A misogynist insult in Washington and Westminster, a force for good in Hollywood for centuries, witches have represented dread of assertive girls. But why does the stereotype persist?
During the 2016 US presidential election, American social media was inundated with images of Hillary Clinton wearing a black hat and riding a broom, or else cackling with green scalp. Her opponents named her The Wicked Witch of the Left, claimed they had sources witnessing that she reeked of sulphur, and took particular delight in depictions of her being melted. Given that the last witch trial in the US was more than 100 hundred years ago, what are we to construct of this?
In the late 19 th century, the suffragette Matilda Joslyn Gage asserted something revolutionary. The persecution of witches, she told, had nothing to do with opposing evil or resisting the demon. It was simply entrenched social misogyny, the goal of which was to repress the intellect of women. A witch, she said, wasn’t wicked. She didn’t fly on a broomstick naked in the dark, or consort with demons. She was, instead, likely to be a woman” of superior knowledge “. As a thought experimentation, she suggested that for “witches” we should read instead “women”. Their histories, she intimated, operate hand in hand.
Obviously, she was on to something. When we say witch, we almost exclusively entail woman. Sure, men have also been accused of sorcery, but the objective is by far the minority. Further, the words used to describe men with magical powers- warlock, magus, sorcerer, wizard- don’t carry the same stigma.
A better parallel to “witch” is the word “whore”. Both are time-honoured tools for policing females, meant to dishonor them into socially prescribed behaviour. A harlot transgresses norms of female sexuality; a witch transgresses norms of female power. Witches are often called unnatural because of their ability to threaten men. With her spells, a witch can transform you into a swine, or defeat you in combat. She can curse you, blight your crops, dismis you, refuse you, correct you. Penalise witches achieves two things: it ends the threat and stimulates others afraid to follow in the unruly woman’s footsteps.
Yet, despite all the attempts to stamp out witches, they are as strongly with us as ever, from Wanda Maximoff, the Scarlet Witch in the Avengers movies, to the recent film The Love Witch , to the television series American Horror Story, to non-fiction books such as Stacy Schiff’s The Witches: Salem, 1692 . The stereotypical image of the witch- green skin, pointed hat, warts, black cat- has become entrenched, but beneath that surface lies a dazzling variety; a rich diversity of women who have frightened, possessed and inspired us over the centuries.
Adam Buxtons life-affirming, jingle-packed ramble chats with his celebrity guests are a constant delight. In this two-parter, the multi-talented Ayoade went into everything from the high levels of pillows to the reaction to his notoriously awkward interview with Krishnan Guru-Murthy. As funny as the pod is, you are able to learn a lot, too from Buxtons honest discussions of sorrow when his daddy died to how upsetting Sara Pascoe observes it when people attain clicky sticky noises with their mouths.
Other lessons from this podcast Louis Theroux does a fine rendition of Yes Sir, I Can Boogie. Ellie Violet Bramley
A misogynist insult in Washington and Westminster, a force for good in Hollywood for centuries, witches have represented fear of assertive females. But why does the stereotype persist?
During the 2016 US presidential election, American social media was flooded with images of Hillary Clinton wearing a black hat and riding a broom, or else cackling with green scalp. Her foes named her The Wicked Witch of the Left, claimed they had sources witnessing that she reeked of sulphur, and took particular delight in depictions of her being melted. Dedicated that the last witch trial in the US was more than 100 hundred years ago, what are we to induce of this?
In the late 19 th century, the suffragette Matilda Joslyn Gage asserted something revolutionary. The persecution of witches, she said, had nothing to do with fighting evil or defying the demon. It was simply entrenched social misogyny, the goal of which was to repress the intellect of women. A witch, she said, wasn’t wicked. She didn’t fly on a broomstick naked in the dark, or consort with demons. She was, instead, likely to be a woman” of superior knowledge “. As a thought experiment, she suggested that for “witches” we should read instead “women”. Their histories, she intimated, operate hand in hand.
Obviously, she was on to something. When we say witch, we almost exclusively mean female. Sure, humen have also been accused of sorcery, but the objective is by far the minority. Further, the words used to describe men with magical powers- warlock, magus, sorcerer, wizard- don’t carry the same stigma.
