General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWho remembers HRC's behavior in the 2008 Primaries?
Fine, call me a Hillary Hater. I know that some people here can't tolerate any criticism at all. I can take it. I don't hate her (and will vote for her if she is our nominee) but I do feel as if I was treated unfairly in '08 and I can't be the only one.
I do appreciate that she is out there trying to do something about the disenfranchisement of millions of voters. Her statements would have more credibility if she had not done what she did the last time she ran for office.
Yes yes yes.... I know that a primary vote is not a constitutionally protected right but it still should not be manipulated for the sake of personal ambition.
I wonder what part of Democracy she was afraid of?
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2008/03/03/clintons-duplicity-michigan-florida-delegates
^snip^
How did the Florida-Michigan debacle come to pass? And by what means can the mishaps of the Democratic National Committee and state party officials be rectified before the Democratic party convention in August in Denver, Colorado?
The Michigan-Florida delegate controversy began to percolate in December 2007, when state party officials announced their intentions to hold early primaries in direct violation of Democratic National Committee agreements and rules. The DNC took a hard line, telling state officials that rebel primaries were ceremonial and would not be counted at the convention. Both states disregarded the DNC position and held maverick primaries in January. Eager to please the superdelegates on the DNC, both Clinton and Obama agreed with the rules, and both signed pledges not to campaign in either state. "You know," Senator Clinton remarked, "it's clear the election they're having isn't going to count for anything. Obama's name did not even appear on the ballot in Michigan." (Obama was not allowed to withdraw his name in Florida.)
Clinton, however, hedged her bets. Though she vowed not to campaign, a vow that implies rejection of the election, she kept her name in the running in Michigan. She won the contest easily because Obama's name was kept off the ballot. (Jesse Jackson won the Michigan primary in 1984.) Then, coincidentally she arrived at the Miami airport for a fundraiser on the eve of the Florida vote.
The second approach, a solution that Clinton is prepared to force on the Party regardless of the consequences, is also faulty. Clinton now claims she deserves the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Yes, Obama played by the rules. Tough on him.
P.S. I voted "uncommitted" for the first (and only) time in my life because of this.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)even more distasteful. 2007-2008 saw a lot of bad behaviour from candidates, surrogates, and supporters.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)He might pick her for SOS.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)the primary until nearly the end. I was already supporting Obama.
I just don't know what we gain by rehashing the primary of 7 years ago. But I've seen DUers who are still pissed at Ted Kennedy from 1980, so...
Cha
(297,100 posts)appreciate her.
I like all the Dem candidates so far.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)The last vote she cast was for Hillary in the Florida primary . She was legally blind and in a wheel chair so I had to help her with her ballot.
mythology
(9,527 posts)And good for her for making sure she did vote.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I don't think she ever missed a vote or ever cancelled out mine and given my moniker that was a very good thing.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)The one who tried to have superdelegates over rule the voters.
To much ambition can be a bad thing. A very bad thing.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)So very right.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)... she chose the voters over DNC rules.
See how that works?
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)...because they were told that the vote was meaningless?
You can try to spin this all you want but the truth exists. She disenfranchised voters for her own benefit.
The reason I turned out and voted uncommitted was because it was obvious to me that she planned on doing this all along.
She never choose the voters over the rules. She choose her own ambitions over the voters. This holds true for when she asked the Super-delegates to ignore the vote totals and simply vote for her.
You can't have it both ways, and neither can she.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Significantly reducing the importance of states afterward?
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)The system is flawed, but telling voters that the vote means nothing and then insisting that it does, because it is now beneficial to you, is an issue who wants the high ground on voter's rights.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)It was the DNC that restored the delegates.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)delegates. The SDs were introduced in 1988 under a deal worked out by Mike Dukakis and Jesse Jackson. Prior to that rule change the delegates were awarded in a winner take all way by state. Had the old rules stayed in effect, Hillary would have won the majority of pledged delegates.
The rules specifically said that you win the nomination by winning a majority of the delegates. All the delegates. And historically that was always the understanding--there was no informal, de facto agreement that whoever led in the delegate count coming from primaries and caucuses would get the nomination. Hillary made campaign decisions within the context of those rules and that historical precedent. She won a majority of congressional districts. It was a legitimate strategy, if not a successful one.
Therefore I don't believe it is reasonable to assert that she behaved unethically by not acknowledging the Obama position regarding delegates as indisputably the correct one. And if Obama thought it was then shame on him for having her out on the campaign trail for him.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)I do believe that to try and overturn the will of the voters by having Super delegates simply pick the winner (one other than who the voters wanted) is unethical.
