HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Hating Hillary
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:57 PM

Hating Hillary

I understand someone not liking Hillary.

What I don't understand it somebody disliking Hillary while liking Kerry, Biden, Obama... almost any national stage Democrat.

One would think, from the detractors, that Hillary had ever been more centrist or more hawkish than the Democratic Party.

She really is Snowball for some folks... as if loading all collective sins on Hillary's wagon will expiate the rest of us.

John Kerry votes for the Iraq War. "We" see our way past that in 2004. Then in 2008 some people who had worked 24/7 for Kerry announced that it was unthinkable that the Democratic Party could have a standard bearer that had voted for the war.

We have always voted against war with EastAsia.

It's not that the further-left should like Hillary. It is that there is no reason to dislike her more than one dislikes the Democratic Party itself. She has never held a position that was crazy by the standards of the Party.

There was a sad incident in 2008 that really told the story. Hillary voted for an amendment that urged the State Department to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Barack Obama skipped the vote. The Obama folks said that Hilary's view on the Revolutionary Guard was disqualifying... outrageous, shocking. Barack Obama, however, explained to every news outlet that asked that he supported designating the IRG a terrorist organization.

The IRG policy was not exceptional. It was the safe place to be... love it or hate it, it was a mainstream position within the Party that Hillary and Obama both held.

But somehow by loading Hillary with "crimes against humanity" like Kerry's war vote, Obama's Iran policy, etc.. a fantasy world could be created where these things were not fairly typical Democratic Party positions.

Hell... it is widely held that Hillary's foreign policy is to the right of Obama's foreign policy despite the fact that she is his chosen SecState. Her policy is Obama's policy. But somehow if we pretend hard enough we can create a world where only Hillary will carry whatever collective guilt we feel there is to carry.

Snowball from Animal Farm.

I have no problem with somebody hating Hillary provided they are working to draft Bernie Sanders for 2016. I think the bulk of the Democratic Party are center-right stooges. Throw out a smart enough red and I'll support him out of cussedness. But to pretend that Hillary is, or has ever been, anything other than whatever the Democratic Party is seems weird, weird, weird.

59 replies, 5535 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 59 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hating Hillary (Original post)
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 OP
jberryhill Dec 2012 #1
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #3
jberryhill Dec 2012 #6
pnwmom Dec 2012 #12
Whisp Dec 2012 #53
pnwmom Dec 2012 #54
Whisp Dec 2012 #56
pnwmom Dec 2012 #59
hfojvt Dec 2012 #25
PDJane Dec 2012 #31
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #41
snooper2 Dec 2012 #58
Faygo Kid Dec 2012 #2
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #4
jberryhill Dec 2012 #9
leveymg Dec 2012 #5
blm Dec 2012 #7
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #42
underthematrix Dec 2012 #8
hfojvt Dec 2012 #10
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #15
hfojvt Dec 2012 #18
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #24
hfojvt Dec 2012 #30
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #33
hfojvt Dec 2012 #36
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #38
hfojvt Dec 2012 #40
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #11
randome Dec 2012 #13
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #16
randome Dec 2012 #21
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #23
randome Dec 2012 #26
hfojvt Dec 2012 #19
Taverner Dec 2012 #14
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #17
hfojvt Dec 2012 #22
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #27
hfojvt Dec 2012 #29
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #34
aquart Dec 2012 #47
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #50
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #28
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #35
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #43
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #45
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #46
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #49
northoftheborder Dec 2012 #20
grantcart Dec 2012 #32
karynnj Dec 2012 #37
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #39
chieftain Dec 2012 #44
aquart Dec 2012 #48
union_maid Dec 2012 #51
madrchsod Dec 2012 #52
liberal_at_heart Dec 2012 #55
Raffi Ella Dec 2012 #57

Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:01 PM

1. The word "hate" really gets cheapened at DU

Let me back up and understand your definition of "hate".

