Hillary Clinton Makes History As Convention Tone Changes

The second night of the Democratic Convention seemed much calmer than the first, as the Clinton campaign moves forward toward the biggest speech of Hillary Clinton's life.

2016 Democratic Convention

After Monday’s session of the Democratic National Convention opened amid discord rooted in both the long primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and disdain toward outgoing Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Tuesday’s session began and ended on a much more unified note and seemed to set the stage for a remainder of the convention that will set the groundwork for Clinton’s campaign to move forward. First up, of course, was the roll call of the states, a tradition in both major parties that seems in current times to serve as as an opportunity for state and local political leaders to appear on national television for a few minutes. The result, of course, was completely expected but that didn’t remove the sense of history that was apparent in the room:

PHILADELPHIA — The Democratic convention formally nominated Hillary Clinton for president on Tuesday, making history by choosing a woman to be the first standard-bearer of a major political party, a breakthrough underscored by a deeply personal speech by Bill Clinton calling her “the best darn change-maker I have ever known.”

At 6:39 p.m., the hall erupted in cheers and joyful tears as South Dakota cast the decisive 15 votes to put Mrs. Clinton over the threshold of 2,382 delegates required to clinch the nomination.

A sea of delegates waved multicolored signs with Mrs. Clinton’s “H” campaign logo, while others fell into hugs and several women jumped up and down with elation.

Vince Insalaco, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Arkansas, where the Clintons built their public profile over two decades, said the choice of the first female presidential nominee was a historic moment.

“I’m so proud to be a Democrat tonight,” Mr. Insalaco said, “and so proud that we can call this woman one of our own.”

Mrs. Clinton’s primary rival, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, played a symbolic role in hopes of unifying the party behind her. After Vermont arranged to go last in the roll call, Mr. Sanders joined its delegation to roars of “Bernie, Bernie” and called on the party to rally behind Mrs. Clinton.

But it was the appearance of Mr. Clinton, shortly after 10 p.m., that stirred the crowd most, as he set out to share a more personal side of the sometimes-reserved former secretary of state.

Unspooling memories of their 45 years together, Mr. Clinton used warm and detailed anecdotes to argue that the couple’s political enemies had spent decades creating a “cartoon” of his wife that he was now determined to puncture. Mrs. Clinton is among the most unpopular presidential nominees in modern history, and the former president appealed to the audience to see through the political attacks on her.

“One is real,” Mr. Clinton said of the divergent portrayals of his wife, “the other is made up.” He recalled the affection of Mrs. Clinton’s old friends, her empathy for those in need, and the praise she had won from Republicans as a senator and as secretary of state.

“You nominated the real one,” Mr. Clinton said to a long burst of applause. Seeming to realize that he had been speaking for 38 minutes, he added in classically loquacious Bill Clinton fashion, “We have to get back on schedule.”

Mr. Clinton’s testimony was so personal that he even appeared to obliquely invoke problems in the couple’s marriage.

“She’ll never quit on you,” he said. “She never quit on me.”

(…)

Mr. Clinton’s task was clear: to humanize his wife but also energize Democrats by flattering those in the hall and villainizing Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee.

“She never made fun of people with disabilities,” Mr. Clinton said, referring to Mr. Trump’s mocking of a disabled reporter last year. “She tried to empower them based on their abilities.”

Yet as Mr. Clinton recounted his wife’s well-chronicled professional accomplishments, he also tried to paint a portrait of a mother who is not as well known. Recounting the day they moved their daughter, Chelsea, into her freshman dorm at Stanford University, Mr. Clinton recounted how Mrs. Clinton kept looking for “one more drawer to put that liner paper in,” reluctant to say goodbye to her only child.

The speech was extraordinary in its intimacy and in Mr. Clinton’s willingness to use their much-scrutinized marriage as a testament to her character. He began by recalling how he first met his future wife in 1971 at Yale Law School — he so nervous, she full of confidence — and spent almost 15 minutes describing courting her and proposing marriage three times before she said yes. At one point, trying to play a mind game, Mr. Clinton told her that she should move to Illinois or New York and run for office rather than marry him and have other young Democrats eclipse her.

“They mean well, and they speak well, but none of them are as good as you are,” Mr. Clinton told her about their political generation. “She said: ‘Are you out of your mind? Nobody would ever vote for me.’ “

Clinton’s speech, of course, was evocative, of course, of the former President’s speech at the 2012 Democratic Convention in which he held the stage for more than a hour and gave a forceful, enthusiastic defense of the first four years of Barack Obama’s Presidency that many considered to be the highlight of the convention. This time, the speech was both more muted and, in some ways, more more subdued than what we heard four years ago, but that seems to be a deliberate strategy on the former President’s part as he seeks not to overshadow his wife while still doing what he can to advance her candidacy among the audiences that he’s best suited to speaking to. Based on the reactions to the speech this morning, it would seem that he succeeded once again, especially in the sense that he helped to refocus the convention away from the discord of Bernie Sanders supporters venting their last bit of frustration tied to a long and emotional campaign and toward the final two nights of the convention, which will apparently be focused on laying the groundwork for Clinton’s acceptance speech Thursday night and the long campaign to follow.

