The conversation today on Morning Joe is an important one

[bigtree]

...it's not trivial, and it's not a distraction.

Their conversation about the way Donald Trump has projected his dislike of women from the highest office in the land is a frustrating one, but necessary. We talk all the time about the 'bully pulpit,' which is basically an acknowledgement of the widespread influence of that office, here in the U.S. and around the world. Trump is setting back the image and reputation of Americans decades and there needs to be a broad and forceful response.

It's unfortunate that, as Trump drags down the prestige of the WH, so many issues and events are begging for his office's attention and care, neglected, unfortunately while he plays golf, plays on twitter, and watches television.

Our own lives are busy, as well. Most of us are working harder for less, struggling to balance obligations and needs with shrinking resources, many of our safety nets under deliberate and relentless attack by the president and his party. Under attack from an administration of millionaires and billionaires whose primary pursuit is feathering their own golden nest, and removing accountability for the way in which the vast majority of us are compensated for our labor.

If we are going to succeed as Americans, we'll need all hands on deck. Trump looks bent on alienating and denigrating most of the folks who we need to move our economy forward. More importantly, the President is giving aid and comfort to those who refuse to value and compensate the work and contributions of women, minorities, and others still struggling to keep pace with their white male counterparts.

What's distressing is that republican government in power is poised and ready to dismantle opportunities, protections, and aid for women and minorities, even as America is poised to move forward with economic and social expansion. Even with all of the shortcomings of democracy and justice, we haven't just emerged from some '50s era suppression of rights and opportunities. Yet, we're threatened by a forced return to Jim Crow and evisceration of protections for women, by a regressive republican majority operating in a frenzy of self-interest like rats in a cheese store.

Trump's relentless attacks on Americans who may disagree with him are a far cry from what we've grown accustomed to over the decades. Most modern politicians take pains to reach out and draw as many folks to their cause as they're able. Trump seems to be waging full-on war against the nation with his lashing out and posturing.

Far cry from other men who asked the nation for a chance to lead the country... like Martin O'Malley, for instance, during the campaign:

O'Malley:

"On this stage — on this stage, you didn’t hear anyone denigrate women, you didn’t hear anyone make racist comments about new American immigrants, you didn’t hear anyone speak ill of another American because of their religious belief. What you heard instead on this stage tonight was an honest search for the answers that will move our country forward, to move us to a 100 percent clean electric energy grid by 2050, to take the actions that we have always taken as Americans so that we can actually attack injustice in our country, employ more of our people, rebuild our cities and towns, educate our children at higher and better levels, and include more of our people in the economic, social, and political life of our country. I truly believe that we are standing on the threshold of a new era of American progress. Unless you’ve become discouraged about our gridlock in Congress, talk to our young people under 30, because you’ll never find among them people that want to bash immigrants or people that want to deny rights to gay couples."


Apparently, 'bashing' is the exclusive providence of the republican party - their go-to political statement which makes clear they're here to get theirs, be damned about the rest of us - a deliberate strategy to elevate their sweet selves by walking over the rest of America.

[Thinkingabout]

1. I see a level of hate since Trump announced his run which is beyond reproach. I thought

the hateful remarks was pointed out in the work place forty years ago, I am not saying the remarks has stopped but there was action women could take to at least get the comments quieted.

[NCTraveler]

2. I'm weary of those trying to claim it is a distraction.

Specially considering what has come out this morning. This is damaging and keeps the negative narrative going. Additionally, I think it will be his lack of impulse control that will bring him down in the end, not the Russian scandal.

We can walk and chew gum. Never should a Democrat or left leaning person claim that his disgusting displays of racism, sexism, bigotry, etc are a distraction.

Russia - Bring on the stories
Mika and Joe - Get your ratings and keep the story going
Shady Business Practices by the Trump Orginization - Yep, we have time to look at them as well.

[get the red out]

4. I agree

There are really only so many times I can contact my so-called Senators and give them a piece of mind about health care. I can't figure out what I am not doing by following this issue as well as evidence that this administration is full of traitors.

