General Discussion

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

47. Mushy non-positions allow people to project their own positions on to her.

Tue Jun 16, 2015, 01:00 PM

Jun 2015

For example, Clinton saying she supports "A living wage" lets a supporter project "she supports $15/hour" onto her, if they want $15/hour. Or $10/hr if they want that. Or whatever calculation the supporter wants to determine "living wage".

It's part of the calculus of DLC-style campaigns. Take no firm positions so that as broad a group as possible can believe you agree with them.

It's exciting when a candidate agrees with everything you want. The problems come when the candidate doesn't actually agree, and so they do not do what you projected onto them. See: Almost anyone disappointed about Obama.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes (TPP) [View all] Man from Pickens Jun 2015 OP

It's really an inferred opposition, weasel words for more wiggle room. AtomicKitten Jun 2015 #1

That GIF.... Bonobo Jun 2015 #2

it gives context to the logo AtomicKitten Jun 2015 #3

LOLariffic! Man from Pickens Jun 2015 #50

Uhhh...which way to the Hospital? SoapBox Jun 2015 #11

ha! I know! glinda Jun 2015 #79

Perfect MissDeeds Jun 2015 #31

......! KoKo Jun 2015 #49

That says it all! Aerows Jun 2015 #75

45 times Clinton pushed for trade bill that she is still pushing by looking for ways to save it Cheese Sandwich Jun 2015 #4

Damn I wished people knew how Government worked. William769 Jun 2015 #5

Oh shit. Better not tell that to the interested industry & lobbyists AtomicKitten Jun 2015 #6

Um. F4lconF16 Jun 2015 #8

Re you kidding me????????????????????? leftofcool Jun 2015 #16

Yeah no problem. F4lconF16 Jun 2015 #19

Oh, hey, I am perfectly willing to believe that all she did was follow orders, djean111 Jun 2015 #24

The Constitution specifies the role of the Secretary of State BainsBane Jun 2015 #57

And look at all the shit I caught for saying what I said. William769 Jun 2015 #58

See response 9. F4lconF16 Jun 2015 #63

Damn I wish some people knew how integrity and principles worked. cui bono Jun 2015 #9

+1 LondonReign2 Jun 2015 #34

I think it's adorable how people think that this game has never been played before. Autumn Jun 2015 #37

I think it's sad when people can't admit they are wrong and move on William769 Jun 2015 #59

My boat floats just fine William, I or no one else need worry about that. Autumn Jun 2015 #62

You really don't know how government works. Exilednight Jun 2015 #15

Wonder if we can get a civics 101 class started? leftofcool Jun 2015 #18

Exactly. She was working for Obama at the time. Every single one BreakfastClub Jun 2015 #20

Her memoir was released 372 days ago. How many days since she's been SoS? cherokeeprogressive Jun 2015 #25

Hey bro' madokie Jun 2015 #46

You are correct, Sir. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2015 #52

Same to you madokie Jun 2015 #55

"She was just following orders!1" m-lekktor Jun 2015 #29

Was she "just following orders" when she wrote her book after she was SoS? jeff47 Jun 2015 #33

Guess what, Obama's Cabinet was not a command and control organization. Particularly for Hillary. leveymg Jun 2015 #38

So she was conscripted as SoS? frylock Jun 2015 #66

Remember you said it, I didn't William769 Jun 2015 #67

So if she didn't agree with what she was asked to do, she had the opportunity to leave? frylock Jun 2015 #68

Like I said have fun spinning this. William769 Jun 2015 #69

But I thought this was a Civics 101 lesson? frylock Jun 2015 #70

As one person put it, she could have resigned. backscatter712 Jun 2015 #73

Look, this weekend she made it perfectly clear......oh, wait, nevermind... Indepatriot Jun 2015 #7

The treaty has been changing over time, so the only position that matters now pnwmom Jun 2015 #10

So you're saying that her position is evolving over time? Fearless Jun 2015 #12

I don't have to have seen the document to know that, over the last few years, pnwmom Jun 2015 #13

I am pretty sure this is one of those hopeless things, ya know? leftofcool Jun 2015 #17

If it wasn't pro-big business when she said it was good in her book jeff47 Jun 2015 #40

If that's true, then she should be able to easily explain Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2015 #27

Well, we really aren't sure she opposes it are we? tularetom Jun 2015 #14

This is true! Like most issues, she's on the fence to keep options open & not tick anyone off RiverLover Jun 2015 #30

It almost makes one suspect that Secretary Clinton will say whatever she thinks her audience wants. Scuba Jun 2015 #21

Did she put on a fake southern accent again? LondonReign2 Jun 2015 #35

Southern accents just ooze sincerity, don't they? Scuba Jun 2015 #42

It may be that her comments came across as unclear because she was in such haste LondonReign2 Jun 2015 #56

When did Sec. Clinton start opposing it? n/t Orsino Jun 2015 #22

Yesterday. bigwillq Jun 2015 #28

Next week? Autumn Jun 2015 #36

So far the funniest thing to come out of this is... FlatBaroque Jun 2015 #23

These replies sound like the blind leading the blind. pangaia Jun 2015 #26

See - here is the dog whistle! yallerdawg Jun 2015 #32

Uh, she wrote a book, you know. jeff47 Jun 2015 #41

"Basic due diligence?" yallerdawg Jun 2015 #43

So you actually quote her saying it's "The Gold Standard", and claim she has no position. jeff47 Jun 2015 #45

Well, you got me. yallerdawg Jun 2015 #51

You think I needed to re-quote the context you quoted. jeff47 Jun 2015 #53

This sort of thing is becoming rather common. okasha Jun 2015 #71

Two old sayings. yallerdawg Jun 2015 #72

True. okasha Jun 2015 #74

Exactly. But way too subtle for the Hillary bashing crowd. DanTex Jun 2015 #64

I agree. yallerdawg Jun 2015 #77

Remember, Bill pretended to oppose "free" trade with China in 1992 Adenoid_Hynkel Jun 2015 #39

I can't wait to get to vote for her madokie Jun 2015 #44

Mushy non-positions allow people to project their own positions on to her. jeff47 Jun 2015 #47

yup madokie Jun 2015 #48

Actually, Elizabeth Warren is NOT against the trade bill, she is against the fast track authority, still_one Jun 2015 #54

Wrong Oilwellian Jun 2015 #60

I am relating what her office told me when I called them several months ago still_one Jun 2015 #61

I hate to state the obvious, but the TPP is and has been a work in progress. DanTex Jun 2015 #65

Since she doesn't have a vote in TPP it really doesn't matter if she is for or against TPP. Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #76

It is interesting to me that people will believe Cnn's interpretation Evergreen Emerald Jun 2015 #78