General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAll of this Hillary bashing is not going to end well. It might be fulfilling for some
to claim every Hillary comment is a election defeat gaffe, but the real gaffe will be the dems shooting themselves in the foot and not having a viable candidate who wants to run in 2016. No candidate will be perfect, but the rethugs have a way of winning by surrounding the good, bad and ugly and taking over things like the House of Rep. They look like they have imploded but we will open the door for them by imploding too. Hillary, consider enjoying your grandbaby and let those who think they know better have at it. It's a shitty job anyway with a lot of Monday morning quarterbacks. Just collecting my thoughts.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)is interpreted as "bashing," then there is clearly a very serious problem with her public statements, sources of funding, record, and policy positions.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)mfcorey1
(10,996 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I will not support her in the primaries.
I am not into her, and it has all to do with her actual record in the US Senate regarding silly things like Civil Liberties and her economic stances. If you cannot understand that this is not hate, but rather an informed choice, based on what citizens are supposed to do, well then...
There is also her at the very least, approach of The Family, a group that is quite fascistic. They work in the shadows for a reason, by the way.
Some of her recent public statements make her gaffe prone. This will make it easier for an opponent with half a brain and I am sure they are hoping for a 47% statement from her, and they will use it, guaranteed.
And there is this thing about her declaring. She has not yet declared and you are all acting as if she is the candidate, already anointed. I got the feeling the pre 1968 system of selecting candidates (smoke filled rooms) would be more agreeable to you. By the way, how did the 2006 coronation work out for you?
And we are at the same place... I remember DU in 2006. It was Hillary the inevitable who was going to be the first woman President. I am sure in another reality that did happen, but not in ours, and if you all see is hate when what you have are deep, and well informed, policy differences... well, I think the next step for me will be to ignore you as a serious person when it comes to this... and perhaps, use the ignore button.
You let me know though.
Before you bring Warren and why there is no pushback, Well she is not running and there is a less loud group of people pushing her. The Draft Warren movement will work as well as the Draft Gore movement am afraid though. Someday she will run though, and her Civil Liberties votes also give me some pause. On edit, will better be replaced with might. Politics is never about absolute certainty.
mfcorey1
(10,996 posts)seek response.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but if you want to be taken seriously by me, inevitability and hate need to leave the discussion.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)The reasons find us, there is no need to go searching for them.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)pnwmom
(108,914 posts)I can't believe you haven't seen this.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)If you see something you think is outside the rules of the site, alert on it. The vast majority of Hillary criticism here has to do directly with her own public comments, record, policies, and intimate connections to the oligarchy and predatory corporations that are gutting this country.
cali
(114,904 posts)If Hillary implodes it will not be because of criticism from DU. That's just plain silly. If she implodes (and here's hoping she does) it will be of her own device.
mfcorey1
(10,996 posts)pscot
(21,023 posts)And she is not the only Democrat who can win in 2016.
karynnj
(59,466 posts)If you really think that discussions on a left Democratic board could ultimately defeat HRC in a GENERAL election, you need to explain why you think she is really such a flawed candidate that speaking of her actions, records or words is possibly damaging.
The fact is that - judging by past elections, nearly everyone here will not only vote for the Democrat, but a large percent will contribute either time, effort or money. However, that will never mean that people here will accept every position, statement or action with pure praise. Even Republicans do not do that - and they are easier to corral.
Recently, there has been negative reactions to a series of comments which hit many here as tone deaf. If I were a HRC supporter, I would hope that she learned from 2008 that when you say something that is a gaffe, but which says nothing bad about who she is -- admit it was poorly said and move on. Here, if the goal in the comment was to show that she is of the middle class and understands some hardships it might be good to transition to - a very standard Democratic response - that though she and Bill have been privileged since Yale Law School, they have worked consistently for people less fortunate. Move from this to relevant parts of her platform.
Having HRC, BC and Chelsea all doubling down on this just feeds the echo chamber - which never needed more than one gaffe or even something that could be spun into a gaffe. For HRC supporters, remember how you reacted to John Edwards portraying himself as the son of a millworker - ignoring that from the point he and Elizabeth married just out of law school, they were already middle class with a strong likelihood of being upper class in a very short time. (aside - I admire that Bill Clinton did not follow that path - which he easily could have.) For that matter, imagine how disgusted you would have been had Kerry spoken of the years where he found it tough to have an apartment in both DC and Boston - briefly having neither - to argue that he knew what it was to be broke. (In fact, even at the point it was true, he spoke of being lucky to have been born to a family that could help him.)
