hahahaha

families like the one she grew up in."

Oh! That is just too perfect!

From her Wikipedia bio:

If her father was a small-business manager, then probably "working class" would be inaccurate, but certainly "middle class" would fit.

followed by the standard political boilerplate of the last sentence.

Given her current wealth, some people would also see any reference to "working class" as being a satire of what she would say. This has some basis in history. Specifically, she didn't do herself any favors with her famous "dead broke" remark. (It was certainly tone deaf, coming from someone who could go out and earn get paid $200,000 for a single speech.)

I think some DUers, joining me in the please-not-Hillary camp, may have the impression that she grew up amidst the 1%. My post was to make clear that that attack, at least, would not be accurate.

Park Ridge in the '40s and '50s was definitely a middle-class suburb of Chicago. Not rich, but not poor by any standard.

Besides, the manager of a successful small business in the Depression and/or coming off the Depression was very much middle class.

In poor families, mom was working outside the home, too.

But, what's your point. No one said she was born into a wealthy home.

BTW, no one has to start a post defending Hillary (against a charge of???) with "I'm no Hillary fan, but...." Yet, so many seem to.

Agreed, and that's why I wrote "middle class" about her background.



I think some people think it. If I've underestimated DUers' command of the facts, then my post was superfluous.



In law it's called an admission against interest. It's traditionally thought to enhance one's credibility. If I, as a person who very strongly hopes that we nominate someone other than Clinton, nevertheless say something positive about Clinton, the reader will conclude that I'm not shading the truth just to bolster my preferred candidate.

In law it's called an admission against interest. It's traditionally thought to enhance one's credibility.

Thanks, but we're not in court. At DU, it well may have the opposite effect.

I can't be bothered to tiptoe around. I pretty much call 'em as I see 'em. So here goes. (And I've posted similar things before, so don't feel singled out.)

I have seen too many posts here by people who claim not to want Hillary to be the nominee under any circumstance. I never see the poster posting against Hillary or in favor of any other candidate. I don't see them evendefending any other candidate, even against attack after attack actually. I only see them defending Hillary. Many of the defenses start with these exact words: "I am no fan of Hillary but..."

And what follows is supposedly only because the poster is so fair or so opposed to unfair attacks, etc.

IOW, I've seen a pattern that seems to me to be too consistent to be pure coincidence.

In your case, you defended Hillary against something that was not even posted, something you thought some DU MAY think and something you nonetheless called an "Attack." (As an aside, why is a description of someone's financial circumstances that no one has even posted an "attack?" Even if someone had actually posted it, it would have been, at most, an incorrect description. What might make it seem like an attack is that Hillary is obviously trying to appeal to the masses and thinks playing down her personal situation is going to help her do that.)


Now, if your post only coincidentally fit into the pattern I've been observing, I certainly apologize. However, I do think it should be noted in some way whenever it appears, whether it appears by pure coincidence or not.

Lastly, though your quote from this version of her wiki was correct, your defense seems to have been wrong on the facts nonetheless. Her date seems to have been quite well off, esp. for that era, albeit certainly not in the 1% of the 1%, and at least somewhat politically connected to boot.

Your main point seems to be a suspicion that I'm part of some false-flag operation. Let me see if I have it right: I'm a Hillary supporter who pretends to be a Hillary opponent who's grudgingly saying something positive about her because the facts compel it, but actually it's not grudging at all, it's my real purpose, and I'm not really an opponent and I never actually say anything negative about her?

I am nowhere near that clever.

If there actually are people displaying that pattern, then, yes, my post fitting it was coincidental. Earlier this month I found myself to the left of Bernie Sanders, in that I accused him of being too charitable toward Hillary. This past weekend I posted something favorable to O'Malley, contrasting him with Hillary on environmental issues.

For the record, I prefer Chafee, O'Malley, Sanders, or Warren as our nominee over Hillary, prefer Hillary over Andrew Cuomo, and am undecided as between Hillary and Webb.

coincidentally fit that pattern. Don't know what you can reasonably ask beyond that. As my prior post stated, I think noting an example of the pattern when one appears, innocently or not, is important.

