2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWould like some thoughts regarding Hillary.
I love Bernie. I was born in Europe, many cousins there, would love nothing better than to live under a more socialist system.
What I find troublesome is that those against Hillary, even Democrats, are focused on 20 year old unproven right wing conspiracy theories.
I remember when she became first lady. She wanted to take on reforming Healthcare and supported universal healthcare. She was quickly and harshly put into her place. Apparently, first ladies are suppose to arrange flowers and redecorate the white house. Which is why Michelle Obama who graduated at the top of her class at Princeton is GARDENING!
I don't agree with Hillary on choices she made while Senator. But, the Iraq war, for example, had more than enough votes...her vote wasn't needed. Same with her other votes. Maybe she thought she had to be tough to get into the all boys club. I don't know....
The United States is 200+ years old, 44 presidents and the only woman to have made a real effort to get that job has been demonized.
Just asking....
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Pathological liar.
I will wait for Warren.
Broward
(1,976 posts)
RichGirl
(4,119 posts)I love Warren too...but she has no interest in or experience in foreign policy.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I think ethics and good judgement outweigh experience. Clinton's 'experience' led to one disaster after another. State dept is still cleaning up after her. Only scandals in Obama's administration were Hillary.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)foreign policy experience.
He only thought he did.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Yet Hillary's supporters believe she should mimic his policies.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)has been an exercise in foreign policy. He was born of a bi-cultural couple in a multicultural, multi-ethnic state. After his American mother divorced his African father, he lived with her in Indonesia with her second husband. His extended family is like a "little mini-United Nations." He himself has used that analogy.
President Obama also has earned the highest respect abroad of any US President since FDR. JFK had a similar favorable rating, but JFK's tenure was cut short.
What's not to mimic? Are his policies perfect? No. But considering what he inherited, he's done pretty darn good and one heckuva lot better than someone without his extraordinary background - or Hillary's - ever could have or will be able to.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)He had zero foreign policy experience when he became president.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)gives one a much greater perspective on foreign policy than any number of degrees or high-level appointments. It also can give one an innate sense that the world is much more than one country that believes that it is the ONLY one in the world that counts.
President Obama has that innate sense and perspective. Period.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And had relatives killed in the Holocaust, thus by your measure he had LOTS more genetic foreign policy experience than Obama.
Obama was raised by white grandparents and a white mom in the USA.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)are repeating could be said to a greater or lesser degree about every single politician currently in office.
Bernie himself is not perfect by any means. But most Hillary supporters choose not to attack him or his spouse because we do not see ANY benefit in tearing down a good candidate and we like him too. We simply believe that Hillary is better. Most of us try to show that she is the better choice by talking about her strengths - and are derided and mocked for doing so. Or worse, we are silenced.
The name-calling you use is repeated against Hillary with such venom, glee and enthusiasm in a way specifically intended to "demonize" her, just as the OP states. From where does that unwarranted anti-Hillary venom, glee and enthusiasm come? Many of us have our ideas about that and those ideas are likely spot.
Women have always been told to "wait" for some unseen Godot, who never does arrive. We have had to seize what rights we have now for ourselves in many instances. We appreciate those men who fought the good fight alongside us.
In the unlikely event that Elizabeth Warren would ever even want to run for the presidency, there will be MANY then who will decide that even she somehow will not suffice because _________ and we'll once again hear that women will just have to wait longer.
F*** that! If not now with one of the strongest candidates of either sex EVER, then when?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Give me four examples of twenty year old right-wing conspiracy theories that Sanders supporters are relying on.
Also speaking of conspiracy theories, do you still believe the following statement?
revbones
(3,660 posts)Wilms
(26,795 posts)Didn't happen to notice anything else??
And to criticize is sexist, it seems you are saying.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)The Rose Garden Organic Garden was meant to be a perfect storm of press releases about the First Lady's commitment to good healthy food.
But meanwhile, at the exact same moments in history, Obama was turning the FDA into a career path for Monsanto executives!
