2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTYT: Hillary's "enemies" list
Published on Mar 21, 2016
Hillary Clinton keeps a list of her political friends and enemies. She does this so her staff can quickly decide who to reward and who to punish when favors are asked. Basically its for streamlining corruption. Cenk Uygur, host of the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.
"For months they had meticulously updated a wall-size dry-erase board with color-coded symbols, letters and arrows to track which lawmakers were leaning toward endorsing Hillary and which were headed in Obamas direction. For example, the letters LO indicated that a lawmaker was leaning Obama, while BD in blue denoted that he or she was a member of the centrist Blue Dog Coalition on Capitol Hill.
As one of the last orders of business for a losing campaign, they recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet the names and deeds of members of Congress. They carefully noted who had endorsed Hillary, who had backed Obama, and who had stayed on the sidelinesstandard operating procedure for any high-end political organization. But the data went into much more nuanced detail. We wanted to have a record of who endorsed us and who didnt, a member of Hillarys campaign team said, and of those who endorsed us, who went the extra mile and who was just kind of there. And of those who didnt endorse us, those who understandably didnt endorse us because they are (Congressional Black Caucus) members or Illinois members. And then, of course, those who endorsed him but really should have been with her that burned her.*
H2O Man
(73,536 posts)Recommended.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #2)
cyberpj This message was self-deleted by its author.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Maybe the video has some substance, but the quoted text (thank you for that) doesn't sound sinister. Mind-reading of the candidate aside, I have no problem with careful tracking and management of a team during a game of inches.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Knee jerk reactions are also very Hillary-like.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Cheers!
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)You're welcome.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And clearly they are voting fof Hillary, not Sanders.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Now that she got their vote, Obama's legacy was awful.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)don't do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)I bet you don't see the irony in your comment.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)Personally I think he is kind of a grifter but that doesn't matter. I don't watch him his voice is ANNOYING!
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)For managing the pay to play side of things, who gets political influence and how much based on funds given directly and funds raised from others that goes to (a) Bill or Hillary or Chelsea for speeches, (b) Bill or Hillary or Chelsea via corporate boards or paid advisory roles, (c) Hillary's campaign, (d) Hillary SuperPacs and (e) the Clinton Foundation.
questionseverything
(9,653 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)What is really ironic here is that according the story that is the subject of this thread (and plenty credible, based on so many specifics) the Clintons keep a list of friends, enemies, every little favor that needs to be repaid. But she pretends that the people in the top 0.01%, the corporations, and foreign governments who have shoveled money at the Clintons (via speeches, consulting arrangements and donations to their political campaigns, SuperPacs and the Clinton Foundation) not only don't keep such lists of their own for every politician they support, but that they don't expect anything back. And this would also suggest that Hillary and Bill keep a list of everybody they owe favors to and everybody they want to punish politically, but they keep no such list on the financial side. It is preposterous. Nobody but her most naive political supporters would believe it for a minute.
There is a psychological principle called reciprocity. Most of us do not like to be in somebody's debt or to have others in our debt. If you treat me to a meal, I feel the need to treat you to a meal or do something else for you to repay the favor. It is why Sam Walton of Wal-Mart (who Hillary knew well) wouldn't allow his buyers to even accept a meal from a supplier or potential supplier, because he didn't want them to even be subconsciously influenced by it. Judges must recuse themselves from cases where they have a personal or economic interest, or at least disclose such interests to both sides when they don't recuse themselves. But Hillary and Bill pretend that they can take in millions from powerful people, corporations and foreign governments without there being any quid pro quos or it having any impact on their decision making.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)karynnj
(59,503 posts)to act as advocates in various places or on various issues. What was disturbing was that as a last act of a failing campaign, they recorded all of this on a spreadsheet. The innocuous possibility is that they wanted it for 2016 or to thank people who had supported them. However, there were other accounts, in addition to this, that stressed those people that the Clintons were angriest at. People they thought indebted to them, who did not support her. It is pretty clear that many could likely consider themselves permanently written off by the Clintons ... unless there are ways the Clintons could use them.
To me, the strangest part of that was that because he had been President, they counted anyone, who in any race had the President's support - something that is a given for most people in good standing in their own party. In addition, any help that others had given the Clintons -- in 1992, while he was President, when he was being impeached etc didn't count against that debt. Only what the Clintons had done for the party -- and no discounting for any negatives either.
The worst thing is that I honestly think that trait - which I view as a very negative human trait - likely has helped both of them. The fact that she is highly likely to be President may have made many consider that they should commit when she asked them to rather than be pariahs if she won.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)can be recategorized- probably like most Obama supporters are now considered Clinton supporters.
