2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary's inability to answer ANYTHING directly is infuriating and will be her undoing.
Time and time again Hillary refuses to be direct with what exactly her positions are, where she stands, or what she plans on doing. She will answer a question like a lawyer in a courtroom and refuse to give anything substantial for fear of being tied down. This amount of scriptedness and inability to actually LEAD will be her undoing either in the primary or the General election.
Her Keystone pipeline non-answer today was absolutely ridiculous, and so was her failure to actually call for more debates, so I did a bit of digging and found a pattern.
On Keystone XL (no this is not the onion):
On Debates:
On Glass Steagal:
On TPP
"The president should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with Nancy Pelosi, who had expressed their concerns about the impact that a weak agreement would have on our workers to make sure we get the best, strongest deal possible,"
"There are some specifics in there that could and should be changed. So I am hoping that's what happens now -- let's take the lemons and turn it into lemonade,"
On her server being wiped:
On whether or not her husbands crime bill perpetuated racism:
On Medical Marijuana:
On NSA spying:
The list goes on and on and on... notice a pattern? I'm sure you all can find other cases of this.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)That's all you got? Trust me this is a major reason people in our own party can't stand Hillary. Have you ever seen so much antipathy toward a candidate on our side? I haven't and it's because so many of us realize she isn't actually on our side. Her inability to give a direct answer is a hallmark of someone who doesn't tell the truth.
Boomer
(4,159 posts)It's not so much that Clinton is evading the questions. She's waiting for the focus group results so she can craft the answer that gets the most votes.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)She is a surrogate for the Bush Crime Family.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Wouldn't be so bad if after that we could expect follow-up.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Who cares what she really thinks? As long as the answer panders.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)And have folks checked the calander?
The depths to which some will go......it is amusing, have to grant you that.
cali
(114,904 posts)And the you're just bashing bull doesn't work with me, so save it.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Trump says he'll figure it out when he's president too.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Sanders stands. Let's start the debate, we don't need to wait for DWS to 'allow' debates, we have enough information from the candidates to do it without DWS.
I can defend my candidate's position on this issue.
Here's your chance to debate on behalf of YOUR candidate.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Being outraged all the time means no one is going to care when a real outrage happens.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)issue to take a stand on for any Democrat.
What do you mean 'there's nothing to discuss'?? Are you seriously of the opinion that voters don't CARE about this issue, particularly Dem voters and Independents, and yes, even some Republicans?
I want to see this discussed, it matters to this country. If you don't, why? Why is it not important to you? Are YOU for it or against it?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Though, I might add the Keystone pipeline is an abomination.
I have written several posts on the carbon impact of heavy Alberta tar sands crude being transported across America in vast quantities and now available for export.
I am not pleased that Clinton is not more clear in this, but there is plenty of time for clarity and persuasion.
I can dig my posts up for you if you like, I am very familiar with the topic and it is a very important issue, politically and environmentally.
What is your position?
ram2008
(1,238 posts)And that is of Hillary obfuscating and refusing to take a solid stance on controversial issues.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)She's just trying to run out the clock, before committing to anything. It's going to backfire on her badly. It already is.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Much the way we were told - here - to wait until TPP was finalized (until it was too late) before discussing it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)began, I have followed the issue closely and nothing convinces me there is anything good about this at all. In fact, it is a regression of where we ought to be going regarding our energy policies.
So we agree on this, and think you for your response. I hope every Democratic candidate will use the microphone and press coverage they now have to educate the public on this.
Only one person can win the nomination, but ALL candidates can use their candidacies to get issues like this into the public consciousness and even if the don't win, they will have done a lot of good by doing so.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)out supporting it I am going to have to re-evaluate, but I think she agrees fully with Obama....she does at least need to say that soon.
In the meantime I believe she is not "waffling" - a loaded term, inappropriately used - she is not willing to take a major policy position while her ex-boss still has 18 months in his term of President.