Before getting there, though, there was much discussion during the roll call of the states of the historic nature of what the party was doing, Eight years ago, Democrats set in motion the process that led to the election of the first African-American President in American history. Yesterday, they selected the first woman nominated by a major party for President, a woman who stands a reasonably good chance of winning the election in November. As I said when Barack Obama was nominated and elected, regardless of how one feels about the political positions of the candidate in question, it’s hard to deny the historical importance of breaking through such barriers and what it’s likely to mean for the future of American politics in both political parties and what it’s likely to mean going forward, While there will no doubt be those who resist, as we have certainly seen from some quarters over the past eight years, it seems fairly clear that the American people as a whole have becoming accepting of the idea that we really do live in an era where anyone can become President, regardless of race or gender. That doesn’t mean that prejudice based on these and other criteria suddenly disappears, of course, but it does mean that not every example of opposing a President is an example of racism, and that not everyone who happens to think that President Obama has been, at best, a fair to barely adequate President, believes that for reasons based on his race. Similarly, if Clinton wins in November, it should be remembered that not everyone opposed to her will be doing so because she is a woman. Along with the achievement of becoming President will come the inevitable criticism, and it is as illegitimate to say that the critics are basing their opinions on race or gender as it is to say that someone of a certain race or gender can’t be President. Hillary Clinton made history just as Barack Obama did, and she deserves some credit for that. That doesn’t means she is immune from criticism now, or that it will be legitimate to use the bias card against those who criticize her should she become President.

With the official work of nominating a candidate behind it, the convention now switches into campaign mode starting tonight with the selection of the Vice-Presidential nominee, along with speeches by Vice-President Biden, President Obama, and running mate Senator Tim Kaine. Biden and Obama are expected to use their time to both boost Clinton’s candidacy and attack Donald Trump, something that Obama is reportedly very eager to do as he gets out on the campaign trail on behalf of his party’s nominee in a way that few recent incumbent Presidents have done. Kaine, on the other hand, will be tasked with making his first impression on a public that largely doesn’t know much about him. It will be his first big appearance on a national stage as Hillary Clinton’s running mate, and it will set the tone for how he is perceived going forward. All of that will set the stage for Thursday night and what will arguably be the most important speech of Hillary Clinton’s political life. How it comes off will go a long way toward defining what kind of election we have going forward, and whether there’s a battle to the end with the most unlikely rival ever or a campaign that turns into rout.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2016, Hillary Clinton, Politicians, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. CSK says:

    Very OT, but the charges against the remaining three officers in the Freddie Gray case have been dropped.

  2. EddieInCA says:

    RNC – Hate and division.
    DNC – Love and inclusion (even with the Bernie Bros being assholes)

    Big Difference.

  3. gVOR08 says:

    @EddieInCA: And now we’ll get to see how hate and love play out with the general electorate. I am far less hopeful than I would like to be.

  4. EddieInCA says:

    @gVOR08:

    Given that Trump is continuing to be Trump, I predict that as more and more people start paying attention, Trump’s act will get very stale very quickly. In over a year, he has been unable to moderate his positions or his act.

    Wait until the debates, when he’s Trump, and comes across as unhinged. misogynistic, and brutally dark and negative. Seriously, even if working class whites flock to him, how many Obama states will he turn.

    Pennsylvania won’t turn Red.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html

    He won’t win Michegan
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_clinton-5533.html

    And if he can’t win Florida, he’s toast.

    In the race to 270, I don’t see how he gets there.

  5. bill says:

    @EddieInCA: rnc= inclusion, personal responsibility, country first.
    dnc- divide and conquer, white men are bad (unless they throw money at democrats), minorities need guilty white people to help them do everything…..

    plus the never forgetful internet….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uXJ1mgkyF0

  6. al-Alameda says:

    @bill:

    rnc= inclusion, personal responsibility, country first.

    LOL!

  7. An Interested Party says:

    rnc= inclusion, personal responsibility, country first.

    More like exclusion, multiple bankruptcies, and Trump first…

    dnc- divide and conquer, white men are bad (unless they throw money at democrats), minorities need guilty white people to help them do everything…..

    Who is being divided and conquered? The Dems are talking about everyone coming together, so I don’t know what fantasy you’re seeing…how are white men being portrayed as being bad? Where is it being said that minorities need guilty white people to help them do anything? I think you need to have your alleged black girlfriend explain things to you as your perception appears to be quite warped…

  8. EddieInCA says:

    Anybody catch Trump’s press conference today?

    He openly asked the Russians to hack Hillary’s Server in hopes of releasing the personal 33,000 emails deleted.

