#Bill Clinton 1992 Presidential Campaign

[thenewdemocratus]

Movie Clips: Primary Colors (1998)

. Source:The Daily Press I saw the movie Primary Colors in the spring of 1998. Doesn’t seem that long ago, but that’s a different story with a long time friend of mine from high school who’ll go nameless. And we saw it for free because my friend worked at a movie theater, one of the few perks of being friends of him. And I looked forward to seeing this movie, because it reminded me of a real life…

[fandomsandfeminism]

Reading about how sonic the hedgehog was designed. Some highlights-

Ohshima felt that people selected it [the original sonic design) because it "transcends race and gender and things like that".

The detailed design of Sonic was aimed to be something that could be easily drawn by children and be familiar, as well as exhibit a "cool" attitude, representative of the United States at the time.

Sonic's blue shoes evolved from a design inspired by Michael Jackson's boots with the addition of the color red, which was inspired by the contrast of those colors on Jackson's 1987 album Bad;

his personality was based on then-presidential candidate and later President of the United States Bill Clinton's "Get it done" attitude during the 1992 presidential campaign.

Sonic was created without the ability to swim because of a mistaken assumption by Yuji Naka that all hedgehogs could not do so.

The original concepts gave Sonic fangs and put him in a band with a human girlfriend named Madonna.

[mariacallous]

After several weeks of feverish speculation about her partner in an abbreviated presidential campaign, Democratic presidential nominee and incumbent Vice President Kamala Harris finally announced her running mate today: Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

As we learn more about her decision, its political ramifications will start to become clear. It is a cliché to say that deciding on a vice presidential running mate is the first major decision that voters see the nominee make. But it is true. And as the rollout takes place, the wisdom of that decision can become a major storyline on the campaign trail. As history shows, results may vary.

The most important short-term effect of the presidential nominee’s decision is to tell us who they want by their side as a governing partner and who they would want in their place should they no longer be capable of doing the job.

Some vice presidential selections have boosted perceptions of how a presidential nominee intends to govern. This is often true of outsider candidates who are not known quantities. Former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter set the mold in 1976 when he turned to Minnesota Sen. Walter Mondale, a Great Society stalwart and an insider on Capitol Hill. After building an entire campaign around the fact that he was an outsider to Washington—someone voters could trust in the aftermath of former President Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal—Carter needed to send a signal to Democratic politicians and interest groups that they could trust him as well. As one of the most respected and effective liberal legislators on Capitol Hill, Carter’s pick of Mondale demonstrated that he understood the need to work within his party and not just around it. New York Times reporter Charles Mohr observed that the pick was “highly acceptable to much of the Washington political establishment, which had viewed the outsider from Georgia with disquiet.” Jimmy Who?—as newspapers joked about this unknown candidate—had sent a strong signal that as much as he railed against politics as usual, he was no fool when it came to getting things done.

Four years later, there were similar concerns among Republicans about former California Gov. Ronald Reagan. Though Reagan had excited conservative activists with his charisma and bold ideas, there were serious worries that he wouldn’t be effective in the corridors of Washington. In addition, some veterans in Washington feared that Reagan would ignore the Republican establishment and the traditional ideas held by many of its members, including fiscal conservatism and the U.S. commitment to international alliances. Reagan’s main primary opponent, former CIA Director George H.W. Bush, was the epitome of the GOP establishment. When Reagan announced that he was turning to Bush—actually a last-minute pivot following the collapse of talks to recruit former President Gerald Ford—he consolidated the entire party, as the selection helped members feel comfortable that the great communicator was also a serious politician.

In 1992, 46-year-old Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton undertook an unconventional path. With many experts predicting that Clinton had to find someone who was older and from outside the South given that the party’s power base had shifted to the coasts, Clinton instead doubled down. With Sen. Al Gore from Tennessee as his running mate, Clinton had chosen another young, centrist, television-savvy, and bright Southerner. Rather than regional balance, he sought to craft a campaign around Democrats emerging from the shadows of the Reagan era. Clinton’s first major decision signaled to voters that he really understood how the nation craved a new generation of leadership—a stark contrast to the older Bush—and that Democrats were serious about expanding their coalition, rooted in the North since the 1960s, back to the new South as well.

The message Illinois Sen. Barack Obama sent to his voters in 2008 was that he understood the need to court traditional white male working-class constituencies and to supplement his limited experience in foreign policy. For this reason, Obama turned to Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware. As Obama drew support from younger voters, college-educated suburbanites, and Black and Latino voters, he showed with the Biden choice an understanding and respect for working-class white voters—and that he, too, would do what was necessary to win over the Democratic legislative establishment. Obama also signaled that he understood the need to shore up his foreign-policy expertise; Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, was widely respected for his knowledge on this issue, and Obama needed to show he knew what he didn’t know. “I can tell you that Joe Biden gets it,” Obama said when he announced that Biden would be his running mate in August 2008. “He’s that unique public servant who is at home in a bar in Cedar Rapids and the corridors of the Capitol, in the VFW hall in Concord, and at the center of an international crisis.” The decision suggested Obama was not just a firebrand but that he had a sophisticated feel for the coalition he would need to win election, which he did.

And Donald Trump made an effective choice in 2016, too. With Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, Trump alleviated some concerns among the conservative base of the party that they could really trust him. Trump calmed some nerves by selecting a predictable, conventional, and reliable right-wing conservative. David McIntosh, the president of the Club for Growth, praised the choice as giving “hope that Mike Pence will be effective in pulling the Republican ticket toward economic conservatism and limited government.” Though at the time it was not clear just how turbulent Trump’s term would end up being, in the summer of 2016 his choice was perceived as offering evidence that, behind the curtains, Trump would not veer too far from the conservative coalition, particularly evangelicals, once he obtained power.

Then there were the picks that helped torpedo, or nearly torpedo, candidacies. The first major gaffe in the contemporary political era started in 1972. South Dakota Democratic Sen. George McGovern went with Sen. Thomas Eagleton. Eagleton had strong credentials. Yet the press discovered that he had suffered from depression and undergone shock treatment. When the news came out, it sent McGovern’s campaign into turmoil, resulting in Eagleton’s withdrawal from the race. At a time when mental health problems were treated as taboo, and opponents stirred fears about whether he could be trusted to one day have his “finger on the button,” the revelation raised questions about how astute McGovern was and whether he had made a carelessly hurried decision. After fighting to survive, Eagleton eventually withdrew. Was that the kind of leadership McGovern would bring to the White House? Indeed, when Carter took his time to deliberate over his choice in 1976, the press contrasted his decision-making style with that of McGovern.

