Matt Taibbi

Hey, I was trying to be generous. Ok, he realizes it, but just ignores it and shits on her for trying it out? Is that better?

Either way, he is an asshole.

Or assumes his audience is intelligent enough to know there are two meanings, that he agrees with the fact it's time for a woman president, and it's completely irrelevant to the tone of the campaign's failures?

Although the "it's time for a woman president" still doesn't answer the question of "why this woman?"

And he's an asshole for writing a relatively positive review of a book?

"In the Clinton run, that problem became such a millstone around the neck of the campaign that staffers began to flirt with the idea of sharing the uninspiring truth with voters. Stumped for months by how to explain why their candidate wanted to be president, Clinton staffers began toying with the idea of seeing how "Because it's her turn" might fly as a public rallying cry."

Nah, fuck that asshole.

That's a summary of content as presented in the book! He did a book report!

love tautologies for slogans.

The Dense Dane is entitled to his own facts

clinton should be president because it was her turn to be president

That's a summary of content as presented in the book! He did a book report!

― a landlocked exclave (mh 😏), 20. april 2017 23:43 (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Lol

Book reports is something you do in seventh grade. If you're paid to do a review, and you just do a book report that doesn't question even the most obviously bullshit information, you're a bad reviewer. Or, like, an asshole.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7ctYByB2IMM/TrYLDE3T_XI/AAAAAAAAACE/p_1FWksJQkg/s1600/its-my-turn.jpg

aw jill could have played a good hill, rip

taibbi feels burned by not seeing comrade combover winning the election. it's the main theme in his latest book. appreciating retrospectives clarifying the clinton campaign's fucks ups (like what the fuck, hillary, fly to wisconsin! madison, milwaukee, something!!) is not unreasonable

I'm in Iowa. My friends are pretty involved in campaign politics, one is a lobbyist for PP and sat a couple seats away from HRC during a couple rallies, and that is literally the message that was floated among loyal democrats here -- that an experienced politician who had been in the business for decades, been both a senator and secretary of state, would be a great candidate. That she is a woman had huge appeal as well, especially among my friend's cohort

I'm in the exact audience that Taibbi, paraphrasing the book, says this message was used on. And I'm confirming it.

like it completely burns my ass that I witnessed this personally (and bought it, I caucused for Clinton and have repented in some ways multiple times here and elsewhere) and it's accurately reported and you're sniping

"That she is a woman had huge appeal as well, especially among my friend's cohort"

This is the part that is left out. So no, it's not accurately reported.

i was proud to vote for her. but she lost. analyzing why is not a waste of time or an insult

Oh please, "it's her turn" isn't about a woman breaking the glass ceiling - it's about "the most qualified candidate ever" who got shafted by the upstart in 2008.

I mean, I voted for her but fuck Clinton and the campaign forever for "I'm with her" and "America is already great."

Since Obama had spent efficiently and Hillary in 2008 had not, this led to spending cutbacks in the 2016 race in crucial areas, including the hiring of outreach staff in states like Michigan. This led to a string of similarly insane self-defeating decisions.

pretty much

the biggest mistake i made handicapping the race was presuming that the clinton campaign would run a professional + well funded campaign/GOTV operation

Fred + SB
FSB

coincidence? attempted influence in our political infighting?

I'll read this Clinton book for sure. To me, it sounds like it'll be the most interesting one to come out of the campaign.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-free-lunch-for-everyone-w481396

Bregman argues that we are where we are because a century of bummerific experiences with utopian ideas – fascism, communism, Nazism, to name a few – have left us imagining that "dreams have a way of turning into nightmares" and that "utopia is a dystopia." This has left us with a world where "politics has been watered down to problem management" and "radical ideas about a different world have become literally unthinkable."

sounds like a book idea

I’ve read the Bregman book. Wouldn’t necessarily recommend it. If you’re interested in that kind of stuff, check out Inventing the Future by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams.

That was also one of the main ideas in that 'Hypernormalization' documentary by Adam Curtis that was posted up on the site a few months back.

utopia is a dystopia

tbf More's original "Utopia" was made only possible through mass slavery

also not really reflective of More's own convictions/ideals, interestingly

hey at least they had chains made out of gold

the best gold, really tremendous

well, yep

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-roger-ailes-was-one-of-the-worst-americans-ever-w483013

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-the-democrats-need-a-new-message-w484569

Setting aside the amazing dishonesty on display throughout - not mentioning early voting in Montana that lessened the impact of Gianforte's assault; claiming the Dems have 'lost ground' since elections, when in fact they've done remarkably well in every special election everywhere - what kind of politics are the Taibbi's of the world even promoting? Surely it's not class based, since no class based politics thinks you should go through convincing opposing classes. So it's not socialism. But it's surely not centrism either...

It's 99 percentism gone mental, isn't it? People buying their own hype and actually thinking a buzzword would be a working basis for political coalitioning. Worthless.

Surely it's not class based, since no class based politics thinks you should go through convincing opposing classes.

Lol what?!

Don't know the exact circumstances of Montana but the general thrust of the piece is to have a programme and give people something to vote and not just say "don't vote for the bad guy".

Its not socialism, or centrism. Its called politics.

But the piece calls for 'better messaging', not any program at all.

And there are different types of 'politics', just calling for 'politics' is so weird.

Irs asking the Democrats to do something like actually convince people to vote for you, i.e. politics. That would imply a program.

Again, 'convince people to vote for you', completely substanceless statement.

It's like the Jacobin article 'Politicking Without Politics', where they shout out 'liberal elites' for being stupid assholes without politics, and then when they have to give an example of what politics actually is, it's holding up a sign saying 'Refugees Welcome Here'.

No, really, take a look: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/03/trump-pelosi-clinton-resistance-movement-russia-maddow/

God, just someone, sometimes, call for an armed revolution... Anything other than this vapid, performative, pointless, posturing.

I mean, compare it to BLM and Campaign Zero, combining street activism with a well thought out program of suggested policies, calling for something that should be a no brainer, but the application of which would still have an extraordinary effect in so many places. Compared to that, Taibbi-leftism is a fraud.

Again, 'convince people to vote for you', completely substanceless statement.

― Frederik B, Monday, 29 May 2017 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Its called democracy, look it up sometime! xxp

Dude...

If your argument is that your opponents don't understand democracy, then perhaps you don't really have anything to offer?

Do you?

Does your mom?

No seriously, on some level we agree, xyzzz, we've both seen the great result that came with Labour putting out a good manifesto and the Tories putting out an awful one. Yeah, a good, robust Dem party manifesto that everyone believed in would do wonders. So why can Taibbi only 'imply' that? And why doesn't he suggest the policies that should be in there?

I'd wager it's because they don't really exist in the US... And the reason for that is not something the Taibbi's want to discuss.

So why can Taibbi only 'imply' that? And why doesn't he suggest the policies that should be in there?

Bcz that's another piece.

The party has a platform but since "everyone knows" they only really mean 25% of the stuff in it and it was just cobbled together by DNC sellouts as a sop to Bernie supporters, or something, it's worthless to appropriately savvy cynics like Taibbi.

So a platform isn't the answer?

There are no answers for the left in America. How many times does Morbius have to explain it to you