Both of these examples show why "factually true" is not the bar. Edwards in his attempt to be every man ignored his entire adult life. Kerry, had he argued he had any tough financial times, would have had to ignore that his extended family was always there when he need help. Ask yourself how you would have felt had Kerry said he had a point where he was "dead broke" - which was likely as "factually true" as HRC's statement.
Bill Clinton, could and did run as not wealthy in 1992 - and it was absolutely true. They might have been among the poorest Yale Law School graduates of their class - and it was because of their choice of service over money. However, no matter what their bankbook said in January 2001 when they left the WH, she had a $8 million book advance and he was likely to get a bigger one. In addition, there was fundraising to pay off the lawyers' fees for them and their subordinates.
Consider the decisions people need to make when dead broke. I seriously doubt either avoided eating at restaurants - much less struggling to have enough food to stay healthy. I doubt either considered not going to doctors etc
Given that these comments hit so many people here, I am not surprised it had long threads here. I am also not surprised that it has been everywhere in the echo chamber. The GOOD thing is this is summer 2014. It is NOT summer 2016 when people are starting to look at the general election. This will be great if the Clintons and their advisers take the time now to really learn how something like this plays.
Remember that the Republicans tried UNSUCCESSFULLY in 2012 to argue that the wealthy Romney was no different than the wealthy Kerry - and argued that only Republicans are held to task for being wealthy. The difference is that Democrats - including HRC - support policies against their financial interest.
I wish there was the perfect left candidate that fell in line with what I think we should be doing, but it is just not that simple.
Hillary may be a little to war hungry for my taste, but I cannot stomach another Republican in the whitehouse.
George Bush did serious damage to this country. He gets to go away and hide and then his approval ratings goes up. Americans have very short memories. I do not care what anybody says, if you think things are worse now than when Bush left than I question your memory. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Obama took office. I am going to be terminated from my job in one week. However, I have already lined up another job. There is no way in hell I could have gotten another job so quickly back in late 2008 or early 2009.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(106,789 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Hillary decided to start campaigning in the sneaky way, by not declaring but obviously doing everything campaign style. That puts off other democratic contenders because it is way too early to start that battle officially, for many reasons.
But the Clintons think they are so much cleverer than everybody else, What campaign, we are just selling books. What are you talking about? Hillary hasn't decided yet! hahaha, what bullshite.
People see this for what it is, and are basing questions like it IS the campaign it is. So Hillary will be put feet to the fire for a much longer time than her opponents, and that is not going to go well for them.
They should get framed certificates for Dumbassery.
mfcorey1
(10,996 posts)work against us and for the rethugs.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Is it a STEALTH campaign of TOP SECRET proportions, or just another 'hair on fire moment' for her detractors?
Inquiring minds want to know!!
Whisp
(24,096 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...don't do conspiracies.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)politicians don't have a game plan.
and its all coincidental.
That's not a conspiracy its a game plan.
I'm more logical that rational and pay attention to the details and keep track of the pieces.
I love playing chess.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)the truth and history of our reality demands it.
As an aging american like myself
We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. ~Alexander Solzhenitsyn
LiberalLovinLug
(14,144 posts)Do you think those that put together established Dictionaries are irrational?
If not, why in heaven's name would they include a word like "conspiracy" if the word is meaningless?
Do you honestly believe that no two or more powerful people have ever "conspired" together to gain an advantage or money over others?...in the history of mankind?
I find it disturbing that there are those out there that whenever the term conspiracy theorists comes up its like its the same thing as saying unicorn believers. The word "theorist" is even included. That means even those that have suspicions on the official version of an incident like say 9/11, admit that their suspicions are still just unproven theories. But this still isn't good enough for some "rational" thinkers. One wonders what other words in the Dictionary are meaningless.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
LiberalLovinLug
(14,144 posts)They take the most extreme nutcase example to paint everyone else who questions the authorities version of events as being just as much of a fruitloop.
I guess you also don't believe the New York Times reporting of an NSA finding on the Gulf of Tonkin incident that provoked Vietnam war?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/politics/02tonkin.html?_r=2&pagewanted=printNSA
because that would have been the very definition of that made-up word, right?
