Remembering TCPaul, 2016-2019

Amy Klobuchar For POTUS??

Media is reporting she may toss her hat into the ring this S catwoman33302/06/19
She has the persona of a piano teacher. Sometimes boring is 2tierreality02/06/19
She's great and she's definitely running. She was on Maddow frida202/06/19
Klobuchar is the only democrat on the senate judiciary commi jorgedeclaro02/06/19
She won’t survive the primary. Not crazy enough to appeas tedandlisa12302/06/19
Kamala will win CA (duh..). Beyond that...NAH... catwoman33302/07/19
I don't think she has the stomach for presidential politics. midlaw02/06/19
She seems fairly reasonable anotherjd02/06/19
She mistreats her staff, which should be a big red flag. McC exnite02/06/19
Go find her former associate underlings at Dorsey & Whitney. jorgedeclaro02/06/19
Yeah. Those stories about her have been making the rounds in catwoman33302/06/19
She probably is a bad boss. This is the most objective part frida202/07/19
Oh geez, I just realized she wasn't a Senator until 2007. So frida202/07/19
HuffPo has updated the story about 11:30 to add the parenthe wutwutwut02/07/19
It seems somebody ought to be leaking some of her old emails toooldtocare02/07/19
I’ll go out on a limb and say there are no pictures of her jorgedeclaro02/07/19
Well, let's just wait and see what her Texas bar registratio toooldtocare02/07/19
ROFL. Maybe someone will find and release an old photo of he catwoman33302/07/19
Her husband was in my 1L section inindiana02/07/19
What was he like irl, whipped or what? trijocker02/10/19
I see nothing in that HuffPo piece that's particularly damni whatnext02/07/19
HuffPo probably just scratched the tip of the iceberg. Ther catwoman33302/07/19
More stories trickling out, apparently she threw a binder th whatnext02/08/19
"Often she just needs to talk things out in the open and is catwoman33302/08/19
Don't think I've ever met, or heard about, a mello easy-goin toooldtocare02/08/19
The Clintons reportedly treated EVERYONE around them (includ catwoman33302/08/19
Trump, for better or worse, has changed everything, if only toooldtocare02/10/19
Actually, I know ALOT of Trump voters who say there is no wa catwoman33302/10/19
The silent Trumper 2.0. Don’t believe them. persius02/10/19
That's the whole point; it's been argued persuasively that t toooldtocare02/11/19
She’s a sociopath exnite02/10/19
“The run-up to Klobuchar’s expected presidential campaig exnite02/10/19
She's TOAST. ANOTHER one (like Warren, Booker) who probably catwoman33302/10/19
I would vote for any human over trump. If I had to choose be frida202/10/19
You're so partisan, you probably would have voted for Charle catwoman33302/10/19
You are extremely stupid or just intentionally repeating mis frida202/10/19
The Dem primaries were rigged from the get-go exnite02/10/19
Frida, you are extremely clueless, either seriously math-cha catwoman33302/10/19
Whats the point even arguing with frida? drglennrichie02/10/19
She didn't lose the primary. BERNIE LOST GET OVER IT. frida202/10/19
She didnt win it fair. The decision that she will be the nom drglennrichie02/10/19
We got rid of superdelegates in August 2018, which is great. frida202/10/19
She sure as hell rigged it with help from her buddies: Cuomo catwoman33302/10/19
I wasn't the one who brought her up in this thread. I never frida202/10/19
Apparently Amy appears to be somewhat of a beeyotch Cruel t trijocker02/10/19
This is how Klobuchar responded to these stories. Good answe frida202/10/19
No, it's not a good answer, and it isn't particularly origin toooldtocare02/10/19
I think it was the right thing to say. It was better than a frida202/10/19
No it wasn't; it was the stock answer all employer tyrants g toooldtocare02/10/19
She was responding to reporters' questions. It would be weir frida202/10/19
Then she should have told the truth: "I am a disciple of th toooldtocare02/10/19
Why? It worked so well for Hillary and Warren...LOL catwoman33302/10/19
Warren? toooldtocare02/11/19
It's SARCASM, dude. LOL catwoman33302/11/19
Seemed more clueless than sarcastic, as Clinton has never to toooldtocare02/12/19
Translation: she’s a petty tyrant who wants a promotion to exnite02/10/19
This broad gave a speech today where she spoke about global plumber02/10/19
She sounds like a treat. She is probably reaming the staff persius02/10/19
No problem. Most people understand the difference between cl frida202/10/19
Yep. I am literally turning into Frosty the Snowomyn because plumber02/10/19
Oh wait, she admits she is a beeyotch Sorry, wouldn't care trijocker02/10/19
Lol. The Climate Change Snowoman: https://theconservativet plumber02/10/19
In view of how mean she's supposed to be, I wonder if any op wutwutwut02/10/19
How about "Klobber char"?? catwoman33302/11/19
The snow was symbolic: Another politician SNOWING voters. catwoman33302/10/19
Trump mocking her appearance in the snow is hilarious consid whatnext02/10/19
I posted the Bad Stuff, so it’s only fair to post the good exnite02/11/19
More proof she's infected with the kiss up/kick down syndrom toooldtocare02/11/19
You hear that ALL THE TIME about these "officials". I wish catwoman33302/11/19
Klobuchar poo poo’d free college and single payer last nig whatnext02/19/19
I think it’s a winning message IF she can get through the jorgedeclaro02/19/19
I think it will play well to older primary voters (most like whatnext02/19/19
Klobuchar was PATHETIC last night in that "Town Hall". She catwoman33302/19/19
I didn’t say she’d skate, I said it’s an interesting s whatnext02/19/19
With all due respect, Trump was elected BECAUSE voters--incl catwoman33302/19/19
Nixon pioneered, with the help of Roger Ailes, the kind of f exnite02/20/19
"No we don’t need a Lincoln, a TR, an FDR, JFK or LBJ. You catwoman33302/20/19
You ARE arguing for a major expansion of Presidential powers exnite02/20/19
I DON'T expect a POTUS to unilaterally solve problems. What catwoman33302/20/19
While your intentions may be in the right place, things don' toooldtocare02/20/19
K will do NOTHING. I NEVER will vote for someone who asks/e catwoman33302/20/19
Nobody said anything about voting for Senator K. It is, howe toooldtocare02/21/19
"Nobody said anything about voting for Senator K." ++++++++ catwoman33302/21/19
Why should I get a life now? I've never had one before. Ge toooldtocare02/21/19



