The Rationalization of Hillary

I've been watching and posting here from almost the beginning, since early in Hillary's career. One thing that I've noticed is that her supporters will rationalize even her most egregious errors. When she voted for the Patriot Act it was because she needed to look tough on terrorism. When she voted for the war, flying in the face of her constituency by doing so, it was because she needed to look tough on defense. NCLB, Kyle/Lieberman, the IWR, the Patriot Act(and don't forget PAII). All of these abominations and more Hillary has supported, and her supporters have tried to rationalize away each and every one of them, sometimes on pretexts so flimsy that a fly could punch through them.

Do we really need, or want a president whose every other move has to be rationalized? I've heard supporters here go as far as supporting the Iraq War because Hillary voted for it, is that what we want in an administration?

I urge all of you to stop and think about this. Do we want a presidency of rationalization, or do we want a president who is on the right side of the issues, whose every single move doesn't have to be rationalized away. Frankly, this is one of the biggest reasons that I distrust Hillary and don't want her in office, she is much like her husband in that she is on the wrong side of issues and then later tries to rationalize it all away with weasel wording and verbal contortions that are painful to watch, much less comprehend.

I want a straight shooter in office, one who has been on the right side of the issues all along, one who doesn't have to rationalize half their political career away. That rules out Hillary for sure.

But hey, if you don't believe me, watch this thread, I'm sure that the rationalization brigade will soon swarm over here in force to impart their spin, spin, spin. And that will prove my point also.

Let us get away from a president who needs to have every move rationalized, let us move towards those who were open, honest, and right on the issues from the beginning. It is the only logical thing to do.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I've for the most part successfully walked that fine line between lock or not for five years now, I think I can keep the balancing act up. Now, just hand me those big green beanbags to juggle;)

fellow juggler, here.

I learned how to juggle from a guy I met in Springfield Mo who juggled live chainsaws. No apple, but he did do this on a unicycle!

the guy that was teaching me would do a thing while juggling two chainsaws and an apple, and then bite the apple at the appropriate moment. the schtick was he'd say something like, boy I'm glad I didn't mess up!

he was great, me, not so much. I gave it up decades ago.

not whining: pointing out blatant favoratism.
its a thing I have about injustice.

:hi:

are not consistent with the kind of candidate I am looking for. I want someone who will get us out of Iraq ASAP and who will work to rescind the Patriot Act altogether.

edit for typo

Plenty of other Dems in this country who don't post away at DU--how else do you explain her being at 45% in the national polls? What you consider right is not what others do apparently. Your opinion is simply your opinion.

as I stated further down, that's the only response left if a position is indefensible and one wishes to be blindly loyal.

I'm simply saying that judging by her votes, she is not the right candidate. It is my opinion, apparently, if we're to use your numbers, shared by a majority of the people:shrug: However it is an opinion backed by Hillary's own record, which is abysmal on many of the "big votes".

Oh, and if we take your line of reasoning to its conclusion, then apparently Bush and the neo-cons actually did some good things:eyes: Majority opinion doesn't always indicate the best course of action, as we have seen over the past couple of decades.

...it's semantics and your choice of the word shows your opinion of her votes.

Obama rationalizes Donny McClurkin...but I guess you'd say he'd explained his position...my point being that there are a lot of people who don't think she rtionalizes...and if you want someone to be "right" on the issues, it's your definition of right.

I'm supporting Obama, not Hillary, but Hillary is my second choice simply because I want our next president to be something other than a white man. At any rate, Hillary is very good on social issues, and on other issues she's moderate relative to the Republicans. The way some people portray her makes it sound like she's to right of Lieberman, which is just not true. I think Hillary is a straight shooter, and your complaint is about her supporters, not her. But, frankly, Obama's supporters do the same thing. When their candidate is attacked rightly or wrongly, they leap to his defense. That's how campaigns are.

Why you would oppose her because you have issues with her supporters is beyond me. She's certainly a straight shooter, herself, voting as she sees fits despite pressure from some of her constituency.

As far as Hillary goes, I think people should look at a her record. She has some bad votes, but she also has quite a few good ones:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Stop, please, you're killing me here! Hillary a straight shooter? The queen of triangulation a straight shooter? The woman who has simultaneously promised to end the war, and yet turned around and promised to keep the war going, a straight shooter? Here, pull the other one:eyes:

Yes, much of my post addresses her supporters, for I find it confounding that a group of otherwise intelligent and rationale people are willing to twist themselves into logistical knots trying to explain away the latest Clinton gaffe. I have seen people here support the war, support the Patriot Act, support K/L and more all to rationalize and support their candidate. Hell, there are still posts up on the boards from yesterday where you see the usual suspects nodding their head in unison mouthing the words that yes, having Poppy and Bill going on world tours representing the US is a good thing:eyes: That bipartisanship is a good thing:eyes: Puhleeze!