A better parallel to “witch” is the word “whore”. Both are time-honoured tools for policing females, meant to dishonor them into socially prescribed behaviour. A harlot transgresses norms of female sexuality; a witch transgresses norms of female power. Witches are often called unnatural because of their ability to threaten men. With her spells, a witch can transform you into a pig, or defeat you in battle. She can curse you, blight your harvests, dismis you, refuse you, correct you. Penalise witches accomplishes two things: it ends security threats and builds others afraid to follow in the unruly woman’s footsteps.
Yet, despite all the attempts to stamp out witches, they are as strongly with us as ever, from Wanda Maximoff, the Scarlet Witch in the Avengers movies, to the recent movie The Love Witch , to the television series American Horror Story, to non-fiction volumes such as Stacy Schiff’s The Witches: Salem, 1692 . The stereotypical image of the witch- green skin, pointed hat, warts, black cat- has become entrenched, but beneath that surface lies a dazzling assortment; a rich diversity of women who have frightened, possessed and inspired us over the centuries.
Prominent GOP figures have forged an array of groups to support the Democrat but some experts doubt the Republican rank and file will follow suit
Hours before Hillary Clinton accepted the Democratic presidential nomination at the partys convention in Philadelphia, Doug Elmets strolled on to the stage. Simply 18 months ago, his speech would have been unthinkable.
Its an honor to be here, and candidly, its also a shock, told Elmets, a former spokesman and speechwriter for Ronald Reagan.
The existence of Republicans who support Clinton, such as Elmets, is one of many plot spins in an extraordinary presidential election cycle. Conservative men and women have rejected their natural nominee in favor of a candidate their party has expended two decades tearing down.
With less than 100 days left before election day, the Clinton campaign is accelerating its drive to recruit GOP donors, business leaders and foreign policy experts. According to people familiar with the effort, a visible alliance of independents and Republican backing Clinton will make it easier for conservatives dismayed by Donald Trump to cast their votes for a Democrat.
The Clinton campaign has been preparing for its Republican outreach attempt for months. Around the start of the conventions, it went into gear. Since then , notable Republican, military leaders and one GOP congressman have abandoned Trump and cast their lot with Clinton. Framing their defections as a moral imperative, the converts are advising fellow Republican and independents to set country over party and join them on 8 November.
Donald Trumps demagoguery has undermined the fabric of our national character, Meg Whitman, president and CEO of Hewlett Packard and a prominent Republican donor, said in a statement. America needs the kind of stable and aspirational leadership Secretary Clinton can provide.
Whitman was joined this week by billionaire hedge fund director Seth Klarman, who donated to Jeb Bushs primary campaign; GOP representative Richard Hanna of New York; and Sally Bradshaw, a top consultant to Bush who said she would vote for Clinton if the race is close in Florida.
On Friday, Clinton was endorsed by Michael Morell, the former acting director of the CIA, who used a New York Times op-ed to call Trump a threat to our national security and an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
The Trump campaign did not return a request for comment.
Hillary Clinton has tried to convince Democratic primary voters that she is firmly opposed to the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.
But the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country’s resulting business trade group and a proponent of the agreements, told Bloomberg News earlier this month that he isn’t buying Clinton’s public posture. Now Sen. Bernie Sanders is seizing on those comments as a sign that his presidential primary rival can’t be counted on to oppose TPP.
Thomas Donohue, head of the business hall, suggested that Clinton is merely resisting TPP to improve her opportunities against Sanders, who has objected to the bargain from the beginning. Clinton would likely revert to her previous is supportive of the agreement if she were elected president, Donohue posited.
“If she were to get nominated, if she were to be elected, I have a hunch that what operates in the family is you get a little practical if you get the job, ” Donohue said.
As leader of one of the most influential groups in Washington, Donohue is an old hand at assessing politicians’ moves and motives. TPP is a top priority for the Chamber of Commerce and the businesses it represents. If Donohue is saying he’s not concerned that Clinton would ultimately resist the passage of TPP, that’s a opinion worth considering.
The business lobbyist also rejected concerns about Donald Trump, who is loudly anti-TPP. He expressed confidence that the populist fury that has characterized the early primary process will give way to more business-friendly sensibilities.
“The citizens are sort of mad, but they haven’t voted at all, ” Donohue told Bloomberg News. “We haven’t had a single vote.”
“I’m not saying who is going to win, ” he added. “I’m just telling you that on both the Democratic and Republican side, we are getting down to the real stuff. It isn’t going to end the style you think it is.”
The Sanders campaign said in a press release Thursday that Donohue’s statements create “questions about where Clinton stands” on TPP.