It was a great ploy because it worked. Unfortunately those who do write history from a progressive point of view, they will certainly come to understand that what The Obamas did was allow for another eight years of unregulated Gm seeds and crops.
Tragically, there is probably no way to undo this damage. Even if we secured every official position in the nation for people who are totally progressive and against Gm's.
After all, pollen does not care one bit about legislation. Pollen is like the evil genies of Pandora's mythic box. Once released into the air, the pollen is there forever.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I have done it twice already. My problem with Hillary is she pretends to be friendly to liberal ideas, yet she is not. She is authoritarian and she loves to cozy up to the likes of Kissinger. She has no problem with brutal dictators yet, hit Bernie on not wanting to over throw the dictators in Central and South America. I could argue with Bernie about that, but I will not say on one hand you have to work with brutal dictators and on the other hand you have to overthrow the ones that are working against the corporate interests of the United States.
monicaangela
(1,508 posts)Very well said! 
Myrina
(12,296 posts)n/t
just not THIS woman.
RKP5637
(67,088 posts)I could not vote for someone based on what sex they are as a primary deciding factor.
djean111
(14,255 posts)I do not like her stances on war, fracking, cluster bombs, the TPP, Wall Street.....and other things. And - she lies. And lies. And lies.
Those are ISSUES. Her gender has not got one thing to do with my hatred of those issues. I am a woman, too - and the idea that I would feel I had to inflict those issues on other people and their families just to prove I am tough is reprehensible.
She is now against universal health care. Her answer to crushing college debt and costs is a cynical band-aid. Yes, she may be parroting Bernie right now, because it seems she would say anything at all just to get elected - and I am frightened at what she may do if elected. She is a Third Way corporatist who likes war. Being a woman does not make that more palatable or less harmful.
I would be ecstatic to have the chance to vote for Liz Warren. Because of the ISSUES. And that is why I support Bernie - because of the ISSUES.
Dragging out the gender card again is pathetic, really. She is not entitled to anything, just because she is a woman. I would not support a man who held the same positions on the issues.
So - there is your answer...
greymouse
(872 posts)The Republicans hate Hillary, no cess. But:
Hillary voted for and advocated the Iraq war.
She collects a quarter of a mil each for speeches to Wall Street.
She and Bill have accumulated over a hundred million dollars since they left the White House, but she thinks the $15 minimum wage is too high for some people.
She was in favor of the environmentally disastrous pipeline until she found it was unpopular, then she decided she was against it.
She advocated for NAFTA, a disaster for U.S. jobs, during Bill's administration.
She lied about being under Bosnia sniper fire.
She laughs when people die, a la Libya.
She destroyed the middle class/rural class country of Libya and turned it into an ISIS haven endangering Italy as well as other places. Terrible for everyone there but especially for women who had a semblance of equal rights before that and whom she claims to particularly care for.
She lies. Then she lies again. She engages in dirty politics.
Well, I'd type more, but life is too short.
I'll add I would have loved to have voted for Anne Richards. I am not voting for a nasty piece of work incompetent individual like Hillary just because she is female. I say that as a female with street cred credentials as a feminist.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)And the Iraq war. And the superpredators. And the Libya. And the Syria. And the Honduras. And the Glass Stegall. And on and on.
Did I mention the lying?
You don't need no stinking 20 year old unproven right wing conspiracy theories to find plenty of reasons to oppose this trainwreck.
casperthegm
(643 posts)Like the Koch brothers reference in the debate last night. Trying to say that Bernie was affiliated with them. That is insulting. She must really think the voters are stupid. She, the fan of fracking, certainly knows that what she said was an outright smear. I challenge any HRC supporter to justify that smear and try to tell me I should overlook this, Iraq, Libya, Glass Steagall, the transcripts, and everything else and just vote for her if she wins the nomination. Go ahead and try to explain how all this is ok...
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...and it's just not true. I'm a Bernie supporter because he represents the kind of person I want in the White House. What's unfortunate this time around is we have two candidates that couldn't be further from each other in terms of character. The way they're funding their campaigns is another big draw for Bernie versus Hillary. With each passing public appearance, as Hillary throws more mud, distortions, and lies around and generally runs a campaign that is becoming slimier and slimier, it gets harder for me to justify voting for her. It has nothing to do with emails, Benghazi, Bill, or any other ridiculous thing that has come up against her.
