#i am SO unserious about this poll

[booitsbeloved]

The childish mind runs on a hamster wheel

[scoobydoodean]

all this for sam

I can't help but be impressed by the dedication tbh. That poll cheating guide was not short.

[hyuck-xix]

(⁠ ⁠˘⁠ ⁠³⁠˘⁠)⁠♥

[serotoninswitch]

Okay so I'm having a realization. I *might be a furry. Previously I always classified myself as *I'm not a furry but I believe in their beliefs*. So I'm going to throw out some data and you tell me which category I fall into

-I have no particular desire to have a fursona

-I have an animal I feel particular affinity for and would absolutely choose as my fursona

-I find *certain* fursonas really attractive by virtue of them being anthropomorphic animals, but they're few and far between

-There's horny furry art that really turns me on, but most of the time it's what the subjects are doing rather than the fact that it's of fursonas

-I'm a massive monster fucker, so there are certain furry adjacent monsters that really turn me on such as werewolves and minotaurs

-I have no strong desire to really be a part of the furry community but I'll happily share and support their art

-I fantasize about being able to shape change a lot (both sexually and platonically) and I would absolutely be interested in an anthropomorphic animal shape if ever given the opportunity

You know the drill, reblog for bigger sample size, it'll really help me out

Oh and as a disclaimer, this is a section of *my* identity that I'm okay having a little unserious fun with, hence why I even put up this poll

[kyluxtrashpit]

Hiya! I hope you're doing well. I made the Hottest Star Wars Man Poll, so when your posts about it were brought to my attention, I felt I should probably reach out.

The polls are just for fun. I make them with no agenda, and I run them with no agenda. I've received messages talking about bots before, but I never wanted to get into the weeds about it.

However, as the discussion about bots is bigger than I realized, I guess now is as good a time as any to speak about it:

My opinion is that the spikes in Hux votes are a mere side-effect of the poll being passed around the internet and bringing in new voters in droves. As your Anon mentioned, @tomatette's edits might's also pulled in waves of people who voted for Hux out of fidelity to her.

I'm fine with the campaigning. As long as the vote is ultimately achieved by a human clicking on the vote themselves, it's alright by me. Hell, I always reblog 'propaganda' I particularly like, and I even requested some Anakin propaganda when he was in his elimination round. It's all fun and games to me.

However.

If anyone is using bots, I'm asking nicely for them to please stop. I'm going to pull the 'I'm not mad, I'm disappointed' card on anyone botting. The polls are all strictly unserious things, so I hope that nobody is taking them too seriously.

Hi there! Sorry the nonsense has reached you, honestly lmao. I just wanted to make a post cause I was upset about the possibility (and, as I've said, I don't have rock solid proof, just suspicions based on observations by myself and others, so like. If people don't agree with me, that's fine, it's all good - I just wanted to speak out in case it was happening like, as a kyluxer, I don't want people to think that if someone is botting, that's something we as a fandom are chill with). I honestly didn't expect it to get quite this much attention either but here we are. I also want to make it clear to both you and my followers that I don't put any blame of anything on you - you're just making fun polls and that's it, you're not responsible for what people do or what drama may arise

I do agree it's possible someone just got a bunch of people to vote within a small window of time, like anything is possible, always is. I just feel like some of the increases I saw, observations from others, and things I've heard are enough to warrant suspicion. If people do or do not agree that there's a reason to think it happened, that's their choice and I'm not going to insist that my word is law and they have to believe me. I don't have receipts, I was just expressing myself and I do appreciate amicable discussion even if my mind has not been changed as of yet

But yeah I agree, propaganda and making funny edits and posts - that's not at all what I was referring to in terms of 'cheating', but somewhere it seems that got mentioned in the discussion? (3 separate people have brought this up to me lmao, like thinking I'm accusing them but I am NOT and no one better be out there accusing them either without actual evidence beyond 'oh you posted about it' cause that's a shitty thing to do) and I also want to make it clear I am not against propaganda fun. That's all just part of it. If people are mad about that, that's their problem and they should use blacklist more liberally. And if people are saying I'm saying that, then those people are either lying or are at 'how dare you say we should piss on the poor' levels of reading comprehension lmao

But yeah, I'll post this publicly, but let me know if you want it taken down and I'll delete it - I appreciate you reaching out and I'm sorry you had to deal with this, that was definitely not my intent when I made the post. I just wanted the botting, if it is indeed happening (and if it's not, all the better, I am just not yet convinced it didn't happen), to stop

And lastly, because of some of the DMs I've received: if you, the person reading this (not you the asker), are sending hate or harassment to people based on my post, FUCKING STOP IT RIGHT THE FUCK NOW, you're no better than the bad actors I was initially referring to

[incorrectskyrimquotes]

you are officially the strongest person alive for not just closing the askbox after some of the trash you've gotten from idiots on this site. gdspeed and good luck holy hell

I've received a lot of asks like this one so I wanna respond and clarify

I actually love getting asks and even anon asks. I prefer having anon on bc yk big boy blog and all that but also so that people can send me their silliest things.

I really do truly genuinely enjoy having this blog and especially interacting w it. I've made a lot of friends recently and it's just fun to be able to talk ab the cringe failgame from a decade ago. Both for myself and in front of such a large audience.

Ever since I became aware I'm literally in the top 10 on skyrim blogs (at #9 but still) some of my anons started making a lot more sense. The power of anonymity makes people braver, which is good for things like funny headcanons and such.

I don't really like having to turn anon off and god I hope I don't have to shut asks off entirely. Fortunately once I turned anon off my inbox became a lot more peaceful. Funny that.

If I were to compare the two I'm sure I've gotten much more love than hate, but hate is much louder than love. And I know me giving it attention doesn't help much of anything but on the other hand people can and do throw around serious words about an unserious video game on unserious posts from an unserious person.

Even if I ignored all of it, just having to see it can feel so draining. And it isn't just in my inbox. It's also in the tags. I've repeatedly tried to express how deeply uncomfortable I am, AS A JEWISH PERSON OF COLOR, with people throwing words like racist and genocide around all willy nilly over video game characters.

It trivializes those real world issues, that have affected me, my ancestors, and people like me, down to fucking. Skyrim discourse. It's extremely frustrating. And from what I can see I don't think anyone is doing it maliciously or to get a rise out of me. But I think the sheer weight of those words has gotten lost.

And not to pull another race card, but this is especially upsetting from white people. I'm not thrilled about the fact white people keep talking over me and other people of color in the fandom about what is and isn't racist.

But I do also see the love. I see the cats in my inbox and the lovely asks and people writing paragraphs to defend me (when tbh I haven't done anything wrong anyways but. Eh.) and it's genuinely very touching and sweet and even if I don't reply to it (there's a lot to reply to!) I do see it and I appreciate it.

And for the poll, I fully plan on seeing it through. Round 2 closes tomorrow after which I'll set up round 3/the semi finals and then we go to the championship!

I started this poll, also this blog, for fun. I want people to have fun. I want to have fun. And most of the time I do have fun! But with the uptick in activity that brings *gestures vaguely* what it does.

Tumblr is one of those very few websites with true anonymity. This and reddit are the only ones I can think of where it's not expected to have your name, face, or other info about you anywhere. Which is a rare blessing on today's internet but it makes people very audacious about what they can and can't say to me.

I think because of that anonymity it's easy to forget I'm a human person. I very much doubt some of things I've had said to me in the last 48 hours would still be said if it was face to face. I truly don't think someone would look me in the eye and tell me to kill myself over skyrim bullshit.

And the funny part of that is if they did, I'd probably laugh in real life. For the sheer ridiculousness of the statement. "Hey. You. End your life because of video game drama" spoken to me at the local Target would be funny to me. But with the anonymity it feels just as hurtful as I'm sure it's supposed to be.

Thanks for letting me ramble and such. I'm not really even sure what I'm trying to say with all this. Other than I'm human, you're human, we're all humans, and we'd do well to remember that. Please just be nice to each other..

And be nice to me.