I love quite a few people. It does not follow that I want all of them to be president in 2017.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:12 PM

3. Hi jberryhill. I didn't identify you by name as a Hillary hater, so why volunteer?

There are Hillary haters who are, in fact, Hillary haters. And there are plenty of posts that demonstrate that.

I don't tell anyone they should support Hillary for President. There is nothing the least bit odd about not supporting Hillary for President.

It is, however, odd to pretend that Hillary is some sort of right-winger unless one is also saying that the Democratic Party is a right-wing Party.

The OP is not about why Hillary should be President. I don't know that she should.

The OP is about the comical mania of pretending that Hillary is not a very representative embodiment of the Party, and visa versa, in real terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:28 PM

6. My question is about your use of the word "hate"


I have absolutely no opinion about 2016, because IMHO it is way too early. A lot of things may happen between now and then. In 2004, I had not the foggiest notion who Barack Obama was, and in 2008 I voted for him over Joe Biden - for whom I've been voting in every race he's been in since I could vote.

There is a contingent here, just as strident as those who actively dislike Hillary, which appears to believe that if you don't have a Hillary 2016 logo tattooed on your forehead, then it is a manifestation of some kind of "hate".

"Hate" is a very strong word. In my lifetime, I hated one person years ago. He died in a horrific accident, and ever since then the idea of actually hating someone makes me flinch.

And, bizarrely, becaus I have issues around the word "hate", you accuse me of having self-identified as a "Hillary hater". That's just weird.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:04 PM

12. Let's reword it then. Why do people who like other Democrats actively dislike Hillary?

I don't get it either, since I would have been happy to have either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as the nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:22 PM

53. for me, it's because Hillary has said so many out of the field Whoppers

 

that I can't imagine her being qualified to make fast and good decisions every day if she were President.

She made some really awful decisions during the primaries that will haunt her to the end of days, and rightfully keep her away from the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:31 PM

54. Can you recall any specific whoppers or awful decisions?

I can just remember thinking that her positions and Obama's were so similar that I could support either one; and I couldn't understand why some people were so adamantly on one side or the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #54)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:37 PM

56. that sniper thing.

 

Last edited Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:42 PM - Edit history (1)

it's so bad it even makes me blush for her.

what the hell was she thinking? this is the kind of lie I'd expect from a Romney.

absolutely stupid idea and she will be rightfully mocked for this til the end of time.

and this is just one

So this tells me that she shot everything she had to get it in 2008 and will not be running again. The only reason her surrogates have her in the news every damn day lately is to hike up her speaking fees when she retires from SoS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #56)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 04:11 PM

59. Sorry, but I don't remember the sniper thing. Which means it's possible this won't doom her

with most people who are otherwise predisposed to like her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:52 PM

25. but the hatred is against the right wing

the Democratic Party IS a right wing party as long as it has standard bearers like the Clintons. Hillary is hated by the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party - a wing which wants different standard bearers promoting different ideas and ideals, traditional Democratic ideas, like those espoused by the Kennedy wing of the party.

When Kennedy endorsed Obama, it seemed like he was striking a blow against the corporate wing of the party. Unfortunately with his death, with Wellstone's death, with Feingold's defeat, the Democratic Wing is kinda bereft of standard bearers. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/166

It was hoped that Obama would be one. During the primary, he often talked like he WAS one. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/146

But after he was elected, he sang different tunes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:38 PM

31. By my definition the democratic party is centre-right.

Bernie Saunders and Dennis Kucinich are the closest you have to left in the US, and Kucinich isn't there anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PDJane (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:43 PM

41. +1. The Democratic Party, like it or not, is a bourgeois party. It has to be dragged

 

kicking and screaming to support the interests of the proletariat and then does so only grudgingly and with a wink and a nod to the ruling class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:49 PM

58. Some of us are just done with Clintons, done with Bushs,

May their wealthy families live out life and leave the rest of us alone...



