Support NeoGAF

[nynt9]

Watch here: What Hillary Clinton really thinks - YouTube - m.youtube.com
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GGm0FQ6i74U&feature=youtu.be

Here's how Ezra describes the interview:

"On Tuesday morning, I sat down with Clinton for an hour on the first official day of her book tour. It is a cliché that stiff candidates become freer, easier, and more confident after they lose — see Gore, Al — but it is true for Clinton. Jon Stewart used to talk of the “buffering” you could see happening in the milliseconds between when Clinton was asked a question and when she answered; the moments when she played out the angles, envisioned the ways her words could be twisted, and came up with a response devoid of danger but suffused with caution. That buffering is gone.
In our conversation, she was as quick and confident as I’ve seen her, making the case for her politics without worrying too much about the coalitional angles or the possible lines of offense. And she says plenty that can, and will, offend. In our discussion, she lit into Bernie Sanders’s single-payer plan, warned that Donald Trump is dragging us down an authoritarian path, spoke openly of the role racism and white resentment played in the campaign, and argued that the outcome of the 2016 election represented a failure of the media above all. This was Clinton unleashed, and while she talked about what happened, it was much more interesting when she talked about what she believed should have happened"

 

[pigeon]

Yas queen

 

[Sweeney Tom]

Proud of her for it too. Hold nothing back

 

[cordy]

Let's get it!

 

[Greatest Ever]

Wasn't a huge fan of Ezra's reporting style during the election, but given the other option I can see why it was the way it was. And it was more style over substance that bothered me, his actual work is really good.

Hopefully he didn't throw softballs.

 

[jerry113]

In our conversation, she was as quick and confident as I've seen her, making the case for her politics without worrying too much about the coalitional angles or the possible lines of offense. And she says plenty that can, and will, offend. In our discussion, she lit into Bernie Sanders's single-payer plan, warned that Donald Trump is dragging us down an authoritarian path, spoke openly of the role racism and white resentment played in the campaign, and argued that the outcome of the 2016 election represented a failure of the media above all. This was Clinton unleashed, and while she talked about what happened, it was much more interesting when she talked about what she believed should have happened"

Right and this is more how future Democratic candidates should speak and talk like: with passion and with less filtered concern for prim and properness and electability. Appeal to the people's emotions with a clear and marketable message, and go for their hearts - don't hold back.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Its crazy that Trump got the gig instead of Hillary.

 

[MIMIC]

Regarding the media, I think they're always going to shine a much brighter on the most controversial figure. Ratings/controversy sells, whether you're a contestant on American Idol or running for President. Just look at Sarah Palin and how much coverage she got over McCain. Had she been some drab politician who never said anything, we wouldn't even remember her as well as we do.

 

[QuantumBro]

Glad she unleashed herself just in time for election day.

 

[kirblar]

Clinton almost ran on UBI: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...-basic-income-alaska-for-america-peter-barnes

Before I ran for President, I read a book called With Liberty and Dividends for All: How to Save Our Middle Class When Jobs Don't Pay Enough, by Peter Barnes, which explored the idea of creating a new fund that would use revenue from shared national resources to pay a dividend to every citizen, much like how the Alaska Permanent Fund distributes the state's oil royalties every year. Shared national resources include oil and gas extracted from public lands and the public airwaves used by broadcasters and mobile phone companies, but that gets you only so far. If you view the nation's financial system as a shared resource, then you can start raising real money from things like a financial transactions tax. Same with the air we breathe and carbon pricing.

Once you capitalize the fund, you can provide every American with a modest basic income every year [emphasis Vox's]. Besides cash in people's pockets, it would also be a way of making every American feel more connected to our country and to one another—part of something bigger than ourselves. I was fascinated by this idea, as was my husband, and we spent weeks working with our policy team to see if it could be viable enough to include in my campaign. We would call it ”Alaska for America." Unfortunately, we couldn't make the numbers work. To provide a meaningful dividend each year to every citizen, you'd have to raise enormous sums of money, and that would either mean a lot of new taxes or cannibalizing other important programs. We decided it was exciting but not realistic, and left it on the shelf. That was the responsible decision. I wonder now whether we should have thrown caution to the wind and embraced ”Alaska for America" as a long-term goal and figured out the details later.

Let's be clear: ”Alaska for America" would mean, just like the actual Alaska Permanent Fund, establishing a universal basic income. And Clinton understands this, even calling the benefit a ”basic income."