I am of the belief that is the respectful and honorable and graceful thing to do, and she does it despite the criticism she knew that would attract.
That is my opinion.
Rugby World Cup opening game is on.
Talk to you later!
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)she should not be running for dog catcher not alone president
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)The Clown Car wins the media wars, by hogging press coverage...Seems that DWS, that putrid piece of perversity, keeps the Democrats as hidden as possible...is she working to elect a few more of her Repukian friends?...
Paka
(2,760 posts)Like when? After she gets elected? These are questions I want answered before I vote.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)She keeps acting as if the country is permanently right-of-center and that we can only slip a few minor changes in on the side when nobody's looking. She sounds(and has no reason to sound)as if she can't accept that it's even possible for progressives to win the argument or set the terms of debate.
It's a defeatist tone, and nobody gets elected by sounding defeatist.
LuvNewcastle
(16,820 posts)It's the same sort of mealy-mouthed weaseling we used to hear from Dems in the 1980's because they were too fucking scared to stand up to the GOP. These are different times and we deserve better candidates.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 19, 2015, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)
How exactly are:
~ Keystone XL, an attempt to utterly destroy the environment for addition profits for the vile and anti democratic Koch Brothers... who will in turn ensure that women and PoC continue to get oppressed,
~ Debates, the gold standard for determining the worthiness of a candidate is being arbitrarily set by someone with a known bias, and inappropriately attempting to influence the outcome of the vote. This is the epitome of being undemocratic.
~ Glass Steagal, the repeal of which opened the floodgates to allow all the actions that precipitated and caused the recession. An issue which cuts to the lifeblood of this country.
~ TPP, the single most dangerous consideration that has come to light in a very long time. It has the capability of making the recession experienced through the repeal of Glass Steagal seem like a pleasant dream filled with clouds and fluffy bunnies by comparison.
~ NSA spying, performing illegal spying. Possibly manipulating gathered data to discredit people they don't like. Certainly gobbling up all your phone and internet usage data, without even so much as a "by your leave".
all issues that don't deserve real outrage?
Response to Bubzer (Reply #55)
Post removed
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)stands on issues.
840high
(17,196 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Laser102
(816 posts)I understand that. Taking positions against the administration before they decide some of these issues may be seen as opportunistic. She can't win with some can she?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Why are so many folks at DU so eager to swallow any load presented?
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Supposed to be to the Constitution and the people she would represent....may that's just me thinking wrong though.
Laser102
(816 posts)As far as loyalty to the American people goes, she has a long history of serving her country and the people of this country. I have never understood the narrative being pushed by the media, repugs, and others of her being untrustworthy. The email stuff is an example of this. Turns out everything she has been saying has turned out to be true. Even Bernie Sanders has defended her. She will answer all of these questions. I have no doubt about it. Just not in others time frame.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)to give an answer to a question that is imperative to those she wants to trust her. It is asinine for her to not give a forthright answer yes or no about the topic. It just reinforces the perception that she lies and is in thrall to the 1%. WHERE IS SOMEONE TO TELL HER TO STOP!? She has the worst advisers here. It is just so same again.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)And it's STILL a light house
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I could not have said it better!
Hillary's "loyalty to the administration" concerns her way more than any loyalty to the majority of America's Working People, OUR future, or the Environment!
In case "The Centrists" here have wondered what we mean by Putting Party above Principle,
your post is a perfect example
That is WHY I support Bernie.
merrily
(45,251 posts)She does not want to answer the question.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)over issues like Syria.
Some loyalty.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The attempt to paint that over as nobility is laughable and transparent.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She probably should not be running.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)to let the electorate know what their OWN positions now. It's not reasonable to expect the voters to just "trust" that the candidate will be good in office if she or he hasn't said anything specific during the campaign.
Get elected vague, stay vague in office.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That's just a lame excuse.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)she stands. It wouldn't hurt the current admin at all. She is avoiding commitment and trying to slide into the nomination without having to actually discuss issues. She is afraid of debates, not that I blame her.