[friends-to-lovers-tournament]

PRELIMINARY POLL 1: A3!

hello A3! fandom, congrats on having the biggest number of unique ships submitted! (unique=non-repeated ship) out of all the ships submitted, soba and i have decided to shortlist fuyupoly and EITHER bansaku OR tasutsumu, as per a previous post where we said we'll be allowing a maximum of 2 ships per fandom into the tournament. both bansaku and tasutsumu have 3 submissions each and strong propaganda, hence this preliminary poll to decide which one will be in the tournament

also if bansaku wins, let us know if you guys want that pic to be their pic or you guys want the act 11 CG where banri and sakuya go on a date to watch the hyakka troupe show (fake blood warning)

propoganda for both ships are under the cut!

-mod deli 🎀

BANSAKU:

Submission 1:

Tough dude getting flustered at literal angel makes happy chemical go brrrrrr

Submission 3:

words cannot express how much i love bansaku. they are so. okay hold on. they met in high school. they're in the same year but different classes. they officially become friends when they join mankai company. at least one mod is a3 liker so i'll skip those details i'm sure you know. they are so. everything. here is the list of things that has happened in canon. like literally in canon.

- they go thrift shopping together. banri gets sakuya clothes since he's got more expendable income.

- they're major theater nerds they both love the stage so much

- sakuya forgot his workbook so he went to borrow banri's and "thanks, banri-kun!"

- EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF ART WHERE THE A3DERS ARE TOGETHER HAS BANRI WITH THE SOFTEST EXPRESSION LOOKING AT SAKUYA LIKE WHAT THE HELL

- they went to go watch hyakka troupe play together... there's a whole cg... i can't believe they go on dates fr (delusional)

banri was struggling with finding a purpose in life, versus sakuya who always dreamed of veing an actor. and i think that. god i'm so delusional but like. banri's always a little sarcastic and unserious but with sakuya he's always kind even though he's still a tease. and the. they bring out different sides to each other you know. with banri, sakuya allows himself to be taken care of and doted over, but also just be a 19 year old teen. normal life . yknow.

they are so friends to lovers ever because they are such good friends to each other and it's always at the core of their relationship. yknow like even if they didn't get together romantically they still push each other to be better and to want more. but they just Want to be together and i think that makes a lot of difference. choosing to be with someone. it's very unconditional and lowkey, their relationship, so choosing it is somehow Something Significant, if that makes sense.

they're so adorable. banri's a very physical person i think. so it's very easy to just imagine him with his arm over sakuya's shoulders or hugging sakuya from behind. and sakuya always thinks of banri and gets him little gifts and "i thought of you"s and they're so adorable. sometimes banri will pick sakuya up from work and sometimes sakuya will stop by amabi and i think they make time for each other.

also one last thing that isn't necessarily friends to lovers coded but i feel is very important about their relationship is how like. you know at the start banri is this delinquent asshole with no plans in life and sakuya is a little good boy who's responsible and a little silly. so i think it's really important that banri is the one who continues on to college, while sakuya goes straight to working. (at a kindergarten he is so cute i love him) because like. you know. first impressions aren't everything. what's good for you may not be good for someone else. we can all still grow more in the end. and i just. man i'm so emo over these two.

(Mod note: The 2nd bansaku submission didn't have any propaganda)

TASUTSUMU:

Submission 1:

(exploding) sorry if this is badly written i am walking rn . Mods know the series but A3 is about stage actors.

TasuTsumu are literally the friends to lovers ever. They're childhood friends, even. They did everything together. They've acted together since elementary school. but then (VINE BOOM) thry both try out for a prestigious acting troupe called GODza... but only Tasuku makes it in (sad horn sounds) Tsumugi lost a ton of confidence after not making it and kinda ghosted Tasuku and ran away from his problems </3 he originally had given up, but missed the stage so he tried out again at the Mankai Company (troupe all of the characters are in). Of course, as fate has it, Tasuku had just left GODza after their... unsavory business tactics, but the troupe had blacklisted him from becoming an actor at any other high end troupes in the area, leaving him to go to the Mankai Company. And of course times 2, he and Tsumugi try out for the same troupe. Tasuku is less than pleased with seeing Tsumugi's face after he just disappeared before, and things between them are tense, especially when Tasuku gets fed up with Tsumugi's lack of confidence after he becomes the troupe's leader. But!! Fate wants them to get along (and be together) and Tsumugi finds this cursed doll that traps them in a time loop of the same day. They're stuck until they resolve their issues. Nothing like a good ol divine intervention to get two friends to lovers back together. tldr Tsumugi owns up to his insecurities to Tasuku and works to overcome it. In the process, while performing their play in an act off (if they end up in the competition ill actually essay about it) Tsumugi feels that his acting is inferior once again and totally bombs a show. Tasuku finally works around his own regrets of not reaching out before when Tsumugi had "quit," telling him how much he loves and envies Tsumugi's acting, and apologizes to Tsumugi. Then boom they pull off an incredibly gay play about angels and become lovers (not canon but Trust me).

please let me write properly about them and put them in i love my blorbos <3 they were made for this tournament

Submission 2:

absolute best friends in childhood who had a very impactful falling out, but managed to resolve things. nowadays they're in a theatre troupe together where their troupe is quite literally married.

Submission 3:

1. CHILDHOOD FRIENDS

2. Their introductory arc was literally a whole divorce-reunion arc. They divorced because Tsumugi failed an audition into the God Squad theatre troupe while Tasuku got in which was a blow to Tsumugi's confidence as an actor and he ran away and Tasuku was mad at him for that. It was literally so bad that the game had to break its slice-of-life genre to introduce a doll that traps people in a timeloop until they're able to make up, and they (and another guy who's kinda a cryptid) are the only ones aware that the day keeps repeating

3. After one of their shows, Tsumugi overhears some audience members criticising him and comparing him to Tasuku, which leads to him changing his acting style in the next show which completes bombs their show. Out of shame, Tsumugi runs away, and it takes Tasuku some hesitating before chasing after him and finally telling him how he REALLY feels -- that he was guilty for not being able to do anything to help Tsumugi when he failed that audition years ago and ran away, and that he admires Tsumugi's acting for what it is. The anime makes this scene even gayer by having them meet on a bridge in the snow and Tasuku holding an umbrella over Tsumugi's head as he pours his heart out to Tsumugi

4. Tsumugi regains his confidence after hearing that, and they finally FINALLY 100% reconcile

[lighthousegod]

Hello and welcome to my rant from my time on Stranger Things Steddie and Friends Twitter for the past few months.

K I'm really pissed but its fine I wrote this all before the poll thing. Now I just. Can't get rid of it. (Me at tumblr headquarters right fucking now)

Anyway. Sorry for the interruption.

The fact that I've seen several ST fans claim most people who like steddie are fetishizing them is already shitty, but what makes it even more shitty is that they focus on them being two white cis guys fetishized by "white girls".

To reference the two white cis guys first, yeah, you got me there. That really is all those two are in the show. And if you wanna talk representation, well shit! Let's do it! Out of the main cast, we have 3 people of color: Lucas, Erica, and Argyle. Lucas is much too young to be in a relationship with either of them and already has one of his own, and Erica is ten years old. Now, I love Argyle, but he was written to be a comic relief character that had no arc and never met either of them. I think that's a wasted opportunity, Eduardo is great and would've done well as a fully fleshed out character, and there is a conversation to be had about whether that character would've been received the same way Eddie was being a white guy. But the thing is, he was never even CAST as a character who could be compared with Eddie- again, his whole character was "funny stoner." THAT is fucked, and people have definitely decided to ignore that fanon. In fact, Jargyle has become a pretty well known ship! Weirdly enough, the content I've seen of them has majorly been from people who also ship steddie! It isn't as popular as Steddie, though, and I don't think that's ONLY bc of half of the ship has less lore than eddie. There definitely is at least some internal bias us white queer folks should take into account when considering what ships we focus on in media.