Few people thought that a spelling bee would become problematic in 1988 when Vice President George H.W. Bush announced that the young and popular Indiana Sen. Dan Quayle would be by his side. At first, conservatives praised the decision. Quayle was considered a future leader in the GOP. But his vice presidential run didn’t go so well. In 1988, questions emerged about Quayle’s academic record as well as allegations that he had used connections to avoid being drafted into Vietnam through an appointment to the National Guard. According to then-Tennessee Republican State Chairman James Henry in late August: “It’s already a negative factor. It’s just a question of how much of a negative.”

Though the questions did not stop Bush from being victorious, Quayle caused problems again during Bush’s reelection campaign in 1992. During a photo-op at a spelling bee in New Jersey, he corrected a 12-year-old boy named William Figueroa, who had spelled “potato” the right way. Quayle said that there should be an “e” at the end. Figueroa made things worse by telling the press that it “showed that the rumors about the vice president are true—that he’s an idiot.” As with McGovern, in 1988 and 1992, Quayle became evidence that Bush was not competent in thinking about who should surround him and that he was willing to kowtow to younger mavericks not ready to hold office.

Fast-forward to 2008, when McCain fell into the same trap. An older McCain wanted to counteract some of the excitement that Obama brought to the trail by going with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin—who some thought represented the next generation for the GOP. But things quickly soured. Her stumbling performance in the media raised questions about McCain’s ongoing claims that he brought much more experience and wisdom to the White House. If that was true, how could he pick Palin, and what would it mean for her to be by his side once in power? During her rallies, moreover, Palin appealed to far-right, fringe elements of the party. A selection that once suggested McCain had an eye on the future ended up bringing in elements of the GOP that undermined his reputation as a reasonable, respectable, and moderate conservative in the Reagan mold.

Some are already arguing that Trump’s recent pick of Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance sent the exact wrong message about how he thinks at a critical moment. Right after the assassination attempt, there were Republicans who hoped he would pivot slightly to the center, or at least demonstrate that he wanted to broaden his coalition and act in a tamer fashion. Instead, by picking Vance at the Republican National Convention, Trump indicated he was diving deeper into chaos and radicalism. Trump’s decision offered proof to his critics, and some supporters, that he could not be trusted to surround himself with people who understood where most voters were on core issues. Vance’s proximity to Project 2025 and comments about strong-armed governance amplified concerns, rather than diminished them, about Trump’s interest in autocratic methods of rule.

In the process of selecting her running mate, Harris offered a few hints as to how she might govern. There were no significant leaks in this highly scrutinized decision-making period, which suggests that Harris wants to and can run a tight ship—a contrast with stories that emerged about turbulence among her staff. Harris also showed media savvy, conducting the rollout in a way that captured valuable attention for more than a week in a shortened campaign time frame. She can play the reality game show strategy, too. Handling press attention so effectively is like waving kryptonite in front of Trump, who thrives by dominating coverage. Harris does not get frazzled when confronted with the need to make big decisions quickly and under an intense spotlight.

Through picking Walz, Harris hopes to send a message of seriousness and stability. Walz has experience as a governor and as a U.S. representative. At 60, he is older than some of the other people considered, but not too old. Despite his avuncular personality, Walz has a serious command of policy; having him by her side shows that Harris wants to surround herself with seasoned partners who want to govern. He has experience not only in government but also outside of it, as a public-school teacher.

The Walz pick also shows that Harris wants to make decisions that respect the breadth of her coalition. The Minnesota governor is a proud progressive who does not shy away from defending social rights and championing government. He can help to fire up a base that is already fired up. Yet Walz is unusual for Democrats in that he embraces these values while also appealing to rural Americans who have veered red. Within his state, Walz has a history of doing well in Republican districts—among the kind of voters Vance likes to represent. Importantly, he appeals to such voters without selling out his political principles. He is not afraid to take on the Republicans, nor does he back away from his beliefs when confronted with the standard attacks about socialism. He is an embodiment of the alternative that exists for working Americans struggling with costs and insecurity: a path forward without the reactionary politics that have become sine qua non for the modern Republican Party.

And then there is the “weird” comment through which Walz rose to the top of the pack, framing Trump and Vance with rhetoric that caught fire within the Democratic Party. Doubling down on someone who has media savvy complements the rollout. Harris plans to build a team that can handle the press and counteract the Trumpian noise. Democrats have long complained that they are bad at messaging. Harris wants to fix that and to pass bold policies that she can sell to the public rather than assuming people will appreciate what she has done.

[deadpresidents]

Is it true that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have an uneasy relationship?

I'm sure everything has mellowed over the years since Clinton left office, but they absolutely had a frosty relationship. They had issues dating back to when Clinton was Governor of Arkansas and Carter was still the incumbent President and they seemed to pick up where they left off once Clinton was in the White House.

In fact, there was tension between Carter and his four immediate successors (Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43). While most former Presidents of the post-World War II era have largely avoided criticizing the incumbent Presidents, Carter was often very candid about certain policy or political issues after leaving office. Carter's work around the globe with the Carter Center was also sometimes seen as influencing or interfering with White House initiatives or events for several different Administrations.

As Jonathan Alter wrote in his excellent 2020 biography of Carter, His Very Best: Jimmy Carter, A Life (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO):

Carter traveled to more than 140 countries after leaving office -- returning to several of them more than a dozen times -- and he said he always kept the State Department apprised of his trips. But the notifications were often pro forma, as if he merely had to check a box before going off on his own. It was no secret that Carter was not a member in good standing of the ex-Presidents' club, in part because he never accepted their code. The unwritten rules aren't complicated: former Presidents are expected to build their libraries and at least try to hold their tongues about the incumbent, not complain -- as Carter often did -- that the policy is wrong or they are underused by the President. No one sitting in the Oval Office likes the idea of a freelance Secretary of State. At the same time, five of the six Presidents who succeeded Carter (all except Reagan) recognized the usefulness of his vast knowledge and high-level contacts. The challenge for them was managing their high-maintenance predecessor. When Carter was President, he took care to cultivate relationships with his living predecessors -- Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford -- and he welcomed their support on China, the Panama Canal, and other issues. After leaving office, he got along exceptionally well with Ford, who joined him on several post-Presidential projects. Ford and Carter promised that each would deliver the eulogy if the other died first. Ford did, and Carter remembered him warmly at his funeral in 2006. George H.W. Bush believed the Ford-Carter bond "set a wonderful example of cooperation and friendship" between old rivals. Carter's successors were a different matter. He said he had "okay relations" with the Bushes -- especially George H.W. Bush -- and Donald Trump in his first two years. It was the Democratic Presidents, Clinton and Obama, whom he found "cooler and more aloof." No one who watched their interactions over the years would be left to wonder why.