The reason she is afraid to discuss issues is that she is on the side of the 1% on the issues.
erronis
(14,955 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)statemenrts in the OP.
I'd like to know where she stands on those important issues. I'd also like to hear her plan for continued funding and expansion of Social Security.
She is not communicating as well with voters as Bernie does.
She does not seem to have thought her philosophy or ideas through before announcing she would run.
I realize that she does not have the experience with voting on public policy that Bernie has. She was only on the line in the Senate forless than eight years while Bernie served in Congress forat least 24 years plus years makiing deecisions as mayor of Burlington.
But still, she owes it to voters to let them know her policies on all the issues possible.
She does not have the experience we need in the White House. Her inability to give straightforward answers on voters' questions about issues that are so commonly discussed in the news is troubling. What would she do if elected if she has so much trouble figuring out what she thinks about basic, controversial issues.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)find anything that tells anything concrete about her stands on issues. She is very evasive and if you don't agree, it should be easy to prove.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)provide clear ideas where she stands. If you don't agree, show us her proposals.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)have to do with HER decisions?
I don't get it, do they think we are stupid?
We KNOW what the right decision on the Keystone Pipeline has to be.
How about LEADING for a change?
How about not blaming other people for decisions you make, such as her finger pointing at Biden re the Credit Card bill?
I agree, it IS infuriating and frankly if my candidate were doing this he wouldn't be my candidate.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)it suggests her opinion is important enough to change the outcome
If you can sell people that stuff, you'll look important
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)It sounds challenging but does not reveal the position from which she is challenging. It maintains that she has a definitive position without revealing it while giving the impression that it may be in contrast to the administration.
But yes, it is a typical non-answer.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)all I get from it. And in light of her previous answer 'I'll tell you after the election', it's a perfect way to solidify for voters that this is not someone they can trust to LEAD on an issue as important as this is.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)The whole point is they want to be able to collect as much campaign revenue from the petrol industry while keeping her position as amorpheous as possible for the general election.
The problem is that it reveals a deep stupidity of the pundit class in both taking their base for granted and failing to realize the importance of turning them out on election day.
And that is just looking at it in terms of strategy.
In terms of good public policy and looking out for the environment (and ourselves) it is even more absurd. No one should be in favor of this pipeline and we should be sinking tons of money and resources into developing renewable resources.
azmom
(5,208 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)MattP
(3,304 posts)Why wouldn't she just call Carly a liar, that interview made me want to put my head through a wall
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)She will eventually do so but it she will use better words. Carley won't even know what hit her.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Doesn't want to take the heat for a position so she avoids taking a stance. This contributes to the untrustworthiness impression. I sure don't trust her.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Over 2,000 waffles served.
The River
(2,615 posts)Every time I hear her non-answers I feel like I've just walked into a Waffle House.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)...her Waffle House!
Oh that is SO good.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)I like my policy like I like my hashbrowns...scattered, smothered, and covered.
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Great stuff.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Mmmm. Waffles.
?w=580
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)And Bernie is king of deflection and redirecting to only what he wants to talk about.
Although, to O'Malley's credit, he's cranking out policy proposals too.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)horrific, women and children destroying Welfare Reform bill which as far as I know, though it's hard to tell, she still supports?
What is her position on a National HC system? What policies has she put forth to support this?
Where does she stand on forever WAR? What policies has she put forth to end the neocon policies that have so destroyed so many countries leading to the horrific humanitarian crisis we are witnessing as refugees flee those nations targeted by neocon policies?
What policies has she put forth on any of these issues?
How about Glass Steagal?
How about deregulation of the Media?
How about the Private Prison industry?
I have no idea where she stands on anything other than the 'safe' issues such as abortion which all Dems must take a position. We KNOW that, but what about all the other important issues?
