2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton's Atlantic interview may be fatal to her chances for the presidency
Last edited Wed Aug 13, 2014, 05:28 PM - Edit history (1)
Hillary Clinton took a swipe at President Obama on the specific issue he got elected on and she lost on. Yet, like some people who refuse to accept reality, she believes that kicking the President at a low point in his polls would somehow vindicate her biggest political blunder. Instead of accepting neocon type policies as proven failures, she seem to believe the current state in Syria and Iraq somehow vindicates her.
In yesterdays post titled Obama slams reporters Right Wing adopted talking point as bogus and wrong (http://bit.ly/1AaZGzF) Hillary Clinton was quoted from the Atlantic jabbing the President.
"This is what Clinton said about Obamas slogan: Great nations need organizing principles, and Dont do stupid stuff is not an organizing principle.
She softened the blow by noting that Obama was trying to communicate to the American people that hes not going to do something crazy, but she repeatedly suggested that the U.S. sometimes appears to be withdrawing from the world stage."
Maybe Hillary Clinton does not quite understand what stupid stuff means. Her interview reveals that she is not much different than John McCain or Lindsey Graham on foreign policy.
Continued
http://egbertowillies.com/2014/08/12/hillary-clinton-the-atlantic-neocon/
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)"don't do stupid stuff" is the obvious first and most important "organizing principle"
in my view
riverwalker
(8,694 posts)her "stage managed" comment about the civilian deaths in Gaza still has me fuming, it's the same as Netanyahu's "telegenically dead" children. I was lukewarm before, now I am ice cold.
She would prefer these children die silently, shhhhh, no cameras, no photos, bury them quickly before the world can see, as we always did before. She sold her soul to AIPAC.
*Graphic Photos Warning*
http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/special-topics/gaza-under-attack-in-photos-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1/
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Why does she keep doing stupid things.
movonne
(9,623 posts)look to the rest of the world..
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Legalequilibrium78
(103 posts)Some of you here on D.U. loathe the idea of Hillary becoming the Democratic party's nominee, but in my opinion she is by far the most qualified to run and to lead the country as it's next president.
Her comments with regards to Israel is not something she should be embarrassed about, nor need to apologize for it in the future. I for one will work my butt off into making the hope of making Hillary Clinton as the next U.S. president a reality.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Legalequilibrium78
(103 posts)If Hillary wins, and unfortunately for you.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)She and hubby have promoted the TPP and the Keystone pipeline - both bad for America. Her promotion of neocon foreign policy as in The Atlantic interview is really bad for America. Voting yea on the Iraq WAR Resolution was really, really bad for America. I look forward to voting against her again.
Legalequilibrium78
(103 posts)Please feel free to advocate for your preferred candidate. Just know and understand that no matter who it is, male or female politcians will and have to make certain poltical compromise. There is no political party and or any American politicians past, present, and or in the future who wielded complete control on every political agendas, program proposals, and on any foreign policy actions exercised from past American administrations, Democrat or Republican.
If you are going to hold the IRAQ war resolution on Hillary as though somehow she alone was the brainchild behind and the sole person responsible for the IRAQ II operations. Hillary Clinton exercised and fulfilled her duty as an elected Senator, and made her vote based on what she thought was the right course of action. She exercised her responsibility to her constituents and to the country that she is serving. If your criteria is to eliminate her from the process or possibility of being voted as the next U.S. President, so be it. You and your like minded group of supporters have that right and prerogative to exercise.
As for Hillary's supposed neo-con policies, that is just plain idiotic and laughable. Must a person or candidate pick a position based on how it supposed to be perceived amongst her ardent critics? The one's that supposedly hold the lever of power in the Democratic party? Just because she is supporting the right of Israel to self defense against a political entity, whose sole mission is to eradicate Jews and the destruction of Israel; it does not mean she is pro-war or whatever the heck is that supposed to mean. The reality of our world can't be left to a bunch of wishful thinking idealists, who can't seem to either grasps the realities and complexities of the world.