How about the fake orphan deaths story that Bush Sr. used to start the first Iraq War? The Yellow Cake story his son used? There are many more examples throughout history.
Just because Alex Jones believes the sky is blue doesn't mean you must believe its purple.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Folks like Alex Jones and his followers.
bvar22
(39,909 posts).....as is every closed meeting of political election committees.
There are conspiracies in abundance surrounding each of us.
To deny they exist is just crazy.
The current "Free Trade" Deals now being negotiated in secret by representatives of the largest Global Corporations is a frightening conspiracy,
one that has the ability to transcend antique concepts such as national borders
and representative democracies.
YES. They are REAL.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The 1% conspire continuously to keep and grow their advantage. they may call it something else, but they cooperate, in secret, to further their own position. That sounds like conspiracy to me.
Beacool
(30,243 posts)She should write fiction, she has the imagination for it.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Beacool
(30,243 posts)Hillary wrote a book and now she's on a book tour as per contract with the publisher.
Some here don't like it. Well, too bad for them
Whisp
(24,096 posts)And props for 'framed certificates for Dumbassery'
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...but on THIS, I agree 100%.
Perceptive, and right on target.
Well Done.
Reccing Post #5 by Whisp.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)but I'm sure I can come up with something rude for you if you give me some time.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)When she is riding around in this bus.
lol! For real? she's riding around in That for her book tour? Surely, you kid?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Beacool
(30,243 posts)More absurd bullshit from the CDS crowd.
Beacool
(30,243 posts)It's the bus of a PAc that wants Hillary to run.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
Beacool
(30,243 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)He did a segment about her travelling around with this bus (not running ).
So it's her PACS bus? OK, glad she didn't have to pay for it herself, frugal woman that one.
Beacool
(30,243 posts)Then again, typical DU.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I hate to break it to you, but it goes everywhere she does, I am glad it does not exist and it is not a sign of her running. I do think it is frugal of her to have the PAC pay for it however non existent it may be, I know she is low on cash and everything and not truly well off.
Do I need to dig up and post the Daily Show episode where he joked about her not running and showed the damn bus?
Beacool
(30,243 posts)That bus was chartered by the Ready for Hillary PAC. They have been following her around since she left the post of SOS. Prior to the book tour, a group of local supporters would appear with placards at every public event she attended. Now that she's on a book tour, they have chartered a bus. Ready for Hillary is a grassroots PAC. Their goal is to try to convince her to run for president. Hillary is not affiliated with them. Do you understand how PACs work?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)TheKentuckian
(24,904 posts)Beacool
(30,243 posts)You act like you're Nostradamus and somehow can get inside these people's heads and know their motivation and predict their every action.
It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,103 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)11 Bravo
(23,921 posts)it's blind and pathological.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)over personalities here. Hillary and Greenwald threads just suck- all of em. There's so little to chew on, just DUers going at each other.
Michigander_Life
(549 posts)We are angry, enraged even, that she sold us out to the corporate 1%. We are disgusted that she took the politically convenient position of supporting the Iraq war. She's either dumb or a hawk and I know Hillary is a shrewd and intelligent woman. So she's a hawk.
We would be far better off if everyone shunned HRC starting NOW. Let's get behind a truly progressive candidate from the start.
"Vote Hillary Clinton: A Slightly Better Choice Than A Radical Tea Party Thug" doesn't motivate me.
mfcorey1
(10,996 posts)things exist only in the mind.
Michigander_Life
(549 posts)And I certainly won't vote for that person after I learn about her betrayal. Why would I? That's madness.
Hillary holds whichever positions she (or her advisors) finds convenient at any given time. She has no character and no backbone. She has no principles.
I'll take my chances with the candidate who may or may not screw me, over the one who already has.
Good luck to you.
mfcorey1
(10,996 posts)Beacool
(30,243 posts)Let me guess, it's probably Sanders, a Socialist in his mid 70s or the newly anointed saint of all things liberal, Liz Warren. She'll save the nation from the evil Clintons.
Let's say that by some miracle either of them makes it to the WH, and then what? Is Congress going to pass their very liberal proposals? Look how well it's been working for Obama and he's a moderate.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Greenwald to the high heavens. It feels like a cult at this point- the anger or adulation toward individuals is just bizarre.
I think I remember why I left during the primaries. It feels like football hooliganism to me. Sorry!