[smirkymonkey]

9. +1000

So am I. I am beginning to wonder whose side they're on.

[MiddleClass]

14. Obviously, big money

[lark]

15. Don't forget Russia!

It's amazing to me how many Repugs are in hock to that country, how did that happen? Has Putin been trolling the RW for years with promises of riches and power to make this happen? Or did Drumpf bring them all in to Putin's orbit personally? I have to think this has been planned and has been being developed for years by Russia or it wouldn't be so very wide spread.

[CTyankee]

24. the Rs are saying that -- it is their mantra -- desperate!

[get the red out]

3. There's a mad man in the White House

The media really needs to address this!

A Republican Congressman called Scarborough after a meeting about "health care" at the White House because the horrible, bloody things he raved on and on about Mika scared him!!!! Trump is not sane!

[CTyankee]

5. I've been saying this for a while now. He could blow us all up.

There are disturbances all over the world and this guy has the nuclear codes...holy shit...

[KPN]

23. He certainly has the ego for that in my view.

These are not normal times by any stretch -- in fact, I'd say they are as dangerous, if not more so, as any our country has ever seen.

[tclambert]

6. Donald might have misunderstood the phrase "bully pulpit."

He seems to think it means he has a pulpit from which he can talk like a bully, a "bully's pulpit," rather than what Teddy Roosevelt meant by the phrase, an excellent platform for getting his message out to the public.

[rurallib]

7. The GOP has many strategies for obtaining and keeping power - one that is little talked of is

divide and conquer. When you look at their very basic strategies that is one of their most potent.

Pitting this group against that group for resources. Making scapegoats of certain groups so no one will align with them etc, etc.
In the end instead of facing one united group with 75% against them, they face 10 groups with about 7% with little hope of getting more than 5 or 6 of them to co-operate.

Frankly, it is brilliant because we buy into the "i can't join with that group" crap.

They pit older women against younger, working women against mothers at home, religious against non-religious, of course black against white, white against latino, latino against black, old against young, those receiving aid against workers, management against workers. The list goes on.

Sadly most Americans are so wrapped up in their own world they can't see they are being played and are susceptible to lies like voter fraud, terrorism around every corner etc.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Good post, excellent points. Add to your DU Journal. . . . .nt

[lark]

16. Good point.

Drumpfs tweets this week about Bernie are an excellent illustration. He wants to make sure that Dems are divided into Bernie vs. Hillary, so he keeps pushing memes that Hillary, through the DNC, disadvantaged Bernie. The race is over, but he wants to keep us divided so throws out this red meat. He doesn't give one damn about Bernie, and would have been so hateful about him if Bernie had been the candidate, "SOCIALISM", "COMMUNIST", you know how badly he would have treated him.

[rurallib]

29. exactly

then we see such fights move to places like DU. Then we beat each other up.

[teal briar]

8. First question on new history test...

Which of the following does not fit in this grouping?

A. Thomas Jefferson
B. James Madison
C. Abraham Lincoln
D. Franklin Roosevelt
E. Donald Trump


Even graduates of US high schools ought to get this one right!

[EarnestPutz]

10. Martin O'Malley

The Quote from Martin O'Malley has to make you wonder again
how the Democrats lost the narrative during the campaign. He
spoke truthfully about what should be our hope for the future, but
the message just got lost in all the noise about Crooked Hillary.

[MiddleClass]

18. Do you remember where it was the last we heard about Martin O'Malley?

Democratic primaries, remember he got chastised for the "all lives matter" comment.

That buried him in the Democratic primary. After black lives matter attacked the statement.

Actually wounded Hillary also which she never recovered from as Cornell West and blm went to to Bernie Sanders and then Jill Stein. Remember the comment about super predators? Talk about the division of the Democrat party in the election.

[bigtree]

21. that misstatement did little to affect his campaign, one way or the other

...no more than the missteps of his Democratic rivals with BLM upset their own campaigns.

Voters just preferred Hillary.

[elleng]

28. Yes lost in the noise,

his strong narrative ignored.

