The Hillary Bashing -

[TBF]

I can think of better candidates for president and I can think of worse.

I can also recognize when a chaotic republican party wants to take pressure off themselves so they decide to bash someone else. Today that someone else happens to be Hillary.

Hobby Lobby case = bad PR for republicans.

So, I think we are seeing planned distraction here in GD today.

[Arkansas Granny]

2. The only way the Hillary bashing will end is if she comes out and says without reservation

that she will *not* be a Presidential candidate. Even then, it won't stop completely, but it might ease up a little. Some of the worst Hillary bashing I've seen was right here on DU during the 2008 primaries. I don't expect this next election cycle will be any better if she decides to run.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

3. Sen. Clinton: IWR = Yea.

That's all anyone needs to know about Hillary.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. No, it's not.

Sen. John Kerry voted for the IWR, and Sen. John Edwards co-sponsored it. When Kerry/Edwards ran against Bush/Cheney I can't think of a single regular DU poster who wasn't strongly backing the Democratic ticket. Is it relevant that Sen. Clinton voted yes on the IWR? Of course. Is it the only thing one needs to know about Hillary? Of course not. Come November 2016 our choice will be to vote for the Democratic ticket, the Republican ticket, a Third Party ticket, or not to vote.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

6. How many innocent people, families destroyed, on the back of her vote? nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. I made my point, you made yours

You didn't respond to my point at all. A good case can be made for the argument that had Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, or John Edwards been President instead of George W. Bush at the time, that the United States would not have actually invaded Iraq. Yet all four of those national Democrats, and many others as well voted for the IWR. It authorized the use of force, yes, which was tragically the wrong decision, but the decision to subsequently invade without allowing the U.N. Weapon inspectors to complete their work[/i] was W's call.

I stand by my earlier statement.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

18. I said nothing about Kerry or anyone else. They are not the presumed D front-runners.

Hillary voted for the Iraq War. That's is what matters to me.

Nothing you said changes how she voted, which was succinctly and clearly my only comment - how she voted.

But, just so you know, I will vote for the Democratic candidate, whomever that is.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I understand

I guess my ultimate point is that the other thing that needs to be known about Hillary, at the very least, is that she is a Democrat. Since that may be significant after the 2016 Democratic convention

[ChisolmTrailDem]

22. Understand this, also...

I will be actively campaigning against Hillary until she becomes our nominee. If she does become the nominee, at that point, I will campaign furiously for her.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. That makes perfect sense. n/t

[ChisolmTrailDem]

50. It does make sense. I will back the most liberal candidate. If that candidate is not the

the nominee, I will vote for Hillary, whom I'm been fond of personally for 35 or so years and with whom I've campaigned side-by-side.

[TBF]

44. That is fair and not the point I was making -

People have tried to turn this into a "Hillary sucks because" thread and that's not what I was going for. If you'll go into the groups you'll find that I post in sports, socialists, and the elizabeth warren group. I'm not a Hillary groupie looking for folks to love her. I just think the timing of certain themes I've seen the last few days is very suspicious.

In return what I've learned is that people do not see sexism, they do not see Republican infiltration, they only hate Hillary.

I find that a little hard to believe but that's ok. I'm used to people not agreeing - especially when I start talking about gross income inequality. People (often the same people!) don't want to hear about that either.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

49. I don't hate Hillary. I campained by her's and Bill's side, helping him to become

governor of Arkansas way back before anyone that didn't live in AR knew their names or who they were. I like her as a person, always have. But her politics, IMO, is not what this country needs right now.

[BootinUp]

45. More than a good case imho Tom

The inspection team findings were not allowed to complete before * decided to pull the trigger, exactly as you point out. And there was distorted intelligence set up by Cheney to justify it as we all know.

There is no reason based in logic to not to stand by your post.

[LittleBlue]

15. Indeed. There is a campaign to whitewash her support of war and corporations

[MineralMan]

4. Could be, but there are DUers who don't like Hillary, too,

on other grounds. What becomes a problem is when people use right wing sources and right wing memes to attack Hillary Clinton. When that happens, the result is very confusing, and it's difficult to tell where the person doing the trashing is actually coming from. It raises suspicion, for sure.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

7. She voted "yea" for a contrived and disastrous tragedy of a war. I won't forget that.

I will, however, support the Democratic nominee whoever it may be.

I thought you were staying out of the 2016 fray due to the more important upcoming mid-terms? I agree with you that that should be our focus right now, BTW.

