Bill de Blasio 2014 swearing in ceremony:
—
Bill de Blasio 2018 swearing in ceremony:
—
Notice anything (other than the temperature being about fifteen degrees warmer in 2014)?
36 Comments
Bill de Blasio 2014 swearing in ceremony:
—
Bill de Blasio 2018 swearing in ceremony:
—
Notice anything (other than the temperature being about fifteen degrees warmer in 2014)?
Bernie Sanders swears in mayor Bill de Blasio
https:/www.google.ae/amp/observer.com/2018/01/bernie-sanders-bill-de-blasio-mayor-inauguration/amp
Hillary showing she belongs too …
Why Bill in ’14 and why Bernie in ’18?
(One of Bernie’s best qualities is that he doesn’t carry grudges.)
From my not so perfect link above …
That’s nice but consider the historical facts.
The NYTimees: Mayor Bill de Blasio’s slow, awkward march toward endorsing Hillary Rodham Clinton — the woman who jump-started his political career — reached its widely predicted conclusion on Friday, as the mayor extended his presidential blessing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” (An overstatement to say that Hillary had jump-started de Blasio’s career. He was her 2000 Senate campaign manager.) So, de Blasio gets crap for not endorsing very early and crap for it not being as full-throated as expected of all elected Democratic office-holders.
Continued to get crap – April 1, 2016:
5) Brooklyn is where voters were purged or had their party affiliation changed (from D to whatever) before the NY presidential primary on April 19, 2016.
So, was de Blasio’s endorsement genuine or forced upon him by the DP bosses? And did he choose Sanders for his swearing in to manipulate NY Sanders supporters or with Clinton’s loss is it a genuine signal of where he really stands? That’s the sort of thing that drives ordinary voters nuts. One that Elizabeth Warren (without the years of political experience that de Blasio has) avoided by endorsing Clinton on June 9, 2016.
No, deBlasio’s endorsement was forced upon him by Guccifer, Don Trump Jr. and Julian Assange (PBUH).
Forced for sure. Remember, as campaign manager he saw them up close. Why not openly break? Because he is a man with abmition, and doesn’t want the wrath of the Clintons.
The former. The latter is irrelevant. he’s trying to keep feet in both camps wjile observing how the wind blows. As I said, he’s ambitious and doesn’t want to fall on anyone’s sword.
I’m very surprised that someone other than a judge or elected official of the same state swears in the Mayor.
I thought about that but couldn’t find any legal requirement or precedent. Although the swearing in ceremony for NY mayors is of recent vintage and varies widely.
NY does require all state employees/public officers and elected officials to file an oath/affirmation with the NY Dept of State. So, a formal swearing in may be optional.
The President of the Senate swears in Senators and the Dean of the House swears in Reps. So, no judges there.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t the Chief Justice swear in the President?
I am in no way sure of this but I always thought that the Mayor of Chicago was sworn in by a Cook County Circuit Court judge. Certainty maybe 10%
By convention it’s usually been the Chief Justice. Legally any official, including a lowly notary public, will do. The imprimatur of a judge just makes all legal things look more legitimate and it’s easy enough to call in a judge for the task.
Notice anything?
Yes.
Bernie doesn’t waste thousands of dollars on overcoats and haircuts.
The next presidential who practices moderate spending in private life and in public life will win the election.
Especially if running against our present
guilt-plated…oops, sorry, I meant gilt-plated…overconsuming-as a-way-of-life preznit. Trying to look like some Brooks Brothers lifestyle ad was Obama’s biggest PR gaffe. He shoulda kept his street look.Later…
AG
Got to disagree about Obama. I must agree with Durbin on this. Obama succeeded because nothing about him was black except his skin. Black speech, black haircut, black clothes, all would have turned off white voters. It’s not right, but it is true. Obama looked and talked like a Wall Street board chairman. That’s what people want. They (unconsciously I’m sure) want someone of higher class than themselves. So why didn’t Hillary beat low class blowhard Trump? People don’t want someone sneaky and secretive that smirks at them. They want higher class but not snobs.
I await your precise, careful definitions of “black speech”, “black haircut”, and “black clothes”.
Contrast with Jesse Jackson.
In fairness (and because IMO AG way overstates this point*), the standard in politics is white, male, and straight. POC, women, and non-straight hue as close to that standard in public appearances as they can.
In dress and everyday speech, there’s not that much difference between Obama and Jackson (or any other notable AA men in business and politics) and generic white men that have some stature. What is different is is their public speaking styles/abilities. Jackson’s roots in preaching makes him the much better speaker. On the few occasions when Obama has attempted that style, he wasn’t good at it.
*It’s what drove AG to disparagingly post all those Obama playing golf photos as if only white, middle-aged men play golf. It’s primarily a social leisure activity for those that possess income/wealth above that of the middle and lower classes. (Dave Zirin calls it a game and not a sport which seems correct to me.) Historically tony and private. However public courses (public as in owned by a city, county, state, or USG and open to the community and not structured as a club) were built over the decades; so, it became more egalitarian. Still, higher cost than other games/sports at public facilities. (The history of and current status of Presidio Golf is interesting. (Also note that most, if not all, of Obama’s DC weekend rounds of golf were played on military golf courses.))