It's about character...and hers is sorely lacking.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)RichGirl
(4,119 posts)And there's no one who can do that job except the first lady??? You think it was her first choice? She can't wait to get out of the white house!
BeyondGeography
(39,351 posts)Michelle doesn't strike me as political in the Washington game-playing sense (her husband isn't either, come to think of it). It's quite possible that in order to maintain a work/life balance in the process of raising two children, they both agreed on her role. So she has stuck to non-political work on child and family issues (and delivering the best speech a spouse has ever given on behalf of a presidential nominee at DNC 2012).
They seem to have had a good run as a family for eight years, enduring much less abuse than they might have had Michelle taken a leading role on the Hill fighting Republicans, e.g. More a victory for sanity and family than a defeat for women, imho.
monicaangela
(1,508 posts)did not come into the White House as part of a duo the way Bill and Hillary did. Bill and Hillary indicated from the start that they would both be involved in running the Presidency. Bill often said Hillary was one of his main advisors. On the other hand, Michelle Obama came into the White House as a wife and mother. She had an excellent job before doing so, but decided to support her husband in his endeavor. As first lady she looked for ways to make a difference without meddling in the affairs of the Presidency. She has done a great job and I am proud of her. It is a strong woman that can support her husband and family and at the same time try to help other families throughout this nation. And, by the way before I forget, gardening isn't the only thing she has done as first lady. She has many initiatives she and the wife of the VP are involved in...you should look them up I guarantee you'll be surprised.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Gardening takes skill and dedication and a whole lot of knowledge. Plus, I like to eat. It seemed a gratuitous slam, like saying you aren't the stand by your man type staying home baking cookies.
djean111
(14,255 posts)a concerted effort to make Hillary palatable to people who just do not like her on THE ISSUES by trivializing the issues and/or playing the gender card.
It will not work. We can look stuff up. In many cases, we were THERE when stuff happened, or it actually affected us personally.
And I would not bring up that having to be tougher bullshit - that just reminds us all of Maggie Thatcher. Some of the things Thatcher did were hateful - and to think she hurt people with her policies just to look tough - just makes it exponentially worse.
Hillary having to be tough - no, no one should have to sacrifice so that Hillary can be President.
I have seen someone try and make a case for cluster bombs. WTF. The TPP has its shillers here. The gender thing is played out. Gender is not even on my list of things I look for in a President. That is not what feminism is about - equal chance, stand on your record, tell the truth - not be given preference due to gender. Being given preference, even though the issues I have with her would be exactly the same if she were a man - is the opposite of what we worked for.
madokie
(51,076 posts)is a woman president for the soul purpose of having a woman president. I'd love to have seen Sen Warren make a run or a Tulsi Gabbard in the future but Hillary scares me in that we have to have a change of direction or we're seriously fucked as a democracy and she has not offered us one single vision other than more of the same. We have to get out of this rut we're in or else, simple as that.
This election cycle Bernie Sanders gives us a vision of making some changes that are in the best interest of 99 percent of us and I'll do everything I can to help him win this election.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)She is pretty far from Bernie or Elizabeth on the political spectrum. 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/15/rep-tulsi-gabbard-the-democrat-that-republicans-love-and-the-dnc-cant-control/
From the article:
...
What's more, Gabbard has been glorified in the conservative media. Her criticism of Obama's failure to cite "Islamic extremism" earned her appearances on Fox News, and in April, the conservative National Review wrote a glowing profile about the "beautiful, tough young" Democrat "who's challenging Obama's foreign policy" (though the magazine's adjective-heavy headline didn't earn them any favors with feminists).
She resembles Bernie most in that she is a wild card. Ask Hawaiian voters about her.
madokie
(51,076 posts)This is a total hit piece brought on by her moving away from the DWS third way bullshit and saying enough is enough.