Every campaign does this. All of them. So naive that this seems like evidence of anything nefarious. If Bernie has no lists, he is fucked. They all keep lists of who they can and cannot depend on for this and that.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)It is the fact that many people were then essentially on their enemies list.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)What did they do to people on the shit list?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)IOWs, HRC and President Obama are doing what every single political person does, and has done, since the beginning of time ... remembering who is/was supportive of your efforts and who wasn't ... and if they are, particularly, efficient about their list, it would include assumptions for why the person was supportive or not.
LuvLoogie
(6,997 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)LuvLoogie
(6,997 posts), but Cenk is still stuck in there arguing.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)endorsements she has. Either/or friends. At the time many of those endorsements were given it still appeared if she was going to have a coronation. Get on the wagon or get punished.
There is so much about the way the Clinton's do politics that I do not want to be a part of. Is this why so many people who were dealing with the State Department ended up donating to the Foundation?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Every 'leader' I've ever known would kick that sort of behavior in the ass.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)but I'd expect them all to really be offended and I'd expect some to be quietly vengeful about being threatened that way.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Fear, not admiration.
Kudos to Liz Warren - I suppose she is a "stayed on the sidelines" entry.
What a way to think a country should be run - for one's own wealth and power.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)and is therefore pure of heart.
When asked why, according to the friends June 20, 1994, diary entry, Clinton said, Revenge.
Clinton aide: Ted Kennedy... dead
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/195188-hillarys-hit-list
Lewis, because of his own place in American history and the unique loyalty test he faced with the first viable black candidate running for president, is a perfect example of why Clinton aides had to keep track of more detailed information than the simple binary of for and against. Perhaps someday Lewiss betrayal could be forgiven.
(snip)
Still, Clinton aides exulted in schadenfreude when their enemies faltered. Years later they would joke about the fates of folks who they felt had betrayed them. Bill Richardson: investigated; John Edwards: disgraced by scandal; Chris Dodd: stepped down, one said to another. Ted Kennedy, the aide continued, lowering his voice to a whisper for the punch line, dead.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)then she had to be angry at many people--because many important members of Congress endorsed Obama. Wasn't Pelosi one of his biggest proponents.
If the Clintons really do behave in this manner, then they also have many, many enemies. You can't behave this way without the retribution circling around back to get you.
A good time to remember that Clinton is now under FBI investigation for her private email server, and the IT guy who set up the arrangement has been granted immunity.
senz
(11,945 posts)except for the Obama family who had every reason to loathe her after 2008. I'd just assumed people who had opposed the Clintons would be afraid of them because they're wealthy, connected, powerful, unprincipled, and vengeful. But thinking about what you wrote, I realized I'm judging others by myself, and politicians are not like most of us. The Clintons may make them nervous, but not necessarily frightened, except perhaps in the case of Claire McCaskill...
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/195193-mccaskill-didnt-want-to-be-in-elevator-with-clinton
KMOD
(7,906 posts)political differences, and not smears, this OP is for you.
There is no hit list. In fact, this whole smear is rooted in sexism.
Hillary Clinton is respected and admired throughout the Democratic Party. She has been helping Democrats get elected to office for decades.
marmar
(77,078 posts)Sincerely, that's all you've got?
KMOD
(7,906 posts)"Hillary's Hit List".
You can't, because there aren't any.
Did you watch the segment? So the Politico was just making it all up huh? Or they just sexist too?
KMOD
(7,906 posts)This is all based on a smear from a book. It's not factual, it's fantasy.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)... Hillary and camp goes with the sexism defense.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I didn't realize Bill was female, since he's alleged to help keep this list and had his own.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Hillary and Bill's hit list, the smear is Hillary's hit list.
840high
(17,196 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)What a steaming load. Is there actually a limit to how low you and your sleazy candidate will go?
ProTip: rhetorical question.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Love that you added "sleazy" as well.
ProTip: Your sexism is showing.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Less appreciated was that idiotic assertion of "sexism" on my part. The only response I can give to that (that won't be hidden) is that of all the parts of me, my vagina is probably the most surprised too see that.
ProTip: consider learning what words actually mean before employing them. "criticizing a woman" =/= "sexism"
KMOD
(7,906 posts)It is ingrained and accepted in society. Being a woman does not make you immune to it.
You chose to use "loose" and "sleazy".
ProTip: Think about that. There were plenty of other adjectives to use, yet those were the ones that came to your mind.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I never intended OR typed the word "loose." I had autocorrect pick "lose" for some reason, and I corrected that to the intended "low" after you pointed it out. "Loose" was your creation in this conversation, more than a bit revealing of where your mind goes. Retract your slanderous, insulting lie.
