Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:54 PM Mar 2015

I'm very sorry Hillary Clinton has a sad today.

She voted for the PATRIOT Act.

She voted for the Iraq War Resolution.

She is snuggled up good and tight with organized crime crews like Goldman Sachs that stole our future.

She got the Keystone XL pipeline ball rolling at the State Department.

Personal liberty...unjust war...Wall Street crime...climate change.

Gosh, seems to me those are the signal issues of our time...and every chance she's had to cast a vote or exert influence, she's gone in absolutely the wrong direction.

Now, it seems, she's disinterested in following the law when it comes to governmental data collection. A poster here who claims to have worked at State says it's because she's a Luddite working within a calcified bureaucratic technology, and she's just more comfortable with her Yahoo account, or whatever it is.

If the Bush administration had unspooled that line, this place would have erupted. And rightly so.

So maybe the trick isn't to try to elect the most "electable" Democrat. As Democrats, maybe the trick is to wrestle this party back from the abyss and rediscover a few DNA-level values.

Like protecting personal liberty...and avoiding unjust war...and holding Wall Street to account...and thwarting climate change.

I'm sorry she has a sad today, but my unavoidable conclusion is that Secretary Clinton - based on her black-letter record - does not strike me as the avatar for that change.

Oh, and P.S.: I'm not being divisive. This is the cold, hard truth. Deploy your coping mechanisms as you will. The facts are on the wall. Read them or don't; you're still free, for now.

Let the million flowers bloom.

