Re: The Bashing

I started the pre-primary season as somewhat of a dispassionate observer though I had made small donations to John Edwards and Barack Obama... I didn't dislike Senator Clinton but she didn't excite me as much as Barack Obama and John Edwards... I also spent most of my time in General Discussion where there isn't as many "primary" threads...

When I started perusing this forum I was astounded by the pillorying Hillary takes here...Every invective hurled at her that I had seen at lucianne.com and Free Republic has been hurled at her here, i.e. Shrillary, Billary, and Hitlarly, etcetera... A funny thing then happened... I found myself more sympathetic to her and her candidacy...

I was never so supportive of Bill Clinton as when the Rethuglicans tried to remove him from office...

You are only stiffening the resolve of the Hillary supporters....

Silly DemocratSinceBirth.

There is no better way to rally a people than present them with an external threat... All the bashing of Hillary is doing is stiffening the resolve of her supporters and winning support from the persuadable undecideds... I suspect this phenomenon isn't contained to just the "internets"..

We can rally around our nominee next year at this time.

i ain't voting for her. ain't giving her money. ain't bad mouthing her. don't want nothing to do with her. i only care about my candidate.

Most who are not excited are respectful and logical about it.

Just keep marching rightward.

Go team.

:spank:

;-)

As to base your vote for the Democratic candidate for President of the United States on who is being picked on.

I don't believe it. I won't believe it.

And I discovered they both have a steely resolve...

Of course Bush has a steely resolve too.

And it surely isn't just bush's head that could be considered parts of a farm animal.

"Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense."

And I could never see bush giving in to convictions of honor and good sense.

and what is honorable about saber-rattling against Iran?

Just curious.

She has been extremely clear she will end the war, with a resolve manifested in legislation she has already submitted requiring withdrawal of combat troops to begin within 90 days.

Iran has been a ping pong ball used by the corrupt administration since before Bush's illegal invasion. It is well documented that Bush paid Iranian mercenaries to work in northern Iraq in an attempt to create a casus belli for invading Iraq. Identifying these thugs as terrorists is probably considered a pissy move in the demented brain of Cheney.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-bill-richardson/2013-get-our-troops-out_b_66355.html

At the DNC Dartmouth debate on Wednesday night, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all refused to commit to getting our all of our troops out of Iraq by 2013.

that's just one of 176,00 google hits on the subject.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=clinton+troops+2013&btnG=Google+Search


go ahead, call me a liar NOW.

Read all the hits on google you want.

What Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have made clear to those with a keen eye on the subject, is they will not commit to a Miss Sigon redux. Each of them have indicated to some degree a small contigency of non-combat troops will logically need to remain while the new Democratic President creates proper stratigical and diplomatic designs. How long it will take to develop the Iraq methodology is firstly directly dependent on the freakin mess Bush leaves.

I think anyone reading our two posts will come to the correct conclusion.

you've just said they will commit to troops being there another 5 years. :shrug:

Nothing is black and white.

They have been perfectly clear that they could have most troops out in a year or two. But "could have" was fully qualified.

The length troops need to remain in Iraq is fully qualified firstly by the freakin mess Bush leaves there.

Try switching to color, and throwing out your black and white.

You just don't agree with the Hillary Clinton supporters. You will be told about eating babies in a minute if you are not really careful though.

Clinton has clearly stated that she is in Iraq for the long haul. She has been saying it all along. She said it when she voted for the war. She said it last month.

But you are a lightweight and don't you forget it. if ya think Bill and Hillary are not in lock step...

I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president. ---
Hillary Clinton

I love all the candidates, and will vote for whomever receives the nomination, as I feel each of them can move this nation forward away from the severe damage done by Bush.

But it seeing all of the negatives against Hillary, and out of respect for my own opinions and how I come to formulate them, I began to research Hillary's actual stand on important issues.

What I found were a lot of outright lies against Hillary, what she stands for, and what she is saying. And in doing this, I found more and more I was on her side on the major issues.

But what I fail to understand, is how so many can simply repeat what the bashers (condemning with false information and outright lies) and what the haters (posts dripping with loathing and all those other synonyms) have continually spit out whithout first fact checking the pomp.

whether a candidate is qualified or addresses your issues.

Better to simply investigate the candidate.

If you are for at least 5 more years of an illegal war, continued torture, and possible new war against Iran, then by all means you should vote for Clinton.

Then again, perhpas you posted at the wrong place.

In either case, your post did not relate to my post.

Is really changing candidates based on any "bashing". That is nonsensical fluff.

IMHO many of the complaints of "bashing" are unfounded, and attempts to deflect from addressing real policy issues.

Bush has a steely resolve. Some people call that an unwillingness to listen to others.

:shrug:

Personally, I don't think steely resolve is what I'm looking for in a candidate. Principles, ok. Resolve just means they will never change regardless of outside information.

Most psychologists would suggest those that affect a faux air of superiority have some latent and deeply embedded emotional deficit but, hey, what do they know...

They also talk about people who endlessly repeat the same
actions over and over again but somehow expect different results.

Tesha

Usually when you see a lot of superficial or disingenuous attacks on someone, you start to question if there are really any meaningful criticisms. That's a process of looking deeper into something.

who try to refrain from bashing and instead focus on the negatives that we see in her campaign? Are we changing your mind? What about those that post positive threads about their candidate? Does that change your mind?

Why let the bashers alter your view?

she wasn't my favorite candidate in the beginnign but I was willing to consider her. However, the behaviour of her supporters here actually raised red flags to me and I more carefully scrutinized her and liked less what I saw, over time.

so that was my experience. It could be a chicken egg argument, which happened first, the condescending smug slandering of anyone who didn't like her or the not liking of her that led to the smug condescension.