O'Malley's Plans
https://www.democraticunderground.com/12813600

[Gothmog]

12. I have not watched morning joe for years but today I watched

[MiddleClass]

13. Good summation outside of one thing

"""

More importantly, the President is giving aid and comfort to those who refuse to value and compensate the work and contributions of women, minorities, and others still struggling to keep pace with their white male counterparts.

"""





How do you suppose to accomplish what you were talking about, by alienating white male counterparts and their wives, who is over 50 percent of the voting public in America?

Doing the math by the electoral college. They represent over 55 percent of the population who gets the president into the Oval Office.

My argument is whatever minority you are part of, you will win this thing, only with the people you keep disparaging. Obama did it that way, I think he's a great example of what I'm talking about.

[bigtree]

20. thing is

...there is absolutely zero effort on Democrats' part to 'alienate white males.'

Your query is another iteration of the criticism that our party has an inability to appeal to white men and that their interests have gone unaddressed. 'Wooing white males,' it was called in my day.

Black economic gains have always lagged behind those of white Americans, certainly not just during the Obama administration. In the present economy, blacks have experienced the slowest economic recovery of any group of Americans.

Trump appealed to the insecurity of some white Americans who have been convinced their share of the nation's economic benefits are being unfairly threatened by blacks, immigrants, and anyone else who dare assert their rightful role in our country's economy. Trump convinced enough white Americans he shared their abhorrent view that blacks and immigrants were responsible for their economic distress, enough to make the difference in his campaign.

This isn't the first I've wondered when the time will come for elected officials to take my own interests, progressive Democratic interests, into account. It seems like every election cycle, no matter the outcome, there's always a push to accommodate conservative voters like it was heresy to disregard them. Indeed, this very election has produced calls from Democratic and republican quarters to focus even more on whatever concerns white working-class voters may have, even as the concerns of women and blacks, for instance, are given short shrift.

I'm still waiting for an election cycle's end where the consensus was that we need to seriously address the needs and concerns of groups of Americans who have consistently done worse in our economy - namely, black and Latino Americans, respectively. They are our party's most dependable voters, yet there's always a push to look beyond and above them when the appropriations start. We never get around to their communities; never get around to issues which disproportionately affect them. Instead, they're scapegoated as obstacles to whatever politicians expect for the majority.

Arguably, black Americans are deserving of the most attention when considering the effects of 'economic anxiety' over the pace of recovery, but some politicians and others have reverted at the end of this election to handwringing over the economic condition of folks who have, overall, reaped the lion-share of any vestiges of recovery from the record lows that marked the Bush recession. It's not hard to imagine whose needs, interests, and concerns will struggle to take precedence in the next economic debate.


op: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028344713

[MiddleClass]

25. But those that take the time to read, sorry for writing a book

EDIT: each paragraph is an answer to the one above in bigtrees comments

Thank God there's not, what I'm responding to is the feeling of alienation of whites in general, especially democratically leaning whites. Whether or not it's legitimate, I for one am tired of losing elections because of it. I feel strongly that something that can be totally avoided with a little discipline at no extra effort on our part.

No no, don't get me wrong I'm not talking about appeal, or even any action outside of being cognizant of needlessly alienating those that agreed in almost every way, but would be alienated by such things as marches in the Midwest by groups shouting "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon" or marches in New York on TV in the Midwest "what do we want?, dead cops, when do we want it? Now," isn't it ironic that the Democrats lost 3 pivotal states in the Midwest?

I am not denying that, what I'm trying to point out as gingerly as possible, trying to hide the bluntness I admit to having, is that a majority of white people agree with you. I'm trying to warn I guess everybody that if you rub it in their face, they will vote against their economic interest, and for a racist they don't agree with, because they're not welcome in their chosen party. Why do that? Especially, it is totally against your economic interest?

What you still realize, is that they don't have to be convinced, and sometimes it is quite legitimate feel that way. Let me explain, the Midwest was a bastion of industry, that has been replaced as the bastions of close factories because the manufacturing moved to places like Mexico, mainly because of NAFTA. Now, we know why and the virtues of that type of macro economics, even Bill Clinton was arguing at the Hillary campaign during the election, don't forget my people. What was good macro devastated micro, and those who stayed in the area voted for Donald Trump. What you got a remember Mexicans did take their job.

