2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Six Major Political Rules of the Clintons - A Guide to the Politically Perplexed
Some people still don't understand how the Clintons operate politically.
Why did Bill sign DOMA and other regressive legislation. Why is Hilary always evolving and changing positions? Why did Hillary find it so difficult to apologize on Iraq and her email and why does she often blame her unpopular decisions on factors beyond her control. Why did Hillary imply that Bernie was sexist after he drew a contrast between himself and the Clintons on DOMA and Iraq that painted them in a poor light?
Here are six rules to understand how the Clintons operate politically:
1) At all times act in your own self interest first and foremost.
2) Do whatever it takes to increase and protect your power and wealth. The people affected by your decisions are secondary.
3) Any proposal or policy for the greater good must follow rules one and two.
4) Always take credit for popular decisions and policies but blame others or other factors beyond your control for unpopular decisions and policies.
5) Never apologize for an unpopular decision unless there is absolutely no other alternative as determined by focus groups and polls.
6) If an unpopular decision cannot be explained away blame your opponent(s) of doing the same thing or make up a false equivalent and use it against your opponent.
Machiavelli could write a book on it.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)I'm so glad you posted this, because it really turned me around.
I've been a staunch HRC supporter (and LOVE Bill!), but thanks to your post, I have completely changed my mind about both of them.
I see you're a BS supporter. And that's fine and all. But, ya know, trying to make the other candidate look bad doesn't really say a lot for your candidate-of-choice. In fact, it makes one wonder why there are so many HRC-bashing posts instead of "here's why BS is so great!" posts.
But again, thanks for completely changing my mind about Hillary - because that's what these anti-HRC posts do. And any day now, you're going to see a virtual stampede of HRC-defectors because of OPs just like yours!
Somehow, I have a feeling this might actually be necessary.
msongs
(67,348 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)I'd like to see a book analyzing the Clintons, co-authored by Machiavelli, Freud & Shakespeare.
Of course posts like yours will not dissuade true believers/"strong supporters" of the Clintons, but they are read by and given serious consideration by the many who follow DU without joining or posting.
So be not discouraged by "the swarm" when you post on DU. Their very sarcastic responses on any thread are testimony to the fact that posts critical of HRC qua presidential candidate have hit too close for their comfort.
Or as Sheldon would say, Bazinga!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)say whatever is necessary to further your political career, everything else be damned.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)They are just so cute.
brooklynite
(94,331 posts)That was always a popular one with the anti-Clinton folks back in the 90s.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)K and R
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)to go?
From floating obvious untrue conspiracy bunk:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=730906
To using the right wing Elizabeth Warren insult redressed for Hillary:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=726104
To reccing onto the Greatest page an article from the notoriously racist Powdered Wig Society in the Sanders group:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128066478
And now this crap that stops just short of Vincent Foster territory. Is there a low that can't be reached?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)when a group called the Powdered Wig Society: "Dedicated to the restoration of and strict obedience to the Constitution of the United States" posts analysis of polling results, citing to; but, not linking to the polling results ... DON'T F@$%ING BELIEVE IT!
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)to Hillary,so they knew it was a right wing site,and so do the Sanders supporters reccing it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I missed that little nugget.
Well ... In defense of a certain segment of DU, it is clear from this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7290539
That actually reading the article/OP that you rec is unimportant.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)"As Hillary's numbers increase, the attacks by Sanders supporters will increasingly resemble something said by Donald Trump".
mahina
(17,615 posts)"and her email"?
This could be found on FR.
Oh, welcome to DU. Better days.