2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIsaac Saul: I Wrote That I Despised Hillary Clinton. Today, I Want To Publicly Take It Back.
Last edited Wed Sep 28, 2016, 02:07 PM - Edit history (1)
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/12220124Watching the candidate of my dreams get steam late and lose in the primary wasnt so different from watching my favorite football team not have enough energy to complete a fourth quarter rally. Hopeful, exciting, but ultimately deflating and disappointing.
When Hillary Clinton became the presumptive Democratic nominee, I was distraught. Months before I had written about her on Huffington Post, explaining that I despised her not for her gender as some of her supporters accused but for her hawkishness, her center-left policies, her husbands crime bill that incarcerated so many people of color, her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and her inability to get progressive on climate change policy.
Ive spent almost every waking hour of every day following this election, reading about Hillary, Donald Trump, both parties platforms, and the under-qualified Libertarian and Green Party candidates running. During these months of obsessing over my choice, Ive watched my position slowly shift. Ive felt myself start advocating for Hillary more than advocating a vote against Trump, culminating in last nights debate when she finally, totally, completely won me over.
In an election that features one of the most well-documented liars and scam artist businessmen to ever run for public office, much of the attention has been on him how we cant put him in office, give him keys to a nuclear warhead, trust him in the most powerful position in the world. Some of it has been more positive: how hed turn the system on its head, be a Washington outsider, completely rewrite the script. While its easy to make the case for voting against Trump, it occurred to me during the debate last night how much weve taken Clinton for granted.
...When November rolls around, youll have my vote.
And youll get it enthusiastically.
More
MFM008
(19,818 posts)Earlier.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Which the author doesn't explain, for reasons we can guess at.
still_one
(92,396 posts)decades to come through the Supreme Court, I care less for someone's motivation on their change of heart, than the fact that they want to stop a Trump presidency from becoming a reality
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...but until what I consider a serious faceplant is explained, I don't know how seriously to take anything this author writes in the future.
still_one
(92,396 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I just hope he's being read by others like him. Others who refused to look honestly at all their options before BUT are now coming to it.
still_one
(92,396 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)But you need to post just an excerpt, due to copyright laws. DU has gotten into trouble for that in the past.
phallon
(260 posts)I thought citing author and URL was sufficient. Good to know.
Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)If an author would be satisfied with proper attribution they usually mention it. The Fair Use doctrine is more restrictive and allows only a small portion of a work to be published, though that also would have to have proper attribution.
LiberalFighter
(51,084 posts)Then you can focus on parts that may have the most impact.
I do that on a page I manage. Even more specifically I also do a ADMIN comment about it or other parts. Sometimes I will do a whole paragraph or paragraphs and sometimes I will use only a part of a paragraph. And of course I provide a link.
phallon
(260 posts)I've enjoyed that kind of style. It's clean and easy to read and if you want context you can click on article.
I was just worried I'd be seen as editing. I'll try the style as this was a long article and I guess, in retrospect, I did edit by ... the conclusive sentence.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)who the heck is Isaac Saul (yeah, I looked it up: he has a BA from the University of Pittsburgh in nonfiction writing). I guess I'm glad if he represents the changed views of some millennials. But he could have obtained any of this information over the past 2 years easily, and tempered his "hatred" earlier, even if he didn't support her. A lot of myths and foul charges were leveled against her in the primary that convinced a lot of people she was evil incarnate. I assume he spread some of those. It's hard to take them back ... they kind of eke out into the ether and become "fact."
A lot of damage was done during the primaries.
Mamajami
(257 posts)unforgivable then we should erase the word from our lexicon.
phallon
(260 posts)has been an ongoing disinformation campaign (example: legitimizing the Tea Party) and school/church/homeschool sewing distrust in Social Security, AHA, gay rights, voting rights, people of color, etc. for thirty years intensifying after 1992 and becoming insane after 2008.
Now the younger millennials only know that "everything is rigged, there will be no Social Security, etc. and infrastructure is a scam.
It's the new 21st century prejudice if your young white independent, for the most part anyway.
charlyvi
(6,537 posts)Just kidding.........
LAS14
(13,783 posts)NBachers
(17,136 posts)for the last 24 years, is finally being lifted.
mountain grammy
(26,650 posts)and I still backed Obama in 2008 and Sanders in 2016. It's never been a hatred of Hillary. When she was First Lady, I wished she was president. It wasn't so much about her (though I convinced myself it was,) but more about the vast right wing conspiracy, that I honestly believe exists, and their massive and successful efforts to take her down. The Clintons are the red meat that keeps these people funded. I think, had she won the nomination in 2008, John McCain would have been elected.
Now we have Trump, who my husband keeps telling me can't get elected. I only wish I had his faith in American voters.
phallon
(260 posts)I doubt Palin/McCain could have beat HRC. In fact, after 8 years of Bush, anyone winning the Democratic nomination in 2008 would have won I believe.