If more people agree with you then we may as well just go back to smoke filled rooms. Why even go through the charade of a primary?
StevieM
(10,500 posts)you are overturning it if the leader in that particular category is not selected as nominee.
Hillary made several arguments as to why she should be nominated, like the fact that if you looked at the primary map through the prism of the electoral college map, she would come out on top. She also won a majority of congressional districts. She brought up the issue of the fairness of caucuses, and how many people can't attend, and whether it is fair to consider those delegates equal to primaries delegates. Granted the rules say that they were--but the rules also included automatic delegates (SDs) and without them there might have been different ways of counting or awarding the PDs.
I even seem to remember that in Texas Latino areas were awarded fewer delegates because they had lower turnout in the 2004 primaries. Would that have been allowed in a system that didn't include SDs? Maybe, maybe not.
My point is that there is a difference between saying that you felt Obama should be the nominee, based on a how and where the votes were cast, and saying that he so clearly was entitled to it that anyone who disagrees was trying to steal it and lacks ethics.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)For the most part, the Super delegates are elected officials. It is their sworn duty to serve their constituents. To overturn the will of their constituents would be unethical.
I have no doubt that people can rationalize unethical behavior with arguments such as an electoral map advantage. It is also clear that the argument is flawed on several levels. Most notably, Sen. Obama became President Obama even without winning the primaries in the states most influenced by money and name recognition....err... I mean the big states that Sen. Clinton was touting as her reason for rejecting the will of the people.
Again I ask, what part of Democracy is she afraid of?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)The Florida debacle is often blamed by those ignorant of the situation on the republican majority in the legislature. That is emphatically wrong. The proposal to move the Primary up to Jan was made by a Hillary-supporting Democrat, to the amazement of Republicans. All but one Democrat voted for it. The thinking was that the early primary would favor Hillary (since she had far more name recognition than Obama), she would lock up the nomination early, and would then change the rules to allow FL's delegates count. We know how that ended up. Most disgusting of all was Nelson and DWS constant exposure in the media, lying through their teeth, blaming the republicans (who merely went along with the Dems committing suicide), and wailing about votes not being counted...when they themselves orchestrated the fiasco. It was that point in time I realized just how corrupt the Fl Dem Party had become. Madfloridan covered this extensively in her blog, but few on DU were paying attention.
Response to Motown_Johnny (Original post)
Post removed
Divernan
(15,480 posts)I heard that Sesame Street had a whole program about the letter C. That must not stand!
The Devil made me do it.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Everyone knows that line "The Devil Made Me Do It" was used by Flip Wilson dressed in drag as the character Geraldine. Oh! Oh! Oh! - that was disrespectful of women. That was, wait for it . . . . . . . .misogynistic!
But wait - that was also sort of early transgender, so maybe it was politically correct. I'm so confused! What's a poster to do? ! ? ! ?
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=Flip+Wilson+Geraldine&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Very c... lever.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)I also don't believe one stupid incident of wordplay warrants an immediate ban of a progressive voice for seven years on DU, with no previous history in that regard, with not even a suspension and a chance to apologize.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The teeth of the self-appointed "misogyny police" need to be drawn and now. They cannot be allowed to turn this site into a place where every poster needs to walk on eggs in order they aren't hurting the widdle feews of someone in a disproportioally powerful and seemingly influential clique.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)c-word here lest the mean old "misogynist police" get you?
The Internet is a big place. Surely you can find a place where there are no "misogyny police" (namely EarlG) and you can call her the c-word all you want.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)here or anywhere. I have a rich and imaginative vocabulary for expressing contempt that does not need to include vulgarity.
I have been around DU for the better part of ten years and have seen people swarm-attacked, alert-stalked and generally harassed by a certain clique here that parses seemingly every post to see if there is something they can use as a justification for bogus outrage; I have been in their crosshairs more than a few times because I have dared to disagree (!) with them.
Nice try. Fail.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)n/t
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)was a yada yada, not SHE was a yada yada. It doesn't even make grammatical sense to interpret it as such.
Whatever.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)That he was most likely just referencing the ban of NYC_SKP in the same way I just did, probably for the same reason. If you're trying to draw something out of me, good luck with that.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Response to Post removed (Reply #6)
Motown_Johnny This message was self-deleted by its author.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Casablanca (1942) Quotes on IMDb: ... Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money].
