Hillary selects Sen. Tim Kaine (VA) as running mate.

VP choices are often overthought by the media and those on the outside. Trump needed someone like Pence not necessarily to solidify his support with any segment of the voting populace, but to show he would bring in someone with expertise in how government really operates instead of doing something like Perot did with Stockwell. Pence is a solid "legitimacy" choice. Given that a large part of Hillary's career has been spent in and around government, she had a lot more leeway with her choice, but instead she went with competency over ideology. I was hoping for Thomas Perez, but I suppose it can be argued that he lacks "Prez cred." This choice surely can't energize the Sanders' bloc. I doubt it does much with either the Black or Hispanic voting blocs and counting on people to vote "against" someone no matter what (like the hope is that minorities will vote against Trump) is an iffy strategy.

If anything, what makes this choice potentially odd is that it could attract the neo-cons to the Democratic side and if there is a public expression by those folks in support of the Clinton/Kaine ticket, it could be a huge (make that YUGE) negative for its chances in November.
 
Kaine, reportedly anyway, has some credibility in the black community with a back ground in civil rights law. He was almost Obama's pick in 2008.

I don't get the real neo-con vibe off of him, but I think Clinton can attract them.
 
Kaine, reportedly anyway, has some credibility in the black community with a back ground in civil rights law. He was almost Obama's pick in 2008.

I don't get the real neo-con vibe off of him, but I think Clinton can attract them.

I should have been more clear. Both Hillary and Kaine seem to take a more aggressive stand vis-a-vis ISIL than the current administration (and Trump for that matter). I think that might attract some conservative internationalist intellectuals (and pseudo-intellectuals).

Hillary seems to be playing the classic "where else are the liberals going to go?" with this choice, banking on all anti-Trump voters to head towards her. I think that's the same mistake Al Gore made in 2000. As someone who is left-of-center, I'm becoming increasingly troubled by this movement within the Democratic Party to bill itself, for lack of a better term, as the "Party of Reason." It's this kind of "We're well educated. Trust us." mantra that is contributing to a mass exodus of white voters, especially those without college degrees, toward the Republicans. I really think that's in play this election and this choice is indicative of that. The old Democratic Leadership Council (or New Democrats) may have closed up shop, but it never really died.
 
Hillary seems to be playing the classic "where else are the liberals going to go?" with this choice, banking on all anti-Trump voters to head towards her. I think that's the same mistake Al Gore made in 2000. As someone who is left-of-center, I'm becoming increasingly troubled by this movement within the Democratic Party to bill itself, for lack of a better term, as the "Party of Reason." It's this kind of "We're well educated. Trust us." mantra that is contributing to a mass exodus of white voters, especially those without college degrees, toward the Republicans. I really think that's in play this election and this choice is indicative of that. The old Democratic Leadership Council (or New Democrats) may have closed up shop, but it never really died.

This article does a great job elaborating what I was getting at, and what I think you're touching on, in that regard. The whole article is worth a read, but I'll highlight a few key points:

Clinton supporters can often seem stunningly oblivious. [...] Prominent liberal writers like Ezra Klein, who help shape policy priorities and set agendas, are totally uninterested in the way other types of people’s lives are actually lived. Their view of the working-class experience comes entirely from Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. Thus they don’t understand the things that make people unhappy, stressed out, hopeless, and frightened.

One person who did appear to understand these things was Bernie Sanders. This was clear from his interactions with voters, and it’s why tens of thousands of people showed up at his rallies. It’s why he was able to rival Trump in the enthusiasm of his voters. He went from being a fringe candidate to a serious contender for the nomination, by tapping into an important part of the national mood. The fact that Sanders took off so unexpectedly, despite his total lack of traditional political charisma and a disorganized campaign apparatus, should have been a lesson.

Democrats need to pay attention to the Sanders model if they want to generate any enthusiasm or make any inroads with new groups of voters. Instead of telling people that everything is alright, they need to acknowledge that for many, many people things aren’t alright at all. [...] Yet, worryingly, many Democrats don’t actually seem to be committed to the task of winning people over. They seem to believe that Trump supporters are, indeed, just “dumb hicks” who can’t be reasoned with.

This is a fatal position to take. So long as Democrats are trying to retain support instead of grow it, Trump will continue to lure new voters while Clinton’s voter base will either remain stagnant or shrink. In order to win, you’ve simply got to persuade people. [...] Do they intend to win it by trying to get people who already agree with them to half-heartedly drag themselves to the polls, and by portraying Trump’s working class constituency as the enemy? Or do they intend to win it by offering an actual principled contrast that deals with the real problems that people have?

[...]

Kaine certainly doesn’t help with the Democrats’ need to reclaim a progressive populism, since he infamously tried to help banks evade consumer protection regulations. Trump will (accurately) seize on this as a reflection of Democratic obliviousness. Indeed, just hours after the pick was announced, the Republican National Committee sent out a statement pointing out that “Kaine has castigated opponents of free-trade agreements as ‘losers’ and strongly supported the War in Iraq.” By selecting Kaine, Clinton shows that she has no intention of trying to rechannel the working class anxiety fueling the Trump campaign into something positive. Instead, she’s simply hoping that people will be so afraid of Trump that they have no choice but to join her. Perhaps they will be. But consider: Trump tells people he will keep them safe from joblessness, terrorism, and crime. Clinton tells people that joblessness, terrorism, and crime aren’t problems, and that she’ll keep them safe from Trump. Which scare tactic is more compelling?