The Alaska Permanent Fund is a state-owned investment fund established using oil revenues. It has, since 1982, paid out an annual dividend to every man, woman, and child living in Alaska. In 2015, with oil prices high, the dividend totaled $2,072 per person, or $8,288 for a family of four. In 2016 it was cut down to $1,022 due to money being diverted to other purposes, and in cheaper gas years it can dip into the $800 to $900 range. But regardless, it is the only program in the US — and one of the few in the developed world — offering cash to every citizen, no strings attached.

And it works. It's tremendously popular, supported by Republican and Democratic governors alike (Sarah Palin was a big fan during her time in office), and research by University of Chicago economist Damon Jones and University of Pennsylvania economist Ioana Marinescu has found that the dividend doesn't discourage work. It appears to cause a small increase in the share of people working part time, but Jones and Marinescu conclude it has no overall effect on the share of the population working. Indeed, the part-time work boost could come from people entering the workforce anew.

She ultimately didn't go with it because they couldn't get the math to work right w/ the expectation that they'd have a GOP-controlled congress preventing most tax code changes.

Capitalism.

Journalism is always going to have the eternal problem where your best and brightest...tend to be doing actual stuff, rather than reporting on other people doing stuff.

 

[JustenP88]

In our discussion, she lit into Bernie Sanders’s single-payer plan, warned that Donald Trump is dragging us down an authoritarian path, spoke openly of the role racism and white resentment played in the campaign, and argued that the outcome of the 2016 election represented a failure of the media above all. This was Clinton unleashed

Clinton unleashed sounds like Clinton.

 

[WhateverItTakes]

Glad she unleashed herself just in time for election day.

Can't particularly blame her for being careful during the election considering how she was getting savaged for every little move. Though maybe more fire could have helped her. Then again she's still getting flak for the whole 'deplorables' thing.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Clinton almost ran on UBI: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...-basic-income-alaska-for-america-peter-barnes

She ultimately didn't go with it because they couldn't get the math to work right w/ the expectation that they'd have a GOP-controlled congress preventing most tax code changes.

What a neoliberal corporate shill!

Interesting stuff, watched the first ten minutes or so, will watch the rest later.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

I would vote for her again in 2020

 

[kirblar]

Can't particularly blame her for being careful during the election considering how she was getting savaged for every little move. Though maybe more fire could have helped her. Then again she's still getting flak for the whole 'deplorables' thing.

Snarky, raw Hillary was always Best Hillary, but she had 30+ years of learned behavior she couldn't unlearn.

She was always someone who was better as a top advisor or high-level appointee, not as the actual candidate for a lot of reasons, and unfortunately never had the self-awareness to realize this.

 

[Vixdean]

I would vote for her again in 2020

Yup, the Democrats still don't have a better candidate and probably won't.

 

[Henchmen21]

I would vote for her again in 2020

Yup, the Democrats still don't have a better candidate and probably won't.

So you both want 4 more years of Trump?

 

[Jenov]

Clinton almost ran on UBI: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...-basic-income-alaska-for-america-peter-barnes




She ultimately didn't go with it because they couldn't get the math to work right w/ the expectation that they'd have a GOP-controlled congress preventing most tax code changes.

Journalism is always going to have the eternal problem where your best and brightest...tend to be doing actual stuff, rather than reporting on other people doing stuff.

Very interesting.

Edit: Oh nice, she talks about in the first part of the interview. Damn shame this woman wasn't made our president because of a bunch of bullshit.

 

[FiggyCal]

So you both want 4 more years of Trump?

Just because Trump beat her once doesn't mean he'll do it again. We won't know if we don't try!

 

[kirblar]

Yup, the Democrats still don't have a better candidate and probably won't.

The Dems have an enormous backlog of good candidates because of Clinton sucking up the oxygen this cycle. Just wait till the primaries, it'll be a battle royale.

 

[JustenP88]

Yup, the Democrats still don't have a better candidate and probably won't.

This is absurd.

A ton of Democrats are better candidates in national elections than Hillary Clinton.

 

[FiggyCal]

What a neoliberal corporate shill!

Interesting stuff, watched the first ten minutes or so, will watch the rest later.

It's surprising then that she thought Bernie was promising ponies.

 

[entremet]

Yup, the Democrats still don't have a better candidate and probably won't.

Hillary was one of the more unlikable candidates in recent memory.

 

[Henchmen21]

It's surprising then that she thought Bernie was promising ponies.

It's also most likely complete BS that she's trying to sell to make herself look good considering there's no evidence prior that she supported it.

 

[Vixdean]

This is absurd.