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)You think you're so clever to have called Hillary "a little B" and gotten away with it. If you meant Backstabber, you should have said backstabber instead of "little B." "Little B" connotes something very different. And you know it. That's why you did it.
Cha
(297,100 posts)........campaigner"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6787434
He had quite the show for those egging him on ..and then. Oooops.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)I was responding in kind to a post calling her a c..... campaigner.
I should not have. I showed poor judgement and apologize.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Genuinely appreciate it.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I hope you all ramp it up.
Cha
(297,100 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)On Fri Jun 5, 2015, 11:34 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
She was acting like a little B...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6787720
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
First we have one poster use c, with Clinton. Then this poster uses B, with Clinton. Our men on DU do not get to use misogyny to run this campaign. We already had one long timer get kick off for this childish giggle with misogynist slurs. Disruptive. Hurtful. Insensitive.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jun 5, 2015, 11:43 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Calling the expression "backstabber" mysogynistic is way over the top. The word is in no way gender specific, used both on males and females equally. This new hyper-alert mode here is what is disruptive, hurtful and rude. It needs to stop!
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alerter. I am sick of seeing these things posted about a female candidate. This needs to end now. Please hide this.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Completely agree with alerter. Childish and sexist post.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Juror #1 completely ignores that the poster called Hillary "a little B." The poster blatantly copied the same silly, childish sexist style of a post he was replying to, a post that was hidden by a bare 4-3 vote because it called Hillary "a little C... " The juror completely ignored that the poster called Hillary "a little B" and said, feigning stupidity, that the poster was only calling her a "backstabber." And then has the nerve to take it further and claim it was the alert that was "hurtful and rude."
No, Juror 1, calling a woman a "backstabber" or a "campaigner" is not mysogynistic. Calling a woman "a little C" or "a little B" is.
Truly disgusting to see on a progressive discussion board.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Jayzus.
treestar
(82,383 posts)As are those who keep arguing the spoonerism was not meant to invoke another slur.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)Moving forward. DU is more or less dominated by Bernie devotees and they serve on juries. The only reason what's his name got the boot for the c word thing was because it was done by an admin. Had that post been left up to the jury system it would have never happened.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Bernie and his values don't accept misogyny. Team Hillary Hate, on the other hand, ...
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Is yet more proof that there needs to be a flushing of our Augean stables. The censorious tail is perilously close to wagging the DU dog and it is time to do something decisive about it.
murielm99
(30,730 posts)Ban anyone who supports Hillary for President, or defends her here? Ban anyone who criticizes others for name-calling?
Let's do something "decisive"? I think you need to elaborate.
This place is dangerously close to being out of control. And I think Bernie would be very upset by some of the things his supporters are saying here.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Too many think it's "their turn" and can't abide that a black man beat their chosen one to the WH. Flame away.
murielm99
(30,730 posts)You are completely out of line.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If I even got in the same area code as calling an African American the n word on this board I would have my account terminated and rightfully so but some of the denizens of this board seem to want to use ugly sexist imagery with impunity.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)cloudythescribbler
(2,586 posts)I supported Obama strongly in the primaries, starting BO (before Oprah) to donate periodically, mainly in the HOPE that he would not turn out to be a neoliberal like the Clintons. This was true before I seriously thought he could win (yes, there was a time). I support Bernie, confident that he can't win for the same reason as the early Barack, more confident also that Bernie though endorsing the nominee will not abandon 'Democratic wing of the Democratic Party' politics as Howard Dean has at least in part.
That said, Hillary was just fighting to win. Obama was more honorable, but also more astute a politician -- he was exactly what I thought the 'best realistically possible' president to elect might be. I am disappointed but not surprised by his neoliberalism from drones to theHonduras coup to the TPP to what I call his 'leave it to Uighurs' attitude on so much else. Still, like Hillary he is miles better than the clown circus called the Republican Party. Now GOPers eg on Bill Maher have argued that in trying to stifle voting rights and obstruct constituencies that vote mostly Democratic they are just playing to win -- but I see a massive difference here and do NOT feel that the Democrats even begin to do the same with the GOP.
Just my two cents
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)So is it OK when a Democrat does it?
merrily
(45,251 posts)How someone conducts himself or herself matters. Ethics, rules, laws, matter. At least to some. Especially when you seek the job of chief executive of the United States.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Thanks for spelling it out more clearly.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)I think some are also trying to protect their personal integrity also.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Suffer from either memory loss or selective hearing.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)making an issue of Obama's middle name? If memory serves, that Hussein b.s. didn't originate with the right wing, but they took the ball and ran with it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 6, 2015, 01:54 AM - Edit history (1)
Bill, Robert Johnson, Andrew Cuomo, Ferrara, leaks to media, etc. By the time the campaign got desperate enough to involve Hillary herself, it was beyond dog whistle:
I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on, she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article that found how Sen. Obamas support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.
