Clinton's ideology is the same as Obama's. The main issue they disagreed on was the mandate, which Obama adopted. All that shit you project on to her is endemic to the American political system. You have decided fault for all of it rests with a single woman. You know the SCOTUS decisions that have created the current finance system. You know that Obama waived public financing. You know that any presidntial campaign will cost close to $1 billion, regardless of the nominee. Yet knowing all of that, you target Clinton for destruction and falsely claim she is responsible for the entire system you refuse to acknowledge. People have denominzed her more than any other person on the planet. They make excuses for Assad and Putin, but her they despise. Not even Bush was so reviled. I submit at least part of the reason is that people are all too comfortable with the association of women and evil.

If this were about ideology or issues, people would discuss those issues. They do not. They discuss their own prejudices, and distort the record, parrot right-wing talking points, and in the process insult ordinary Democratic voters, many less privileged than themselves.

Then there is the fact that people understand so little about the nature of capitalism and our political system that they think it all rises and falls based on a single individual. Not only does that show lack of awareness, it perpetuates the very system (what you call "ideology') you claim to oppose. Rather that targeting the problem--which is at least in part about the role of money in politics--you deceive yourselves into thinking in rises and falls based on a single politician. That is precisely the mythology that allows capital to exert so much influence.

If people devoted a fraction of the energy to establishing public financing through a constitutional amendment as you all do toward ripping apart a single undeclared candidate and trashing ordinary working Americans, you might be able to effect the change. People consistently refuse to do so and even refuse to discuss it. That and the fact that people here target ordinary Democratic voters as the enemy and not capital (or what you refer to as corporatism and the 1 percent) tells me your goals have nothing to do with what you claim.

If it were about ideology, people would not distort, they would not post RW talking points or raise Benghazi. All of that shows a decided absence of principle.

feel the same way about Obama, myself included. Though I voted for him in the primary (2008), he was a complete disappointment, ran left and governed center-right. I know many here do not agree with this, but that's the political reality I am living with. I am consistent in my refutation of Wil Marshall - Al From - corporate Democrats who I believe have no business in this party other tthan the business of business.

rather than the system, you will always be disappointed. They are only a symptom. The cause is the influence of money in politics, which can only be resolved through mandatory public financing.

I think the problem with Obama was not ideological but an inability to get his program through congress. That is another reason why focusing so obsessively on individual presidential candidates and the presidency itself is at best distraction.

when talking to me about systemic issues and money in politics, though I will have to disagree with you on Obama.

but I also hope you realize the presidency is only part of the story, that the legislative branch and state government also play important roles in shaping policy and limiting our options.

sarcasm, in case it's necessary

Since here so much energy, hope, and blame is placed on the presidency and little attention paid to the rest.

Obama came out of people like Daschle, Baucus, and Goldman Sachs, no friends to progress interests. I certainly see the same in Congress, no excusing it.

The nature of the beast is going to push focus toward the bigger picture. It is just harder to have a dialog about state legislatures because the pool of people with any insights is going to be tiny, there may well be zero people in our neighborhoods so that stuff just isn't discussed so all the focus goes to the Federal level because we will at least know the players slightly but it still about the districts and again the sample size of people is limited, add in the safe districts and you are limited again.

I think contested, even plausibly contested Senate seats get some decent air but the President is the only office we all participant in so it is just way easier to get into because it is the only one we all get a piece of no matter how tiny.

It is also the pace sitter and vitality position that colors all the races down, the national convention and platform for around the race and the office sucks up the national oxygen.

I will also point out that it was when we changed to the Turd Way formula for winning the Whitehouse it almost immediately led to the loss of decades of domination of the legislature, that national image and formula relentlessly pushed seems to correlate with wider spread brand destruction to me.

Also, the folks who complain about this dynamic do no more to change it than anyone. Complaining about only focusing on the President is still just focusing on that office, it is just taking another angle to do so and isn't actually leading the topics to more diverse pastures.

We can and do discuss issues but we argue because there is substantial disagreement on handling and priority and various well know politicians become totems as well as some are not about particular issues as a focus but rather straight up electoral politics which keeps significant attention on the politicians.

