in Montana. If a governor screws up (like Bush in the Terri Schiavo fiasco) or gets indicted (Like Bob McDonnell in Virginia) or wins a high-profile political fight (like Scott Walker) or has hisw state falling apart in chunks (like Jerry Brown), yes, I notice, in part because its my job. However, everyone had a chance to vote for President, and lives in the nation being affected by Hillary’s effectiveness (or not) as Sec. of State. Ignorance is not knowing what you should know, and citizens should know what’s going on in foriegn affairs. Not knowing about Montana politics doesn’t make me ignorant, until I face the prospect of voting for someone whose job it was to make decisions for Montana. Jeb is a lousy comparison with Hillary. His poll numbers are in low double figures, which tells me that not a lot of people are supporting him while being ignorant of his record, which speaks well for them, in stark contrast to the ignorant Hillary fans.
Saying you’re not bashing Reagan when you’re in fact bashing Reagan doesn’t change the fact that you were in fact bashing Reagan.
I LOVE REAGAN!!! That’s why it doesn’t make any sense. Being critical of someone’s faults doesn’t denote a lack of respect or admiration. Whatever his reasons, he engaged in a great deal of spending I tend to find reckless. Your arguments with regard to outspending the Soviets aside, I would argue there were other courses of action to be taken — but that’s neither here nor there.
The point is, disagreeing with someone’s economic outlook and disagreeing with them on the whole isn’t the same thing. Both points were made were correct and didn’t argue they invalidated his presidency or even his handling of the economy overall. Those were assumptions you made. I ONLY said that it irritates me to hear people speak of him as though he were the immaculate spawn of conservatism without understanding the full extent of the story.
Not even George Washington was George Washington (and I LOVE him to — America is my home, I have had a flag hanging on my wall since I was 18. I haven’t missed an election, barring local, since then. I listen a SCOTUS podcast.I used to give money to the NRA. I’m an Eagle Scout. I was AT George Jr’s inauguration. Barry Goldwater is one of my heroes. I, quite literally, cried the night Clinton was elected [granted I was only 10]. These are the reasons I never understand why you call me a “liberal” or make assumptions about my political outlook based on random asides [like this one]) — even the greatest of (wo)men have flaws. That was and is my only point. That’s why I didn’t understand why you felt the need to react to it at all. The question was all I wanted answered which you did in the first paragraph. I’m sorry I’ve turned this into a thing.
And my complaint that followed was satisfied when you essentially said “That wasn’t my intent and I apologize if that’s how it came off.” I’m sorry for getting butt-hurt over something otherwise simple.
Best of wishes,
Neil
You also once said we disagree 80% of the time, which is also untrue. There are reasons far beyond my father I continue to read your blog. What I disagree with is (what I see as) your tendency to conflate arguments by drawing larger parallels or looking for connections that aren’t there. That doesn’t mean I disagree with any of your points, I just don’t always see them as connected in the same ways.
Nor do I your reliance on cute turns of phrase like “head exploding” or your over-generalization of “liberals” and “progressives.” Again, it doesn’t mean that I like liberals or progressives, merely that I think the issues are often far more complicated than the way you lay them out. These are not critiques you personally or your views (which I greatly respect), they’re merely critiques on your approach to some issues. I guess that’s why I’m confused why you seem argue as though I need convincing or simply don’t understand. It’s not that I don’t understand your point of view; I just don’t always get where it’s coming from.
Ok. All done. Complaints over. Hopefully we’re still in otherwise good standing. Please know I will continue to be a fan.
My error, and sloppy. 80% of your comments come on posts with which you disagree, which is normal and fine. The self-exiled Ampersand ONLY wrote here when he disagreed, and objected when I surmised that this meant he disagreed 100% of the time. He was right: its an unfair assumption.
It’s funny that I fall into that trap, because as a stage director I used to be criticized for only giving negative direction. I answered then that if I didn’t say anything, it meant there was nothing I felt needed to be fixed, changed, or re-thought.
If you can vote with your vagina, please be sure to contact me. I have some hanging chads that are free to a good home.
(Sorry. My will is weak.)
You are forgiven.