Theres a pattern emerging here, she said.
https://libertystreet.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/hillary-clinton-hard-working-americans-are-white-americans/
video at link
Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions.
POLITICS BLOG: Blogosphere is buzzing
The Obama campaign, looking toward locking up the nomination, stepped up pressure on superdelegates who have the decisive votes in their race.
In both states, Clinton won six of 10 white voters, according to surveys of people as they left polling places.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that in Indiana, Obama split working-class voters with Clinton and won a higher percentage of white voters than in Ohio in March. He said Obama will be the strongest nominee because he appeals "to Americans from every background and all walks of life. These statements from Sen. Clinton are not true and frankly disappointing."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm
edgineered
(2,101 posts)is not the same as recruiting. When it becomes easier for the prospect to promise a meeting than to convince you that he is not interested, that is the route he will take. For similar reasons I would be afraid to state any opposition to some groups, issues, and candidates here. It's much easier to quietly watch.
2banon
(7,321 posts)I recall her primary campaigning in Mississippi and Alabama. It was broadcast live on C-Span.
it's a memory I cannot wipe from my mind especially when she "speaks" to a Southern Black audience.
I can't possibly describe that experience with any level of accuracy. Supporters would do well to search C-Span's archives for HRC's appearances of her primary campaign stops.
It's a real eye opener.
rock
(13,218 posts)Rather than tear the Democratic Party apart once Obama had a very slight edge she bravely took the statesman's view and ceded the nomination. I can't rightly think of a time when a politician has made such a political sacrifice of their own interests for the sake of her party and thereby for the society at large. Here's to you Hillary!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Wake me up when the Republicants pick Hillary's challenger.
rock
(13,218 posts)Thanks for the reminder! I'm off to bed.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Good night.
merrily
(45,251 posts)forcing Obama to continue the primary campaign, with all the time, money and effort that entailed, instead of going full bore against McCain. Meanwhile, McCain had clinched the Republican nomination early, so extending the Democratic primary gave him a double edge. Not to mention that Hillary had said on national TV that McCain and she were ready for that am phone call, but Obama was not.
Mercifully, McCain was capable of blowing every advantage.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)....had NO mathematical chance of winning.
rock
(13,218 posts)Google is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008
You can plainly see from the information provided that provided you were willing to tear the party apart and in fact weaken the support that Obama would ultimately receive in the general that Hillary assessed her position and did what was best for the country.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)And then leveraged that into a Sec. of State position.
If she had torn the party apart then she would not be in the running now.
Her decision was not selfless.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)The very fact that you need to misrepresent her behavior shows that you are on the wrong side here. If you were honest about this you would be critical of her too.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)was revolting. Someone posted KO's Special Comments about them in the last few days. Keith was right.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I could write a book. In fact if my posts were lined up in a row it would be a book. Not a very good one, but a long one.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Can't decide which was worse, 04 or 08 primaries. Both very rough.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)And movies. Big David Lynch fan. And like the late great Hunter Thompson said, when the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
I was here in '08 under a different handle. Wasn't banned, just forgot the password. I was an Obama supporter and remember it all too vividly.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)You probably would have approved of my posts.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)I remember it. And it was weird. I haven't forgotten it. But I don't dislike Hillary now as much as I did then. I guess time have softened my feelings, and I think she's gone a long way to patch things up. I know you probably disagree with me on this, but that's okay.
A couple of things you might enjoy. The book The Boys on the Bus by Timothy Crouse, about the 1972 media coverage of McGovern. It's a nice companion to Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail. Talks about Thompson too, Crouse respected him. Also, if you haven't seen Big Eyes by Tim Burton yet, I highly recommend it. I'm a big Lynch fan too.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)In particular, in exposing the Florida sham primary and who was responsible.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Things were just in shambles. So much tension. All the Dem leadership hated Dean and never got over it.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)I believe that the past is prologue.
We should all revisit the '08 primaries before nominating our candidate for 2016. The same type of mistakes may be made again, but this time after we have our nominee, and that could be disastrous.
JI7
(89,244 posts)6chars
(3,967 posts)and wanted her capabilities on his team. Really, is it better to have a candidate who, for the sake of unity, is not going to fight to win? Not to rehash another bad memory, but I remember 2000.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)But I thought it said, "other."