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)That we live in an incredibly small bit of the multiverse, but may I inquire in which one you reside?
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)I'm sensing a campaign theme.
cali
(114,904 posts)whingeing on about others being insulting.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)I suppose we can blame that on the entire Hillary campaign right?
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)You better watch your back for stealth volvos...
MoveIt
(399 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)kjones
(1,053 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Puglover
(16,380 posts)A month and 1/2 on DU and she has a fan club.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Not a lot that was controversial or confrontational. When people come in with both guns blazing, it makes me wonder.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)data. What are her wonderful proposals you keep telling us about?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You made me smile!
Not an easy feat today, thank you!
sarge43
(28,939 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 18, 2015, 07:13 PM - Edit history (1)
Nerd snark. Got to love it
/on edit/
And I paid good money to go to a comedy club last night.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)MoveIt
(399 posts)I don't know how you can type that with a straight face. If she was cranking out policy proposals we should be able to answer every one of the points made in the OP. Yet, not a single person responding in support of HRC is able to do this. Sanders on the other hand has bombarded us with actual policy proposals. And O'Malley, well I haven't heard much that didn't sound like a Sanders policy proposal.
Have a great day!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I think this is the part where I rest my case.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He does not answer questions that are calculated to get him to bad-mouth other Democrats or talk about non- issues.
He answers policy questions at least on the big issues like the Keystone pipeline, too big to faiil banks, etc.
Huge difference.
Bernie has been answering voter's questions on Ed Scultz and Thom Hartmann for years now. He is used to answering voters' questions.
Hillary is good at raising money from rich people.
My mother used to say that you get good at things you practice.
Bernie has been practicing thinking about issues and answering voters' questions and he is good at it.
Hillary has been giving speeches and raising money from wealthy people. That is what she is good at.
I want a president like Bernie who focuses on the issues and the people.
How well a candidate schmoozes for money with big donors doesn't impress me. It is irrelevant to the job of governing.
I want Bernie to win in great part so that we can get rid of the big money and corruption in our politics.
Shameful that a candidate can't answer the basic questions that Hillary can't seem to answer.
merrily
(45,251 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)then share it please.
Sen Sanders tells us loud and clear where he stands on issues.
Clinton has yet to commit on any of the key issues.
Response to ram2008 (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)She still remembers Obama eating her alive on the debate floors in 2008, and because she knows her positions on issues like the NSA or TPP are ones her base and the American voters won't like, the last thing she wants is a fair debate.
She knows she'll get called out on her lies, she knows she'll get shellacked by Bernie, so she's having her toady Debbie Wasserman-Schultz block as much debating as possible.
And it's sinking the entire party. The Republicans get to spew their lies and propaganda unchallenged, while the Democrats sit silent and cede ground to them.
When the primaries are over, if Hillary is the nominee, the right-wing and the corporate media wurlitzer are going to turn the Swiftboating machine on her, and she will not be able to shrug it off. She'll try the same lame tactics John Kerry tried, and get pasted.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)approach, sure, but those are mainly Republicans.
Response to DanTex (Reply #23)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Damn, Dan, is that all you got? No wonder your candidate is tanking.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)about some things.
And as for the things about which she has been informed of their position, disclosure would reveal her to be the abject tool of the oligarchy that she, in truth, is.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)She even calls herself a 'moderate'. She can't even take a stand on what she believes philosophically.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Don't ever forget Goldman.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)The Fight for $15 leaders had a convention a few months ago. Hillary called in and said "I want to be your champion."
Then, a few weeks later, someone asked her directly if she supports a $15/hour minimum wage. She said that she wasn't sure that $15/hour was right for the entire country.
Steam rolling out of my ears. She wants to be the champion of the Fight for $15 movement but won't commit to their goal? I wish I could tell her to just go away.
There is no where in the country a person can pay all their bills and live a dignified life without public assistance on anything less than $15/hour.
The phrase 'working poor' is an abomination. People who work full time should not be poor!