Kind of like what Chimpy is doing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:09 PM

2. Give it a rest. 2008 was yesterday.

I will be happy to support Hillary in 2016. In 2008, I supported Barack Obama.

So what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faygo Kid (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:13 PM

4. Sorry you didn't feel like reading the OP, but thanks for chiming in

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:32 PM

9. And you insult someone who says they would support her in 2016

Your behavior is symptomatic of something other than seeking to hold a discussion, isn't it?

So along comes someone who says they would be happy to support Hillary, and you slam them with a snide comment. Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:20 PM

5. Can the "hate" crap. It's enough to say that many of us disagree with her on ME war policy.

Hillary Clinton was one of a handful of Senators who was given full access to the unedited CIA Iraq WMD reports before the vote on the Authorization for Use of Force, and she voted for it anyway. In my opinion, she was irresponsible and showed poor judgement, particularly in her Senate speech supporting the measure that may have swayed some of her colleagues.

While she later said she regretted her vote, fully a year into the war, Clinton still wasn't ready to admit she had made a mistake: http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-21/politics/iraq.hillary_1_weapons-inspection-process-iraq-vote-saddam-hussein?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

WASHINGTON (CNN)(April 21, 2004) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

"How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein?" the New York Democrat asked Tuesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

"I don't understand how they had such an unrealistic view of what was going to happen."

The same can certainly be said for the Administration's coordination of one side in the Sunni vs. Shi'ia civil war in Syria, where 40,000 have died. Libya, too, hasn't turned out as planned. Once touted as a "model of humanitarian intervention," Libya is still wracked by serious violence and has factionalized into many warring camps run by war lords. Eastern Libya is still overrun by Jihadi groups exporting missiles and terrorists fueling other conflicts in the region.

As for Kerry, he alone among his Senate colleagues really made a soul-searching acknowledgement that he had been wrong about his Iraq War vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:30 PM

7. When Kerry sided with the weapon inspectors and against Bush's DECISION to go to war the other Dems

who also voted for IWR stood with Bush and against Kerry, and that included Clinton and Biden at the time.

I'm surprised so many Dems have forgotten what was actually occurring at the time. This flashback might help.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/09/23/53191/-John-Kerry-Consistent-on-Iraq

Getting your facts straight might be helpful before you try to form your argument, cthu.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:50 PM

42. Pshaw. Facts are so 20th Century. BTW, during the 2004 campaign in CO Springs, Kerry

 

announced he would still have voted for the IWR even if he had known absolutely that Iraq had no WMD. I've never forgiven Kerry for that, although I did vote for him in 2004.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:31 PM

8. In 2008 and 2012, I supported and

campaigned for President Obama. In 2016, I will support and campaign for Hillary Clinton. I think Obama supporters owe Clinton BIG TIME. She has been an amazing Secretary of State and a trusted member of Obama's inner circle. I will definitely throw my support to her 1000%. Everyone needs to realize, it's time to move on. We want control of both houses and the White House in 2014 and 2016. If it turns out Cuomo or someone else is the Democratic nominee, I will support them with the same level of enthusiasm, even though my heart will always belong to President Obama. My biggest concern is to continue and expand on President Obama's policies. We need DEMS to do that. Let's stay united folks and get it done in 2014 (our first hurdle) AND 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:40 PM

10. Hillary is "whatever the Democratic Party is"

It depends on what the definition of "is" is.

I remember a Democratic Party in BC. Before Clinton. A Democratic Party that included a Rainbow Coalition. A Democratic Party that included Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale, Paul Wellstone. Heck, even Carter seems to the left of the Clintons.

I view Clinton as the standard bearer for the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. Maybe you can say that Kerry is just as bad, and I don't argue with that. In 2004, Kerry was just about my last choice for the nominee. I ranked them something like Dean, Clark, Gephardt, Edwards, and then Kerry.