“What’s her position on this bad trade bargain today? ” Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs asked. “It’s hard to keep track of Secretary Clinton’s shifting stands on the trade agreement that would help multi-national firms ship more decent-paying tasks from the United States to low-wage nations overseas.”
The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Clinton announced her opposition to TPP on Oct. 7 last year, telling Judy Woodruff of the “PBS NewsHour” that there existed “still too many unanswered questions” about how the agreement would affect U.S. jobs, the affordability of prescription drugs and other matters.
At the time, Clinton was under rising pressure from progressive activists to take a more definitive stance on the trade agreement. Yet in her statements, she appeared to give herself leeway to embrace the deal subsequently if her concerns could be assuaged.
“As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it, ” she said.
Even those cautious terms marked an about-face from Clinton’s previous espouse of TPP, which she had worked on as President Barack Obama’s secretary of state. Clinton called the deal the “gold standard in trade agreements” in November 2012, all there is serving as America’s top diplomat.
More than one progressive activist has argued that Clinton’s public change of heart simply shows that she’s willing to say things to appease voters, but that doesn’t mean she can be relied on to stick to her stances if elected. These skeptics contend, for example, that Clinton only came out against construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in September 2015 when it had become a growing political liability to continue not taking a stance.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a wide-ranging accord among 12 Pacific Rim nations, would lower tariffs and streamline regulations on goods and services exchanged by the participating countries. The Obama administration, most big business leaders, some congressional Democrats and the majority of congressional Republicans argue that the agreement is essential to maintain the U.S.’s competitive edge in the global economy and counter the rising influence of China in the Pacific region.
Critics of the deal — including labor unions, environmental groups, global health activists, Internet freedom advocates and the majority of congressional Democrats — argue that it will cost the U.S. manufacturing undertakings, reward nations that abuse human rights and empower corporations to challenge domestic laws protecting customers, patients and workers.
Last June, Congress granted the president trade promotion authority, which bars Congress from revising or filibustering a trade agreement to be provided by the White House for approval. Lawmakers are restricted to an up-or-down vote.
A senior White House official told reporters Wednesday that the opposition to TPP from presidential candidates of both parties was being “closely watched” by America’s negotiating partners. The official implied that the candidates’ comments attained other TPP nations eager to find the U.S. ratify the agreements this year.
The official also said the Obama administration did not have a position on whether it would be better to pursue ratification of TPP before the November elections or in the lame-duck conference of Congress afterward.
Chamber of Commerce leader Donohue told Bloomberg that he ensure the best opportunity for approving the trade agreement after the election, since Republican lawmakers including with regard to could vote for it without fear of endangering their own re-elections.
“If you tried to get a vote on it right now, the Senate wouldn’t let you do it, because they are not going to take three or four very important senators — at a time when they are … operating for office, you know, more Republicans than Democrat — and put them at risk, ” Donohue said.
He added that waiting until after the election also devotes TPP’s proponents more time to lash votes in favor of it.
Donohue calculated the likelihood of the deal passing by the end of 2016 at 75 percent.
The presidential candidate blames everyone but herself for her shock defeat to Trump in this hubristic memoir
In common with everyone who is likely to read this review, I mourned when Hillary Clinton lost the election last November. Now there is an extra reason for unhappines: with time on her hands, the woman who was so qualified to be an able, diligent, clear-headed chairwoman has hurriedly written- or presided over the the time of writing of- an unreflective book that in its combining of number-crunching wonkery and strenuously pious uplift reveals more than she might have intended about why she lost. Her bewilderment is easy to understand, but couldn’t she have waited before monetising failing and relaunching her brand with a nationwide book tour?
Bill Clinton’s mantra was ” I feel your pain”, a phrase he uttered not at the site of a inundation or a earthquake but in a Manhattan nightclub, where he was heckled by an Aids activist. Hillary’s equivalent is not an offer of empathy but a demand for sympathy: she wants us to feel her ache- the numbing shock of election night, the distres of having to face a hostile mob at Trump’s inauguration and listen to him rant about social bloodbath in a speech that George W Bush described as” some weird shit “.
Public figures like to claim that they’re selflessly serving us- the little people, their voters and customers- and Clinton presents this therapeutic exercising as if she had our emotional health in intellect rather than her own.” Perhaps it’ll help you too ,” she says when describing how she mended her sadnes with Chardonnay, alternate nostril breathing, and a daily devotional text emailed by her clergyman( whose anthology of these missives has just been pulped, since some of his feelgood smarminess was plagiarised ). Then she glimpses herself in the mirror and adds:” I doubt that many people reading this will ever lose a general elections .” All commiseration dries up: it’s as self-regarding a statement as Trump’s” I’m the president and you’re not”, or his smugness when he’s devoted two scoops of ice-cream while guests get only one.