    During a press conference on Wednesday, Trump directly encouraged Russia to help him politically by releasing emails that were deleted from Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was Secretary of State.

    “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you find the 33,000 emails that are missing,” he said. “I think you’ll be rewarded mightily by our press!”

    It goes without saying that this is the first time that an American presidential candidate has openly called upon a foreign government to help him bring down his political opponent.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/trump-invites-russians-to-hack-hillary-i-think-youll-be-rewarded-mightily-by-our-press/

  9. Gustopher says:

    I’m a middle-aged white man living in Seattle, so I am acutely aware when I am suddenly no longer being catered to. This convention, so far, has been a little awkward, with so much emphasis on the historic nature of nominating a woman, and motherhood and helping children, and I wonder if they are overdoing it.

    I get the desire to do a victory lap — in fact, the need to do a victory lap, to energize the base — but I don’t remember Obama’s historic convention being quite so heavy handed. I worry about how it plays in middle America, or how it plays to the men who are more threatened than a bit chagrined when they recognize their sexist bias.

    (I’ve worked with a lot of women, I’ve had women bosses, some of my best friends are women… they don’t keep mentioning that they are women every five minutes. I honestly don’t know how much of my reaction is deeply ingrained sexism, and how much is “ok, ok, I get it, you’re a woman, no I don’t need to be reminded again, and surely women are capable of accomplishments that don’t stem from being mothers… yes, I see, you’re a woman and a mother”)

    Bill Clinton’s speech was excellent though. First, it was kind of refreshing to see a man on the stage. Second, he gave a history of Hillary that I never knew, about how much she has worked helping children and the poor, and how she was doing that before she even met him, and overall gave the impression that she might be the more remarkable one in that couple.

  10. Pete S says:

    @EddieInCA: Well, we all knew he would be fairly desperate to be the centre of attention when the DNC convention turned out to be so much more professional than his, and to try to drown out any positive coverage they get. We now know how desperate.

  11. Bob@Youngstown says:

    @EddieInCA:
    We should also not forget that “hacking” as in theft of data is a crime.

    Trump is publically encouraging entities in Russia (or elsewhere) to commit a crime. I’d suggest that’s probably a first.

  12. Andrew says:

    @Gustopher:

    There have been political conventions for over 100 years. This is history in the making with a female presidential candidate. Now, I am no historian, but I can guess something like this has never been done before, a little cause for celebration.

    I am sure a lot of women are saying it is about time.

    You being turned off because the white male is not being as celebrated, well, as another white male…I am not as insulted.

  13. Moosebreath says:

    @Bob@Youngstown:

    I think that it’s worse than merely a crime. Trump is asking a foreign government to help him get elected.

    I hate to go there, but this is borderline treasonous.

  14. michael reynolds says:

    @Gustopher:

    Trump is playing the Cro Magnon male card, Hillary is countering with the female card. Women = 52% of the electorate IIRC. I think this is how they’re framing the election – tough but compassionate woman vs. hysterical, batshit male. But I’m overseas so I’m getting nothing ‘live’. (Probably a blessing.)

    I do think sexism goes much deeper than most men believe. I write YA books and fairly often do school visits where you speak and pitch and answer questions. One of my counterparts, a woman writer, went to a school visit where the school only invited girls. That has never happened to me. My audiences have never been sex-segregated, hers were. Not a big thing, but a bit of ‘male privilege.’

    It’s hard to disambiguate (if I may steal a Wiki word) what is specific to me as an individual, and what’s about my gender. Kidlit generally is dominated by women editors and women writers – Rowling, Clare, Roth, Collins – but women writers seem convinced that we guys get more panel time, better pay, better travel conditions, etc… And I am not at all sure they’re wrong. In part it may be that men are pushier – I fly business or I don’t fly, for example, while women who outsell me are often back in coach.

    On a much more serious level, take a look at the Gamergate madness and you begin to see that significant numbers of men genuinely hate women. Not ‘hate’ hah hah, but actual hate. I think that misogyny is behind a lot of the Bernie Bro phenomenon, and a huge part of the Trump madness.

    We men have been steadily deprived of those things that were unique to us – roles as heavy-lifters, warriors, protectors, heads-of-family, heads of government etc… while women have kept their unique roles as baby-makers and added all the roles we’ve ceded. They dominate colleges, and run about even in law schools, med schools. An awful lot of men cannot handle that. Trump pushes fear because coping with threats was once a uniquely male role. It excites the atavistic male to think the world is crumbling and only he, with his trusty gun, can save the world.

  15. EddieInCA says:

    @Moosebreath:

    I’m a pretty hard lefty at this point in my life, but I can’t help but think that alot of people on the fence are not going to look at Trump’s actions today as a good thing.

    It’s shocking to me. But, given his past statements, maybe it shouldn’t be. I know it won’t affect the Trump dead-enders (several which are on this site), but to alot of swing voters, this will be beyond the pale.