There was HOPE in 2008, that Obama would be less corporate than the Clintons. Maybe a dime's worth of difference that we convinced ourselves was really $50, but there it is. Some of my hatred of Obama now comes from a percieve betrayal of that illusion, which Obama certainly exploited to win the primary.

Sure, there ARE many other corporate Democrats, and quislings and sell outs, but from 1992, Clinton made himself the standard bearer for that wing, and that shame carries over onto his wife, and in my eyes there is not enough water to ever wash that spot of blood off of Lady Clinton's hands.

I don'r want them to go away mad - just go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:27 PM

15. Hillary is not Bill

"Clinton made HIMself the standard bearer"

I find it perplexing when people attempt to fuse them together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:39 PM

18. and the Koch brothers are not identical twins either

nor are identical twins the same person.

Neither is George Sr. the same person as George W. or as Jeb

but they are still all part of the Bush Family Evil Empire.

Hillary is not Bill, but she is necessarily part of the Clinton Family Corporate Empire, and not some progressive in a corporate suit. She's not a member of the working class and she doesn't fight for the working class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:50 PM

24. "The Clinton Family Corporate Empire"

You made me laugh there.

Bill Clinton fought for the working class. That is why he is still so popular.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:18 PM

30. no Bill Clinton betrayed the working class

that is why he is still so rich.

What did he do for the working class again?

I mean, besides NAFTA.

Here's a place you can research to refresh your memory. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/71

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:49 PM

33. He is rich from speaking fees and writing books

His 1993 economic plan cut taxes on the working poor and 90% of small business while raising them on the upper class. The result was spectacular. The longest economic expansion in US history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:04 PM

36. oh, okay, at least he "earned" his money



"the longest expansion in US history"

yeah, let's just look at that.

In 1992, the top 1% got 12.986% of the income (according to IRS statistics. By 2000, they were getting 20.809%.

Wow, that Clinton economy sure was good for the 1%.

In 1992, the bottom 50% got 15.134% of the pie. By 2000, our share was down to just 13.253%.

The top 10%. They started the Clinton years with 39% and ended them with 45%.

Bottom line, the Clinton economy, particularly after the odious tax cuts of 1996 (his 2nd term too, when he did not have to worry about re-election) was much better for the top 1% and the top 10% than it was for the bottom 75%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #36)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:26 PM

38. 22 million jobs

Good for the working class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:42 PM

40. of course

arbeit macht frei

Increasing wages might help a little more. Minimum wage in real terms in 1992 - $6.70. In 2000, $6.62.

CEO pay grew much faster. CEO to worker ratio was 125 in 1993, it was over 250 by 2000. http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:01 PM

11. Some DU members want another Florida 2000 in 2016, they are looking for an excuse. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:06 PM

13. Way too early to be talking about 2016.

But I don't want Hillary to be the nominee. She is old school politics. We need younger, fresher faces out there. With the GOP in decline, it's a new era. Why sully it with old ideas?

I would vote for her if she was the nominee but I truly doubt she wants to run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:28 PM

16. Old ideas?

Like traditional Democratic ideas? Not sure what you mean here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:43 PM

21. Name some NEW ideas she's had.

At least Obama has had the energy and determination to remake the Democratic party regarding new avenues of technology.

Hillary says she's 'tired'. Okay, she deserves accolades for the job she's done. But being tired is not really what you want to telegraph to the world if you are thinking about running for President.

She isn't so this entire discussion is rather moot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:48 PM

23. The 'new' Democratic ideas of late...

... seem to be adopting old republican ideas like tax cuts and austerity.

Would be nice to see a Democrat that pushes 'new' ideas like, say, addressing climate change in a meaningful way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:53 PM

26. I agree. Obama has done some but not enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:41 PM

19. I for one would actually prefer OLD ideas

like FDR style ideas or Bob LaFollette ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:16 PM

14. I like Hilary. She'll make a great President.

 

But make no mistake, she is a hawk. And that part I disagree with.

