Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumMillennial open letter to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone Magazine
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/3/26/honest-and-unmerciful-an-open-letter-to-matt-taibbi-of-rolling-stone-magazineNumbers aside, the next part of your article focused on several critiques of Hillary Clinton you feel millennials are justified in having. Let's look at some of these, particularly your critique of Hillary Clinton's Iraq vote. You may be shocked to learn that this vote was not "one of the easiest calls ever" as you implied but was rather a difficult and drawn out decision that every single member of Congress mulled in both an extensive and exhaustive manner. In fact, had you done a little independent research, you would have been able to read the transcript of Hillary Clinton's speech on the Senate floor in October of 2002 where she calls her vote "probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make." It was not a slam dunk vote as you implied but rather a complicated one with far-reaching implications. In fact, several progressive icons voted in favor of the bill including then senators Joe Biden, Diane Feinstein, Chris Dodd, and John Kerry. If it was such an easy call, why did so many progressives drop the ball, so to speak?
To answer this, you imply that these Democratic senators didn't want to appear to be anti-war. However, you have also stated that you don't personally buy Hillary Clinton's justification for her vote. What is it about her justification that you find so "ridiculous"? Hillary has called her vote a mistake yet she has also offered insight into why she voted the way she did. At the time, Clinton believed that a yes vote would be a strong piece of leverage that would ensure that the negotiation of weapons inspections between the United Nations and Saddam Hussein would be completed before the United States took further action. In that same speech Clinton said that her vote was not "for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose." Clinton, along with 76 other senators trusted George W. Bush to do the right thing and stay true to his word. Unfortunately he did not and the result was America's worst foreign policy decision since Vietnam. This was not about Democrats "supporting a wrong war" as you implied but instead was about a president accepting the trust placed in him by Congress and then abusing that trust to promote his own personal disastrous agenda.
In addition, you also seem critical of Hillary Clinton's role as First Lady by implying that she was responsible for her husband's policies. Last time I checked Matt, a First Lady is supposed to be an advocate for the administration unless you personally believe every First Lady should take on the role of Claire Underwood in House of Cards and use the position to promote her own personal political agenda. However, since you seem to believe that a First Lady is a major policy player let's take a look at your criticism of her in that role, focusing on the 1994 Crime Bill. Like most Hillary critics, you took aim at her out-of-context quote taken on young African-American men who became known as "super-predators" at the time. If you had done even a tiny bit of research, you would have realized that not only did Clinton use this term a single time but she used it to specifically describe gang members and not all African-American males. The fact that you took this smear as being factual shows that you, like many others in the media, were duped into believing something that simply was not true.
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)nice letter from a Millennial supporter of HRC!
Plus I recommend the comments' section.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)I especially like the comment section as well. It actually functions much like DU for it's members. The up side is that it was created as a pro-Barack Obama site at the time some liberal political sites began smearing, attacking and even lying about the President. It was a natural progression for most of it's members to support Hillary and they take a dim view trolls and Naderites messing around in their comment section.
It's easy to tell by the articles they publish (all by members) that this is a knowledgeable group. They are as well welcoming, funny and very active.
Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)I didn't read Tiabi's article because who cares, but this one answers so many critics it is perfect.
Loved the drunk driving/email analogy (?) Perfect!
That this millenial took time to articulate the perception trap is really inspiring.
Everyone, do yourself a favor and READ THE WHOLE THING.
Thanks for this. A great read.
Good Read!!
stopbush
(24,397 posts)I'm really tired of people - especially journalists - who have the attitude that Hillary must have done something illegal, otherwise why all the accusations and investigations?
By the same "logic," Santa Claus exists based on the evidence that presents are left under the tree.
Sadly, it's nearly impossible to get people to move off received opinion and to think objectively. That's why the RW smear machine is so effective - first impressions are lasting. If you are able to frame reality you get to control what passes for reality.
Look at all the BSers whose major reason for hating Hillary is that they can't trust her. That reason is the basis for all of the other complaints they voice about her. It matters not that the basic premise is wrong.
Satch59
(1,353 posts)I love this site...another refuge for Hillary supporters...
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)pandr32
(11,625 posts)This should be on the front page of all Democrat friendly publications and internet sites.
The problem is it is long and too many people these days only read Facebook memes, catchy headlines, anything that reinforces the opinions they already have, and smears about the candidates they love to hate.
Thank you for posting this!
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Fla Dem
(23,769 posts)creon
(1,183 posts)This is an interesting blog.
The pov is very practical liberal/progressive.
It is worth checking out.