Regarding that relationship between Carter and Clinton, Alter also wrote:

During the 1992 Presidential campaign, the tensions between Carter and Bill Clinton of a dozen years earlier resurfaced. "People are looking for somebody who is honest and tells the truth," Carter said in a remark that took on added meaning because it came amid the first national stories of Governor Clinton lying about sex. Clinton, for his part, worried that Carter's failures as President would rub off on another southern governor and hurt his chances. After the election, Clinton wouldn't take Carter's calls. He finally handed him off to Warren Christopher, his transition director and choice for Secretary of State. "Chris" quickly grew tired of Carter, too, and fobbed him off on his undersecretary, Peter Tarnoff. Carter felt snubbed. Clinton's basic problem with Carter was that he too often crossed the line from expressing his views on a subject to saying the President "should" do something. Carter admitted later that while he didn't intend to be personally critical, "I may not always have succeeded.".... ....As Carter moved around the world, the Clinton White House had no confidence that he would limit himself to his assigned mission without making concessions that the President never approved. The White House knew that Carter understood that recalling a former chief executive like some errant ambassador was difficult if not impossible, which meant that he could hog glory and operate outside the President's control. This happened twice in 1994 [in North Korea and Haiti], a year that was simultaneously the peak of Carter's success as a peacemaker and the nadir of his forty-year relationship with Clinton.

[bigboxcar]

Mugshot Monday - "Presidential Slogans Mug" by The Unemployed Philosophers Guild with Ethiopia Light Roast by Peace Coffee

No other US presidential candidate has ever run a campaign with the slogan, "CONVICTED FELON".

It's feeling like former president and current GOP front-runner Donald Trump may be unable to shake this new political slogan as it appears to be sticking. He was found guilty of 34 felony counts on May 31.

This Political Slogans mug was made in 2013, so it doesn't include Trump's MAGA "Make America Great Again" slogan.

I bought it after the the 2016 election, I had not realized that Reagan's slogan "Let's Make America Great Again" was co-opted by Trump's campaign.

So I thought it'd be cool to familiarize myself with these historical slogans.

I remember many of them from school like: "Who? Who? Hoover", "For a New Deal" and "I Like Ike".

But there were some others that I didn't know, like: "Keep Cool-idge", "Give 'Em Hell Harry!", and "Turn the Rascals Out". 😂

It doesn't look like mug maker is going to refresh the design to include modern slogans, but I'd make a case to go with the felon one rather than the MAGA one for 45.

Has someone created a red MAGA hat yet that says "CONVICTED FELON"? Guessing we'll see it soon enough. I think it's quite fitting.

Btw, for all you political nerds, here's a list of all the slogans on my mug matched to presidential campaigns. Enjoy!

Back to Normalcy - Warren G. Harding 1920

The Rail Splitter of 1830, the President of U.S. 1861 - Abraham Lincoln 1860

Who is James K. Polk? - Henry Clay 1844

Nixon's the One! - Richard Nixon 1968

I Like Ike - Dwight D. Eisenhower 1952

Grant Us Another Term Ulysses S. - Grant 1872

Keep Cool-idge - Calvin Coolidge 1924

LBJ for the USA - Lyndon B. Johnson 1964

Not Just Peanuts - Jimmy Carter 1976

My Hat's in the Ring - Teddy Roosevelt 1912

Tippecanoe and Tyler Too - Wiliam Henry Harrison 1840

Turn the Rascals Out - Horace Grealey 1872

For a New Deal - Franklin D. Roosevelt 1932

I Ask No Favors and Shun No Responsibilities - Zachary Taylor 1848

Win With Wilson - Woodrow Wilson 1916

54-40 or Fight - Anti-James K. Polk 1844

Yes We Can - Barack Obama 2008

A Cure for the Blues - Bill Clinton 1992

Let's Make America Great Again - Ronald Reagan 1980

No Crown of Thorns No Cross of Gold - William Jennings Bryan 1896

Give 'Em Hell Harry! - Harry Truman 1948

All the Way with Adlai - Adlai Stevenson 1952

Peace - Eugene McCarthy 1968

Who? Who? Hoover - Herbert Hoover 1928

AuH20-64 In Your Heart You Know He's Right - Barry Goldwater 1964

Free Soil Free Speech Free Press Fremont - John Fremont 1856

A Time For Greatness - John F. Kennedy 1960

No Third Term! - Wendell L. Wilkie 1940

Let Well Enough Alone - Willam McKinley 1900

See also my 730+ photos from the Mugshot Monday project here: www.MugshotMonday.com– Every Mug Has A Story

[rametarin]

It IS kind of funny.

Count the number of votes (popular) each candidate got, republican or democrat, since 2000. You will naturally see the population grow and things drift and skew. With a slight advantage to democrats.

Most of us that were alive for it remember just how militant and zealous people got for Obama, both presidential terms. The democratic base hadn't been supercharged like that since forever, in recent memory. Even for Bill Clinton, whom was very popular. The democrats were universally charged up and marching in lines forthat, folks that never even voted in their lives wanted to vote to make history with Obama. It was a very far reaching and successful campaign and blew doors off frames. And it made a maybe 1 or 2 million difference.

And then out of nowhere, here come 15 million voters for Biden. Who ran the most humdrum, regular assed, "same as usual" old white dude campaign. A man no different from Clinton, inferior to Obama in every conceivable way as a candidate.

And the only difference, it seems, was that the absentee ballots allegedly tapped into a whole legal section of the voterbase that allegedly don't go to the polls much. And it had no effect on the republican numbers, whatsoever.

"Well, Biden won because the democrats were charged up to defeat Trump."

Were they really? Were they really? Trump's numbers have stayed the same. Trump Campaign #2 to be President, Term Second, and the "I hate Trump so much" people just disappeared?

We now have more data in a similar circumstance and the mysterious 15,000,000 voters that came out for an old (some might even say, demented and senile) white man, just aren't there for Kamala. How do we explain that?

Is it because she's a brown woman? We have a record turnout for Obama. Obama energized the base and proved that the vast majority of Americans, not counting the disgusting and treasonous bigots, are just hunky dorey with a president that is anything but white. So we can safely assume by the votes, people will vote for a black man in a majority white (for now) country.

Is it because she's a woman?