Now while there is truth to that paragraph about progressive Democratic interests, it's not the conservative voters who Bill Clinton was arguing about, my personal opinion was that the ex-president saw that the Hillary campaign was overemphasizing the concerns of women and blacks, while short shifting the white Democratic wall in the Midwest. Remember, Hillary's campaign put all their eggs into the female basket, and after the James Comey letter they ran back to their husbands, candidate. A lot of Bernie people went to Stein or stayed home, remember Donald Trump won less votes than Mitt Romney lost with, that was the election.

It's all in the numbers, Latinos vote 60 percent Democratic, that leaves Republicans with 40 percent, which reduces their actual representation to 20 percent, that equals 4 percent of the vote total. African-Americans give Democrats 95% of their vote, but they are less than 12 percent of the voting public. I believe in the Midwest the turnout was way down from 2012, just enough with Stein voters to give Donald the win. I'm assuming off the top my head thats roughly 20 percent of Hillary's vote. Add that to roughly 10 percent Hispanic. That leaves 60 percent of Hillary's voters are the whites I want to avoid alienating. The only chance minorities have a chance at Fairplay is when the side looking out for them actually wins the election, and then still no guarantee.

Looking at it from that point of view of the economic anxiety, I would say there are plenty of places, regardless of color that have been devastated, namely from Buffalo, New York all the way to Iowa, the Rust Belt, so to speak, they lost everything from 74 to today. Grandpa had a great job in the oil or steal refinery, silver or coal mine, manufacturing plant, not my daughter is unemployed, strung out on prescription medication. What scares me is that Republicans are for the rich, regardless of color and in suburbia votes for them, election after election, mainly because of what Democrats did to their schools and churches when they lived in the inner cities. That free vote right now after George Bush and now Donald Trump is up for grabs, we need to welcome them back. No need to do anything just do not drive them away

[bigtree]

27. I read through it all (Old DU (before my time) was all about long conversations and debates, btw)

...looking for something some Democrat had actually done to disaffect white male voters.

If you're blaming Hillary for focusing on the needs and concerns of the black voters who voted for her - in many cases, overwhelmingly dominating the vote - to the exclusion of an appeal to white voters, you missed quite a bit.

You have a point if you're talking about stirring up antipathy among rural whites, but who's to blame for that? Why kowtow to bigotry?

from my postmortem:

Hillary Clinton ran a different campaign than Sanders or Trump, but she also ran a markedly different one than Barack Obama. Hillary certainly did reach out to the working-class in her campaign. While white working-class voters may well have questioned her embrace of the Obama economic record, Hillary also enmeshed her own economic proposals with a pragmatic, yet populist appeal which echoed the progressive bent of the rival Sanders and O'Malley campaigns.

In an August address in Warren, Michigan Hillary outlined her economic plan and views:

"...there are common-sense things that your government could do that would give Americans more opportunities to succeed," she said. "Why don’t we do it? Because powerful special interests and the tendency to put ideology ahead of political progress have led to gridlock in Congress."

"How can you not be frustrated, and even angry, when you see nothing getting done? And a lot of people feel no one is on their side and no one has their back and that is not how it’s supposed to be in America. If I am fortunate enough to be your President, I will have your back every single day that I serve. My mission in the White House will be to make our economy work for everyone, not just those at the top."

"This is personal for me. I am the product of the American middle class, I was born in Chicago, I was raised in a suburb. But my grandfather worked at the Scranton lace mill in Scranton, Pennsylvania, for 50 years. And because he worked hard, my Dad was able to go to college, and eventually start his own small business – and then send me out into the world to follow my dreams."

"No matter how far those dreams have taken me, I have always remembered, I’m the daughter of a small-business owner and the granddaughter of a factory worker — and proud of both."

"So here’s what I want. I want every American family to be able to tell the same story. If you work hard, you do your part, you should be able to give your children all the opportunities they deserve. That is the basic bargain of America."