The Presidency is the common language of American politics and more at the center than 8th grade civics would imply.

"I will also point out that it was when we changed to the Turd Way formula for winning the Whitehouse it almost immediately led to the loss of decades of domination of the legislature, that national image and formula relentlessly pushed seems to correlate with wider spread brand destruction to me."

My observation too. When I grew up, I didn't hear this "both parties are two sides of the same coin" meme so much, as it wasn't actually true the way it is now. Is this because of money or was it an intentional change of direction for our party? Anyone who has looked into the history of the DLC and their origins will realize it was an intentional takeover of the Democratic Party to serve the interests of big business and access for corporations of cheap and reliable supplies of unregulated labor and natural resources everywhere on the planet. This was no accident, and it did indeed play a large role in losing both the House and the Senate, as did the parallel rise of right-wing control of media, the same forces were fighting us on those two flanks and eating the lower and middle classes alive.

that I want...something like that


Yes, by NOT voting for whoever the Dem candidate is in 2016 you ARE voting for the worst of the worst.

The people who could make publicly financed elections happen are the people who benefit from the huge amount of money in the system.

I agree that focusing on individual candidates is a distraction, but really, if there is zero chance of actual change happening, what else is there? It is, often, a manifestation of powerlessness.

Strangely, the wailing and pounding of chests about email is making me like Clinton a bit more, mostly because it, like so many things, is a made-up "scandal". It smacks of both piling on and a sort of desperation.

to organize a constitutional amendment to require public financing. If that passed, the system would change.

And I'd work toward it.

Do you honestly believe this would or could ever happen? Too many just believe whatever they are told by the guy with the most money for TV advertising.

The problem would be all the ads and money that would line up against it, but people are fed up. That's as true on the right as the left. I don't think it's an impossibility. One thing is certain. If things continue in their current vein, the country is well and truly fucked.

Frankly, I don't believe that anything will improve no matter who we get in office for the next few terms.

If we have a Dem president, even with a Dem senate and House, the Rep's will still hold up everything with secret holds and bullshit. Gridlock.

Dem president, current or similar House and Senate...gridlock. They pass horrible things that will be vetoed.

If we have a Rep. president and the current incarnations of the Senate and House, well, I shudder to think of what might happen to our social safety net and, well, everything except the military. They'll need the military, because we'll be in a bunch of wars, really fast.

Rep. President, Dem Senate, current house....see the first example, gridlock.

I look at my kids and wonder if their generation will do better. I certainly hope so.

change if the republicans control all of government.

With Democrats there is a 25% chance of change in the next 40 years, with republicans there is a -25% chance, MINUS, as in wont ever happen and worse.

is better than any Republican.

Negotiating with Iran, women's rights, digging out of the financial collapse, and actually averting a depression, saving GM, vetoing pipeline, and so many other things

Yup, a complete disappointment for those who do not realize what he has managed to do in spite of republican obstruction is remarkable.

President Obama will go down as one of the best presidents in modern times.

And sorry to inform you but Obama is not center right by any measure

It's very real, very troubling, and has absofuckinglutely no place in the Democratic Party.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/20029-ready-for-hillary-really

Clinton isn't a neoliberal. If you are going to claim to oppose an ideology, you should learn what it actually is. Not only that, your link doesn't even discuss neoliberalism. It instead targets her gender. How would you think that was a useful analysis for anything? It discusses no policy and simply says she has moved to the center. It's completely vapid.
That only confirms my point in the previous post, that the opposition has nothing to do with policy.

My link posted above discussed neoliberalism and the hijacking of feminism.

Here's a better link, Noam Chomsky discussing neoliberalism: http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/19990401.htm

Hillary helped write the TPP, supports the Keystone pipeline, supports corporate welfare, suggested tax-free repatriation of American monies stashed overseas, and kowtows to Wall Street and corporations. She's an uber-hawk on foreign policy rivaling the PNAC crew. There is nothing liberal or progressive about that point of view. She is a straight-up neoliberal and that ideology needs a stake driven through its heart.