However, I don't think that's why it's being brought up. I don't think I read tweets from lesbians with she/her in their bios condemning all us steddie ppl who just ship it because "they're two white guys we can fetishize for being in an mlm relationship" bc they're trying to be good allies. That COMPLETELY disregards that transmasc and nonbinary people (ESPECIALLY transmasc people of color) make a BIG chunk of the steddie fandom. Crazy, it's almost like Eddie was written to represent an outcast and literally GOT TARGETED BY CHRISTIANS and a bunch of people in marginalized communities related to his struggles! Except oh, yeah, that'd exactly what happened. And yeah, okay, he's a white guy and it IS pretty shitty that they cast a white dude to represent outcasts in general, but the people talking shit are watching the SAME DAMN SHOW that has a huge fucking cast and still has minimal representation. Fuck, man, Caleb McLaughlin has faced SO MUCH hate from assholes "fans" as the only black main character. Why the hell are people using that very real issue to back their shitty arguments against a gay ship on twitter?

Again, I wanna preface that 90% of these kinds of comments come from lesbians and bisexual people with she/her or she/they in the bio. I thought yall were COOL with the gay and trans people. Yall ARE queer people. Some of them were even big Ronance or Rovickie fans! YALL. WHY IS FRIENDLY FIRE ON??

A lot of this argument is backed by claims that steddie fans ignore canon queer rep, too, and I just don't understand that.

I know. Robin is representation. I am SO HAPPY to have her, and I'm so happy that Maya pushed for it, and as a transmasc person who was not out at the time and likes girls, I felt very seen when watching her coming out scene with Steve. However, I know I don't fully understand the lesbian experience as someone who likes guys too. I know Robin means a lot to wlw fans, especially lesbians. There have been instances where steddies have co-opted that scene to make it about steddie, and that is not okay. (I've never SEEN this happen, but I've seen people talk about it. All the steddie guys on Twitter that I follow were making it pretty clear that that was not cool and pretty fuckin lesbiphobic. I agree, whoever did that, fuck them. Wlw and specifically lesbian wlw relationships have very little rep and Netflix canceled all their shows and it's super fucked.) But besides this, I actually see a LOT of steddie fans who very much love Robin's character. Most of the steddie artists and fic writers I know are also ronance, rovickie, and/or Buckingham creators. A lot of them are wlw themselves!

//I should also note that Will is canonically gay now and I'm super excited, but truly, I just don't see as much appeal in byler because they're so much younger than me now. I totally love Will as a character, and I was around the kids' ages when the first season came out, but I'm in college now. I relate a lot more to the older kids! I'm real happy to have will as mlm rep and I hope he gets his moment in s5. I just didn't latch onto him and Mike the way I did Steve and Eddie! We all got preferences and that's fine.//

All this to say, I'm just so tired of Twitter, man. I just saw a post about how many cis women who claiming its "ableism" to say they have to be around anyone who identifies as masculine, including queer men, queer mascs, cis men of color, butch lesbians, etc. And I've seen a lot of that lately too. It's just so weird to see someone who identifies as a queer woman talk shit abt a steddie fan with a hellcheer shipper.

(man I can't even get into that rn. Chrissy and Eddie shippers in ST fandom are a whole other bout of drama. I've seen steddies be pretty nasty on the issue toward bi women who ship that bc of age difference, which I never really understood because eddie has no confirmed age?? Like idk how he can be a super senior AND 17 on his missing poster but whatever, I'm not stressing abt that as long as you dont make them have a weird age gap on purpose. Hell, I even thought they were love interests at first, too. But DAMN I've seen some hellcheer people that hate steddie. None of this justification type shit either, they just say "it doesn't make sense" and "I'm scared of steddie" and "they ruined the fandom and eddies character" like bro that's literally homophobia. like oogily boogily gay people jumpscare homophobia. So I just don't talk to those guys usually.)

Whatever abt the straight ppl tho they're never gonna get my weird gay stuff. But what SUCKS is when it's other gay people saying this stuff. Like what about mlm wlw solidarity man? Why do I gotta see a rovickie stan and a hellcheer girl talking abt how steddie shippers are all misogynistic and hate women?? Esp when so many are transmasc?? It's getting weird and TERF-y and I just. I wish we were cool again. ST is abt outcasts at the end of the day, it's why we root for them and relate to them. There aren't even a lot of queer people from the 80s around because of the kinda hatred people like us face. Not to mention racism, ableism, misogyny, all of it. For centuries. The people up top all hate us. We gotta have each other's backs and twitter is making us INSANE instead. God.

Anyway I'm gonna go watch the mandalorian now later losers.

[0aurelion-sol0]

I don't even know what to say anymore. Let me just go discover Taylor Swift's discography because, boooyyy...

Like I have an extremely unserious energy about this but I don't know how to express it. 😆 I want to laugh with evil music in the background but I am also so shocked that I am unable to express it but also puzzled about this because it doesn't really make any sense except it does in a way...

If Ted & Karen could become 1st, Murray & Alexei 2nd, Jonathan & Argyle 3rd, it would be the best poll and thing Reddit has ever done in it's existence.

[garancefranke-ruta]

Resistance activists look past Trump’s State of the Union speech to November

Andra Day, and Common perform their Grammy and Oscar-nominated song “€œStand Up for Something”€ from the movie Marshall. At “The People’s State Of The Union” at The Town Hall theater in New York City, NY, on Jan. 29, 2018. (Photo: Cheriss May/NurPhoto)

“Social justice cocktails! Ice-cold water! You can’t have revolution without cold water!”

Mike, a refreshments vendor at the Town Hall theater in midtown Manhattan who declined to give a last name, tailored his pitch to the crowd Monday evening as he hawked water at $5 a bottle.

It was 24 hours before President Trump’s first State of the Union speech in Washington, and a mixture of well-heeled New Yorkers, boldface names, service and domestic workers, college students and activists had come out on a cold night for an event billed as the People’s State of the Union. Trump’s impending speech was the nominal occasion, but the event — which drew 500,000 views on a Facebook live stream that evening — was also a way for resistance movement activists to recharge for the coming struggle.

A broad array of social justice groups, backed by celebrity star power, had come together for three hours of speeches and music, hoping to buck up their spirits after a rough and tiring year — and looking ahead to the challenge of organizing to capture a majority in the House of Representatives and hundreds or even 1,000 additional state legislative seats this year.

Actor John Leguizamo speaks during the “People’s State of the Union” event at The Town Hall, in New York City, Jan. 29, 2018. (Photo: Darren Ornitz/Reuters)

“In 2018, with so many races fast approaching, it is vital that we work to elect progressive, diverse candidates for Congress and state legislatures across this country. But it is not just about voting — not anymore. Given the current state of the Union, fighting for our democracy is going to require all of us, everyday people, to step up and take action,” said actress Cynthia Nixon, who spoke from the New York stage in a lineup that also featured John Leguizamo, Mark Ruffalo, Lee Daniels, Amy Schumer, Wanda Sykes, Kathy Najimy and Michael Moore, with musical appearances by Rufus Wainwright, Andra Day and Common.

“In 2018 each one of us has to do everything we can to reclaim our democracy from foreign and domestic threats that aim to imperil it. It is on us. There is no cavalry coming. We are the cavalry,” she continued, to applause.

More than anything new Trump said, or was likely to say, the State of the Union was for the resistance activist groups an opportunity to rally the troops, boost morale and point to the future. In Washington, Planned Parenthood and an array of women’s groups counterprogrammed against the president’s speech Tuesday night with a program of music and speeches at the National Press Club under the rubric “The State of Our Union.” It was the first time the organization hosted an event during a State of the Union, talking to supporters over the background distractions of the speech as it unfurled on social media. And there too the byword was 2018.

Mark Ruffalo speaks at “The People’s State Of The Union” at The Town Hall theater in New York City, NY, on Jan. 29, 2018. (Photo: Cheriss May/NurPhoto)

“We are laser-focused on winning a pro-women’s health majority in Congress. Laser-focused. I dream about it at night. I wake up thinking about it in the morning. I think about nothing else,” Deirdre Schifeling, executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, told Yahoo News. “And at state level. It’s long overdue, and 2018 is our chance to do it.”

From the very beginnings of the resistance movement, it has sought to unite many different streams into a common cause of fighting back against Trump and Republican control of Congress. But the events this week around the State of the Union, a cacophony of online resistance movement speeches and live streams, showcased the progress that has been made in forging a unified front.