298 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I'm very sorry Hillary Clinton has a sad today. (Original Post) WilliamPitt Mar 2015 OP
"it seems, she's disinterested in following the law when it comes to governmental data collection." wyldwolf Mar 2015 #1
The Federal Records Act. merrily Mar 2015 #108
Show me where that applies here wyldwolf Mar 2015 #205
Law or not, she did the EXACT SAME THING SARAH PALIN DID! HRC acted deceptively. TheBlackAdder Mar 2015 #203
Will, you have a gift. Thank you for your words. Autumn Mar 2015 #2
maybe you can swear her out just like you did Obama on the ACA still_one Mar 2015 #3
I remember that. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #5
I missed that... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #11
Trying to find it for you. Until then, here's another top 10 hit: wyldwolf Mar 2015 #28
ah, here we go wyldwolf Mar 2015 #31
It seems like a misreading of the ACA while not perfect has been a godsend to many people. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #40
Night and Day wyldwolf Mar 2015 #42
+1 Hekate Mar 2015 #58
When you run out of facts, is personal attack your default setting, ww? leveymg Mar 2015 #60
Interesting you think it's an attack. Will thinks it's evolution wyldwolf Mar 2015 #76
yea, lets make it personal G_j Mar 2015 #72
Which was? Will is happy that a fellow Democrat was unjustly smeared? dbackjon Mar 2015 #212
Evolution. WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #74
Obviously you don't accept what she wrote in her book. That could be considered evolution still_one Mar 2015 #87
It's posts like this that make me wish that "Oh, Snap" were still an "in" saying. merrily Mar 2015 #116
Disagree, but while we're at it, there's a whole slew of DUers who changed their stances on a dime cui bono Mar 2015 #179
EXCELLENT! grasswire Mar 2015 #224
a-fucking-men awoke_in_2003 Mar 2015 #284
+1. Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #82
Actually that was kind of a mea culpa. The original post was far worse still_one Mar 2015 #85
"maybe you can swear her out just like you did Obama" LondonReign2 Mar 2015 #79
As much as I disagree with you, Codeine Mar 2015 #95
Lol. I like your sense of humor still_one Mar 2015 #127
DUzy. nt awoke_in_2003 Mar 2015 #285
Swear her out of what? merrily Mar 2015 #112
I haven't heard that expression... one_voice Mar 2015 #171
And maybe you could comment on the OP rather than attempting to discredit the messenger, a tactic sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #201
Good plan! demwing Mar 2015 #268
Flawless LittleBlue Mar 2015 #4
Actually not. Like so much he puts out... Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #83
Seems that the facts bear out for Will. freebrew Mar 2015 #110
You know, there is a thread of truth in everything Limbaugh and O'Reilly say, too. Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #128
So I'm Limbaugh and O'Reilly now. WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #135
Paranoid much? Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #136
Anyone can read what you implied. Bugenhagen Mar 2015 #144
+1 The meme that left of center is more rightist than the center right is ludicrous on its face. merrily Mar 2015 #147
Does it faze you at all that Pitt has now been shown to be incredibly premature in passing judgment? Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #208
Odd reply to my Reply 147, which had zero to do with Hillary's emails. merrily Mar 2015 #210
Loaded question Bugenhagen Mar 2015 #220
Speaking of ass... Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #178
Well, YOU care, apparently demwing Mar 2015 #269
No, but I really enjoy throwing salt in the wounds. Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #278
So you're a troll? demwing Mar 2015 #288
Sweet jeebus. Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #289
look in the fucking mirror demwing Mar 2015 #290
There's a "fucking mirror"? Sounds kinky. Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #291
Oh my heart, it's breaking demwing Mar 2015 #293
...and Hitler, Putin luv'r. L0oniX Mar 2015 #231
And yet you didn't rebut it at all. n/t cui bono Mar 2015 #182
Oh, but I did Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #184
I was replying to your unsubstantive post that merely claimed bullshit. n/t cui bono Mar 2015 #197
Really, that was your response to Keystone? TiberiusB Mar 2015 #272
Opposition to Keystone is a symbolic gesture. Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #279
I'm not sure we can handle that much cognitive dissonance tularetom Mar 2015 #6
She ain't "our" nominee yet. merrily Mar 2015 #120
K and R bigwillq Mar 2015 #7
Oh, for heaven's sake nichomachus Mar 2015 #8
Pedantic mode on! jeff47 Mar 2015 #17
That's what they want you to think. nichomachus Mar 2015 #19
Utah Data Center was completed in May 2014 at a cost of $1.5 billion .... Go Vols Mar 2015 #157
Thank you for your service nichomachus Mar 2015 #177
Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational datacenter! TiberiusB Mar 2015 #275
Were you that dismissive of violating the Federal Records Act when Bushco did it? merrily Mar 2015 #148
Not to mention the scarier part of the post that is sayingn go ahead and break the law cui bono Mar 2015 #193
I assumed the post was at least half tongue in cheek. merrily Mar 2015 #198
P.S. Please post whatever nonsense, true or not, you must post to protect the anointed one merrily Mar 2015 #204
Wow! Schumer doesn't believe in Democratic primaries??? cui bono Mar 2015 #209
More rhan that, he admits that avoiding primaries has been official DSCC POLICY since 2005. merrily Mar 2015 #211
Yup. We get to vote on who TPTB allow us to vote on. cui bono Mar 2015 #222
Wow. Really? Ask the NSA for the emails??? cui bono Mar 2015 #191
What law did she break? dbackjon Mar 2015 #213
... cui bono Mar 2015 #216
Be specific. And use real source dbackjon Mar 2015 #233
Follow the link provided. cui bono Mar 2015 #234
No they were not dbackjon Mar 2015 #236
I believe alot of Hillary supporters olddots Mar 2015 #9
Give her a break! I bet she was just "sleep deprived." n/t RufusTFirefly Mar 2015 #35
What mistake? Most of them are simply supporting the anointee of the Democratic Party. merrily Mar 2015 #149
Flowers blooming are always helped along by sowing turds. And white hat/black hat logic. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #10
So tell me... WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #14
Demanding comment board answers...no reply?..declaring victory! Save you the trouble..you win. White hat, always. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #18
Mutually exclusive thinking is stinking thinking. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #21
Exactly my point...nuance invites debate, choosing hats invites prattle and turd flinging. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #26
Never stand in front of someone with an ideological axe to grind./NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #32
Does not concern me much, cyber-axes are blunt instruments. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #34
I would be a hypocrite, at least in my own mind, if I held ... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #36
How does that explain her betrayal via selling the Bush lies? rhett o rick Mar 2015 #47
And how many of them are willing to step into the fray and challenge her? Fla Dem Mar 2015 #75
There were quite a few last time. Why do you think no one will now? cui bono Mar 2015 #186
I don't know that there'll be no one. That's my point. Who's it going to be that will Fla Dem Mar 2015 #246
Why do I need to have the alternative handy? If I don't, does that mean it has to be HC? cui bono Mar 2015 #249
I agree, would love to see the conversation shift more to the left, but Fla Dem Mar 2015 #281
Does she have your vote? WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #27
Is there an election? Let me get out my calendar...nope, none on my calendar. What about yours? Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #33
Pretty slick with those tap shoes. WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #37
Thank you, I keep them in tune. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #38
if she runs and wins the primary, does she have yours? I am truly curious. uppityperson Mar 2015 #55
I honestly don't know. WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #70
There is not rtracey Mar 2015 #88
That is not really the correct definition but instead an Einstein quote. Insanity is uppityperson Mar 2015 #146
It's not an Einstein quote, either. Could be Rita Mae Brown. greyl Mar 2015 #262
huh. I was wrong and learned something here today. Thanks for the info. uppityperson Mar 2015 #263
It's funny, greyl Mar 2015 #298
You had no problem voting for John Kerry, the pro IWR and Patriot Act senator from Massachusetts DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #237
Gawd, I hate to break it to you, but the President is elected by the Electoral College. Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #253
You lost me... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #255
How Will voted in 2004 didn't matter, Massachusetts was a blue state that was going to vote for Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #256
What matters is he is criticizing someone for behavior he countenanced for another./NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #257
Will is older and wiser now. What's the problem? Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #260
Eleven years in the life of a quinquagenarian makes one older and wiser? DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #270
Yes. 11 years can be a long time for some quinquagenarians. Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #294
I will never countenance hypocrisy.Like Christ I would rather suffer the cross./NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #295
Your 04 candidate John Kerry voted for the IWR, the Patriot Act and Citi and Goldman Sachs... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #239
Yes, but this is different because.. Cha Mar 2015 #252
Lol, nice try, we have higher standard, well, maybe not some of us! nt Logical Mar 2015 #140
The only thing sadder would be a President Cruz, Jeb Bush etc dbackjon Mar 2015 #12
You're not supposed to trot out that turd of an argument until October 2016. n/t nichomachus Mar 2015 #16
..which will be the ONLY argument by then. radiclib Mar 2015 #45
That used to be a big concern for me LiberalLovinLug Mar 2015 #119
If you don't think there would be a difference in a Clinton appointee or a Republcan appointee dbackjon Mar 2015 #122
She hasn't even announced yet, let alone won both the nomination and the general. merrily Mar 2015 #126
Agreed - but that still doesn't stop a good portion of DU dbackjon Mar 2015 #139
Nor does it stop a different portion of DU from posting as though she already won the nomination. merrily Mar 2015 #141
She is the front runner if she declares dbackjon Mar 2015 #161
But you were discussing her SCOTUS nominations, not her her positions. merrily Mar 2015 #162
Its still a concern LiberalLovinLug Mar 2015 #241
Great argument for next year around this time, but very premature before the primary even begins. merrily Mar 2015 #123
I'm a Luddite myself.... Indepatriot Mar 2015 #13
Not only did she not know about the Texas Two Step, but she was "savvy" enough to announce that to merrily Mar 2015 #131
To my knowledge Shrum did not work for Clinton - her top person at first was Patti Solis Doyle karynnj Mar 2015 #165
Thanks, karenny, but I did link to a wiki article that covered Doyle, Williams, Penn, et al. merrily Mar 2015 #166
I brought up the other things to suggest that Shrum was trying to demonstrate in karynnj Mar 2015 #173
As I said in my prior post, Shrum was an OT aside to begin with. Sorry, but I am not going down merrily Mar 2015 #175
I stand corrected about Shrum heading her campaign. Indepatriot Mar 2015 #261
I think that she H2O Man Mar 2015 #15
"It's OK, because a Republican did it. But it's not OK if Republicans do it. But it's OK, because Dreamer Tatum Mar 2015 #23
I don't think the Luddite explanation holds water, because it was a new domain Yo_Mama Mar 2015 #20
Luddites can employ technologically savvy people. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2015 #25
If she's a Luddite* she sure keeps that phone handy in her world wide travels. Autumn Mar 2015 #41
A blackberry does not make one technologically savvy. jeff47 Mar 2015 #43
I think that the claim is that she isn't tech savvy is just silly IMO. Autumn Mar 2015 #50
People have different measures of "savvy". jeff47 Mar 2015 #53
I don't get why using one kind of email account is easier than using another. merrily Mar 2015 #132
Well, it wasn't even what she was used to using, so???? Yo_Mama Mar 2015 #159
I ain't buying the Luddite thing, that's for sure. merrily Mar 2015 #160
I don't believe clinton is uncomfortable with email. she's an intelligent woman and not that ND-Dem Mar 2015 #219
Note that account was hacked yet she continued to use it. leveymg Mar 2015 #265
Who says she's sad? randome Mar 2015 #22
And people say I'm overly literal. merrily Mar 2015 #134
"a nice warm purple space where we're trying to solve problems." The Onion? No. NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #24
"..Clinton must be tempted to forego any genuflecting to progressives." KoKo Mar 2015 #64
A Wall Street Journal article about all the financial advisors her campaign has hired so far to merrily Mar 2015 #138
the K and the R... mike_c Mar 2015 #29
Well, okay then. I'm sure you'll like the results a whole lot when you decide to stay home on calimary Mar 2015 #30
And now she's pals with Henry Kissinger, the same creep who Cleita Mar 2015 #39
I am sorry for what happened in Chile, Cleita. johnnyreb Mar 2015 #137
Not only now. merrily Mar 2015 #145
One could write a similar post about President Obama guillaumeb Mar 2015 #44
Yes, I get it. Maedhros Mar 2015 #61
you do not get my point guillaumeb Mar 2015 #67
LOL the only people I notice being divisive are the ones saying we should not be divisive. Rex Mar 2015 #46
I guess Scott Walker would make a better choice. denbot Mar 2015 #48
OMG REPUBLICANS YOU GUYS WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #49
I'd prefer Saunders, Biden, and if Warren were running she would top my list. denbot Mar 2015 #57
Either you're incredibly ignorant of the facts or were too lazy to check them... brooklynite Mar 2015 #63
Social issues? sendero Mar 2015 #242
Funny, I was told that she ALWAYS voted with the Republicans... brooklynite Mar 2015 #243
Hillary=Democrat daredtowork Mar 2015 #99
2000 and 2004 were both stolen elections so maybe you should try a better canard. Rex Mar 2015 #51
Your damn right they were stolen, and now they are history. denbot Mar 2015 #69
No one is rejecting a Democratic candidate in the general. You keep glossing over the fact cui bono Mar 2015 #195
and what happened in 2004 when Conyers investigated the election? Mnpaul Mar 2015 #229
Typical hillary supporter, we need hillary to beat the GOP, lol! nt Logical Mar 2015 #143
Hmm... so we're not having a Democratic Primary any more? cui bono Mar 2015 #194
In fairness, she has not yet run on a platform of change. Orsino Mar 2015 #52
I'd be impressed with this 'scandal' if it had anything at all to do with any of those complaints bigtree Mar 2015 #54
I believe the Bushies did far far worse than anything they are accusing Hillary of. Enthusiast Mar 2015 #55
You really think Obama single-handedly is responsible for all post-Bush-era consequences? randome Mar 2015 #66
The only Argument for Hillary Rilgin Mar 2015 #59
is inevitability. n/t leveymg Mar 2015 #62
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #65
Then of course, there is the real story... stevenleser Mar 2015 #68
That explains the IWR vote, the PATRIOT Act, Keystone and Goldman Sachs? WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #73
Yep, it does. stevenleser Mar 2015 #78
that is one lame list Bugenhagen Mar 2015 #154
Calling Civil Rights, Voting Rights and reproductive rights 'wedge issues' is very 2003 Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #167
Oh my God, I am running to high five your post! Number23 Mar 2015 #199
I doubt we could be any more in agreement on any issues than on those you list Bugenhagen Mar 2015 #218
To a white heterosexual everything civil rights related is a wedge issue./NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #238
If I could rec your post I would. emulatorloo Mar 2015 #258
Lol, gullible much? No wonder fox keeps inviting you back! nt Logical Mar 2015 #105
Now that's a WPitt post I can rec. Dawgs Mar 2015 #71
Not a Hillary fan, but I'll rec this thread when hell freezes over. Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #84
Why? n/t Dawgs Mar 2015 #89
Couple of reasons. One rational, one personal. Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #92
well rtracey Mar 2015 #77
Welcome to the Democratic version of the Tea Party Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #80
and those who think it is okay to poison our food supply and hopemountain Mar 2015 #163
More hysteria. Christ, Pitt. I hope you are reading this with glee. More attention for you. Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #180
why are you attacking me? hopemountain Mar 2015 #287
Not allowing criticism is the same thing, worse actually, because it takes our party farther right. cui bono Mar 2015 #190
I guess it boils down to whether or not you agree with him. I don't. n/t Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #200
You'll vote for her in the end alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #81
Already giving her the nom, huh? Dawgs Mar 2015 #91
Ha! alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #96
I do believe your post just cost her some votes Android3.14 Mar 2015 #217
ROFL alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #225
I dunno, kid Android3.14 Mar 2015 #226
Give Democrats somebody else to vote for and they will. AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #106
Sure you will alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #117
No, I won't. AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #118
You are correct on all points, as usual, WilliamPitt. joanbarnes Mar 2015 #86
You don't understand Will, she had to get a new account Capt. Obvious Mar 2015 #90
More Negative Hateful Spin on Democrats Cryptoad Mar 2015 #93
when they do stuff you, I or we disagree, we should just neverforget Mar 2015 #189
Bah, humbug and all that other stuff! juajen Mar 2015 #94
Yep. Very sad. Tsk. Tsk. Millionaire politician suffers embarrassment. Tragic. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #97
I couldn't agree more. Mr. Mustard Mar 2015 #98
In light of this, I'm going to have to reconsider you, William, as someone to ignore, lol! closeupready Mar 2015 #100
Like little flowers' terrific feelings for it, Young Guy. Octafish Mar 2015 #101
Won't somebody please call her a KamaAina Mar 2015 #102
Thank you. Sheelanagig Mar 2015 #103
"I'm not being divisive." "This is the cold, hard truth." asjr Mar 2015 #104
If you Honestly think that a post on DU would cause someone who believes Mrs. Clinton Indepatriot Mar 2015 #124
You may keep your bridge. That is a very juvenile response. I did not mention Mrs. Clinton in my asjr Mar 2015 #133
Bravo, Will. Bravissimo! hifiguy Mar 2015 #107
Spot on. Thank you. AtomicKitten Mar 2015 #109
Why this story is even worse than it appears dissentient Mar 2015 #111
good article, thanks. MBS Mar 2015 #232
Kick and Rec Myrina Mar 2015 #113
Here we go again. George II Mar 2015 #114
lol rosesaylavee Mar 2015 #115
the Mark Rich pardon alone should disqualify her from consideration Adenoid_Hynkel Mar 2015 #121
K&R! Carolina Mar 2015 #125
"If the Bush administration had unspooled that line, this place would have erupted. And rightly so." hootinholler Mar 2015 #129
Hillary aside, one line inyour post alone ought to earn it some sort of immortality: Jackpine Radical Mar 2015 #130
I am with you on this one... NT Left coast liberal Mar 2015 #142
My vote counts and I am voting! maggies farm Mar 2015 #150
Way to go, there, Will. Pile on. MineralMan Mar 2015 #151
Tell me about how you supported the war. WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #155
I'm not telling you anything, Will. MineralMan Mar 2015 #169
Shoving words in people's mouths? I thought you were better than that. emulatorloo Mar 2015 #259
Bread. Bobbie Jo Mar 2015 #158
Honesty deserves a few flowers.... daleanime Mar 2015 #152
Daily Beast proved the story is not true. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #153
Ooops. Looks like someone got punked by the NYT. McCamy Taylor Mar 2015 #156
Yes - William Pitt and the rest of the Hillary Haters dbackjon Mar 2015 #214
Will is rarely right Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2015 #282
are you calling the poster a liar? Duppers Mar 2015 #164
No WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #170
Thanks! Duppers Mar 2015 #192
+1 -- on all aspects of your post. Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #181
. stonecutter357 Mar 2015 #168
The Republican candidate would... Mike Nelson Mar 2015 #172
Will Pitt - you are ALWAYS divisive MaggieD Mar 2015 #174
Hillary Clinton is not "my people" WilliamPitt Mar 2015 #185
Let's be clear then MaggieD Mar 2015 #221
This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Mar 2015 #240
No - it reads mostly of repub talking points MaggieD Mar 2015 #247
But, would you buy a used car from her? Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #248
I wouldn't buy a used car from ANY politician MaggieD Mar 2015 #273
+1 Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #207
It WASN'T the law when she was Sec State MaggieD Mar 2015 #176
K&R for pissing off all the right people! Rex Mar 2015 #183
k&R Thespian2 Mar 2015 #187
And while you are wrestling the party back from the abyss, what happens to the Women randys1 Mar 2015 #188
Coming to bat... NotHardly Mar 2015 #196
Always ready to believe the worst. stonecutter357 Mar 2015 #202
Sad, What? She's having a GREAT evening however. Anxious to hear her speak at the Emilys List Honor misterhighwasted Mar 2015 #206
HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! WillyT Mar 2015 #215
So yo Clinton had a bad day? William Pitt has forced me to think about who Jeb Bush will name to Sarcastica Mar 2015 #223
oy vey. Not that shit again. 840high Mar 2015 #227
^^^this^^^ L0oniX Mar 2015 #230
How dare you defy the will of the pragmatic centrists! L0oniX Mar 2015 #228
This message was self-deleted by its author Autumn Mar 2015 #235
Except that the law did not apply until after she left office eridani Mar 2015 #244
You're correct. She did the same as Colin Powell. wolfie001 Mar 2015 #283
Jesus, Pitt. You're ahead of the news cycle again. Beausoir Mar 2015 #245
TRUTH. blkmusclmachine Mar 2015 #250
She's not a control freak, Will - she's merely a control enthusiast! bullwinkle428 Mar 2015 #251
Shorter OP "Benghazi!" geek tragedy Mar 2015 #254
The resultant ass covering scramble from the custodial team whereisjustice Mar 2015 #264
197 people give her good friends a sadz. You think they take applications at the State department? Rex Mar 2015 #266
You ARE being divisive. MADem Mar 2015 #267
I agree DesertDiamond Mar 2015 #271
"Because there's not a dime's worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush" greenman3610 Mar 2015 #274
Sure makes one wonder why the NYT went with a story knowing it wasn't Historic NY Mar 2015 #276
Spot on! Bravo WilliamPitt! n/t Buenaventura Mar 2015 #277
"I'm very sorry Hillary Clinton has a sad today" amuse bouche Mar 2015 #280
K&R. In 2016 a lot of DUers will have to go to polls mylye2222 Mar 2015 #286
K & R Owl Mar 2015 #292
kick woo me with science Mar 2015 #296
kick woo me with science Mar 2015 #297

