Too funny!

There you are...As a presidential candidate, she needs to spend her time watching Olympics coverage so she knows exactly what's happening in every event. We want gold medal spoilers from Hillary, and we want them RIGHT NOW, DAMMIT!

She's always out doing that.

Oh wait, you were serious?

You forgot the pantsuits!

Still, she could contact some of America's top designers and borrow some outfits. Why doesn't she recognize the importance of fashion design in the USA? I recommend that she read Vogue and Glamour as she travels from place to place. Lots of ideas in those publications, certainly.

The surprising strategy behind Hillary Clinton’s designer wardrobe

But now, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, whose dowdy and matronly style has haunted her throughout her entire political career, is making her first real effort to play the fashion card. She’s upgraded the designers she wears, opting for high-end European labels, and hired a team of image experts that includes former Michelle Obama aide Kristina Schake, who’s been tasked with shaping her style and making her more relatable. She’s even rumored to have “Veep” makeup artist Barbara Lacy on the payroll.
Modal Trigger
$12,495 — cost of the Giorgio Armani jacket Clinton wore to her New York primary victory speech in April.Photo: Startraks Photo

But this new look comes with a hefty price tag. “She’s had to have spent in the six figures on this wardrobe overhaul,” says LA-based political image consultant Patsy Cisneros. Clinton, who loves to say that she left the White House in 2001 “dead broke,” is now dressing the part of someone who can command $325,000 for a single speech. Factoring in the designer labels she’s wearing, plus the number of new outfits she’s been photographed in over the past year, she’s likely spent at least $200,000 on new clothes to wear on the campaign trail.

I don't care what Clinton wears. Not one bit.

issue to national attention. You have to wonder, just what is she trying to cover up now with all those smocks?

That feline AIDS is the number one killer of domestic cats.

Waah-waaaaa!

That's right beetches. You just got Debbie downered!

Have a great weekend!

What could be more important to the future of America? And what of adoption of shelter animals? Where is that in her list of policy papers?

And total silence on the urbanized coyote problem too. But maybe therein lies the solution to the feral cat problem.

See? Coyotes eating feral cats.. That's the kind of cutting edge creative policy making that America needs.

all gymnastics events. How else can she best other world leaders during the Festivus "Feats of Strength" competitions. We need to air our grievances about this sort of thing.

Having cleared every obstacle she's encountered thus far.

to "Drama Queen Hillary" if she's to have any hope of getting them to vote for her.

to start a foundation and raise millions of dollars for charitable causes. Why does she always only think of enriching herself?

And something about emails.

I propose snickerdoodles....

Regarding your #2.

I tend to give a lot of leeway to members of DU who are still lashing out a bit regarding Hillary's win in the primaries. I've had hard primary losses in my political junkie life, and I know how much it hurts and how hard it is to get over. So I think I've been pretty patient with that sort of thing.

HOWEVER. The whole "Have you noticed how there's never any policy discussion since Bernie left the race" thing BOILS MY BLOOD. Hillary has the most comprehensive issues platform I've EVER seen. She talks about policy ALL DAY LONG. She is the most disciplined, issues-focused candidate who has probably EVER run for president.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8088438

This is the thread I'm talking about. It makes me so personally angry and insulted on Hillary's behalf. When people wilfully close their ears and then claim they haven't heard what they want to hear...UGH.

It sounded to me like the author was asking for discussions of Hillary's policies here on DU. What did we like, what didn't we like, what did we think of them, and so on. Not that we didn't know what Hillary's policies were, but what did we think of them.

I actually think that talking about what we like and don't like about her policy is a good thing. I didn't get the sense that it was complaining that we didn't know where she stood.

Maybe I'm completely wrong in my reading of the OP, but that's how I read it.

She is our nominee. I am disgusted with the concern BS. It is a way around the rules , but it won't last forever. Support Democrats.

From my local dog-catcher right up to Hillary. Absolutely, positively, GOTV, phone-bank, etc. But I don't have to agree with everything she stands for, just as I believe that Obama is one of the greatest Presidents ever, but I don't agree with him on everything either.

If I wanted a candidate who I agreed with 100% I would have to run for office myself. That is NOT concern trolling. Discussing Hillary's positions is not putting her down or anything else. We are not sheep, we are intelligent, opinionated folk. Disagreeing with this or that is not attacking the candidate, anymore than writing letters to our Congressperson, Senator, or President is not attacking them (although in my case, any letters I sent to either my Senators would probably get me a visit from the Secret Service, since I live in Kentucky). Nor would a letter to the Governor, City-Council, or any other elected official be much more than expressing my opinion on a matter of concern to me.