Have a nice evening.

I'm so used to seeing people say neoconservative that I substituted it in my mind, a near senior moment.

I can't argue with you about the neoliberal point, but as you note that is the nature of American politics as a while, so why make it all about Clinton? You said the opposition was about policy, but your second article says the entire Democratic Party is neoliberal. That is indeed a function of the role of money in politics, the issue you seemed to back away from at first. Defeating Hillary Clinton or whatever nominee emerges will have not diminish neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is the current stage of capitalism, and that the politicians implement it is both a function of the fact the US is, and was intended to be, a capitalist state and the current campaign finance system, the very points I raised in my first response to you.

Last edited Wed Mar 11, 2015, 02:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Much rests on the appointments to various cabinet and adviser positions. Case in point, although President Obama campaigned as a progressive (I voted for that guy), he surrounded himself with the likes of Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers. Their intention was always to benefit and protect the banks, homeowners with crap loans underwater and the student loan clusterf#ck not so much.

But it's not just economic policy. Putting Hillary at State was a mistake. She aligned herself with Patraeus, Panetta, and Gates and together they plotted against the president's strategy in Libya. Hillary and her husband publicly criticized Obama's policy in Syria calling him a "wimp" and advocating for boots on the ground intervention.

These are just examples. It matters. I would love to see who Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders would appoint to these positions. They would undertake a progressive agenda whereas Hillary would pursue the same neoliberal policies Obama has in place and worse.

None of which will happen under the current system, and that includes electing Sanders or Warren. But who gets plum cabinet positions matters a lot less to me than income inequality and other ills wrought by capitalism.
Additionally, it is congress that passes legislation. The executive branch can only do so much.

for some of her economic and military stances, The question is, would she have these stances if didn't feel she had to please her millionaire and corporate campaign donors? They're buying influence and they expect results for their money. I've read it's going to cost close to $2 billion to run for President in 2016. I love Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren but how can they compete with that?

A congressman remarked that campaign finance reform would make a huge difference in how things are run in Washington. Tom Cotton took large donations from defense contractors and I imagine that influenced his decision to write that letter. Money affects everything.

We are talking about a founder of the DLC here.

Neither in that first post or in her follow up (other than a vague reference to neoliberalism not even discussed in the linked article), I am still left wondering what policy it is that you think you oppose. She said it wasn't the role of money in politics.

and Noam Chomsky is eminently qualified to discuss neoliberalism

There are enough people to vote for that out there.

Only a small minority reject all ideology to the right of Bernie Sanders.

Thus, handing the Presidency to George W. Bush.

Ideological purists love to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

I voted for Nader over Gore, in Florida, in Palm Beach county. I learned my lesson courtesy of George Bush. What I never did, however, was ape GOP talking points to justify my vote.

I agree about how quickly some people parrot conservative talking points here.

I left for a while because there was more bitching about Obama here than I heard in my small deep red town.

Too bad you got kicked off CC.

I'll vote for Hill if she's my last chance but you never cease to surprise me. Yuck.

That was THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION. Voted for Nader?

Thus, handing the Presidency to George W. Bush.

Self-reflection is impossible for a few here. They are the perfect ones and we all should learn from them. Us poor flawed creatures. Why would a perfect person need critical thinking skills?

Same people tend to forget Gore won the presidency.

and get none of what they want than vote their mind and get anything they'd rather not have ... even if they get most/a lot/some of what they do want.

As an African-American, I find that a ridiculous strategy. My preferred candidate would be frightening to the vast majority of non-Black people, as his/her platform would focus on economic empowerment of urban centers, in general, and Black communities, in particular. And, I know that candidate stands less than a snow's chance in hell. I, also, know my forceful promotion of that candidate might convince other Black folks to vote their solitary interests, as well ... draining all Democratic candidates of a portion of their most loyal electorate. Therefore my selfish actions would be directly responsible for, not only my screwing myself; but me screwing, anyone/everyone that would benefit from that Democratic candidate, whatever his/her platform.

