Hillary Clinton reinvents herself again

This is worse than watching Madonna through the years.  How many more versions do we need?

The New York Times reported Tuesday that the Democratic candidate will no longer use the term “everyday Americans” when promoting her plans to bolster the middle class. While continuing to draw on her experience as a new grandmother, Clinton will talk in more general terms about bettering the U.S. for future generations, instead of making specific references to her own, privileged granddaughter. And five months after launching her candidacy with a series of small, media-free meetings with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton’s fall schedule includes upcoming appearances on “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” and “The Tonight Show” with Jimmy Fallon, and plans for larger, more informal gatherings with supporters.

More general terms than she has to this point?

In the face of an email scandal that has swelled alongside the unexpected surge in support for her less-scripted rivals Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, Clinton aides told the Times that they are determined to highlight the former secretary of state’s sense of humor and compassion on the campaign trail.

This is, of course, just the latest attempt to reshape Clinton’s public image. In the many public roles she’s played over the last two decades — from first lady to U.S. senator to secretary of state — appearing down to earth and even human has been among Clinton’s most difficult challenges.

One she is losing. Again.

The word “polarizing” has been used to describe Hillary Clinton since she first hit the presidential campaign trail alongside her husband in 1992. Clearly interested in more than just a supporting role in the White House, Clinton’s unabashed ambition became a source of contention early on in the primary race.

“You know, some people think of you as an inspiring female attorney mother, and other people think of you as the overbearing yuppie wife from hell,” a reporter from Ohio told the would-be first lady in May 1992. “How would you describe yourself?”

By then, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote at the time, Clinton was already “on a mission to soften her image and show that she has a sense of humor.” Months earlier, she’d caused controversy with the now infamous quip, “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life.” So, Dowd wrote, “she smiled and described herself as a wife, a mother and an activist.”

This is simply excruciating.  And it's closing in on its 24th year in syndication.

In 2014, the Clinton Library in Little Rock, Ark., released nearly 4,000 pages of internal White House communications, including a series of confidential memos revealing much of the behind-the-scenes work that went into crafting Hillary Clinton’s public image.

Memos from 1995 show Clinton staff determined to rehabilitate the country’s perception of the first lady in the wake of the health care reform failure and ahead of the 1996 election. In one of many memos sent that year, press secretary Lisa Caputo described the Clintons’ 20th wedding anniversary as “a wonderful opportunity for Hillary” to regain public affection and suggested they throw “a big party” and invite People magazine to do a photo spread of the event.

Some of Caputo’s other image-conscious ideas for the first lady included an appearance on ABC’s family-friendly sitcom “Home Improvement,” a birthday celebration for Eleanor Roosevelt to make her look “less extreme” and monthly meetings with women’s magazine editors in an effort to “turn the editors into Clinton surrogates.”

I feel like Malcolm McDowell's character in A Clockwork Orange, forced to watch the carnage until I am desensitized to it.

“For someone like Hillary Clinton, who has gone through so many incarnations in the public eye, at some point they lose themselves,” (author of the 2006 biography Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady Gil) Troy said. “It’s not just about her finding her voice, it’s also about her trying to convince people that she’s authentic.”

Somebody pleeeeze tell the lady that ship has sailed.

Update: "Clinton's bungled reboot", from The Atlantic.

She could win more votes in the 18-59 demographic -- and thus the election, hands down -- in five seconds if she would say, 'I support the full legalization of marijuana', but she won't say that because of the millions she's taken from Big Pharma and the private prison industry.  And I swear to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if she starts twerking I'm voting for Trump.

The Weekly Wrangle

(We're back to Wrangling after one week of Wangling.)

"Nobody can think straight who does not work. Idleness warps the mind." -- Henry Ford

The history of Labor Day was, as we know, once quite radical.  The Haymaker Martyrs -- along with these other forgotten heroes of the labor movement -- are best remembered as such.  The battles of labor against their oppressors is somewhat lost to the history books Wikipedia pages, but the struggles represented by the birth of the Black Lives Matter movement remind us that, as Frederick Douglass said, power concedes nothing without a demand, and that there will always be reactionary pushback against that demand.