I've looked at Hillary's record, and yes, on some things, mostly the little stuff, she has a decent record. It is when it comes to the big things, like the war, like the economy, like our Constitution, that Hillary falls down. When you become President, everything is big, and with such an abysmal record in the Senate, I shudder to think what she's going to do in the WH.

You may not like some of her votes; I don't either; but it seems to me if she wasn't a straight shooter, she'd do a better job voting to please the crowd.

rationalization. Gotta look at the votes and see who she's pleasing..not me. But, a lot of posters on this board are more than happy to lap up her shit.

Yeah, people rationalize right and left in political campaigns. It's Saint Hillary v. Saint Barack v. Saint John, etc. But, why single out Hillary? The Obama supporters make it seem like he's done no wrong; same with the Edwards supporters. They've all done wrong, and it's fair to say Hillary is the least progressive of them, but she as straight a shooter as any of them and her supporters are just as fair or unfair as the supporters of other candidates. Love blinds.

and her supporters are so secondary it's not even funny. Please do not write words in my post.

hillary started deceiving us in Oct, 2002..that's a long time to put up with her bush enabling shit.

This is more serious than your platitudes.

Please don't put words in my mouth. She did not deceive me. I paid attention and knew what she was from the start. I know she's enabled Bush with the Iraq War, Iran, flag burning, and other matters as well. Apparently, you did not. You were deceived. That's your problem. Pay attention in the future, and you won't be so angry!

to be angry and by "us" I most certainly wasn't talking about you..how could I be? I don't you from shit.

I was talking about people here in New York that I've talked to for over the last five years about hillary and the pile of crap she's built up with her deceptions in the senate.

If this were a time of peace and prosperity, we could vote for a candidate specifically because of their ethnicity or gender.

However, this country is now in the worst shape it's been in in my entire 50+ years of life.

We need someone, regardless of ethnicity or gender. who will STAND UP (not BUDDY UP) to the right wing.

Of all the arguments for either Obama or Hillary, the weakest ones are:

"It's time we had a black/woman president."

The times call for statements like this:

"It's time we had a president who is on the side of ordinary people against the corporations and the military-industrial complex and who is willing to make drastic changes in business as usual."

but so do the supporters of other candidates. It's hardly limited to her supporters. Face it JE voted for the IWR, NCLB, Yucca Mountain, Bankruptcy Reform, The Patriot Act, etc. Obama missed K/L. Biden and Dodd voted fro the IWR, NCLB, the Patriot Act, etc. Many here feel like an apology for such votes absolves their candidate.

I can't vote for Clinton in the primaries for the same reason I can't vote for the other aforementioned, except for Obama: They all showed a critical lack of judgement when they voted for the IWR. I also don't care for how she's run her campaign or the
Clintonian triangulation style of governing. But I don't see her as bush lite or the boogeywoman so many here do. She's got her good points, and if she's the nominee, I'll vote for her.

But it goes a long way in acquiring respect from both myself and many, many others. Doesn't mean that I will trust or support those folks either, but unlike Hillary, at least they admit they fucked up and are willing to atone for it. Hillary isn't willing to admit to her mistakes, much less atone for them.

I can't vote for Clinton in the primaries, and not in the generals either. All that she does, much like her husband, is put a kinder, gentler face on the corporate controlled government that we face. She, much like her husband, might even throw us a small bone or two. But her agenda will be much the same, corporate friendly, taking us ever closer to the edge where our country inevitably topples over and collapses.

Oh, and not all the candidates were on the wrong side. Kucinich has a much better record than Clinton or others who were in Congress at the time. That's one reason that I support him, his record is pretty clean and he doesn't talk in weasel words.

history, but political apologies are meaningless to me. How is one to know whether they're genuine or simply for political expedience? And I haven't a clue as what you mean by "willing to atone". How on earth does anyone atone for 1 million deaths?

And I don't believe that Clinton's policies will be much different from Obama's or Edwards. The Supreme Court and the environment among other things, mean a lot to me. Not leaving the country in the hands of repukes is vital to me and mine- as well as you and yours.

I will vote for whoever is the dem candidate, and I know that's the right thing to do.

