Ducatista wrote:I was poking at your flagrant misuse of "literally"
Here's the thing about that: I don't think I misused it at all.
I believe, unequivocally, there is absolutely no way that anyone named Clinton can help heal the massive rift currently tearing this country in two, at least for the next couple or three decades. I think that's as literally true of a statement as it is to say that Ann Coulter will never sway an actual progressive. I will again reiterate that no, I don't think that's the fault of the Clintons, but those who have vilified them for decades have succeeded to such a degree that a sizable chunk of voters will reject anything they do or say just as reflex. That makes the Clintons not useful moving forward as a means of affecting political change. They can preach to the choir but they've lost their ability to change anybody's mind who isn't already onboard.
Prof. Wagstaff wrote:I think I pegged it in my earlier post -- you hear "man tells woman to hush" and assume it's a mansplainy misogynist thing. It ain't. Seems I won't be able to convince you of that.
What are you talking about? I never assumed that. You assumed I assumed that, even though I quoted snoqueen (she of "you need to go away") in what I thought was an elegant way to head off
that assumption. What I heard in this thread was just garden variety bitching and bile.
That said: BIG style points for now mansplaining your earlier post. I heard you the first time, and believed you the first time — which was easy, since I hadn't gotten a mansplainy vibe. Until, you know, now.
Ha! Well, I offer a well-earned "fuck me" then by way of apology.
What I think happened here -- and sadly, I do this a lot
-- was I conflated what was happening in our conversation with stuff I'm reading/responding to on Facebook. That's on me, so again, my apologies.
Ducatista wrote:I find her continued fight in the face of repeated losses and disproportionate resistance more inspiring than a victory lap. And even the most cursory skimming of editorials or social media would tell you that I'm far from alone.
I thought this was all quite inspiring for a long time. I just think that time has passed. That said, perhaps you're right that telling her to shut up is the wrong approach. Maybe she just needs to change her tune. Because you're right, if she can inspire others, that's nothing but a good thing. Of course I think it's important to examine why she lost. Hasn't that already been done to death, though? Are there still new insights to glean from the last election cycle? In other words, if Hillary wants to inspire people moving forward, I am onboard with her taking to the lecture circuit to do just that. But honestly, that means speaking from her heart to people who might actually follow in her footsteps (as I sincerely hope many more people do) rather than, oh I dunno, taking massive fees to speak to people who already hold considerable power or financial clout. I guess I don't understand what's inspiring about finger-pointing and blame-assignation over last year's election, whether it's self-directed and thoughtful or not. Inspiration is about the future, not the past. (<---sorta vapid sure, but catchy, doncha think?)
Ducatista wrote:Wait — who's floating the notion that Hillary should "keep plugging away at it"? D'you mean you think she's going to run again?
To Clinton's credit, I don't think she has any plans to run again and despite penquin's odd assertions elsewhere, I don't see her current actions reflecting any notion she might. But absolutely many who praise her (in a lot of the same terms you use, hence the ease with which I fell into thinking maybe you did to) have such hopes for her. And as long as people are still clutching desperately to that notion, I fear, they're not looking for new (and again, more progressive) voices. As I noted above, the time to talk about what a disappointment our current crop of Democratic leaders is is now
, not in three years when the election cycle is already in full swing and we're once again being offered a binary choice of "not really what I want" and "dear lord anyone but that guy!"
Ducatista wrote:Bernie, though, seems to be gearing up for another Larry David windfall.
Yeah, I so so so don't want Bernie to run again (bottom line: he's too damn old, which was already a complaint I had in the last election cycle) and I wish his supporters (of whom I was absolutely one) would also start casting around for someone else but there is one big difference between Bernie and Hillary; Bernie is still a senator. He should not shut up and he should not go away because his voice is not only needed, it's making a real, if perhaps only small, difference. But he should, I think, if not necessarily grooming someone, at least be suggesting possible candidates for future elections and then throwing his considerable political weight behind them. Again, he should be doing this now
. If we wait til 2020 to figure this out, it'll already be too late.
Ducatista wrote:I've grown fonder and fonder of the book without even reading it, as a big FUCK YOU to everybody nattering on that Hillary should get off the stage. Not your stage, not your call.
Well, if you wanna talk specifically about the book, I'm curious how you feel about a point I raised earlier: doesn't it rub you the wrong way that she's using her failed Presidential run as a means of making (let's be honest, massive) profits? It's not like she couldn't have just published all the exact same thoughts on the Web for free, after all. She surely doesn't need the money that a #1 Best Seller brings with it. Just something about the way our Presidential politics suddenly became a for-profit endeavor that really irks me. (Unless it's been that way for a long time and I only just noticed. Sure seems new to me, though.)