General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Clinton Is Turning Into Richard Nixon and Bill Belichick
If you get beyond the article's title, the article itself is interesting.
Raymond Chandler once wrote a great passage about drug addicts, but he might as well have been describing politicians, another group of people who rarely know when to quit without intervention.
The novelist said addicts at first turn to pills and shots just to get over the humps. Only after a while, he wrote, "It gets to be all humps."
It's gotten to be all humps for Hillary Clinton. She never really has an audience anymore. Instead, she's almost always surrounded. That's a bad place for a politician to be at the start of a grueling two-year popularity contest.
Back in 2008, I wrote a piece comparing Hillary to Richard Nixon, another politician driven by a feeling of being cornered. Back then, the similarities were political.
As Nixon had against Kennedy, Hillary in '08 was running against a sunny, charismatic candidate who often got a pass from an adoring media. While it took Nixon eight years to find a way forward from that dilemma, Hillary against Barack Obama pivoted mid-race and recalibrated her politics to fit a
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/hillary-clinton-is-turning-into-richard-nixon-and-bill-belichick-20150314#ixzz3USMKrJwL
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Vinca
(50,249 posts)she isn't even running yet. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm sick of hearing about her already . . . and I would certainly vote for her. It reminds me of the 1990s and how the GOP used to focus on every time a Clinton farted and would turn it into a scandal. Now the meme is "honesty." Can you "trust" Clinton? Over and over and over and over again. Can you trust her? Can you trust her? They've even got MSNBC on board to beat the drum for them. Should they somehow succeed and Hillary decides to rethink the decision to run (and who could blame her), the backlash would be brutal from Democratic voters. We would nominate someone, of course. Preferably a woman. And despite the late start they would demolish whoever the Republican candidate is.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)All bets are off if anyone comes along who can speak against the establishment without looking like a hypocrite..
cali
(114,904 posts)if they are running. She's hire Robbie Mook as her campaign manager, she's hiring a NH staff, etc.
and frankly, I think Hillary is the author of much of her own misfortunes.
Vinca
(50,249 posts)Take Benghazi, for example. What on earth did she do or not do to deserve the nonstop flack from that? I'm really not a Hillary fan, but I think she's treated unfairly to the point it's become a national sport among Republicans and the media.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)in a childish demonstration
of chest-pounding.
OK, Ghaddaffi was a bad dude.
...........but we had SETTLED with him............
there was no plan for 'after the war',
street gangs run the place now.
Libyan-armaments have gone
all over N.Africa.
the chaos has spread to Syria with
the encouragement of the West.
250,000 dead
8 million displaced
I could go on and on.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)And a large reason why so many children are showing up at our southern borders. Death and destruction are what neocons and neoliberals do. I have to laugh when I see someone gushing over Hillary's love for women and children. Pfffftttt!
Agony
(2,605 posts)thanks for the reminder
The problem was not Clinton but the fact that there was the end of an election happening. ROMNEY ' s ridiculous first comment backfired badly so they tried to rewrite his position and created the still ongoing "Obama won't say terrorism.
Romney ' s initial rant conflated a very appropriate Cairo embassy statement distancing the USA from the movie. This was put out BEFORE the attack started with Benghazi. Clinton later spoke against it herself because it was an issue all over the region.
It is entirely likely that Rice was given words to keep this as far away from any Obama 2012 position and it worked. THAT is what angered the Republicans
leveymg
(36,418 posts)That's been going on for a long time, going back at least to her 2003 IWR vote and her god awful speeches in which she has tried to rationalize every war and regime change since. I'm sorry, we've had enough of her filing off the edges of the truth to make it fit her political ambitions.
Time for her to retire to the Supreme Court, of something, that will keep her busy.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Actually wins the nomination, let alone the presidency. Just too much time for questions that if answered honestly will turn voters away and if sidestepped will turn voters away....then there is the constant microphone catching every word which can be sustainable for months, years is a real trick..