catwoman333 (Feb 6, 2019 - 3:37 am)

Media is reporting she may toss her hat into the ring this Sunday.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/05/amy-klobuchar-announce-2020-1149340

I like her calm, even-tempered public demeanor under pressure, and it's great to see so many women in the race! And perhaps she is just what the dr. ordered, what the country needs after 2-4 years of non-stop Trumpantics, crazy, bombast, and melodrama?

Reply
2tierreality (Feb 6, 2019 - 8:47 am)

She has the persona of a piano teacher. Sometimes boring is good though. She needs to avoid beers on instagram live and other phony gimmicks designed to get the kids to pay attention, and just be herself. If she does she would be the most authentic candidate out of the group.

Media will go after her for not being more aggressive on urging Al Franken to resign, but voters should give her a pass since they were (and still are) friends.

Reply
frida2 (Feb 6, 2019 - 9:02 am)

She's great and she's definitely running. She was on Maddow last night and basically announced it. She told Maddow she should be in Minnesota on Sunday and dress warm. She also tweeted this, so I think we are at she is definitely running. I'm very glad because I'm definitely voting for a female candidate in the primary and the more choice the better. Now we have 5 candidates, although Tulsi Gabbard is the weakest by far with Democratic primary voters. At least Tulsi unequivocally denounced David Duke, who for some reason announced support for her.

https://twitter.com/amyklobuchar/status/1092998324020563968?s=19

Reply
jorgedeclaro (Feb 6, 2019 - 9:36 am)

Klobuchar is the only democrat on the senate judiciary committee whose questioning suggests she was actually a competent attorney. Mazie Hirono is by far the worst.

Reply
tedandlisa123 (Feb 6, 2019 - 7:28 pm)

She won’t survive the primary. Not crazy enough to appease the Ocasio-Cortez wing, and not corrupt enough to secure the big money elites. Kamala will win the primary.

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 7, 2019 - 10:45 pm)

Kamala will win CA (duh..). Beyond that...NAH...

Reply
midlaw (Feb 6, 2019 - 7:40 pm)

I don't think she has the stomach for presidential politics. Whatever their faults, Gillibrand and Warren do. Harris might.

She's like Beto without the soul and public speaking ability, or Hillary without the anti-Teflon. I don't see it going anywhere, but who knows.

Reply
anotherjd (Feb 6, 2019 - 7:52 pm)

She seems fairly reasonable

Reply
exnite (Feb 6, 2019 - 8:51 pm)

She mistreats her staff, which should be a big red flag. McCain and Hillary also had reputations as staff abusers, nasty tyrannical jackasses

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/amy-klobuchar-abuse-staff-2020_us_5c5a1cb1e4b0871047588649

Reply
jorgedeclaro (Feb 6, 2019 - 9:59 pm)

Go find her former associate underlings at Dorsey & Whitney. If she stood out as awful to work for when compared to the other partners at that firm the you know that’s REALLY bad.

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 6, 2019 - 10:22 pm)

Yeah. Those stories about her have been making the rounds in DC for YEARS. See https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/21/worst-bosses-congress-476729.

You can't treat people--esp. staff--like trash and expect it to remain hidden for long. "Horror stories" ALWAYS make the rounds in the DC Gossip Grapevine. DC is a very small "company town" where EVERYONE knows EVERYTHING about each other (good or bad). Capitol Hill staff parties are like liquid therapy sessions: EVERYTHING comes tumbling out after a few beers and tears, and Hill staffers are VERY proactive about warning each other and esp. naïve new DC arrivals/job-seekers about terrible bosses.