Well we know that just as many democratic voters that voted for Hillary and Obama voted for Kamala. And it follows the population trends that voted for Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary Clinton..

And then here comes Biden with an unprecedented amount of the population, for no real conceivable reason.

Bill Clinton (1992): 44.9 million votes

Bill Clinton (1996): 47.4 million votes

Gore (2000): 50.9 million votes

Kerry (2004): 59 million votes

Obama (2008): 69.48 million votes

Obama (2012): 65.9 million votes

Hillary Clinton (2016): 65.8 million votes

Biden (2020): 81 million votes

Harris (2024): 67.6 million votes

We have not doubled our population since 1992. Are we to believe that Joe Biden was twice as popular in 2020 as Bill Clinton was in 1992? Because I can remember, coming off of the George H.W. Bush years, Clinton was rather popular.

We can tell that Clinton and Harris have been almost exactly as popular as Obama, and we can tell by Kerry and Gore that as a proportion of the population to number of votes, black men and white women do almost as well as white men, among democrats. Just, factually speaking. That 100,000 difference between Clinton in 2016 vs. Obama in 2012 is barely significant a difference. Obama 2012 didn't even match Obama's popularity in 2008.

We cannot even closely attribute that 15,000,000 voter absence to being brown, or a woman, or a democrat. So, that makes absolutely no sense. You can sneer about "neo-liberals" to try and deplatform them from legitimacy all you want, hard-leftist shits, but the reality is the democrats will just as eagerly vote for a brown woman as a white man, and the numbers do not lie.

Biden is an outlier and, while the system seems bulletproof to show that no voter tampering has been done, or rigging, or writing in, despite the glaring inconsistency of the outcome, that itself may be a reason why the accusations of republican malfesence have been rather quiet.

I think the thing preventing democrats from demanding recounts and to check voter numbers is the fact the republicans already did this to dispute the 2020 election, and they miraculously found the systems to be saintly and spotless. Guarantees that absolutely no one could have rigged them in any way, no method, no system.

And if they accused the republicans of cheating this time, they'd have to walk that back, acknowledge that something COULD have resulted in compromising the ballots and the election itself, and then just dispute it was the republicans that did it.

Trump had 1.1 million fewer voters in the popular vote than in 2020. So, yeah, odds are, the Trump campaign did not compromise the numbers for who voted for Trump. There was no grand sweeping conspiracy to suppress votes, because allegedly, such a thing is impossible- and they were watching the ballots like hawks to look for fraud. No such talks of mysterious trucks full of previously unknown ballots caught on digital camera, not even alleged ones like in 2020.

The thing we're missing is that unusual surge Biden got for no discernible reason during a time in which the ballots were handled in a less than 100% orthodox fashion, and at a time when voter turnout for the democratic candidate was a glaring statistical inconsistency.

And yet, Kamala still lost.

So are we to believe that there's 15,000,000 voters, specifically democrats, that only come out to vote if they're allowed to use absentee ballots?

And if the numbers were this absurd and skewed on the republican side so suspiciously, would they be as willing to overlook it? Because Trump LOST the popular vote to himself compared to last time. He still had more than his first candidacy, but less than his second.

Fifteen million unexplained votes aren't going away, any time soon, and an answer for where they came from would be nice.

[tomorrowusa]

Trump likes to pal around with totalitarian dictators. He apparently thinks that using them as references in his speeches will impress his anti-American followers at rallies.

'Who needs Pravda?': CNN's Tapper hammers Trump over his 'stunning' new Putin praise

Can you imagine the outcry if Bill Clinton quoted Saddam Hussein in the 1992 campaign or if John Kerry cited Osama bin-Laden in 2004?

Yet Donald Trump is allowed to heap praise on Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, Viktor Orbán, and even the Hezbollah terrorists. And "mainstream" Republicans like Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin still support him.

Trump can hire stooges to hold up US flag placards behind him as rants at campaign events. But that doesn't hide the fact that he's the most anti-American major party presidential candidate in living memory.

And if you genuinely want Trump to lose, it's necessary to define him as anti-American and a threat to national security. Frankly, those things are true and we need to repeat them until people are hearing those phrases in their sleep.

We can't let up in our condemnation and publicizing of Trump's anti-democratic and anti-American blathering. Trump isn't just saying that he's going to be a dictator, he's letting everybody know what type of dictator he'll be if sent back to the White House.

[petervintonjr]

"We, the people. It's a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed on the seventeenth of September in 1787, I was not included in that 'We, the people.' I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision, I have finally been included in We, the people. Today I am an inquisitor. An hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution." --from Barbara Jordan's opening remarks to the House Judiciary Committee on July 24, 1974, regarding the impeachment of Richard Nixon

Today, June 1, kicks off Pride Month (and also incidentally marks the third anniversary of the start of this series), and I thought it appropriate to examine the amazing accomplishments of Texas civil rights leader, attorney, and Congresswoman Barbara Charline Jordan.

Born in a poor Houston neighborhood in 1936, Jordan discovered an early aptitude for languages and oration, and also debate. She graduated from Texas Southern University in 1956, then obtained her LL.B. from Boston University School of Law in 1959. She was admitted to both the Massachusetts and Texas bars in 1960, then began practicing law in Houston --at the time only the third African American woman to be so licensed. An outspoken supporter of John F. Kennedy's presidential campaign, she herself entered politics and unsuccessfully ran for state representative in 1962 and again in 1964. Two years later her fortunes changed, however, and in 1966 she became the first African American elected to the Texas Senate in 1966.

Jordan's standing as a fellow Texan Democrat endeared her to then-President Lyndon Johnson and in many respects she became LBJ's protégée. In 1972 Jordan ran for Congress for Texas's 18th District, and unseated the incumbent Republican, becoming the first woman --of any race-- elected to Congress from that state.

Jordan's political career accomplishments extend far beyond this biography's available space, but among the high points include her aggressive sponsorship of the Voting Rights Act of 1975 (an extension of the more famous 1965 measure), and the Equal Rights Amendment in 1977. Also significantly she served on the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment hearings, and her speech at the 1976 Democratic National Convention is widely regarded as one of the best keynote speeches in modern history; her presence in many ways even eclipsing that of the party's nominee, Jimmy Carter. (She would return as a keynote speaker for the 1992 Democratic National Convention.)

Jordan retired from politics in 1978 and became a professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas in Austin. In 1993 Jordan was the first recipient of the Nelson Mandela Award for Health and Human Rights. A year later she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton for her trailblazing work. That same year Jordan was also named the chair of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. Jordan died from complications from pneumonia in January of 1996, and is buried at the Texas State Cemetery in Austin --significantly breaking barriers even in death as the first-ever black woman to be interred there. While Jordan never explicitly acknowledged her personal sexual orientation in public, she was open about her life partner of nearly 30 years, educational psychologist Nancy Earl.