"One machine can do the work of 50 ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." -- Elbert Hubbard

Here's to the radicals, the anarchists, and the actual socialists (not to be confused with our generation's Democratic ones) who gave us this day of rest, along with the elimination of child workers, the establishment of the 8-hour day and the forty-hour work week, the paid vacation, healthcare and retirement programs that were defined by their benefits and not by the employer's contributions.  They are precisely why we had a prospering middle class in the 1950s -- you know, the good old days for white men every Republican wants to take us back to -- and the reaction to their success from the greediest people history has ever seen is why we don't have one today.

“The only place success comes before work is the dictionary.” -- Vince Lombardi

People fought and died for those freedoms, too.

"Genius begins great works; labor alone finishes them." -- Joseph Joubert

Here's the blog post roundup from last week.

Off the Kuff reported on a busy week at the state Supreme Court, which heard the school finance appeal as well as a case involving the city's of Houston's anti-pollution ordinances.

Libby Shaw at Texas Kaos, and contributing to Daily Kos, is disgusted by the right wing's politicization of a horrible tragedy in Houston. Harris County needs a new sheriff.

SocraticGadfly, having edited photos from last month, shares National Parks' geographic beauty, wildlife, history and astrophotography, in photos, narrative and photo album links from his most recent vacation.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme thinks Bexar County Sheriff Susan Pamerleau should be ashamed of herself for inviting death threats and hate on the TV station that broadcast video of her deputies shooting a man. Now we're supposed to trust her investigation of the incident?

PDiddie at Brains and Eggs finished posting about Houston's citywide races on the November ballot with At Large 4, At Large 5, and the controller's contest.

Egberto Willies has an example of how white allies can dispel misinformation about BLM.

Dos Centavos wants to know why Bernie Sanders doesn't have his own Hispanic billionaire funding his campaign.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston exposes more WARTS on the GOP, and questions the motives of Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman and District Attorney Devon Anderson.

Joe Deshotel at Left in Texas has the latest podcast on 'Guns, Alcohol, and the Confederate Fail Army' posted at Burnt Orange Report.

Gaswork, a new short film by anti-fractivist and actor Josh Fox, premieres in October, and TXsharon at Bluedaze has the details and the trailer.

And last, looking for a balance in a complicated world, Neil at All People Have Value visited the place were Deputy Darren Goforth was killed in Harris County and the location in Prairie View of the incident that led to the police death of Sandra Bland. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

================

And here's more posts from other great blogs from last week....

Scott Braddock reports on how Texas Republicans are sending mixed signals to business interests.

Better Texas Blog is ready for a school finance solution.

TransGriot gives you some reasons to fight for the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance.

The Texas Election Law Blog fears that with redistricting still unsettled, the 2016 primaries could be a mess.

Newsdesk looks back at the Austin smoking ban, ten years after its implementation.

Bonddad has five graphs for 2015, and four bonus ones for a look ahead at our economic forecast.  Don't miss his summary at the end.

Socialist Alternative explains what the two faces of capitalism in the world represent, and the options for left movements going forward.

Mock Scissors Paper has a "Happy Labor Day" message from Scott Walker.

If You Only News presents the perfect TeaBagger socialist-free Purity Pledge.

And Fascist Dyke Motors tries to start a rumor that she is having an affair with Huma Abedin.

The Houston city controller's contest

Once more from the top of your ballot to the bottom.

• M.J. Khan
• Chris Brown
• Bill Frazer
• Jew Don Boney
• Dwight Jefferson
• Carroll Robinson

Both of my previous postings about this race got lots of clicks, so if you want some recent past history about these men then there it is.  Here's one relevant excerpt...