A ton of Democrats are better candidates in national elections than Hillary Clinton.

Let me rephrase: the Democrats still don't have anyone more capable of doing the job of President. She would have been better than Obama. Clearly, she won't run again and if she did she'd lose, but only because the electorate are a bunch of fucking idiots.

 

[WhateverItTakes]

It's surprising then that she thought Bernie was selling ponies.

Surely then it kind of makes her views on that more legitimate? There was a policy that she wanted to implement, but didn't because it didn't seem feasible. She had a problem with him not doing the same, in terms of debating at least. Though I can't honestly remember how well costed Bernie's plans were.

It's also most likely complete BS that she's trying to sell to make herself look good considering there's no evidence prior that she supported it.

Why would she lie?

 

[Elwood Blues]

Please don't run again.

 

[Volimar]

She could have been a good president bridging the gap between centrists and liberals even as Bernie continued to push the agenda left. Sadly she'll never get the chance now. Too many people will consider her unelectable that they'd make it a self fulfilling prophecy.


I'm interested to see who surfaces as we get closer to 2018 and beyond.

 

[kirblar]

It's surprising then that she thought Bernie was promising ponies.

Is it? She was annoyed that he was proposing things that she had abandoned because she couldn't find a way to pay for them.

 

[tbm24]

The Dems have an enormous backlog of good candidates because of Clinton sucking up the oxygen this cycle. Just wait till the primaries, it'll be a battle royale.

Im not looking forward to Booker trying to talk policy, assuming the 2020 primary even involved policy discussion.

 

[Calion]

Just because Trump beat her once doesn't mean he'll do it again. We won't know if we don't try!

You really want to take that risk again?

 

[Elwood Blues]

Too many people will consider her unelectable that they'd make it a self fulfilling prophecy.

She lost to Trump. The prophecy has been fulfilled.

 

[Henchmen21]

You really want to take that risk again?

Pretty sure Figgy was being sarcastic

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

She's not running again for fucks sake

And if voters or the EC choose Trump again than America deserves to fall

 

[Suikoguy]

The Dems have an enormous backlog of good candidates because of Clinton sucking up the oxygen this cycle. Just wait till the primaries, it'll be a battle royale.

Her taking the spotlight for awhile is a good thing. We don't want to be having a "primary battle royale" yet among the new candiates.

Especially since Clinton is obviously not running in 2020.

 

[SeanC]

Listened to her interview on Pod Save America as well, a good hour of her very candid on it. And yeah, no buffering, she just responds and had no qualms on the fact that Trump is the worst thing to happen to this country.

That downvote ratio tho...

 

[Henchmen21]

Surely then it kind of makes her views on that more legitimate? There was a policy that she wanted to implement, but didn't because it didn't seem feasible. She had a problem with him not doing the same, in terms of debating at least. Though I can't honestly remember how well costed Bernie's plans were.



Why would she lie?

I don't know, why would Mrs. "Sniper Fire in Bosnia" lie?

 

[FiggyCal]

Is it? She was annoyed that he was proposing things that she had abandoned because she couldn't find a way to pay for them.

I can't agree with the idea that something like universal healthcare is completely unfeasible, but that she was seriously considering basic income.

 

[kirblar]

Her taking the spotlight for awhile is a good thing. We don't want to be having a "primary battle royale" yet among the new candiates.

Especially since Clinton is obviously not running in 2020.

Feels like the "where's the leader? we're doomed!" stuff is coming from younger folks who don't remember a pre-Obama US, and from folks in the EU and other countries where the parties operate differently due to parliamentary structures.

In the US election cycle, you want to dodge the line of sight of the GOP as much as you can leading up to 2019.

I can't agree with the idea that something like universal healthcare is completely unfeasible, but that she was seriously considering basic income.

It's the same rationale for both - she can't get it through an expected GOP congress and doesn't want to deliberately propose policies she knows would fail.

Clinton's supported UHC for eons.

 

[tbm24]

I can't agree with the idea that something like universal healthcare is completely unfeasible, but that she was seriously considering basic income.

No one has said UHC was unfeasible.

 

[Eidan]

Good interview. I'm glad she had no reservations on calling out the racial resentment that energized Trump's voters.

 

[Palette Swap]

She's on this week's Pod Save America, and she sounds pretty candid, not really what I expected. There's still a lot of hindsight obviously.

(Haha, just saw SeanC's post, now everyone is going to know we get these checks from Bezos)

 

[KingV]

Clinton almost ran on UBI: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...-basic-income-alaska-for-america-peter-barnes




She ultimately didn't go with it because they couldn't get the math to work right w/ the expectation that they'd have a GOP-controlled congress preventing most tax code changes.