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)streets in the Bush years"
Odd as it seemed coming from such a career Beltway insider, playing an angry insurgent champion of the little guy somehow fit Hillary like a glove. Coupled with It-Girl candidate Obama's maladroit mumblings about Middle America bitterly "clinging to guns and religion," Hillary's "Invisible Americans" meme was a political gold mine.
But sometime during the course of the primary season, it got a little too personal. Hillary in her speeches began to return over and over again to whatever public attacks she happened to be facing at the time....
Good article. Thanks for posting!
KoKo
(84,711 posts)I think many of us Dems who worked for Clinton and supported both of them against all the attacks from Repub crazies somehow missed what was going on in the background. We got sidetracked....and didn't know until too late who their real friends and influence really were and what that would mean down the road (with the deregulation that passed) while we were so busy doing defense for them against Ken Starr and the rest.
It worked. It was ingenious. But over two decades into our relationship with the Clintons, it's still really hard to know what motivates them, beyond getting off on being smart politicians.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/hillary-clinton-is-turning-into-richard-nixon-and-bill-belichick-20150314#ixzz3USzxbBM3
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Fifty nine percents of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq War Resolution so it's unfair to single her out for that.
I suspect support for free trade as a general principle is not nearly as controversial among Democratic legislators as it is on this board so if my suspicion is correct it's unfair to single her out for that.
In conclusion, if the author is suggesting she's out of step with the Democratic party than his suggestion is incorrect.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Her critics are not just cherry picking her record on that point. Her and Bill's support for invasions, bombings, and covert operations goes back to Iran-Contra and the Agency's use of airport and banks in Mena, AK to support the Contra's activities. The Reagan-Bush Admin had New Democratic partners in pursuing the illegal wars in Central America. Classified NSA briefing notes on the subject:
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)That can not be said about the last fifteen years.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)and its southern allies in abundance, with piles of civilian casualties and nasty massacres on all sides in Afghanistan, the Balkins, and the Transcaucasus. Witness the breakup of Serbia, Kosovo, and the start of the ever-lasting covert war in Chechnya. Also, it was during this period that we saw the genesis of the strikes against the US on 9/11, our plunge into the Afghanistan forever war, and the US and Saudi covert arming of Sunni militias and terrorists that became al Qaeda and ISIS.
This was the set-up for the US casualties that followed during the reign of Bush and Obama.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)From Wiki (Dec 13, 2007):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair
The Wall Street Journal reported on January 29, 1997 <41> on activities at the Mena, Arkansas airport allegedly involved then-governor Bill Clinton in a coverup of illegal drug-trading activity. The Wall Street Journal article goes on to state:
At the center of the web of speculation spun around Mena are a few undisputed facts: One of the most successful drug informants in U.S. history, smuggler Barry Seal, based his air operation at Mena. At the height of his career he was importing as much as 1,000 pounds of cocaine per month, and had a personal fortune estimated at more than $50 million. After becoming an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration, he worked at least once with the CIA, in a Sandinista drug sting. He was gunned down by Colombian hit men in Baton Rouge, La., in 1986; eight months later, one of his planeswith an Arkansas pilot at the wheel and Eugene Hasenfus in the cargo baywas shot down over Nicaragua with a load of Contra supplies.In 1998, CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz published a two-volume report<42> that substantiated many of Webb's claims, and described how 50 contras and contra-related entities involved in the drug trade had been protected from law enforcement activity by the Reagan-Bush administration, and documented a cover-up of evidence relating to these activities. The report also showed that Oliver North and the NSC were aware of these activities. A report later that same year by the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich also came to similar conclusions.
Here's another excerpt of the WSJ article, referenced above, that reported the knowledge of then Gov. Clinton of the Contra drug running scheme out of Mena, AK. Reprinted here: http://www.idfiles.com/menamystciadis.htm
Jan. 29, 1997
The Wall Street Journal
Mysterious Mena:
CIA Discloses,
Leach Disposes
By MICAH MORRISON
(. . .)