Her legacy continues through the Jordan Rustin Coalition (named for her and for Civil Rights organizer Bayard Rustin --see Lesson #05 in this series): a non-profit advocacy group working to empower Black same-gender loving, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals and families; and to promote equal marriage rights and to advocate for fair treatment of everyone without regard to race, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

Full text of Jordan's July 24, 1974 remarks: https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/impeachment/my-faith-constitution-whole-it-complete-it-total

A truly absorbing 1976 article about Jordan's life and career by William Broyles, indexed at: https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/the-making-of-barbara-jordan-2/

[jaspersboy]

It was the early hours of November 5, 1998, well past my bedtime on a school night. Sister Sledge blared over the house speakers in a nondescript ballroom in a south Denver suburb. I was dancing giddily on stage looking out at a pack of my fellow awkward whites: donor types in their formal wear for the occasion, campaign hacks in our garish purple tees, inspired by our candidate’s love for the town’s new baseball team.

All of us were anxiously awaiting the arrival of Bill Owens, the man who had just been declared the winner in the gubernatorial election reversing a nearly three-decade streak of Democratic victories in Colorado.

From that stage, my barely postpubescent expectation was that there were only greens ahead for the Grand Ole Party in my home state. Republicans won up and down the ballot that night. When the counting was through, the state’s senior senator, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, would celebrate his first victory as a member of the GOP, his party switch in 1995 having presaged the state’s political shift. Republicans would control all the statewide constitutional offices except attorney general and four of the six congressional seats, most notably first term Representative Tom Tancredo, a racist gadfly who won easily in the suburban 6th Congressional District where I grew up. Two years later, the state, which Clinton had won in 1992 by a comfortable margin, went to George W. Bush by 8 points. Two years after that, Owens would go on to a landslide re-elect, be named the “Best Governor in America” by National Review, and be whispered about as a possible presidential hopeful. His top strategist, Dick Wadhams, was seen as a potential national star, set to run a top-tier 2008 presidential campaign before it got all macacaed up.

The political world was at our fingertips; the growing, dynamic Mountain West was primed to be the engine for a free-market, libertarian-streaked party that was perfectly suited to lead in the twenty-first century. Colorado could be the center of it all. It seemed as if I was timing my entrance into Republican political life perfectly to be along for the ride.

That was then.

Not even a quarter century on, Colorado can’t even be described as a swing state anymore. The last gasp of that status came in last year’s midterm, when the GOP nominees for governor and the Senate got crushed by umpteen points in what should have been a good year for the party. In that midterm, Democrats did better in Colorado than even in such liberal strongholds as New York and Illinois, according to analysis of the statewide popular vote by Split Ticket. Today, Dems control every major statewide office and five of the eight congressional seats—and they came just 500 votes short of taking out Lauren Boebert on the Western Slope and making it six. 2023 marks the party’s highest level of dominance in state politics since 1936.

You would think that such a dramatic fall might lead the Republican party poobahs to do some self-reflection on how it all went wrong. Maybe brainstorm on what they can do to reinvigorate the GOP’s heyday or come up with new strategies to bring back the voters who have swung so hard against them.

Nah. Instead, the GOP’s most wild-eyed members are determined to run things even further into the ground. This weekend they handed the keys to the party to a tiny cloister of extremists more interested in owning the libs than fixing their losing brand.

[welidot]

Hillary Clinton

This Biography is about one of the best Professional Politician of the world Hillary Clinton including her Height, weight, Age & Other Detail… Express info Real Name Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton Nickname Hillary, Hill, HRod, Mrs. Clinton Profession Politician Age (as in 2023) 75 Years old Physical Stats & More Info Party Democratic Party Political Journey • In January 1979, Hillary Clinton became First Lady of Arkansas and retained the title for twelve years (1979-1981, 1983-1992). • She became the First Lady of the United States in January 1993. • In the year 2000, she was chosen by the Democratic Party to run in the Senate Election. • She won the Senate Election with 55% of vote on November 7, 2000. • On January 3, 2001, Hillary Clinton was sworn in as US Senator. • She gave her service on five senate committees - Committee on Budget (2001–2002), Committee on Armed Services (2003–2009), Committee on Environment and Public Works (2001–2009), Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2001–2009) and Special Committee on Aging. • In November 2004, she announced to run for a second senate term. • She won the senate election for the second time with 67% of the vote on November 7, 2006. • On January 20, 2007, Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for the United States Presidential Election of 2008. • She lost South Carolina primary to Obama by two-to-one. • She supported Obama at the 2008 Democratic National Convention by giving a passionate speech. • On December 1, 2008, Obama announced Hillary Clinton as his nominee for Secretary of State. • She took the oath of office of Secretary of State of USA on January 21, 2009. • She has announced her candidacy for the United States Presidential Election of 2016 and at present she is campaigning for the same. • On 8 November 2016, she was defeated by the Republican Donald Trump in the 2016 United States Presidential Election. Biggest Rival Donald Trump Physical Stats & More Of Hillary Clinton Height in centimeters- 167 cm in meters- 1.67 m in Feet Inches- 5’ 6” Weight in Kilograms- 60 kg in Pounds- 132 lbs Eye Colour Blue Hair Colour Blonde Personal Life Of Hillary Clinton Date of Birth October 26, 1947 Birth Place Edgewater Hospital in Chicago, Illinois Zodiac sign/Sun sign Scorpio Nationality American Hometown Chicago, Illinois, USA School Park Ridge, Maine East High School (1964), Maine South High School (1964–1965) College Wellesley College (1965–1969), Yale Law School (1969–1973) Educational Qualifications Bachelor of arts with Departrmental honors in Political Science Debut 1996 Family Father- Hugh Ellsworth Rodham (American businessman) Mother- Dorothy Howell Rodham (American Homemaker) Brothers- Tony Rodham (Consultant), Hugh Rodham (Lawyer) Sisters- N/A Religion Methodist Address 55 West 125th Street New York, USA Hobbies Swimming, Home decor, gardening, playing scrabble, doing crossword puzzles Controversies • Her email controversy is at the top on the list of Hillary Clinton's controversy where she has been criticized for using her personal account to send classified documents during her tenure as United States Secretary of States. • In 1978, Hillary and Bill Clinton were criticized for buying acres of riverfront land to form Whitewater Development Corp. through wrong means. • Clinton Foundation has been criticized for the errors in its tax returns. • She has been criticized in Benghazi case for failing to protect US interests abroad. • She has been criticized for delivering a speech on inequality by wearing a Giorgio Armani jacket worth 12000 USD. Favourite Things Of Hillary Clinton Favorite Politician Martin Luther King Jr. Favorite Quote "Human rights are women's rights. Women's rights are human rights". Favorite Food Hot sauces, DeFrazio’s Pizzeria in Troy, apple, burgers, ice creams, wine Favorite Film Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, Out of Africa Favorite Book Fyodor Dostoyevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov', The Return of the Prodigal Son Boys, Affairs and More Of Hillary Clinton Marital Status Married Affairs/Boyfriends Not Known Husband Bill Clinton (married 1975) Children Daughter- Chelsea Clinton (born February 27, 1980) Earning Money Of Hillary Clinton Net Worth 22 million USD This Biography written by www.welidot.com Read the full article