Reply
frida2 (Feb 7, 2019 - 8:47 am)

She probably is a bad boss. This is the most objective part of the article:

"What is indisputable, however, is that Klobuchar’s office consistently has one of the highest rates of staff turnover in the Senate. From 2001 to 2016, she ranked No. 1 in the Senate for staff turnover as measured by LegiStorm, a widely used database of congressional staff salaries. She’s now third, behind Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen and Louisiana Republican John Kennedy."


However, if she got the nomination this would be a ridiculous line of attack compared to trump, who has the highest turnover rate of any president ever.

No number of "but her emails" stories will stop me from voting for a female candidate in the primary and I'm glad I have lots of choices.

Reply
frida2 (Feb 7, 2019 - 9:18 am)

Oh geez, I just realized she wasn't a Senator until 2007. So even the part of the article that seems pretty objective is questionable.

Reply
wutwutwut (Feb 7, 2019 - 12:25 pm)

HuffPo has updated the story about 11:30 to add the parenthetical comment "(Klobuchar was sworn into office in 2007.) " but for some reason left in the misleading (to me) original statement.

The NYT is still running similar (below) without mentioning she became a senator in 2007.

"On Capitol Hill, Ms. Klobuchar’s reputation is not all sweetness and light; she is said to be brutal to work for. A survey of senators by the website LegiStorm found that from 2001 to 2016, her office had the highest turnover, which earned her a prominent mention in a Politico article headlined “The ‘Worst Bosses’ in Congress?” (By 2017, two colleagues — John Kennedy of Louisiana and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland — had surpassed her.)"


I suppose what all these mean to say is that with respect to the rate of staff turnover as measured during the period 2001 to 2016, once she became senator in 2007, she began topping that list.

Reply
toooldtocare (Feb 7, 2019 - 12:44 pm)

It seems somebody ought to be leaking some of her old emails any minute now....

Reply
jorgedeclaro (Feb 7, 2019 - 1:04 pm)

I’ll go out on a limb and say there are no pictures of her out there in blackface.

Reply
toooldtocare (Feb 7, 2019 - 6:06 pm)

Well, let's just wait and see what her Texas bar registration says.

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 7, 2019 - 10:40 pm)

ROFL. Maybe someone will find and release an old photo of her passed out, half-naked after a drunken orgy with Al Frankengroper. Nah...she's a librarian.

Reply
inindiana (Feb 7, 2019 - 6:09 pm)

Her husband was in my 1L section

Reply
trijocker (Feb 10, 2019 - 8:21 pm)

What was he like irl, whipped or what?

Reply
whatnext (Feb 7, 2019 - 6:39 pm)

I see nothing in that HuffPo piece that's particularly damning. She chided people for being late and cc'd others after a bad press release was written? Come on.

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 7, 2019 - 10:38 pm)

HuffPo probably just scratched the tip of the iceberg. There's probably a lot more out there. MOST staffers don't run for the hills every year over "just a few mild reprimands". The red flag is the CONSISTENTLY HIGH turnover and reports of staff warning job applicants about her. Something else going on there....

Reply
whatnext (Feb 8, 2019 - 6:52 pm)

More stories trickling out, apparently she threw a binder that accidentally hit someone. That's obviously no bueno. But there's still so much stuff that seems perfectly reasonable thrown in to make her seem more difficult than most. Example, these instructions for personal staffers:

"Especially while in the car during a busy day: if she is EXTREMELY upset about something, let her rant through it, DON’T interupt [sic] her unless ABSOLUTELY necessary and be careful when trying to calm her down,” the memo reads. “Often she just needs to talk things out in the open and is not interested in other people’s opinions―this is something that you will become used to and adjust to―its just a note for the first time this happens.”

That's just good, basic advice everyone should heed to get through life. Applies to friends, partners, bosses, anybody really. Not a day goes by on this planet where millions of people just need to vent and don't want to be told to calm down.

"Only speak when spoken to at events"

That's not out of line for a politician who is trying to get to a bunch of different people at events.

"Anything could set her temper off, they said, and it was often unpredictable. Among the things that staffers said had prompted outbursts from Klobuchar: minor grammar mistakes, the use of the word “community” in press releases, forgetting to pack the proper coat in her suitcase, failing to charge her iPad, and using staples."

Some of those things aren't unreasonable to be upset about! I would think packing the right coat for her would be very important considering Minnesota weather, and a boss's electronic devices should be charged if that's your responsibility. If my boss needed a laptop or iPad or anything electronic for court and oopsies, I forgot to charge it, that's a fireable offense.

On the other hand, sending emails complaining about staff in the wee hours of the morning and asking them to put your dirty laundry in the hamper while they wait for you is just rude. But, at least wrt to the former, certainly not uncommon for many of us.

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 8, 2019 - 7:36 pm)

"Often she just needs to talk things out in the open and is not interested in other people’s opinions."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ROFL. That line describes practically EVERY politician I have ever known to a T. Esp. highly visible ones (in national politics). Those "instructions" sound like something you would need to know if you were hired to work for the Queen in Buckingham Palace...:-).