Bernie gets this, so he will certainly get my vote.
merrily
(45,251 posts)like NYC and Boston, where the COL is so high.
(I really crack myself up sometimes.)
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)it's "covering all the bases" and "triangulating" and only turns off a few DU-style wonks, with their unrealistic expectations and "third of a third" status on the political spectrum, which runs neatly Greens-Dems-Pubs, bounded by the Dems' left and the Pubs' right
this happened when they tried to "make race an issue": it'd be easy, it'd "hurt him with certain sectors," it'd keep the discussion tied up in rhetoric rather than facts; one way or another they can keep him at 49.9%, he'll slip up on something, he'll say something to turn off either the Deer Hunters for Jesus or Brady types (who're always seen as "single-issue voters" , or either the pro-Palestine or -Israel side
they think they're fighting just another campaign
Duval
(4,280 posts)clear answers on issues. However, she seems to be getting better at it, since Sanders' stand on issues is resonating so well with so many.
houston_radical
(41 posts)Hillary, like her husband, like Obama, like the pack of blue-dog democrats that infest the US Congress and Senate are centrist DLC democrats - THEY ARE NOT LIBERAL
Centrist = (Who is funding her campaign) + (What she says, which is covered very well in this piece)
There is no mystery
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I want to know what each candidate, if elected, would do about that major issue that the next President will face in early 2018. My problem is that I don't know know what the question will be. All I have to go on is their records with past decisions and what they say now -- about their general principles and about how they would handle specific decisions that we can ask them about.
It's likely that the Keystone issue will be resolved, one way or the other, before January 20, 2017. That doesn't matter. Hearing a specific answer from each candidate is valuable to get an idea of how they'll handle other issues.
I completely agree with the OP about Clinton's tendency toward vagueness and platitudes. I also think that, in the long run, she's doing herself no favors. Her biggest problem isn't that millions of Democrats might disagree with her about the Keystone pipeline. Her biggest problem is that millions of Democrats, including many who plan to vote for her anyway, see her as being excessively "political" -- of saying whatever will advance her candidacy rather than fighting for her genuine convictions. Any specific statement about Keystone would lose her some votes from the people who disagree with her but would get her more votes from people who would gain respect for her.
ETA: After I wrote the above, I read today's electoral-vote.com and found agreement:
Clinton to Give Keystone Pipeline View Soon
Yesterday in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton said that the construction of the Keystone Pipeline is one of her favorite issuesbut she wouldn't say whether she was for it or against it. In a nutshell, this is her problem with a sizable chunk of the Democratic Party. She is too cautious and many people think she doesn't really stand for anything. It is like saying: "Wait, when I get the focus group results back, I'll let you know what I really think." She could probably defend either a yes or a no and get some credibility with the left wing of her party. If she is for it, the argument is that making the U.S. more self sufficient in energy means fewer wars in the Middle East about oil. That would sell. If she is against the pipeline, she could say it is for environmental reasons. But not having an opinion is where Sen. Bernie Sanders trumps (sorry) her. Sanders is against it and has always been against it. Clinton doesn't seem to realize that her sitting on the fence doesn't really help her.
elana i am
(814 posts)for progressive/populist dems there is only one right/logical answer to these questions. these are questions that she should be able to answer succinctly and with NO hesitation.
ok maybe i do understand. her indecisiveness and prevarication implies progressive/populist principles are not going to be her answer.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)that will be her undoing.
I know you won't do it but correctrecord.org has a lot of Hillary policies. No you won't find any Bernie slams there just slams at repubs.
Or a neutral site is http:\\www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm
houston_radical
(41 posts)No position on the debates appears
Medical marijuana
Medical marijuana now; wait-and-see on recreational pot. (Jul 2014)
Medical marijuana maybe ok; states decide recreational use. (Jun 2014)
TPP
TPP must produce jobs, raise wages, & protect security. (Apr 2015)
Chief advocate for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). (Aug 2014)
TPP agreement creates more growth and better growth. (Aug 2014)
http://ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm#21
Clinton saw herself in the middle of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during her husband's presidency. She supported deals with Oman, Chile and Singapore during her tenure in the Senate. As secretary of State, she was a chief advocate as talks commenced surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of the largest worldwide deals in recent history
http://ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm#23
At the State Department, Clinton didn't address specifics in the negotiating process, but told attendees at an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum conference that she hoped it would "create a new high standard for multilateral free trade."
'nuff said
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)houston_radical
(41 posts)no positions on most of the issues in the piece, ok for Medical Marijuana, but not good for TPP. I don't see how this is positive for her.
cali
(114,904 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)of the people's right to know -- and thereby dismissive of the people themselves?
Very bad traits for a president. That, along with the enemies lists, brings to mind another president from the early 1970s.
Do we really want four years of this for the country? Can we afford it?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I've seen a POTUS like that before. Hmm let me think a minute,
oh yeah, it was THIS guy! Who was "not a crook." As if.
senz
(11,945 posts)since I've observed him, and now, with a lot more experience of the world, I can see traits that I wasn't consciously aware of back then -- like his self-pity and defensiveness and...a lack of maturity that I had never noticed before. What a sad, pathetic person; how did he ever become president? A lot of ego, undoubtedly. So even though H shares some traits with him, I don't think she's anywhere near as self-pitying, defensive, and immature.
Wow. I like her better than Nixon! That's nice to know.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)But she's more personally arrogant than Nixon was. Nixon had a lifelong inferiority complex, exacerbated by the Kennedys just because they were who they were, and his capacity for self-pity was boundless. The best "psychological" biography I ever read about the Trickster was Fawn Brodie's "Richard Nixon: The Shaping of His Character." A deeply researched and damning indictment if ever one there was.
senz
(11,945 posts)Dubya.
You must be quite a politics enthusiast if you read books on Tricky Dick. But of course it is interesting to find out what makes these people tick. Maybe I'll see if the local library has Brodie's book.
As for Hillary, it's doubtful if there is an honest biography. Seems like they'd be either hatchet jobs or hagiographies. Bernie would make an interesting subject for a thoughtful biography. Rare person, almost unbelievable. We are so lucky to have him at this time. Hope we don't blow it.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I find the pathology of his personality fascinating. I was politically precocious and an RFK supporter when I was 12 - devastated when he was killed. Just how someone like Nixon, with his rabidly paranoid jealousies, monumental insecurity,sheer meanness, personal awkwardness and absolute untruthfulness could ever become President and then get resoundingly re-elected was a deeply intriguing puzzle to me, and I became something of an amateur Nixonologist. I think it all started with Hunter Thompson's coverage of Watergate in Rolling Stone.
Nixon was at least an interesting specimen. His Chimperial Fraudulency was just a cretinous and sociopathic asshole, and a boring one at that. Cheney reminds me of no one so much as Martin Bormann.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)In other words, you're not only making disingenuous arguments, you're making reprehensible ones as well.
This is what I've come to expect from Sanders supporters on the D.U. Nothing but hate filled vomit.
But you'll of course be on a hair trigger if some Hillary supporter anywhere in the country points out Americans refuse to vote for socialists. Explaining basic facts about the US electorate is an "attack".
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Under Maintenance
The site is currently unavailable due to routine system maintenance.
We are sorry for any inconveniences this may have caused. The site should be available again shortly.
Em manutenção
O site está atualmente indisponível devido à manutenção rotineira do sistema.
Lamentamos o inconveniente. Em breve, o site estará disponível novamente.
メンテナンス中
このサイトは、定期的なシステムメンテナンス中のため現在利用できません。
ご不便をおかけして申し訳ございません。 間もなく、また利用できるようになる予定です。
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The obsessive, decades-long pursuit of the office, the willingness to say anything and make any deal to advance herself, the secrecy and tendency to be dismissive of what others regard as legitimate concerns.
There are undeniably significant similarities.
The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)TPP, no Glass-Stegall or any financial reform, the Military Industrial Complex unfettered and with a blank checkbook. Knowing that supporting the ACA, which is really a huge gift to the insurance industry and some pandering, er, recognition of LGBT and POC concerns will be reason enough for any of us to vote for her instead of any repub.
senz
(11,945 posts)Would much rather have the choice of Bernie or a Repub.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Common Core: Republicans and some Democrats are against it and if she says she's for it then she might piss off everyone. Apparently she was proud of No Child Left Behind before she was against it so who knows.
Wall Street reform: Besides Glass-Steagall there is no word if she favors more stricter Wall Street reforms such as breaking up the banks or stricter punishment for White Collar crime.
I don't trust Clinton since too many people don't know where she stands but are quick to defend her. Its hard to get behind someone who has to be informed what she should be standing for.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)But at least she put the White House "on notice".
What a total loser.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Surprising, for someone who - ah - "brought peace to northern Ireland"
...that claim is never not gonna make me laugh.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The desperation is becoming a foul miasma.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)No firm stand = no conviction = nebulous relationship to truth.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)canoeist52
(2,282 posts)sorechasm
(631 posts)Thanks for the laugh portlander23!
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)No need to reveal her hand to the rethugs. The nomination belongs to her, so at this point she is focusing on the GE, which makes sense. Why waste the political capital now?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It belongs to the Democratic electorate, who may decide to bestow it on her.
sorechasm
(631 posts)She's playing an old game, in a new ball park, with new players, and new rules. She doesn't seem to get that.
EEO
(1,620 posts)Kablooie
(18,572 posts)she is a consummate politician which means that she may offer answers which allow multiple interpretations and in this election that quality could easily become a detriment.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Parenthood. She says that Muslims should not be targeted based on their ethnicity or religion. Every time someone is oppressed, Hillary is out there front and center defending their rights. And she does it bluntly. The public sees and remembers. She defends the defenseless. Children can't even vote, meaning she is not doing it for votes. She is doing it from the heart. And oh, how Americans love politician with heart.
Ino
(3,366 posts)She's all heart...
"Every time someone is oppressed, Hillary is out there front and center defending their rights."
Including gay marriage.... after 2013... finally.
She's all heart, and no one else ever defends the oppressed.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 19, 2015, 09:11 AM - Edit history (1)
I know many like simple yes/no, black/white, up/down but most issues are not that way.. they are usually in the grey area... unless you are not a very complex thinking person.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)"I'm always open to new and better information but I believe that..."
When people know what your values are they will trust you even when you make decisions they might disagree with.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)When no one else was speaking up for our party's principles, as a candidate, her reticence on many issues wasn't noticeable enough to hurt her candidacy. It was arguably bad for the state of discourse in our country, like the decision of DWS to limit debates, but that's not the specific issue here.
This is the crux of the matter, the HRC campaign is like a huge monolith, and showing a marked limit in its flexibility, and ability to respond to developments. It's like they've evolved to deal with certain expected challenges, and according to a plan, and that's it. It's a moribund campaign. It's like the Energizer Bunny, it makes noise, and it has motion, but it lacks anima (life force)*.
*... it's a terrible dream.
It's depressing to
dream about that rabbit.
It's got no brain, it's got no blood.
It's got no anima.
It just keeps banging on those
meaningless cymbals endlessly,
and going and going and going.
http://www.moviequotedb.com/movies/grosse-pointe-blank/avgrating/page_3.html
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)My husband supports Hillary. I support Sanders. I know that no matter what both of us will vote for the Democratic nominee because they are both good and the alternative is truly dangerous. But, this is the kind of thread that generates ill-will and does nothing but dampens enthusiasm. At this point, it seems to me DU is doing more harm than good for the Democratic nominee. We need to find a way to respect each other.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)They are working hard to try and elect a candidate who:
* Helped George W. Bush by voting for the Iraq War Resolution
* Helped plan the atrocity in Libya, then gloated over the result
* Supports institutional racism by installing private prison industry lobbyists as fundraising bundlers in her campaign
* Undermined American workers by helping draft the TPP
* Supports the Keystone XL pipleline
* Stakes out an aggressive posture via Iran by suggesting Reagan was not belligerent enough
I vehemently oppose all of these things, and I'll be damned if I'll just roll over and say "Aw, shucks, they aren't so bad I guess..." just in the name of having a kumbaya moment on DU.
If they want to be against Bernie supporters because we're trying to elect a candidate that supports the opposite of these things then, in the words of a once-respected Democratic President, "I welcome their hatred."
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)On Keystone XL pipeline: She's 100% for it. If she was even the slightest bit against it, knowing where the public stands on the issue, she would ABSOLUTELY proclaim her position. Since she's silent, you know she's for it. That was an easy one.
On Debates: DWS has H's back and will take the heat for fewer debates. That frees H to publicly call for more debates, even though fully aware it ain't gonna happen...right Debbie Wink*Wink. That was an easy one.
On Glass Stegal: If she was FOR re-instituting it, given the mood of the voters, she would be screaming it from the hilltops. She isn't, so she is obviously against even the premise of Glass Stegal. That was an easy one.
On TPP: She helped to draft it, Bloomberg News praised her monumental efforts in single handedly being a major force behind it as SoS. It is ludicrous to even consider for a brief moment that she "may" be against it. That was an easy one.
On Server being wiped: "You mean like with a cloth or something"? Did you happen to catch the lameness of her response? In 2015 she has absolutely NO IDEA what the term "wiped the server" means? Really? She did it, she knows it, she had her reasons, and if you think she had "no idea" then you are simply a buffoon. That was an easy one.
On Bubbas crime legislation: Didn't you get the memo, it was not the legislation BUT "how it was implemented". Little old us had absolutely "no idea" it would be used against PoC to ruin millions of lives. If she thought it was a failure, or that it should be legislated away with...she would emphatically say so because it would improve her lot with the voters. She won't say that, so the answer is obvious "hubby's policies are working as intended". That was an easy one.
On Medical Marijuana: 'We need more evidence'. Do we really? TPTB have informed her it ain't gonna happen...not now. She is obediently dodging the subject. She may actually be personally FOR this one, but she will nevertheless, succumb to the masters bidding "NO MEDICAL MARIJUANA". That was an easy one.
On NSA Spying: Again, given the mood of the country on this issue, if she was against such actions by the NSA, she would have already stated it publicly. That was an easy one.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Even if "NorthCarolina" is wrong on some of these.... it's HOW IT APPEARS!
IOW... we are left to make up our own minds on her positions because she keeps tap dancing.
It reminds me of how she lost the last primary mostly.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)disndat
(1,887 posts)The email mess - H.C.'s mother of all evasions with her tech helper invoking the 5th.
4dsc
(5,787 posts)but in this era of confrontation her business as usual approach is not going to work. Sorry for her.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)She's listening!
(Apparently she hasn't been for the past 2 decades.)
NonMetro
(631 posts)Later!
Faux pas
(14,585 posts)and all his (h)uge secret plans. Any thinking person wants answers with specifics for craps sake.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Where Sanders says that qualifying students should get free college paid for from taxes from the 1%, Clinton said that no student should have to go in debt and that growing the economy would help (note growing the economy helps the 1% more than anything).
Where Sanders is against fracking altogether, Clinton has softened her pro-fracking slightly by saying she might phase in banning some fracking on some land (government). That is a nothing statement if I've ever heard one.
rock
(13,218 posts)But she goes her own way. It's what actually endures many of us to her.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)just avoiding major gaffes doesn't win the prize anymore