And was furious when, after telling Michigan voters that the primary votes would not be counted for our state, the Clinton people put up a big stink because they wanted ALL our votes at the convention.
The DNC wisely distributed the votes among all the candidates, even though they weren't listed on the ballot - mainly because the Primary was held in January and we didn't have permission to have it then, and we had been warned that our votes would not count no matter who they were for.
What a mess that was. Granholm was a strong supporter and I think the invalid election was held to make sure that Mrs. Clinton did not come out other than first. They could not rely on an honest primary that might have been embarrassing for them.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Hillary would have easily won Florida.
Yeah, I remember 2008. Obama was treated as the second coming of the Lord and Hillary was continually trashed by an adoring Obama media and mesmerized supporters who kept fainting at his rallies. Does anyone remember the time that Obama sneezed and wiped his nose and people clapped as if it had been some momentous event? It would have been funny if it hadn't been so ridiculous.
One more thing, to the male commenters who think that it's very funny to imply that Hillary is a bit.. and a cu.. STOP IT!!! As a woman, I find offensive such terms being used to address other women. Particularly someone who in all probability will be the Democratic nominee. Someone who was the first lady of the nation, a US senator, a SOS and may yet become president. Have a little more respect. How would you like if someone used those terms to address your mothers, sisters and daughters? In a progressive site women shouldn't be called sexist and derogatory names. Not that it surprises me. One thing I did learn from the 2008 election. There are as many sexist liberals as there are conservatives.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)I'm just revolted by the derogatory names that Hillary has been called in a so called progressive site. I can understand political differences, but the sexist name calling has got to stop. It's not just a slap on the face to her, but to women in general.
I'm a woman first, political affiliation comes second. I do not appreciate hearing other women being called names just because some folks disagree with that person's politics.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)OK, I can understand that. How will you prevent the GOP from exploiting that to exploit women? Yes, Sarah Palin was a misfire, but when you have GOP governors like Susannah Martinez, Nikki Haley, Jan Brewer tuning up for Veep Spots, how do we attack that they will say "well I AM a woman" to hide the fact they are going after women?
Beacool
(30,247 posts)When Sarah Palin was in the running, I read plenty of sexist comments here and on other sites. I didn't agree with them either. There's a huge difference between having political differences and insulting a woman based on her gender. I don't care if it's the devil incarnate, no woman should be called the "C" word. Would it be acceptable if Obama was called the "N" word by his opponents? Of course not. Then why should it be OK to address a woman in a similar offensive matter? Why is it that racist remarks are immediately tamped down, but sexist remarks are poo pooed? That was one bitter lesson from 2008. A woman, no matter how accomplished, will always be judged on her gender first. What's more pathetic than the men doing it, were the inane comments by women reporters and pundits. MSNBC and FOX were particularly egregious in that respect. I haven't watched MSNBC since 2008. Fox it goes without saying.......
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)In my journal, I have stated that nobody should be called a slur ever, not just because it is a lousy thing to do, but also, in the long run, it is damaging. I will re-phrase the question: how do we prevent the GOP candidates that are women from using their gender to hide the fact they are supporting a party that is bad for all women?
and while this part is true:
A woman, no matter how accomplished, will always be judged on her gender first.
The same can be said of race. Obama will be judged as black first, especially as people will attack him with a freedom that would NEVER have done to Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)What made you change your mind?
Cha
(297,100 posts)first SOS.. as we all know.
Now here we all are again with Hillary running.. and I wish her well.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Cha
(297,100 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)I guess trying to win on their candidate's merits is not enough, so they'll try to soil Hillary along the way.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)because this time they could easily happen after we have our nominee.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)There has not been a more stalwart supporter of President Obama on this board than me but HRC was, is, and always will be hugely popular among Florida Democrats and I look forward to that proposition being tested in the upcoming Florida primary.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)I lived in Florida, my mother continued to live there for decades. As a matter of fact, I just returned from FL on Thursday. Florida would have gone to Hillary regardless of whether the DNC wanted to validate those votes or not.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)~40% voted uncommitted just to make a statement that they/we didn't want her to have those delegates.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)because they were told the vote meant nothing.
That ~40% was an anti-Hillary vote.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)Am not an American and if I could vote, I never would vote for her.
We are viewing some thoughts from her, Rice and Albright as a lunch and learn at work. Needless to say, all those three women makes me want to puke. Since when Rice is an advocate for women's rights?
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)I remember when Hillary railed on us with sound and fury, before Florida voters voted for her. Then the chant became "count our votes!"
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)A displaced Cards fan here in DC.
Warpy
(111,236 posts)was that she didn't can her campaign handlers the second it became clear that their ideas were losing her the nomination, something that happened fairly early.
Clinging to bad staffers is not a good quality when you're trying to get the job of running the country. Bad staffers can do a lot of damage.
And she seems to be repeating the same mistake this time already.
Her IWR vote is a perfect example. I think she knew pretty quickly that was a bad vote but felt it would make her look weak politically if she didn't hold onto it. She held on way to long to that one and I think it made a big difference for her in the primaries with Obama. Only to finally give in after the election.
She seems to do this sort of thing a lot.
Having said that I also find it one of the most appealing things about her. She is a fighter and will stand up to withering scrutiny even when the tide is clearly against her once she makes the calculation. I admire the strength she has shown over the years through many controversies.
There is no doubt in my mind she would stand up to the pressures of the office, and while I might not agree with her on everything I think on balance she would be a very competent president.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)What nonsense. Nobody needs 2 phones for 2 email accounts and they didn't back when she became SOS either.
Maybe the problem isn't the staffers. She has only won 2 elections in her entire life and those were both the Senate seat she carpetbagged.
I think she is a terrible candidate, always has been and always will be. I just wish others would figure it out before the nomination is given to her like some kind of door prize.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)It was a hard core politics and candidates often do and say crazy things during tough campaigns.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)What then?
A third President Bush?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)imo.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)My opinion is that she is a terrible candidate who will make another insane statement like running from sniper fire, and then stick with that falsehood over and over and over again until she is forced to finally admit she was wrong. Then she will try to excuse it by saying something like "I misspoke, I say millions of words a day and some are wrong".
If she could fall apart like that in a primary battle (and she did) then how do you expect her to keep it together in the General?
Please keep in mind, this is not an attack ad (yet). It is a news story.
My favorite line "all this experience she has been talking about is at least partially her imagination".
DCBob
(24,689 posts)she still nearly won. She has a strong loyal following that I believe is even stronger this time around.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)and she didn't nearly win. 33 contests v 23 contests (including caucuses and territories)
Delegate count was 2285.5 to 1973 and that was even with the FL and MI delegates being counted as half when she agreed that they would not be counted at all. So this total is horribly slanted in her favor. Even then she got ~46.3% and he got ~53.6 (unless my math is off, feel free to double check me).
A ~7.3% loss isn't nearly winning.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)which was more a strategic mistake than anything. Furthermore she was up against the most inspiring candidate since Kennedy. The Republicans have nothing like that. Pretty sure she will win.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)..or to have been broke when her/their net worth was around 6 million dollars.. or to invoke the murder of RFK as some reason to not give up hope on her... or something even worse.
Or makes another fatal strategic mistake.
She has almost no experience running for office. She has proven herself to be a terrible candidate.
We can do better.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I won't bash Bernie but just to say he is a very weak national candidate.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Lets hold off judgement on who is better until we get a couple debates behind us, shall we?
Edit to add: Since you didn't respond to my comment that she didn't just barely lose I am assuming that you agree with my statement. How can you assert that she is such a strong candidate when you agree that, even with the advantages she had, she lost decisively the last time around?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Cheers.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)He has far more experience and a clearer message.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)It was 100% negative and a massive turn-off. Their efforts made me realize that Senator Clinton should not be our party's nominee.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Obama didn't hold any grudges.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)How can you not get that?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)To Hillary's credit, though, instead of holding a grudge, she vigorously campaigned for Obama during the GE. And Obama didn't hold a grudge either. So neither do I.
And the most important thing is, we need to keep the White House in 2016. Which means we need Hillary to win.
Hekate
(90,627 posts)It's called politics, the adult version thereof.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)not about her personal relationship with President Obama.
Hekate
(90,627 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)"That is not politics, that is undermining politics."
99Forever
(14,524 posts)AND the lessons taught by both the winner and loser of that primary. Those memories are being applied to every political choice I make for the rest of my life.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Supporting Hillary Clinton's campaign for president was the proudest experience of my life.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)It demonstrated 2 different characters definitely.
Since that primary I have admired Obama's "cool".
I may dislike to quite degree how neoliberal his
policies turned out, but I still admire his coolness.
He almost, just almost lost it in his fight with
EW though.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,336 posts)... this was before he became "that" John Edwards.