This is a classic tale of hubris( nowadays called ” entitlement “). Clinton packaged herself as America personified, wearing successive pantsuits- styled by Ralph Lauren- in red, white and blue for her three debates with Trump, and on election night she intended to declare victory on a stage shaped like a cut-out US map. Her garment bag that evening included the purple suit she planned to wear” on my first trip-up to Washington as president elect “; she had already bought the house next door in suburban New York as overspill accommodation for her travelling troupe of White House aides. Not since Agamemnon swaggered on to the red carpet in the tragedy by Aeschylus has anyone so vaingloriously asked for a comeuppance.
All this triumphalism is recalled with no twinge of compunction. Instead, others are blamed- James Comey for creating the alarm about her emails, Bernie Sanders for splitting the progressive vote, the “odious” Julian Assange for WikiLeaking, and those best buddies Putin and Trump for the Darth Vader-like” dark energy” they conjured up. Everyone who opposed her accuses of doing so out of misogyny: is Assange’s dumping of scurrilous information about the Democratic party genuinely explained by the fact that he” was charged with rape in Sweden “? Despite these accusations, her postmortem on her campaign’s” data analytic platform” and” word-of-mouth favourability metric” discloses why the masses didn’t warm to her. She erroneously assumed that American politics is about policy, whereas Trump considered that it is now an extension of showbiz.
Instead of recuperating, Clinton has opted for a re-enactment of a remote past. Her book grows fat on rosy reminiscences about her childhood baseball games, her first date with Bill, and Chelsea’s breech birth, with victory laps to celebrate her achievements as a “lady lawyer” in Arkansas, a” hometown senator’ in New York( where “shes never” actually lived when she ran for office ), and a secretary of state who travelled” almost a million miles “. She has reason to be proud, but does any of that help explain what happened on 8 November? When the reckoning arrives, she diverges into fantasies about alternative solutions future. She gives details of the legislation she would now be advancing, and even prints( or, as she sets it, “shares”) the oration she” never got a chance to deliver that night”, which ends by announced today that” America is the greatest country in the world” and promising that” we will construct America even greater”- lines that might have dribbled from the mouth of Trump.
It’s all very well to repeat” I love America”, as she ritualistically does: mustn’t she also dislike at the least half of it for rejecting her? Here her immense self-possession comes to her assist. She recollects Dylann Roof, the white supremacist who murdered the worshippers in a church in Charleston, being told by relatives of his victims” I forgive you “. Then she asks herself what she feels about Trump voters, the so-called ” deplorables “. She answers: “It’s complicated”, but the preceding anecdote speaks for her. She forgives them: like the ragtag of crucifiers, they knew not what they did.
A brief, embarrassed including references to earlier periods is inadvertently telling: Bill and Hillary were guests at Trump’s wedding to Melania( and, as the titanically petty bridegroom still recollects, they didn’t bring a present ).” We weren’t friends ,” says Hillary defensively. Then why run? It turns out Bill was ” speaking in the area that weekend”, so they ran for a laugh; Hillary calculates that Trump wanted them for their “star power”. The comment reflects as badly on the Clintons as it does on Trump: they remind me of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, who subsidised their residence at the Waldorf Astoria by charging a fee for attendance at Manhattan cocktail parties.
There is one wrenchingly perceptive insight about Trump, who seems, she says, as if he” didn’t even want to be president at all”- unlike Clinton, who wanted it almost more than life itself. Yes, he now relives the election as obsessively as she does, and with similar qualms. He thought it would be the award handed out in the season finale of The Apprentice ; it didn’t occur to him that four years- if we’re unlucky- of tedious office work lay ahead. Maddened by the false stance he procures himself in, the captive of a reality that is not at all like reality Tv, he’s therefore concentrating on finding a way to get himself fired. Despite Clinton’s appeal for sympathy, it’s Trump that her book built “i m feeling” momentarily sorry for.