Across a year of marches and protests and grassroots get-out-the-vote efforts, the leaders of different groups have gotten to know each other. There have been Slack channels and conference calls and after-action working groups, endless call-your-congressman drives and letter-writing campaigns and difficult conversations about whose voices should lead. Celebrities who once made star turns at activist events and did a little fundraising have become activists inside their own industries, backed by the support of the new women’s movement and using their stardom to spotlight it. Minority rights groups that existed before Trump was elected — groups fighting police violence against African-Americans, the deportation of undocumented Latin American immigrants brought to America as children, and for LGBTQ rights — have been become a key part of the larger movement that has sprung up since the election, merging with the growing river of women’s activist groups and newly formed efforts to defend refugees and religious minorities.

“I think the most powerful thing that’s come from all the attacks that many of our communities are under is the strong unity that I feel … in my bones today,” said Christina Jimenez, executive director of United We Dream, the immigrant youth network, from the stage in New York. “I know that the state of our union — this union — all of these social justice movements coming together — is stronger than ever. And that’s what scares them.”

“Are you ready to hit the polls?” she cried, to cheers.

Christina Jimenez (C), co-founder of United We Dream, raises her fist alongside other so-called Dreamers at the “People’s State of the Union” event one day ahead of President Trump’s State of The Union Speech to Congress, in New York City, Jan. 29, 2018. (Photo: Darren Ornitz/Reuters)

“There is no more important day this year” than Nov. 6, said filmmaker Moore in New York. “Not your birthday. Not your wedding anniversary. Not flag day. … My friends, as much as I tried to warn the country that Trump was going to win by winning those four states, I am here tonight to tell you that I believe that we can accomplish this by a tsunami of voters overwhelming the polling places on November 6 so that no poll will be able to close at its stated time.”

He offered four things to do in 2018 so that there is “a widespread massive removal of Republicans from the House and the Senate the likes of which this country has never seen.” The starting point: “Over the next 10 months, I want you to identify 20 people who did not vote in the 2016 election and get them all to vote on Election Day, November 6.” Also on the list: running for office, demanding that Democratic candidates weigh in on the impeachment of Trump and not worrying about Mike Pence.

“The purpose of the 2018 election is we are electing the jury for the trial of Donald J. Trump,” said Moore.

Getting an additional 2 million nonvoters to vote would also help, he said. Registering an additional 1 million voters from traditionally disenfranchised groups in critical states is the big 2018 goal for the Women’s March. “Our undocumented brothers and sisters cannot vote, so we must vote for them,” said Paula Mendoza, a leader of the March organization.

Michael Moore speaks during the “People’s State of the Union” event one day ahead of President Trump’s State of The Union Speech to Congress, in New York City, Jan. 29, 2018. (Photo: Darren Ornitz/Reuters)

In New York, there was little mincing of words and none of the soft, polished phrases favored by D.C. advocacy groups. No one was worried about being mocked by conservatives for a too-bald focus on diversity or shamed on Twitter as unserious for raising, as Leguizamo did, the specter of Nazi Germany.

Leaders of indigenous rights, labor, immigrant rights, social justice and environmental groups were all there “to start to lay out the path for a greater victory in 2018. Because we’re winning back Congress,” Ruffalo proclaimed.

The evening was raw, angry and historically aware of its place in the decades’ — or centuries’ — long struggle for civil rights that sometimes involves elected politicians and sometimes doesn’t, but always, always involves figures from American culture. Singer Andra Day, who performed alone and with rapper Common at the People’s State of the Union, just as she had the night before at the Grammy Awards, urged the audience to have the resilience “to continue the fight, to finish the fight. Because it’s worth it even if you don’t see the results in this lifetime.”

The women’s event in Washington was a bit more upbeat and cheerful, perhaps because Planned Parenthood has succeeded over the past year in fending off congressional efforts to defund the organization or repeal the Affordable Care Act wholesale, while at the same time seeing an enormous outpouring of grassroots support and donations.

The anger and despair of the immediate postelection period has given way to a new excitement as the resistance movement has proved not just durable but bigger and stronger than many observers expected. “We are in an amazing movement moment, more than I have ever seen,” Ben Halle, press secretary for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told Yahoo News about the new “united front” on the left. The “Our State of the Union” event came together in a week and a half.

FILE – In this Tuesday, July 26, 2016 file photo, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards waves after speaking during the second day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood who recently announced plans to retire, spoke as Trump’s remarks wound down. “It’s not that women haven’t been speaking. For centuries women have been speaking out, right? But now we have found a new frequency, and folks are finally listening,” she said, echoing the words of Tarana Burke, who a decade ago founded the anti-sexual violence group Me Too whose name has since become a hashtag.

“While so many women have been empowered to speak up in this last year, this is not just about us finding our voices. We have been raising our voices. I’m talking about issues that plague us in our communities for decades. The real difference is our renewed commitment to working collectively across industries and across issues, like we are seeing tonight,” said Burke at the event. “We have no choice but to lean into our collective power” and move out of issue silos, she said.

Amid the fatigue of ceaseless activism, the uniting of once separate movements into something larger is something for the activists to hang on to. “It’s inspiring to see so many organizations and activists from a broad cross-section of movements coming together to review the state of the resistance,” the Women’s March said in a statement after Trump’s speech. “It’s time that we channel the energy and activism into tangible strategies and concrete wins in 2018.”

“The one silver lining in Trump is that we have created the mother of all movements,” Ruffalo had said, opening the People’s State of the Union in Manhattan. “We have come together. It’s a transformational, international movement of decency. Our eyes wide open. We are wide awake. And we are looking around at each other for the first time in probably decades.”

A guest in the audience wears an “Impeach” jacket, at “The People’s State Of The Union” at The Town Hall theater in New York City, NY, on Jan. 29, 2018. (Photo: Cheriss May/NurPhoto)

Read more from Yahoo News:

Skullduggery Episode 3: Who did you vote for?

‘What will it change?’ Rural Iowa has better things to watch than a State of the Union

Trump’s 1st State of the Union vs. Obama’s: By the numbers

Military blames ‘human error’ for hidden Afghan war data

Photos: 2018 State of the Union

[itsfinancethings]

February 20, 2020 at 01:00AM

Going into Wednesday’s Democratic debate, former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg loomed over the field like a colossus. His hundreds of millions of dollars in TV ads had desperate Democratic voters casting him as a potential savior: confident, mainstream, able to win. For the other candidates, he posed a challenge: by turning on him, they might only cement him as the contest’s central figure, allowing him to rise above the fray and offer an escape from the morass of the 2020 primary to date.

But in the most combative debate yet this cycle, the Bloomberg who finally appeared on stage fell far short of his scripted television presence. Halting and wooden, he struggled to answer rivals’ attacks, at one point offering excuses so thin for his record on racial and gender issues that the studio audience in the Las Vegas theater booed. Instead of Bloomberg, it was Senator Elizabeth Warren who emerged as the focal point, with a slashing performance that spared none of her rivals.

“Look, I’ll support whoever the Democratic nominee is,” Warren said. “But understand this: Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another.”

The debate came at a pivotal moment in the race to take on President Trump in November. Iowa and New Hampshire failed to produce a runaway favorite, instead giving each of the six candidates onstage just enough oxygen to stay alive—and handing Bloomberg an opening. For weeks now, the billionaire businessman and the rest of the Democratic field have been operating in parallel universes, with Bloomberg gaining strength in the Super Tuesday states he’s blanketed with ads as his rivals scrap for territory in the first four contests Bloomberg opted to forego. At the Nevada debate, the two tracks finally collided—and the question now is whether Bloomberg’s anemic performance will cause those who’d latched onto him to flake away in disillusionment.

After poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, Warren’s campaign had been written off in some quarters. A single debate might not change that, or do much to slow the momentum Bloomberg has built in national polls. Early voting is already over in Nevada and under way in many of the Super Tuesday states that will report results on March 3. But the debate threw another curveball into a primary that’s highlighted Democrats’ angst and indecision, with no clear resolution on the horizon.