wyldwolf

(43,874 posts)
1. "it seems, she's disinterested in following the law when it comes to governmental data collection."
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:57 PM
Mar 2015

What law?

she's just more comfortable with her Yahoo account, or whatever it is.


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. A private email address is more secure than a free one. I've set up private accounts that would be extremely difficult to hack. Yahoo accounts are quite simple to get into.

TheBlackAdder

(28,267 posts)
203. Law or not, she did the EXACT SAME THING SARAH PALIN DID! HRC acted deceptively.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:33 PM
Mar 2015


There is NO difference in the motices between Sarah Palin's use of private emails and HRC's.

HRC even saw the crap that Palin went through using them (I wonder if she even commented on it?) and, instead of deing disuaded, chose to follow Palin's lead--so she could control the content and document destruction.


===

Yet, no one knows how secure that account was, what's Yahoo's internal practices (not what they say, but what they do) regarding these accounts, who else hacked into her account (like Palin's), etc.. A foreign country might have detected his account and hacked into it--and no one would be the wiser.

HRC placed confidential emails in the hands of a 'free' email system that might have jeopardized the USA.

It was stupid... and the only justification for this was to be deceptive.

Autumn

(45,120 posts)
2. Will, you have a gift. Thank you for your words.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:57 PM
Mar 2015

They are a gift to me and others.

Now I'm gonna sit here and watch because you just hurt the feelings of those who are still not over your last righteous rant. BRACE YOURSELF

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,719 posts)
40. It seems like a misreading of the ACA while not perfect has been a godsend to many people.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:32 PM
Mar 2015

It seems like a misreading of the ACA while not perfect has been a godsend to many people, including me.

The abundance of recommends are chilling but not unexpected.

wyldwolf

(43,874 posts)
42. Night and Day
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:34 PM
Mar 2015

The Will Pitt of 2001 - 2007 vs. Will Pitt 2008 - present is like night and day. Almost two different people.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
60. When you run out of facts, is personal attack your default setting, ww?
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:02 PM
Mar 2015

You're on that line, and moving over it here.

wyldwolf

(43,874 posts)
76. Interesting you think it's an attack. Will thinks it's evolution
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:14 PM
Mar 2015


You've probably been waiting for the perfect time to use my line. I guess you'll have to keep waiting.

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
179. Disagree, but while we're at it, there's a whole slew of DUers who changed their stances on a dime
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:48 PM
Mar 2015

in 2008.

Topics:

NSA spying on American citizens
warrantless wiretapping
whistleblowers
Wall Street execs appointed to the White House
Drones

The list goes on.

But it's clear why they changed. Whether or not Will changed is up for debate, but when I read his posts they are based on policy, not a person.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
201. And maybe you could comment on the OP rather than attempting to discredit the messenger, a tactic
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:32 PM
Mar 2015

has grown here to a frightening degree, apparently the last resort when there really is no denying the facts??

There ARE some issues that are way, way more important than a few words on an internet forum. Well to most of us I suppose.

 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
268. Good plan!
Wed Mar 4, 2015, 08:59 AM
Mar 2015

she certainly deserves it.

Maybe you could address the message instead of the messenger?

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
128. You know, there is a thread of truth in everything Limbaugh and O'Reilly say, too.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:22 PM
Mar 2015

Is it 100% factual? Is the context perfect? No hyberbole or wild extrapolations?

It's clear you and I will disagree...

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
136. Paranoid much?
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:47 PM
Mar 2015

Read it again.

I was not implying you were acting like Limbaugh and O'Reilly ... until your comment to me. Nice self indulgence, Rush.

Bugenhagen

(151 posts)
144. Anyone can read what you implied.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:56 PM
Mar 2015

Why would you run from it on an anonymous discussion board? Unless it made you feel like an ass.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
147. +1 The meme that left of center is more rightist than the center right is ludicrous on its face.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:04 PM
Mar 2015

At about the same time that the Koch Brothers donated to the DLC and sat on its Executive Council, they conceived of the Tea Party. One was a rightest faction within the Democratic Party; the other would come to be a rightist faction within the Republican Party. However, the establishment of the Republican Party had the sense to fight their right wing faction. Democrats allowed their right wing faction to take over and transform the Party.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
208. Does it faze you at all that Pitt has now been shown to be incredibly premature in passing judgment?
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:41 PM
Mar 2015

Just curious.

Bugenhagen

(151 posts)
220. Loaded question
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:39 PM
Mar 2015

I understand what you mean, but answering the question head on implies agreeing with the "incredibly premature" part.

Personally I don't care what email government officials use as long as it is open to FOIAs and public archiving. In the Bush white house, IIRC, staffers and officials were given privately supplied "off of radar" laptops to use with unofficial email addresses and so forth. We weren't angry because they broke the 2014 law. We were angry because we didn't trust them to not hide all kinds of nefarious skullduggery by bypassing official email. I think it is safe to say that the republicans are going to accuse Mrs. Clinton of N.S. as well.

To me that is the same issue as Hillary's unofficial email use. I.e. now a private party gets to decide what gets turned over in a records search, which leads to the "missing minutes on the Nixon tapes" scenario.

To me, the things done by our government in our names must be available to the public. If national security is an issue, a FOIA can be denied, but at least the record is there in case a later president changes his mind or 100 years go by or whatever. But I am skeptical when any public servant has the ability to erase the past.

So from my perspective (if you'll allow me to paraphrase your question my own way), this is an issue and I think it needs to be discussed. The republicans are going to use it against her, so even if you are a Hillary supporter you ought to want to be out front discussing it and putting it to bed, if you can, before she announces her candidacy.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
178. Speaking of ass...
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:47 PM
Mar 2015

Why are you speaking for Pitt? Do you feel he's incapable?

And I DID NOT compare Pitt to Limbaugh or O'Reilly other than his selective use of the truth.

If you and your baby bird feel that I have somehow harmed Pitt's fragile ego, well ... who really cares?

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
289. Sweet jeebus.
Wed Mar 4, 2015, 04:14 PM
Mar 2015

Too many people at this place just jump in anywhere making dorky statements out of context and think that's the equivalent of being profound.

 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
290. look in the fucking mirror
Wed Mar 4, 2015, 05:40 PM
Mar 2015

I've had it with people who "really enjoy throwing salt in the wounds" and think that doing so somehow ads a measure of quality to the discourse.

If you can't see that this is the behavior of a troll, then not only are you trolling, but you're oblivious to your own negativity.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
291. There's a "fucking mirror"? Sounds kinky.
Wed Mar 4, 2015, 08:40 PM
Mar 2015

Listen, pal -- you injected yourself in the middle of a conversation with a snarky comment, and you want me to "add a measure of quality to the discourse"? I see -- do as I say, not as I do.

And calling people trolls is a big, fucking violation of DU rules -- not to mention a huge dose of outrageous hypocrisy on your part. If I were a run-of-the-mill DU prick, I'd alert this. But, I'll leave that to you.

 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
293. Oh my heart, it's breaking
Wed Mar 4, 2015, 10:07 PM
Mar 2015

every one of your posts in this thread is slathered in snark. You admit you like to piss people off, but I make a comment and suddenly you're all "listen, pal-- you interjected yourself" as if DU were your private venue

You can troll all you like, but expect to catch hell now and then.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
184. Oh, but I did
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:55 PM
Mar 2015
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6305719

My comments deal only with Keystone, but a rebuttal is a rebuttal.

I don't blame you for not finding it. Pitt generated such shitstorm with his little turd bomb that no one is reading the whole thread.