  16. SKI says:

    Hidden in the blowup over the request for Russia to interfere with our political process by committing crimes was Trump’s statement that he would recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea and lift the sanctions.

    At some point, how much circumstantial evidence do we need to conclude that it is more likely than not that Trump is effectively Putin’s candidate?

  17. SenyorDave says:

    @Moosebreath: I hate to go there, but this is borderline treasonous.

    If I understand, he’s asking them to hack into her mail from when she was SecofState. That actually seems treasonous to me, the idea that he wants a foreign gov’t to hack into e-mail that might have sensitive info. But I’m sure that his supporters will remain staedfast because Benghazi!

  18. steve s says:

    The GOP runner-up deliberately refused to endorse the nominee, and reignited a catfight that went on for 48 hrs.

    The Democratic Party runner up personally asked that the roll call be suspended and Hillary Clinton be nominated for president.

    One party is optimistic, united, adult, inclusive, scientifically-literate, and in the lead.

    One party is scared, roiled by multiple pasty factions, childish, did we mention pasty?, deliberately ignorant, and losing.

    thank heavens.

  19. Pch101 says:

    @Gustopher:

    I have been saying for awhile that this election will be decided on the margins, and that the Dems will need female and minority turnout in order to win.

    Women will need to show up, and a majority of them will vote for Clinton. Those votes will be needed to offset male voters, the majority of whom will vote for Trump.

    Ultimately, this will be about who bothers to show up versus who doesn’t. I’m willing to bet that the Clinton campaign agrees with that assessment.

  20. Scott says:

    @michael reynolds: @Pch101:

    This conversation has got me wondering on this idle thought: Who has more persuasion? Trump Men persuading their wives to vote Trump? Or Clinton women persuading their husbands to vote Clinton?

  21. Kylopod says:

    @Gustopher:

    I don’t remember Obama’s historic convention being quite so heavy handed.

    It wasn’t–but there’s a good reason for it.

    One of the things I long noticed about Obama’s 2008 campaign–but which he hardly ever gets credit for–is that he seemed to go out of his way to avoid calling attention to his race. You wouldn’t know it listening to the fever swamps of the right, which have painted him as an incessant race-baiter. In fact if you lived in a cave and read the transcripts of 99% of his campaign speeches in 2008 you might never realize he was black. As far as I remember, it wasn’t even alluded to once at the convention–not by him and not by any other speaker.

    Maybe you think this approach was preferable, but it’s useful to realize how weird it is. It’s absolutely normal and accepted for candidates who will be historical “firsts” to at least mention that fact. Joe Lieberman, during his acceptance speech as Gore’s running mate in 2000, spoke openly about how proud he was to be the first Jewish-American on a national ticket. Hillary talked about being the first woman in 2008 as well as this year, and so did Sarah Palin in 2008.

    Why was Obama so silent on this obvious point? I have a theory about it. Sometime in the early 2000s or so I was talking to one my grandparents’ caregivers from St. Lucia, and we both agreed that the US would have a woman president before it had a black president. Obviously that turned out wrong–but what made us think so?

    For me, it was because I had observed for years that the media had a tendency, and not an overtly racist one, to subtly depict all aspiring black politicians as being somehow outside the mainstream. It was something that had afflicted candidates from Jesse Jackson to Carol Moseley Braun. And indeed, as soon as Obama got into the race in 2007, it seemed like there was a concerted effort by his enemies and parts of the media to liken him to another Jackson or Sharpton. It was why Bill Clinton’s stupid remark about how Jackson had won South Carolina too was so poorly received, and it goes a long way in explaining the Rev. Wright controversy as well.

    Obama apparently made a strategic decision to avoid mentioning his race as much as possible. This is confirmed by insider books about his campaign which I read later. Obama certainly had an interest in race–his 1995 book Dreams from my Father is all about it–but in the 2008 campaign his focus was on coming off as normal and mainstream as possible, and he recognized that white America tended to find black politicians more threatening the more they called attention to their blackness.

    Gender and race in American society don’t operate on the same level. I’m not getting into who has it worse–I always find debates like that useless. There are ways in which American society is more racist than sexist, and ways in which it is more sexist than racist. But there really isn’t any equivalent among women politicians to the phenomenon I described about black politicians being subtly cast as non-mainstream, and I think that barrier more than any other explains why it took so long till we had a viable black presidential candidate, let alone president, so I can understand why Obama took such a hands-off approach to the historic nature of his candidacy while Hillary has not.

  22. Jenos Idanian says:

    @EddieInCA: In case you missed it, Hillary’s server no longer exists. The only way the Russians could release those emails is if they already have them.

    And that’s a fairly safe bet.

  23. gVOR08 says:

    I’m looking at the Philly convention and Trump’s response. I’m also trying to imagine how friends and acquaintances who lean right or are apolitical see this.