11 Bravo
(23,921 posts)when repeated posts objecting to the same policies and positions are made day after day after day.
At that point it begins to resemble something else altogether.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It couldn't be because the issues are important and need to be raised over and over again until they are addressed and fixed.
It couldn't be because millions have been driven into poverty through crony corporatism already, and it's gotten to the point where our elections are purchased and our very Constitution is under assault.
Surely there is an ulterior motive.
11 Bravo
(23,921 posts)on her "Secret Iowa cadre", or that "Bill went to a fucking ball game with Dim Son", or "She talks like a damned politician" (Hint: She IS a politician), or "She gets speaking fees"?
Any day now I expect you and the rest of the crew to chime in on pants suits and cankles.
Beacool
(30,243 posts)Some act like their concerns are strictly about policy and pure, then the knives and personal attacks commence. The bullshit is always thigh high.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)You're wasting your energy with this one, truly.
TheKentuckian
(24,904 posts)support it the next day or be silent?
Why?
If I don't like it today, best odds are liking it no more and quite plausibly less tomorrow.
Hell, if I really despise it then it is likely to make me hammer it long and hard.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)can't even survive criticism from her own side, how is she ever going to survive criticism from the other side?
We need a strong candidate, one who can actually take on the mantle of populism and economic justice. Not just another in a long line of people willing to talk populism when it is politically advantageous, then turn around and support the flow of wealth upward to the wealthiest.
We shouldn't EVER run candidates with the tagline 'Well, I'm better than the clowns on the right'. They should always be telling voters exactly how they're going to work to improve the country for everyone, not just for corporations and shareholders.
Ignoring 2016 for a moment, a recent poll I heard mentioned on MSNBC said that only something like 23% of young voters intended to vote for sure in 2014, and that the main reason so few were was that they thought there was too little difference between the parties. Now obviously, there are enormous differences between the parties on social issues, so what young people must be focusing on is economic issues. And they just don't see enough daylight between people on the right trying to pass legislation that benefits the wealthy and people on the left trying to pass legislation that benefits the wealthy.
Dems need to learn the Nader lesson before it's too late. You have to get these young people out to vote, and that means you've got to do your damndest to show them that your candidates actually do care about poverty, unemployment, underemployment, and wealth equality. Not just throw out tepid triangulation to 'win the center', and then complain about people who didn't vote for your guys after you didn't give them any real incentive to do so.
mfcorey1
(10,996 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)But most of the folks screaming 'hate' can't seem to figure out what the difference is.
Generally speaking, as soon as I see people claiming that people on the same side of the political spectrum who disagree about a candidate are motivated by 'hate', I know to stop considering them good faith actors in any argument. It's intellectual laziness.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Tiny little partisan minds, struggling to grasp the concept of voting from principle, shout "hate!" when they have no effective response.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)We can sit around debating and bemoaning the baggage that Hillary has, but that won't make it go away. If she can't convince enough people she can overcome it, she's not going to close the deal.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)She'll run, win, and then they'll spend 8 more years complaining.
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm willing to bet she won't win the nomination. I believe her support is a mile wide and an inch deep.
I'll put up a quart of maple syrup- grade A or B, your choice. So... wanna bet? You've got all the stats on your side.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)2016 isn't 2008.
Hillary won't assume the primary ends in February. She won't ignore the caucus states. She's been SoS, and she'll have even more cash on hand to work with. The majority of those who voted for Obama in 2008 would have voted for her with just as much enthusiasm.
And to challenge her ... who exactly?
cali
(114,904 posts)And past is often prologue. Hill is already gaffing it up. I think President Obama was wrong: She is not likeable enough- and that's quite often a big problem in politics- though it's certainly not my problem with her.
Beacool
(30,243 posts)She's sooooo unlikable that she outpolls everyone in either party. She's so unlikable that she has been voted the most admired woman in the country since 1993, only coming in second place three times in all those years (twice to Mother Teresa and once to Laura Bush after 9/11/01).
YOU may have a problem with Hillary, but that doesn't make her unlikable.
Oh, and Obama piping in with that remark when it wasn't even his turn to speak, contributed to him losing NH.
cali
(114,904 posts)Unlike you, I don't do political worship. And Obama beat the anointed Hillary. Past is prologue.
So, we'll see if she manages to fuck herself up again.
