Been waiting for that one myself

I mean haters hate and have no statute of limitation on what they choose to hate about.

Nothing makes then happy. I believe half of them are right wing trolls.

the ghost of Vince Foster.

Stay tuned...

That video of her personally killing him I have in a Swiss Vault, will never see the light of day I tell you.

By covering up the trooth, I'm as bad as the Klintoons!



Kidding.

Stay tuned, indeed.

...thogh that's always been aimed at RW nuttiness.

Where the aiming belongs.

Is it wrong to want Democratic unity?

Don't understand the vitriol.

Generally not good for anybody

In 2008 I HATED one over the other, just to fit in.

Not really, but YOU CAN'T LIKE BOTH.

I'm told.

I've been lucky enough to vote for both!

Guess that some prefer this:

But not wrong.

What's so puzzling about thinking both would be good candidates, and good presidents. Both have flaws, both have good points. Why does it have to be good or evil, black and white?

in her 20+ years of public life?

Things she got done, not just showed up for.

And what horrible things do you think she would do as president?

I'm not claiming she was a hugely consequential senator or secretary of state. She wasn't. Part of that, of course, was that being senator under Bush.

I'm concerned about what she will be like as president. Judging from her votes and her stated opinions, the answer is, about like Obama, which is pretty good. I don't think there would be much difference between Pres Hillary and Pres Warren. Both will be pulling congress to the left.

BTW, if you think Warren is an unimpeachable liberal, think again. And I'm not talking about being a Republican in the 90s. She's got positions even today that I'm sure you disagree with. It's an easy google. For example, from this article:
--voted with GOP limiting rights of Gitmo prisoners
--opposed medical device tax
--supported reducing estate tax
--against GMO labelling
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2013-vote-ratings/why-elizabeth-warren-isn-t-the-most-liberal-senator-20140206

Does that make her Satan? No. It makes her someone I agree with mostly, but not always, but also I realize she faces political pressures.

Hillary voted for it, and made a speech imploring her colleagues to do the same.

She defends bankers and lobby, etc.

I don't hate Hillary. But I do hate Third Way policies, They've been a catastrophe.

Probably, IMO, she did it for political reasons, rather than actually thinking it was a good idea. But either way, bad move, and also political miscalculation. But the more important question is, if she were president, would she do something as stupid as invading Iraq. And the answer is, obviously, no.


Defends bankers and lobby is way too vague. What does that even mean? What financial regulations does she oppose that, say, Elizabeth Warren supports? Because from what I see, she supports derivatives regulations, closing the carried interest tax loophole, etc.

The thing is, looking at actual policies, as opposed to looking at pictures of her sitting next to Jamie Dimon, the extreme anti-Hillary stuff simply doesn't seem rational. When you take into account that the limiting factor is going to be congress either way, I don't see that there would be a dramatic difference between Pres Warren and Pres Clinton.

and how it relates to Syria/Turkey. This is IMO because it's a two-party issue (the GOPers like McCain/Graham/Romney were in on it, plus CIA and State dept), and the GOP simply doesn't want to dig so deep that they incriminate their own "loved ones". They want to be able to have their cake and eat it too--only reveal enough to blame Hillary/Susan Rice/Obama without having to expose the involvement of people and agencies they are, for some reason, motivated to protect. For example, Leon Panetta actually signed away Chris Stevens' ability to get more security personnel, but was never held to account for that.

It is the fakest conspiracy out there. I live in the most conservative city w/ a pop. 250,000+ and Molly Ivans best explains it. On Bill Clinton: "If left to my own devices, I'd spend all my time pointing out that he's weaker than bus-station chili. But the man is so constantly subjected to such hideous and unfair abuse that I wind up standing up for him on the general principle that some fairness should be applied. Besides, no one but a fool or a Republican ever took him for a liberal."

Over here, I end up defending Obama over outrageous lies, ridiculous conspiracies, false claims... Well, they embrace they Republican party but they've been bought a long time ago & keep pushing 1920's tax cuts & laissez faire policies & they themselves mock global warming claims. I end up debating settled issues, plus it is very racist here.

I should note, Hillary supporters back in 2008 used Rezko and how many times he voted "present", a search would easily find those threads.

I would actually prefer a Pres Warren than a Pres Clinton, and if not for the constant stream of utter lunacy, I myself would be criticizing Clinton on several things.

And then there's Dan Lassiter.

for the Mena airport operation?

FAIL

Ghazi sounds like an Arab name to me. If Ben Ghazi is a Muslim did he go to school in that madrassa in Pakistan, or Indonesia, or Nigeria, or wherever Barack Obama went to school? Is that the school where President Obama learned to hate America?

Plus has anyone but me noticed that the initials HRC can be an acronym for Hillary's a Revolutionary Communist?

Coincidence? Not a chance.

in the last couple days....even though the vast majority OF Democrats support her..doesn't exactly support your case!

Weak sauce actually...

Going after prominent Democrats for things as dumb as the bank that some of the donors to her organization use (there's an HSBC branch down the road from me), or where she HQs her campaign, to me is a sign of irrational hatred.

Then people who claim that they won't vote for her, that there's no difference between her and a Republican, or that it's the difference between being raped vs murdered (yes, people have said that).

I'm not too big on the blue links...

Imperial Grand Poobah of her owners, Goldman Sachs. As evil as Kissinger.

As seen here....



I love them both

FDR and Stalin are not slapping each other's backs and having a good ol' time-- they are in a very somber discussion about how to end a world war.

They will be able to do so in the future. They will produce the what it's and leave it in the minds it has not been resolved and still open.

The scandal is "what the fuck were we doing in Libya in the first place?"