I'm not sure where your anger is coming from.

which I know from experience can depress the vote. I want to win big and take Congress...and criticism even so-called constructive criticism has no place in the general election...especially one which was preceded with a bitter and divisive primary. This is a way for those who do not like Hillary and are not over the primary to criticise here within the rules here...not saying you do this...but many do, and it is just plain wrong...and in fact some have said on other sites they are not supporting her but here they are with their 'constructive' criticism.

and I agree that attack and 'concern trolling' has no place here. I have served on several juries and don't hesitate to vote to block both. But there can be discussion of Hillary's plans, policy, and the like, while at the same time working to GOTV.

Personally I don't think Hillary getting 400 Electoral Votes is enough. I would really like to see her sweep all 50 states. (Know that's impossible, but would love to see it.) The pollsters say 400 EV's are possible, shall we try for 450?

I hope so because we were all working together pretty well, and there is no doubt the concern trolls are breeding dissent. Unity is needed now. I would love to see all 50 states go for Hillary too...we can work towards that goal and see what happens ...the idea of writing off large segments of the nation is wrong and ultimately offers only defeat. Many of the posts do not discuss but are a
workaround to rules against bashing our nominee or other Democrats...some such posts have not disappeared.

... than Donald Trump? McGovern only won Massachusetts. I hadn't thought of this before. I think I'll give it it's own thread.

I took everyone off but...I can't tolerate this.

ignoring positive informative posts and jumping on every negative rightwing-generated "Judicial Watch/Benghazi Committee" mudslinging smear, I guess you might miss the policy discussion.

The question is, what has changed?

-Her opposing the TPP isn't enough. She needs to do it while giving Pres. Obama the middle finger!
-It's her fault that more Americans (even some on her side of the aisle) aren't aware of her record as a FLOTUS, Senator, and SOS.
-She should make herself clearer on her economic platform and what she would do in achieving affordable college. Sure, people could look that up themselves online in less than 5 minutes, but that's too much work. Reading sucks, and people have more important things to do like...checking their Twitter feed and playing Call of Duty.
-She needs to shout repeatedly that she supports Black Lives Matter and Black-related issues to show she isn't taking Black voters for granted.
-She should take a polygraph test on live TV to prove that she isn't untrustworthy.
-It's not enough for her to apologize for her Iraq War vote and admit her mistake--she needs to be put on the front lines!
-Why hasn't she changed the way she laughs yet?
-Why is she ignoring Jill Stein and Gary Johnson?
-Why didn't she show up at the RNC Convention and try to convert the attendees?
-If she wasn't such a meanie to Donald Trump and didn't attack him all the time, maybe he would debate her.

again.

That's ok. ((sigh)) I know she's busy.

who DOES get a phone call on her birthday every year.

I thought not. What goes around...as they say...

on the $15/hour minimum wage. I just read in today's paper that she supports a $12/hour minimum. That's extremely disappointing.

Her official campaign position is, and always has been, that she prefers a $12 federal minimum wage as a floor, allowing cities and states to go further.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/15/bernie-s/does-hillary-clinton-want-15-or-12-minimum-wage/

that during the primary season she actually came out in favor of a $15/minimum wage for all.

Perhaps I totally misunderstood that.

she's been using the term "living wage." Actually, I'm not totally on board with the $15 fed min myself.

The current federal minimum wage is $7.25. Obama has unsuccessfully been battling to raise it to $10.10, although he did manage, through executive orders, etc., to make federal (sub)contractors pay a $10.15 minmum wage.

Raising the federal minmum wage to $12 is a 66% increase; it would be the largest increase in history.

to remind us of it everyday. Some support for the nominee.

I think we both know it does not help our nominee.

I've never seen an ideal candidate who meets all of my expectations. Not one for any office. That was not my point in any way, and you know it.

about it, but in a quieter and more intellectual way.

....pretty much by definition.

Just sayin'

Over in MM's experienced corner, where a surprising number of us reside, NObody imagines there will ever be a "perfect" candidate, seeing as how every one of them is human.

And be sure to apologize to the hostile ones for taking so much time about it.

That's right, no danglies!!!

LOL!

That worked very well for Sarah Palin.

....compared to her opponent's, her hair style is boring.

I love the part about her hair style.