Only a hillbot would not see this for what it is and post this bull. 
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)dates from 2015? That is LONG before recent events.
Do you really think that this article in 2015 anticipated that Tulsi would quit the DNC, endorse Bernie, and blast DWS just so that it would fit into your "hit piece" narrative? 
And did I call YOU a name? Real class indeed. Not.
Vinca
(50,237 posts)I also remember when she was first lady and promoting healthcare. She was not "put in her place" because she was a woman, she lost the fight because Republicans were being asshole Republicans. Michelle Obama is not just hanging around the White House gardening. She's also been doing important work on veteran's issues, among other things. Re Hillary's votes while a Senator. If a woman is going to vote with the men "just to be one of the boys," the last thing I want is for her to be POTUS. Please . . . don't play the "woman as victim" card. It's embarrassing.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)the Dems are only now discovering they are growing more unhappy with establishment politics by the week.
Hillary is loved by blacks in states she can't win. Bernie is loved by whites in states he can win.
White Rs love Trump.
Bernie and Trump can peel away the anti-establishment vote.
All 3 have very long resumes. Trump's is mixed at best, but he's unapologetic. Hillary's is mixed and she's constantly apologizing for "mistake." Bernie has nothing to apologize for.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)Sanders supporters are primarily white middle class young adults. I'm a Sanders supporter (by a hair) and certainly not young, but I don't demonize Hillary. Those who demonize Hillary seem to be a quandary about why so many minorities support her, and seem to take the struggles that preceded them for granted. They don't understand the price paid for those who pursued equal rights and the compromises they were forced into in the course of those struggles. They would probably call MLK a pawn for negotiating with LBJ. They are as big assholes as the Donald Trump supporters, but at least they vote the right way.
greymouse
(872 posts)I am not a white middle class kid, far from it.
A lot of us old farts were on the street lines for civil rights, so don't patronize us by assuming we're ignorant.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Maybe in a less dramatic way...But they are the ones who embody the old spirit you referred to.
tblue37
(65,227 posts)
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)and so of course you'd support Hillary-- but I'm concerned with the continued exploitation of those who are not rich.
There are many women who are not rich who think that because Hillary is female, she will be more inclined to look out for their interests. They see a woman in the highest office as a symbolic victory for women. Ironically nothing really would change for them or their families, with Hillary. There is more than enough evidence to indicate that fact, despite her faux populist rhetoric. Status Quo does NOT help the average person, male or female.
This election is too important to base the choice on a candidate's gender.
RichGirl
(4,119 posts)...is based on where I live...and wishful thinking maybe! Not my bank account.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)but you see how your DU name may be taken at face value. Thanks for explaining. 
RichGirl
(4,119 posts)Some may remember when dems ran a woman VP, Geraldine Ferraro
Here's electoral vote results
Ronald Reagan Republican 525
Walter F. Mondale Democratic 13
Reagan...a man who was an actor and a DEMOCRATIC governor in Calif...he did pretty good!
That was 1984! It was 24 years before a woman dared to run for higher office.
I'm not telling anyone to vote for Hillary. I voted Bernie in the primaries. I know she has baggage. A LOT of men with baggage have become president.
If you think the next woman who dares to run for president is going to just breeze through...think again!
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)interests.
Clinton does not represent my interests in the slightest.
RichGirl
(4,119 posts)Pretend I never mentioned her.
Now....tell me why in 200+ years we have not had a female president????
Seriously...I have an 8 year old granddaughter who has asked me this question. My answer...I don't know. If some could give me a good reason that I could share with her...I'd love to hear it.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)long to be around.
Plus look how fast society is evolving.
You should look at civilizations/societies as living entities. Subject to the laws of Darwinism. They either evolve and adapt or die.
We are now at a critical juncture.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Or India?
Many, many more centuries than two. We're a very, very young country
Women have only had the vote here for 100 years.
We've only begun to overthrow the patriarchy here in the past 50 years
LisaM
(27,794 posts)and England certainly had women rulers well before that. India didn't have a prime minister until the 1940s. We may be a young country, but I don't think it's exactly accurate to say that either of those countries waited centuries to have a female prime minister.