Perhaps the most surprising element of Bloomberg’s performance was that after being everyone’s target in an opening barrage, there were long stretches when he seemed to disappear. He rarely interjected and was terse when called on to speak. During one moment of crosstalk, Bloomberg appealed to the moderators for time in a pitch-perfect New Yorkism: “What am I, chicken liver?”

Senator Bernie Sanders, who won the most votes in the first two contests and holds a strong lead in polling for Saturday’s Nevada caucuses, took more incoming fire at this debate than he has at most others, parrying attacks on his online supporters’ well known viciousness, the cost of his health-care proposal and the potential divisiveness of his far-left vision. But like Warren, he skillfully used Bloomberg as a foil, decrying the billionaire as an avatar of economic inequality and turning back as “a cheap shot” Bloomberg’s attempt to equate his democratic socialism with communist regimes.

Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg leads the race in delegates but has struggled to establish himself in polling outside the first two states. Buttigieg was a polished presence as usual, but for much of the debate, he grew mired in a series of spats with Senator Amy Klobuchar, who’s vying with Buttigieg to emerge as the candidate of choice for moderate Democratic voters. Klobuchar attacked Buttigieg’s slender political record, while he painted her as an opportunist willing to compromise her principles in voting to confirm the nominees of President Donald Trump. Both emerged bruised. “I wish everyone was as perfect as you, Pete,” Klobuchar said. When the debate wrapped, the Minnesota senator, clearly frustrated, took a wide berth around Buttigieg and exited stage right.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden, the one-time front-runner whose candidacy has stumbled, delivered a solid but unremarkable performance. The end result may be that the candidates perceived as moderates—Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden and Bloomberg—remain locked in combat while Sanders continues to rack up delegates in the contests to come.

Yet if Sanders is the man to beat, it was Bloomberg who bore the brunt of rivals’ broadsides. The attacks on him were utterly predictable: his history of sexist comments and gender-discrimination lawsuits, his longtime advocacy of New York’s “stop and frisk” anticrime policy that critics call racist and courts have found unconstitutional. The former mayor explained that he’s reconsidered and apologized for the policy. But Warren picked apart his apology as too little too late, and Bloomberg had no response. When he tried to argue that the nondisclosure agreements his company struck with women who made accusations were mutually sought, Warren hounded him like a skilled prosecutor, making him visibly uncomfortable. “I hope you heard what his defense was—’I’ve been nice to some women,’” she said. “That just doesn’t cut it.”

It was a stark turn in strategy for a senator who has pitched herself as a unity candidate. No one on stage escaped Warren’s attacks. She called Buttigieg’s health-care proposal a “PowerPoint” and Klobuchar’s a “Post-It note.” She turned her fire on Sanders, whom she’d treated mainly as a brother-in-arms to this point. His “Medicare for All” health care policy—which she once endorsed—is merely “a good start,” she charged, going on to accuse him of unseriousness. “His campaign relentlessly attacks everyone who asks a question or tries to fill in details about how to actually make this work,” she said. “And then his own advisors say, yeah, probably won’t happen anyway.”

Whether Warren was trying to show voters she can wield the knife against Trump or simply letting loose a year’s worth of frustration, the question going forward will be whether she can turn the breakout performance into votes. For all the blows she landed, she still finds herself caught between moderate voters who see her as too radical and a liberal wing that has lined up in greater numbers with Sanders. She had an opportunity to situate herself slightly to Sanders’s right with a question about her avowed support for capitalism, but instead she used it to pivot to a generic unity plea.

Tellingly, Sanders was the only candidate to take the position that the candidate with the most delegates should be the nominee whether or not he or she has a majority going into this summer’s convention in Milwaukee. It was the clearest sign to date that every contender is already doing the math about what happens if the Democrats arrive at their convention without a choice.

[democratsunited-blog]

If Bill Clinton had never been president, Democrats would be better off today

https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=5675

If Bill Clinton had never been president, Democrats would be better off today

AS FLEETWOOD MAC took the stage in January 1993, awkwardness hung in the air. It was, after all, the full band’s first performance since an acrimonious breakup many years earlier. When the familiar chords of “Don’t Stop” filled the stadium, Lindsey Buckingham managed to ape his acrobatic guitar playing from the ’70s. His voice, however, refused to come out of early retirement. Stevie Nicks wore an unfortunate Mad Hatter cap and a confused, bug-eyed expression that hinted at some kind of hostage situation.

Yet as soon as a band member called out, “Sir, would you join us, please?” everything began to feel right. The youthful president-elect, Bill Clinton, looking dashing in his tux, glided onto the stage for a gala on the eve of his inauguration, joined by his wife and daughter, and then Al and Tipper Gore.

Clinton smoothly tapped a tambourine as he sang “don’t stop thinking about tomorrow,” the hopeful refrain that the Man from Hope had selected as his campaign theme. Watching him light up the place, two observations were unavoidable. First, history was being made. The 46-year-old president-elect — the first boomer to win the White House — was taking the baton from an old-fashioned elder who had been born during Calvin Coolidge’s presidency. Second, not only couldn’t Al Gore dance to the beat, but he seemed to have trouble even clapping to it.

The next evening, departing from the presidential tradition of simply making an appearance at each inaugural ball, Clinton projected vitality all night long, soaking up the energy from a dozen different celebrations held in his honor. Whether playing the saxophone with Clarence Clemons, swaying to the music with Michael Jackson, or cracking jokes with Jimmy Buffett, Clinton never seemed to want to leave.

Get Today’s Headlines in your inbox:

The day’s top stories delivered every morning.

At the “youth inaugural ball,” he bit his lip to signal a serious note and told the young crowd, “You and your generation are a lot of what this election was all about, and I hope you felt like you won today.” As thousands of elated Gen Xers roared their approval, he continued. “I hope that this day will always be something you want to tell your children and grandchildren about, something you’ll always be proud of.”

Related Links

The backstory on this alternate version of presidential history

Imagining a Bill Clinton loss to George H. W. Bush in ‘92 reveals where Democratic party ideology went off the rails.

A quarter-century later, I challenge you to find a beaming Gen Xer who reminisces to her kids about that magical day when she helped usher in the Clinton years. (I mean besides Chelsea — and who knows if even she is doing much beaming these days.)

In the #MeToo era, it has become a common lament for progressive Democrats to wish Bill Clinton would just go away, especially after his latest round of tone-deaf, remorseless comments about “that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” One reason: As long as his ghost of sexual misbehavior hovers in the air, it undercuts Democrats’ ability to call out similar malfeasance by other powerful men, most notably the current president.

In reality, that lament is far too narrow. Sexual misbehavior represents just one of the many ghosts from the Clinton years that continue to haunt the Democratic Party.

Here’s a provocative alternate reality that, with the benefit of time, is just starting to come into focus: All those joyful Democrats who tearfully celebrated the generation-shifting results of the 1992 election would likely be better off today if Bill Clinton had lost and George H. W. Bush had been reelected.

In erasing Bill Clinton’s victory, I am not suggesting we also erase his ’92 campaign, or adopt a George Bailey “better off if I’d never been born” scenario from It’s a Wonderful Life.

Clinton is an enormously important figure in the history of the modern Democratic Party. By pushing his “Third Way” moderate-reform agenda on issues like welfare and crime, he proved the Democrats could once again be viable competitors in postindustrial presidential politics. He stopped the bleeding and may have helped spare them from a Whig-like demise into nothing-but-a-congressional party, and then nothing at all.

Just how far into the wilderness of presidential politics had the Democrats drifted by the time Clinton made his run? Consider this simple arithmetic: Count all the electoral votes that the Democratic nominees for president received in 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988, add them all up, and you’d still be 80 votes shy of the 270 it takes to win a single election. The Democrats’ only win in the nearly three decades between 1964 and 1992 was Jimmy Carter’s improbable victory in 1976, an asterisk made possible by a powerful post-Watergate backlash. When Carter ran for reelection four years later, the sitting president garnered a whopping 49 electoral votes.

No, the Democrats wouldn’t be better off today if Clinton had never run — just if he’d never won.