Hillary Clinton will win the nomination for the presidency to represent the Democratic party. She will win it, not because of she will work hard, she will show she is made of the right qualities to be next commander-in-chief, and to lead the U.S. into the next frontier of diverse challenges that will be facing America.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Legalequilibrium78
(103 posts)JaydenD
(294 posts)I don't think she'll even run. I do want her to though - I want to see debates between her and generally honest people for the stark contrast.
4now
(1,596 posts)and now she is trying to double down.
She is a very clumsy politician and will bring ruin to the dems if she is given a chance.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Hillary seems to think doing stupid stuff over and over will change the result, and makes her appear "tough" on foreign policy. No, Hillary... it just makes you look as stupid as the rest of the Neo-Cons.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Response to MADem (Reply #8)
big_dog This message was self-deleted by its author.
JaydenD
(294 posts)Lots of nerve to call anyone else on this planet stupid, let alone one of the smartest people on it.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)I'm am very supportive of President Obama. I don't like to see Dem infighting. But face the facts - President Obama's numbers are low. EVERY Dem contender will distance themselves from him on one issue or another. Trust me, Egberto.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Her positions were already clear via her very thick book - so had she waited until November, no one could have accused her of flipping due to bad results. (The results - even if better than expected - are easily cast as bad, as it is near certain that we lose Senate seats.)
The problem I have is whether her comments will further lower Obama's numbers because her comments could give "permission" to Democrats to state that Obama's foreign policy is a failure. It is hard to look at the Gallup daily series and assess if this has happened as there are many other things that are happening at the same time. I would imagine that Ferguson, Iraq and Gaza are more likely responsible for the slight dip starting this weekend. (If so, the numbers may head up starting today as the situation in Ferguson is better and the government is responding and some limited progress has been made in Iraq.)
I think Obama's lower numbers (over the last 2 years) reflect the loss of the left libertarians (over NSA etc ) and those against foreign interventions who were not happy that some troops were sent back into Iraq. (Obama's negatives rose after the Snowden stuff ( here it is hard to prove, but there seems to be a shift that started then) and as he spoke of a Syrian red line and when he spoke of Iraq in June - It is easier to see these trends on DU, rather than in the gallup poll.
Beacool
(30,251 posts)It's not Hillary, no matter how much the Left would like to blame her.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 15, 2014, 07:48 PM - Edit history (1)
Just like her husband did with his book tour before the 2004 election. They set themselves on fire for attention, distracting voters before important elections.
So, yes, they are to blame for their thoughtless narcissism, always at the expense of the party.
edited
Beacool
(30,251 posts)karynnj
(59,504 posts)But I guess it is easier to attack a fellow DUer than to defend why Hillary has picked three months before the election to do this.
By the way, in answer to the op, I doubt it will be fatal to her 2016 run. At this point, they are doing even better than in 2008 in making her completely inevitable. This time they might prevent anyone else gaining enough oxygen. As the attacks are on foreign policy and there have been few elections that turn on foreign policy, she will likely be just fine. (Assuming that this is a one time shot and isn't seen by enough people as really unlikable behavior.)
Beacool
(30,251 posts)Kitten and I have a long antagonistic history.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)I'm rolling with life much better now with some help, thank you for asking. Hope all is well with you too.
MBS
(9,688 posts)The timing of the interview certainly does no favors either to Obama, or to Dems running for election in November. The timing seemed to be all about what was calculated to be in Hillary's interest, not her party's or her president's interest. Not impressive, and not ultimately (IMHO) in Hillary's interest, either, as the whole incident brought back bad memories of the 2008 primaries, and revealed a lack of graciousness , diplomacy and loyalty that, even after a week's reflection, still bothers me. By all reports, HRC (like her husband) puts great stock in loyalty, to them. Given the nature of politics (that old saying: if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog. . ) , this is understandable; but it would be more impressive if I saw more signs that the loyalty goes two ways. Certainly, a former SoS owes it to a sitting president, under whom she served, and who is currently besieged with a shocking number of urgent crises (almost none of them of his making) at least to wait until after the November midterms, to agree to an interview of this sort.