RichGirl
(4,119 posts)Let's check Hillary off the list of potential president.
NOW tell me why in 200+ years we have not had a female president?
Why have women not even tried?
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted American women the right to vote—a right known as woman suffrage. At the time the U.S. was founded, its female citizens did not share all of the same rights as men, including the right to vote. (wiki)
yesphan
(1,587 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)thanks for providing the link
greymouse
(872 posts)Women have been candidates in the non-establishment parties.
Regardless, I am not voting for a trainwreck just because she has a vagina. The last thing feminism needs is an incompetent woman President.
tblue37
(65,227 posts)Coincidence
(98 posts)ancianita
(35,949 posts)It's likely that having the economic disadvantage had much to do with why they didn't win. That and the fact that, for much of that time, women of the country couldn't vote.
greymouse
(872 posts)Not remotely qualified, and a husband who was a criminal.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)I used to advocate against Hillary, and then tried advocating for at least cross aisle support; but I had a bit of a Paul on the road to Damascus moment and realized that no, she stands for nothing I stand for because given how fast she spins, I don't know what she stands for. All I have to go on is her record-- and it's pretty damning. Sexism be damned, if I vote for someone, it's going to be based on policy, on contents, on consistency-- not what's between their legs, not the color of their skin. I want their consistency. I want their contents, not their label.
I want the best for this country, and warmonging and intervening in nation-states that don't want us there is a far cry from the best.
TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)I don't like her ideas on trade. I don't like how she has flip-flopped on gay rights. I don't like her support for the military industrial complex. I don't like that she insults our intelligence regarding massive donations from corporate America.
I don't like that as Secretary of State she pushed Obama to do even more regime change in the Middle East. And the current FBI investigation is not a 20 year old right wing conspiracy.
Loki
(3,825 posts)They will give you answer without all the hyperbole and you can make an informed decision on your own. There are positives and negatives for both candidates, but if you only listen to one side, then you can't consider yourself well informed. Peace.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)
Merryland
(1,134 posts)"I (love/like/admire/etc.) Bernie BUT..."
If you don't see why Bernie is in every way the better candidate, I can't convince you.
Protalker
(418 posts)When Bernie is asked how will you get things enacted, who will help he goes the American People will. Revolutionary talk but we are a nation governed by three branches. SCOTUS will be key to our future. Bernie when asked about what he has sponsored has been enacted stated a Veterans Bill, which is needed but a far cry from free everything that he and Trump offer. Find a top Democratic who will spearhead his agenda. Warren is noticeably reticent to do so.
TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)No Democrat is going to get liberal legislation through a Republican Congress. But the question is what kind of bipartisanship would we see? The Clintons have supported the kind of lousy trade policies that the Republican Party loves. I am afraid Hillary would go along with these kind of things in addition to the fact she has repeatedly advocated for regime change in the Middle East (something the GOP loves as well). I would not mind a perfect stalemate between Bernie and the GOP Congress. They pass terrible legislation and he vetoes it.
In any event, this discussion is pretty much pointless since I think Bernie's large losses in various states have pretty much finished his chance of winning the nomination.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)... that benefit the American people ...
Before change can occur - The DESIRE to change must be present ... Bernie provides the solutions, and WE need to vote for congresspersons who would help initiate those solutions in legislation ...
Why would we want the present constitution of Congress to dictate the kinds of policies that should be passed ?
If Congress is populated with a bunch of right wing extremists, we should ONLY vote for a Presidential candidate who would promote ONLY legislation and policies that would pass muster with a bunch of right wing nutcases ?
How does one EVER find an exit from the extreme right wing advocacy if one isn't willing to CHALLENGE that extremist orthodoxy ?
I don't see your notion; that we should only vote for candidates who can pass legislation by an EXTREME right wing congress, as a viable idea .... In fact, it is cowardly ...
We have a vision of how the government should be run ... We needn't suppress our own opinions about this governmental philosophy simply because some right wing whackos in congress happen to disagree ...