How is that rational behavior?

Instead, I divide my vote into two periods, both, making the same judgment ... I will support the candidate that will most closely meets my interests ... and that judgment factors in, heavily, what I believe the other candidate(s) has to offer, should my preferred candidate lose. In the primaries, this, generally, is far more difficult to divine; but, the general election is, generally, a no brainer.

even if many of the weaknesses and many of the strengths are but in the mind of the posters.

Sometimes talking points overlap between primary opponents and the GOP just because the things used by the GOP and people criticizing primary opponents are what's available to be used.

Historically that's been seen as part of the "training" that goes on in the primary, campaigns get to work on defending their weaknesses and accentuating the positive. If a candidate can't do it in the primary, they are likely not strong enough to win the general.

so will continue to do so until a Dem candidate is nominated in the primary. DU rules encourage us to discuss the candidates and issues until the primary is over. If it's something you can't handle, perhaps you should refrain from entering any Hillary threads or watching Fox news. The only one providing material that will be used as ammunition, is Hillary.

or any television news, for that matter. But then I don't have to if I come to DU. So you think invoking the right enables you to expose her right wing policies? What policies are those because I haven't seen anyone here discuss policies. I've seen them project onto her, but that's not policy. I have also seen them echo the right, however, which tells me their opposition has nothing to do with "right-wing policies'? In fact, when I have raised the issue of working to pass a constitutional amendment to institute public financing, they natter on about Clinton. In insisting that she and not the system is the problem, they show they are invested in the current system.

I'm sure you will enjoy it when we do so.

i agree. Clinton may not be my first choice but she'll be a gazillion times better than any republican. it's hard for me to understand why any democrat would be willing to cut off the nose to spite the face rather than to vote for her.

a leaf of onionskin paper between HRC and whomever the pukes nominate. The only discernable difference will be how fast we frogs get boiled. Which is no meaningful difference at all.

and then they told us to shut up because we're just good for votes and a little money

we're just cattle to them

Most of those talking points come from the endless repetition of the pro-Clinton people on DU, who are trying to wedge the words into mouths of people who might prefer a different candidate.

The anti-Clinton threads would far outweigh the pro-Clinton ones, which have only appeared recently. I came to this site as someone who never considered supporting Clinton in 2008, but after 2 and a half years of empty shyte about her, they've succeeded in changing my mind.

However, i know that within the last two? weeks, nearly every thread about Clinton's email "scandal" has been written and posted by Clinton supporters trying to gin up outrage and paint non-supporters as being "just like the republicans" or whatever. Sometimes these posters are outright making shit up, and refusing to back it up (apparently, we who do not back clinton in total call her "killery" and think the CPAC attendees are "great guys.&quot

And every day, a new post from BainsBane is among that number, whining about how awful and terrible it is that people who aren't big fans of Clinton are allowed to post here on DU.

If your basis of support for Clinton is that other people (The "idle left," perhaps?) don't support her, then... well shit, sorry, that's not a particularly ringing Clinton endorsement. Instead it sounds like typical reactionary bullshit, "the libs are agin it so I'm fer it!"

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Poster is calling out pro-Clinton people

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 10, 2015, 07:45 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

All the times I read DU I was surprised to be on this jury

This wasn't my comment but captured my feelings on the post

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh good grief. Both sides are 'calling out' each other constantly. Is this your first time on site, or have you been away for the last few months? If we hid everyone who has 'called out' the other 'side', 90% of the site users would be banned.

I think they're adorable, so I keep feeding them.

has consequences, if we do not work to elect people who share our beliefs such as a woman's right to choose then this could result in SC nominations which could result in Roe vs Wade getting reversed. Also, NO candidate is going to meet our every needs.

Is it permissible by you that I and others continue to question HRC's motives and allegiances prior to the GE, or should we all just march lockstep behind the bandwagon?