    I’m seeing a celebration of diversity, they’re feeling a little threatened. I’m seeing a well-deserved victory lap for feminism, they’re not seeing what the fuss is about. I’m seeing a strong, well-qualified candidate, they’re seeing a pushy woman with a shrill voice. I see Trump inviting Russia to meddle, they see a joke at Hillary’s expense. I see a Republican candidate overly enmeshed with Putin’s buddies, they see that as a ridiculous charge, no more to be taken seriously than Iran-Contra was.

    I saw a Trump commercial this morning. Very well produced. A lot of shots of factory workers followed by a statement that Trump/Pence will bring back good jobs. I see simple minded assertion with no evidence to back it up. They like simple and believe all it takes is the will that wimpy Democrats lack.

    I’m worried. As Dems paint Trump as evil and risky, they see strong and decisive. The Dems need to figure out how to make Trump look ridiculous. It shouldn’t be that hard. Also, where are his damn tax returns?

  24. Jenos Idanian says:

    Last night was wonderful. Not only did we all get to hear all about Hillary’s genitalia and how it makes her eminently qualified to be president (which is good, because she has nothing else to recommend her), but we all got to mourn the loss of wanna-be cop-killers.

    That was the mother of Michael Brown, “the gentle giant” of Ferguson who was killed after trying to kill a cop, and who never said “hands up, don’t shoot,” which became the rallying cry of the anti-cop movement.

  25. Jenos Idanian says:

    One thing that will be a big factor come November is passion. Candidates who inspire passion in their followers tend to win. Obama had it, Clinton had it, Reagan had it., George W. Bush had it in 2004.

    Bernie Sanders had it, but the system was designed to keep him out. Hillary doesn’t.

    Trump does.

  26. Guarneri says:

    The Russians might do what with her emails ??

    Time for Bill to randomly run into Putin on the tarmac to have a discussion about grandchildren…….

  27. Jen says:

    @Scott: I’m thinking it might be time for a revival of Lysistrata.

  28. ltmcdies says:

    @Guarneri:
    From where I sit it appears Donald Trump is encouraging a foreign power to attempt to influence your election.

    along with his fund raising emails to foreigners and his reluctance to release his tax returns….his giving the Grand Ole Party an even bigger black eye than it already sports.

    I am picturing the reactions to a one Barack Obama had he done even one of those things during his campaign.

  29. Jen says:

    @Kylopod:

    […] and so did Sarah Palin in 2008

    Did she? As the first female VP on a major ticket? That was Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.

  30. al-Alameda says:

    @Guarneri:

    Time for Bill to randomly run into Putin on the tarmac to have a discussion about grandchildren…….

    That would be Trump’s business

  31. JKB says:

    I flipped over to the convention about 10:15 and caught Bill just telling how he reached out to touch the girl, but feared it might lead to more. I thought he was confessing to one of his many sexual assaults. It was a few more minutes before their staring eyes locked across the law library.

    Then at the end, Hillary head (and shoulders wearing a Red Mao blouse) shows up on the jumbotron like Dear Leader from ‘V for Vendetta’.

  32. JKB says:

    @al-Alameda: That would be Trump’s business

    Except it was the Democrats who have the history of seeking Russian help with elections back in ’84 when Putin up and coming in the KGB.

  33. Moosebreath says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    “Not only did we all get to hear all about Hillary’s genitalia”

    Actually, we didn’t. It’s only the candidate you fluff for that feels compelled to discuss his private parts, and who gets defensive about his “short comings”.

  34. Scott says:

    @Jen: Ha! Surely, men have changed in 2400 years! Then again, maybe not.

  35. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @michael reynolds:

    But I’m overseas so I’m getting nothing ‘live’. (Probably a blessing.)

    Worked well for me over 8 years in Korea!

  36. Guarneri says:

    @gVOR08:

    I see a congenital liar who tried to destroy the women who were Billy’s sexual exploitation victims, just to retain her political viability.

    Nice role model, and superb pick for first woman president ever.

  37. David M says:

    As a public service reminder, Hillary Clinton is a relatively honest politician, and much more reliable than Trump or any of the other GOP candidates.

    http://ritholtz.com/2016/07/fact-checking-2016-presidential-candidates/

  38. Guarneri says:

    “From where I sit it appears Donald Trump is encouraging a foreign power to attempt to influence your election.”

    Now that’s odd. She tells us those emails are just yoga poses, wedding plans and cookie recipes. Don’t see how the release could affect an election. In fact, she ought to be thrilled, so the country can finally see how she was telling us the truth all along, just a bunch of yoga poses and……

    She would be totally exonerated, right? Right??

  39. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:
  40. Kylopod says:

    @Jen:

    Did she? As the first female VP on a major ticket? That was Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.