BEFORE WE GET TO WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN, let’s review what actually was. We’ll start with a pop quiz for Democrats: Name the three most important domestic achievements of the Clinton administration.

Chances are you’ll say a booming economy — the byproduct of responsible financial stewardship that converted record budget deficits into healthy surpluses. If you lean centrist or buy into pollster sabermetrics, you might mention welfare reform, which finally neutered the devastating if cynical tactic Republicans had used to paint their Democratic opponents as defenders of lazy “welfare queens.” Or maybe you’ll cite the assault weapons ban of 1994, a high-water mark for gun control that no pol of that persuasion has managed to come close to since, despite the numbing frequency of mass shootings.

Follow-up question: Which achievements from the Clinton years still hold up today?

Do you need more time?

I tried this exercise with several presidential historians and public policy pros, and the most common answer turned out to be “very little.”

PEP MONTSERRAT for the boston globe

If you’re a policy wonk with a good memory, you might mention the expansion of the earned income tax credit or CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Those are both worthy achievements, but hardly the kind of legacy granite that would get you anywhere near Rushmore.

As for all that hard-fought budgetary discipline that produced a booming economy and an across-the-board rise in real wages, all of that got swept away like confetti the morning after an election party. Not long after Clinton unpacked his things in Chappaqua, his successor was presiding over a sputtering economy, increased poverty, and yawning deficits.

Much of the blame for that financial recklessness, of course, rests with George W. Bush. But the fickle nature and uncertain authorship of boom times explain why historians generally don’t focus much on the economy when calculating their presidential rankings. What’s more, the ease and speed with which the gains from the ’90s were erased helped expose profound miscalculations that Clinton made in economic and social policy.

Take welfare reform. Clinton is now roundly criticized by progressive Democrats for having pushed an overhaul of the welfare system purely for reasons of political expedience. In fact, that characterization is close to dead wrong.

Going back to the early 1980s, Clinton as a young governor was showing his determination to fix the abundant problems in a welfare system creaking with age, inefficiency, and perverse incentives. His Third Way/New Democrat approach made him attractive to voters nationally not just because it was smart politics, but also because it was sound public policy. And he knew he had a winning issue. He repeated his promise to “end welfare as we know it” so often on the campaign trail that aides began using the shorthand of EWAWKI.

Where the pure political expedience kicked in with Clinton was his decision during his 1996 reelection campaign to jettison all his years of seriousness in trying to find a fair, workable welfare reform plan. After vetoing two unserious, mostly punitive Republican welfare bills, Clinton signed one that was only marginally less bad. How bad? Three of the smartest social-policy minds in his administration resigned in protest.

One of them was Peter Edelman, who served as an assistant secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services. (He had been close with Hillary Rodham for decades, having introduced her in 1969 to his wife, Children’s Defense Fund founder Marian Wright Edelman, who became one of her best friends.)

Today, Edelman tells me he knew the president he went to work for was not a fellow liberal. But even if the train chugged along more slowly than he might have liked, he always assumed it would move in the correct direction. Not so. When Clinton signed the Republican welfare bill in 1996, Edelman says, “I was shocked. It was an unspeakable blow to millions of utterly powerless people.”

As for Clinton’s justification that he risked losing reelection if he didn’t sign it, Edelman calls that “pure bull — just rationalizing.” He points to a meeting when Clinton polled his top advisers. Even the most centrist or politically savvy voices in the room — Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, chief of staff Leon Panetta, and senior adviser George Stephanopoulos — sided with the liberals in encouraging him to veto it, confident that it would not cost him a second term. Only domestic adviser Bruce Reed and Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor recommended that he sign it.

The damage, Edelman says, was masked by the rising tide of the late-’90s boom, which lifted all boats and led to record-low poverty rates. But when the economy turned bad, it became clear that the welfare law Clinton had signed effectively dismantled the safety net for millions of vulnerable people. That helped pave the way for today’s near-record-high income inequality.

The assault weapons ban produced a different kind of failure. Clinton deserves lots of credit for getting this sensible legislation passed. Still, it was packaged with an overall crime bill that, we now know, did far more damage than good. It significantly accelerated the growth of the prison-industrial complex, and its “truth in sentencing” components greatly increased both the amount of time criminals spent in prison and the racial disparities within our justice system. Across Clinton’s eight years in office, the number of people imprisoned in this country grew by nearly 60 percent.

That’s why it was so easy for Bernie Sanders to score points with progressives in the 2016 campaign by blaming Hillary Clinton for the fallout from her husband’s crime policies, which she supported. In fairness, though, crime was an incredibly hot-button issue with voters in the early 1990s. Fears about carjacking and crack dens, fanned by the emergence of 24-hour cable news, were prominent in people’s minds. Democrats who wanted to stay in office could not be seen as soft on crime. Remember that the darling of the left, Mario Cuomo, added more prison beds as New York governor than all of his predecessors had combined. Also remember that the list of congressmen who voted in favor of Clinton’s 1994 crime bill included a certain Vermont socialist with a Brooklyn accent.

And how about that assault weapons ban? To squeak it through Congress, the Clinton team accepted a compromise letting the ban expire after 10 years. Clinton’s legislative affairs director Patrick Griffin says in his oral history that the price Democrats paid for it could not have been steeper. He argues that the National Rifle Association’s rage over the ban was the biggest factor in propelling Newt Gingrich’s “Republican Revolution” takeover of Congress that same year, which thwarted Clinton’s entire agenda.

The Clinton years offer plentiful examples of noble goals married with clumsy execution producing devastating consequences. Health care reform blew up badly enough to render it a crime scene that no one dared go near for another decade and a half. The president who attempted to keep his promise to young, progressive supporters by allowing gays in the military ended up signing the retrograde Defense of Marriage Act.

The Republican wave in ’94, framed around Gingrich’s “Contract with America,” sapped much of the policy ambition out of Clinton. Overnight, his focus shifted from persuasion to survival.

For Gingrich, the Republican Revolution was part of a grand plan he began scripting four years earlier. That’s when, as the House minority whip, he had infuriated President George H.W. Bush and the entire Republican leadership by reneging at the last minute on his support for the 1990 bipartisan budget agreement. The budget deal, which required Bush to raise taxes and break his “read my lips” campaign pledge, turned out to be the critical scaffolding on which Clinton’s deficit-reduction plans were built. But it also turned out to be the start to a ferocious revolt within the Republican Party.

“You can draw a direct line from Gingrich’s decision to break with Bush in 1990 to the Contract with America,” says historian and Bush 41 biographer Timothy Naftali. And that line continues long after 1994. The anti-elite, starve-the-beast Gingrich Republicans, he says, paved the way for the drain-the-swamp Tea Party crowd.

And Gingrich clearly had loftier ambitions than simply being elected House speaker in 1994 and upending Clinton’s presidency. As Bush budget director Richard Darman had predicted two years before that, “Newt is on a path for himself to be president of the United States.”

Associated press/file photos

Although Clinton argued he needed to sign welfare reform to avoid losing reelection, his savviest aides argued otherwise, including, from left, Robert Rubin, Leon Panetta, and George Stephanopoulos.

LISTEN TO TODAY’S CRITIQUES from the leaders of the left, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Sure, they bash Donald Trump and George W. Bush, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. But if you trace their indictment back to its roots, you’ll see they’re really talking about Clinton.

When they complain about how “billionaire bankers” from Wall Street hijacked Washington, “rigging the system” against the little guys, they’re largely referring to the decisions made by Clinton and his most influential economic adviser, Robert Rubin, as well as Rubin’s deputy and successor, Larry Summers.

As with so many of Clinton’s instincts, his shift on economic policy came from a sensible place. After decades of relying on the New Deal/Great Society playbook rather than working to craft a plan better suited to a changing economy, Democrats had developed a reputation for being reflexively antibusiness and pro-bureaucracy. Clinton and others in the centrist Democratic Leadership Council argued that Democrats had to do a better job of listening to business interests.

Again, it’s important to remember that the ’90s were a different time. How different? Millennial progressives, you might want to sit down for this one: Elizabeth Warren was, until 1996, a registered Republican.

Instead of listening to Main Street, however, Clinton ended up embracing the corporatist ideology of Wall Street, whose evangelists arrived overflowing with both confidence and campaign cash.

The Clinton economic approach began with deficit reduction. He hadn’t paid much attention to that issue during the ’92 presidential campaign until Ross Perot hopped into the race, built his entire third-party campaign around it, and improbably garnered 19 percent of the vote. So Clinton began zooming in on the deficit almost from the moment he entered the Oval Office, presumably right after he finished reading that inimitably classy letter of support that outgoing President Bush had left for him.

Leon Panetta, who headed up the Office of Management and Budget for Clinton before becoming his chief of staff, recalls how committed the new president was to doing fiscal discipline the right way. “I can remember almost a day after the inaugural that we sat down with him in the Roosevelt Room and began walking through the budget, line item by line item,” Panetta tells me, pointing out how rare it was for a president to get that granular. That, he says, was Clinton’s great gift — possessing the policy mind of a Jimmy Carter and the communications skills of a Ronald Reagan.

Yet fiscal discipline was only one component of the Clinton economic policy that came to be known as “Rubinomics.” It also featured financial deregulation and pro-corporate trade policy, all set against a largely unquestioning embrace of globalization. Remember that it was during the Clinton administration that derivatives were deregulated, NAFTA was approved, the Glass-Steagall Act separating investment and commercial banks was repealed, and China, despite its record of rampant rules violations and human rights abuse, was welcomed into the World Trade Organization. In championing NAFTA, Clinton assured displaced blue-collar workers they would get a real safety net of job retraining and additional support so they could successfully transition to the new economy. Even though Republicans roundly blocked that kind of spending, that didn’t stop Clinton from pursuing additional trade deals.

It was an agenda that could have been gift wrapped for Goldman Sachs, where the well-liked Rubin served as cochairman before joining the Clinton team, and Citigroup, which he joined immediately after leaving the administration.

“Clinton presided over a huge amount of financial deregulation, which set in motion the extreme speculation that ultimately led to the financial collapse in 2008,” Robert Kuttner, cofounder of the progressive journal The American Prospect, tells me. “It led to a worsening of income inequality and also made the Democratic Party more captive to Wall Street.”

Kuttner, who wrote a prescient profile of Rubin a year before the financial meltdown, says the upshot is that today, “Democrats have less and less credibility with ordinary Americans on pocketbook issues.” (Panetta concedes, “A lot of people dropped the ball, not just in the Clinton administration.”)

What the Democrats ceded was the ability to distinguish themselves as the party not beholden to powerful Wall Street interests. That’s why a New York billionaire like Trump could in 2016 make such light work of painting Hillary Clinton as a tool of Goldman Sachs, even though he would go on to stack his Cabinet with Goldman Sachs executives and billionaire financiers.

AP/File

Clinton’s sexual misbehavior with Monica Lewinsky is just one of the many ghosts still hovering from his presidency.

Of course, Bill Clinton’s biggest unforced error was his affair with 22-year-old intern Monica Lewinsky. Infidelity by Clinton was not surprising, given all the drama prior to the New Hampshire primary in 1992 about “bimbo eruptions” — the term coined by Clinton deputy campaign chair Betsey Wright to describe the fusillade of rumors about extramarital affairs. People who voted for Clinton knew the sins of this Southern governor involved a lot more than just lust in his heart.

Russell Riley, the head of the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, says Clinton’s aides were so determined to avoid scandal that they had protocols in place to prevent the president from being alone with women. (Maybe that’s where Mike Pence got the idea for his never-alone-with-a-lady-besides-my-wife rule.) How did the system fall apart with Lewinsky? The government shutdown in November 1995 cleared the White House of everyone except senior leaders and lowly interns, and that left Clinton unchaperoned.

Despite Clinton’s past, his aides were nonetheless shocked by his recklessness. Panetta worked with Democratic and Republican presidents from Carter to Barack Obama. “I never saw someone who loved being president more than Bill Clinton,” he says. “I never in million years thought he’d risk it all like he did.”

The Republican House impeached Clinton, led by Gingrich, whose moral outrage was undiluted by the fact that he was cheating on his second wife and had reportedly pressed his first wife, who had been diagnosed with cancer, about a divorce while she lay in a hospital bed recovering from surgery. After the impeachment push turned out to be a giant overreach, Clinton not only survived but saw his approval ratings rise.

Yet the collateral damage for the Democrats was massive, and enduring.

Before the Lewinsky scandal, Fox News was a distant third in prime-time cable news. Because of it, the conservative channel’s ratings grew a staggering 400 percent. In his book, The Loudest Voice in the Room, Gabriel Sherman writes that during the scandal, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity “were reborn as cultural bulwarks against a growing number of contemptible influences: Bill Clinton’s libido, the media, environmentalists, gay activists.” He quotes a former executive for the network saying, “When Bill [O’Reilly] started wagging his finger at the president and raising his voice, that was the genesis of the modern Fox News.”

If Clinton didn’t pay for his transgressions — and continues to resist owning up to them — others around him sure did. Aside from Lewinsky, the biggest victim of the scandal had to be his handpicked successor, Al Gore.

AND NOW, AN ALTERNATE VERSION OF HISTORY . . .

PEP MONTSERRAT for the boston globe

Let’s get the disclosures out of the way. Yes, I understand you can’t go back and change the past. Even if we could, we’d never be able to predict with confidence how events would have unfolded. As Quantum Leap taught us, just the attempt to alter the past can introduce all manner of unintended consequences.

If your mind won’t let you get past the limitations of this counterfactual imagining of a Clinton loss to Bush in ’92, I won’t protest if you stop reading now. For everyone else, please buckle up and remember to keep your hands inside the car at all times as you hop on this alternate-political-reality ride. It begins in 1997 as George H. W. Bush completes what would have been his second term in office . . .

George H.W. Bush sat down at his desk in the Oval Office on the last morning of his presidency and began writing a letter to his successor. Right thing to do. “When I walked into this office just now, I felt the same sense of wonder and respect that I felt all those years ago,” he began. “You will be our President when you read this note. I wish you well. I wish your family well. Your success is now our country’s success. I am rooting hard for you. Good Luck — George.”

He dated it January 20, 1997. He addressed it, naturally, to his successor, Bill Bradley.

[Or maybe it was Al Gore. Or Jay Rockefeller, George Mitchell, Ann Richards, Paul Wellstone, John Kerry, or Howard Dean. Or maybe even, at long last, Hamlet on the Hudson himself, Mario Cuomo. It might even have been a Democrat with an unfamiliar name. This is, after all, the imagined part of our alternative version of history. The point is: Bush, after two terms, would have been handing off the presidency to a Democrat who was not Bill Clinton.]

 As Bush reflected on his tenure, the word he kept coming back to was “exhaustion.” The 41st president was 72, and, after two terms as president and two terms as Reagan’s vice president, he was more than ready to leave Washington for good. Time to relax with Bar and the dogs in Houston and especially in Kennebunkport.

Bush was being sincere in wishing his Democratic successor well. He was a proud Republican, had been all his life. But first and foremost, he was an American. Why wouldn’t he root for the president? The American president?

And if he was being completely honest with himself, Bush shed no tears for the Republican nominee who had just lost the 1996 election, Newt Gingrich. Never trusted that guy — too slippery. That’s why Bush had been so crushed when Gingrich cruised past both Dan Quayle and Bob Dole in the primaries to get the ’96 Republican nomination.

Bush’s mind flashed back to that meeting in the White House during his first term, the one when Gingrich had agreed to stand with him in support of the 1990 bipartisan budget deal. United front. Good of the country and all that. But when they started walking out to the Rose Garden for the press conference, Bush asked an aide, “Where’s Gingrich?” Turned out, the guy had headed up to Capitol Hill. CNN even caught his betrayal on camera as he walked away. Then Gingrich had wasted no time in bad-mouthing the deal. Could tell even back then how thirsty for power that fella was, how he wouldn’t stop until he was president.