Looks to me like you've decided to march in lockstep already. I thought I was clear that I'm not here to persuade you otherwise. Truthfully, I don't care much who is the Democratic nominee because it really doesn't mater that much. The problems are endemic to the system, capitalism and the current system of campaign finance as set up by SCOTUS. Defeating Clinton will have absolutely no effect on that. It's just moving the pieces around on capital's chessboard. If you care about the board itself, you have to get serious and stop focusing on individual politicians, who are the symptom rather than the cause, and organize around public financing.

Where did I indicate I want HRC defeated? I want her policies and affiliations clarified and vetted. That seems like a pretty reasonable request of a candidate for POTUS, no?

but a sizable number of people on this website do want her defeated. In fact, I saw one rally people around a call to make defeating her their number one priority. That priority wasn't any particular cause or issue or defeating the GOP but defeating Clinton. My point to you was simply that the bandwagon here is decidedly anti-Clinton.

the status quo. We have seen that the Clinton's will triangulate and cooperate with repubs. Warren or Sanders would be far more likely to stand up for the common people. Its not about individuals or personalities to me. Its about the fact that when push comes to shove, I believe Hillary will value her and her rich friends interest above mine. Hillary must face a trial by fire and be pushed much farther to the left.

what does standing up for the common people mean when you have a GOP congress? Is it about speeches? How much do you think can be done through executive order? And how do you think Warren or Sanders could be elected under the current campaign finance system? Sanders thinks it very unlikely he could even win the D. nomination let alone the election because of the amount of money it takes to run for the presidency. Money shapes not just a single nominee but who can run for president and the nature of legislation itself. I think you underestimate the seriousness of the problem.

why electing someone who WILL NOT work to change business as usual is better than electing Warren or Sanders? Maybe the defend Hillary at all costs faction should join those of us who believe that she needs a lot of shining-up. Why tell us to lay off? Why don't y'all try to improve her?

Is this about your Christmas wish list or an actual election? How am I supposed to improve candidates? How do you imagine I could possibly have that kind of power? Why are you so fixated on individual personalities? You clearly buy into the mythology of the capitalist state in ways I do not. Just because you would like something to happen doesn't mean it can, particularly when you aren't willing to acknowledge its cause or work to change it.

The point about of the OP is not to change how you vote or think. It's to ask how low you or others are wiling to sink in the process. If people want to use Republican talking points and sources, they will be viewed as indistinguishable from them. If they target Democratic voters as the enemy, their claims of opposing the "corporatist state" become difficult to believe. If people want others to believe they care about principle, they should conduct themselves accordingly.

the nomination. I will vote for Hillary in the general election.

I'm glad you acknowledged that you don't have the power to change the system. I don't either. All I can do is vote for the best candidate out there. I've been third wayed and triangulated too often to believe that candidate is Hillary.

On the subject of Christmas wish lists; what's yours, that we disillusioned non-third wayers quit being mean to Hillary?

Because without that, no real change is possible. I would like to see people here come together to organize that rather than ripping each others throats out over a particular politician.

I am not a Third Wayer, and that term is highly insulting. If you must know I consider myself a Marxist, which should be clear from some of the terminology I use.

trying to make is that Hillary has potential to be a much better candidate. Remember what Harry Truman said about voting for someone who acts like a republican vs an actual republican?

I'm curious as to why you don't want her to be more progressive. I suspect that you believe our/my attitude toward her now (and in the primary) will hurt her in the general. I disagree. I believe it will make her stronger, particularly if Warren and Sanders make an energetic case for true progressive reform.

By the way, I totally agree with you about election funding reform.

In reality, I suspect discussion on DU amounts to very little. I suppose all the empty Clinton bashing just bugs me. It bothers me that so many attribute so much to a single individual and in the process miss how serious the problem really is.

that she has flaws and quit pretending this is all about personality?

Also, what is this serious problem you're talking about. Do you believe Clinton is so weak that she can't take some heat from DU?

Last edited Wed Mar 11, 2015, 12:08 AM - Edit history (1)

and it is personal. Both are true. She can take it. I think we witnessed in 2008 that she has remarkable perseverance and resilience. I, however, lack those qualities. I'm the one who can't take it.

other than she's Hillary Clinton. I'm just weary of being told that I have no reason to resist falling in line behind her.