TiberiusB

(490 posts)
272. Really, that was your response to Keystone?
Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:57 AM
Mar 2015

Your exact words:

My favorite is Keystone -- the make-believe problem. The two most ridiculous aspects: a) Keystone will add about 1% to the domestic, total length of petroleum pipeline and b) the filthy shit the Canadians are ripping from the ground will be (and is) part of the global petroleum market no matter what sort of empty, symbolic gesture we make.

Your rebuttal amounted to "get over Keystone, it ain't that bad and even if it is, if it ain't us, it will be somebody else".

In other words, be fine with Democrats that do nothing, or worse, actively encourage the destruction of the environment.

Nice.

http://www.tarsandsblockade.org/about-2/why-oppose-kxl/
 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
279. Opposition to Keystone is a symbolic gesture.
Wed Mar 4, 2015, 11:00 AM
Mar 2015

Nothing more.

Spend your energy and contributions (assuming you put your money where your mouth is) on something that will make a difference.

Keystone is just another Tea Party Moment for progressives.

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
6. I'm not sure we can handle that much cognitive dissonance
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:00 PM
Mar 2015

A party platform that advocates all the good stuff you cite and a nominee who, at one time or another, has actively opposed every item on the list.

It's been hard at times coming to grips with it in the Obama era, it will be orders of magnitude harder with Clinton as our nominee.

nichomachus

(12,754 posts)
8. Oh, for heaven's sake
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:04 PM
Mar 2015

All they have to do is ask the NSA for copies of all her emails. You know they are all in the data center in (I said Utah, but I've been corrected -- thank you) wherever they're storing all your, my, and Hillary's emails.

Or, they could just ask Bibi for copies. I'd be very surprised if Israel didn't have them. Very surprised.

Or maybe Putin, except he's probably not speaking to us right now.

Or we could ask the Germans, British Intelligence, the French -- in fact any major power.

And, as a last resort, Anonymous.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
17. Pedantic mode on!
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:15 PM
Mar 2015
All they have to do is ask the NSA for copies of all her emails. You know they are all in the data center in Utah.

The datacenter in Utah is still under construction.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled snark.

nichomachus

(12,754 posts)
19. That's what they want you to think.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:17 PM
Mar 2015


Well, you know they're storing them somewhere. The data isn't on a bunch of flash drives in a big cardboard box under Obama's desk. And they have lots of it.

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
193. Not to mention the scarier part of the post that is sayingn go ahead and break the law
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:14 PM
Mar 2015

because Big Brother's got everything it needs anyway.

DU gets scarier every damn day.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
198. I assumed the post was at least half tongue in cheek.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:22 PM
Mar 2015

NSA is supposedly protecting us from terrorist attacks. Having to dig through billions of emails to isolate Hillary's public business emails would be a distraction from their vital mission, no? I didn't think anyone would seriously suggest excusing Hillary from the law because, given enough manpower, the NSA can drop everything else and come up with Hillary's emails.

Besides, are we really sure the NSA has hers?

Wasn't there some flap when Merkel was supposedly shocked to learn that her personal phone was being surveilled and not just her German Government phones? Hmmmm.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
204. P.S. Please post whatever nonsense, true or not, you must post to protect the anointed one
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:35 PM
Mar 2015

from DU's looney left and its even loonier conspiracy theory that the DNC has been trying to avoid a primary challenge to Hillary, and most especially to avoid a primary challenge from the anointed one's left.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/chuck-schumer-elizabeth-warren-2016-elections-99869.html#ixzz3TAVO0MoF

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
209. Wow! Schumer doesn't believe in Democratic primaries???
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:47 PM
Mar 2015

Jesus.

So it's not just DUers who think there shouldn't be a primary.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
211. More rhan that, he admits that avoiding primaries has been official DSCC POLICY since 2005.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 07:01 PM
Mar 2015
“When I took over the [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] in 2005, we instituted a new policy, we tried to avoid primaries, because primaries are really a killer,” Schumer said Thursday at The Atlantic’s Washington Ideas Forum.


I wonder if he copied that from Rahm's stint as head of the DCCC?

So much for silly illusions of democracy.

I wish I had a nickel for every time some DUer or another told us to find our own wealthy candidates to run and insisted everything the Party does is a product of things that happen naturally and organically.

You know, just a lack of "electable" candidates with enough millions to finance their own campaign (!) coming forward, etc. No one discouraging anyone, etc. I knew it had to be bs every time it was posted to me, but it's nice to have a link isn't it? We have one Manny Goldstein to thank for this link.

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
222. Yup. We get to vote on who TPTB allow us to vote on.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:44 PM
Mar 2015

And they seem to REALLY want us to vote for Hillary.

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
191. Wow. Really? Ask the NSA for the emails???
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:13 PM
Mar 2015

So everyone, go ahead, break the law, it's fine because Big Brother has got the goods on you anyway.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
149. What mistake? Most of them are simply supporting the anointee of the Democratic Party.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:08 PM
Mar 2015

Therefore, she is blameless in all things, including this.

Violation of law? No problem. It's probably a foolish law. Besides, as I just read in a post on this thread, the NSA has her emails.

So, in all. Nothing to see here. Tempest in a Tea Pot Dome.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
10. Flowers blooming are always helped along by sowing turds. And white hat/black hat logic.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:08 PM
Mar 2015

Set up your armed camps, folks, pick your hat and let the simian play begin.

Corporate media knows exactly how predictable left wing politics can be.

 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
14. So tell me...
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:12 PM
Mar 2015

Do you support the PATRIOT Act?

Did you support the Iraq war?

Do you support Wall Street crime run rampant?

Where are you on Keystone and tar sands oil?

...what color hat are you wearing?

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
18. Demanding comment board answers...no reply?..declaring victory! Save you the trouble..you win. White hat, always.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:15 PM
Mar 2015

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
26. Exactly my point...nuance invites debate, choosing hats invites prattle and turd flinging.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:20 PM
Mar 2015

Personality over policy, a lot of pundits make a living on the Two Armed Camps approach, each weaponized with....nothing at all.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,719 posts)
36. I would be a hypocrite, at least in my own mind, if I held ...
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:29 PM
Mar 2015

fundamentalist Jews
fundamentalist Christians
fundamentalist Muslims
fundamentalist right wingers
fundamentalist left wingers


to different standards...


If somebody tells me they have it all figured out I'm running.


 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
47. How does that explain her betrayal via selling the Bush lies?
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:39 PM
Mar 2015

You know we have Democrats that don't have her baggage.

Fla Dem

(23,919 posts)
75. And how many of them are willing to step into the fray and challenge her?
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:14 PM
Mar 2015

I'm serious. Give us a good Democratic challenger that has the ability to win the Presidential election. For those that continue to hold on to the hope Elizabeth Warren will run, that just isn't happening. So who? Joe Biden? Bernie Sanders? Martin O'Malley? Jim Webb? Please tell me which of them are more progressive than HRC and if they won the primary could win the general. I would love to see them all run, just so she would be challenged and perhaps be forced more to the left. My concern is the General election.

I like Hillary. Am I in-sync with all the positions she had taken........No. But if I have a choice between Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, or Jeb Bush, by God Hillary will get my vote. There's too much at stake (like Supreme Court appointments) to give the White House to the Republicans.

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
186. There were quite a few last time. Why do you think no one will now?
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:56 PM
Mar 2015

Why does anyone think she has to be the next candidate? I'm tired of her being shoved in my face. It only makes me want her less, if that is at all possible.

Fla Dem

(23,919 posts)
246. I don't know that there'll be no one. That's my point. Who's it going to be that will
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:38 PM
Mar 2015

be a more acceptable candidate for those that are against HRC. It fine bashing her, if that serves a purpose, but who do you suggest as an alternative? And will that alternative have a chance in the general?

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
249. Why do I need to have the alternative handy? If I don't, does that mean it has to be HC?
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:28 PM
Mar 2015

That's a disingenuous question/requirement I hear on here all the time.

And even if Warren or Sanders don't have a chance to win - and I don't concede that point - having them in the race will shift the conversation to the left where it needs to be.

Fla Dem

(23,919 posts)
281. I agree, would love to see the conversation shift more to the left, but
Wed Mar 4, 2015, 11:35 AM
Mar 2015

all the wishing for a candidate left of Hillary isn't going to make it so. And it's not a disingenuous question or requirement. I'm seriously asking you if not Hillary, who in the Democratic party can we support that has some chance of winning the general. After all it is all about winning. I don't want some "they make me feel good" left leaning nominee to run in the general and lose just so we can say we stuck to our principles. Yes we may have won the battle, but we lost the war.

Secondly it is sort of a requirement to have a candidate in the race in order to win said race so yeah, you sorta do have to have an alternative if you don't want HRC. Or else just don't bother voting at all.

uppityperson

(115,681 posts)
55. if she runs and wins the primary, does she have yours? I am truly curious.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:52 PM
Mar 2015

If she becomes the Democratic nominee, who will you vote for?

 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
70. I honestly don't know.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:10 PM
Mar 2015

My pattern has been to be confronted with the wild swirling eyeballs of the GOP nominee, swallow my bile, and pull the 'D' lever...

...but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

The results of my voting habits - always vote, and always vote 'D' - are not inspiring, to say the least.

So I don't know. The 'D' legislative slate will get my vote straight down the line. For president, I may write in Fozzie Bear, or Hunter Thompson, or Who, because he's on first.

Wakka wakka.

 

rtracey

(2,062 posts)
88. There is not
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:28 PM
Mar 2015

There is not going to be change as long as there is just a 2 party system in this country. True liberal democrats are not the majority in our party. Many of us are liberal, but we also have too many blue dogs, moderates, ultras and socialists. Right now, March 3, 2015...do you see any democrat out there that can with this upcoming election besides Clinton? I don't....now, yes we are still a good year and some away, and no democrat has even began to form their circle the wagons approach to politics like CPAC, and such, but the democrats who may run are not the answer. My thinking is maybe the "D" lever is better then the Jeb Bush, Chris Cristy, Ben Carson lever....."For president, I may write in Fozzie Bear, or Hunter Thompson, or Who, because he's on first." jest.....I'm sure but that will kill us in November 2016

uppityperson

(115,681 posts)
146. That is not really the correct definition but instead an Einstein quote. Insanity is
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:00 PM
Mar 2015

much more complex and often "doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results" has nothing to do with it.