But so is Kerry, Obama and Biden...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:33 PM

17. Right now the party is reduced to a revolving centrist coalition. Hillary is just another one.

I'm not a centrist and don't vote for centrists )aka: "The Lesser of Two Evils").

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:43 PM

22. it's not a coalition

at least I think many people are part of it, not by choice, but because there is no other choice than an odious centrist or an even more odious libertarian Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:53 PM

27. Well, it was my choice.

A little bit of arsenic may be "not as bad" as a lot of arsenic but I'll pass on either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:14 PM

29. actually, no you won't and to do so is silly

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/index.cfm

There's actually a huge difference between 10 parts per billion and a lethal dose. In fact, this site says that "low levels are essential" http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/arsenic.pdf

Given a choice between the two, I will take 10 parts per billion every time with no regrets whatsoever.

And by "passing on either" yiou are only helping to elect or legitimize the lethal dose.

But, then again, I did the same thing in 1992 and 1996. In some ways, I think we might now be better off if Clinton had lost in 1992. His victory only legitimized and empowered the DLC, and also promoted Republican ideas as Clinton embraced many Republican talking points. Talking points that deserved to be fought, but once he embraced them were accepted as "unchallenged conventional wisdom".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=42313

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:52 PM

34. To each his own.

Oh, well, I'm still not a centrist and have yet to see a good reason to support them. As to the "lethal dose"..I've now voted in 23 federal elections. I've yet to see an indication that my single vote changed the results in any of them. In fact, in all of them, if I has voted for any of the candidates, the outcome would have been the same. That being the case, I see of no reason to vote for anyone but the best candidate on the ballot.

Clinton, pretty much ended my noseholding days and I did vote for him twice. But, enough is enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:38 AM

47. Ah, another Democrat who handed redistricting to the Republicans in 2010.

Your superior ideals are still destroying American lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:24 AM

50. The president handles redistricting in Washington state?

who knew?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:12 PM

28. You see Obama as something

other than centrist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:58 PM

35. Hell, he advertises himself as a centrist and has governed like one.

And, judging by his advertising and actions as president, he is most decidedly a centrist in the same mold as the Clintons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 05:10 PM

43. So you didn't vote for him?

Or did I misread your post?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:59 PM

45. You read it correctly.

As I said, before the election, I would vote for the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the ballot. Which is what I did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:29 AM

46. Here in FL

there were 12 candidates on the ballot. Obama was neither the most progressive nor the most anti-war candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:19 AM

49. Exactly. Same here, though fewer candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:42 PM

20. Its called "misogyny"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:39 PM

32. She has helped saved tens of thousands of lives in Burma and Libya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:20 PM

37. Give me a break - Hillary has been a favorite among Democrats since 1992

There were people arguing for her as President since then.

You may just be more sensitive that she is EVER criticized here or elsewhere. I get that - as I know I feel the same about Senator Kerry.

As to the Iraq vote, the better argument that Bill Clinton tried to make (badly) was that for the time they were in the Senate together, she and Obama made almost identical votes. In fact, the key vote to me was Kerry/Feingold that they both voted against .... and then six months later backed very similar measures to K/F.

This ignores that he spoke in 2002 of not going to war - something Dean did not do - his words were very close to Kerry's words and he said he preferred Biden/Lugar to IWR. That was Kerry's preference as well - making the difference pretty narrow and mainly that Kerry had to vote. No one let Kerry off the hook on that vote - even though he spoke against rushing to war before it started and was the lead sponsor of Kerry/Feingold. That was in a speech at the Jesuit Georgetown University, where his words that "it would not be a war of last resort" would be fully understood as it not being a just war. Kerry has said his vote, given to give Bush leverage in negotiations, was wrong and it is clearly painful to him. (On DU, a cavalier oped by Edwards that stated reasons that he supported the bill that conflicted to what he said in 2003 and said he "was wrong" was accepted readily - Kerry's more personal, stated to people comments were considered less sincere than Edwards'. )

Another major difference is their histories. Kerry's 1971 actions were amazing as the actions of some one who dreamed of a political career. In fact, when Morey Safer, impressed by the 27 year old, asked if he wanted to be President, Kerry first joked "of what", then said there were many things they had to do (now) and that he didn't know if he could keep people hapy enough with him. He later risked his career to investigate the gun and drug running in support of the Contras.