Beacool
(30,243 posts)And no, I don't think that Liz Warren will run in 2016.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Clintons don't do well in Iowa. Sanders will win New Hampshire.
As much as the media would love to have Hillary in the race, they won't be able to help themselves. They will turn it into a two-horse race between the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire. That will block her out in Nevada. And South Carolina is out of the question for her.
The bigger organization and name recognition may help on Super Tuesday. But it's pretty hard not being marginalized after an 0-4 start.
If she is still 3rd (or lower) by the end of Super Tuesday, I see her calling it quits.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)She thought she still had a chance to win.
If she runs again, I predict, as already stated, that she will be in a distant third after Super Tuesday. Voters who might have voted for her will no longer see her as a viable candidate. They will drift to one of the two leading candidates after Super Tuesday.
Hillary is not going to continue on as a non-viable candidate just to spread a message, a la Kucinich. She will quit before she does that.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Anyone with sense or logic could do the math and know she wasn't getting Michigan or Florida's delegates seated before consensus within the party (and anyone with sense knew they'd be seated despite their state parties not following the rules).
It was felt that if Clinton kept fighting despite not having the math it would cause a lot more people to be politically motivated and that it would bolster the party. Unfortunately the party could not have predicted how utterly uninspiring Obama governed. So for most of his Presidency he never had any kind of power nor did he attempt to leverage his mandate.
TheKentuckian
(24,904 posts)to admit it is over, trying to pull super delegate coups and various disingenuous maneuvers. Bad campaign the road the hell out of structural control of the party and name recognition to competitive.
Dug in the party machinery like an Alabama tick with a ton of money and a household name for a generation but all of that isn't enough advantage.
This whole game is about clear the field for a coronation tour, take on the clown car, and if a competitive race for some reason breaks out spend like a drunken sailor, count on the structural electoral college advantage, and ride the storm out.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(106,789 posts)Such prescience considering he's never shown an inkling of interest in running. Guess I'll have to bookmark your post.
mfcorey1
(10,996 posts)impeach Obama. The same kind of criticism from his own party will help this happen in the House. I always believe that once a person becomes President, many of their decisions are based on intel that we will never see. Therefore we criticize what is available to us on the surface.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)..."many of their decisions are based on intel that we will never see. Therefore we criticize what is available to us on the surface."
Why didn't I think of that!
Obviously the correct approach is embodied in the following quote:
(from: http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/03/cnna.spears/)
Glad you cleared that up for us.
This will have nothing to do with it. They do it because they're seditious, evil psychopaths and because their own base wants it to happen. Seriously, do you blame liberals for climate change too?
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Boehner is likely to still be in charge, and he won't allow it.
If there are a very large numbers of surprises in November, and Boehner is forced to step down, then perhaps, but that would mean that there are many more problems than impeachment.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025144640#post68
Or that she doesn't even run and is secretly laughing at all the people who are just soooooooooo absolutely positively certain she is running.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Run, Hillary, Run.
Away.
Say no to Hillary in 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mfcorey1
(10,996 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...at least in some people's black-and-white view of the world.
Guess what? NO ONE is even running yet. Hillary has not declared and has in fact stated that she is not running. That being the case, it is absurd to respond to criticism of her as a POTENTIAL candidate by saying you have to be for her or else you're obviously for the as-yet-unnamed Republican.
This is a political discussion board. I don't know about you, but one thing I expect on such a site is discussions where we comb over candidates' records and positions and yes, gaffes, in order to clarify our own positions and learn from what others have to say.
It doesn't hurt to know one's preferred candidate's weaknesses as well as their strengths. That way one is not blindsided when the real battle starts. Because don't think for a minute that the Republicans will ignore Hillary's weaknesses. Why would they? I certainly don't want us to be ignoring the weaknesses of their candidate!
I want a Democrat to win. There are several Democrats I would rather see run than Hillary. So here's hoping.
MineralMan
(146,116 posts)that is identical to your last line. It doesn't appear to be a progressive effort, either.
https://www.facebook.com/saynotohillaryin2016
I find that very interesting, really...
Probably a coincidence, of course.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The time for those to oppose Hillary in 2016 to start finding a candidate was December of 2010. The late period ended January 2014.
We all knew she would run in 2016 and would be the overwhelming favorite. Anyone who didnt like that had plenty of time to find and support a possibly opponent.