As solid and compelling as that appeal may have been, candidate Clinton went even further. Hillary took a leap ahead of her opponents (and history) and offered a full and unapologetic voice to the needs and concerns of the black community. Most notably, in a historic speech in Harlem, the first for any presidential candidate, Hillary directly challenged the white community to accept that a majority of black lives and livelihoods have consistently lagged far behind white American's opportunities, successes, and well-being, and that white economic gains had often come at the expense of their black counterparts.

"We face a complex set of economic, social, and political challenges," Hillary spoke. "They are intersectional, they are reinforcing, and we have got to take them all on. So it’s not enough for your economic plan to be break up the banks. You also need a serious plan to create jobs, especially in places where unemployment remains stubbornly high. You need a plan to address the generations of underinvestment and neglect."

"Now even if we succeed on raising taxes on every millionaire and billionaire in America, and believe me, I do intend to succeed at that, we still need to face the painful reality that African Americans are nearly three times as likely as whites to be denied a mortgage. Something’s wrong when the median wealth for black families is just a tiny fraction of the median wealth of white families. And when gun violence is by far the leading cause of death for young African American men, outstripping the next nine causes of death combined, there is something deeply wrong..."

"We have to begin by facing up to the reality of systemic racism. Because these are not only problems of economic inequality. These are problems of racial inequality. And we have got to say that loudly and clearly..."

If there was one message the white working-class got from Hillary in this campaign, it almost certainly was that black lives were going to matter in her presidency. Hillary challenged white Americans to acknowledge their economic successes and take heed of those who have been left behind in the recovering economy. More importantly, Hillary insisted that white Americans should recognize and appreciate the role race plays in the failure of the black community to fully benefit from the economic recovery.

"For many white Americans," Hillary said, "it’s tempting to believe that bigotry is largely behind us. That would leave us with a lot less work, wouldn’t it? But more than half a century after Rosa Parks sat and Dr. King marched and John Lewis bled, race still plays a significant role in determining who gets ahead in America and who gets left behind."

_______________________________

from the Atlantic:

...here is the troubling reality for civically minded liberals looking to justify their preferred strategies: Hillary Clinton talked about the working class, middle class jobs, and the dignity of work constantly. And she still lost.

She detailed plans to help coal miners and steel workers. She had decades of ideas to help parents, particularly working moms, and their children. She had plans to help young men who were getting out of prison and old men who were getting into new careers. She talked about the dignity of manufacturing jobs, the promise of clean-energy jobs, and the Obama administration’s record of creating private-sector jobs for a record-breaking number of consecutive months. She said the word “job” more in the Democratic National Convention speech than Trump did in the RNC acceptance speech; she mentioned the word “jobs” more during the first presidential debate than Trump did. She offered the most comprehensively progressive economic platform of any presidential candidate in history—one specifically tailored to an economy powered by an educated workforce.

What’s more, the evidence that Clinton lost because of the nation’s economic disenchantment is extremely mixed. Some economists found that Trump won in counties affected by trade with China. But among the 52 percent of voters who said economics was the most important issue in the election, Clinton beat Trump by double digits. In the vast majority of swing states, voters said they preferred Clinton on the economy. If the 2016 election had come down to economics exclusively, the working class—which, by any reasonable definition, includes the black, Hispanic, and Asian working classes, too—would have elected Hillary Clinton president.

The more frightening possibility for liberals is that Clinton didn’t lose because the white working class failed to hear her message, but precisely because they did hear it.

[nikibatts]

17. Hillary had to take all the shit and more for decades. It still makes me angry about the hypocrisy

and double standard and that a miscreant like Trump can occupy the Oval Office. "Occupy" being the operative word.

[Pauldg47]

19. Some republicans finally are seeing the light...have been and seeing more and more.

[Hekate]

22. KnR

[BainsBane]

26. He was elected precisely for that reason

to put women and people of color in our "place." The refusal to vote for Clinton by self-proclaimed progressives is likewise part of that dynamic.