The real problem is that many of these people, once elected, literally become addicted to the spotlight, being a "celebrity," the fawning/fearful attention from staff, and they start believing the phony press releases they force their staff to write about how fabulous they are. There's also CONSTANT flattery from worshipful, star-struck constituents, and great pay for essentially doing little other than attending fundraisers and jockeying for media publicity. And, of course, the big bucks from lobbyists/PACs flowing their way to influence their votes. The end result is their egos become huge to the point of needing a crowbar to get their heads through the door and they become HELL to work for (or live with). That kind of fawning treatment would probably turn all of us into the same kind of Frankenstein...:-)

IMO, it's abusive--and unethical according to Congress' own rules--to ask or expect CONGRESSIONAL staff to do personal "chores". Rules prohibit members of Congress from treating Congressional staff like their personal maids/valets. But, unfortunately, it happens ALL THE TIME: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/25/tom-garrett-staff-servants-608665.

Why can't Fussy Amy pack her own coat or do her own damn laundry? Or just hire a (non-Congressional) personal asst. to wait on her hand and foot to stroke her ego? Problem solved. It's not like she can't afford it. Or maybe she acts this way because its a handy excuse to vent and play intimidation games with the staff, exploit the power differential. Or because there is just no dog at home for her to kick?? LOL BTW, if she hit me with a binder, I wouldn't hesitate to sue her for assault and battery or throw it right back at her: "Ooops!! So Sorry!! It slipped!!"

Reply
toooldtocare (Feb 8, 2019 - 8:33 pm)

Don't think I've ever met, or heard about, a mello easy-going successful politician. They all, men and women, regardless of race/color/creed/place of national origin, are ego maniacs, and hence think the world revolves around them, which leads to treating people badly and asking staff to perform, literally, housekeeping. Mr. "I feel your pain" himself, Bill Clinton, was known by staff to have his "purple fits" where he'd come totally unglued screaming at staff about trivial stuff.
But good politicians have a chief of staff, or someone similar, to smooth things over with staff so this stuff doesn't get into the press. So maybe all she needs to do is get a better chief.
All that said, doubt any voters care about this, at all.

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 8, 2019 - 9:07 pm)

The Clintons reportedly treated EVERYONE around them (including--very stupidly--the Secret Service) like utter shit. The poor staff also had to witness their legendary, cursing fights, when dishes would fly or be broken over Bill's latest mistress. Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin (former LBJ staffer) said her boss would use profanity like pronouns, call her at all hours of the night, and conduct mandatory phone staff meetings while using the toilet. (Clearly, we have had some pretty sick people in the WH.)

I think Lincoln was probably one of the nicest, kindest presidents. According to historians, he dealt with stress by telling jokes at the end of the day, esp. trying to defuse conflicts with/among his cabinet. Mary Lincoln is another story. It must have been challenging working in proximity to her, with her constant, untreated mood-swings, esp. after Willie died.

God knows FDR had very good reasons to explode into rages--the stress of Polio, Great Depression, WW2--but as far as I have read, he was pretty even-keeled throughout it all, at least around others. But perhaps that's because no one talked about it: he lived in an era where stories about "personal stuff" (including his Polio and affairs) were largely ignored by the press and hidden from the public.


SOME voters won't care. Others might. Some might question a glaring conflict between the public façade and very different private behavior. ("What else are they trying to fool us about?"). Others might think: "We just lived through 2+ long, exhausting years of chaos, melodrama, revolving staff/cabinet doors in the WH. The LAST thing we need is ANOTHER 4 years of that same nonsense." They may also wonder if someone who frequently flies into rages and even throws things at staff is too mentally unbalanced to be in office.

Reply
toooldtocare (Feb 10, 2019 - 4:53 pm)

Trump, for better or worse, has changed everything, if only in the short term(as in 2020); nobody is going to invoke Lincoln or FDR regarding how candidates should treat staff.
Trump is going to get full support from everybody in the GOP, even the ones who detest him, as he is doing their bidding. And Trump has spoken ill of numerous current or former high-level staffers, the sort of people who never got criticized in the past, including numerous of his own appointees. He's accused sitting GOP senators of being dumb(Rubio) and said Cruz's father played a role in the JFK assassination, when he wasn't calling Cruz "Lyin' Ted" and still Cruz/Rubio vote his way 95% of the time.
So maybe some voters will care, but not a single Trump voter. Barring something I can't even imagine(this guy got elected AFTER the Access Hollywood tape, after all), his base and all the GOP vote for him. It'll be up to the democrat to 1. somehow get the party together so all the democrats vote for the democrat and 2. swing enough independents to vote democrat. Otherwise, it will be 2016 all over again.

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 10, 2019 - 10:06 pm)

Actually, I know ALOT of Trump voters who say there is no way in hell they will support him in 2020.

Reply
persius (Feb 10, 2019 - 10:24 pm)

The silent Trumper 2.0. Don’t believe them.

Reply
toooldtocare (Feb 11, 2019 - 9:35 am)

That's the whole point; it's been argued persuasively that the pre-election polls were so wrong, in large part, b/c voters lied about their support of Trump. So claiming to "know ALOT of Trump voters who say there is no way in hell they will support him" is meaningless-even with the all caps.
The democrats did well in 2018 b/c they got out the regular democrats who stayed home in 2016, and persuaded plenty of independents. There is nothing any democrat can do to shake the people who voted for Trump. Either the democrats operate a great get out the vote program in 2020, or they lose again.