I'm happy to support Hillary. If I wasn't, you can bet that I would have been working hard for someone else for 4 years now.
mfcorey1
(10,996 posts)shadows of what we think are so much better than what we actually see.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...rather vigorously for these unseen Scooby snacks.
I broke my crystal ball back sometime in 2010! Can I borrow yours?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Just sayin.
This was about as hard to predict as predicting Sarah Palin would say some idiotic folksy phrase during an interview.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)"Not as bad" is ringing up a lot of "No Sales".
mfcorey1
(10,996 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I have the same solution as Jefferson and J.Q. Adams.
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams
To thine own self be true Shakespeare
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)you would fully disagree with your own comment. Please see where she polls among liberal democrats.
"Obviously, we need a better (read "liberal" candidate."
Don't let reality get in the way of your fiction.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)1.- She has not declared... I know, amazing, but she has not declared. So calling her a candidate is kind of funny really.
2.- IF she cannot survive this scrutiny of her public record and statements maybe it is time to give way to another of the potential candidates, and trust me, she is not the only potential candidate, or what in Mexico we used to call pre candidate. I did not realize though that we had a destape, another reference to a system that is no longer as broken, but used to. Perhaps the US is just as bad as the PRI of my youth.
unblock
(51,920 posts)even when it's pretty much a circle of one!
bowens43
(16,064 posts)sorry , there are better choices. If hillary is the best we can do we are in some deep shit.
mfcorey1
(10,996 posts)the crisis of confidence in government. Moreover, there is no viable justification for a democratic system in which public participation is limited to voting.
Beth Simone Noveck
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)... then she doesn't stand a chance in hell of withstanding GOP spotlight.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Without context, true intent will never be known.
Beacool
(30,243 posts)with a grain of salt. They despise her, but that's their problem, not mine.
Haters gonna hate and all that jazz.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...she's strongly associated with The Family, she's a hawk, she likes corporate-friendly policies like TPP and she does not have the easy empathy with people that Bill had.
But for you, anyone who dares to utter criticism of her can be dismissed with "haters gonna hate".
Oh well, doters gonna dote and all that jazz.
get the red out
(13,456 posts)We haven't even had a primary yet. Chips will fall where they may in the Presidential primaries. Every person is capable of deciding who to vote for in them. I don't know why attacks are necessary at all.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And correcting those problems are utterly critical if Clinton is to win.
For example, she appears to be running yet another inevitability campaign. That's a really, really, really bad idea.
1) She lost. Blows up her entire argument. "This time is different!" just makes her sound like Bullwinkle pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
2) Like all Democrats, she needs turnout. "I'll win even if you stay home" is not an argument that boosts turnout.
3) Democrats need something to vote for. "I'm gonna win anyway, so come along for the ride" does not give them something to vote for.
#3 is why she lost 2008. Her supporters talk about things like "better organization", but that came about because Obama gave people something to vote for. So they organized for him. They worked their asses off for him. "I'm gonna win no matter what, so sit on your ass" doesn't do that.
At best, she will essentially tie the Republican. The winner will come down to a coin-flip by a tiny sliver of the population, as in 2000. Repeating 2000 should utterly horrify any Democrat.
Hopefully she'll drop the inevitability strategy when her campaign really starts. But since she clung to it in 2008, and is starting with the same strategy again, I do not believe she will.
She will not face Rubio, Cruz or some other cartoon character. Just like Giuliani wasn't the Republican candidate in 2008. She will face a formidable Republican who does not appear completely insane.
That is why I want another Democrat in 2016. Because at this moment, it looks like Clinton's strategy is going to make it a close election by using an inevitability strategy. And that gives plenty of room for us to lose.
Beacool
(30,243 posts)The media is doing it, just as it did the last time she ran. They call her inevitable and then they relish knocking her down. Currently she's not running for any office, so how can she be "inevitable"?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Again, she could turn away from it once she's really campaigning. But she isn't doing anything to dissuade the inevitability talk.
Because it's pretty obvious she's positioning herself to run in 2016. Note that "positioning to run" does not mean "will absolutely positively run".
Beacool
(30,243 posts)Yeah, that's going to work.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)While she can't control the press, she can influence her friends.