Last edited Sat Aug 13, 2016, 08:53 AM - Edit history (1)

and you know... that voice...oh dear...why she actually raises it so people can hear her: not becoming at all. It sounds like a woman's voice too ...not a man's voice ...the audacity!!!! My dear, it is horrifying, no penis and that loud obviously female voice really it is just too much. I need my fainting couch...because it is all too much...

She's not loud or obnoxious enough ... That's what the American people want!

Just in case . . .

$200K to make it $10 million?

That's a camel-breaking straw for me!

I think I'll vote Green now!

She's obviously lazy.

compared to what the Greens have accomplished. I mean, a pathetic 2.3 million trees planted in Malawi alone?

My advice to her is to stop wasting her petty, hypocritical attempts to better the planet. They're embarrassing.

Reminds me of people on Amazon who rate products low because they are missing something that's totally not a true defect - like giving a gumball machine 2 stars because it doesn't have WiFi or downgrading a B&W laser printer because it doesn't print in color.

No matter how good Hillary is in everything from policy to maturity, she gets criticized for some of the most obscure and non-applicable (and manufactured) "defects".

I really hope we see a Hillary landslide with a Dem senate.

made a stop in Legal Cannabis shop in Colorado and smoked a blunt with Tommy Chong!

It's so much better than that stuff she carries around.

I've just found this (I know, I know, I'm the last one). I am a complete baby about hot food - I don't like anything that makes my eyes water and my mouth burn for ages. But sriracha is PERFECT! It's spicy, but it's more flavorful than anything else. It's good on eggs, in soups and stir-frys, and my absolute favorite is mashed avocado with lemon juice, salt and pepper, and sriracha. It is like the miracle condiment!

And it was given to us by a Vietnamese friend in Texas over 10 years ago. You could only buy it at the Asian markets in downtown Houston.

The Vietnamese restaurant I went to for years and years in South Philly always had it on the table. I asked the server once what it was and she said "Very spicy, very spicy" so I never touched it. To think, all these years I could have been enjoying the BEST condiment!

Say goodbye to ketchup.

apparently think, we are stupid and don't see through it all. One surprised me today, though. I truly thought this person had put it all behind them...I was wrong.

And then they act all indignant and shocked (shocked I tells ya) when they are challenged or called out. So hyperdefensive they are that it often ends up with personal insults. ( I guess they think this makes their denials more believable if they get emotional and resort to name-calling.)

posters.

Just ask the media and the TRump campaign.

But wouldn't it be really inconvenient to be transparent? Like, nobody could see you. People would speak in the direction they think Hillary is, but she crossed the room and sat down on the sofa; she'd constantly have to say, "Hey, I'm over here." She'd have to talk a lot so everyone could locate her, and since the "constructive critics" hate her voice, they wouldn't care for that either. Maybe she could wrap herself in bandages like in "The Invisible Man." That man was not very happy about being transparent. Then people would complain about Hillary's bandages, that they do not go with pantsuits. And they would really harp on her health problems if she were transparent, can you imagine? I don't know why transparency is an issue at all.

well, now she is too transparent...I mean come on a little bit of mystery...yada yada.

And be very "concerned" about overexposure, acting like a celebrity, etc.

If Hillary were a man, she would be wildly popular. By refusing to become a man, she is hurting the Democratic Party's chances of winning in November.

True to your antecedents.

Uff da!

I could possibly have. I'm just this old geezer from Minnesota. Others can post as they please, too.

I'm an insignificant person, politically. Just a random DUer.

it's clear that's what you are attempting to do. And your piled on faux humility is so cute.

please proceed.

her lack of transparency and...oh, yes, being closed off are "widespread" perceptions, she feels it's important that Hillary give more press conferences. Can't be more of an earnest well-wisher than that. Perhaps you missed that post, MM?

It occurs to me that she could take those opportunities to finally apologize (yet again) to America for using her ex-president husband's secure server.

If a single voter prefers Trump then Hillary is failing.

Excellent OP!

LOL!

I mean, it's true they only shut down because the family is on vacation, but still. People are very angry! She better be ready for this.

support of our Olympic gymnastics team. I really think she should do this. A subtle but useful dogwhistle of nationalism could be added by having her outfit echo our team uniform.

Thanks for the laugh, Hoyt. I now have this image of her cartwheeling across the stage and ending with big waves to everyone. I'm actually quite sure she'd be busily perfecting a nice series if she thought it just might conceivably almost help sew up Georgia.