    No, it was more a general talk about breaking the glass ceiling, and perhaps becoming the first actual woman vice president:

    I can’t begin this great effort without honoring the achievements of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, and of course Senator Hillary Clinton, who showed such determination and grace in her presidential campaign. It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America, but it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.

  41. Bob@Youngstown says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    And that’s a fairly safe bet

    Based on what?

  42. Bob@Youngstown says:

    @Guarneri:

    just a bunch of yoga poses and……

    Maybe you are actually on to something there.

    If they were just innocuous emails, why would the Russians (or other computer criminals) bother to release them.

  43. Pch101 says:

    @Scott:

    I would expect that most spouses who disagree on political matters will vote as they would have, anyway. They can ignore the subject, or talk around it, or nod their heads in agreement while tuning it out, or just lie about it.

  44. Moosebreath says:

    @ltmcdies:

    “From where I sit it appears Donald Trump is encouraging a foreign power to attempt to influence your election.”

    And here’s a list of some things Putin has gotten from Trump in return. I guess Trump really is good at the art of the deal, as he is giving away things that don’t matter to him, such as security for our treaty allies, in exchange for something that benefits him personally.

  45. Guarneri says:

    @Bob@Youngstown:

    For the same reason Trump suggested they be released. In a magnanimous gesture in pursuit of truth and fair play Mr Trump simply sees an opportunity to set the record straight. I know all commenters here, indeed all Americans, will want to join me in hoping they be released so that all these false charges against Ms Clinton can be cleared.

    In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if in her acceptance speech she too called for their release so she could stick it right up the arse of all the naysayers. What with the tragic loss of the emails from her server, the Russians offer redemption. You don’t get too many second chances in life.

    And we wouldn’t want misguided speculation about great chocolate cookie recipes to cause party disunity, now would we?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/NoBernieNoUnity/status/758156349138239489

  46. Jeremy R says:

    @EddieInCA:

    The whole presser was bonkers. He also suggested he’d renegotiated the Geneva Conventions to allow for “Enhanced Interrogation,” repeatedly criticized Tim Kaine for his job performance in New Jersey, doubled down on his criticisms of NATO, called Obama “the most ignorant president in our history”, bragged that he thinks Putin respects him but not Sec. Clinton or Pres. Obama, told a story about a ‘friend’ who advises against visiting France anymore because “France is no longer France” (he repeated that three times), and complained about “David Hinkley”‘s upcoming release.

  47. David M says:

    So Trump doesn’t release his tax returns and it’s no big deal, but Hillary Clinton doesn’t release personal emails and it’s the end of the world according to the Trump cultists.

  48. Jeremy R says:

    @Jeremy R:

    I missed a pretty big one in that list from Trump’s presser:

    Trump to look at recognizing Crimea as Russian territory, lifting sanctions

    Donald Trump said Wednesday he would consider recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and lifting the sanctions against the country if he’s elected president.

    From the WaPo transcript:

    QUESTION: I would like to know if you became president, would you recognize (inaudible) Crimea as Russian territory? And also if the U.S. would lift sanctions that are (inaudible)?

    TRUMP: We’ll be looking at that. Yeah, we’ll be looking.

  49. gVOR08 says:

    @Pch101: If I listen to the men in my neighborhood talk politics, then read the returns from our precinct, it becomes obvious a lot of wives lie to their husbands about politics.

  50. wr says:

    @Guarneri: The most astonishing things about this stream of messages is that you seem to think they make you look clever. Wow. Just wow.

  51. grumpy realist says:

    @Gustopher: Ask several of your female friends what they think about it.

    I find it embarrassing that it’s taken the US so long to get to a point that was reached years ago by the Brits, Israel, Germany, and India–namely, the nomination of a woman as the head of the country.

  52. Guarneri says:

    @wr:

    You totally miss the point. I’m just a guy who wants the truth about Hillary’s innocuous emails out for everyone to see. This poor woman is being framed. I’m shocked (shocked !!) that you aren’t joining arm in arm with me to right this injustice. You of all people wouldn’t want to obfuscate. Right??

  53. al-Alameda says:

    @JKB:

    Except it was the Democrats who have the history of seeking Russian help with elections back in ’84 when Putin up and coming in the KGB.

    You must be misremembering, you’re thinking of Reagan and Iran-Contra back in 1980. But thanks for thinking of me.

  54. An Interested Party says:

    You know the GOP is in trouble when the usual gang of fools is on full display here…we got the Star Wars guy trash talking people who have lost their loved ones to violence which is funny considering one of those people lost her son to an idiot that Star Wars guy was fluffing for months…then we have the alleged tycoon downplaying possible treason on Trump’s part and finally, we have the nutty conspiracy theory guy projecting treason onto Democrats when it is Trump who is the one being so cozy with Putin…

  55. Liberal Capitalist says:

    @steve s:

    …roiled by multiple pasty factions…

    Oh yah… I can see dat.

    You go tell a Yooper that a pasty don’t have no beef in it, and you know there’s a problem dere.