Reply
exnite (Feb 10, 2019 - 8:30 pm)

She’s a sociopath

Reply
exnite (Feb 10, 2019 - 2:15 pm)

“The run-up to Klobuchar’s expected presidential campaign launch on Sunday has been sidetracked by former aides, speaking anonymously for fear of retribution, who described a toxic office environment including demeaning emails, thrown office supplies and requests for staff to perform personal chores for the senator“

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/10/amy-klobuchar-2020-staff-horror-stories-1160780

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 10, 2019 - 2:26 pm)

She's TOAST. ANOTHER one (like Warren, Booker) who probably won't make it beyond IA because big donors don't want to waste $$ on any single-digit, scandal-tainted "also rans". IMO, these people know they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming POTUS. They're just running to raise $$ and name-recognition for their backup career plans (governor, VP, CNN/MSN pundit).

Reply
frida2 (Feb 10, 2019 - 2:54 pm)

I would vote for any human over trump. If I had to choose between Ted Cruz and trump, I'd vote for Ted Cruz. Lots of people feel this way. Anyone writing off any of the Democratic candidates this far in advance of the primaries is not very bright.

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 10, 2019 - 3:58 pm)

You're so partisan, you probably would have voted for Charles Manson if he claimed to be a Democrat.

Anyone who ignores ANY party candidates' weaknesses and their impact on their chances in the primaries or general election is the (naïve) dimwit. Don't take my word for it, just ask Hillary and the fools who spent MILLIONS on her coronations in 2008 and 2016 when most Dem. voters didn't even support her in the primaries.

Reply
frida2 (Feb 10, 2019 - 4:13 pm)

You are extremely stupid or just intentionally repeating misinformation over and over again.

Popular vote 16,914,722 Clinton 13,206,428 Sanders
Percentage 55.2% Clinton 43.1% Sanders

Read wikipedia or something

Reply
exnite (Feb 10, 2019 - 4:51 pm)

The Dem primaries were rigged from the get-go

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 10, 2019 - 9:19 pm)

Frida, you are extremely clueless, either seriously math-challenged or unable to grasp REALITY. I suggest you put down your bong and pink p...y hat and educate yourself before publicly broadcasting your ignorance:

304 Electoral votes (Trump); 227 electoral votes (Clinton). 207 needed to win. Clinton lost by 77 EVs.

4.4 million 2012 Obama voters stayed home in 2016. (This figure doesn't even include those millions of 2012 Obama voters who crossed over and voted Trump in 2016.)

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../4-4-million-2012-obama-voters-stayed-home-in-2016)

4.9% of the total general election voters cast 3P ballots (for Johnson, Stein, or another candidate). Hillary LOST. GET OVER IT.

Reply
drglennrichie (Feb 10, 2019 - 9:31 pm)

Whats the point even arguing with frida?

Reply
frida2 (Feb 10, 2019 - 9:34 pm)

She didn't lose the primary. BERNIE LOST GET OVER IT.

Reply
drglennrichie (Feb 10, 2019 - 9:37 pm)

She didnt win it fair. The decision that she will be the nominee was made before the primaries. Bernie was there just a cheerleader. Then he was disposed off. LOL

Reply
frida2 (Feb 10, 2019 - 9:43 pm)

We got rid of superdelegates in August 2018, which is great. I'm very glad the outdated and unpopular superdelegate system is over. But superdelegates could change their mind about who they supported. In 2008 they initially supported Hillary Clinton and then switched to Obama. The race between Clinton and Sanders was not a close race.

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 10, 2019 - 10:04 pm)

She sure as hell rigged it with help from her buddies: Cuomo, Wasserman-Shultz, Brazile. And Karma then paid her back when she LOST the general election. SHE LOST. GET OVER IT.

Reply
frida2 (Feb 10, 2019 - 10:30 pm)

I wasn't the one who brought her up in this thread. I never bring her up in any thread. How exactly was it rigged?

Reply
trijocker (Feb 10, 2019 - 5:16 pm)

Apparently Amy appears to be somewhat of a beeyotch
Cruel to her staff and makes her aides wash her dishes.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6688841/Sen-Amy-Klobuchar-enters-2020-race-near-white-conditions-Minnesota.html

Reply
frida2 (Feb 10, 2019 - 6:10 pm)

This is how Klobuchar responded to these stories. Good answer.

https://twitter.com/chelsea_janes/status/1094706381515644930?s=19

Klobuchar on stories describing an abusive office environment: "Yes, I can be tough. And yes, I can push people. I know that...I have, I’d say, high expectations for myself. I have high expectations for the people who work for me. And I have high expectations for this country."

Reply
toooldtocare (Feb 10, 2019 - 6:36 pm)

No, it's not a good answer, and it isn't particularly original, having been used by countless other serial employee abusers in the past; it's the answer that an egomaniac gives in justifying poor treatment of people s/he believes are lesser than themselves. It's all part of the kick down/kiss up syndrome from which Klobuchar-like so many others in positions of power-suffer. She'll suck up to voters-unless that voter happens to work for her. S

Reply
frida2 (Feb 10, 2019 - 6:50 pm)

I think it was the right thing to say. It was better than a flat out denial. If it's an actual issue, there will be leaks and chaos in her campaign.