But I don't think she gets it from her advisors, who are mostly loyalists that the Clintons have been surrounded with for many years. I think that same attitude carries over to our party at large: any criticism, even those which are minor, are seen as threats to Hillary and dangerous to the cause. That kind of thinking reinforces bad habits and keeps us from being properly self-reflexive. The improvements that Hillary has made since 2008 mostly did come from listening to newer voices to her team like Robby Mook and some others. But there are still many of the same people in her inner circle and I think that maybe they shouldn't be paid as much attention.

And yet none of that will matter this year anyway, because the Republicans nominated a madman. I can only hope that the improvement as a candidate that Hillary has shown in the last 8 years continues for the next four.

I know you didn't want actual constructive criticism, but it's worth hijacking your thread to say something I've thought for a while.

And I have heard your words plenty of times from a variety of posters. Hillary does not need criticism of any sort from Democrats We should support our nominee on DU. Those of you who are violating the rules in spirit and I don't mean you necessarily with clever attacks are only hurting yourselves...taking what could be a blowout election...maybe we even get the House back and turning it into a potentially business as usual type election where nothing progressive can be accomplished because of GOP obstruction. What happens when Democrats criticise their nominee is that it demoralizes voters and may actually cause them to vote third party or not at all...We don't need this ever but particularly not this year. She gets plenty of criticism from the right... She doesn't need those on the left to add their voices and repeat what is mostly right wing memes. Hillary Clinton won the nomination by millions of votes and is doing just fine. She is up by double digits and does not need 'new' voices. Much of this constructive criticism is just primary bitterness resurfacing, and as I have said repeatedly, the primary is over.

...you hit a nerve with “someone”. LOL. Well played!

Hill on the HILL is going to be awesome.

Shutting down criticism is the antithesis of democratic values.

civic duty any Democrat has and criticising our nominee hurts that effort.

But that doesn't mean we should cease engaging in critical thought and free expression on important issues. A political movement and/or campaign worthy of support will be stregthened by a healthy exchange of ideas, whereas attempts at suppression will drive people away.

not strengthen campaigns just the opposite. It makes it more likely that one loses. And those who engage in it say...ah well if it was 'healthy' or whatever we would have won...not our fault (2000,2004,1980). Attacking Democrats especially during the election is a lose-lose proposition. And even after the election, it is unwise, imagine if we had Obama's back in 10 ...how different everything would be instead of the whining that he could not deliver on this or that...Such a deep disappointment yada yada...and then came the GOP House. There will always be those on the right who attack Democrats mercilessly...when we join them, we only hurt ourselves.

I have not advocated "attacking Democrats."

If we can't discuss among ourselves both the positive and negative qualities of a candidate or a campaign, then we have ceased to be critical thinkers and our own best advocates. Uncritical support of any politician during and after an election is not a path to progress.

When opportunities arise I do my best to convince friends and relatives how critically important it is to defeat Donald Trump in this election, and I can only do this by being honest in my assessment of both candidates. Most people who can be persuaded by rational argument have a functioning BS detector.

is not going to turn out the vote...just the opposite. The time to offer constructive criticism is during a primary. Once the choice is made then support is needed not a criticism of any sort.

Apparently you need to be reminded.

Truly...

It is about supporting Democrats but whatever.

The thing is, if all we have is blind support we can't count on elected Democrats supporting US.

Make your choice wisely.

Voting for a Democrat over a Republican is a given.

The "it" I refer to is the level of engagement in holding our Democratic candidates and elected representatives accountable and/or providing feedback.

Failure to do so is an abdication of civic duty. When you suggest that criticism - even constructive criticism - is out of bounds, I will explain why your suggestion is out of bounds.

And where did it get us...we lost the House and the Senate.

Rather than forcefully make the case for progressive policies and the accomplishments of the Obama administration, some Dems ran away from the president and tried to be GOP-Lite. Given that choice, voters will choose a real Republican. It had nothing to do with people on the Left criticizing Obama.

have an elected Democrat supporting you. First things first.

It's the notion of no constructive criticism that I don't support.

The time for that is during the primary. All you do is depress the vote and get fewer people to vote for a candidate you support. Also even after the election...all the criticism does not help either. I write letters to the president but I never trash him on any website because...I want a successful midterm. Imagine, if we had the president's back in 10. We might not have lost the House. There are Republicans who attack every Democratic president endlessly...helping them is how we lose influence by losing elections.

I strongly urge you to vote for Hillary Clinton and for Democrats throughout the ticket. I most certainly do not want to depress your vote when I discuss issues and candidates honestly in an online forum.

You tend to view anything but blind loyalty and marching in lockstep as "trashing" and "attacking" Democrats. I don't see it that way at all, but you're entitled to your own opinion.