[money-habits]

It's The Economy, Stupid: Real Truth Of 2024 Election

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the American political landscape is again dominated by a phrase that has withstood the tests of time and relevance: “It’s the economy, stupid.” This adage, coined initially during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, underscores economic issues’ pivotal role in shaping electoral outcomes. It is particularly apt in today’s context, as candidates…

[mariacallous]

Now that the Democratic National Convention is over, the next major battleground in the 2024 election is the media.

The Harris-Walz campaign needs to be ready.

Although former President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has struggled to respond to the new Democratic ticket, Republicans will likely get in line with a unified media strategy. The message they will seek to promote is that Democrats are running the most radical, leftist candidates in U.S. history.

In recent elections, Democrats have had difficulty with the new turbocharged, fast-moving and unfiltered media landscape. In 2016, Trump beat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, harping on the investigation into her emails. In 2020, President Joe Biden defeated Trump, but under unusual pandemic circumstances that put much of the conventional campaign processes on hold. As campaign conditions returned to normal this year, things did not go as well for Biden. One televised debate, noted New York Times columnist James Poniewozik, brought his candidacy to an end: “There was simply a horrendous TV outing—less than two hours that changed history.” But even before Biden stepped onstage, his poll numbers were lagging after a conservative media onslaught about his age and alleged corruption.

To sustain the energy that boosted Vice President Kamala Harris through the convention in Chicago, Harris’s campaign needs to devise an effective media strategy tailored to the current era. To do so, her team should look back to 1992, when then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton’s savvy war room figured out how Democrats could thrive in another new age—of cable television, investigative journalism, and state-of-the-art political advertising. While the news media has evolved significantly in terms of form and content since Clinton won the presidency, Harris will need to achieve a mastery similar to that of Clinton’s historic campaign team.

The early 1990s seem like simpler times. In January 1994, NBC Today Show’s Bryant Gumbel asked his cohost Katie Couric: “What is the internet anyway?” Email was a novelty. Surfing was done in the ocean. Cable news played by the traditional rules of objective reporting. Smartphones were in development, and cell phones remained a luxury. Social media meant going to the movies with friends.

Yet the 1992 presidential campaign—which pitted Clinton, then-incumbent President George H.W. Bush, and independent candidate Ross Perot against each other in a race for the White House—took place across a media landscape that had changed dramatically since the 1960s. Cable had created a 24-hour news cycle where stories came out quickly. These stations, as well as the increasingly popular one-hour network news zine-style shows (Nightline, for example), depended on a healthy audience share for their livelihood, in contrast to the public service ethos of the half-hour nightly news programs from earlier times. This shift meant that sensationalism became a hot commodity. Investigative journalism born from Watergate had given rise to a generation of reporters who were constantly on the hunt for wrongdoing. Moreover, conservative talk radio had exploded after the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the fairness doctrine in 1987. Syndicated hosts such as Rush Limbaugh commanded between millions of listeners on over 600 stations. Daily tabloid newspapers and comedic shows, too, were having a greater impact on politics.

And in advertising, the “Morning in America” campaign that helped then-incumbent President Ronald Reagan win reelection in 1984 set a new standard for sophisticated production techniques. Television spots became like short films, capable of seducing and devastating all at once.

Starting with the 1980 election, and as a party felt to be on the outs from the mainstream culture, the GOP saw an opportunity to shape the national conversation through an aggressive media strategy that defined the way the public perceived its opponents and itself. As they built a new conservative majority, Republicans made huge investments which very often paid off.

In 1980 and 1984, Reagan’s campaign team managed its message to transform the one-time conservative extremist into the nation’s savior. Then, in 1988, Bush pulled together one of the most brutal campaigns of modern history under the direction of South Carolina campaign consultant Lee Atwater. Atwater tore down all the guardrails as to what was permissible, institutionalizing an anything-goes philosophy. Playing on themes of patriotism, religious nationalism, and a racial backlash, Bush and Atwater redefined the promising Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis—an intelligent technocratic reformer—into a heartless left-wing radical who looked terrible in a tank.

In 1992, from its perch in Little Rock, Arkansas, Clinton’s inner circle was determined not to repeat these experiences. It had been hardened during the primaries when its candidate barely survived a sex scandal involving Arkansas state employee Gennifer Flowers. James “the Ragin’ Cajun” Carville had guided Clinton through the crisis and emerged as the central figure behind the “comeback kid.” In a scene captured in the 1993 documentary The War Room, which provides the best look into this critical campaign, Carville warned his staff that Democrats needed to step up or conservatives such as Fox News chairman Roger Ailes would destroy them. With Carville leading the way, Clinton’s war room also included George Stephanopoulos (communications), Paul Begala (chief strategist), Stanley Greenberg (polling), and Mandy Grunwald (advertising).

Several principles guided Carville’s army. Speed was essential. In the cable era, sitting out of stories was no longer an option. Being patient could leave a candidate in the dust. The war room deployed a rapid response style that left no charge unanswered for long and aimed to provide counterarguments before allegations could set in the public mind. When reporters raised an accusation, Clinton’s team rejected the claims with resolve and force. At the same time, whenever Carville and Stephanopoulos got hold of any potentially damaging information about Bush or Perot, they released it to the media immediately rather than trying to think up the best spin.

Tired of the defensive and despondent outlook of Democrats following the political bloodbath in 1988, Clinton’s war room insisted that Democrats needed to play offense. “Why can’t we attack George Bush?” the documentary shows Carville asking his team. The film portrays an effort that fizzled as the team tried to stir a story about Bush having campaign material made overseas rather than in the United States. Nor was it shy about ripping into the weaknesses of Bush’s record.