But to your answer, giving away your presidential vote to those who will hurt us? I hope that is hyperbole. I wish we had a good multiparty system but fail to see how voting for Fozzie will accomplish that.

Next serious question. Have you considered running for office? I considered it briefly but choose not to, do not have the energy for much.

greyl

(22,990 posts)
262. It's not an Einstein quote, either. Could be Rita Mae Brown.
Wed Mar 4, 2015, 02:31 AM
Mar 2015

From a page called "9 Albert Einstein Quotes That Are Totally Fake":

1. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Einstein never said that. And neither did Benny Franklin. Salon has a good round-up of people using this quote in various political contexts, because politicians really love this quote. The Ultimate Quotable Einstein traces the quote to Rita Mae Brown‘s 1983 book Sudden Death, but it’s almost certainly older than that. Also, that’s not the definition of insanity.


http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/03/9-albert-einstein-quotes-that-are-totally-fake/

uppityperson

(115,681 posts)
263. huh. I was wrong and learned something here today. Thanks for the info.
Wed Mar 4, 2015, 02:34 AM
Mar 2015

It is in no way the definition but I always thought it was Einstein. The dice one isn't either?. Thanks.

greyl

(22,990 posts)
298. It's funny,
Thu Mar 5, 2015, 08:21 PM
Mar 2015

I was going to say that I think I first heard it from Deepak Chopra (and believed it at the time), then I just saw Sheldon say it on a Big Bang Theory repeat. Not just the "definition", the Einstein attribution, too.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,719 posts)
237. You had no problem voting for John Kerry, the pro IWR and Patriot Act senator from Massachusetts
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:54 PM
Mar 2015

And you even urged DU to support him in the 04 primaries when there were anti Patriot Act and anti IWR candidates in the fray.


Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
253. Gawd, I hate to break it to you, but the President is elected by the Electoral College.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 11:52 PM
Mar 2015

In 2004, I'm pretty certain the members chosen by Massachusetts to represent them in the Electoral College voted for Kerry.
It's that ol' "red state, blue state" thing.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,719 posts)
255. You lost me...
Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:05 AM
Mar 2015

Mr. Pitt is urging posters not to support Ms. Clinton because she voted for the IWR, the Patriot Act, and takes Wall Street Money but he had no problem in 2004 when he supported Mr. Kerry who voted for the IWR, the Patriot Act, and took Wall Street money.


To add to the irony Mr. Pitt urged posters to support Mr. Kerry in the 2004 primaries when there were candidates who didn't vote for the IWR, the Patriot Act , and didn't take Wall Street money.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
256. How Will voted in 2004 didn't matter, Massachusetts was a blue state that was going to vote for
Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:17 AM
Mar 2015

. . Kerry in the Electoral College anyway!

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
260. Will is older and wiser now. What's the problem?
Wed Mar 4, 2015, 12:37 AM
Mar 2015

Seriously, you don't think people grow and change over time?

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,719 posts)
270. Eleven years in the life of a quinquagenarian makes one older and wiser?
Wed Mar 4, 2015, 09:15 AM
Mar 2015

It reminds me of the Clinton impeachment brouhaha when it was discovered Henry Hyde while in his thirties had made a cuckold of his best friend and he attributed it to a "youthful indiscretion".


A gentleman with your moniker should see right through such "hogwash".




Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
294. Yes. 11 years can be a long time for some quinquagenarians.
Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:45 AM
Mar 2015

It's not really all that complicated to figure out.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,719 posts)
239. Your 04 candidate John Kerry voted for the IWR, the Patriot Act and Citi and Goldman Sachs...
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:02 PM
Mar 2015

Your candidate John Kerry voted for the IWR, the Patriot Act and Citi and Goldman Sachs were among his top five donors.

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
12. The only thing sadder would be a President Cruz, Jeb Bush etc
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:11 PM
Mar 2015

Nominating Justices to the Supreme Court.

LiberalLovinLug

(14,181 posts)
119. That used to be a big concern for me
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:12 PM
Mar 2015

But with her increasing snuggling up to Goldman Sachs and corporate mindset, and silence on Wall Street abuses, I don't really see that her appointment(s) would make that much difference. Perhaps it would more likely be a pro-corp woman instead of a pro-corp man. There used to be a big argument for social issue rulings, but the zietgiest is shifting with a new generation of Republicans on things like marriage rights and drug laws etc.. In fact it seems like the 1% and their servants in Washington, including Hillary, have decided to throw the 99% a bone to wrestle with in the social rights yard so that they can concentrate bolstering their defenses on the really important issues of enriching themselves even more at the expense of those dirty wretched peasants (with dismantling of "entitlements&quot .

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
122. If you don't think there would be a difference in a Clinton appointee or a Republcan appointee
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:15 PM
Mar 2015

Then there really is no hope for you.

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
139. Agreed - but that still doesn't stop a good portion of DU
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:51 PM
Mar 2015

From declaring that they would never vote for her in the General Election, and that there is no difference between her and any Republican.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
141. Nor does it stop a different portion of DU from posting as though she already won the nomination.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:54 PM
Mar 2015

Maybe even the election, too.

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
161. She is the front runner if she declares
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:42 PM
Mar 2015

And her positions versus any other declared candidate in the primary are fair game.

But whomever wins the nominations deserves our full support.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
162. But you were discussing her SCOTUS nominations, not her her positions.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:47 PM
Mar 2015

And she had a 30 point lead over Obama in 2008, and still lost. So I'm not declaring anyone a front runner. Polls this far out are attempts to shape opinions, not to reflect it. In 2012, polls showed Obama losing to about 10 different Republicans, including Romney and the ever popular Generic Republican. And this is not even the election year.

LiberalLovinLug

(14,181 posts)
241. Its still a concern
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:18 PM
Mar 2015

But do you honestly think she'd appoint anything but a judge that had the blessing of Goldman Sachs? So, yes, maybe on social issues, a Republican appointee may cause some trouble, but IMO the tide is turning and most Republicans even are now more accepting of socially liberal laws, so that position wouldn't be sustainable. Its on the much more important issues like Wall Street regulation, tax laws, foreign investment, things that affect Americans on a much deeper long term economical level where I don't see much difference.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
123. Great argument for next year around this time, but very premature before the primary even begins.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:15 PM
Mar 2015

Assuming the Party is inclined to allow the hoi polloi a say in who the nominee will be.


I've been called a conspiracy theorist for saying I suspect the Party does not want a primary (which, of course, is yet another misuse of the term conspiracy theory), but

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/chuck-schumer-elizabeth-warren-2016-elections-99869.html#ixzz3TAVO0MoF

 

Indepatriot

(1,253 posts)
13. I'm a Luddite myself....
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:12 PM
Mar 2015

But I'm smart enough to know that were my eyes on The White House I'd have to get up to speed or have someone working for me who could help me out. I'm no Hillary fan and believe she's a corporatist at her core. In the 60s/70s her positions on the issues you raise would mandate she still be a Republican. She might be the "Lesser Of Two Evils" but I have serious doubts about her ability to win the general election. In 08' she hired Bob Shrum to manage her campaign. I listened to Mr. Shrum explain on the TV just before Super Tuesday that California was a "winner take all" state in the primaries. It is not. He and Mrs. Clinton got their asses handed to them by Obama's California ground game (of which I was a part of) and her defeat was all but assured. If she couldn't hire a competent campaign manager what will her cabinet look like? No Hillary. No Third Way.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
131. Not only did she not know about the Texas Two Step, but she was "savvy" enough to announce that to
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:35 PM
Mar 2015

Texas when she went there to campaign. I believe her words were "I'm just learning about this Texas Two Step of yours."

When Shrum's book came out excoriating Edwards, I was posting on a board where Republicans also posted. I expressed some dismay at Shrum's retelling of something he learned of while supposedly working for the Kerry Edwards ticket, which made both men Shrum's client, in my eyes. I thought he should have kept the story to himself. A Republican replied, "I don't know why Democrats keep hiring him. He never wins them the Presidency."

Those were not the only missteps of her campaign, however. The race issue was a huge one. Accepting donations from China, not paying vendors. Using Chelsea as a surrogate but acting as though she was off limits to reporters and on and on. Lots of rookie mistakes, which was very surprising for a couple that has worked campaigns since law school or ever earlier.

But was Shrum her top campaign guy? I don't recall that. I remember the names Penn and MacAuliffe coming up a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008

karynnj

(59,512 posts)
165. To my knowledge Shrum did not work for Clinton - her top person at first was Patti Solis Doyle
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:08 PM
Mar 2015

She was replaced by Maggie Williams. I think her top strategist was the ever delightful Mark Penn.

I don't think that Shrum should have forever not spoken of the 2004 campaign -- and in fact, he worked for Kerry along with Mary Beth Cahill in his primary campaign. That Kerry hired him did not mean that he was forever "owned" by Kerry --- and certainly not by Edwards, who became a major problem for the campaign. Per people I know it is true that he would accept tasks (like either defending Kerry or attacking Bush) and not only not do it, but go to the media telling them the campaign thought him to valuable to use as an attack dog.

The NYT in 2007/2008 had an article where Edwards prided himself on refusing to use the campaign slogan "help is on the way" using his own "hope is on the way" --- he considered this something that showed he stood on his principles! Actually it let to questions as to why the campaign could not decide on a slogan. I think Kerry's made more sense, but that is irrelevant, either one was better than both -- and it should have been Kerry's choice.

I think that Shrum was actually kind to Edwards - when you consider not one of the Finance or strategy people who were still with Kerry in 2006 decided to move to Edwards when Kerry opted out. It is reasonable for them to think that Edwards was offered a gift of the VP slot in 2004 - it was not something he was entitled to --- and proceeded to act like a prima donna. Kerry had the grace to keep any of this from being public in 2004, but I can't help believe that he soon regretted that he gave in to all the people pushing Edwards on him - even though his own impression of Edwards was not that positive.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
166. Thanks, karenny, but I did link to a wiki article that covered Doyle, Williams, Penn, et al.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:15 PM
Mar 2015

The exchange I had was intended to be about the Hillary campaign. My comment about Shrum was an aside. It really has nothing to do with this thread, except that the other poster happened to mention Shrum. The bit about Kerry's campaign slogan is really far afield from the thread topic, so I am not going to go there.

That said, I still think Shrum's retelling in his book of something Edwards said to Kerry in confidence was unprofessional on Shrum's part. If Kerry wanted to repeat it publicly that would be different. I understand that you disagree and that is certainly your prerogative.

karynnj

(59,512 posts)
173. I brought up the other things to suggest that Shrum was trying to demonstrate in
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:31 PM
Mar 2015

a pretty graphic way that Edwards - then running for President - was not an honest person. If anything the confidence violated was Kerry's. While it is true that Edwards told Kerry he was speaking in confidence - he also spoke of how this was something he had never told anyone. Kerry was shocked, because Edwards had previously told Kerry the exact same thing earlier. What shocked Kerry was that Edwards was obviously in the habit of telling this intensely personal story as a device to get close to them. Kerry had never been a close friend and didn't even share any committees with Edwards.

That Kerry told Shrum the story when Shrum, Clinton, and Kennedy all pushed for Kerry to select Edwards. This event had soured Kerry enough on Edwards that he told Shrum he needed to meet with him again before even considering him. Kerry felt he had to explain while in his gut he was not for Edwards. (As Edwards, thanks to the gaga media coverage polled the best and many in the media were already arguing that the only reason he might not be chosen is that Kerry did not want the charismatic Edwards to outshine him. In fact, in the general election that was NEVER close to reality.)

merrily

(45,251 posts)
175. As I said in my prior post, Shrum was an OT aside to begin with. Sorry, but I am not going down
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:42 PM
Mar 2015

that path with you on a thread about Hillary Clinton.

H2O Man

(73,718 posts)
15. I think that she
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:13 PM
Mar 2015

is scheduled to give a speech this evening, that will be covered -- at least in part -- by MSNBC. I suspect that she will be addressing this most recent e-mail issue. I'm curious as to what she might have to say; likewise, I'm looking forward to reading various DUers' responses.

Good OP. Recommended.

Dreamer Tatum

(10,926 posts)
23. "It's OK, because a Republican did it. But it's not OK if Republicans do it. But it's OK, because
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:18 PM
Mar 2015

a Republican did it. But it's not OK if Republicans do it..."

and the tail-chasing will never end.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
20. I don't think the Luddite explanation holds water, because it was a new domain
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:17 PM
Mar 2015
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/02/hacked-emails-indicate-that-hillary-clinton-used-a-domain-registered-the-day-of-her-senate-hearings/
Examining the registry information for "clintonemail.com" reveals that the domain was first created on Jan. 13, 2009 -- one week before President Obama was sworn into office, and the same day that Clinton's confirmation hearings began before the Senate.

Autumn

(45,120 posts)
41. If she's a Luddite* she sure keeps that phone handy in her world wide travels.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:33 PM
Mar 2015

To say she's not tech savvy on that Blackberry or whatever her phone is would be bull* cough* shit.



Autumn

(45,120 posts)
50. I think that the claim is that she isn't tech savvy is just silly IMO.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:44 PM
Mar 2015

A lot of people use their phones instead of a computer. Especially computers with old antiquated technology. I have even seen the claim her staffers do emails for her. I should have written down where I saw that post

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
53. People have different measures of "savvy".
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:47 PM
Mar 2015

Just being able to operate a smartphone does not reach most people's definition of savvy.

Point is, the poster above claimed registering the domain proved she was technologically savvy. It doesn't. It means someone was technologically savvy, but it does not have to be her.

Is she? No idea. I don't know the woman.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
132. I don't get why using one kind of email account is easier than using another.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:40 PM
Mar 2015

Besides, I have to believe that Hillary is sufficiently educable to learn to switch from yahoo to hotmail to a government progra. Kindergarten kids and elders in nursing homes and everyone in between have learned to use a computer for basic word processing and emails.

With all due respect to proud public servant, the Luddite excuse is makeweight. Emailing ain't that hard. Neither is switching from one email program to another.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
159. Well, it wasn't even what she was used to using, so????
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:40 PM
Mar 2015

She's smart. Love or hate her, or anything in between, no one has ever called her stupid.

She's a lawyer, she should have understood the implications. This woman worked on Watergate investigation, for heaven's sakes!!!

I'm not buying any of it. NONE of it.

 

ND-Dem

(4,571 posts)
219. I don't believe clinton is uncomfortable with email. she's an intelligent woman and not that
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:36 PM
Mar 2015

old, and has undoubtedly been using email and other technology for some time. she has the money and the position to have tutors and the brain to catch on easily.

the official cover story is bs, imo.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
265. Note that account was hacked yet she continued to use it.
Wed Mar 4, 2015, 02:37 AM
Mar 2015

Astonishing level of hubris and risk taking by HRC. That really is her hallmark.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
22. Who says she's sad?
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:17 PM
Mar 2015

[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
24. "a nice warm purple space where we're trying to solve problems." The Onion? No.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:19 PM
Mar 2015

Nope, it was real. Ewwww. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/02/24/hillary-clintons-warm-purple-place

I'd like to know what those problems would be.

How to squeeze even more work for less pay and lower benefits from every corner of the earth or bomb them into submission?

Poor thing, all those purple problems.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
64. "..Clinton must be tempted to forego any genuflecting to progressives."
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:06 PM
Mar 2015

Last edited Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Oh my....that "purple place" will really be a winner...reminds me more of an "ostrich with head in the sand" since she seems to be oblivious to the serious issues facing our country and the world. ME Wars/Serious Conflict with Russia/Inequality at home caused by War and Corrupt Banking Practices (since her husband put the finishing touches on Bank Deregulation) and Criminality of Wall Street involved with the Bankster Robbers (for which there has been ONE prosecution leading to Austerity Programs causing suffering for the 98-99% of the people causing the building unrest and in both USA and Eurozone. So...we go for the "Purple Zone" of compromise for the Democratic Candite for 2016. But at least she isn't promising "Hope and Change," which turned out to be "Compromise to the Right."

Haven't we had enough of that "Purple Zone" already? Aside from ACA are we better off?

From the article:


"Even without the threat of a formidable primary opponent, liberals are hoping to pressure Clinton to gravitate toward the left as she builds a governing agenda. But the embrace of "purple" America suggests she remains most comfortable in the center, embracing common sense, collaborative ideas that aren't polarizing. With a 45-point lead over the primary field in the latest CNN survey, Clinton must be tempted to forego any genuflecting to progressives."

merrily

(45,251 posts)
138. A Wall Street Journal article about all the financial advisors her campaign has hired so far to
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:49 PM
Mar 2015

address wealth inequality (for want of a better term) put the issue as address inequality without seeming too combative and without making the wealthy feel as though they are being attacked.

Sounded pretty one sided to me. And a lot of familiar names were in the article. The article said there was a mix, but most of the ones named were Third Way.

Handwriting, meet wall.

calimary

(81,626 posts)
30. Well, okay then. I'm sure you'll like the results a whole lot when you decide to stay home on
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:23 PM
Mar 2015

Election Day, if she winds up being our nominee. I'm SURE you'll like the results of another CON in the White House.



And I'm as big a Luddite as ANYBODY here, maybe even the biggest of them all. So I totally get that part of it. And it's very real. I'd guess you're probably a lot more sophisticated in that regard, so you might well be expected to be impatient with, and less forgiving of, that kind of thing. I'm sure most DUers here are. But I'm not.

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
39. And now she's pals with Henry Kissinger, the same creep who
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:30 PM
Mar 2015

staged a coup in the country of my birth, Chile, turning what was often the only democracy in SA into a banana republic dictatorship. Thousands were disappeared, tortured and murdered because of this in a country that once was a model of true free speech.

johnnyreb

(915 posts)
137. I am sorry for what happened in Chile, Cleita.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:49 PM
Mar 2015

I know a little, but only from my reading. I am interested, and I try to tell people enough to spark their interest in the things that our tv doesn't tell us.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
145. Not only now.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:57 PM
Mar 2015

Google images of Hillary and Kissinger.

You'll get lots of cosy and/or jovial pics of the two of them over the years.

I am so sorry about your country.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
44. One could write a similar post about President Obama
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:35 PM
Mar 2015

and how he is not the perfect progressive. Issues like drone warfare, NSA spying, the Chelsea Manning affair, the Edward Snowden affair, the fact that the majority of the President's campaign donations came from Wall Street.

And perhaps you have made such a post in the past. I am new here and do not know your history.

But in spite of the fact that the President is not my perfect candidate, I voted for him. Twice, as a matter of fact. I do not regret the vote. He is far better than a President McCain or Romney would have been.

HRC has been intensely scrutinized since William Clinton was running for office.
She is described as strident, where a man would be called opinionated.
She is described as a bitch, where a man would be described as tough.
She is described as cold, where a man would be described as professional.

What motivates the wording? Sexism.
What motivates the relentless scrutiny? Sexism, because an intelligent woman is seen by many as threatening.

Change for the better must come from us. I believe that HRC could be the face of that change. I will vote for the best available candidate during the primary process and the general election.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
61. Yes, I get it.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:03 PM
Mar 2015

I'm a sexist for opposing Hillary's policies, just like I'm a racist for opposing Obama's.

New talking points are needed. The old ones are wearing thin.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
46. LOL the only people I notice being divisive are the ones saying we should not be divisive.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:38 PM
Mar 2015

Then they go an make a divide and conquer thread while yelling at people for having an opinion!

She's not my first choice. I like Sanders, but I do not know if he can win it all.

 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
49. OMG REPUBLICANS YOU GUYS
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:42 PM
Mar 2015

Are you - are we - so timorous that we cannot even abide a discussion about wanting something better than HRC...who, by the bye, has VOTED WITH THE REPUBLICANS on every major issue since 2001?

denbot

(9,901 posts)
57. I'd prefer Saunders, Biden, and if Warren were running she would top my list.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:53 PM
Mar 2015

I will give time and the few dollars I can afford, to a progressive in the primary, but it looks like Clinton will end up the nominee. If she is I won't hesitate to vote for her.

What I won't do is poison the well for any democratic candidate, as we will need every vote possible.

brooklynite

(95,106 posts)
63. Either you're incredibly ignorant of the facts or were too lazy to check them...
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:05 PM
Mar 2015
"HRC...who, by the bye, has VOTED WITH THE REPUBLICANS on every major issue since 2001?"