Frankly I am delighted to see Jew Don Boney run for city controller against Carroll Robinson. They have squared off before, and it wasn't pretty. No matter his own bumpy history, I will be pleased to support former councilman Boney's campaign -- unless I vet the potential candidates for a better one -- because Robinson is not only shady himself but also aligned with the absolute worst political mafia in Houston politics. I'm looking at you again, Hector Carreno, you slug. And Reps. Miles and Thompson, you should know better.

But this "lesser of two evils" option once again might let the Republican slip into office.

As a reminder: one of the easiest choices you can make as a voter is to never, ever vote for a candidate who doesn't understand what the responsibilities of the office he is running for are.

Also in the doomed-to-repeat-history department, both of the two Republicans bidding again for this seat barely lost to outgoing incumbent Ronald Green.  From 2013, here's my live-blogging as the returns came in that night (scroll all the way to the bottom):

Bill Frazer - 47% 47.89% 48.28% 49.02% 48.86%
Ronald Green - 53% 52.11% 51.72% 50.98% 51.14% 

The incumbent may yet hold off the Republican challenger, but late returns will tell the tale. At 9:00 p.m., Election Day results continue to narrow the gap for Frazer. 

At 9:30 p.m., just 2200 votes out of 110,000 cast separate the two. But the real news is the 30,500 undervotes in this race. At 10 p.m. Green gets a little breathing room, leading now by 3000 votes 

At 10:20 p.m., when the votes from Fort Bend and Montgomery are added, Controller Green has a 5,062 vote lead. He has narrowly avoided being upset. 38,134 Harris County voters did not vote in this race.

Khan is experienced as a former three-term council member, came very close to beating Green himself in 2009 when the term-limited Annise Parker first ran for mayor, and benefits from being tops on the ballot in a race filled with qualified candidates.  But Khan's greatest value is in siphoning off enough of Frazer's Republican support to force him into a runoff with a Democrat.  Frazer is in the catbird seat with the four Ds squaring off and "bathroom election" turnout looking promising for the city's conservatives.  He's hosted fundraisers with David Dewhurst and state comptroller Glenn Hegar, and earned the endorsement of the Kingwood Tea Party (that covers all the the GOP bases, from plain old stupid to stupid, mean, and crazy).

So who has the best chance of advancing to the December playoff with Frazer?

Morning-line handicappers might favor Son of Brown-Schlumberger.  He's been the city's deputy controller throughout the Green years, has access to all the money he needs not to lose, and he's a legacy.  Constable David Rosen wrote his own forecast of this race in the Daily Court Review praising Brown's "colossal network", evaluating the candidates most particularly on the basis of their campaign finance reports.

At least two of those four are reasons are why I cannot support Brown, though many Democrats of the Caucasian persuasion will, and that could be enough to get him over the hump.  There's also the fact that African American voters both liberal and conservative will split their votes among Boney, Robinson, and Jefferson.  The two Democratic former city council members and one former Republican state district judge (in that order) have some divergent opinions about how the office they seek helps manage the city in harmony -- or discord -- with the mayor's office.  There's an opportunity here among all these controller hopefuls for some very strategic voting.

Consider some mayoral runoff possibilities: Hall-Garcia, Hall-Turner, Turner-Garcia for just a few. With a conservative Democrat or quasi-Republican mayor and Frazer (or Khan) crunching the numbers, you can pretty much count on a lot of municipal employee layoffs to try to balance the looming crisis of a city budget, a hard line on firemen and police pensions, lots of closed libraries and swimming pools, city parks going to seed, and yes, more potholes.  If the cons sweep some of the swingy seats on council as well, a new dark day of severe austerity and homophobia takes reign over Houston.

If a someone more moderate, like Turner (or Steve Costello or Chris Bell) makes the runoff and prevails in it, then a controller like Brown or Boney or even Jefferson gives the city a little less talk and a little more action that demonstrates tolerance for threatened municipal employees, be it their jobs or their retirement plans.  In short, consider whether your choice for mayor is going to have someone in the beancounters' office he can work with... or will have to fight with.  And which of those scenarios you think might be preferable, depending on how things turn out on November 3rd.