Reply
toooldtocare (Feb 10, 2019 - 6:55 pm)

No it wasn't; it was the stock answer all employer tyrants give in these situations. It would have been better to ignore the reports.

Reply
frida2 (Feb 10, 2019 - 7:14 pm)

She was responding to reporters' questions. It would be weird to refuse to answer the question.

Reply
toooldtocare (Feb 10, 2019 - 7:30 pm)

Then she should have told the truth:
"I am a disciple of the kick down/kiss up paradigm. These people are unimportant, and rely on me totally for their jobs. As such, I can treat them however I want, and if they don't like it, they can quit."
That would be refreshing honesty from a politician.

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 10, 2019 - 9:43 pm)

Why? It worked so well for Hillary and Warren...LOL

Reply
toooldtocare (Feb 11, 2019 - 9:31 am)

Warren?

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 11, 2019 - 10:44 pm)

It's SARCASM, dude. LOL

Reply
toooldtocare (Feb 12, 2019 - 9:28 am)

Seemed more clueless than sarcastic, as Clinton has never told the truth about anything.

Reply
exnite (Feb 10, 2019 - 8:32 pm)

Translation: she’s a petty tyrant who wants a promotion to Tyrant Propre

Reply
plumber (Feb 10, 2019 - 6:13 pm)

This broad gave a speech today where she spoke about global warming while literally turning into a snowwoman. Too funny.

Reply
persius (Feb 10, 2019 - 6:31 pm)

She sounds like a treat. She is probably reaming the staff right now for it.

There are all different kinds of leadership styles. I heard W was a screamer.

Reply
frida2 (Feb 10, 2019 - 6:33 pm)

No problem. Most people understand the difference between climate and weather. I don't think she's going after the science-denier community.

Reply
plumber (Feb 10, 2019 - 8:07 pm)

Yep. I am literally turning into Frosty the Snowomyn because it is warmer.

Reply
trijocker (Feb 10, 2019 - 8:20 pm)

Oh wait, she admits she is a beeyotch
Sorry, wouldn't care if I loved her politics, I would not vote for her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6689461/Democratic-Senator-Amy-Klobuchar-does-NOT-deny-accusations-mistreats-staff.html

Reply
plumber (Feb 10, 2019 - 8:45 pm)

Lol. The Climate Change Snowoman: https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/amy-klobuchar-3.jpg

She looks like she is frozen.. or turning blue.

Reply
wutwutwut (Feb 10, 2019 - 9:04 pm)

In view of how mean she's supposed to be, I wonder if any opponents have run this past a focus group yet?


"Klobit cher"


(site nannybot made me break it up)

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 11, 2019 - 10:43 pm)

How about "Klobber char"??

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 10, 2019 - 9:26 pm)

The snow was symbolic: Another politician SNOWING voters. It was kind of odd, low-key. Hardly anyone applauded or cheered. The paid "supporters" were probably too frostbitten to speak or clap. They reportedly waited HOURS in the blizzard for this exciting moment. LOL

Kamala's announcement was the best, by far. Well organized, good speech. In comparison, Amy's logistics looked very rudimentary, amateurish. But she's a better, more nuanced speaker than Warren, who just loudly screams the same, tired clichés/slogans in the microphone. Gillibrand's a very thoughtful, good speaker. But for some odd reason, she decided to announce her campaign on a late night comedy show (Stephen Colbert), when like 3 people were awake or lucid enough to care....LOL

Reply
whatnext (Feb 10, 2019 - 10:31 pm)

Trump mocking her appearance in the snow is hilarious considering a light drizzle kept him from honoring teh troops.

Reply
exnite (Feb 11, 2019 - 11:40 am)

I posted the Bad Stuff, so it’s only fair to post the good stuff

“She’s a person of character and great ability,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), a fellow negotiator. “She’s the whole package. That’s probably too nice.”

“I hope I’m not condemning her nascent run for the presidency,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) as he praised Klobuchar. “She’s too reasonable, too likable, too nice.”

https://apple.news/ABAOyCKNlRy2SBOfU4kuCoA

Reply
toooldtocare (Feb 11, 2019 - 12:08 pm)

More proof she's infected with the kiss up/kick down syndrome: she's reasonable when dealing with her equals in the US Senate, but a tyrant when dealing with lesser mortals, her employees. None of this is surprising.

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 11, 2019 - 10:42 pm)

You hear that ALL THE TIME about these "officials". I wish there were an anonymous website where staff could vent about the really toxic ones, like Klobuchar. Not only would it be therapeutic, useful to warn off any starry-eyed future job applicants (victims), but I think it would be a huge public service to voters. The public has a right to know how awful they are in reality, behind closed doors, esp. come election time.

Reply
whatnext (Feb 19, 2019 - 4:35 pm)

Klobuchar poo poo’d free college and single payer last night to the applause of her town hall audience.