(L)ocal attempts (in Arkansas) to investigate Mena were tanked twice by the Mr. Clinton's administration in Little Rock, which refused to allocate funds. And in July 1995, a former member of Gov. Clinton's security staff, Arkansas State Trooper L.D. Brown, suddenly stepped forward claiming he had worked with the CIA and Seal running guns to the Contras--and cocaine back to the U.S. Mr. Brown says that when he informed the governor about the drug flights, Mr. Clinton replied, "that's Lasater's deal"--a reference to Little Rock bond daddy Dan Lasater, a Clinton crony later convicted on an apparently unrelated cocaine distribution charge.
The CIA report does not directly address the Lasater allegation. It says trooper Brown applied to the agency but was not offered employment and was not "otherwise associated with CIA." Barry Seal was associated with CIA, but only for "a two-day period" while his plane was being outfitted for the DEA's Sandinista sting. The CIA also says it found no evidence of tampering in earlier money-laundering prosecutions, as several Arkansas investigators have charged.
And what does the CIA say about Mr. Clinton's knowledge of CIA activities at Mena? It gives its boss wiggle room that parses nicely with his statement that "they didn't tell me anything." In response to Mr. Leach's question about whether information was conveyed to Arkansas officials in the 1980s, the report states that "interface with local officials was handled by the other federal agency" involved in the joint Mena exercise, side-stepping the issue of what Mr. Clinton knew.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)simply based on her interview tactics?
Reach for the stars Cali, eventually something worthwhile while might come up.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)clicking the link & reading the entire piece prior to forming an opinion. However, much like others on this board who shall remain nameless, some like to throw any anti-HRC crap up & see what may stick.
But thank you for clarifying what that funny bluelink at the bottom of her article was, I had no idea.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Not beat up a DUer for posting an article. One which many people will read & discuss out there in RL.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)But the silly ass article was posted on DU & therefore I responded to them as I saw fit & considering I have been here a little bit longer than you I recognize the posting pattern.
Hence my comment & your lack of understanding of it.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)To put is as simply as possible, Riverlover became an active member in 2011; you became an active member in 2013. Can you follow that?
You throw out a totally gratuitous reference to how long someone has been posting plus a snarky insult challenging "lack of understanding"? What a hoot! Are you challenged in reading or math or both? As to responding as you see fit, I suggest reading glasses are in order! I do appreciate your revealing yourself.
About giftedgirl77
Statistics and Information
Account status: Active
Member since: Mon May 13, 2013, 09:43 PM
About RiverLover
FDR dem who believes the environment trumps all. We\'re sinking the only ship we\'ve got, and govt leaders are ignoring it.
Statistics and Information
Account status: Active
Member since: Thu Dec 1, 2011, 11:59 AM
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)someone else. But thank you for correcting the error in such a civilized manner yourself.
It doesn't make the OP any less bullshit.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Prior to that, they were simply an inactive account.
Their account "woke up" only 6 months ago.
By that point, giftedgirl77 had more than 1500 posts under their belt.
Sid
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Please share. I would like to access that myself. Can you provide a link?
Profile information
Gender: Female
Home country: USA
About RiverLover
FDR dem who believes the environment trumps all. We\'re sinking the only ship we\'ve got, and govt leaders are ignoring it.Statistics and Information
Account status: Active
Member since: Thu Dec 1, 2011, 11:59 AM
Number of posts: 3,135
Number of posts, last 90 days: 1873
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 1418 posts in the last 90 days (76% of total posts)
Favorite group: Elizabeth Warren, 227 posts in the last 90 days (12% of total posts)
Last post: Sun Mar 15, 2015, 09:14 AM
Jury
Willing to serve on Juries: Yes
Eligible to serve on Juries: Yes
Chance of serving on Juries: 60% (explain)
Hosting
Elizabeth Warren
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)You'll just have to take my word for it.
Sid
Divernan
(15,480 posts)the information available to her or she is mathematically challenged.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I was commenting on yours.
Sid
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Thanks D for trying to stick up for me! It's true I joined in 2011 to post something I felt strongly about(will have to search for that!), but I was a prolific poster on Huffpo at the time. Their switch to Facebook signins only coincided with a promotion so I took a break from politics and focused on my job. Being transferred to Ohio and seeing how NAFTA, fracking, and Gov Ksick have wrecked this state brought me back to politics. I only read Huffpo now bc I'm not on Facebook. I'm in sales and my strong liberal beliefs would impact my income and I'd probably spend too much time fighting with stupid rethug family members!
It's gorgeous here in Ohio today though! Sunny and high near 60. Putting my iPhone back in my pocket now to continue a great walk with my dog!!
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)You better believe that.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
Proud and supporting member since July 12, 2003.
That being said we can do without some of the ad hominems. But on the other hand "when in Rome do like the Romans."
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)ie, people who didn't think it worth their time to get off their ass and protest the Vietnam war. They are hardly channeling the same group of people. Such absurdity.
If only because of the incessant stream of cesspool "reporting" that this article exudes. But that's the thing, after all the "scandals" during the Clinton years, the American people became tired of it, they shrugged it off. The Clinton's are still some of the most respected living politicians around.
And the tearing down? That'll just build them up further. The American public hates nasty contests. It gets old real fucking quick.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)The "silent majority" Nixon was referring to were the middle and working class, not the gentry, who felt pressured from below and squeezed from above. I didn't agree with Nixon's formula or his prescription but the author's analysis is ahistorical.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)I'm on my phone or I would explain where I stand, but I am OK with that article. Nixon was pitting Americans against one another, contrast this with FDR.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)Although there is probably some truth to the idea that Hillary has a "too well known" problem, that is endemic because of the corruption of our political system, it gets (almost) everybody eventually. And any effective politician is going to piss a lot of people off, that is why they are all so fond of doing nothing, or only very obscure things.
bigtree
(85,984 posts)...like Barack Obama had with the black community?
It looks as if Hillary has a good shot of energizing women voters; much in the same way that she attracted a record number of voters, overall, to vote for in her primary against Barack Obama (who also received a record number of votes in that primary). Don't ignore the fact that Obama had his own problems with fending off invented scandals and 'bumps'.
By the way, these 'scandals' she's facing now are bullshit and have absolutely nothing to do with progressive opposition to her, rather, they are the product of a Rovian-inspired politics and hypocritical for republican contenders who have their own 'email' problems and for Jeb who actually took in foreign dollars into his private bank account while lobbying for his Chinese business partners. It doesn't take much to imagine how much more is behind these attempts to divert from republican picadillos and corruption. Remember, it was Jeb who found the need to divest himself from his corporate ties at the beginning of his 'exploratory' campaign, and, with a selective sleight of hand, offer a diverting slice of emails and still conceals many more which are likely questionable, at best.
If Democrats who oppose Hillary Clinton want to overcome her presidential bid, it won't come from co-opting republican scandal-mongering. It will come from defining their own politics outside of her corporate-friendly, militarization-minded policies and posturing. In fact, every republican-generated scandal looks to draw even more Democrats to her defense and support. This writer in Rolling Stone may well wish we're all interested in joining in with their cynical attacks and take up their skewed pitchforks and dull axes against Hillary Clinton, but, in the end, Democrats are more likely to circle around our nominee (whoever it is) and knock the wheels off of their bandwagon.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)That being said there is no guarantee Hilary Clinton or any Democrat can keep it together but some are much better positioned to keep it together than others and Hillary Clinton is one of them.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)He owns the largest popular vote/Electoral College victory in the history of the republic, or at the least, in the last couple of centuries or so.
Ditto for Belichick as an effective coach...
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)there is no universe where this is remotely true.
It was a Rev. Wright, fist bump, where's the birth certificate pass...
dsc
(52,155 posts)what were there no tea leaf readers, mediums, or fortune tellers available.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)'Hillary Clinton is turning into Iggy Azalea and Oprah Winfrey. All three are women. Raymond Chandler once wrote a great passage about women. Something about femme fatales. Let me take another bong hit and google L.A. noir fiction....'