I have read your posts for quite a while and believe you are a good, true Democrat. I also believe we ultimately want the same thing - a Democrat in the White House in 2016.

BTW, I'm sorry for any crap I've given you or any stress I've caused.

You haven't caused me stress, so no worries.

I'm not in the fall in line camp. I believe in a robust primary, and you like everyone else should vote for exactly whom you please. I wish we had actual candidates to discuss though or could wait until then. We really don't know who her main challengers will be. O'Malley perhaps? I don't know if Biden will run.

a constitutional amendment that is orders of magnitude more difficult to make happen is ever going to occur.

What you are doing is desperately trying to maintain the Turd Way control of the Democratic party and protect your preferred corporate candidates that despite all protest to the contrary has been the focus since coming on to the set.

For the bane of Bain and a Marxist, I've seen little talk on economic matters other than defense of the establishment and no push back even on the worst of the vultures just attacks and poo poohing of any attempt to even discuss moving the needle while beating up on folks with any focus other than the establishment approved limited social issues.

No, a constitutional amendment isn't possible as long as people like you care only about sowing division among the people, as long as people like you work to promote the mythology that all that matters is who occupies the white house. Clearly you find the idea of real change so unacceptable, you turn to insults to ensure no one discuss anything other than the fortunes of one member of the political elite or another. If you wanted change, you would work for it rather than relentlessly targeting Democrats who suggest doing something that matters.

If you actually gave a shit about what I believed, you could look at my journal. While you post about how much you resent Democratic voters and your singular focus on the fortunes of the political elite, I post about social justice. Not only have I posted about political economy on this site, I have done so in responses to you.

That suggestion of working to get money out of politics through a constitutional amendment really pissed you off. If you shared that goal, you would say great, let's talk about how we can do that. But instead you show that all you care about is hurling around empty insults. Meanwhile you defend a multi billion dollar gun lobby--The MOST POWERFUL lobby in Washington--that subverts the will of the people and kills hundreds of thousands, all because you want moar guns. Your relentless efforts to sow enmity and target Democrats show clearly what your goals are, and your response above tells me the last thing you want is to see money out of politics or any diminution in the power of capital over the state.

The election will be what it will be. I am not responsible for the candidates that choose to run, but I am the enemy because I refuse to stick to what your obsessive focus on one member of the political elite or another. You're right. We are not on the same side. I do not target working Americans, the poor, and ordinary Democratic voters as the enemy. I target capital, and the change I want to see focuses on capital, while you work to promote the machinations of a political system tied to those interests.

My congressman is chair of the progressive caucus. I live in one of the most progressive states in the nation, and I work for progressive goals like marriage equality, voting rights, and raising the minimum wage--all concerns we have managed to enact through activism rather than hurling insults at Democrats. We don't have a backwoods educational system, and we don't have Senators like Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul. The Democratic Party here is called the Democratic Farmer Labor party, and our state has a proud history of socialist politics. Meanwhile, you live in a center of Tea Party politics and have refused to do anything at the local level to lessen the stranglehold the right has there. It is not me who works to drive this country back to the nineteenth century. We are light years ahead of KY, and progressives in my community actually work to get policies enacted. Meanwhile, you hurl insults at those progressives when they have the nerve to talk about policy and substantive change. Third way my fucking ass. How about you start taking some responsibility for your own political engagement?

I've had it with your bullshit, which I find far from convincing. Go hurl your mud at some other Democrat who refuses to parrot the latest GOP spin. You are on ignore.

Well said.

the poster's states political environment and blaming me for mine and then assigning ability to speak to or be liberal based on such foolishness.

Oh what a take down! Two snaps up!

think is well said and that nails your purity tantrums to the wall. I can tell that causes you IMMEASURABLE pain.

It's probably just as well that your opinion of my posts could not mean any less to me than it does now.

So I say again to Bain, WELL SAID. And I say to you, tough tatas.

a constitutional amendment is easier than electing a moderate politician or even a somewhat liberal one.

