Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

https://twitter.com/jaywbabcock/status/708833501810790400?s=09

if you catch a president by his toe he has to give you his gold

You know that it wasn't always "eenie meanie mynie moe, catch a tiger by the toe" right

https://medium.com/@HillaryClinton/on-the-fight-against-hiv-and-aids-and-on-the-people-who-really-started-the-conversation-7b9fc00e6ed8#.3o4qiop68

no i confused it w/ leprechaun

"Don’t miss Hillary Clinton’s next story"

Speaking of Hillary:

Yesterday, at Nancy Reagan’s funeral, I said something inaccurate when speaking about the Reagans’ record on HIV and AIDS. Since then, I’ve heard from countless people who were devastated by the loss of friends and loved ones, and hurt and disappointed by what I said. As someone who has also lost friends and loved ones to AIDS, I understand why. I made a mistake, plain and simple.

I want to use this opportunity to talk not only about where we’ve come from, but where we must go in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

To be clear, the Reagans did not start a national conversation about HIV and AIDS. That distinction belongs to generations of brave lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, along with straight allies, who started not just a conversation but a movement that continues to this day.

The AIDS crisis in America began as a quiet, deadly epidemic. Because of discrimination and disregard, it remained that way for far too long. When many in positions of power turned a blind eye, it was groups like ACT UP, Gay Men’s Health Crisis and others that came forward to shatter the silence — because as they reminded us again and again, Silence = Death. They organized and marched, held die-ins on the steps of city halls and vigils in the streets. They fought alongside a few courageous voices in Washington, like U.S. Representative Henry Waxman, who spoke out from the floor of Congress....

...

Lol

Waxman doesnt get praised often enough imo

proud of hill in ohio today, as an awful lot of other people seem to be hedging on the side of We Must All Calm The Divisiveness:

"The ugly, divisive rhetoric from Donald Trump and the encouragement of violence and aggression is not only wrong, but dangerous," Clinton said. "If you play with matches you can start a fire you can't control. That is not leadership, that is political arson and the test - the test of leadership and citizenship is the exact opposite."

"If you see bigotry, oppose it. If you see violence, condemn it, if you see a bully, stand up to him," she added.

The more Hillary tries to walk back the Regan comments, the angrier I get

if you're gonna die on a hill

Has this been posted? Rubio looks exhausted

https://twitter.com/hunterschwarz/status/708813220472033281

Wow. The mask is slipping.

lol, have trump's racist yahoo supporters not all switched to Rubio by now like he thought? Does babby want to have a little cwy? A bloobloobloobloobloobloo notfaaaaaiiiiiiiiirrrr

If you see violence, condemn it,

OK, Mad Bomber

As Clinton's terrible campaigning starts to compound itself, I'm getting nervous for the first time about the GOP standing a chance in November. It's starting to feel like 2000 - no way can that alcoholic dumbass son of a one-term President win but who on Earth is truly excited to vote for Gore?

Don't have to nominate Clinton. She's a loser.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The police used pepper spray twice to disperse protesters outside Donald J. Trump’s rally here Saturday night, just 24 hours after confrontations between his supporters and demonstrators led to the cancellation of a Chicago event.

Cellphone video posted on social media appeared to show as many as four cans of spray being used at one point as protesters confronted police officers on foot and on horseback.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/12/police-use-pepper-spray-to-disperse-protesters-outside-trump-rally-in-kansas-city/

I finally saw the Clinton comment on Reagan and AIDs. (Was it just that one interview, or was it something said at the funeral itself?) I understand the outrage, but in all honesty--and I base this in large part on how calculating and 24/7 a politician she is--I think she conflated AIDs, Alzheimer's, and stem-cell research. In the interview I saw, she said it in that breezy, programmatic manner of someone who's saying what she thinks she's supposed to say. If you think it was intentional and political, you're basically saying she's angling for disaffected Republican voters (who'd have to be exceptionally disaffected to ever actually cast a vote for her) at the cost of infuriating lots and lots of Democratic voters--I can't see that she'd ever risk that trade-off.

I'm not a fan of hers. Incompetent, insulting, inexplicable. But I think it was human error.

thank you HAL

Between this and her unprompted Kissinger praise, I definitely suspect Clinton is trying to signal to neocons and unsettled Republicans that she is relatively acceptable, if her record isn't already seen as sufficient.

No way. She actually DOES like Kissinger. This... I don't know what this is about...

She does like him but why else remind voters in a debate with Bernie Sanders? It won't woo any of his supporters.

