I AM WITH "THE SECRETARY"

I AM WITH HER!

and I'm pretty sure it's dead.

We also know how to throw out the trash from these so called media types. They are so afraid of her winning the WH that, of course, for over 25 years of calling her names and questioning her character is like a daily meme. They constantly portray her as inhuman.

In other words, HRC is the total opposite of what they say (and they know it).

Madam President, sounds good to me!

things they can talk, his agenda has been explained, $17 trillion over ten years, Hillary's agenda $1 trillion over ten years. At the minimum it will need to be 17 times the taxes we pay now.

Worse are some on the left who perpetuate the myth. I understand Bernie's fans but mainstream liberal media is beyond offensive.

We're adults, not the other bros. Time to walk the higher roads. We're getting close to the end. Just saying.

LOVE

Left, Right and the Media! Media means the middle, non?

If we had not been calm when all the smears started against HRC in the 90's, maybe they would've stopped there and then!

And the media would have learnt that bullying anyone especially a woman in a sexist manner was not worth their media chops!

But in the 1990's we did not have the internet like we do now. We were a "United" States but pretty separate!

Meanwhile the media sees it appropriate to record every fart that comes out of their heads like it is something TRUE and Important. When it is the opposite! Pretty close to crap.

It's time to call crap what it is! JMO!

LOVE TO YOU TOO!!! And you're right! being calm and collected is useful more than it's not!!!

that piece of trash was written by a bitterly angry and divisive little creature.

...or Trump do, any hack trying to make a buck pushes the "unloved" theme.

Bernie Sanders underestimated her ability to win because her supporters believe in he abilities. He has to rely on blind adoration.

It makes one wonder who they would support.

Hillary will force them to pay their taxes and behave.
Bernie will tax them out of existence.
Trump will start a war with Mexico.
Cruz will start one with the rest of the world.
And no one knows where Kasich will start one, but that's okay cos he won't be the nominee anyway.

I can't even imagine what they'd make of that. This article is beyond the pale.

My husband is a subscriber. I read the sections on France and the sections on the US, and it's hard to tell which country they enjoy criticizing more. They endorsed Obama, then spent the next 8 years pointing out his flaws. They'll probably endorse Hillary, but in their bigoted eyes it's only because she's the only one with any real experience. Take their opinion with a grain of salt - the only power they wield is that of the keyboard, and we all know what that's worth.

They are pretty full of themselves at The Economist, it's true..

If, god forbid, they ever had to look someone in the eye and say what they write to a person like Hillary face to face, they'd totally cower under the bedstead. As well they should. They are nowhere near her league and never can aspire to be.

...to read the entire article and post some thoughts.

The comments drip with misogyny...one commentor, in fact, felt there should be a constitutional amendment barring the spouses of office holders from running for office themselves because well it's not like they're qualified, they'd just be running on coattails, amirite?

Geez, considering most office holders these days are men, whom do you suppose that's aimed at?

And it got 46 recs.

both depresses and infuriates me. I'm so damn sick of the HRC witch-hunt from all sides. I'm sick of these obvious sexist attacks being seen as fair game. Im sick of being accused of "playing the gender card" if we try to fight back.

It's depressing and unbelievably frustrating because there are times when it feels hopeless. I know things have changed in the last 30 years, but it feels like we've barely progressed in some areas.

This year has been a big disappointment; the support and understanding I thought would be there (on the "progressive left&quot really wasn't - both for women and minorities.

More libertarian than democrats...and they seem to controlling the on line conversation which in turn feeds the MSM narrative.


I just keep reminding myself that she's got 10 million plus votes in just a primary. More than any other candidate.


There's a lot of folks out there who support her. And she's winning. That alone should make you wanna go 'woo-hoo'....we're about to elect the first woman president in our Nation's history.

Can't expect that to be easy, eh?

It's good to keep things in perspective. The media spin can be so misleading, but she's winning(!!), as much as they want to deny it. The day after the election will be amazing.

I actually read the whole Economist article, as well as their cover article on Hillary in the last issue. Much of their coverage expresses approval of her character and her policies, although they urge her to be a bit more bold in some of her proposals. This supposedly deplorable article even debunks the false scandals that are currently plaguing her.

The BNR synopsis excerpted above cherry picks a handful of negative phrases and presents only those out of context. To declare the whole article 'deplorable' on that basis is ridiculous. I would encourage the people on here who are outraged by this supposedly anti-Hillary article to actually read the thing before getting outraged.