As far as your state goes bully for your state but I'm pretty sure it wasn't Bainsbane that established the beneficial conditions so what comparing the liberal environments of our respective states is complete nonsense and for the purposes of making your "point" a logical fallacy to a position to discuss policy.

I knew you had no way to string together any kind of response, didn't expect crazy talk of thinking you made your state a paradise.

it's so big of you to tell us we can vote for whoever we want. Much appreciated.

They insult anyone who doesn't fall in lockstep with the group think.
If you want to become indistinguishable from a Republican, that's also your right. I was trying to make an appeal to solidarity, and clearly the news is unwelcome. Once again we learn the enemy is not capital or the GOP but ordinary Democrats who have the nerve to not see a lone woman as the embodiment of all evil.

blaming anyone who doesn't want to vote your way as aiding and abetting republicans. We're already the enemy. Well, FTS.

What I have done is express befuddlement that they think it matters that much, that they made problems endemic to capitalism and our political system all about one individual. Meanwhile, I have seen Clinton detractors call people hypocrites, and one consistently calls people far less privileged than himself--who have suffered discrimination their entire lives--allies of the 1 percent and Goldman Sachs.

I have definitely seen personal attacks issued against posters simply for criticizing Hillary, to the point that it's somewhat comical.

I think it's fair to say that the notion that the anti-Hillary camp is a festering cesspool of vitriol, and the pro-Hillary camp a shining citadel of altruism, is silly.

I can't take seriously the "extolling" of a fine Senator who is not a Democrat and of another fine Senator who says she is not running.

So this is all we've got here at the moment: promulgating RW talking points and trying to destroy someone who actually has an excellent record. It's not about "issues and policies" -- it truly is about personality. HRC rubs some people the wrong way, I get that, but the battle is full of lies and innuendos, not policy disagreements as they like to claim.

I have a long memory. If I were the Clintons and had lived through the Ken Starr and Newt Gingrich assaults, you bet I'd be secretive in self-defense.

All these excuses about policy are hollow because they never discuss any policy. It is entirely person and gender-based, for that matter. And yes, they are promoting nothing and no one, only seeking to destroy. If they had a set candidate they were advancing, that would be worth reading, but they don't. It's all negative, and indistinguishable from the right.

is true of just about everyone who opposes Clinton.

Since she has been super encouraging by pushing weapons to yahoos, mucking around in South America, and coming, seeing, and killing.

What is it being claimed that has happened to make one believe this is a person with better judgment that learned from an error?

In 2004, looking at the whole picture I think a person could say Kerry's vote was an exception to his pattern with images of him facing Congress on Vietnam painted firmly in mind.
Rationalization? Possibly and maybe some folks have decided that they are not committed to forever buying into such devices to swallow the unacceptable but I'd argue the rationalization sure fit Kerry better in 2004 than they ever have for Clinton who has been pretty bellicose since up to very recently when she couldn't wait to get to Obama's right on arms to radical yahoos.

she has learned much. In similar circumstances, there is little reason to expect a different outcome and that she was and is hawk not some poor gullible soul that got tricked by Bush (which I'm not sure is actually better anyway).

I don't get the relationship between your request for clarification of my thoughts and the editorial question that follows it, "how low they feel they need to sink in the process". Who did the low thing? Seems to me it was the fools who supported Bush's crazy warmongering, mayhem, death, and destruction particularly those that keep reaching for the brass ring still today.

John Kerry voted against the first IWR when Saddam had invaded and occupied a sovereign nation, the U. S. had put together a broad coalition, and was fighting under a U N flag.


All he had to bases his second IWR vote on was some weak reassurances that Saddam was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.

What is unclear about what I said or if it isn't unclear I'm not grasping your dissent from my statement.

I also have had post hidden by the same group that was at work on that thread. The thing is the one doing all the anti Hillary posting are pretty much the same ones who were doing all the "anti" Obama posting for years now.

enough head-scratching on here to make a person's scalp bleed.

doesn't make it true. Remember how it was Bill's personality and not his policy that cooperated with Phil Gramm to kill Glass-Stegall? Birds of a feather my friend.