As other Democrats rush to promise the moon to voters, Klobuchar seems to be taking a “This is what we can actually accomplish” tack. I find that interesting and think that will play well with a decent chunk of the primary electorate, especially the suburbanites horrified by Trump.

Reply
jorgedeclaro (Feb 19, 2019 - 5:06 pm)

I think it’s a winning message IF she can get through the primary. While none of them are at Trump’s level, most of the Democratic candidates have become more bombastic and more dismissive of facts since Trump became president. Along with the push to the left, there is a possibility that the Democrats pick a candidate who is too liberal to draw swing voters who desperately don’t want to sit it out or worse, vote for Trump. Klobuchar’s style would be an excellent antidote. She’s has amazing self-control, and isn’t going to bullied into selling moonbeams. Unfortunately, the democratic base is really into demanding moonbeams right now.

I think she’s got a chance to be the nominee. But I wouldn’t call her one of the favorites. She is however the one I would prefer to see get the nomination.

And free college boy was not happy with that answer and I didn’t think the audience overall was all that excited about either answer.

Reply
whatnext (Feb 19, 2019 - 5:15 pm)

I think it will play well to older primary voters (most likely to vote) who already have or are close to good healthcare (or are 50+, who Klobuchar wants to expand Medicare to) and already went to and paid for college (albeit when it was way cheaper). Older people hate giving younger people free stuff.

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 19, 2019 - 11:08 pm)

Klobuchar was PATHETIC last night in that "Town Hall". She sounded like a DINO, Wall St. shill. She should be running as a REPUBLICAN. To me the whole thing looked like a pre-scripted PR stunt, complete with comments/Qs obviously read by (probably paid) people posing as "the public" and a friendly host who failed to call her on evasiveness or vagueness.

Most troubling, she decline to endorse most basic, meaningful Dem. values (universal, affordable health insurance for all, strong response to climate change, meaningful gun control, affordable education and housing). She sounded more worried about her gun-loving "Uncle Dick" than the thousands of Americans who have [needlessly, shamefully] been injured or killed in 2 decades of escalating school (and other public) massacres.

I totally disagree with whatnext's observation she will skate into the nomination or WH with a passive, incremental "I'm not going to try for anything meaningful because this is what we can accomplish" message. That incremental garbage (from ANY party candidate) just won't fly anymore with an angry, disillusioned, impatient, electorate fed up with their declining standard of living, DECADES of empty promises, and ZERO delivery (except for corporations and super rich Americans). Obama did EXACTLY the SAME thing with health care and the economy, refusing to indict Wall St. CEOs after the crash, approving their post-crash bonuses, and allowing health care lobbyists to draft the ACA, which royally shafts the middle class with sky-high premiums, deductibles, coinsurance, drug costs.

In essence, this is Klobuchar's argument: Americans should "be patient" in the face of REAL emergencies like catastrophic floods, fires (that cause massive home loss, loss of lives, higher insurance premiums), wait another 20 years to try to significantly reduce school/public shootings with MEANINGFUL gun control, get ALL Americans affordable health insurance, education....because getting something really effective passed is just "too hard, too impractical" now in the current political climate, "so don't expect me to even try!!"


I'm sorry, but that tells me that she will be nothing but a passive (and/or corrupt) tool who accepts "business/politics as usual" because she's just unwilling to do the work (or alienate her buddies in the GOP) in order to get REAL results, in order to DO THE RIGHT THING. NOW. People want REAL EFFORTS AND REAL RESULTS NOW---NOT 20 YEARS FROM NOW. We don't need ANOTHER passive, scared Dem. POTUS willing to accept glacial (non)change (i.e., a broken status quo) because s/he is too afraid to think outside the box and use the office of president the way it SHOULD and HAS been used (by great leaders): to inspire the nation and Congress in the direction they need to go to benefit ALL Americans.

Can you imagine if Lincoln, FDR, JFK and/or LBJ had the SAME attitude, lack of vision and spine as Klobuchar?? LBJ: "I'm sorry black Americans. You just have to be patient, wait ANOTHER generation because it's just too hard, impossible to get the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act through Congress now." FDR: "Sorry, folks, surviving the Great Depression and defeating Hitler and Mussolini are impossible right now. Let's wait." Lincoln: "Let the nation split in 2, it's impossible to win the Civil War or enact the Emancipation Proclamation. Too unpopular!" JFK: "I proposed to land a man on the moon in....oh....maybe another 50 years...provided it's really POSSIBLE then."

Klobuchar loves to bill herself as "tough" (esp. when excusing her history of staff abuse). But she showed that she is nowhere near "tough enough"--or bold, visionary, and confident enough--to be the POTUS this country sorely needs. One who will not hesitate to pro-actively, assertively take on the entrenched status quo or fight for what MOST Americans REALLY want and need. We need a Lincoln, TR/FDR, or LBJ who knows how to kick (Congressional) butt and REALLY get SIGNIFICANT things done. We don't need a passive Clinton/Obama clone who caves to lobbyists, then tries to characterize 1/10th of a loaf that fails to improve our lives as "a great victory"...someone who is all talk, hokum, and has little to show for her decade in Congress.