Beacool
(30,243 posts)Some are people who supported Obama over her and now want to kiss ass because they think that she's going to win and they better be on her good side....cough, Claire McCaskill comes to mind, Nancy pelosi too.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)I thought she was friends with the person that hired her as SecState, when he could have scored a lot of points by NOT hiring her!
Beacool
(30,243 posts)I'm talking about those politicians who supported him, but are now running to endorse Hillary even though she hasn't even announced her candidacy yet. Nancy Pelosi saying that she was "praying" for Hillary to run and McCaskill joining Ready for Hillary after supporting her opponent when she really needed their help. Hypocrites.......
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Did I miss something?
If she/they didn't want the heat so soon before declaration, then they should have not started the campaign. But they thought they were being clever by pretending they are not campaigning when it is way too early for contenders to join in. I think that is kinda slippery and underhanded and shows great disrespect for the process. As if they care for process, but at least not be so damned brazen about it.
Beacool
(30,243 posts)She's on a book tour and reporters have been told that no questions are off the table.
What process do you speak of? Any other Democrat can go peddle their book and make speeches. No one is stopping them.
mfcorey1
(10,996 posts)to believe what they have been fed. It has been stretched, twisted, repurposed and so much more. The only winner has been the 24/7 news cycle. If she said, "Boo," it would be the hatred of Halloween and the attempt to destroy a traditional holiday for American children.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,103 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)....has moved way too far to the Conservative Right,
Hillary is everything we do NOT want.
She was the ONLY candidate MORE Conservative than Obama in 2008,
and Obama self identifies as a Moderate Republican.
I FOUGHT Moderate Republicans all through the 60s, 70s and 80s because I do NOT support Moderate Republican Policy. I do not intend to start now.
You can call it "bashing" or anything else you want.
I don't care.
If Hillary comes out and endorses these traditional Democratic Party Values for which I joined the Democratic Party, I'll gladly give her my full support.
Among these are:
*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
*The right of every family to a decent home;
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
*The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]
Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.
My vote and support WILL go to whoever BEST embodies these values.
I am too old and tired to again support the Least of the Worst.
Let the chips fall where they may.
---bvar22
Mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ Democrat who knows WHY he joined the Democratic Party in the 60s.
I haven't changed.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)and therefore harms themselves more.
Mike Nelson
(9,881 posts)...and she knows the onslaught will continue. I don't really think it will factor into her decision, which looks like running.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)to those too young to remember Ted Kennedy's presidential campaign of 1980.
warrior1
(12,325 posts)I hate that the attacks on HRC.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)If we happen to mention things that she winds up fixing, though, the so-called "bashing" can end very well.
2banon
(7,321 posts)I'll never understand that concept.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Are you assuming that Hillary is already The One?
mfcorey1
(10,996 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)The Platform is voted upon by the delegates selected by the states and their respective primaries. At the Convention they literally vote on it, amend it, whatever, in real time. Without those elected delegates it would look very crony. The superdelegates just sitting around making up the platform?
Highly undemocratic.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)and far right voters really don't hurt candidates they bash. They help them. They are seen as outsiders willing to go to any lengths to attack a candidate. Sensible voters all across the country are bombarded with their insanity. Even the more sensible here are thrown off by it. One poster here even spreads a 40 year old recording of her where the headline was a complete lie. These people make sensible people flock to Hillary in droves. Our party isn't as scared of the small number of very vocal people as the republicans are of the tea party. It is one of the reasons our party is as stable as it has been.
Beacool
(30,243 posts)I forgot that he and Hannity are on WOR now. Well, he is talking about the Clintons. The funny thing is that there's not much difference with what he's saying about their finances and what is being said here.
The extremes, only a hair apart from each other. If they start quoting from Ed Klein's book around here then I know that that strand of hair is gone.
Edited to add that someone had actually posted an excerpt from Klein's book that was printed in the NY Post. It has since been deleted.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025134327
eridani
(51,907 posts)Beacool
(30,243 posts)No, I said that he was talking about the Clintons' finances just like the anti-Clinton crowd here.
eridani
(51,907 posts)ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)when I posted the thread was locked. Not going to go into all I had written, but IMO I'm less and less comfortable that she is our "chosen" candidate.
I gave many reasons, some probably have been mentioned here, but I'm TOO FED UP already by the constant attacks from the Repukes on everything she does or says! If what they've done to Obama isn't enough for people here, then I suppose too many haven't seen the re-write already! I admit I wasn't a supporter of hers, nor Obama, but our Democracy is in tatters because of the HATE and VITRIOL spewed by the insane Right Wing Nuts!