However admitting one's mistakes, and making the right political moves to atone for those mistakes, goes a long way to raising my opinion of a candidate. Hillary hasn't done this, which is why I can't support her in the primary or the general. I know where she is going, and it is down a path that contains more death and destruction, both at home and abroad.

Here's a link to Project vote smart, Edwards voted AGAINST storing nuclear material at Yucca Mountain.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_i...

My question, do you know what you're wrong about and just throw it anyway, you know, just to see what sticks?

Or, are you simply ill informed? Either way, not too smart cupcake.

there is no legitimate defense of some of her actions, IWR, Kyl-lieberman, etc. Therefore, the only response, if you wish to be loyal, is to attack the questioner or come up with a rationalization.
The more indefensible her decision, the more irrational the rationalization.

Of course, this works for any blind fanatical following of anyone, not just clinton.

I remember how Hillary supporters, and yes there were some even then, who were trying to rationalize her support for the war, even to the point of supporting the war themselves. I shook my head and thought I'd seen it all, but nope, I come in here yesterday and see supporters of hers actually saying what a good thing it would be for the Clintons to work with the BFEE to restore our national standing in the world:crazy: It just gets more outrageous every time.

Always hilarious, their rationalizations for these bad pieces of business are.

Simply following the evolution of the HRC attacks on other candidates is enlightening, however. Starting with the leak to Novak about holding dirt on Obama, three paid campaign workers caught circulating an "Obama is the Islamic Manchurian Candidate" theme, a worker bee inquiring about Obama's drug-selling status, another worker bee under the guise of apologizing for that saying "cocaine" over and over again on tee-vee, and Bob Kerrey bringing up the Islamic Manchurian Candidate theme again while pretending to compliment Obama, etc. etc.

Every step of the way that was rationalized here, but the sum total of the thrust of HRC's campaign can be gleaned by watching them work.

And, you are right, it's not too much to ask for a nominee that represents Democratic values and not someone that has voted all along with her political backside in mind. Rather than standing firm on principle, she has sought to boost her testosterone (or perception of it) by voting like a hawk. America can do better.

in 2000 and was really proud she was my senator when I met her and took her pic at a fundraiser here in 2001. And then the shit hit the fan on Oct 11, 2002 when she gave her disingenuous speech about why she was helping bushit get his mission accomplished and darn if it hasn't been fucking down hill into the aby$$, ever since.

Thanks, Mad Hound, for this very important post on "The rationalization of hillary".

in the murder of 1.2 million Iraqis, over 3k US soldiers, and the shredding of the constitution..

but hey! she supports the children...........

I spent last night with Gore Vidal and Manny Kant. Only in print, of course as Vidal is much to frail to travel down a bumpy gravel road into the wilds of North Alabama, and Kant, frankly, who would not stink by now, most probably, however, would be rather difficult to hold together.

One is amazed at the ability of people to actually term themselves Democrats and not see the disconnect between a candidate who has to have every phrase "explained" and every vote discounted as to its appearance vice its effect.

Let us take Feinstein-Leahy, that little now remembered amendment last year, back in Year III of The Tyranny, where Mme. managed to somehow equate (God and/or AIPAC or/or the DLC knows how) a simple control over the use of a noxious weapons system, cluster bombs, with who-knows-what.

Let us not even tax our tired brains on why she voted thus. Good politics in NYC to a small crowd of those who would be vocal and shrill (yes, there is that word again) or otherwise make Mme. be the butt of derision by t.w.m.i.p. or its sisterly clones and cousins, CNN, FOXNews, etc.

One sees a lot of copy by Mme. treating "strength," "skill," and other terms of great import, but little in the way of a true Democratic Warrior.

Mme. Clinton's ability to straddle a fence even when being attacked by those off it is great, she must be given credit for that. Her skills as a mere politician are also fantastic, but those skills are rooted in expediency, rather than a personal motivation for other than power.

Eh, bien. Say what one will, Mme. certainly can draw a crowd and raise money, and in this venal spectator society, that is what counts, evidently.
Kant wrote that we humans were too ready to assume the positions of personal laxness in thought and deed, allowing priests to tell us what to believe and kings to tell us who and what to fight. Alas, this Cult of Clinton takes Kant and inverts him as Marx did Hegel.

To detract is to be called out as a member of the "loonie left," as Mr. Bayh so eloquently termed the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, or even worse: to be termed a sexist for opposing an individual who by chromosomal accident and cultural convention is termed a "woman."

And running on a Democratic ticket, ask a Ron Paul supporter why he's popular it's because they are sick and tired of the neocon agenda, and yet Hillary is the venue of the neocons after trashing the Republican party.