Reply
whatnext (Feb 19, 2019 - 11:22 pm)

I didn’t say she’d skate, I said it’s an interesting strategy that could play well with a not insignificant portion of the electorate.

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 19, 2019 - 11:43 pm)

With all due respect, Trump was elected BECAUSE voters--including older ones--in BOTH parties were fed up with politicians (in both parties) who they felt have promised "Hope, Change" then screwed them over the past 30 years. All Amy promises is 4 more years of the SAME. NO voter wants that, esp. this election cycle. The voters' patience is running very thin.

I doubt they want a repeat of the Trump Chaos Nightmare Reality TV Show. But I also doubt they want to return to "BAU", esp. by picking a show-horse like Klobuchar, Harris, Booker, or Warren, all of whom have precious few real achievements after years in the Senate.

I really think they are going to go with someone entirely different (untainted by old style politics by years in the Senate), someone entirely new to the national scene (e.g., Mayor Pete, Beto O'Rourke). At least I hope so.

Reply
exnite (Feb 20, 2019 - 5:52 am)

Nixon pioneered, with the help of Roger Ailes, the kind of fake town hall meeting that Amy just held. Pre-rehearsed questions and answers, moderator who was secretly a pro-Nixon operative, actors dressed as hard hats, hippies and “opponents”, no hard questions, signals when to applaud etc, the whole sickening exercise in cynical Propaganda. It’s an old trick and no one but a child should fall for it.

No we don’t need a Lincoln, a TR, an FDR, JFK or LBJ. Your trust in the Presidency is seriously misplaced. Recommend you and everyone else give this book a try:



Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 20, 2019 - 2:04 pm)

"No we don’t need a Lincoln, a TR, an FDR, JFK or LBJ. Your trust in the Presidency is seriously misplaced."

+++++++++++++++++++++

I'm certainly not arguing for an expansion or abuse of presidential powers.

The point I was making--perhaps not clearly enough for you--is that I believe Americans are sick and tired of people who view/use the presidency as nothing more than the ultimate "political trophy/ego trip": requiring little of them other than passively doing photo ops/speeches, basking in the spotlight/applause, enjoying foreign travel, then cashing in afterwards with lucrative speaking tours/book deals.

I cited Lincoln, TR, FDR, LBJ because I believe that, unlike most POTUSes, they uniquely understood the powers of their office and used it effectively and benevolently to truly inspire the nation, get things done to the benefit ALL Americans (not just their lobbyist/donor "buddies" or the 1%).

Reply
exnite (Feb 20, 2019 - 2:35 pm)

You ARE arguing for a major expansion of Presidential powers if you really expect any President to solve all the problems you listed: “(universal, affordable health insurance for all, strong response to climate change, meaningful gun control, affordable education and housing).”

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 20, 2019 - 11:39 pm)

I DON'T expect a POTUS to unilaterally solve problems. What I DO expect is a POTUS to LEAD THE COUNTRY. And, IMO, we haven't had a REAL, pro-active, effective LEADER in the WH in half a century.

Reply
toooldtocare (Feb 20, 2019 - 2:48 pm)

While your intentions may be in the right place, things don't always work out well in these cases. Right now, we've got a president who may have a lot of executive time on his hands but has his minions diligently rolling back environmental standards, orchestrating tax cuts for the rich, working hard to eliminate healthcare under the ACA. The president himself is active, insulting allies regularly, and deciding that he knows more both theoretically and factually than the entire national security team he appointed. He also has assembled-with the blessing of the Senate-a genuinely scary group of judicial appointments.

So right now, and at least until the next election, I'd like a president who did nothing. After the last SCOTUS nominee hearing, I longed for a president who would act "passively doing photo ops/speeches, basking in the spotlight/applause, enjoying foreign travel, then cashing in afterwards with lucrative speaking tours/book deals."

And I'm no fan of Senator K, but your faith in LBJ is a perfect example of what can go wrong. He did a lot of good on civil rights-then was entirely pro-active, for lack of a better way to phrase it, in Viet Nam, a disaster of epic proportions. He got in deeper and deeper, more and more people died; it was like he was in quicksand. He even had maps of the country in his office, telling the generals where to bomb next. That's the danger of having a president like LBJ.

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 20, 2019 - 11:42 pm)

K will do NOTHING. I NEVER will vote for someone who asks/expects Americans to settle for accepting the broken status quo.

Reply
toooldtocare (Feb 21, 2019 - 9:04 am)

Nobody said anything about voting for Senator K. It is, however, important to remember to be careful what you ask for; you might just get it.

Reply
catwoman333 (Feb 21, 2019 - 7:13 pm)

"Nobody said anything about voting for Senator K."
++++++++++++++++++++
Dude, at this point, you are just arguing for the sake of being argumentative. I suggest you read the title of this thread ("AK for POTUS"), then get a life.

Reply
toooldtocare (Feb 21, 2019 - 8:32 pm)

Why should I get a life now? I've never had one before.
Geez, and there I was trying to agree with you; lesson learned.

You want LBJ? Well, welcome to Viet Nam. Yeah, he's a bold visionary-58,000 US dead, Viet Namese dead?-well into the hundreds of thousands.

Reply
Post a message in this thread