“Boys will be boys,” but girls must be goddesses.

[Lord Jim]

So inevitable that the Houston, Sacrimento,and Buffalo newspapers ran pictures of Her Husband on the cover today whe SHE won the nomination. Now THAT is misogynistic hatred .


Yrs,
Rubato

Yo, Brainiac...

They ran those pictures because he was the main speaker last night...

Her big night is Thursday...

[rubato]

So inevitable that the Houston, Sacrimento,and Buffalo newspapers ran pictures of Her Husband on the cover today whe SHE won the nomination. Now THAT is misogynistic hatred .


Yrs,
Rubato

Yo, Brainiac...

They ran those pictures because he was the main speaker last night...

Her big night is Thursday...

Under the headline "Clinton wins nomination" it would be correct to have the picture of the Clinton in question. They have had 26 years and many opportunities to tell one from the other. It was a deliberate, sexist,and nasty slight.

A front page with "Trump wins nomination" at the top and only a picture of Melania illustrates how unthinkable the mistake is.




Yrs,
Rubato

[Long Run]

Most of the people I have talked to (men and women) take it (first woman from major party nomination) as a "ho hum" moment and/or that it was inevitable.

I have noted the same, but it is definitely worth celebrating the achievement. There will be plenty of time to do the usual political head-bashing and nit-picking after this week.

[Lord Jim]

It was a deliberate, sexist,and nasty slight.

That's just flat out ridiculous...

A little early in the morning to be tippling rube...

[Long Run]

Why Bill Clinton, not Hillary, appears on front pages across U.S. after historic night at the DNC

By Kelsey Bradshaw Updated 9:49 am, Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Newspaper front pages on July 27, 2016--the day after Hillary Clinton became the first woman to be the nominee of a major party for president.

The internet cried out after former President Bill Clinton was featured on dozens of newspaper front pages Wednesday, a day after Hillary Clinton was officially selected as the Democratic nominee for president, the first woman to do so.

At the 2016 Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton, appeared on screen from New York to speak to attendees and those watching at home. A collage of photos of all 44 presidents, all men, was broken, like a glass ceiling, before she spoke.

"I can't believe we just put the biggest crack in that glass ceiling yet," she told the crowd. "This is really your victory. This is really your night."

But on Wednesday morning, it was Bill, not Hillary, who was splashed across newspapers front pages. People took to Twitter expressing their frustration that even if a woman can get the nomination of a major political party, she couldn't be on the front page.

However, most critics — some claiming sexism was a factor — overlooked that the timing of the speech surpassed print deadlines for newspapers, one of two main reasons for the choice of photos.

And, as San Antonio Express-News photo editors, who also ran a lead image of Bill Clinton — with a secondary image of Hillary — explained, the Democratic nominee appeared on screen, rather than in person (as is tradition), which played into the decision.

A photo of a candidate on a screen, rather than the night's keynote speaker who rallied the crowd, doesn't accurately capture the moment, they said, adding that illustrating the second-night convention coverage with a keynote rather than the nominee is nothing new.

Hillary Clinton will be prominently featured on Friday's front page, after she appears in person to speak Thursday night, the editors said.

Wall Street Journal reporter Byron Tau explained to an upset Twitter user, that the reason Hillary Clinton did not make most front pages was simply due to deadlines. Hillary Clinton spoke too late, and newspapers had to use a photo of Bill. He also pointed out that when Donald Trump was officially voted the Republican nominee for president last week, images of his family appeared on the front page.

The Chicago Tribune was one of the first newspapers to be criticized on Twitter for their front page that featured a photo of Bill Clinton.

The New York Times used a photo of the crowd to commemorate the historic night, while some, like the Austin American-Statesman, did not include a photo from the convention.

The San Antonio Express-News and Houston Chronicle both printed images of Bill Clinton. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram used a photo of the crowd as their main front page art with a smaller photo of Hillary Clinton next to an article. The Dallas Morning News used a photo of Hillary Clinton appearing on the big screen during the convention with the headline "Shattered ceiling."