It's just beginning and she's already given them ammo to attack her as she continues with her book tour. Don't feel I'm being overly critical, but I myself don't understand how such an intelligent, informed politician can't give some better answers. I think she really stepped in it with the finances thing, and now "Big Dog" comes out and defends her comment.
A Repuke Party from long ago might have been less bombastic, but what we have today is out for blood and RUIN! And it's obvious to me they will STOP AT NOTHING! Think they can't screw this country up worse, then sit back and watch!
I know who I would love, many of us here would, but since the Repukes are pulling this country into chaos, having Hillary as their opponent has them salivating! They're insane and very, very sick. Democracy isn't what they want... DESTRUCTION seems to be just fine with them. AND they have the Supreme Court helping them in every way they can!
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)keep hillary bashing
rememeber what Nader supports gave us in 2000
the Blood is on their hands more than anyone else...
BootinUp
(46,852 posts)but I do think many of the same folks who supported Nader are the obsessed Hillary bashers.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)And that any other candidate our Party could put forward is even weaker.
Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)Any dem that doesn't want to vote for her, should be working hard and supporting the person they prefer.
Hillary has been bashed for decades, I think she can handle this coming from other dems. But I do remember the ridiculous behavior of the Hillary vs Obama supporters during the 08 campaign, some of them sounded nuts, on both sides. I refused to play that game then and will refuse now. I hope Hillary runs and I hope any other dem who wants to run does as well. I look forward to voting for her again. If some of you support someone else then work hard for that person.
When Hillary lost the primary in 08 I didn't hesitate for a second to support Obama and worked to get him elected. I will do the same in 16 if she doesn't run or loses the primary. But I had to ignore the bashers in both the Hillary and Obama camps because I was able to separate the candidate from some of their supporters.
mfcorey1
(10,996 posts)BainsBane
(52,999 posts)It doesn't encourage anyone else to enter the race. No one is voting yet, and it certainly doesn't persuade people. So what is the point? What does it accomplish? The only purpose I see is negative: it takes our focus of the 2014 midterms, which are crucially important.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i get it. but, i did think about that today.
BootinUp
(46,852 posts)we criticize the pukes for the same shit we do.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)We don't need any more Third Way pretend-to-be Democrats in the White House. She lost her first primary for that reason and she will lose again. It's time for some fresh ideas and leadership. Enough of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.
mfcorey1
(10,996 posts)doc03
(35,078 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,338 posts)Most Democrats I know in real life are pretty excited about Hillary possibly running in 2016. The amount of Hillary hate that seems to be getting posted here lately- for some reason or another- seems excessive. I have a few issues with her- like I did with Obama when he was running- but it's challenging to think of a stronger Democratic challenger at the moment for 2016. My biggest worry is actually that she might not run, which is why I hope she announces her decision soon so alternative challengers can start getting prepared for 2016 if she doesn't run herself.
Beacool
(30,243 posts)DU does not represent real life. What is shocking is not a disagreement in policy, that is perfectly legitimate. What is a disappointment is the viciousness of the attacks, some of them are RW talking points that are taken verbatim from RW sites. I don't even mind anyone saying that they prefer another candidate, that's fair, but I do mind the virulence of the comments. They are talking about a fellow Democrat, not Ted Cruz or Rand Paul.
Its' crazy.....
maced666
(771 posts)Some days here I can't believe what some people say and get away with it.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)by those who believe "inevitability" is a good basis on which to select the leader of the free world.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,338 posts)We all want to see progressive policies become enacted into law and see Republicans far away from the WH (and Congress). To that end, the only rational alternative is voting for Democrats en masse for WH and Congress and if Hillary runs, she will more likely than not be the nominee. I just don't really see any other Democrat (at least not now) challenging her for the nomination if she announces. I see where some people are coming from who have issues with a HRC candidacy and/or her "inevitablity" (and I would like to see what my alternative choices are- if any- before just settling on HRC should she run as well) but it seems that some people are going a bit overboard by acting like she is anything comparable to Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, or Dick Cheney and that she will get us into multiple 100-year wars or is going to be nothing more than a sop for Wall Street.
Beacool
(30,243 posts)yortsed snacilbuper
(7,939 posts)Hillary included!