    Oh sure.. ya got potatoes and yer onions, but you go putin chik’n or just vege terr ean, well, you just better leave mister!

  56. Mister Bluster says:

    So Hillary Clinton has changed her mind about public policy regulating immigration.
    Where ever has this happened before?
    Oh yeah. There was that long hot summer in Philidelphia in 1787.

    Mr. KING objected to one of the rules in the report authorizing any member to call for the Yeas and Nays and have them entered on the minutes. He urged that, as the acts of the Convention were not to bind the constituents, it was unnecessary to exhibit this evidence of the votes; and improper, as changes of opinion would be frequent in the course of the business, and would fill the minutes with contradictions.

    Colonel MASON seconded the objection, adding, that such a record of the opinions of members would be an obstacle to a change of them on conviction; and in case of its being hereafter promulged, must furnish handles to the adversaries of the result of the meeting.

    The proposed rule was rejected, nem. con. The standing rules agreed to were as follows: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0528-2/

  57. Pch101 says:

    @Jeremy R:

    First, it was Iran-Contra. Now, it’s Email-Crimea.

    It’s odd how these right-wingers have no shame about wrapping themselves in the flag as they commit treason.

  58. wr says:

    @Guarneri: Yep, nothing improves an unfunny joke more than running it into the ground.

  59. michael reynolds says:

    @Guarneri:

    Your candidate is asking a foreign dictator to help him get elected. So STFU. Really, just STFU.

  60. michael reynolds says:

    @Scott:

    I’d guess there’s a correlation with IQ. Frankly dumb guys are threatened by women, smarter men have generally learned to listen to women. It took me a while, though I started to get it around 1979. So dumb guys won’t be moved, dumb women will be?

  61. Gustopher says:

    @michael reynolds:
    @Pch101:
    @Kylopod:
    @grumpy realist:

    So, I totally agree that it is a historic nomination and that should be acknowledged, and that putting an emphasis on that fires up the base, and it fires up the women watching.

    I’m a product of my age and upbringing, so I definitely notice that there are a lot more women on stage, and that women are taking the center stage throughout the convention. I’m also pretty liberal and a big boy, so I’m ok with that.

    I worry that I am ok with it mostly because I am more liberal than most, and that I recognize and am a bit bothered that my reactions have a bit of sexism to them. I worry that most men are not more liberal than most, and wouldn’t recognize that their reactions are a bit sexist — they will just feel threatened and excluded.

    We need to energize our core demographics, but not inadvertently exclude the demographics we need to be doing better in.

    Obama threaded the line between being a historic first black nominee, and being the most traditional nominee humanly possible — and he did it brilliantly. Clinton is going for a different approach.

    I’ll be happy to be proven wrong, but I think Obama’s approach was better*. I think there is a lot more sexism than people realize.

    * I don’t think 2008 America would have reacted well to Michelle Obama’s comments about slaves building the White House — they needed 8 years of Obama before they would be comfortable acknowledging that.

  62. michael reynolds says:

    @Gustopher:
    I don’t at all disagree that Democrats need outreach to white, working class voters. That’s what Biden’s speech tonight will be, and it’s part of the reason for Tim Kaine.

  63. gVOR08 says:

    @Pch101: Let’s not forget Nixon sabotaging Johnson’s Vietnam peace talks.

  64. michael reynolds says:

    @wr:
    He’s the perfect Trump supporter: no core beliefs, lots of rage, no sense of humor (but thinks he does, which is just painful), bigoted, loud, ignorant, and devoid of integrity.

  65. Matt says:

    @bill: Well lets look at what the Republican vice presidential candidate said at the Republican convention then.

    Mike Pence: “I’m a Christian, a Conservative and a Republican. In That Order”

    Being an American didn’t even hit the top three. So yeah tell us about how the Republicans are country first and junk….

  66. Mr. Bluster says:

    @Liberal Capitalist:..go Putin chik’n

    Like Pokémon. The Donald searches for any chik’n the Russian leader will feed to his campaign.

    …if Vladimir Putin were simply the CEO of a major American corporation and there was this much money flowing in Trump’s direction, combined with this much solicitousness of Putin’s policy agenda, it would set off alarm bells galore. That is not hyperbole or exaggeration. And yet Putin is not the CEO of an American corporation. He’s the autocrat who rules a foreign state, with an increasingly hostile posture towards the United States and a substantial stockpile of nuclear weapons. The stakes involved in finding out ‘what’s going on’ as Trump might put it are quite a bit higher.
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

  67. Bob@Youngstown says:

    @Guarneri:
    Do you give guided tours on your alternative universe?

  68. Monala says:

    @Jen: Spike Lee already did it. See his film Chi-Raq.

  69. Tyrell says:

    And outside some protesters were burning US flags. In some cases other people, including at least one veteran, stepped in and stopped this inexcusable, unpatriotic behavior. The police should have stopped it.