BTW, though, fitting into a pattern does not require cleverness. Originality may, but not fitting into a pattern. That requires only willingness.

more than one. (His wiki is not clear on that point.) His business sold wholesale to customers like airlines and hotels. They had a summer home. They were relatively affluent, especially coming out of the Depression.

If you want to see the language from his wiki I copied and pasted below, I recommend haste. It may not be there very long after I post this.

Rodham attended Pennsylvania State University and was a third-string tight end for the Penn State Nittany Lions football team.[4] He joined the Delta Upsilon Fraternity.[2] He graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in physical education[2] from the College of Education in 1935, at the height of the Great Depression.

Right off the bat, the luxury of being in college at the height of the Depression does not scream "poor," even if he had free tuition (and nothing indicates he did). My father in law HAD to quit high school to help his Dad support the family.

After the war, he began what was to prove to be a very successful career in the textile supply industry, starting with Rodrik Fabrics, a drapery fabric business located in Chicago's famous Merchandise Mart building.[2] His company made drapes and window shades; his customers included offices, hotels, airlines, and theaters.[4] He later opened a fabric print plant building on the North Side.[2] Rodham tried politics once, running for Chicago alderman as an independent in 1947; he lost badly to the Richard J. Daley political machine with which he was hoping to ingratiate himself.[4]

The Rodhams had three children: Hillary (born 1947), Hugh (born 1950), and Tony (born 1954). In 1950, they moved to the more affluent Chicago suburb of Park Ridge, Illinois.[2] The family still maintained ties to Scranton; all three children were christened there, and they spent summers at a cottage overlooking Lake Winola, located in Overfield Township in the nearby Pennsylvania Pocono Mountains,[2][5] that he and his father had built themselves in 1921.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_E._Rodham

I assume the Rodhams owned the land in the Poconos with a lake view on which they built said cottage. (Don't but Baby in a corner?)


Seems a long way from being a manager of someone else's small business, as her wiki (as of this morning) states.

And only because I want to preserve this language in his wiki exactly as I see it this morning, I am going to paste one more paragraph for archive purposes only.

Rodham was a staunch supporter of Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign and remained a committed Republican until his death. Even after his daughter married Democrat Bill Clinton, he (according to Bill Clinton) "never gave up hope that his son-in-law would join him in the Republican Party and support a cut in the capital gains tax."[7] In late 1992, following Bill Clinton's election as president, Rodham made a cameo appearance on the television comedy Hearts Afire, whose producers were friends of the Clintons.[8]

Almost all the old (superseded) versions remain accessible. Just click on the "View history" tab. You can look at any particular older version, or you can compare any two versions (successive or not) to see what changes were made from one to the other.

There are a few exceptions, such as when material is removed for being a copyright violation.

If it seems to you that an older version was better, and that the newer one has had useful information scrubbed from it by partisans (or by editors who are disinterested but dimwitted), you can restore the lost information, or you can raise the subject on the article's Talk page to see what other editors think.

anyway, except for the final paragraph and it just seem much easier to add it.

I am pretty sure I bookmarked your earlier post to me on this, but I'll bookmark this as well, just in case.

Thanks again.

are many. Hillary 2016!!!

This is satire.

...that an article mocking Clinton's sense of entitlement gets a "You go, girl" response such as this one.

Apparently there is no line past which they'll criticize her.

Breaking - Hillary Kicks Puppy, Supporters Enthusiastically Defend Her Action

sorry, couldn't resist

Your second sentence does not seem consistent with your subject line?

Could not log onto DU for the past 2 hours or more. Glad to hear the news. This post was the first thing I saw. OK, I didn't expect it. Now to go on the the whole story as it should be.
This was funny in retrospect.

- Sorry Hillary but I'm voting for the [font color=darkgreen] GREEN[/font] candidate!



K&R!

That staff are mindreaders.

Some will take this seriously.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6494221

because you know it's what she really wanted to say.

Last edited Mon Apr 13, 2015, 07:50 AM - Edit history (2)

People from working class households were on his payroll(s).

(Yes, I know it's the Onion.)

We don't need to make this any harder for you.