In doing so, the Clinton war room also elevated clarity into an artform. Carville’s team grasped how long and complicated arguments did not fly in an age of soundbites. They famously drew on a board: “the economy, stupid.” There were two other punchy slogans to guide them: “Change versus more of the same” and “don’t forget health care.” That reminder to staffers was also an example of how to convey a message with simplicity. According to the Los Angeles Times, the crew in Little Rock “share[d] a belief in the primacy of ‘the message’ as the driving force in a presidential campaign, downplaying the importance of such traditional political tools as precinct organizations, registration drives and Election Day turnout efforts.”

The team also worked to sell the message through the realm of popular culture, traditionally dismissed as undignified. Clinton appeared on the Arsenio Hall Show and MTV, in People, and more. The campaign blitzed talk show hosts with information that made Bush look like an out-of-touch well-to-do who only cared about foreign policy while constantly reminding them of Clinton’s humble origins.

In November 1992, Clinton won with 370 Electoral College votes. Four years later, he defeated Sen. Robert Dole and was reelected.

Subsequent Democrats could not replicate his success. In 2000 and 2004, respectively, Vice President Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry failed to be as effective on the media stage. Decorated Vietnam veteran Kerry, for instance, was shell-shocked when then-incumbent President George W. Bush’s campaign tagged him as a flip-flopping politician and an independent group invented the concept of “swift-boating” by throwing out false accusations to discredit his military record. Political consultant Chris LaCivita, who is currently co-managing Trump’s campaign, was one of the people who produced the spot for the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” smear campaign.

Barack Obama reset Democratic campaign strategy in 2008. David Axelrod and his band of campaign operatives updated Carville’s model, demonstrating how effective use of social media tools such as Facebook, well-produced television spots with Reagan-like narratives, and not responding to the daily noise from the internet and cable television could provide a recipe for victory. Sen. John McCain and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, were no match.

Of course, the media campaign was a complement, not an alternative, to an aggressive turnout strategy that focused on driving up total votes in all 50 states.

The media challenges in 2024 have expanded again, even as the old ones remain relevant. One of the most grueling challenges facing Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz will be to survive the onslaught of disinformation, deepfakes, and openly partisan news that will hit them from all sides in the months to come. The recent hack by Iran, which Trump claims targeted his campaign, is a reminder that foreign interference will also be a problem.

Harris also needs to compete successfully in what New York Times columnist Ezra Klein has called the “attention field.” News moves at a fast speed and those who consume political news tend to move on very quickly. Attention spans are not easy to maintain. An effective campaign has to figure out how to keep the media focused on its candidate and message for substantial periods of time.

Between now and Election Day, Harris will be facing an opponent who has proven to be effective at working the media. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated an instinctive feel for the rhythm and dynamics of the news cycle. As president, he capitalized on the interconnected relationship between social media, cable news, online newspapers, and podcasts to dominate the national conversation and harden perceptions about opponents. He handled televised debates like a reality show, using body movements, facial expressions, controversial comments, and vicious insults. Most recently, he capitalized on an attempted assassination, standing up with blood dripping down his ear, surrounded by U.S. Secret Service agents, defiantly pumping his fist in the air and yelling: “Fight! Fight! Fight!” It was as if he could see how the event looked on a television screen.

Thus far, Harris’s team has been extremely effective on this playing field. It has staged the rollout methodically to generate good feeling, excitement, and constant media attention. Harris’s memes have caught fire on social media. Harris appears to have selected Walz as her running mate in part because of how adroit he has proven to be in this playing field despite being 60 years old. By uttering one word, “weird,” Walz remade the messaging of his entire party. When Republicans lobbed their initial attacks against Walz’s military record, the social media army hit back hard, although some commentators believe it needs to hit back harder.

The fight is only beginning. Democrats should not fool themselves into thinking Trump will simply lay down his gloves and walk away. When backed into a corner, Trump traditionally becomes more brutal.

But as Clinton’s war room demonstrated in the 1992 election, a savvy Democratic campaign updated to suit the modern media environment can take down the fiercest opposition and pave a road that leads to the White House.

[deadpresidents]

If I recall correctly, weren’t you a pretty big fan of Bill Clinton for some time? I recall a lot of posts from you about him that were fairly favorable. When did you finally accept that he was a creep? Do you think there’s finally a chance of accountability? I am truly asking from a place of empathy as I know what it’s like to have someone you looked up turn out to be not so great.

No, you're 100% correct. I was a fan of Bill Clinton for a long time. He was President from the time I was 13 until I was 21, and for a kid who was into Presidential history and Democratic politics, he was a major presence in my life. I still think that he is probably the most naturally-gifted politician of my lifetime. Nobody that I've watched has been able to explain public policy or instantly breeze through complicated press conference questions like Bill Clinton. For years after he left office, I said that he should just be the guy who explains how things work to America; he's remarkably smart.

One of the craziest examples of Clinton's intelligence is that he had to figure out ways to make it look like he doesn't have the answer to everything immediately. Clinton's political advisers thought he came across at times like a know-it-all and that it wasn't a good look on the campaign trail. You know how one of the famous mannerisms of Clinton is how he'll pause while he's speaking and bite his lip, like this?

Well, that was done on purpose. Clinton's advisers thought that his quick, completely formed answers to complicated questions was unnatural and that he needed to make himself seem more thoughtful, so he'd pause and bite his lip almost as an intellectual speed bump. Paul Begala, one of the most important architects of Clinton's 1992 campaign explained:

"He was so smart about so many things but also could connect. The whole thing about his biting his lip -- that was coached. Because he would answer so fast. We'd say, 'Take a beat. Pretend you're thinking about it. Pretend you haven't already got an answer.' It was a studied thing to give himself a second to force himself to slow down."

So, things like that were why I was always so impressed and appreciative of Clinton's skills and political gifts.

But, obviously, as I've gotten older and come to understand his personal actions a lot better, it's really hard not to consider him a creep. I mean, the Epstein thing is obviously impossible to reconcile. Even if it there hasn't been any suggestion of Clinton actually abusing any of the girls in the way that Epstein did, he spent a lot of time around Epstein and it's gross. I think one of Epstein's victims said that Clinton was a "total gentleman" and didn't do anything wrong to her, but that photo of a very young girl giving him a neck message in what looks like an airport terminal is a really bad look. That was clearly after he left office, so that was post-Monica Lewinsky and Clinton should have had the awareness to not even put himself near that type of situation with a girl that young (or any woman who was not his wife) -- even if it was just a neck massage that lasted a short amount of time. Even if the girl offered to do it willingly and had no issues with it, that's not a situation that Clinton -- who was impeached and could have been removed from office because he had an affair with a young woman -- should have have felt comfortable with.