* What Happened byHillary Rodham Clinton is published by Simon and Schuster( PS20 ). To order a copy for PS17 go to guardianbookshop.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p& p over PS10, online orders merely. Phone orders min p& p of PS1. 99
There may have been moments of high drama during the presidential debate, but its a contrast to 2012 when Republican were accused waging a war on women
An unusual election year has ushered in an unusual stillnes: the issue of abortion, almost always a cause for pitched battles between presidential candidates, has been all but invisible on “the member states national” stage as the campaign between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton draws to a close.
There have been moments of high drama. Trumps call for penalty when women get abortions in illegal situations collided with Clintons demand, unprecedented for a major party presidential nominee, to roll back a 40 -year restriction on public funding for abortion. And the third presidential debate insured Trump unleash an inflammatory line of assault, telling Clinton supported policy allowing doctors to rip infants out of the womb days before birth.
But contrast that with 2012, when the Republican ticket struggled to escape accusations that the party had waged a war on women reproductive health. This year, merely a handful of ballot races have revolved around issues of abortions.
Its causing major abortion rights groups, a fixture in modern politics, to readjust.
Trumps record with women took up a lot of air in this election, said Marcy Stech, a spokesperson for Emilys List. The Democratic political action committee is focused on electing pro-abortion rights women and is throwing its resourcesinto several Senate candidates in swing states.
He turned Republican from the party of the transvaginal probe a 2012 dispute that Emilys List and groups like it deftly exploited into something else entirely, Stech said. Weve never had to poll-test before what happens when you construct fat-shaming an actual campaign strategy.
Kaylie Hanson Long, a spokesperson for Naral Pro-Choice America, acknowledged that this election had the group feeling a little out of its comfort zone. It is unprecedented how this race is unfolding. But it is unfold, she added, to Narals advantage. Abortion may not have been a staple issue of this election, but thats merely because the oxygen has been taken up by a candidate who has said such nasty things about women.
Deirdre Schifeling, the executive director of Planned Parenthoods Super Pac, agreed that the dimensions of the race were unusual, but to her groups advantage. In the days after the Washington Post published the infamous videotape of Donald Trump bragging that he could get away with groping a womans genitals, volunteer switchings for Planned Parenthood increased 126% in Ohio. The group deployed $30 mon voter turnout, and its canvassers have knocked on close to 2m doors.
Susan B Anthony List, the Republican answer to Emilys List, will by next week have knocked on 1m doors. Some of its canvassing is also intended to discouraging is supportive of Clinton. But a substantial proportion is aimed at keeping control of the Senate seats, in countries such as Missouri and Florida, that are crucial to a Republican majority.
These canvassers are highlighting Clintons longtime support for abortion rights, told Mallory Quigley, a spokesperson for SBA List, including her radical vote as senator in 2003 against a ban on a technique of second- and third-trimester abortion.
Trumps record as an anti-abortion rights crusader, by contrast, is much shorter. In an August 2015 primary debate, Trump said he could not commit to defunding Schemed Parenthood without considering how the organization was good for women. He did not commit to stripping Schemed Parenthood of federal monies until this past February. Then, in April, Trump suggested that as chairwoman he would attain no effort to overrule Roe v Wade. The statutes are defined, he told. And I think we have to leave it that way. He reversed himself one month afterwards, telling Fox host Bill OReilly that as chairperson he would nominate pro life judges to the supreme court.
But the reaction of pro- and anti-abortion rights activists alike has been to gloss over Trumps bumpy journey on abortion rights.
We can only go by what he has said in this campaign, Long said. That has ranged from saying that a woman should be punished for having an abortion if the procedure were illegal to taking advice, we assume, and talking points from anti-choice legislators like Mike Pence.
I dont doubt his seriousnes, told Quigley of Trumps current anti-abortion views. In the third debate, you could really feel his passion. Trump himself, she added, has acknowledged that he is a convert to the cause.
Still, it was only nine months ago that Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of SBA List, pleaded with Iowa caucus-goers in an open letter to support anyone but Donald Trump.
Pressed on this, Quigley replied: Well, when it came down to a general election scenario, and we had two candidates, there is no question. We would of course subsistence Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. Policy not the person is the most important consideration.
One moment when the clash over abortion rights virtually resembled a normal election year went when Fox News host Chris Wallace requested information about abortion in the final presidential debate.
His questions touched a nerve on all sides. Asked about abortion late in a pregnancy, Trump opened up an inflammatory line of assault. If you go with what Hillary is saying, Trump told, you can take the baby and rend the newborn out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day.
Clinton shot back that many terminations late in pregnancy take place when something terrible has happened or only been discovered about the pregnancy.