Ah, yes, I'd almost forgotten about Bill's 2004 book tour, which did Kerry's campaign no favors, either.
Classic. Sigh. And it reminded me of some video clip of HRC this past week, in which she offered a qualification that some policy (can't remember which-- maybe Syria) was in good order in the first term, but, implicitly not in the second term, when Kerry was SoS. Again , not gracious, not tactful or diplomatic, not classy.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)cheers
karynnj
(59,504 posts)What EXACTLY has Obama done to lower the Democrats' chances?
- Led a passage of a health care bill that has given millions health insurance they did not have before? Like Hillary wanted to do in 1993 and was 100% behind.
- Reduced our military's exposure in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think a high percent of people agree with HRC that we should have left a force behind. (Not to mention, we did not get a SOFU - I think our "top diplomat" was not involved in this. After Biden failed, did she try?)
- Was instrumental in removing all the chemical weapons in Syria (imagine if they were still there.) Note - this has to be really good as HRC claims credit - though out of government - in her new book for this happening.
I suspect that Obama's numbers will recover. In fact, yesterday had some good things happen. It seems that Obama's actions and his comments have helped restore calm in Ferguson. In addition, his humanitarian mission to rescue people in Iraq succeeded -- and there was some promising new on the new Iraq government.
Cha
(297,655 posts)to do is not pander to the fucking neocons.
Thanks Egberto!
Beacool
(30,251 posts)Please............
JaydenD
(294 posts)What does it matter if who wrote the piece isn't popular enough with you?I would hazard a guess that if this was a puffy sweet potato piece on Cllinton by the same unknown you'd be entralled, am I correct?
You realize this is a DUer, don't you? How about you, who are You that your word carries more weight than the first poster?
Beacool
(30,251 posts)I don't agree with his/her conclusions and that's my right. As for the "stupid stuff" comment, she's correct. That's not policy.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)As far as I'm concerned, I hope she keeps it up. She's becoming a joke and weakening her own chances.
I don't know if she's getting bad advice from her idiot advisors or her blowhard husband, or if she really is that stupid, but if she keeps on trashing the first black president, you can expect a lot of African American voters to sit out the 2016 general election.
That said, the country will survive if she's elected. We survived two terms of bush and she's not quite that bad.
Cha
(297,655 posts)she wasn't attacking Pres Obama". LOL After the results came in from her Atlantic interview.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Democrats should be marching to victory as one
sendero
(28,552 posts).. anyone who voted for the IWR is intellectually and/or ethically disqualified to speak of foreign policy. There is no way anyone could do anything stupider than that.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)bashing.
Just to help you with the record here is a site to follow:
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm
enjoy, we don't need to repeat the same twisted words.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)Please just go away already.
JaydenD
(294 posts)This person is unfit to represent Democrats in any election. She is absolutely a neocon, and not so lite.
WhoWoodaKnew
(847 posts)BlueStater
(7,596 posts)That's funny. And all this time I was sure that we had something called a "primary". Silly me.
JaydenD
(294 posts)of President for all Americans, not just her friends in high places.
Hillary has more baggage than the average politician so nothing has to be fabricated to put her in a poor light and show she is not who she claims to be - it's what she has said and done and is on tape and on record that will harm her. She continually shoots herself in the foot then places said foot in mouth. She is just terrible at that and so we can make fun of her or defend her with her silly 'dead broke' kind of stories, but when negotiating with the world and dangerous situations, such a lack of tact and thoughtfulness will be devastating.
If you think a delusional liar that would have the gall to come up with Snipergate and make it sound like it was of no consequence is fit for office, who am I to challenge your beliefs.
WhoWoodaKnew
(847 posts)LloydS of New London
(355 posts)I'll be looking at Sanders or Warren, as HRC has revealed herself to be a card-carrying neocon.
tgards79
(1,415 posts)My take plus the interviews themselves: http://www.borntorunthenumbers.com/2014/08/two-must-read-interviewsread-them-dont_14.html
Response to egbertowillies (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed