General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Clinton really needs some new advisors
While I strongly believe Clinton is our best option for 2016, she's already repeating the same mistakes she made in 2008. I don't know if it's Clinton or her advisors, but when they come out of the woodwork to say how Clinton would have done things different than Obama, which audience are they hoping to appeal to? Teabaggers? PUMAs? Why does she think that piling on Obama will help her campaign?
If any Clinton advisors are reading this, here's some advice: Kicking republican ass is good. Kissing republican ass is bad. Follow those rules and you'll win.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)You can't put someone in charge of the world's largest economy AND military if they can't figure out what's the right thing to do on their own.
Advisors is no excuse.
monmouth3
(3,871 posts)Beacool
(30,244 posts)There are a lot assumptions going on around here that have no basis.
apples and oranges
(1,451 posts)when it comes to her campaign.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)These people were not her personal advisors, they worked for the WH. Ergo, they worked for Obama.
Get the difference?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...of her campaign. People love him.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)from the State Department who left shortly before or after she did.
My take on the article is that it is going in all directions - except with Obama. As you said, it is not likely that this is Clinton approved. I also question it because it looks like he tried to sew together many incompatible (dishonest? or simply their guess) things. Note the many contradictory memes:
-HRC did not approve a similar deal
-HRC negotiated a tougher deal ( question - if so, did OBAMA reject it or the Taliban - in which case, she did NOT negotiate a tougher deal - she proposed one.
One meme argues that HRC would not negotiate with "terrorists" - ignoring their was a public goal that they would assist in a peace deal that involved reconciliation. (After all you can't get peace - if you stay permanently at war with the Taliban.)
The other merely disses Obama and the current team - saying she was better at getting a deal.
I think this is a journalist wanting a story that gets attention - and HRC gets attention.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)Hillary has publicly supported Obama's decision, but the media has to find a way to create a wedge between the two of them where none exists.
I just love how anything Clinton around here is enough to start ridiculous OPs like this one. It's the kind of nonsense that one reads at RW sites.
ananda
(28,783 posts)There are many things I wish Obama had done differently.
apples and oranges
(1,451 posts)looking desperate, sneaky and opportunistic. That's why McCain, Clinton, and Romney ultimately lost against Obama.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)Your opinions are not facts.
Cha
(295,926 posts)to be talking trash about the Dems in Office now.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)would be to run as an Obama clone.
apples and oranges
(1,451 posts)JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)Al Gore failed because he had zero personality and no discernable policies.
And he distanced himself from Clinton, not Obama.
Pathwalker
(6,597 posts)n/t
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)His climate change cause, which I applaud, came about long after his failed bid for the White House, and is irrelevant to presidential campaigning.
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)Cha
(295,926 posts)LLD
(136 posts)Cha
(295,926 posts)and it's not a good idea to alienate them or really anyone while the 2014 Midterms are coming up fast.
Baitball Blogger
(46,576 posts)Cha
(295,926 posts)although I have, without knowing what was said.
Baitball Blogger
(46,576 posts)If Clinton runs for office, she has my vote. But from here to there, she does have a perception problem to deal with. The worst form of Democratic government is not a two party system with adversarial platforms. It is a two party system with a lot of bipartisan agreement.
Republicans are very happy with bills that fall short of their purpose, as long as they continue to destroy the federal government's benign purpose. That's because Republicans have an entirely different way of enriching themselves. They benefit from Wall Street deregulation, because the banks take care of their important clients, while they screw over everyone else. They benefit with military expansion because the private corporations who get the military contracts are usually their supporters; They benefit when schools are built, because the companies that build those schools are Republican campaign donors. And this is what can be seen and measured if journalist actually try. What is harder to do, is find how they work around the system, using backroom deals that generally escape public scrutiny.
So, each time a Democrat thinks they have done a wonderful thing by compromising with Republicans, they are actually only sending pennies on the dollar to their base in the form of charity, while Republicans are getting paid handsomely with public money for building the infra-structure to execute those programs.
And I might add, that the few times that Democrats have joined that gravy train, it didn't go over very well. It made it difficult to demand accountability without shooting our own.
So, that's Clinton's perception problem. We know she's so entrenched in that inside circle, that she will probably give us more of what we've already seen. She needs to get angry, break ties with people who want their fiefdoms protected, and find a better way.
Until then, those of us with the least resources are the ones that are left to expose the gaps in the system.
And after that rant, I can say that I support your effort. Keep the discourse honest, but you have an uphill climb.
Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)America would be better of if she retired
She runs i will not support her and I know I am not the only one.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)All these people who claim they will not vote for her no matter what, deserve to end up with a Republican Tea Bagger for president.
Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)Just because they have a D after their name does not mean the person is liberal or progressive.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)Beacool
(30,244 posts)It's a simplistic and dismissive view, but not true.
dsc
(52,130 posts)who has her positions on gay and women's rights. Or don't those matter?
Response to apples and oranges (Original post)
Post removed
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)progressoid
(49,827 posts)They probably push her corporate friendly, centrist ideals just the way she wants.
JEB
(4,748 posts)or does she have one she is willing to share with us working stiffs? Drone killings? Bank regulation? Patriot act? NSA over reach? All I have are questions that I want clear and defined answers to before I can consider casting any votes.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)She's not going to draw a primary opponent who stands to be "The First (fill in the blank) POTUS", which took precident over her being "The First Female POTUS". I don't see anyone (besides her, of course) other than white men running for the job in either party.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Regardless of her connections, her name recognition, her experience.
Hillary Clinton doesn't have the qualities that I look for in a leader: a strong democratic compass, a great BS detector, a burning desire to fight for ordinary people and strong support from other people of the same character.
She isn't Bill. He was slick, but he had some of that. And there hasn't been another like him, even though towards the end he betrayed the cause.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I can't see Obama or his leadership approving an attack on her gender - they didn't have to and surely they would have known that was not the right angle to take.
That quote doesn't sound right at all -- more like a sleight of hand thing.
Cha
(295,926 posts)to get palin voters and lose Obama supporters. 'Cause good luck with that. There would be no attack on palin's gender.. and I can't see them "reaching out to" Clinton, either.