Using that kind of scare rhetoric is simply terribly unfortunate, she said.
The exchange concerned one of the least understood and most controversial types of abortion those taking place when the fetus approaches or passes the point of viability.
It is a topic wracked by misrepresentations. Wallace raised the issue of partial birth abortion, a political term that doesnt readily correspond to a specific medical procedure, but which Congress nonetheless banned more than a decade ago. In 2003, the ban was upheld by the supreme court.
Clinton has never campaigned on overruling the ban, but as a senator she voted against it. In the final debate, she explained that she voted no because the bill didnt make an exception for the lives of the mother. Prior to the debate, she has said she supported late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother.
Trump, meanwhile, has committed to signing a ban on abortion in the 20 th week of pregnancy before a fetus is viable outside the womb.
But his suggestion that pregnancies are objective days before a pregnancy is full term doesnt appear to be supported in fact.
The percentage of women having abortions past the midpoint of their pregnancy is very small. The latest calculate by the CDC is that fully 98.7% of abortions take place before 21 weeks gestation. Most fetuses are not viable outside the womb for another three weeks. The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion rights thinktank, estimates that proportion of terminations after 20 weeks is slightly higher, or about 15,000 procedures every year.
Clintons statements, which characterized these terminations as being done in cases of severe fetal anomaly, do not fully capture what we know about later abortions.
We know very little about women who seek afterward abortions, reads a 2013 analyse published in the journal of the Guttmacher Institute. But data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.( The examine characterized later abortions as those taking place after 20 weeks .)
Dr Warren Hern, who is one of only a handful of doctors in the country performing third-trimester abortions, agreed to speak in as much detail as he could about his own patients.
Hern is forecast that in a majority of his later abortion examples, the women are there because of a serious fetal anomaly. The remainder of his clients are a mix. Hern objects to the word elective abortion. It makes it sound like you decided to have curls instead of bangs as a hairdo, he told. But he lets that many although not a majority of patients having later abortions are not there because of fetal anomaly.
Without doing the kind of analysis I would need to do to be sure, I would say that more than half of the patients who come in[ post-viability] are there because of fetal abnormalities, and this was a very desired pregnancy, he told. The other, smaller proportion are usually very young women, 12 or 13 years old, who are victims of sexual assault, of incest. Or they are adult women who have been told by a doctor they cant get pregnant, or who thought they were post-menopausal.
Hern says he turns many women away. For one, after about 33 weeks, termination carries more serious dangers.
One of the things I have to decide is, first of all, do I feel comfy objective the pregnancy at a late stage when “were not receiving” obvious problem, such a fetal abnormality or a rape? If I have someone whos 33 weeks pregnant, and she should have had this done four or five months ago, Im not going to do that, because theres a certain quantity of hazard involved.
Trump, he told, is totally and abysmally ignorant about this topic. His statements are highly inflammatory and obscene and designed to inflame his adherents, who dont need to be inflamed.
But it is unclear if Trumps commentaries won him any followers.
Wallace also asked Trump whether or not he wanted Roe v Wade to be overturned. Trump declined to answer, telling the issue will go back to the states. But when Trump reiterated his promise to appoint anti-abortion justices to the supreme court, his support among a group of undecided voters judging the debate for CNN plummeted.
DES MOINES, IOWA — In these days of anger and insurrection in politics, it takes a certain amount of daring — or stubbornness — to say the following in the closing days of the campaign for the Iowa caucuses 😛 TAGEND
“We are on the right path, my friends. We merely have to stay on it.”
And yet that is the surprising essence of Hillary Clinton’s final pitch to Democratic caucus-goers as she delivered it this weekend at Grand View University in Des Moines.
At a day when every other presidential candidate, Democrat and Republican, is crying havoc about the all-but-unsalvageable corruption of government, politics and Washington, Clinton detects herself — out of choice and necessity — the lone defender of the value of the old rulebook.
After more than four decades in politics and facing a socialist foe with sweeping and expensive new Big Government proposals, Clinton is trying to make a virtue of necessity.
As she tries to close the deal with Iowa Democrats — which she failed to do in the face of the Barack Obama wave of 2008 — Clinton is daring to suggest the virtues of the status quo to defeat Sanders’ youth brigade.
She defends Obamacare as the hard-won most-of-a-loaf that Sanders would tear up in a vain and politically unrealistic yearning for an all-government-run single-payer system.