No apology for "sleazy," either. The word has connotations far beyond anything gender-related. It (obviously...to anyone not desperately searching for something to slander another poster over) referred to her corruption, serial lying, weathervane nature, and so forth.
Spare me your bullshit faux poutrage.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)quite well.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)To you? Well...it's pretty obvious what they say to liars.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Again, I think your posts say all I need to know about you.
Enjoy your day.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That's what liars deserve. Don't like it? Then stop fucking lying about me or Ignore me.
Otherwise, fucking deal with it. Liar.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)baseless, artful smears of sexism ... Hillary Clinton for Victim-In-Chief is what it's all about with that one.
Faux pas
(14,671 posts)dastardly pair.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)makes me nauseous. I understand wanting to know who will work with you, but this kind of tracking and labeling seems like vindication is a goal or purpose of creating the lists.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)That is how things get done, whipping up support and votes. Probably 3/4 of those people who were non-supporters are supporters now. Things change. Obama is leaving, this is how things progress.
Would you really prefer to think Sanders campaign has no "lists"? I assure you, they do. Of politicians, of voters, of issues, etc etc etc. All organizations do this.
radical noodle
(8,000 posts)I would expect any organization to keep track of the things necessary to what they're doing. Campaigns keep track of campaign related information. This gotcha stuff is just stupid. I'm sure Obama keeps or kept such lists. Lincoln probably did. Are we so naive that we didn't know this?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)If I have to hear one more time that the DNC should have registered voters or that a crowded parking lot means voter suppression I am going to scream. And GOTV lists that are strongly pro-Bernie. Derp- that is what GOTV lists are, FFS.
Obviously a lot of first time voters- who are making tons of assumptions and feeding each other conspiracy theories like cake. They should be embarrassed. Never seen such paranoia.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Any political campaign that ISN'T keeping track of how the land lies is not doing its job.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)the NEVER DO! People need to educate themselves about process instead of being shocked and dismayed at every turn.
Did they not hire any experienced people?
antigop
(12,778 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)when I said that one of her supporters here stated that she was keeping a DU list of members here who did not support her, for the stated reason of exacting revenge on them after she takes office.
Stories like this underscore the fact that her campaign is keeping these lists not just on DU, but probably anywhere campaigning is going on.
She scares me, and I'm being 100% honest.
Response to closeupready (Reply #44)
cyberpj This message was self-deleted by its author.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)Avalux
(35,015 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)had so eagerly agreed to poison itself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)Thanks for the thread, marmar.
senz
(11,945 posts)January 12, 2014, 09:00 pm
Hillarys hit list
By Amie Parnes and Jonathan Allen
As one of the last orders of business for a losing campaign, they recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet the names and deeds of members of Congress. They carefully noted who had endorsed Hillary, who backed Barack Obama, and who stayed on the sidelinesstandard operating procedure for any high-end political organization. But the data went into much more nuanced detail.
We wanted to have a record of who endorsed us and who didnt, said a member of Hillarys campaign team, and of those who endorsed us, who went the extra mile and who was just kind of there. And of those who didnt endorse us, those who understandably didnt endorse us because they are [Congressional Black Caucus] members or Illinois members. And then, of course, those who endorsed him but really should have been with her that burned her.
More here: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/195188-hillarys-hit-list
It's a great read.
senz
(11,945 posts)Hes been a great leader, McCaskill said of Bill, but I dont want my daughter near him.
Instantly, McCaskill regretted her remark; the anguish brought her to the point of epic tears, according to a friend. She knew the comment had sounded much more deliberate than a forgivable slip of the tongue. So did Hillary, who immediately canceled a planned fundraiser for McCaskill.
A few days later McCaskill called Bill Clinton to offer a tearful apology. Bill was gracious, which just made McCaskill feel worse. After winning the seat, she was terrified of running into Hillary Clinton in the Capitol. I really dont want to be in an elevator alone with her, McCaskill confided to the friend.
But Hillary, who was just then embarking on her presidential campaign, still wanted something from McCaskillthe Missourians endorsement. Womens groups, including EMILYs List, pressured McCaskill to jump aboard the Clinton bandwagon, and Hillary courted her new colleague personally, setting up a one-on-one lunch in the Senate Dining Room in early 2007. Rather than ask for her support directly, Hillary took a softer approach, seeking common ground on the struggles of campaigning, including the physical toll. Theres a much more human side to Hillary, McCaskill thought.
Obama, meanwhile, was pursuing her too, in a string of conversations on the Senate floor. Clearly, Hillary thought she had a shot at McCaskill. But for McCaskill, the choice was always whether to endorse Obama or stay on the sidelines. In January 2008 she not only became the first female senator to endorse Obama but she also made the case to his team that her support would be amplified if Govs. Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano came out for him at roughly the same time.
