Taibbi: Hillary Clinton's New Anti-Trump Ad Misses the Mark

[QC]

Clinton accuses Trump of "rooting" for a crash caused by her own donors

A new attack ad put out by the Hillary Clinton campaign this week achieves the near-impossible, making Donald Trump look wronged and (almost) like a victim. More believably, it makes the Democrats look sleazy and disingenuous in comparison.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/hillary-clintons-new-anti-trump-ad-misses-the-mark-20160525

[winter is coming]

1. Good article. Definitely worth a read. n/t

[QC]

2. It really is a good one.

Hard to believe that Hillary would go there, given her ties to the people who crashed the economy to start with.

Come to think of it, nominating someone in the pocket of the big banks would put us at a real disadvantage, wouldn't it?

[winter is coming]

4. She may feel it's safe to "go there" if she thinks the media won't call her on it.

Just like her "big speech" in San Diego. So many unfortunate overtones there if you're aware of Hillary's own FP disasters.

[QC]

5. Well, she has good reason to expect a free pass from the media.

At least for now. They can turn on a dime.

[Cassiopeia]

12. They won't.

Hillary is on their friends and family plan. They'll all find even more wealth with her as potus.

[Mass]

3. Perfect example of why I hate Taibbi. If he cannot understand why what said Trump is wrong at so

many levels, he is out of touch. (and yes, Trump did not create the bubble. However, gaining on the back of people who were losing their life savings was no problem for him, and this is what the ad is denouncing).

If he can and simply hate Clinton, he is a useless tool (and I said that as somebody who does not like Clinton too much).

Interestingly, Taibbi has not spent too much time attacking Trump. I wonder why?

[QC]

6. I don't see him defending Trump here. I see him arguing that

a person closely allied with those who caused a crisis can't credibly attack someone else for benefiting after the fact from the crisis.

Trump is a gargantuan asshole, but so are the Wall Street boys who run four of Clinton's six biggest contributors.

[winter is coming]

8. Thanks. That was more concise that my response, and a better explanation, as well. n/t

[winter is coming]

7. It's generally a good idea to read an article before commenting on it.

You might have seen things like this (emphasis mine):

As for the whole issue of "rooting" for a crash so as to make money off the misery of others, what Donald Trump was talking about — and it's galling to the point of being physically painful to have to defend him here — may sound scummy, but was neither illegal nor even unethical, unless you want to call this kind of capitalism unethical (which some might).

and this:

Several paragraphs explaining how Trump was openly talking about the existence of a bubble in 2006, while Goldman was quietly trying to off-load toxic assests, then...

The difference was, Donald Trump was just talking about making money for himself. Goldman executives were talking about making money at their own clients' expense.

and this:

Trump is a lunatic, but he's gaining strength because his supporters believe his story about being so rich that he's free to tell it like it is. They equally believe his windy diatribes about Beltway pols like Jeb Bush and Hillary being compromised by the great gobs of money they take from corporate donors.

By blaming Trump for a problem caused by their own political patrons, Hillary and the Democrats are walking face-first into Trump's rhetorical buzz-saw. Couldn't they find something else to hit him with?

[Mass]

9. I had read it, and the passages you point are among those I find objectionable.

First, I do not object attacking Dimon or Rubin or co. I object attacking an ad that is truthful. May be QC is correct and it is not the best ad for Clinton as she is supported by those people, but Taibbi does not stop there. He is trying to say Trump did nothing wrong (see your excerpts) except if you are an extremist and reject this type of capitalism.

First, there is no need to defend Trump. He is guilty of making his money speculating on other people's demise. And the fact that the Wall Street bankers are assholes does not mean Trump is attacked unfairly. He is not.

That Taibbi find necessary to say he did not do anything wrong (not even ethically) is problematic. He may not have done anything unlawful, but ethically, his behavior is unacceptable (just as are the behavior of the other nababs). The fact that Taibbi does not think there is something unethical in Trump's behavior is very problematic. This type of capitalism, making money on other people's misery, is unethical.

Finally, Dimon, Rubin and co are not running for president. Trump is.

So, essentially, Clinton's ad is going after Trump for being an unethical asshole. I wont fault her on that. There are enough reason to fault her.

Taibbi, even though he claims doing that unhappily, decides to clear Trump of all faults on this particular issue. I disagree,

What next. Is he going to write an article saying Trump University did nothing wrong and that people should do due diligence. Sorry, I do not buy that.

[winter is coming]

11. Wow. You have some interesting filters. n/t

[Cassiopeia]

13. Eyes wide shut.

[hopemountain]

14. exactly. an exploiter is an exploiter, is an exploiter.

there is no justifying an exploiter (and criminal?) when said exploiter attacks another another exploiter.

[Cassiopeia]

10. Everyone supporting Clinton should read this with an open mind.

Yeah, it can be viewed as a hit piece, but the fact is that it's just a very SIMPLE truth.

[TexasBushwhacker]

15. While I agree with Taibbi regarding Wall Street

I think he's giving the Trump voters, and people who might vote for him, way too much credit. Trump's minions do not understand complexity, but they sure as hell understand losing their job or home (or both!). This is exactly the king of blunt force messages they need to see about their fearless leader.