She defends the present tax code — at least as it applies to middle-class taxpayers. She claims to be the only nominee in the race who will “not create taxes on the middle class, ” as Sanders himself acknowledges his health care scheme would require.
She defends the achievements of the Obama administration, arguing that the president “deserves more credit than he has gotten” for bailing out the economy in 2008, for saving the auto industry and for spurring innovative technologies through government loans and programs.
She defended the Dodd-Frank law as a good first step in tighter regulation of banks. And she defends the reigning status quo of Democratic economic reasoning: the business bent of the “Clinton Democrats” and the so-called Washington Consensus of international trade.
At Grand View, she boasted about the economic track record of her husband’s presidency and accentuated the positive of Obama’s( the vast gulf between the rich and the rest notwithstanding ). And she positioned herself as someone who can work the system as it is, rather than competing with Sanders’ call for a “political revolution” to sweep out the stables of the Capitol.
To be sure, Clinton has a laundry list of new proposals and promises: tighter surveillance of hedge funds and tougher criminal sanctions on their CEOs, a new infrastructure money and new taxes on the wealthiest American families.
But more than those specifics, she is selling herself as the realist, and proudly so, with decades worth of hide-toughening scars from campaigns and serving in government as a senator from New York and secretary of state.
“I’m not going to tell you what you want to hear, ” told Clinton. “I am going to tell you what I actually can get done.”
Of course that hard-eyed practicality is what her advisors think that voters want to hear from her as “shes trying to” win Iowa.
“She is the grownup in the race, ” said one top advisor, who insisted on anonymity to discuss campaign strategy. “She is not going to win the children with dreamings, but win at least some of them and most of the adults with facts.”
Indeed, the final Iowa poll by the Des Moines Register presented Clinton trailing severely among voters under 45 — both men and women. She had a wide lead among older voters of both sexes.
Clinton’s gamble of incremental realism is just that — a gamble. But it is based in part on the calculation that Sanders devotes her room to run in that direction and that he is not the cost free feel-good election that Obama was in 2008.
Voting for Obama was a statement of social uplift and hope about the country, and it did not come with much of a specific price tag.
Sanders is different. He has a price tag. And that is what Hillary is counting on.
It’s an debate that works with Ross Johnson, a 45 -year-old lawyer from Clive.
Johnson said at the Grand View rally that he had voted for Obama in 2008, but that he was resisting his 17 -year-old son’s pleas to support Sanders because of very concerned about taxes.
He said that he had read an analysis by Ezra Klein of Vox — “an analyst who shares my values” — in which the writer had suggested that Sanders’ agenda would carry huge costs.
“My wife and son are going to vote for Bernie, but I’m going with Hillary, ” Johnson said.
The mathematical impact is significant: what would have been a three-Bernie-vote household is reduced to a net of one.
But the broader argument seemed to be “the worlds biggest” selling point: that Hillary is practical and tough and clear-eyed — in other words, some would say, a woman.
“There is something about a woman’s touch, ” told Mary Scott, a retired insurance executive from Des Moines. “They know how to get things done.
“Bernie has all of these notions that are pie-in-the-sky and will never get through Congress, and he can’t do anything without Congress.”
“Hillary can work it, ” Scott added. “She’s a gal who gets things done.”
Adam Buxtons life-affirming, jingle-packed ramble chats with his celebrity guests are a constant delight. In this two-parter, the multi-talented Ayoade went into everything from the high levels of pillows to the reaction to his notoriously awkward interview with Krishnan Guru-Murthy. As funny as the pod is, you are able to learn a lot, too from Buxtons honest discussions of sorrow when his dad died to how upsetting Sara Pascoe find it when people construct clicky sticky noises with their mouths.
Other lessons from this podcast Louis Theroux does a fine rendition of Yes Sir, I Can Boogie. Ellie Violet Bramley
Adam Buxtons life-affirming, jingle-packed ramble chats with his celebrity guests are a constant delight. In this two-parter, the multi-talented Ayoade went into everything from the high levels of pillows to the reaction to his notoriously awkward interview with Krishnan Guru-Murthy. As funny as the pod is, you will learn a lot, too from Buxtons honest discussions among sorrow when his dad succumbed to how upsetting Sara Pascoe observes it when people build clicky sticky noises with their mouths.
Other lessons from this podcast Louis Theroux does a fine rendition of Yes Sir, I Can Boogie. Ellie Violet Bramley