We need to do what's RIGHT .. NOT what Right wing whackos will agree to ....
hopeforchange2008
(610 posts)It has to do with her inability to be honest about her and her opponent's records, and it was on full display in last night's debate.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)It is just a few reasons why I think she is not a viable candidate for President but please notice none of them are 20 year old anything.
Hillary is a terrible candidate and grading on a curve because of her gender is a serious mistake.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--which makes it harder to argue that Clinton doesn't "deserve" the office. There is YUGE pent-up demand for a woman president to ensure greater opportunities for women in the future.
BUT
Her track record is just too damaging. Hillary has had to sell her soul to become a viable candidate. That in itself says much about the rotting of American democracy.
This election is bigger than "time for a woman."
It's time for a Bernie.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)The irony is that Hillary is all for America and the system that has made us great with changes that can correct some of the problems she has now come to realize over her years of activism on unpopular issues. Yes, she has made mistakes. She has learned from them. Yes, she is out there fighting. When you don't actually do anything, you don't make mistakes and you don't take risks. Hillary is about changing the system for the better by working within the system and using her knowledge and influence with people she doesn't turn off with remarks to make them look like villains.
Bernie enjoys almost non-vetting or any accountability for votes he actually has or has not taken. Hillary is held accountable for bills that she could't even vote on while not given the chance to even explain why she took those positions. Bernie is allowed to say I voted for that bad gill because there some things I liked, I voted against that good bill because there were things in it I didn't like.
I don't agree with everything Hillary does or says. But I see a really unfair and dishonest double standard that she has been fighting for decades...and the propaganda is working. If she could let loose on Bernie as Trump does on everyone else, people would hold it against her. It is a fact, that women in the public cannot act any where near as obtuse as a man.
Nitram
(22,768 posts)I find it interesting that on one side of the American voting spectrum we have conservative conspiracy theorists supporting Trump, and on the other we have liberal conspiracy theorists supporting Sanders. I don't think that reflects poorly on Sanders, but it is an interesting phenomenon. Could it be due to a loss of faith in journalism, and a tendency to look for dark and hidden explanations for that demographic's malaise?
TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)Do you believe the corporations and billionaires give a ton of money to politicians for no reason? You think it's just for the hell of it? They expect something in return. Both parties have been bought off for a long time. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It's just the truth. Look at the policies we have seen over the last 35+ years. You cannot blame the Republicans for all of it. The Democrats helped push policies that heavily favored corporations and interest groups (like the military industrial complex) at the expense of the American people.
Nitram
(22,768 posts)There is no guarantee that they will get their money's worth. It might buy them some face time to lobby, but the president will decide what policies to propose and enforce once he or she is in office. I'm sure they are often disappointed. Certainly some congressional candidates are influenced because they are ethically weak. But not everybody is so easily swayed by political donations. I believe that if our next president is a Democrat, supreme court nominations will result in Citizens United being overturned. Money does distort the system, not only through influence, but also through advertising.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)Her taking 600 plus thousand from a financial institution that destroyed economies and lives is not.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)What I'm hearing you say is don't judge her on who she was 20 years ago.
Don't judge her on her time as first lady.
Don't judge her on what she did in her professional career.
Don't judge her on her senate votes.
I'm left wondering what on earth you judge people on when you walk into the voting booth.
You may as well vote republican - by that logic - as long as their votes weren't THE deciding vote on all the nasty crap they support.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)The cost in lives in the fruitless wars she's backed to "look strong" for the sake of career is more than just the price of posing. They were real people with real lives paying the price for her ambitions.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)What I find troublesome is that those against Hillary, even Democrats, are focused on 20 year old unproven right wing conspiracy theories.
What forum are you on? Because you're clearly not reading this one.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)i don't think it's demonizing to point out her support for cluster bombs or her role in Libya, Honduras etc
HRC's past work as FLOTUS wasn't demonized either because she was a woman. It was attacked by the right because she was taking on the bloated health care industry. She hadn't become one of "the club" yet and tried to take down a deeply entrenched industry without having any political clout.