Bush wasn’t crazy about the budget deal, of course. Knew the critics were going to savage him for breaking his “read my lips” campaign promise. But if he was prepared to take it on the chin for violating his Dirty Harry pledge, why shouldn’t some guy who’d been House minority whip for only one year? Bush also knew if they didn’t tackle the deficits, none of the economic prosperity that the country had begun to enjoy during his second term would have been possible. Sometimes, even Republicans had to raise taxes. For crying out loud, even Reagan knew that.

Bush had heard all about Gingrich’s blame game trying to explain away his loss in ’96. So like him to point fingers instead of taking responsibility for his mistakes. Be a man. Instead, Gingrich had been peddling some cock-and-bull revisionist story to anyone who would listen about how the Republicans would have been better off if Clinton had actually beaten Bush. Imagine that, a Republican leader talking with regret about a Republican president winning reelection!

Bush knew Gingrich had been a history professor before entering politics, so people took him seriously when he talked about historical patterns. How new presidents tend to get clobbered in midterm elections. How, if Clinton had actually beaten Bush in ’92, the timing would have been perfect two years later for some kind of fierce backlash. How it would have produced a Republican wave across the country in ’94. Not just enough to win back the Senate, mind you, but enough to finally break the Democrats’ hold on the House. Gingrich was telling people now that, instead of being stuck in the minority, he would have become speaker and been able to reshape national politics. Dream on, Newt.

AP/File

If Bush had beaten Clinton in 1992, his second term would likely have been a long intraparty battle with the ambitious Newt Gingrich. Instead, Clinton became Gingrich’s chief target.

The fella now insists all the philandering that got Clinton into so much trouble during the campaign would have resurfaced if the Arkansas governor had actually managed to win in ’92. Would’ve doomed his presidency. To Bush, that seemed like to a whole lot of nonsense.

Bush never shied away from tough politics. He was proud of his record as an honorable and principled guy while in office, even if he knew he was sometimes less so when vying for it. Campaigns weren’t for the faint of heart.

That’s why he looked the other way in 1988 while Lee Atwater did his thing and some PAC ran that Willie Horton ad savaging Mike Dukakis. A decent man, Dukakis was. Still is. If you want to Monday-morning-quarterback it, Dukakis probably didn’t deserve all that Horton business. But he probably shouldn’t have been running for president, either.

Even if you campaign aggressively, though, Bush knew there had to be limits. Had to keep it about policy, not personal lives. That’s why, during the ’92 race, he had no interest in turning Clinton’s womanizing into a campaign issue.

Besides, where does Gingrich get off talking publicly about bimbo eruptions and all that? Back in 1980, after he argued with his first wife about the terms of their divorce while she was in the hospital, didn’t he tell his aide that the poor lady battling cancer wasn’t “young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the president”? Disgraceful. And he was already angling for the White House when he’d been in Congress for just two years!

The only excuse for Gingrich’s loss that seemed legitimate to Bush was that Ross Perot probably had cost him the ’96 election by running as a third-party candidate. Back in ’92, Bush had feared that Perot might screw up his own reelection bid if the Texas billionaire jumped into that race, but he had stayed on the sidelines. And Bush had the same worry four years before that, when that blowhard Trump kept running his mouth about how he was going to run for president as an independent in ’88. Buying full-page ads in the papers, campaigning in New Hampshire, and whatnot. Good thing that turned out to be just empty talk. Like so much with Trump.

Bush had to admit that his first term felt a whole lot more fulfilling than his second one. Amazingly, managing the end of the Cold War and the international coalition that forced Saddam out of Kuwait had turned out to be less soul-sapping than trying to negotiate, over and over, with the obstinate right wing of his own party.

How many times had he sat Gingrich down on that cream-colored sofa over there and tried explaining it all to that son of a so-and-so? How, if a Republican president couldn’t count on his own party to get things done, he’d have no choice but to make deals with Dick Gephardt and George Mitchell. How, if Gingrich couldn’t get past his purity tests over taxes and insisted on carrying out a civil war within their party, he’d ensure that a Democrat — and not Gingrich—would be the next occupant of the White House.

“I don’t doubt that you’re a smart cookie,” Bush would tell him. “But the American people want to see Washington get things done. Not going to twiddle my thumbs for the next four years while you say no to everything.”   

Clinton may have lost in ’92, but because he had turned it into such a close race, after a generation of blowouts for the Democrats, his party realized the Arkansas governor had been on to something after all. It dawned on them that if they found someone like Clinton — maybe a little less centrist so the liberals wouldn’t get so worked up, and with a much more normal personal life — they’d have a real shot the next cycle.

Bush figured that’s why, after years of stalling, Democratic leaders had finally been willing to tackle welfare reform during his second term. Gingrich should have welcomed the opportunity, given how long he’d been talking about the broken system. But Gingrich refused to support any reform that didn’t slash funding. Didn’t take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out that would be a nonstarter with a Democratic Congress. So Bush had cut a deal with Mitchell and Gephardt that gave millions of poor mothers the kind of training and support they needed to move from welfare to work. What kind of person wouldn’t support that?

In pivoting away from Gingrich and toward bipartisan deals, Bush had been replicating some of his biggest successes from his first term. Take the Americans With Disabilities Act. Let the old cranks at the diner whine about all the money being wasted on ramps, or all the best parking spaces now being off-limits. Just thinking about how that one law improved the lives of millions of disabled Americans — including lots of wounded veterans, this nation’s true heroes — made Bush smile. And every time he sat out on his patio in Kennebunkport and took in the clean, salty air while watching the Atlantic waves crash into Walker’s Point, he was reminded of how precious this planet is. And how proud he was of his work to help keep it that way by signing the Clean Air Amendments back in 1990.

Having to deal with a Democratic Senate meant that when Bush had the chance to name two more justices to the Supreme Court in his second term, he had no shot of getting another lightning rod like Clarence Thomas through. Mitchell and Joe Biden assured him that if he chose another moderate like his first appointment, David Souter, the nominee would sail through. A lot of Republicans had grumbled that Souter was some kind of “stealth” nominee, a closet liberal. Bush was surprised Souter turned out to be so moderate, especially since he’d been championed by Bush’s conservative chief of staff, John Sununu. Still, Souter seemed like a decent, smart, sensible fella. Reminded Bush of his own father, a rock-ribbed New England Republican who was star quality in everything he did. A couple more Souters on the court wouldn’t be so bad. Especially since Bush knew he’d never have to run for reelection again and be forced to listen to those self-important bores at the Federalist Society chewing him out.

The only times Bush secretly wished he had lost to Clinton in ’92 were when that pest Lawrence Walsh held yet another press conference or announced yet another indictment in his endless Iran-Contra probe. No doubt that whole investigation would have withered on the vine if Bush had not been reelected. Instead, Bush’s win breathed new life into Walsh, who could be as single-minded as Millie was when biting into her chew toy. Bush had considered pardoning Caspar Weinberger, his pal from the Reagan administration, at the end of his first term, but knew the Democrats would accuse him of obstruction of justice. So he waited until the end of his second term.

Bush glanced at his watch. It was getting late. He sealed the letter for his successor and left it on the center of the desk blotter. As he stood up and admired for one last time the luminist landscapes hanging on the Oval Office walls, his son walked in.

“Dad, it’s almost time,” George W. Bush said.

“All set,” Bush replied. He wondered what would be next for his son. George W. had cycled through so many assignments in the White House during his father’s two terms, never quite finding the right fit. He’d begun talking about maybe running for governor of Texas in ’98, but that didn’t seem very likely.

Bush prized his son’s loyalty. Nothing more important than loyalty. But being a successful politician took a lot more than that. Bush thought back to his first term, when his son had volunteered to play the enforcer role for his father. Bush went along with it, even giving his son the thankless assignment of being the one to tell Sununu he had to resign. And yet Sununu had emerged from that meeting with W. convinced he still had the job. Some enforcer W. was. Just thinking about that incident again now, Bush felt a smile forming at the corner of his mouth.

As he exited the Oval Office for the last time, Bush knew there was no chance George W. would ever get a turn behind that desk.

 But there was always Jeb.

Neil Swidey is a Globe Magazine staff writer. E-mail him at swidey@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @neilswidey. 

Read full story here