The litmus test is “If you hear him on the radio can you tell he’s black?” As I said, this is not right but it is accurate. Call it tribalism, call it what you want but it is a phenomenon. Notice how both Bill Clinton’s and Edward’s speech became more distinctly southern when they talked to Southern audiences? And here in Chicago when Irish politicians speak in Irish neighborhoods their voice takes on a distinct brogue. Similarly, Italian politicians will make gestures that they are careful not to do in front of non-Italian audiences. It may be unconscious but I think not. It’s a way to say without coming right out, “I’m one of you. I belong to the tribe.” I haven’t noticed much if any dress difference hear in Chicago, but I have when seeing California pols on TV. Even so, Obama was Brooks Brothers all the way. Hair? Dreadlocks and bushy afros are out for a white audience. BTW, my middle grandson had a spectacular afro. A black colleague at the post office said he never saw hair like that on a white boy before. My friend has tight kinky hair that he keeps cut about a quarter inch long military style. He says an afro is WAY too much work. And yes, he is a veteran.
Durbin was castigated for saying what he did and apologized, but I took it for a correct cold blooded political assessment. It doesn’t have to be morally right; it just has to be factually right. When people try to bend the facts to fit a political theory or moral code, they just throw intellectual honesty away.
All of us develop our normal speaking voice during our formative years from our environment. (Relocating to a completely different environment will lead to some changes (Hillary’s drawl was manufactured) over a number of years. One can consciously affect a different accent or no accent in order to fit in with a new environment, but it’s never a complete transition (slips occur) and is quickly lost by moving out of that environment.
It would be totally bizarre for someone like Obama to ‘sound black’ as he was raised by a white mother and white grandparents and attended private schools all the way through Harvard Law.
Bernie doesn’t waste thousands of dollars on overcoats and haircuts.
In fairness, Chirlane McCray, and probably de Blasio, wore the same overcoat at both ceremonies. (And their kids went for warmth over style yesterday.) Hardly wasteful. That’s what most regular people would prefer to do — buy a good overcoat and wear it for years.
Then there’s the always helpful DM to put the price tags on what royalty, celebrities, politicians wear: Sanders braves the 15F cold in same show-stealing $690 Burton parka he wore to Trump’s inauguration for de Blasio’s second-term swearing in as New York mayor
(Is $690 a lot for a parka? (Probably too much for most people.) Am I supposed to know what “Burton” is?)
But I was looking for symbolic political interpretations and not a fashion critique.
About ten times too much.
For who? Please also factor in quality that increases the useful life of the garment and rating for temperatures common in VT.
Ecologically ‘fast fashion’ is horrible.
When I see a price like this I figure $69 for the parka, $621 for the label. It’s like buying a Lexus instead of a Toyota.
IOW you don’t know and answer. Sounds to me as if you’re likening Sanders’ parka to a windbreaker instead of what it is, a very cold weather overcoat.
People who don’t like to shop and aren’t fashionistas, prefer higher quality and longer usable product life. We’ve discussed this before.
You can get a really good synthetic fabric parka for $300 or less, but if you want a quality coat with goose down you can easily get close to $1,000.
My current ski parka (which I have skied in at zero degrees F) has lasted three years so far, and I paid $50 new (on sale, of course — I always look for bargains).
Quality is out there at affordable prices – you just have to look. That being said, if someone finds that a $690 coat has just the right features for them, I have no problem with it. Not my place to judge personal preferences.
Is $123,395 too much for a car?
With this title, the diary needs one more image.
Now it’s complete.
You’re probably right but with my last diary — Sock It To Me — didn’t want to push the reference too hard. Plus, as I doubt I ever watched the show when it aired, my knowledge of it has been exhausted with these two references.
There’s another obvious difference that none of you commented on: deBlasio’s son and wife are looking at him in the 2018 photo but not the 2014 photo. Now that you’ve all speculated wildly about the supposed meaning of Bernie Sanders’ presence in 2018, perhaps you’d like to speculate wildly about deBlasio’s son and wife, too.
And don’t tell me, “Oh, they were looking at him in another photo but for some reason that one wasn’t published.” No such innocent explanation will do. There must be some deeper meaning.
Only to a nutcase that appropriates the Limbaugh style of micro-speculation about irrelevant factors in a single photo or two. Leave de Blasio’s very nice family alone!
Your now obsessive need to crap over diaries and comments that deviate in the slightest way from your neo-centrist political position appears pathological.
Clearly they were not happy with the presence of Bill Clinton. In no uncertain terms!
Sarcasm tends to be wasted on staunch believers of anything.
False In both photos they are looking at deBlasio
In the interests of accuracy, only his daughter is looking directly at him in this one 2014 photo. Not that it’s relevant.
(Didn’t occur to me to wade through all the available 2014 photos (only a few from 2018 were up when I posted this) to find one where the poses of de Blasio’s wife and children were nearly identical to the 2018 photo. De Blasio and his family are loving and supportive of each other; thus, nothing more need to said.)
The son is looking down but is facing his father who is clearly in his view. He is not looking away from him. His wife is looking more into the crowd, I’ll grant you, but still not looking away.
As I said, irrelevant. JDW may be feeling pleased with himself for having derailed this discussion thread — the primary objective of trolls. It’s why I hesitate and usually don’t respond, or even acknowledge the existence, to his comments and those of several others here (and generally don’t even read their blather).
True. Good points.