Chris Brown straddled the fence on this matter when asked about it at the Sunnyside candidate forum.  That's not leadership, IMHO.

Prediction for the general: Too close to call on whether there will be a runoff, or whether who on either the left or the right might make one.  This is the least predictable contest on the ballot, and one which depends completely on whose voters show up.

Labor Day Weekend Funnies

Robert Reich: "Labor Day 2028"

To celebrate the kickoffs of the high school and college football seasons, the 29th anniversary of the marriage of the lovely Mrs. Diddie and I -- no, neither of those.  This is a reason-for-the-season reposting of former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich's blog post about a Labor Day in the near future, predicted from 87 years in the past.

In 1928, famed British economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that technology would advance so far in a hundred years – by 2028 – that it will replace all work, and no one will need to worry about making money.

“For the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem – how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.”

We still have thirteen years to go before we reach Keynes’ prophetic year, but we’re not exactly on the way to it. Americans are working harder than ever.

Keynes may be proven right about technological progress. We’re on the verge of 3-D printing, driverless cars, delivery drones, and robots that can serve us coffee in the morning and make our beds.  But he overlooked one big question: How to redistribute the profits from these marvelous labor-saving inventions, so we’ll have the money to buy the free time they provide?

Without such a mechanism, most of us are condemned to work ever harder in order to compensate for lost earnings due to the labor-replacing technologies.  Such technologies are even replacing knowledge workers – a big reason why college degrees no longer deliver steadily higher wages and larger shares of the economic pie.  Since 2000, the vast majority of college graduates have seen little or no income gains.  The economic model that predominated through most of the twentieth century was mass production by many, for mass consumption by many.  But the model we’re rushing toward is unlimited production by a handful, for consumption by the few able to afford it.

The ratio of employees to customers is already dropping to mind-boggling lows.

When Facebook purchased the messaging company WhatsApp for $19 billion last year, WhatsApp had fifty-five employees serving 450 million customers.  When more and more can be done by fewer and fewer people, profits go to an ever-smaller circle of executives and owner-investors. WhatsApp’s young co-founder and CEO, Jan Koum, got $6.8 billion in the deal.  This in turn will leave the rest of us with fewer well-paying jobs and less money to buy what can be produced, as we’re pushed into the low-paying personal service sector of the economy.  Which will also mean fewer profits for the handful of billionaire executives and owner-investors, because potential consumers won’t be able to afford what they’re selling.

What to do? We might try to levy a gigantic tax on the incomes of the billionaire winners and redistribute their winnings to everyone else. But even if politically feasible, the winners will be tempted to store their winnings abroad – or expatriate.

Suppose we look instead at the patents and trademarks by which government protects all these new inventions.

Such government protections determine what these inventions are worth. If patents lasted only three years instead of the current twenty, for example, What’sApp would be worth a small fraction of $19 billion – because after three years anybody could reproduce its messaging technology for free.  Instead of shortening the patent period, how about giving every citizen a share of the profits from all patents and trademarks government protects? It would be a condition for receiving such protection.  Say, for example, 20 percent of all such profits were split equally among all citizens, starting the month they turn eighteen.  In effect, this would be a basic minimum income for everyone.

The sum would be enough to ensure everyone a minimally decent standard of living – including money to buy the technologies that would free them up from the necessity of working.  Anyone wishing to supplement their basic minimum could of course choose to work – even though, as noted, most jobs will pay modestly.  This outcome would also be good for the handful of billionaire executives and owner-investors, because it would ensure they have customers with enough money to buy their labor-saving gadgets.  Such a basic minimum would allow people to pursue whatever arts or avocations provide them with meaning, thereby enabling society to enjoy the fruits of such artistry or voluntary efforts.

We would thereby create the kind of society John Maynard Keynes predicted we’d achieve by 2028 – an age of technological abundance in which no one will need to work.

Happy Labor Day.