Journalism is always going to have the eternal problem where your best and brightest...tend to be doing actual stuff, rather than reporting on other people doing stuff.

This highlights one of Clintons biggest shortcomings. She only supports things that are "realistic" and as a result she pre-negotiates with the Republican Party before she even gets to what's possible. Obama did this too from about 2010-2011 and then started to wise up once he realized that they would oppose literally anything they supported.

If Hillarys starting point was "I'm only going to propose things that can pass the Republican house" than she should have run on her own impeachment, building a 10 foot wall instead of a 20 foot one, and a double dose of tax cuts.

One thing I won't fault Bernie for is asking for things that aren't possible in today's political environment, because if you don't ask for something you certainly won't get it. The republicans have learned this well by staking out extreme right positions and getting 1/3 of the way there in negotiations, whereas the democrats start halfway between what liberals want and what Republicans want and then typically go about another half further in negotiations.

 

[FiggyCal]

Well I should clarify that I am happy that she supported basic income. I think that's a good thing, even if she ultimately decided to drop it from her campaign. But the whole "promising ponies" thing is insulting when she, at least at some point, supported the same things Bernie has: universal healthcare, higher minimum wage, etc.

No one has said UHC was unfeasible.

Maybe unfeasible is the wrong word, but she clearly didn't think it would work.

 

[Suikoguy]

No one has said UHC was unfeasible.

It's all in the implementation.

Certain forms and setups of UHC are possible.

 

[Eidan]

She also makes a good point on the whole, "running on hopes and aspirations, screw the details" thing. She could've tried, but no one would buy it from her. From Clinton, people expect details, even if this election showed the media wasn't keen on reportIng them.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

The healthcare system in this country is never going to be fixed as best as it can be until we have UHC. Either that or have government price controlling everything, which happens in either senerio. The current system has two sets of people trying to profit off you, the insurance companies and the providers/pharama. And even the left leaning people in these industries are like "wo wo, wait a minute, lets not get too rash!". They profit big time on how the industry is.

Its completely unreasonable that we pay twice as much as most modern countries.

The system is also too damn complex with premiums, deductibles, copays, yadda yadda bullshit.

 

[xxracerxx]

Well I should clarify that I am happy that she supported basic income. I think that's a good thing, even if she ultimately decided to drop it from her campaign. But the whole "promising ponies" thing is insulting when she, at least at some point, supported the same things Bernie has: universal healthcare, higher minimum wage, etc.

You know the 'promising ponies' part had to do with no actual road map on how to accomplish those goals in the current political climate, and not the overall agenda item correct?

 

[kirblar]

This highlights one of Clintons biggest shortcomings. She only supports things that are "realistic" and as a result she pre-negotiates with the Republican Party before she even gets to what's possible. Obama did this too from about 2010-2011 and then started to wise up once he realized that they would oppose literally anything they supported.

If Hillarys starting point was "I'm only going to propose things that can pass the Republican house" than she should have run on her own impeachment, building a 10 foot wall instead of a 20 foot one, and a double dose of tax cuts.

One thing I won't fault Bernie for is asking for things that aren't possible in today's political environment, because if you don't ask for something you certainly won't get it. The republicans have learned this well by staking out extreme right positions and getting 1/3 of the way there in negotiations, whereas the democrats start halfway between what liberals want and what Republicans want and then typically go about another half further in negotiations.

I actually don't think this would be true w/ an expected Dem majority. She was the one in '08 warning about compromise w/ the GOP during the primaries, and she was vindicated on that front. But w/ an expected GOP majority, floating pie in the sky proposals you know can't pass could potentially lead to a lot of issues w/ an unhappy base.

 

[Coriolanus]

It's the same rationale for both - she can't get it through an expected GOP congress and doesn't want to deliberately propose policies she knows would fail.

Didn't prevent her from promising loads of stuff like criminal justice reform that she knew would never clear congress tho, or would only clear it if completely corrupted by the republicans, such as whatever version of tax reform democrats could envision.

See the candidate's issues page for more.

I actually don't think this would be true w/ an expected Dem majority. She was the one in '08 warning about compromise w/ the GOP during the primaries, and she was vindicated on that front. But w/ an expected GOP majority, floating pie in the sky proposals you know can't pass could potentially lead to a lot of issues w/ an unhappy base.

And while could very well eventually come to pass, it would still be vastly better to get the seat and piss off your base than to not get the seat at all.