Hillary Clinton voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001

Hillary Clinton was a co-sponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Dair Pay Act in 2008

Hillary Clinton was a co-sponsor of the Washington DC voting Act in 2008

Hillary Clinton voted against a Bill to prohibit partial-Birth abortions in 2003

Hillary Clinton voted against a Bill to fast-track ANWR drilling in 2003

Hillary Clinton voted against a Constitution Amendment to bar same-sex marriage in 22004

Hillary Clinton voted in favor of raising the Federal Minimum Wage in 2006

Hillary Clinton voted to override a Bush veto on Medicare expansion in 2008



And that's what I found in 10 minutes of searching.

But searching for facts would have potentially gotten in the way of your preconceptions, wouldn't it?







sendero

(28,552 posts)
242. Social issues?
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:20 PM
Mar 2015

Sure, HRC will give you those because her banker masters don't give a shit about any of that stuff.

Economic issues, including war which is just an economic device now, not so much.

I wouldn't vote for HRC if she were running against Satan himself but you do what you have to.

brooklynite

(95,106 posts)
243. Funny, I was told that she ALWAYS voted with the Republicans...
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 10:26 PM
Mar 2015

...and last time I checked, voting against Bush's tax cuts constitutes "economic".

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
51. 2000 and 2004 were both stolen elections so maybe you should try a better canard.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:44 PM
Mar 2015

So you can't debate the issues in the OP, just more FUD and less discussion?

Typical.

denbot

(9,901 posts)
69. Your damn right they were stolen, and now they are history.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:09 PM
Mar 2015

2016 is yet to be written, but one lesson that was learned was that it is easier to steal a close one.

If we end up with a candidate that is not ideologically to our liking, and don't support that candidate, or even worst, cause others to stay home, we are working for the other side in fact, though I am certain in Will's case, not with intent.

Will pulls as much weight here as any DU'er since this site launched, and if anyone could influence others to reject a democratic candidate, he could.

One single democratic voter abstaining equals two plus votes for republicans, and will make it easier to steal in 2016.

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
195. No one is rejecting a Democratic candidate in the general. You keep glossing over the fact
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:19 PM
Mar 2015

that there is going to be a Democratic primary. And in that primary there will be a lot of us who will absolutely NOT vote for Clinton, because she is not a good Democrat.

Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
229. and what happened in 2004 when Conyers investigated the election?
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:06 PM
Mar 2015

His investigation was upstaged by some Senate Dems who vowed to fix the problem.

I would love to find the video of that presser. If I remember correctly, a certain presidential wannabee was front and center.

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
194. Hmm... so we're not having a Democratic Primary any more?
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:16 PM
Mar 2015

Wow.

Can you help me remember what happened in 2008? I can't recall President McCain's term for some reason.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
52. In fairness, she has not yet run on a platform of change.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:45 PM
Mar 2015

In 2008, she appeared the rough equivalent of Obama, corrupted by a few more years in the Senate and a family fortune, plus the extra saber-rattling she seemed to feel was necessary to compensate for her gender.

She's got the charisma to promote progressive change, but so far I doubt her will to do so.

bigtree

(86,036 posts)
54. I'd be impressed with this 'scandal' if it had anything at all to do with any of those complaints
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:50 PM
Mar 2015

...which I wholeheartedly agree with.

I view this controversy as yet another equivalency ploy which isn't designed to, as some have offered, to say that she isn't wrong because republicans do it, but, rather the other way around; to provide insulation in the next presidential contest for republicans (Jeb) over actual crimes and abuses by Bush/Cheney, et.al. - maybe even for something in Jeb's past. This has Rove stink all over it.

I actually don't think Clinton gives two shits about it, past whatever political advantage it might deny her. If focusing on this nonsense get us any closer to addressing issues like privacy rights, war, or corporatism, I'm all for it. I doubt Democratic voters will care a wit about it; Benghazi ghouls, more to their liking. From where I sit, it looks like a complete waste of time and energy, basically watering the ground for the next Bush.

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
55. I believe the Bushies did far far worse than anything they are accusing Hillary of.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 01:52 PM
Mar 2015
Believe isn't strong enough. I know what they did. The whole world knows what they did.

But, because the Obama Administration looked forward they never had to answer for a damn thing. Including torture!

But that darn Hillary! Of course you know I am no Hillary fan. But I am a real fan of the equal application of justice.

This country sucks, clear to the bone.
 

randome

(34,845 posts)
66. You really think Obama single-handedly is responsible for all post-Bush-era consequences?
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:08 PM
Mar 2015

Or is he a savvy politician who knows better than to tilt at windmills? You think Congress is gridlocked now? We wouldn't even have ACA if Obama did the right thing and tried to jail the torturers. Instead, he did the 'right political' thing, which should be unsurprising since he is a politician.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else. It's only fair.[/center][/font][hr]

Rilgin

(787 posts)
59. The only Argument for Hillary
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:02 PM
Mar 2015

Laaa laaa laaa. I can't hear you. Nope. Not listening. Refuse to hear you. When you point in a direction, I will look the other way. After all, she says she is a democrat and loves and supports women and children. But, to support Hillary, I don't even have to do that. It is even easier to just put blinders in my ears and ignore any arguments against her.

If you pin me down, I will say she is not running yet. But if you say another candidate is better, Hillary turns inevitable. The trick is supporting her without any discussion of what she would do that would actually change our world. So just say "experience" "fund raising" "supports women and children".

You might ask for actual policy reasons I am ready for Hillary. Well in a reasonable world I could give you the reasons but that would require me to actually examine reasons and come up with a solid reason. This will not do because it might be harder to come up with reasons to support her specifically rather than any democrat.. So I will point to Bush. I will point to the Supreme Court. I will point to her bankroll. I will point to her sex. I will claim she is experienced without looking at her actions during that experience.

So la la la I am ready for Hillary and will ignore anything else. Because I am ready for Hillary Yep Ready for Hillary ....... ready for Hillary ....... ready for Hillary ..... ready (etc etc etc)

Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
73. That explains the IWR vote, the PATRIOT Act, Keystone and Goldman Sachs?
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:11 PM
Mar 2015

Must be written in invisible ink.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
78. Yep, it does.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:18 PM
Mar 2015

- Goldman Sachs: Besides slurring Hillary with a name to demonize her, what exactly did she do regarding Goldman Sachs that is deserving of scorn?

- Iraq War Vote: As I have said many times, the attacks on Democrats who voted for this is revisionist history that does not take into account the fact that, among other things, at around the same time the UN Security Council voted 15-0 to put similarly put pressure on Iraq to get the weapons inspection teams into the country. That was the point of UN Sec Res 1441 and IWR.

- Patriot Act: Was an overreaction to 9/11, but not a particularly damning one

- Keystone: Really? Again, I was against it, but this is what is so horrible?

Bugenhagen

(151 posts)
154. that is one lame list
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:25 PM
Mar 2015

Hillary is indistinguishable from a republican except on wedge issues. Wedge issues are important issues. I totally get that. they can totally ruin or save people's lives and existences.

However the country isn't being destroyed or fixed based on wedge issues. It is being destroyed by the MIC, Archer Daniels Midland, free trade agreements, Wall Street, and the 1%. Hillary is well paid to exploit our wedge weaknesses on behalf of the 1%.

The thing about wedge issues is that our guys never make much progress on them when we win elections, and the enemy never makes much when they win.

The 1% doesn't give a wet fart about wedge issues except as tools to win elections. They invest a lot of money to make sure that one of their water-carrier wins either way. That is why there is such strict control on debates and why the news simply ignores unwanted candidates. They can fly their mistresses to France for an abortion if necessary.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
167. Calling Civil Rights, Voting Rights and reproductive rights 'wedge issues' is very 2003
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:18 PM
Mar 2015

It's also very Republican and no way to attract voters.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
199. Oh my God, I am running to high five your post!
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:26 PM
Mar 2015

Could not do so fast or hard enough. What's wrong with me???

Bugenhagen

(151 posts)
218. I doubt we could be any more in agreement on any issues than on those you list
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:20 PM
Mar 2015

Those are some of the hugest issues of our day. I am totally in favor of election reform, getting money out of politics, women having sole authority over their own bodies, equal rights for all... you name it. If we met, I don't believe you'd think I was a republican of any stripe. Seriously, there aren't many democrats that I know of who come down on the wrong side of issues like civil rights and reproductive rights. If that was all we had to worry about, Hillary would be golden with me.

What makes an issue a wedge issue isn't moral rightness or wrongness (my working definition of repub vs democrat). A wedge issue is one that defines the sides in an election. Wedge issues fuel voter excitement and donations. In America the election will be fought over wedge issues at the expense of other huge issues like Wall Street reform, taking on the MIC, TPP and other trade issues and so forth. Those are also huge issues that won't get discussed in any meaningful way during any debate or interview or what have you.

In my opinion (and here we probably disagree) big money wins either way if Hillary wins or a republican wins.

What we need is a candidate who is not only going to be on the right/ethical/moral/human side of what I called wedge issues, but one who is on the right side of the other big issues such as big money and foreign policy and so forth.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
92. Couple of reasons. One rational, one personal.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:33 PM
Mar 2015

Here's my more "rational" version http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6305719

The personal reason relates to the amount of shit the author of the OP has spewed in my face over the years. He absolutely does NOT have my respect. I differ ideologically with a lot of people, but I find scant few to be quite as repellent.

 

rtracey

(2,062 posts)
77. well
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:15 PM
Mar 2015

Come back too me in 2017 when the Chief Justice is swearing in President Jeb Bush.....because as of now....and I do preface NOW, I dont see another democrat that can win.....oh yes Sanders..... hmmmm independent turn democrat, then there is the stand-by Elizabeth Warren, who has said repeatedly no..... Biden...come on... O'Malley?

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
80. Welcome to the Democratic version of the Tea Party
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:20 PM
Mar 2015

Purity is the key, the only litmus test.

My favorite is Keystone -- the make-believe problem. The two most ridiculous aspects: a) Keystone will add about 1% to the domestic, total length of petroleum pipeline and b) the filthy shit the Canadians are ripping from the ground will be (and is) part of the global petroleum market no matter what sort of empty, symbolic gesture we make.