Blue Nation is cherry picking this article unfairly. Its not an anti-Hillary attack article at all. Its unbiased, perhaps a little cold, but its also fair and it highlights many of her strengths along with her weaknesses. There are thousands of articles that openly attack Hillary every day with false information, so when one article actually has positive things to say about her, I'm going to defend it. They don't just call her unloved. They explain why, and you know. They are actually pretty good reasons. Are we going to deny that many people dislike Hillary because of BS republican propaganda? Because that's pretty much what the article concludes.

"Republicans have a history of pinning imagined crimes on Mrs Clinton. The e-mail case sprang from one such: on the basis of no evidence, many believed Mrs Clinton had failed to protect America’s ambassador to Libya and three co-workers, killed by jihadists in 2012."

"If Mrs Clinton does make it back to the White House, as seems likely despite her struggles, it will be for three main reasons. Mr Sanders has done her more good than harm; the Democrats are more united than they seem; and the Republicans are every bit as divided."

"Being seen to scrap has been beneficial in itself; a recent Gallup poll suggests her supporters are becoming more enthusiastic. “I was for Bernie, but what she’s said about equal pay for women has really swayed me,” said Dana, a Harley-Davidson motorbike inspector in Wisconsin, ahead of its primary on April 5th. Mrs Clinton lost that one. Indeed, going in to New York, she had lost seven of the previous eight states. But her strategists were pretty relaxed. Those defeats were in places with few big cities and a lot of whites—in other words, those least representative of the Democratic electorate."

"It is an indicator of her underrated strength that Mrs Clinton has largely avoided lurching to the left after Mr Sanders, a manoeuvre that would inevitably damage her in the general election. Many pundits claim otherwise, but this is based on wishful thinking of two different sorts"

"She might well attempt nothing more dramatic than she has already promised. In the best case for the Democrats, she would still face a Republican filibuster in the Senate. Moreover, her own record there and as secretary of state suggests pragmatism and a commitment to incremental improvement, not radicalism and the grand gesture. “She is totally opposed to not getting anything done,” says Mr Panetta. “She knows her limitations, but she also knows how to empower others.” Her caution is partly informed by the high price Mr Clinton and Mr Obama both paid for launching ambitious measures, including on deficit reduction and health care, early on. Both lost control of Congress after two years. Mrs Clinton might be expected to eke out her political capital more gradually."

Everyone can read it!

Here: Unloved and unstoppable http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21697220-year-insurgents-americans-appear-likely-elect-establishment-grande-dame?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/unlovedandunstoppable

Are you reading the same article as me? I found it pretty pro-hillary. When they said creature I gotnthe impression they were reflecting on the anti-establishment opinion, not their own. I didnt find anything untrue, and they said many many good things about her.

I even gave the article to my wife to read without any context. She is a political science major who works on the Hillary campaign team (i'm mearly a volunteer). She said it was 'sad' and explained that she found it said because it was factually accurate. That she is unloved because she lacks charismatic speeches and because republicans have attacked her character relentlessly.

Of all articles on the net, calling this deplorable?

especially when you use them to deny the wall-to-wall insults lodged against HRC. The fact that you and your wife agree with them does not mean there aren't many people who find them ridiculous, untrue and offensive.

Further, this is the Hillary group and your opinion being as unflattering as it is to Hillary is not welcome here. You have the entirety of DU in which to find fans who will agree with you but this particular group isn't one of them.

Thanks for stopping by.

and that makes insiders at The Economist club very disgruntled indeed. They have been infiltrated and are moaning and groaning into their after dinner brandies. Bah!

Without a trace of irony, they accuse her of being too much of an "establishment grand dame". It is awfully hard to imagine how that is possible considering the source. They begrudgingly admit that she is "fluent and accomplished" and has an"ironclad grip on policy". But, all those qualities apparently merely "prevent her from being caught out" and it is actually Bernie who is the skillful debater. And, despite their insistence that she has oratorical "weakness" she has somehow managed to repeatedly eke out astonishing speaking fees. Such a paradox, that Hillary!

The section subtitled, "Down and Confused" bizarrely goes on to describe her commanding lead and an assured victory due to the "unenthusiastic" support of nearly every demographic. I'm not sure who is down, confused or unenthusiastic but it doesn't sound like Hillary or the people voting for her. I suspect it may be the miserable curmudgeons at the Economist who are seeing their age old hold on the "establishment" slipping away into her hands. And that has been the largest objection, hasn't it? The "establishment" is a by-invitation club and she has somehow managed to find the loopholes in the members only restrictions.

The writer even states, out loud and with no self awareness at all, “She is totally opposed to not getting anything done.... She knows her limitations, but she also knows how to empower others.”

Bwahahaha



I find articles like these especially delicious. I'm glad they think Hillary knows her limits because she is pushing past every single one they have imposed!