But nonetheless, Hillary Clinton has made her mark. Speaking directly to young girls at home, she said, "I may become the first woman president, but one of you is next."

http://www.sfgate.com/news/us-world/art ... 460390.php

[Bicycle Bill]

So inevitable that the Houston, Sacrimento,and Buffalo newspapers ran pictures of Her Husband on the cover today whe SHE won the nomination. Now THAT is misogynistic hatred .


Yrs,
Rubato

Yo, Brainiac...

They ran those pictures because he was the main speaker last night...

Her big night is Thursday...

OMG, what is this world coming to when I find myself agreeing with rubato?
Unless LJ can show that one week ago the same papers announced Trump's nomination with a picture of the main speaker from the RNC that night instead of Trumpty-Dumpty himself.

-"BB"-

[Crackpot]

All the high profile speakers avoided the RNC.

[Burning Petard]

It is traditional. Remember, it was the Chicago Trib that entered my children's school American history books with the picture of smiling Pres. Harry S. Truman holding their front page with the banner headline "Dewey Defeats Truman"

snailgate.

[Econoline]

She and her husband - equally repulsive liars.

Our ruling

Hillary Clinton said she and Bill were in debt and dead broke when they left the White House. The public record shows that they possibly had more liabilities than assets, but it doesn’t show that conclusively. More important, a balance sheet does not tell the full story and the experts we reached said the Clintons’ earning potential had a real economic value that the financial sector traditionally acknowledges and is willing to bank on.

A few weeks before they left the White House, the Clintons were able to muster a cash down payment of $855,000 and secure a $1.995 million mortgage. This hardly fits the common meaning of "dead broke."

We rate the claim Mostly False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ead-broke/

Regardless of supposed "earning potential", someone coming from the family and circumstances she came from would likely have felt *VERY* nervous (and yes, for a lot of people "financially *VERY* nervous, in more debt than they've ever taken on, and soon-to-be-unemployed" would FEEL just like "broke"--especially when remembering it several years later).






ETA: The GOP rates the claim "FEELS True".

[MajGenl.Meade]

I bet they were both terrified. "Oh what will happen to us now we are penniless and on the street? Well, in a big mansion on the street. Well, with lots of equity and the certain knowledge that money is, even now, winging its way to us on golden wings"

Yeah, scared witless I bet. Just admit it - she goofed awfully in trying to exhibit the "common touch". Also remembering this is not about lying but about wealth in the nation's political elite.

[oldr_n_wsr]

If it was inevitable then why have the republicans fought against it for so long? Why did the Republicans nominate someone after he made a vile and misogynistic joke about menstruation? Why have they embarrassed themselves with bullshit investigations into Benghazi and emails ( which she admitted and released unlike Bush/Cheney who blocked the public from knowing who they met with to write energy policy).

She did the hard work to be here at this point in history. Nothing inevitable about that.


Yrs,
Rubato

The average joe/jane in the street doesn't give a hoot if the republicans trash Hillary and try and prevent her nomination. The snowball (Hillary for president) has been rolling down hill for the last 8 years and has picked up some really good speed in the last year. People have seen it coming for more than 6 months. To them (and me) that makes it "inevitable" and a ho-hum moment. Yes, history was made, but in the grand scheme of things in these peoples lives, it is not a big deal. Working, getting paid and having enough money to put food on the table every night is "monumental" for them. Having some left money left over at the end of the week, now that is "HISTORY" for them.

And not many average Jane/Joe care that some Buffalo newspaper didn't put Hillary on the cover page nor the excuse reason for it. Will the car get me to work, will the train be on time, is there overtime today, those are their REAL concerns.

Just like having the first black presidential nominee was so "inevitable" that it launched an entire movement dedicated to proving that he was ineligible by virtue of not being a natural born citizen.