Benghazi isn't even on the list of reasons I don't care for HRC.

because it will just be more of the same. I will vote for her if she wins the primaries. As for Benghazi- meh. It was an embassy attack- they happen.

Is it any wonder that we're seeing the same bashing from them both?

Better believe it!

Sid

And, meanwhile, all the leftists attacking her over Benghazi (a group that, AFAICT, exists only in the OP's paranoia, making them approximately as numerous as right-wingers who disagree with the Iraq War Resolution).

Concerns over conflicts of interest arising from donations to the Foundation are comparatively nonideological, so it's not surprising that the issue would be raised by people on different parts of the political spectrum. I don't take that as proof that anyone "hates Hillary."

By the way, are there people who criticize Hillary yet don't qualify for your charge that they hate her? Is there some level of policy disagreement that the Clinton supporters will, however grudgingly, recognize as a legitimate subject of discussion?

I don't want to see Clinton as our nominee but I don't hate her. Her supporters who conflate the two stances are not doing her any favors.

Her vote on Iraq and pro-war positions not being the least of those reasons.

Any minute now no doubt.

Lately when I come to DU it looks like freakrepublic or f***in redstate!

because "Benghazi" or "Whitewater" or "Vince Foster" or whateverthefuck else paranoid delusions of the right wing you feel the need to project onto people who support a different primary candidate. (Personally I am not supporting Hillary in the primary because I'd rather not have a hawkish pro-intervention corporate lackey as candidate, but that's just me.) Apparently someone hasn't noticed that most of the objections to The Inevitable Candidate around here come from the left, not the right. If you have to characterise those objections as "hate", now, 11 months away from the first primary? I suspect you should probably take a break and walk away from politics for a while; you're going to have a lot more reason to be incredibly butthurt come primary time. (And I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination, as, I suspect, will many or most of the people who would prefer a different nominee.)

For example, the objection that people with HSBC accounts contributed to the Clinton Foundation. I didn't make that up, that was an actual thread. I'm supposed to pretend that's not pure idiocy?

So was the thread about Brooklyn Heights. There are also people who have compared the difference between Hillary and a Republican as the difference between being raped and murdered. Or the difference between being murdered by hanging or by injection. And then there are the threads by people who (claim they) won't vote for Hillary in the GE. This is not an unpopular sentiment here. I don't know if these people are serious or not, but does that make it less stupid?

Anyway, this stuff is irrational hatred in my book.

As for me, there are other Dems who I'd rather see elected president than Hillary. For the nomination, I'm not sure, because actually winning the election is very important, more important to me than the difference between, say, Hillary and Warren, especially when you realize that the limiting factor is going to be congress in either case.

And the thing is, Hillary is very likely to be the nominee. Yes, I know 2008, but if you look at the situation in more detail, this isn't 2008, the polls are stronger for Hillary this time, and there isn't anyone with a real chance that's showed any serious interest in running (Warren would be, but she's not running).

Which all means that having 20 anti-Hillary threads per day, most of which are really dumb, is an indication of irrational hatred.

And it's not irrational at all. It's perfectly rational. Imagine if you will that there's going to be a dinner party in a month and everyone gets to vote on what they want. A lot of people really like fish. A lot of other people can't stand it, and the very thought of eating it makes them sick. None of these other people can agree, just yet, on what they want instead; a lot of them would like beef, but there's a shortage and it doesn't look like that's going to be an option. So should these people thrash out an alternate option, or acquiesce to the other and frankly annoying people telling them "oh, come on. Fish isn't that bad. What do you mean it makes you sick? It's good for you!"? Or should they just stay home? This is what the whole "inevitable Hillary" thing is like, for a lot of people.

If you read, say, Game Change, you will see that he wasn't really the out-of-nowhere candidacy that he seemed to be. He had powerful supporters from the beginning. Besides, there's no Obama this time. Obama had already declared at this point in 2007. Obviously, nothing is certain, but the odds are pretty heavily in her favor. Pretending that this is like 2007 is willful ignorance. Nobody is shoving Hillary down your throat, it's just a fact that she is by far the most likely candidate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/upshot/hillary-clinton-and-inevitability-this-time-is-different.html?_r=0



And, yes, it's completely irrational to think Clinton is going to be as bad as a Republican, and to decide not to vote in the GE for that reason. The analogy of yours leaves out the general election. It would be as if a few people didn't like fish, but fish won the primary, and in the GE, the choice is between fish and rat poison, and the people say there's no difference and that they refuse to vote for fish because they hate fish so much, and they don't care what happens.

It's also completely irrational to consider the fact that some of her donors have HSBC accounts, or where her campaign headquarters are going to be as knocks on her. And if you missed those, don't worry, there will be 10 new idiotic Hillary-hating threads tomorrow.

I do think Clinton would be worse than many other potential candidates for a number of reasons that have absolutely nothing whatever to do with who may or may not have donated to the Clinton Foundation, or where her campaign headquarters may or may not be if she has one (those are irrelevant and absurd, honestly).

And the analogy I'm talking about is about the primary, specifically (what part of "I'll vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination" were you not clear on?).

But clearly you've noticed that there are a plenty of people here posting very dumb anti-Clinton things, and also saying they won't vote for Clinton in the GE. That's what my OP was addressing. There's plenty to criticize about Clinton. There's also a lot to like, including the fact that she's leading all the Republicans head-to-head.

Personally, I think most of these people (at least the ones who aren't actual trolls) will end up voting for Clinton anyway if she's the candidate, and the posts here are just noise. When there's a real live Republican candidate staring at them, the delusion that there's no difference between the two will vanish pretty quick.