Regardless, I personally do not like being told I have to fall in line behind a candidate or I'm a freeper or a republican. A great deal of the pro-Clinton threads contain a lot of demands for fealty or leave the party sort of thing, and the rest of them are whining threads about her being bashed. But what I have actually seen is that her supporters here rarely answer valid questions about her policies and instead attack people who ask those questions.

and frankly, I don't think its possible to stiffen the resolve of Hillary supporters and more than they have already stiffened.

but it is possible to turn people away by acting reprehensibly to anyone who doesn't also worship her.

just my two cents. Since you just gave your two cents, I felt that I should have the same right.

I refer to the 'she called him a plant' nonsense, that was disproved by the quotes in the the links they themselves provided. Bashing is more than just name calling, it's posting multiple flame bait threads about phony "issues"...

It's about those phone "issues" many of which I would consider outright lies, purposfully designed for ill intent.

any investigation?

They acted like a bunch of starving hyenas and It will not change

or that they would really care that she never said what she was accused of.

If we had kept it civil, Hillary may have been more viable of a candidate in the eyes of more DU-ers. It's not so much what she does or says as it is the ridiculous spin coming from both her supporters and her opponents - both equally eager to drag the debate straight into the gutter. I've been suckered by hit pieces and out-of-context summary judgements (and I'll put my pride in my pocket and admit I was duped a couple of times), but I don't for a minute buy into the polyanna spin defenses in the face of clear missteps on her behalf. Both tactics are dishonest and equally insulting. She's not pure evil. She's not pure good. Reality (for me) is she's a middle-of-the-road candidate who happens to be leading. I disagree with several decisions she's made. She's not the first one and she won't be the last. If you're repulsed by her, fine. If you're inspired by her, great. Your opinion is your opinion - don't try to Rove-spin it into revisionist fact.

Supporters and opponents: Just give me the facts, and don't tell my what my opinion should be.

It's like the kid at school who "everybody" picks on...Some folks join the pack because they don't want to be outside the group and a few kids will be drawn to the kid that everybody picks on...It's a primordial emotion...

It's a heck of a lot easier to be one of the popular kids by joining in the bashing of Hillary...

I agree with your side of the story, but I also see some bullying on the other end. I guess it depends on what you notice first. :shrug:

Seems to me to be a weird basis for making a political decision, but, hey, everyone has their reasons and motivations.

2. approving: showing favor, agreement, or approval

thats fresh. :sarcasm: and thin.:tinfoilhat: of all the candiates. bieng Told who to support is abhorent to me. thats what the repubes do. longing for the 90's is backward also. (granted I would like to be younger too.) arent we as Democrats (no matter what the shade), looking Forward??? I dont see that with HRC supporters. Its a longing for the good ol' Days. they come across as stepford voters, with an arrogance that gives me the urge to vomit. :puke: Resistance is not futile!

Where did I suggest, imply, or infer that Hillary was inevitable?

I explained a phenomenon that Aristotle and Machiavelli realized a long time ago... There is nothing that stiffens the resolve of a people more than that of an external threat...My overarching point is that all the attacks on Hillary are doing is making Hillary's supporters more stalwart in their support...

But we're making progress...At least you're not calling Senator Clinton "Hitlary" and her followers "Hitlarys" anymore, are you? ... The mods made sure of that...





:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl:

more acceptible anyway. Hitlarys was over the top. I admit that, the infrence was blind faith. not genocide. not too many people can disern the diffrence.

The attacks inspire some sympathy in me for Senator Clinton, I cannot seem to muster a bit of it for her supporters here at DU.

Julie

eom

;-)

I'd really rather see people post positively on the candidate they are supporting. Here's an excellent example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3588251

Julie

I can count on my hand the times I have pre-emptively attacked another candidate or poster and then I usually regretted it...Of course there might be a disagreement over what constitutes an attack but I think we could find a mutually acceptable definition...

My point is a simple one... When a person attacks someone another person likes the natural response is for that person to defend the person under attack, and there is a positive relationship between the force behind the attack and the force behind the defense...

My apologies for any miscommunication there. I was just speaking in general, certainly not to/about you personally. :hi:

Julie

I got so disgusted at the bashing of Hillary I posted a lot of stuff trying to defend her. But it doesn't matter, those that are bashing her are mostly Obama supporters and I said yesterday, instead of wasting their time bashing HIllary they should post the good stuff about Obama, what he is doing and what he thinks. Those type of posts help him more than trying to Swift Boat his opponent. You are correct the more they bash they more sympathetic you are toward that person. And you see how immature they are.

He's held a fundraiser for her. That support alone is enough to make me not vote for Hillary in the general election.

And Hillary's top pollster, Mark Penn, his firm represents some of the worse scum in the world. They represent union busting corporations and have recently taken on Blackwater.

Take a closer look at Hillary. She's really a whore for corporate and Big Money Interests.

I am sympathetic to her candidacy but my vote, money and efforts will go to the gentleman or woman that has the best chance of beating the Rethuglicans... That is yet to be revealed...

My objection to Mr. Penn has as much to do with his unsavory clients and more to do with his self importance and his reaching of conclusions from data much further than the data suggests...

Just this week I was called,

Kos Koolaid drinker
Part of the netroot mentality
flat earth progressive
delusional
ADD

And that was just from one of their posters.

She punctuated her yes vote for war (the IWR) with a yes vote for more war (the Kyl-Lieberman amendment).

A lot of people have a huge problem with that. Including me.

It was the Hitlary, Billary, and Shrillary monikers that stuck in my craw...

The topic of war is incendiary and people are upset; unfortunately it is difficult for some to confine their input to the issues. That tenuous ground is punctuated by some Hillary supporters operating from the you're either with us or against us school of thought.

In my opinion, a lack of understanding and grace in general is pervasive here at DU.