And if you think Michelle Obama is simply gardening you haven't been paying attention. While her
Let's Move campaign and healthy eating has been her most public effort, she actually has four initiatives she's deeply involved in.
In 2010, she launched Let’s Move!, bringing together community leaders, educators, medical professionals, parents, and others in a nationwide effort to address the challenge of childhood obesity. Let’s Move! has an ambitious goal: to solve the epidemic of childhood obesity within a generation. Whether it's providing healthier food in our schools, helping kids be more physically active, or urging companies to market healthier foods to our children, Let’s Move! is focused on giving parents the support they need to make healthier choices for their kids.
Joining Forces
In 2011, Mrs. Obama and Dr. Jill Biden came together to launch Joining Forces, a nationwide initiative calling all Americans to rally around service members, veterans, and their families and support them through wellness, education, and employment opportunities. Joining Forces works hand in hand with the public and private sector to ensure that service members, veterans, and their families have the tools they need to succeed throughout their lives.
Reach Higher
In 2014, Mrs. Obama launched the Reach Higher Initiative, an effort to inspire young people across America to take charge of their future by completing their education past high school, whether at a professional training program, a community college, or a four-year college or university. Reach Higher aims to ensure that all students understand what they need to complete their education by working to expose students to college and career opportunities; helping them understand financial aid eligibility; encouraging academic planning and summer learning opportunities; and supporting high school counselors who do essential work to help students get into college.
Let Girls Learn
In 2015, Mrs. Obama joined President Obama to launch Let Girls Learn, a U.S. government-wide initiative to help girls around the world go to school and stay in school. As part of this effort, Mrs. Obama is calling on countries across the globe to help educate and empower young women, and she is sharing the stories and struggles of these young women with young people here at home to inspire them to commit to their own education.
Snip
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/first-lady-michelle-obama
Mother Of Four
(1,716 posts)I vote on the content of their character.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)is pushing Hillary talking points.
Nitram
(22,768 posts)Heaven help a Bernster who said anything nice about Clinton.
TM99
(8,352 posts)not only voting for the Iraq War but cheerleading the Bush admin talking points on the Senate floor?
Tell me what is positive about her when a lie is being presented that Hillary somehow support universal healthcare. She has never supported it, she only supports insurance mandates. Period.
840high
(17,196 posts)loves Bernie BUT..... I see a but and become cautious.
TM99
(8,352 posts)that valid criticisms of Hillary Clinton's positions and her policies are some how 'unproven right wing conspiracy theories'.
She didn't just vote for the Iraq war, she parroted the Bush administration talking points in a speech on the Senate floor. She is supported by neocons like Kagan. She is in the 'boys club' because she believes with their tenets. And it is bad club to be in.
Her positions on LGBT rights, DOMA, DADT, TPP, TARP, NAFTA, etc. are not right wing conspiracy theories. They are horrible positions and policies that deserve strong criticism.
And you remember incorrectly that Clinton supported universal healthcare. She has NEVER done so. She supported Heritage Care which is nothing more than the early version of the insurance mandate that is the ACA today.
You are not 'just asking'. You are playing a very tiresome game that many of us recognize quite well now here on these forums. It always starts with the "I like Sanders" ploy and then it moves into lies, distortions and bullshit. In this case, you are minimizing her very big flaws by insinuating that criticisms are somehow sexist or right wing conspiracy theories.
No, we don't buy it anymore.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)for just over 100 years is the start of it. Let's face it - the reason that we haven't had a woman president yet IS because of sexism. No doubt about that.
And because women got a late start in politics (because men wouldn't let us participate), we have fewer women in politics now. It's getting better, but really how many are in congress compared to men?
So what I would say is that we have had less choices of actual GOOD female politicians. I'll be honest, I was excited to vote for Obama in 2008. I had "hope" and all of that. I think he's been a good President, not great. But that was the first time in my life that I voted FOR someone and not just against the other guy. Now this time, I am voting FOR Bernie. I think that Hillary is a HIGHLY flawed candidate and not good for the country. I am not willing to pass up Bernie because she is a female candidate.