Yeah, the average jane/joe that I was talking about was part of that movement.....not.

Most of the people I have talked to (men and women) take it (first woman from major party nomination) as a "ho hum" moment and/or that it was inevitable.

I have noted the same, but it is definitely worth celebrating the achievement.

Regular people go about their regular routines and lives. They have no part in any kind of "movement" to bring down Obama for some "born in" country conspiracy, nor do they assist in the attempt of bringing down of Hillary.

[Lord Jim]

I suppose if one buys into the fantasy view of Hillary Clinton as some sort of saintly person of the highest integrity, always giving selflessly of herself to benefit others, it makes sense to be casting about for alternative explanations (be it vast right wing conspiracies or some sort of misogyny) for why she is so widely seen as not being honest or trustworthy...

However I'm going to go with Occam's Razor, and take the position that the reason so many people give her low marks for being honest and trustworthy is because of the many things she has said and done that fully justify having a low opinion of her honesty and trustworthiness. Since that explains it quite well, I have no need to cook up some alternative theory...

When I see a camel standing in a room, I don't need to spend any time looking around trying to figure out where the bad smell is coming from...

[Econoline]

So how do you account for the fact that when Hillary was pushing her health care plan early in Bill's first term her approval ratings plummeted, but later when Americans got used to her being First Lady they went back up to, what? 67%? by the end of the second term?...or the fact that her approval ratings went down when she announced her candidacy for the Senate but after she'd served a full term she got reelected by a landslide? ...or the fact that when she ran for president in 2008 her approval ratings went down, but went back up after she conceded the nomination to Obama? ...or the fact that she had, IIRC, 66% approval once she had been Secretary of State for a while, but much lower positives and much higher negatives once she resigned that office and began running for POTUS again (even before the email issue came up)?




(For extra credit: why was the killing of 4 Americans in Benghazi the subject of so many more Congressional hearings, investigations, and inquiries than the killing of 17 Americans in Beirut in April 1983 and another 241 Americans in that same city 6 months later?)

[BoSoxGal]

Exactly! She is punished for being an ambitious woman, but when she's seen in positions of power, people approve of her accomplishments and how she comports herself.

Double standard.

[rubato]

It is also a function of when the "Hate Hillary" PR machine is being cranked up. After her record as Sec State, where she was lauded by all, the Repugnicans realized she was a much stronger presidential candidate so they warmed up some bullshit scandals and totally neglected governing to spew lies and exaggerations so long and hard that uncritical minds were persuaded.

Yrs,
Rubato

[Lord Jim]

So how do you account for the fact that when Hillary was pushing her health care plan early in Bill's first term her approval ratings plummeted

That's an easy one...

Because the plan was extremely unpopular...

Bill's popularity plummeted too, (and I don't believe he's a woman) and the Democrats lost control of the House for the first time since 1948 in large part because of it...

And most of the Democrats who lost that year weren't women either...

When a politician is out of the line of fire, (male or female) their popularity tends to be higher for the good and simple reason that they aren't getting the level scrutiny they would when they're directly engaged in political combat...

No doubt Joe Biden's popularity would have gone down if he had gotten in the race too, and he also isn't a woman...

The fact is that Hillary Clinton's words and deeds do not bear up well under close scrutiny...

The people who want to grasp for this psycho-babble "explanation" that she is somehow disliked for being an ambitious woman, and is totally blameless for the perceptions about her honesty and trustworthiness are in deep, deep, denial about her conduct....

The fact is that there is a 100% correlation between negative perceptions of Clinton and things the public has learned about what she has said and done. It has zero to do with her being a woman.

Any man who was caught mishandling classified material the way she did, and then caught lying about it repeatedly the way she did would be just as under water on honesty and trustworthiness as she is. Absolutely nothing has been presented in this discussion regarding Hillary's popularity that cannot be easily explained by her own words and actions, without having to resort to some imagined misogynist theory...