As to the preeminence of Third Way wonkification of the Democratic Party—emphasizing charts and fact-checking and (as you say) a "We're well educated. Trust us." mantra, seemingly almost to the exclusion of moral stands and voter empathy and consideration of popular emotion—I'd urge a reading of this piece which traces the meteoric rise and catastrophic pitfalls of this "smug style".

And as a somewhat tangential coda, I'd also add that I think this "we have the facts" condescension arises—in some part, at least—because of a failure, in higher levels of the academy, to teach pathos, to preach the relevance of humanities, and to persuade students and scholars to explore humanistic relatives in their fields.* Humans are weird, and it helps to understand that. Trying to understand and sympathize with people's insecurities and misgivings and points of contentions—even if they're based in factual or moral wrongness—goes a long way in making up the ground between rejection and persuasion; disclaiming their existence or ignoring them outright is, meanwhile, essentially political gaslighting.

* Unsurprisingly, William Carlos Williams makes this claim more eloquently:

My heart rouses

thinking to bring you news

of something

that concerns you

and concerns many men. Look at

what passes for the new.

You will not find it there but in

despised poems.

It is difficult

to get the news from poems

yet men die miserably every day

for lack

of what is found there.
 
She's to passive. As soon as Trump gets loud and starts calling her 'crooked hillary' she'll look like a deer in headlights.
I really don't think so. But you may equate aggressive feistiness in a debate with being presidential.

Trump won't be able to get under her collar as quickly as she can get under his and she won't get pulled into a silly pissing match like Rubio and Cruz did.

But if Trump kicks her butt in the debates she doesn't deserve the job.
 
Really makes you realize we've taken Obama and his team's amazing organization for granted these last 2 cycles.

That's the sort of well-oiled political machinery only coming up in Chicago can build for you.
 
When I heard Kaine, I was hoping for Kane. Trump has already made it WWE of sorts. It would have only been fitting for Hillary to bring a 7 foot wrestler on board.

large.jpg


As for the debates, I think it's going to be like watching a mother (Hillary) with an autistic kid (Donald J.) in a mall. Most everyone is going to side with the mother unless she hauls off and belts the kid.
 
Welp, another pasty old white guy.

Was his speech really this good?

Holy crap. He killed it.

I’m not trying to spin you. I’m sitting here in shock. Shock. Tim Kaine was unbelievable.

He was natural. He was smart. He was relaxed and funny, and he was serious. He was proud of himself and his wife and family but never arrogant. He was humble without ever being cloying in that way the politically humble can often be. He was genuine. He was unbelievable.

And part of the way through, this thought struck me: He is the perfect choice for her because he comes across as so at ease and so real. These are two things, as we know, that Hillary Clinton has a lot of trouble with. She’s too scripted, she’s a phony, all that stuff. Kaine was just so easy-breezy, so comfortable with himself and in this role, that he has the potential to wash away a decent chunk of that negativity about her.

How can I sum up the speech? Oh, he attacked Donald Trump here and there, including a funny hit on him about his tax returns (“raise your hand if you think those returns are going to show that he paid his fair share”). He made sure to cover his progressive bona fides and was great in the way he relayed his biography—his civil-rights law work, his time in Honduras, his dedication to education and integration.

He did a wonderful job of communicating his values—my creed, he said, was “do all the good you can.” He had a couple powerful serious moments, notably when he talked about the Virginia Tech massacre, which happened while he was governor, telling the story of one professor who’d come to the United States from central Europe many years ago. Can you imagine, he asked; a man “who could survive the Holocaust? Who could survive the Soviet takeover of his country? But who fell victim to the horror of American gun violence because he blocked the door and told his students to go out the window?”

He spoke just enough Spanish (and yes, he’s fluent all right), saying that he and Clinton will be “compañeros del alma”—companions of the soul. And the way he talked about Clinton was fantastic and really smart. Most Americans aren’t really associating Clinton with the word “character” right about now, but Kaine went at that—character, he said, is commitment to a set of issues and goals over the course of one’s life, even as one faces constant attack.

But the most important thing about the speech wasn’t any of these things. It was the vision for the country embedded within it. If Kaine made a convincing case Saturday afternoon that he’s a perfect companion to Clinton, he made an even stronger case that he represents the antidote to savage Trumpism and Uriah Heep-grim Pence-ism. Yes, there are problems in the country and world, obviously. But we don’t confront them by insulting people and pumping fear into people and calling our military a disaster and trying to pass severe discrimination laws. We confront them by heeding the words of Harry Truman: “America was not built on fear. It was built on courage, imagination, and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand.”

And he did it all without an ounce of ego. That maybe was what was most refreshing of all.

I was following my Twitter feed, and about 10 minutes into the 40-odd minute speech, I noticed people started tweeting: Hey, uh, this is pretty good. Wow, that was nice! Man, that was good too! Holy crap, this guy is killing it! How did we not know this?
 
I agree entirely. Kaine is a sleeper. I had kinda pigeon-holed him for years as a low-wattage DLC wonk type, but as I've begun to pay more attention to him I realized I had really underestimated him. He's quietly risen to this level without coming across as a grasping, ambitious jerk, which is all too common on this stage.
 
Predictably, Michael Moore ain't happy:

"Show me 1 voter gained by naming Tim Kaine. Att'n Hillary campaign: It's not Trump who'll beat u. It's the people who are going to stay home"
 
She looks very comfortable with him and that's probably more important than making the Bernie folks happy. She's gonna have to live with him for the next four years, figuratively speaking.
 
Back
Top