But beyond that, as I've gotten older and as we've all gotten better about recognizing these things, his relationship with Monica Lewinsky is what bothers me because of the position that he put Monica in. She was in her early 20s -- barely older than Clinton's own daughter at the time -- and he was President of the United States. Listen, I don't have any room to criticize someone for dating younger women (seriously), but it's the power dynamic and the manner in which he treated Monica when things started to get difficult for him. That poor girl was in such an unimaginably nightmarish place because of what Clinton did and how he -- the incumbent President of the United States -- spoke about her publicly and treated her privately. When you think about it in terms of a relationship, it's just a crazy situation. And the poise that Monica Lewinsky had then and now speaks volumes about the person she is and has become, so it just makes Clinton look that much more terrible in comparison.

It is disappointing because I was a fan of President Clinton for most of my life. And, like Richard Nixon, he was so gifted when it came to his intellectual powers and, in Clinton's case, his political skills, that his flaws and his actions were overlooked for too long. I don't know what kind of accountability there might be for Clinton now that he's been out of office for nearly 25 years and is a few years away from his 80th birthday. But I can say that I feel like I know who he is now and "creep" seems like a pretty fitting description.

[darkmaga-returns]

Everyone’s favorite pseudo-populist retarded Cajun gargoyle — “everyone” being the Deep State managers who run MSNBC and seemingly have him on every other day to offer anachronistic and frequently empirically wrong political opinions — appeared yesterday to call for, on national television, armed insurrection in the event Trump defeats the Karamel-uh entity in two weeks.

Related: MSNBC News Actress Confronted Over Migrant Coverage, Bodyguard Assaults Journalist

Carville is concerned as well about what Donald Trump will do to the MOCs (Males of Color) once he assumes office — because, apparently, his former boss who signed the 1994 Crime Bill and put nonviolent drug offenders in prison for life and his wife who called black children “super-predators” who need to be “brought to heel” were so good to them… or something.

Whatever — just get back on the Democrat plantation, MOCs! Masta’s on the ballot!

Via Slay News (emphasis added):

“Veteran Democrat strategist James Carville has appeared on national television and warned the American people President Donald Trump is planning to arrest all “males of color” if he wins the election.

In addition, Carville, who served as the lead strategist on Bill Clinton’s winning 1992 presidential campaign, called for leftists to launch an armed uprising if Trump beats Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

The former Clinton strategist also pushed the false claim that Trump has publicly stated he will “use the military to arrest political enemies” and wants “to get rid of the Constitution.”…

“People want to know about [Harris’ polling] weakness among males of color,” Carville said.

“Okay? He’s gonna arrest all of ya,” he claimed…

The Democrat operative then compared the current political environment to pre-WWII and pre-Civil War times.

“When the Republic was threatened, people picked up arms and answered the call,” Carville said.

“Or, you know, in 1965 in the middle of the Civil Rights movement, I think people decided they were gonna take matters into their own hands and create a better country and that’s what I hope we do here in the next few weeks,” he finished.”

The clip It sounds an awful lot to me like what is happening here is James begging publicly for Trump to give him the nonviolent J6 granny “domestic terrorist” treatment.

I myself am more partial to the guillotine for creatures such as him (following all due process granted to the defendant, obviously; we don’t promote vigilante justice), but if we must conduct ourselves in a civilized 21st-century manner, the DC gulag is the next best thing for him.

[queersatanic]

Bill Clinton got almost 6 million more votes than George H.W. Bush in 1992, and more than 8 million more votes than Bob Dole in 1996. It’s just that H. Ross Perot ran two highly successful campaigns (by third party standards) and got 18.7 million then 8 million votes, too, with his new party. Bill Clinton was plenty popular in his time.

Al Gore only got 500,000 more votes than George W. Bush, which isn’t much, that’s true. But he got the most votes. Also, Ralph Nader of the Green Party got 2.9 million total votes in the 2000 election, and ultimately, lots of people who voted for Nader that year but were still committed to electoralism regretted their decision. In 2004, Nader got just 465,000 votes (and W. Bush got 3 million more votes than John Kerry — the Bush years were bad).

Barack Obama got 10 million more votes than John McCain in the middle of the 2008 financial collapse, and 5 million more votes than Mitt Romney in 2012. Nader got 739,000 votes in 2008 and Jill Stein got 469,000 votes in 2012, but the Libertarian Party went from 533,000 to 1.2 million votes at the same time.

Hillary Clinton got almost 3 million more votes than Donald Trump in 2016, with the Libertarian Party getting 4.5 million voters and Green Party getting 1.4 million. But the 3 million weren’t in the right places, and Hillary Clinton lost.

In 2020, Joe Biden got 7 million more votes than Trump, while the Libertarian Party got 1.8 million votes and the Green Party got 400,000 votes. Biden’s 7 million *were* in the right places, just barely. Biden won.

The issue with the US Presidential elections isn’t that Democrats aren’t popular enough to get enough votes. It’s that getting the most votes doesn’t matter, and that’s not where power actually lies, anyway.

Republicans and the right wing understand that while Democrats (and some leftists) do not.

This is like literally just Delusional. This is beyond Hilary Clinton’s fuck up campaign in strategy, like. I can’t even begin to fully articulate how delusional this is.

[garudabluffs]

‘James Carville: Winning Is Everything, Stupid’

Those with long memories will recall the strategist famously declared “It’s the economy, stupid” while running Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in 1992.

One of the most talked about documentaries at this year’s Telluride Film Festival was “Carville: Winning Is Everything, Stupid.” 

It tracks an 18-month period during which its subject, legendary Democratic political strategist James Carville, was at the forefront of the charge to convince President Joe Biden not to seek re-election in 2024.  

Those with long memories will recall Carville famously declared “It’s the economy, stupid” while running Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in 1992. 

The documentary looks back at his rise from the bayou to the Beltway. It also covers his storied and public relationship with his wife, Republican strategist Mary Matalin.

The film has been acquired by CNN Films and will debut on CNN on Oct. 5 at 7 p.m. EST. It will also stream on Max later this fall and receive an Oscar-qualifying theatrical release.

1A’s arts correspondent John Horn spoke to Carville and the film’s director, Matt Tyrnauer. We hear that conversation.

LISTEN 11:59 READ MORE Transcript https://the1a.org/segments/1a-sees-james-carville-winning-is-everything-stupid/