All of which reminds me of an old clip:

Its almost as if the economist supports Hillary and isn't trying to put her down at all. Yeah, i love these articles too.

Plenty to cherry pick and steal, and why I gently encouraged a read through it.

'They've been infiltrated...'

'They're seeing their age old hold on the"establishment" slipping into her hands...'

Anything about Hillary starting a 'revolution', maybe? Or an accusation about rigged voting?

If you find this a great article good for you!

In the meantime this is the HRC GROUP!!

I am not into articles which start with the title unlovable when it comes to my candidate, and we are in HRC group so we come here to support each other and our candidate. We find her smart, qualified and endearing.

So a passive aggressive article: NOT IMPRESSIVE!

ENTHUSIASTICALLY WITH HER!
HRC GROUP READY!

You're warning me not to question your pro-Hillary dogma... But I'M THE AUTHORITARIAN??? Talk about irony.

To be clear, I'm a firm HRC supporter, and have been for more than a decade. In fact, I wish she had won the nomination in 2008. I'm also a huge fan of President Obama, but I think HRC would have done an even better job the last 7+ years, and her two terms would have given Barack Obama more time to learn the ropes in the Senate - or perhaps as her VP. I think then he would have had even greater chops when finally did become president in 2016.

I like Hillary because she is insanely intelligent, insanely qualified and experienced, incredibly knowledgeable, incredibly dedicated to bettering our nation, and I happen to really love the policies she's come up with and her pragmatism.

But she's not a deity, and it bothers me when some of her supporters uncritically attack anything that even smells of disloyalty to Hillary - especially when it really isn't.

The Economist is one of the most credible info sources on the planet. I'm pretty certain the Clintons themselves count it as one of their info sources. And this article was NOT some kind of anti-Hillary hatchet job, although that's how your post made it sound. I'm quite sure you didn't even bother reading our before you posted your attack on it. That is unfair and misleading, and it's the kind of thing I would expect of a BernieBro, not an HRC supporter.

The solution to anti-Hillary lies is the truth, not pro-Hillary lies. The reality of Hillary should be enough. No need to stoop to the level of the zealots.

You have said exactly nothing to support your claim that the Economist is one of the most credible info sources on the planet. You have said nothing to address the specific areas of disagreement any of the members have taken time to point out. You have said nothing to support your claim that anything anyone has discussed here is a "lie, unfair or misleading".You have said nothing to support your claim that anything anyone has disagreed with in the article has elevated them to the level of "zealot".


Thanks

I encouraged readers to actually read the full article, as well as the cover issue, both of which are supportive of HRC on balance. GvilleDem - who you attacked ad hominem, btw - excerpted plenty of sections that show that the particular article attacked was actually supportive on balance, so i don't see the need to re-read post those. As far as zealotry, that should be pretty self-evident. When people accept a condemnation of a piece without even examining our for themselves because it happens to agree with their pre-conceived notions, that's what I would call zealotry. Several folks on here criticize the other side incessantly for irrationally supporting their candidate and attacking anyone who dares question them. I see a similar dynamic in this post, and I prefer to see better from my fellow HRC supporters.

Got it!

Stating something is, "self evident" does not explain your point. Whether the favorable/disfavorable remarks in the article can be construed as "on balance" is arguable depending upon the amount of credibility and weight each is given. That the article may acknowledge some positives does not in any way prove the merit of the negatives. That is illogical and also has no basis in fact. Assuming those who commented have not read the article is pure conjecture on your part and only serves to make your case of "pre-conceived notions and irrationality". You have simply failed to substantively prove anything you have said based on anything other than your opinion. Which you are entitled to have. Unfortunately, this is the Hillary Clinton Group which serves as a place of support, not for debating the relative merits of partially positive/negative articles with people who call group members names and whose opinion of them is irrelevant.

So, on the one hand you're criticizing me for not toeing the party line in the Hillary forum, and then on the other demanding that I substantiate the negative parts of the Economist article... At which point you would undoubtedly attack me for posting anti-Hillary information in the Hillary forum. No thanks.

And then you're demanding I further substantiate my claims on the merits of the article, then later saying this forum is not the place for that.

And I'm the one with no argument? Don't think so.

I've made my points and am not going to continue the thread any further. My original point was that the article was not a "deplorable" anti-Hillary piece as suggested by BNR, and the best evidence of that is to actually read the article itself. Another poster then posted many of the positive comments on HRC. So that's all that needs to be done to make my point, your attempts to change the argument now aside.

In closing, I defy you to find one single place in this thread where I called someone a name. (Hint: there aren't any.) And if my opinion is irrelevant, then why not simply ignore my posts?