So, damn it! Fall in line! Carry the pure water or get the hell out!

hopemountain

(3,919 posts)
163. and those who think it is okay to poison our food supply and
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:51 PM
Mar 2015

feed americans toxic substances that are outlawed in other countries can fucking move, too. but they'll have to go to mars because no one else wants them anywhere else on this planet.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
180. More hysteria. Christ, Pitt. I hope you are reading this with glee. More attention for you.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:48 PM
Mar 2015

By the way hopemountain -- just what the hell are you whining about?

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
190. Not allowing criticism is the same thing, worse actually, because it takes our party farther right.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:11 PM
Mar 2015

"So, damn it! Fall in line! Carry the pure water or get the hell out!"

That is the attitude of those who won't allow criticism. We see it every day here, but it is said with smarm and smileys rather than policy critique.

I don't think Will puts out a litmus test at all, but he stands for what he believes in. Lock step is the furthest thing I see in his posts.

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
96. Ha!
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:38 PM
Mar 2015

I supported Obama in 2008.

Obama announced at the end of January, 2007 (on EDIT: February 10, 2007). We're past that point in this cycle. Who's going to beat her?

She's going to win the nom, and Will Pitt's going to vote for her. And so are you.

Let's bookmark this thread and see what happens, pal.

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
225. ROFL
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 08:53 PM
Mar 2015

Oh yes, sure. Speaking the honest truth that all these grumblers are going to go out and vote for Hillary Clinton is - gasp - trolling!

You fucking guys are hilarious.

All these cats above are gonna vote for her. They'll fuss and grumble and throw their little fits, but they'll vote for Clinton in 2016. You know it and I know it.

 

Android3.14

(5,402 posts)
226. I dunno, kid
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:00 PM
Mar 2015

The more you spout, the more it seems you are just trying push people into a corner. It wouldn't be the first time I've run across the "other motivated" on DU.

 

AtomicKitten

(46,585 posts)
106. Give Democrats somebody else to vote for and they will.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:53 PM
Mar 2015

Hillary's support has been described as a mile wide and an inch deep. Her ham-handed attack on Elizabeth Warren (hush up your tone, li'l missy) recently via tag-team surrogates was misogynistic and a clue as to the type of campaign Hillary intends to run. She will repel voters when she needs to woo them.

No, I won't pull the lever for Hillary.

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
117. Sure you will
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:08 PM
Mar 2015

November 2016 you'll be so repulsed by the GOP challenger that you will march down to your polling place and pull the lever.

Anything else is bluster and nonsense.

 

AtomicKitten

(46,585 posts)
118. No, I won't.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:12 PM
Mar 2015

Democrats need to drive a stake into the heart of the so-called centrist Democrats/Third Way/New Democratic Coalition once and for all.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
93. More Negative Hateful Spin on Democrats
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:34 PM
Mar 2015

No need to tear down other Democrats just because you done agree with them,,,,, save it for the Rethugs....

neverforget

(9,437 posts)
189. when they do stuff you, I or we disagree, we should just
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 06:00 PM
Mar 2015

keep our mouths shut. That way we won't be helping Papa Paul.

Mr. Mustard

(63 posts)
98. I couldn't agree more.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:38 PM
Mar 2015

Secretary Clinton also voted for the credit card companies, when she voted in favor of making it harder for average Americans to file bankruptcy.

Thanks Ms. Clinton, for nothing.

Thanks for the post. I agree with everything you said.

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
100. In light of this, I'm going to have to reconsider you, William, as someone to ignore, lol!
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:46 PM
Mar 2015
Happy to K&R.

asjr

(10,479 posts)
104. "I'm not being divisive." "This is the cold, hard truth."
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 02:50 PM
Mar 2015

This is a reason some people--Democrats especially will remember this post and will not vote for a Democrat no matter who it is. Another problem for me is you seem to be following some Republican garbage monger's words. I do not care who you vote for.

 

Indepatriot

(1,253 posts)
124. If you Honestly think that a post on DU would cause someone who believes Mrs. Clinton
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:17 PM
Mar 2015

to be a good candidate for the Presidency to change their mind on voting for her I've got a sweet bridge in Brooklyn I'd love to sell you at a bargain price. Call before noon or the offer is rescinded....

asjr

(10,479 posts)
133. You may keep your bridge. That is a very juvenile response. I did not mention Mrs. Clinton in my
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:42 PM
Mar 2015

response to Will. I have been on DU since 2002. I have read quite a few responses to posts.

 

dissentient

(861 posts)
111. Why this story is even worse than it appears
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:03 PM
Mar 2015

Good article, I thought.

Hillary Clinton's personal email account looks bad now. But it was even worse at the time.

The New York Times report that Hillary Clinton used a personal rather than governmental email account during her four years at the State Department looks bad. In addition to creating a security risk, this practice circumvented (though may or may not have outright violated) federal record-keeping regulations that are meant to keep government business transparent.

But this story looks even worse if you transport yourself back to early 2009, when Clinton first became of Secretary of State and, according to this story, initially refused to use a governmental account. The Bush administration had just left office weeks earlier under the shadow of, among other things, a major ongoing scandal concerning officials who used personal email addresses to conduct business, and thus avoid scrutiny.

The scandal began in June 2007, as part of a Congressional oversight committee investigation into allegations that the White House had fired US Attorneys for political reasons. The oversight committee asked for Bush administration officials to turn over relevant emails, but it turned out the administration had conducted millions of emails' worth of business on private email addresses, the archives of which had been deleted.

The effect was that investigators couldn't access millions of internal messages that might have incriminated the White House. The practice, used by White House officials as senior as Karl Rove, certainly seemed designed to avoid federal oversight requirements and make investigation into any shady dealings more difficult. Oversight committee chairman Henry Waxman accused the Bush administration of "using nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications."

That scandal unfolded well into the final year of Bush's presidency, then overlapped with another email secrecy scandal, over official emails that got improperly logged and then deleted, which itself dragged well into Obama's first year in office. There is simply no way that, when Clinton decided to use her personal email address as Secretary of State, she was unaware of the national scandal that Bush officials had created by doing the same.

That she decided to use her personal address anyway showed a stunning disregard for governmental transparency requirements. Indeed, Clinton did not even bother with the empty gesture of using her official address for more formal business, as Bush officials did.

www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8138203/clinton-emails-bush

The article is worth a read.

MBS

(9,688 posts)
232. good article, thanks.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:23 PM
Mar 2015

And I too am baffled that HRC chose to handle her email this way, especially given the Bush email scandals-- and, yes, that it went on for 4 years without anyone raising public objections.

 

Adenoid_Hynkel

(14,093 posts)
121. the Mark Rich pardon alone should disqualify her from consideration
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:14 PM
Mar 2015

her brother basically sold that one and Bill's actions to Rich.

Carolina

(6,960 posts)
125. K&R!
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:17 PM
Mar 2015

Loathe HRC for all the reasons you cited and thensome.

Love:"trick is to wrestle this party back from the abyss..." and I might add, wrestle it back from abysmal, turd way leadership!

Well put, Will, as always.

hootinholler

(26,449 posts)
129. "If the Bush administration had unspooled that line, this place would have erupted. And rightly so."
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:23 PM
Mar 2015

They did.

We did.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
130. Hillary aside, one line inyour post alone ought to earn it some sort of immortality:
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 03:30 PM
Mar 2015

"So maybe the trick isn't to try to elect the most 'electable' Democrat. As Democrats, maybe the trick is to wrestle this party back from the abyss and rediscover a few DNA-level values."

Precisely what those values ought to be, and how to inculcate them, is a primal matter to which we need to give deep attention. As for me, if I could embed one single value/trait/capacity in our culture, it would be empathy and compassion (the former being necessary for the existence of the latter).

 

maggies farm

(79 posts)
150. My vote counts and I am voting!
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:12 PM
Mar 2015

I am still going to vote for the warmonger corporate whore regardless of her using [email protected]

Seriously do we really expect Republicans and Democrats to have ethics?

MineralMan

(146,360 posts)
151. Way to go, there, Will. Pile on.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:14 PM
Mar 2015

Join the rest in finding as many negative things as you can say about Hillary Clinton. You're in excellent, fine company, and right on cue, too.

But, you're not being divisive...of course not.

A fine job of hatcheting, you've done. And so many approve of what you're saying. At least on DU.

Bra-fucking-vo, dude!

 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
155. Tell me about how you supported the war.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:38 PM
Mar 2015

And the Patriot Act.

Funny how the truth becomes a "hatchet job."

Like I said, dude...coping skills. Embrace your cognitive dissonance. Love it. Live it. Be it.

MineralMan

(146,360 posts)
169. I'm not telling you anything, Will.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:19 PM
Mar 2015

You're the one doing all the talking. Carry on. Ignore the positive and concentrate on the negative, whenever possible.

Bra-fucking-vo!

If have something for an OP, I'll write it. Otherwise, I'm just replying to your one-sided OP.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
153. Daily Beast proved the story is not true.
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:25 PM
Mar 2015

DU thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11071930#post1

Link to the Daily Beast

Well, this might be the explanation: The new regs apparently weren’t fully implemented by State until a year and half after Clinton left State. Here’s the timeline: Clinton left the State Department on February 1, 2013. Back in 2011, President Obama had signed a memorandum directing the update of federal records management. But the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) didn’t issue the relevant guidance, declaring that email records of senior government officials are permanent federal records, until August 2013. Then, in September 2013, NARA issued guidance on personal email use.
 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
282. Will is rarely right
Wed Mar 4, 2015, 11:46 AM
Mar 2015

Still waiting for Karl Rove's arrest (any day now), and the fallout from the massive TurboTax hack (that still hasn't been anounced).

Duppers

(28,134 posts)
164. are you calling the poster a liar?
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:02 PM
Mar 2015

"A poster here who claims to have worked at State says it's because she's a Luddite working within a calcified bureaucratic technology, and she's just more comfortable with her Yahoo account, or whatever it is."


You're very sure of your inference?


(on edit: I'll support Elizabeth Warren any day over Hillary but I do not like the inference that posters are lying w/o sufficient proof. That's all.)




 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
170. No
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:23 PM
Mar 2015

But it's an anonymous forum. "Claims" is a wise term to use when quoting someone who doesn't post under their own name. I believe them, but I have no basis for that belief aside from my choice to believe them. They sound credible.

Mike Nelson

(9,994 posts)
172. The Republican candidate would...
Tue Mar 3, 2015, 05:31 PM
Mar 2015

...provide a much greater change of direction for the US and world.