  70. bill says:

    @al-Alameda:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNj06em7cfo

    memories!
    but seriously folks, i watched none of the rnc and didn’t plan on watching the dnc either- but was stuck in some airport for a few hours and had to watch a bunch of washed up feminazi’s tell us that white men are bad and sexist….while telling us we need a white woman president. yes, it was “special”.

  71. anjin-san says:

    @bill:

    feminazi

    You don’t have a lot of confidence in your own manhood, do you?

  72. michael reynolds says:

    @bill:

    One thing you could try is not proving all those women right by being a sexist jerk. Just a thought. Or are you under the impression that you are the one perfect human being on earth?

  73. al-Alameda says:

    @bill:

    but seriously folks, i watched none of the rnc and didn’t plan on watching the dnc either- but was stuck in some airport for a few hours and had to watch a bunch of washed up feminazi’s tell us that white men are bad and sexist….while telling us we need a white woman president. yes, it was “special”.

    “feminazi’s”? Yes it is a drag for a lot of guys that women now have the right to vote, as well as the right to be treated fairly in their athletic endeavors. That’s not enough either – apparently women have the ongoing nerve and unmitigated gall to ask that women be compensated at the same level as men are for doing the same work. Many guys do seem to be bothered by all of that.

    Also, if I could ask a simple question: How many women have been elected president in our 240 year history? Oh never mind … none. It seems to me that the election of a woman as president is indeed special (or “special” if you prefer.)

  74. bill says:

    @anjin-san: plenty, are you compensating for something?

    @michael reynolds: not at all, but at the end of the day these “women” just pander to the “fat broads who can’t get laid crowd”/ aka “man-haters”. sexism is a 2 way street, as is racism.

    @al-Alameda: well it was very nice of the republican party to get women the right to vote- blacks too. and seeing as women actually make up more than half the electorate, who’s fault is it that none were elected? but that in itself is “sexist” isn’t it, we vote for the person, not their sex,race,hair,etc. – right?

    i wondered why they had those blm moms on stage- they normally get 90+% of the black vote anyways so are they worried about that or something?
    and the media pandering to a bunch of crappy moms who’s kids were out of control is pretty condescending to me. i mean aside from the 2 moms who’s kids were gunned down by black gang members (ironically they had the same last name s their kids!), they were nothing to brag about let alone pity. but then again, when you have lowered expectations of people due to their race and just compensate for them generation after generation…. well, get it?

  75. Grewgills says:

    @bill:

    at the end of the day these “women” just pander to the “fat broads who can’t get laid crowd”/ aka “man-haters”. sexism is a 2 way street, as is racism.

    Wow, you are as sexist as you are racist, your pretend African American girlfriend must be so proud.

  76. al-Alameda says:

    @bill:

    well it was very nice of the republican party to get women the right to vote- blacks too. and seeing as women actually make up more than half the electorate, who’s fault is it that none were elected? but that in itself is “sexist” isn’t it, we vote for the person, not their sex,race,hair,etc. – right?

    (1) Right to vote? Today’s Republican Party would very likely have none of that right-to-vote stuff if it was up for approval now.
    (2) Whose fault? I believe I expressed the opinion that that the election of the first female president would indeed be a special moment in American history. You disagree?

    As you may know, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor graduated third in her class at Stanford Law School (which included William Rehnquist) in 1953, and yet had no career offers from law firms, and was actually offered a position as a legal secretary. One of the most talented people at one of the best law schools had no offers other than that. So, yes, in that context, I think it’s “special” that a woman may be elected president, whether it is Hillary, Susan Collins, or even Michelle Bachmann.

  77. gVOR08 says:

    @gVOR08: Too late in the thread, but I think the Dems are doing pretty good. Obama seems to have blown everyone away last night. I wasted a little time listening to FOX this morning. They were having to really stretch to spin it. Kaine and Biden did good. I’d love to know whether the Dems approached Bloomberg or he approached them, but in his stiff, stilted way, he was hugely effective. “I’m a New Yorker, and I know a con when I see one.” Perfect. And from a guy who really is a multi-billionaire, that had to leave a mark.

    And everyone seemed to hit Trump hard without conveying any fear or respect for him. A good start to making him look ridiculous. Although one has to give Trump credit for helping a lot with that press conference.

  78. al-Alameda says:

    @gVOR08:

    I’d love to know whether the Dems approached Bloomberg or he approached them, but in his stiff, stilted way, he was hugely effective. “I’m a New Yorker, and I know a con when I see one.” Perfect. And from a guy who really is a multi-billionaire, that had to leave a mark.

    Until Barack Obama spoke, I thought Michael Bloomberg was easily the most effective speaker. He was to the point, cool and efficient: he made Trump seem very small and emasculated.

  79. Matt says:

    @Jenos Idanian: It’s a very safe bet that they don’t have those emails. They do have emails from the official government servers though..