McCaskill offered up a small courtesy, calling Hillarys personal aide, Huma Abedin, ahead of the endorsement to make sure it didnt blindside Hillary.
But the trifecta of women leaders giving Obama their public nod was a devastating blow. Hate is too weak a word to describe the feelings that Hillarys core loyalists still have for McCaskill, who seemed to deliver a fresh endorsement of Obamaand a caustic jab at Hillaryevery day during the primary.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/195188-hillarys-hit-list
Apparently, Claire was eventually brought to heel.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Again, this is from January, 2014.
Lewis, because of his own place in American history and the unique loyalty test he faced with the first viable black candidate running for president, is a perfect example of why Clinton aides had to keep track of more detailed information than the simple binary of for and against. Perhaps someday Lewiss betrayal could be forgiven.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/195188-hillarys-hit-list
Anyone still think there isn't a heavy dose of fear involved in Hillary's endorsements?
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)after Clyburn endorsed Obama instead of Hillary in 2008.
Clinton later apologized, and Clyburn says he accepted the apology half-heartedly.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)TYT is in the tank for Sanders. This nonsense appeared in 2008 after Obama won the nomination, it's not an "enemy" list. Anybody here ever worked for a campaign? Every campaign has a list of people (politicians, mostly) who support and don't support the candidate.
You don't think that Sanders' campaign has a similar list?
senz
(11,945 posts)Again, from January, 2014.
He had slashed Hillary worst of all, delivering a pivotal endorsement speech for Obama just before the Super Tuesday primaries that cast her as yesterdays news and Obama as the rightful heir to Camelot. He did it in conjunction with a New York Times op-ed by Caroline Kennedy that said much the same thing in less thundering tones. Bill Clinton had pleaded with Kennedy to hold off, but to no avail.
Still, Clinton aides exulted in schadenfreude when their enemies faltered. Years later they would joke about the fates of folks who they felt had betrayed them.
Bill Richardson: investigated; John Edwards: disgraced by scandal; Chris Dodd: stepped down, one said to another. Ted Kennedy, the aide continued, lowering his voice to a whisper for the punch line, dead.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/195188-hillarys-hit-list
Beacool
(30,247 posts)If McCaskill and Kerry were at the top of this "enemy" list, when did Hillary retaliate for their lack of support in 2008? Kerry and Hillary have an amicable relationship. McCaskill endorsed Hillary and publicly suggested that she should run for president in 2012 (the same goes for Pelosi). McCaskill has been actively campaigning for Hillary.
The only one who is out in the cold is Richardson, and that's with Bill, not Hillary. Bill considered Richardson to be a good friend and never forgave him for lying to his face.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)Bill and Hill are truly and completely shameless. How many have they thrown under the bus? Too many to count.
And as far as Dems being disgraced by scandal, their glass houses have some pretty serious cracks.
senz
(11,945 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)By Niall Stanage
<snip>
In June 2013, McCaskill released a statement through the website of Ready for Hillary, the super-PAC working to promote a Clinton candidacy. In the statement, the Missouri Democrat acknowledged that she had backed Obama early on in 2008. I worked my heart out to elect him president, she wrote.
But she also stated: Now, as I look at 2016 and think about who is best to lead this country forward, Im proud to announce that I am Ready for Hillary.
The following month, McCaskill publicly apologized for the 2006 comments about not wanting her daughter close to President Clinton.
It was not necessary, McCaskill recounted at the 2013 event, a public interview with a Washington reporter for Buzzfeed. It was gratuitous and hurtful and I have apologized to both President Clinton and Hillary Clinton for saying it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/195193-mccaskill-didnt-want-to-be-in-elevator-with-clinton
senz
(11,945 posts)It's easy to understand why Elizabeth Warren is reluctant to go all the way and endorse her ideological compatriot, Bernie Sanders.
If Hill gets the nomination, it would seriously cripple one of our very best senators.
If Hill somehow obtained the presidency, I don't even want to think about what life would be like for Sen. Warren.
She deserves support and gratitude for what she's doing now.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)they look well over 40.
senz
(11,945 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Turks
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)Deleted it and all copies , or rearranged the "naughty" and nice list, or put Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, etc. Whaddya bet this thing is 500 times more secure than the SoS stuff?
senz
(11,945 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)It's ironic to me that the Clintons carefully catalog perceived "betrayals" to themselves while at the same time completely betraying the public trust and their oaths of office.
Typical of the one-way mentality.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/
(Edit to add: link to original article at top of post)
moondust
(19,976 posts)For a long time I've suspected that some--perhaps many--of her endorsements have been made out of fear of career-damaging revenge/blacklisting by the Clinton Machine should she end up in the White House. Where does Cenk get this stuff?