Hill could have made a mistake on the AIDS thing but it's hard for me to swallow, their record on AIDS is common knowledge enough that it sticks like peanut butter. The portrayal of their attitude/slow response toward AIDS is one reason Republicans campaigned to shut down "The Reagans" in 2003

if her record isn't already seen as sufficient

That's the thing--in a whole bunch of ways that make her so distrusted by the left-wing of her own party, including her friendship with Kissinger, she's already sent those signals. I don't see how praising Nancy Reagan would add much to that. But in the middle of a much-tougher-than-expected nomination slog against Sanders, it causes all sorts of trouble for her. And it's such a colossal error--the maximum error possible--it's hard to fathom that it was premeditated.

she coulda just said "the Just Say No campaign created a helluva lotta fun video games"

And again, I totally understand why people are infuriated. I'm just trying to figure out if what she said was something more than confusion.

As the established anti-establishment candidate, Sanders doesn't need to defend his positions. As a triangulating politician who has only been elected to one office but has been playing the campaign game for decades, Clinton does, but thus far defense has proved her weakest ability. She doesn't do a terribly good job defending people and things she supports, let alone her changing or evolving positions, and is seemingly so used to mainstream passive acceptance of certain keywords, beliefs and persons (like Kissinger) that when she's called out on it she kind of struggles. It's such a disconnect that the oldest guy in the room seems to have the best bead on what young people care about, and Clinton remains kind of clueless, or at least awkward, which throws off whatever game she's ever had. But then, if she'd been as consistent as Sanders, she wouldn't have to constantly juggle this jumble of contradictions and evolving positions/allegiances. You'd have to be a superhero campaigner to keep all the hypocrisy straight. My biggest fear of her vs. Trump is when he inevitably calls her out with a series of "you were there, too" or "you had dinner with the guy" or "I donated to your campaign because we believe the same things."

at the cost of infuriating lots and lots of Democratic voters

The fact that she was oblivious to this makes me think that it was an impromptu statement, not something she or her staff considered beforehand. But it can be off-the-cuff and still be intentional and political. She knew that voters were watching, and it would be foolish of her not to treat an interview at Nancy Reagan's funeral as a political performance. I think she got lazy and didn't think that the particular claims she made would matter that much, as long as the general tone was nice and flattering.

All of that I agree with--political performance, yes.

at Dubya's funeral is she going to say he provoked a conversation on disaster relief

"She does like him but why else remind voters in a debate with Bernie Sanders? It won't woo any of his supporters."

It won't woo anyone! I think she's genuinely oblivious to the effect some of these statements have.

(xpost) First debate against Trump, she'll thank him for opening up a national dialogue on Mexican rapists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/13/donald-trump-says-bernie-sanders-should-be-careful-or-hell-send-supporters-to-his-events/?tid=sm_tw

the "I took down your license plate number" of the political season

I never watch Chuck Todd's goon show but Alex Castellanos and Hugh Hewitt didn't deny that the Reagan administration let HIV victims die, which surprised me.

golden oldie, via Greenwald

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8741148/Dick-Cheney-heaps-praise-on-Hillary-Clinton.html

I drove by a street of Trump supporters yesterday (it was actually just two people) and the # of supportive honks was infuriating.

I am going back that way today and am tempted to deface a few of the signs.

@NBCNewsPR
JUST IN: Trump tells @MeetThePress' @ChuckTodd he's going to look into paying for legal fees for the man who threw the sucker punch on Sat

@ggreenwald
I wonder if any of Trump's supporters will view this as encouragement & support for that behavior?

Trump was trying to paint the guy as an overtly passionate supporter that got caught up in the moment.

funny how that works

let's just remember what H Rap Brown said about violence and cherry pie, and enjoy our throwback blood-in-the-gutters campaign.

@jeremyscahill
At this rate, a brokered GOP convention could result in Hillary Clinton getting the nomination. #ShesWithReagan

On the other hand, going back to what I said on Clinton, the phrase "low-key advocacy" sounds like work might have gone into it.

"by ignoring the late Rock Hudson's pleas for help, Nancy ensured that everybody would be talking about the Reagan administration and AIDS in the same sentence for years to come"

what political acumen!

It may or may not be an unfair assessment, but based on her phrasing I find it plausible that she would go beyond flattery and deliberately identify a stain on the Reagans' legacy and disingenuously try to rehabilitate it. Almost like it would be worth extra credit.

Very worth watching:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/rachel-maddow-donald-trumps-violent-rhetoric-sparked-chicago-protest-20160312

It finally dawned on me that Trump actually makes a lot of sense if you choose to listen to his comments about protesters as autocritique delivered in the third person.

I was watching a Trump rally last night and getting a bit agitated until I realized it was Slap Shot

I feel like Clinton has spent the past week attempting to back up her statement that she isn't a natural politician.

An attempt to reach out to disengaged angry voters.

"See look guys, I say batshit things too!"