What is surprising to me is that I envied the preferences that were given Hillary throughout her career. From the strongest opponent for the Senate nomination not competing to her being considered inevitable for 2008 to being given the SOS slot - where she has done a good job.
Had Kerry ever had the support that the powers that be gave both Clintons, there is no doubt that he would have won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:34 PM

39. You are speaking mostly for yourself only here, I think, at least as regards John Kerry. I

 

voted for him in 2004 b/c the alternative was so much worse, but I didn't volunteer for him, nor did I contribute any $$. In fact, after Kerry blithely announced in Colorado Springs that he would have voted to allow Bush to invade Iraq even had he known Iraq had no WMDs, I told my wife he was going to lose (after I had picked my jaw up off the floor).

In essence, Kerry's argument for his candidacy boiled down to "I can do a better job of running the war than Bush." While technically correct, Kerry's position in 2004 like Hillary's was completely and totally amoral (basically arguing for the competent commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity over the incompetent commission thereof).

Let's put it this way: I knew within 30 minutes of Colin Powell's UN speech by doing cursory internet research that the entire case against Iraq was based on a pack of lies. If I knew it, Hillary and Kerry should have known. If they didn't know, then they had no business being Senators. (You might also wish to review the history of the Gephardt-Daschle-Bush Rose Garden concordat in October 2002, in assessing who knew or should have known about the war crimes and crimes against humanity soon to be launched.)

I don't 'hate' Hillary. I think she's a disgusting specimen of the human race and will probably leave DU should she be the nominee in 2016. But that's different than hating her, I think. (I pretty much feel exactly the same way about John Kerry, except that back in the late 60s and early 70s he did the right thing.)

For the record, I'm lukewarm on Obama (and on the Democratic Party as a party). The bloom is off the rose, shall we say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 05:36 PM

44. I am confused by the OP.

There sure seems to be a pretty strong expression of disdain for the Democratic party and it " stooges" . This is evidently the Party that Hillary has been in sync with according to the OP. But for some reason with all the vitriol against the same party, Hillary is ok in the poster's book.
I have 2 major reservations about Hillary. She is more hawkish than I like and I think she has a tin ear for politics. Her 2008 campaign was misguided and mismanaged . I hope her political acumen has improved and she surrounds herself with other than the Mark Penns of the world.If not, I probably won't support her in 2016, not out of hatred but out of a desire to keep Democrats in power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chieftain (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:43 AM

48. And Obama has Geithner. What's your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chieftain (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:31 AM

51. That's one of my two reservations about her

I think she'd make a wonderful president and a lousy candidate, no matter what the polls say now. She's just bad at running for office. It might be the only thing she's bad at.

The other reservation is her age. Yes, it's ageist, but I'm kind of old, too. She's been stating loud and clear - almost like a cry for help - how tired she is. She has every right to feel that way, too. But campaigns are grueling and I just don't think she's going to be untired enough after four years - in which she'll be four years older to withstand all comes with running for president. And I think she knows it. She just can't convince Bill and her supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:13 PM

52. hillary will be to old to run.

she would be into her 70`s during her first term.a second term would`t be an option.

i`m sure there will be a rising star in the democratic party that can challenge anyone the republicans field in 4 yrs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:36 PM

55. agree. The entire Democratic party is center and moving to the right

Gun control, military action abroad, social contracts such as Social Security and Medicaire, healthcare, education. You name it we keep moving more and more to the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:47 PM

57. I'm glad to see this.

I've never understood the viciousness toward her at DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread