2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe irony of Hillary's sexist campaign
Her campaign sends mixed messages. Ostensibly, there's a message of empowerment, but it's swaddled in cutsie condescension.
From the Hillary emojis to the box of Hillary approved household cleaning items, to the abuela thing to the endless stream of emotional appeals that are unrelated to policy.
I suppose this is the campaign's push to make her warm and relatable.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)jehop61
(1,735 posts)when Sanders supporters imply that people who support Sec Clinton are not too bright and don't understand her policies. We have studied both candidates and support her because she would be the best candidate . Support who you want but don't denigrate those of us who think differently. It's insulting.
stonecutter357
(12,699 posts)Docreed2003
(16,916 posts)And I say that as a Sanders supporter. There's way too much "holier than thou" bickering from both sides...we support who we support, there's absolutely no reason to slam others a because they support a different candidate.
Response to jehop61 (Reply #4)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MADem
(135,425 posts)You aren't the teacher giving an assignment to the class. Cough up why you like your favorite candidate, and why you don't like your candidate's opponent, if you'd like, but don't go telling people to "fetch" your homework for you--that's also condescending and rude.
You have google, you can figure out the answers to your own questions with a few clicks--get busy!
Response to MADem (Reply #35)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MADem
(135,425 posts)You've basically said "fetch."
No one is going to do your homework for you. If you really "know what Clinton's issues are" and you really think you "know them well," then state what you believe them to be, rather than playing the Alex Trebek of DU.
No one died and left you boss. Discussions are a two way street. Opinions are compared and contrasted.
Right now, you're in demand mode, and you've brought absolutely nothing to the table. I heard you, all right, and find no reason to believe you are interested in actual discussion, based on your previous post.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)15 Fundamental Differences Between Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and The Republicans:
1. Sanders has served as an elected official for over 34 years. Clinton & most Republicans have not.
2. Sanders has supported gay rights since 40 years ago. Clinton and Republicans have not.
3. Sanders wants to end the prohibition of marijuana. Clinton & The Republicans do not.
4. Sanders wants to end the death penalty. Clinton and Th Republicans do not.
5. Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Clinton and the Republicans do not.
6. Sanders wants to break up the biggest banks. Clinton and The Republicans do not.
7. Sanders voted against the Wall Street bailout. Clinton and the Republicans (and too many "Democrats) did not.
8. Sanders introduced legislation to overturn Citizens United. Clinton and The Republicans did not.
9. Sanders refuses to accept money from super PACs. Clinton and the Republicans do not.
10. Sanders supports a single-payer healthcare system. Clinton and The Republicans do not.
11. Sanders refrains from waging personal attacks for political gains. Clinton and The Republicans do not.
12. Sanders considers climate change our nation's biggest threat. Clinton and The Republicans do not.
13. Sanders opposed the Keystone XL Pipeline since day one. Clinton and the Republicans do not.
14. Sanders voted against the Patriot Act. Clinton and the Republicans did not.
15. Sanders voted against the war in Iraq. Clinton and The Republicans did not.
Hillary sure seems to agree with Republicans a lot.
I don't,
that is why I am a Democrat, and voting for a Democrat....Bernie!
Response to bvar22 (Reply #61)
Name removed Message auto-removed
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)they just spin around and around without any progression . Sort of like their "chosen one " .
MADem
(135,425 posts)The fact that he was nuked means he was either a sock or a troll--or perhaps both.
Thanks, MIRT.
1. Hasn't done much in all those years. Otherwise more people would have heard of him.
2. He isn't telling the truth on that one, and that's been proven time and time again. He has NOT always 'been there.' http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html
3. Sanders needs Congress to do that, so it's an empty "promise." Clinton is smart enough to know that.
4. See response number three.
5. See response number three. All appropriations begin in the House. He has ZERO executive ability to make that happen.
6. See response number three. Again. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/warren-introduces-glass-steagall-bill-to-break-up-big-banks/article/2567757
7. That's nice.
8. That's nice. Tilting at windmills, there, but nice.
9. That's not true. There's a reason he took that Super Pac snark out of his stump speech, and the reason is Nurses United for Patient Protection. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/bernie-sanders-super-pac/420930/
10. The road to Single Payer goes through Congress. He can want pie and ice cream too--he ain't gonna get it. Response number 3 applies.
11. Sanders refrains, but Briggs and that comic book salesman do not. Oh, and they cheat. AND engage in bizarre conspiracy theory angles when they can't talk their way out of trouble.
12. And he's going to do ... WHAT... about it? Point and yell? He needs Congress there, too. Clinton, like Obama and Kerry, can walk/chew gum on this matter.
13. Clinton kept her mouth shut on Keystone because she didn't want to contravene her boss, who was ruminating on the matter. The minute she was free to speak, she did. Your accusation doesn't match her views.
14. Easy to vote against something that passes overwhelmingly--it's a faux 'protest vote' that makes absolutely no difference (and won't interfere with a warming relationship with the MICC).
15. Sanders voted to fund every single military authorization that he encountered. It's one thing to vote against a war when you know that vote won't matter, but he sure didn't vote to keep supplying that war with additional weaponry, to include all sorts of goodies from new found friends in the defense industry...he entered into a friendship with Lockheed Martin that is nothing short of snuggly.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)You actually consider that a reason to support Hillary? The only things she'll be able to get though the more republican congress she'll have is the things I don't spport. Bad 'trade' deals, keystone, etc....
MADem
(135,425 posts)What "revolution" might bring is a one-term, gridlocked hot mess, and a loss of standing on the world stage. Sanders has never once supported a Democrat for ANYTHING. He's never campaigned for one, never helped to fundraise or GOTV for one, he's never even done a lousy little robo-call for one.
He's never extended himself past his own interest. Not once.
It's why he can't round up a cohort of super-delegates to tout for him--he just doesn't return the favor, and hasn't for a third of a century in politics.
Sanders benefited from a donation to his first Senate campaign from .... Hillary Clinton. She isn't afraid to help elect more Democrats, and fewer Republicans, to public office.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)to move the pile in a constructive direction. We can't continue the failed crap of the last 30-40 years. I know you're looking forward to Congressional candidates running away from Hillary, but I'm praying we don't have to watch that.
MADem
(135,425 posts)new 'fame' to push from the left, right and center, if he wants to do that. He can be an ally to POTUS, but he can't be POTUS. He doesn't have the chops.
Not sure what that last sentence was all about, because it's simply not true. Sounds like a throwaway expression of pique.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)to get President tRump, good luck with that.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I'll be electing President Clinton--but you have a swell day, now, hear?
senz
(11,945 posts)I hope they read it.
bvf
(6,604 posts)and congratulations on already hitting a few sore points with at least one Clinton supporter, and eliciting the expected response.
(Gotta love it when someone comes back with "Don't lecture," and proceeds with a lecture, no?)
Response to bvf (Reply #45)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MADem
(135,425 posts)Enjoy the primary season!
bvf
(6,604 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)It's of no concern to me, your imagination notwithstanding.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Sure, whatever you say!
bvf
(6,604 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)American ground troop casualties, this time in Syria.
You'll get all the demonstration you like.
MADem
(135,425 posts)People don't "demonstrate" in that fashion anymore, at least not in a sustainable manner. They couldn't even keep up CAMPING, never mind actual MARCHING. The energy required to demonstrate every week, year in, year out, is just not present anymore. It's regarded as more meaningful to gather at Reddit and go click internet polls--that's "demonstrating," nowadays.
Imaginings that won't ever happen just aren't worth my time.
Off with the blinders already.
bvf
(6,604 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Perhaps you can provide a rationale for her speech and vote in support of Bush's Iraq war.
Perhaps you can provide a good reason for her vote against banning cluster bombs.
Perhaps you can explain why more H1B Visas would be good for American workers.
Perhaps you can explain why she pushed for fracking while SOS.
George II
(67,782 posts)....have supported over the last few decades?
Now I see, it's not unspecified campaign (and in some cases fictitious) trinkets, it's just another outlet to generate personal attacks.
Sorry, no matter how much you guys do this, Hillary Clinton WILL win the nomination (probably months before the convention)
MADem
(135,425 posts)Let's dig up old votes and stances that have evolved, and try to make something of them. Two can certainly play at that game, but what's the point?
Most people like candidates who grow and evolve. Consistency to some is rigidity to others. I, myself, like to see a little "growth" on the gun issue, particularly with regard to CONTROL, and I'm not seeing that from Sanders. That's not the only issue I have with him, but that is one of 'em.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)And if there is any country left after she plays general in the Mid East, we know exactly who to make sure fingers are pointed at, the people who would have been happy to let Hillary make as biog a mess as she wanted to because they feel some vague sense of getting "their turn" and or "at least this person will respect my middle class privilege." The solace of 2017 will consists of seeing all the die hard, ride or die Hillary supporters be entered into that most famous competition "who gets to go under the bus first?"
MADem
(135,425 posts)"She's gonna play GENERAL in the Mid EAST!!!!"
"We'll POINT FINGERS when she does~!!!"
And....and....you'll be UNDER THE BUS!!!"
More likely, her superb preparation for, and experience leading up to, her election as POTUS will stand her in excellent stead. She'll get us some decent Supreme Court justices who will push back against the Scalia-Alito-Thomas et.al. nightmare, and she'll embark on a practically progressive agenda that will Get Shit Done.
I'm looking forward to it.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Hillary Clinton is favored over Bernie Sanders. ONE will do.
George II
(67,782 posts)Just as this won't win the nomination or the election:
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)gordyfl
(598 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)What policy positions do you believe make her the best candidate?
Broward
(1,976 posts)Clearly, there are some who understand her positions and still support her. Many of these supporters are centrists or lean to the right.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)frankly, the OP was being kind.
tell me how you can support someone who will establish a $12 minimum wage when everyone is fighting and getting busted up for a measily $15. That is why no one can grasp the attraction to HRC. One of the many things we can't as dems get.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)her positions are. They don't know other than rhetoric. "She favors a better America".
Some support her because she is a tough authoritarian leader and they need that.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)1. They really, really want a woman President.
2. They really, really don't want a Republican President and feel Hillary has the best chance of beating them.
3. They're conservatives, but don't hate gays and minorities.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It's my opinion that many, many Americans have been raised to be authoritarians. It's so much easier to tell your children to do what they are told by authority and never question authority. It's a lot of work to raise children to think for themselves. It's so much easier for parents, teachers, coaches, bosses, military leaders, to lead with absolute authority. I will use the Catholic Church as an example because it's one of the most egregious. They teach their parishioners that the priests and higher authorities are deemed by God to be trusted completely. This is why parents continue to trust them with their children. This happens with teachers, coaches, etc. Very little training available to teach that authority should be always scrutinized and challenged. People look to the Establishment and HRC as the strong, tough authority that will take good care of them. To them freedom and liberties are sacrificed for what they think of as security. I think that most Republicons fit into this category as well as conservative Democrats.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)nyabingi
(1,145 posts)understand her right-wing policies - they just agree with them and that's the scary thing.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)I can't complain about the emoji though, Bernies got some too (and they're ADORBS)
shenmue
(38,506 posts)GD: Name-calling or GD: Anything You Don't Like. Sigh.
bvf
(6,604 posts)most people would call "using ordinary adjectives."
GMAFB. The OP makes perfect sense.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)She's all possible things to all possible people.
In other words: she ain't much.
sorechasm
(631 posts)The ultimate dodge.
'Wall Street is not going to love me.' BS
The ultimate leader.
djean111
(14,255 posts)"Vote for me because I am a woman!" and the amorphous "I want to be your champion!" and the very off-putting smug assumption that because I am a woman, I would of course vote for Hillary because she is also a woman. Really, that put the idea of feminism back quite a bit, IMO. Especially when the atmosphere at that time was that many of us wanted Liz Warren to run.
Did Hillary's campaign assume that those who wanted Warren only wanted Warren because she is a woman? And would switch support mindlessly, ignoring the very real policy and issues differences, when Warren said she was not running. That is insulting, and did not prove to be the case.
And now it seems that if one does not support Hillary, it is merely because one hates women, hates "strong" women, or, and I read this right here at DU, one has "Mommy issues". What a bunch of inept and condescending twaddle. At the same time, we are told that of course all the wimmen-folks will of course be voting for Hillary, cuz WOMAN. Um, nope.
They should never have even tried that angle, IMO. Not the assumption, not the insults, not the household items, not the cookies, not the long lists of "stuff Hillary has said". The emojis, as I have said, crack me up. Look like a little guy in overalls who is happy to see me. So0rry.
No, not the least bit warm and relatable, and joking about death makes me believe she would have no qualms about sending more of our soldiers to the Middle East, to kill and be killed, in order to look strong or to shore up the corporate interests.
Just no, on so many levels and for so many reasons.
The constant whine and drone of those demanding we pledge our fealty in spite of this is insulting, especially when the HEAD of the DNC quite openly supports her GOP buddies here in Florida.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)That we who supported Warren would mindlessly switch to her because she was a woman too...as if all we wanted was a woman and cared nothing about any policy or stuff like that.
But that quote you used, the "we came, we saw he died" did it for me...there is no way in hell I would support someone who thought like that and put them in a position that could endanger the whole world.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)for Bernie supporters to start echoing Donald Trump.
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-warns-clinton-careful-using-woman-card-163546216.html;_ylt=AwrC1CgISn1WwiAAgTvQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)because: although the DNC may be ignoring Bernie's campaign as much as possible, the GOP is not, especially Donald Trump, who is a lot smarter than people give him credit for.
The fact that he's a disgusting lecher and a proto-fascist are a totally different issues.
randr
(12,418 posts)The end of the status quo. Most American's are sick and tired of the same old same old. A private club has been operating in Washington dolling out favors for their friends and putting the rest of us at extreme risk.
This distrust is echoed by these two opposing forces in their respective party allegiance and some day they may both take a good look at who they are supporting and choose the one that will most likely get the job done. There are far more Trump supporters that would vote for Bernie than there are Bernie supporters who would vote for Trump.
This is what keeps the Donald up at night.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)at that one I only see Trump showing his ass, where are the Berners echoing his 'she better be careful'? I can't think of anyone here that would be so base, critical, sometimes really harsh, but not 'she better be careful'.
earthside
(6,960 posts)It is not anything about what Trump said or will say ... for the Hillarians and the Clinton campaign it is the same as eight years ago.
Hillary is 90 percent about "vote for me because I'm a woman".
Lords sake she is a center-right, multi-millionaire, elitist -- it is not about her policies as far as the Democratic Party is concerned.
And her candidacy is not just to have a woman President of the United States either, because there are plenty of much more liberal and progressive potential women candidates in the Party. It's about electing her because it is her turn ... and that is even more revolting to me.
TekGryphon
(430 posts)Cutsie condescension? Hillary emojis? Branding? Abuela?
You're right, Cali. This is a serious topic. I hope you and the other "I want my pony" progressives spend a LOT of time thinking about this.
I'm positive it'll move voters over to Bernie!
SCantiGOP
(13,881 posts)I have half of DU on Ignore, but it doesn't stop the new topics from showing up.
This will all be over after the SC primary.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)That doesn't mean it's not an observation worth discussing.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the drinking water of the 99%? Which issue would you rather discuss?
peacebird
(14,195 posts)As expected....
840high
(17,196 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)..."sexist". And except for "abuela" not a single specific example.
Many could post a similar thing about Sanders but are afraid to because it would get hidden in an NY minute.
Response to George II (Reply #20)
Post removed
cali
(114,904 posts)Ino
(3,366 posts)author, dog owner, hair icon, pantsuit aficionado, glass ceiling cracker, 2016 presidential candidate
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)First thought that popped into my head when I read your post, were lyrics from a song.
I can cast a spell, of secrets you can tell
Mix a special brew, put fire inside of you
Anytime you feel danger or fear
Then instantly I will appear 'cause
I'm every woman, it's all in me
Anything you want done, baby, I'll do it naturally
Whoa whoa whoa, whoa whoa whoa
I can sense your needs
Like rain unto the seeds
I can make a rhyme of confusion in your mind.......
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, then they wonder why so many people don't even bother to vote or take politics seriously.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)is when she's pandering.
There is almost nothing else to sink ones teeth into, except how unworkable and vaguely communist anything her opponent suggests is.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Yes, this was posted on DU and discussed seriously.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)she's the *radical* candidate, dont'cha know!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251944119
(on edit: how'd I guess it'd be Marcotte? it's either that or Valenti)
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)Every time Obama says even the slightest thing about race, right wingers call HIM racist. Which is just a way of deflecting from the fact that he comes from a group who has been subjected to centuries of oppression. Calling someone racist when he mentions race is a typical right wing move.
Same thing here. Just because someone is talking about sexism, and would occasionally mention that she would be the first female president, does not make her sexist. If you think that, then you don't understand what sexism is. And that kind of move is a right wing move, because it is a deflection from the fact that she as a woman has been subjected to things that a man never would have, and that she represents a part of humanity that has been subjugated for millennia, an a group within American society that did not even get the right to vote until LESS than a century ago. Criticism of her campaign is one thing, but calling someone sexist if she mentions sexism is a right wing move. I would have thought better of people on the left.
In short, criticize her use of gender in her campaign if you must. But labeling it sexist is just a sign of someone who has no clue what sexism is.
I wasn't going to write anything on Christmas, but this headline had my blood boiling.
cali
(114,904 posts)This observation has nothing to do with what she said, nor am arguing that she is biased. I am talking about a campaign tactic to appeal to women.
The only thing that's rightwing is your predictable imaginings. Hillary supporters claim all criticism of her and even of her campaign is right-wing.
It's ludicrous.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)The fact that you claim that it is, shows very clearly that you don't understand what sexism is.
And no, not all criticism of Hillary is sexist. Where did I say that? Indeed, I clearly said, criticize her by all means, but to call her campaign sexist is the same kind of move that right wingers make when they accuse Obama of racism.
Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)Use the candidate's strength as a bludgeon against them. It is a right wing tactic, as you observed
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)In fact the only thing keeping her campaign afloat is her gender. A man in favor of more war, for profit schools, for profit prisons, NAFTA, capital punishment, TPP, and xl, and who changed his mind on every issue whenever the wind changes, wouldn't stand a chance in the primary
jalan48
(13,931 posts)a conservative Wall Street Democrat that's a man?
senz
(11,945 posts)It IS insulting.
Renew Deal
(81,923 posts)We can't have female empowerment. What is she thinking.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The outrage widgets right after Christmas are always of lower quality.
No one wants to put in the hard work to create a high quality outrage widget.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)No matter what it is, though, I'd never think of Hillary as either warm or relatable even if she poses with puppies.
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.