Clinton To Give Speech On ‘American Exceptionalism’ With Bush Official In OH
But is it a “major” speech? Trump gives major speeches.
1 Like
So when we got involved in international conflicts "we did so with precision and let diplomacy be a huge part of how we dealt with the world.? Do you think Guatemala, Chile, Iran, Afghanistan, Philippines, Congo, Iraq, Venezuela, and the other countries which we have invaded or have overthrown (or tried to overthrow) elected governments would agree? The idea of “American Exceptionalism” is a disgraceful feature of U.S. history. It is used to justify crimes against humanity, and should be allowed to join “manifest destiny” as an historical error rejected by a more enlightened populace.
1 Like
Yes my first reaction was: OUCH!
No but it will be HUGE. using all the best words
1 Like
Don’t forget petulance and finger-pointing. (almost typed “painting”)
1 Like
Bad enough that Hillary thinks “American Exceptionalism” is a good thing. Even worse that she teams up with a former Bushie. I’m really getting so disgusted with her.
she needs votes. The disloyal left can’t be counted on, so her only option is to try to peel off votes from Republicans.
2 Likes
I am curious: So your vote goes to Trump ?
1 Like
She doesn’t need the votes—she has it wrapped up. And the “disloyal left” isn’t disloyal as much as they are sick of being betrayed by the Clintons and their triangulating ass.
I don’t know why she kowtows to Republicans. I can only postulate that it is partly that she sympathizes with right wing ideals, and partly that she wants to continue in the good graces of the people that pay her husband $16 million for being an “honorary chancellor” of a for-profit educational corporation (i.e. for doing nothing).
1 Like
It’s still a “stop Trump” vote for me, so yes I will have to vote Hillary. But she makes me sick, and headlines like “Clinton Woos Romney Donors” just stick the knife in deeper.
1 Like
"Our adversaries must never hear flippancy or ignorance in America’s voice…AGAIN! They should never take satisfaction from an incompetent president,”…AGAIN! he said. “Giving an incoherent amateur the keys to the White House this November will doom us to second or third class status.” AGAIN!
There, all fixed!
3 Likes
It’s part of her effort to draw moderate Republicans and independents. Hopefully she won’t concede anything in the way of policy.
I don’t know Clad. Do you know what his role or contributions to the Bush administration was.?
2 Likes
By all means she needs the votes. And if enough Republicans can be flipped, Clinton will truly have a mandate.
3 Likes
Bernie Sanders: Miss me yet?
What, too soon?
2 Likes
She’s saying the magic words that will give cover to Republicans who want to defect from the party of Trump.
2 Likes
I do wish Hillary would be giving a nuanced critique of American exceptionalism and its limits, rather than simply “boosting” this shopworn idea.
2 Likes
Ian Tyrell writes that there are two versions of American Exceptionalism, and he warns about the problems that are inherent in both views.
In its classic forms, American exceptionalism refers to the special character of the United States as a uniquely free nation based on democratic ideals and personal liberty. Sometimes this special character is inferred from the nature of American political institutions founded in the 1776-89 period–the declaration of independence (1776), revolution (1776-83), constitution (1787) etc. Thus the “revolution” and its aftermath freeing the US from British control are important in ideas of American exceptionalism. But often the political differences are said to be underpinned by material differences brought about by the wealth/resources of the United States, sometimes seen as a direct product of the freedom of the American people, but by others as the product of the inheritance of the North American continent’s abundant resources. This is the frontier version of the theory, and this and the ideas of social mobility and immigrant assimilation are closely tied to this set of ideas of American material prosperity. Many aspects of American history may be left out or distorted in the traditional narratives–particularly the histories of Amerindian peoples and the contribution of other ethnic groups that preceded the Anglo-Americans, e.g. Hispanics. Race and slavery are seen as tragic exceptions, and the abolition of the latter was viewed as a partial resolution, encompassed in Lincoln’s idea of a “new birth of freedom” in the Gettysburg Address.
It is also important to realise that there is a “negative” version of exceptionalism, i.e. that the US has been exceptionally bad, racist, violent. While this is less a part of the common myths about American history, the attempt to compensate for American exceptionalism by emphasising unique American evils is equally distorting. We need to think more about this matter, especially when we deal with racial divisions and gender prejudice. Is the US experience a variant on wider racial and gender patterns? While social history has provided new perspectives on the role of women, African Americans, and ethnics in the making of American history, has that new history discredited or qualified ideas of American exceptionalism?
As a former SoS, I don’t see Clinton embracing the more negative version. I guess we’ll have to see what she actually says.
Trump, btw, has said he doesn’t believe in American Exceptionalism.
2 Likes
Maybe so. But Rice also carries a lot of baggage – specifically because she wouldn’t understand a National Security Briefing if it was flew right between her eyes.
Despite bracing myself for the post convention pivot, I still always end up getting cheesed off at some attempt or other to peel off votes from the right.
American Exceptionalism is a dangerous philosophy that makes it harder for us to accomplish our goals internationally and, quite honestly, simply makes citizens of this country stupider. Why are we so insecure that we must be better than everyone else?
1 Like
I am hoping that Soon-To-Be-President Clinton will redefine “American Exceptionalism” in a less arrogant, more pro-social, and more pan-national (in the sense of internationally inclusive) fashion, with more emphasis on team leadership than prideful dominance.
3 Likes