If you (and the authors of some of the articles that have been posted in this discussion) want to buy this fantasy so you can somehow hold her blameless for the fix she's in, go right ahead, but I'm stickin' with reality...

[Bicycle Bill]

.... and totally neglected governing to spew lies and exaggerations so long and hard that uncritical minds were persuaded.

Speaking of neglecting governing — did you realize that on July 19th, during the Great Trumpian Coronation in Cleveland, the Republicans in control of the Senate set yet another dubious record?

With Merrick Garland obstruction, U.S. Senate sets sad milestone

July 19th marked the 125th day since March 16th, the date that Barack Obama named Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy on the US Supreme Court created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.  Up until that date, that had been the longest period of time that a seat had sat vacant on the Supreme Court, a shameful record that had stood for more than a century.  Back in 1916, it ultimately took 125 days for the Senate to confirm President Woodrow Wilson's selection of Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court, due in no small part to the anti-Semitic feelings of the times.  But they did eventually consider him, and when the vote was finally taken he was confirmed by a better than two-to-one margin (47 for, 22 opposed, and 3 absent; another 24 members were either 'paired for' or 'paired against' and were not counted in the totals).

The Republicans, however, served notice when Garland's name was first placed into consideration that they would do nothing; their feeling was that since Obama was a 'lame duck' and was going to be replaced within a year that it was OK with them to do nothing other than stall, announcing that they were willing to roll the dice and hope that the incoming POTUS would be a white Republican male rather than "one of them" (a black Democrat male or white Democrat female).  And like a bunch of petulant, stubborn schoolchildren, they have stood to their word in that they have not even scheduled a hearing on his nomination, let alone a vote.

My friends, these are the people we have elected to conduct the business of our country.  They have clearly been shirking their duties.  I call on all of you to remember this when their names come up for re-election, whether it's in this coming election or others in the future.

-"BB"-

[Econoline]

So how do you account for the fact that when Hillary was pushing her health care plan early in Bill's first term her approval ratings plummeted

That's an easy one...

• but later when Americans got used to her being First Lady they went back up to, what? 67%? by the end of the second term?

  ...or the fact that her approval ratings went down when she announced her candidacy for the Senate but after she'd served a full term she got reelected by a landslide?

  ...or the fact that when she ran for president in 2008 her approval ratings went down, but went back up after she conceded the nomination to Obama?

  ...or the fact that she had, IIRC, 66% approval once she had been Secretary of State for a while, but much lower positives and much higher negatives once she resigned that office and began running for POTUS again (even before the email issue came up)?

There's a clear pattern to both the downs AND THE UPS of her approval ratings over the course of over 25 years in the public spotlight.

[Lord Jim]

I guess you missed this part:

When a politician is out of the line of fire, (male or female) their popularity tends to be higher for the good and simple reason that they aren't getting the level scrutiny they would when they're directly engaged in political combat...

There's a clear pattern to both the downs AND THE UPS of her approval ratings over the course of over 25 years in the public spotlight.

Indeed there is...

It correlates exactly with the degree to which the public is focused on her words and actions...

If you're pushing unpopular proposals, or are caught lying to the public, your popularity is going to go down male or female...

ETA:

The "double standard" that I see here, is that it's highly unlikely that a man would have so many excuse makers trying to absolve them of responsibility for the negative public perceptions about them that their conduct has brought about, especially based on his sex....

I for one refuse to hold Hillary Clinton to a lower standard just because she is a woman, so I won't be making any of those excuses...

[Econoline]

A sitting U.S. Senator or Secretary of State is "out of the line of fire"?

You say "level of scrutiny", I say "constant fictional scandals"...to-may-to, to-mah-to...hmmmn? We'll just have to agree to disagree--for now.

It occurs to me that the one thing that will settle this is whether Hillary Clinton gets RE-elected in 2020...so: we'll see.