When a really good, progressive female candidate runs for President, I will be excited and get behind her. If it were Warren running now, I would vote for her. Against Bernie?? Whew.. that would be tough!! But maybe, yeah. if she runs in 4-8 years, I will more than likely vote and support her. I would love it if more progressive women stepped up and threw their hats in the ring.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)while a WTO framework (the General Agreement on Trade in Services, or GATS) was put into place that blocks all public services like health care and education where even the smallest fee is collected by anybody - so one charter school means eventually a whole country's educational system has to be chopped up and turned into a privatized mess.. health care too, not just in the US - it forces privatization in other countries too. For example, recently in India, with education, And its not some conspiracy theory, that the trade deals do this, its the official US position that they do.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)It's been stated a lot that she wasn't voting for war, she was voting for leverage to get the inspectors back in. Watch her remarks in the Senate prior to the vote and remember this while you watch... 2000+ of her constituents had been murdered. She wasn't screaming for war, she was acting thoughtfully, and she believed cautiously. The fact that administration lied to her is important. None of us trusted Bush, but at that point, she still did. And when she found out they were not doing what they told her they would, she became a very vocal critic.
silenttigersong
(957 posts)ancianita
(35,949 posts)trust Bernie's judgment more. I also trust Bernie more than Hillary to provide a legislative agenda that will be more for The People than for corporate lobbyists. I also trust that Bernie will appoint more capable, pro-People leaders in his cabinet leadership and change the vision of the country than will Hillary. He'll be respected by world leaders, and maybe tested.
That said, I have wanted a first woman president all my life. My mom voted for Shirley Chisholm, and I voted for Mondale just because Geraldine Ferraro was on the ticket.
I believe that Hillary will be so dogged by progressive women that she will not try to out-Republican the Republicans as her husband did. She will be beloved all around the world and will present a diplomatically respectable America; but she will be tested even more than Bernie.
Hillary will expand on the domestic work of her earlier lawyer years, appoint more women to cabinet positions. She'll provide good SCOTUS nominees and will continue Obama's work.
There are many ways Hillary could grow to be a much better president than her husband was.
But I also believe Bernie could just as successfully grow into the presidency. I'd rather have a president whose priorities are rebuilding this country than a military industrial corporate presence abroad, and I trust Bernie more to be that kind of president. His vision of America aligns with my Northern European vision of societies that pursue their careers, family life and environmental development free from the burdens imposed on them by corporate whores and their corporate wars (alert trolls: this is a phrase taken from Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant" album of 1967, and does in no way include Hillary).
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Maybe Washington managed that. Otherwise, it started right away with Adams and Jefferson and never stopped. It may be a matter for masculinity theory, or a feature of democracy. Probably both.
20 years ago you say? Why just 16 years ago I voted for Hillary Clinton. Full support for the Bush regime terror war, PATRIOT Act, Iraq, her actions in Honduras, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, cozying up to Kissinger as a mentor... the latter few all quite recent! She represents the corporate consensus, the neocon/imperial foreign policy, and just enough catering to genuine voter-group interests just to keep them behind her (some of that mere lip service).
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)Here is a good article about probably her most controversial vote, the vote for the Iraq War Resolution.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html
And here is something about her Wall Street ties:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/6/1497214/-A-critical-thinking-response-to-Hillary-is-a-corporate-shill-memes
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)We need a competent president with character who is NOT BOUGHT. That leaves Hillary out, on all counts. There is not one office she has held that she hasn't substantially screwed up.
We are not here to give her opportunities for personal advancement. She has already advanced way beyond her actual capabilities, largely by being married to Bill.
Without that on her "resume" I highly doubt that she would've been elected to the Senate from New York, or appointed Secretary of State. Just how far is that marriage supposed to ride her? To be president? Oh hell no, we think more of our country than that! That is as offensive as the rest of the candidates except for Bernie. He is the ONLY one running who deserves that vote.
And being the darling of Henry Kissinger is a DEAL BREAKER. Wherever you're from, you don't know enough about America.