[MineralMan]

11. My focus is on the 2014 elections, but I will comment

on other topics, too, from time to time.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

16. Well, you made a big deal about a few weeks ago and alluded that you wouldn't

be participating. Perhaps I am mistaken.

I do agree that the mid-terms are more important right now. The way it is on our side though, too busy arguing about 2016, will end up losing 2014 to a bunch of hateful idiots.

[MineralMan]

17. Did I? I do consider 2014 far more important than

bickering over future Presidential candidates. There are lots of threads, however, about 2016, so I post in them sometimes. I don't find that inconsistent. I post frequently on DU, primarily in replies within threads. I post an OP or two from time to time, too, though. In fact, I posted one today.

[TBF]

48. You're right about this though -

"The way it is on our side though, too busy arguing about 2016, will end up losing 2014 to a bunch of hateful idiots."

If I'm wrong and the Hillary bashing is just par for the course - coming from folks here who simply don't like her - then this is exactly what we're going to have. And we're going to have f*cking Rand Paul to run against in 2016.

I think I don't like today very much.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

35. Nor should we forget that ill-conceived vote - it tells you everything you need to know about Hillary...

And Hillary's trying to explain away that vote doesn't help her case one bit.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

36. Nor should we forget that ill-conceived vote - it tells you everything you need to know about Hillary...

And Hillary's trying to explain away that vote doesn't help her case one bit.

[LLD]

43. And then she turns and tells Obama to take out Assad.

Obama of course told her to forget about that route. The Hillary is like Obama you see here is bullshit.

[LordGlenconner]

9. I don't have many problems figuring out where they are coming from

It's one of two:

1-GOP special ops

2-Ideological purity addicts who must have their own personal beliefs adhered to 100 percent of the time or else the person not adhering to those beliefs is a monster, cretin, sellout, third wayer etc.

It's really not that complicated.

[TBF]

13. Yeah I was thinking #1 -

because it seems so orchestrated in terms of timing.

But I guess it could be #2 and folks just pile on after they see the first one posted.

Ugh.

At any rate I am still fuming about Hobby Lobby and would rather talk about kicking repugs out of the House in 2014.

We'll have time for primary wars soon enough. Fundraising has got to be going on behind the scenes at this point (obviously we know Hillary can run if she chooses but others may as well) ... we'll know soon enough who the candidates are.

[Orsino]

37. Our presumed front-runner is heavily compromised.

DU leans left of the Democratic Party in general, and far to the left of the DLC.

No Republican conspiracies are needed to explain disenchantment running through these forums, or through any population aware of Clinton's proclivities for, say, wars that kill hundreds of thousands.

[MineralMan]

14. Yes, that seems to be the case.

There may be some overlap, though. A very skilled GOP special ops person might well present as a purist, I think. I think that has happened from time to time on DU, and may still be happening.

For me, it doesn't really matter. The disruptive result is the same, in terms of solidarity behind the eventual actual candidate.

[bigtree]

8. it has a lot to do with the fact that she appears the most likely to run

. . . it's hard to focus on Warren, Sanders, or anyone else who doesn't already have an extensive presidential campaign organization in place. Probably a good plan to avoid early fire - but not so good an idea if Clinton proves to be a good long distance runner with her early, sprinting start out of the gates.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

12. Are the bashers looking for the perfect candidate,

good luck with that!

[freshwest]

21. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. 2010 = 2014:

Since the Tea Party take over didn't cause them any problems, more of the same will be okay.

[Peacetrain]

19. All I can say is this:

I know the feeling, but for a different reason..it does tend to wear thin fast..

[Starry Messenger]

23. The next few years are going to be interesting.

And by interesting, I mean very sexist.

[TBF]

24. Yes, as evidenced by this OP I've already had it. nt

[Starry Messenger]

25. Yep nt.

[el_bryanto]

26. So your theory is that DUers are bad mouthing Hillary Clinton because the Republicans

are telling them too?

The old secret freeper theory?

Isn't it just possible that some people are down on Hillary Clinton because she's a middle of the road, wall street loving, civil liberties denying, business as usual politician?

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go collect my 10 bucks from the RNC for badmouthing Clinton.

Bryant

[TBF]

29. We had the Hobby Lobby decison and immediately following

we now have days of attacking women which has moved on to attacking Hillary. It's an orchestrated attack in my view.

Hillary is a great target because many don't like her - there's plenty I could say against her as well. But when it is this obvious I think we need to be cognizant of who is stirring the pot. I don't think it's long-term DUers. I think it is someone who wants to take the heat off the Hobby Lobby decision - republican operatives most likely.

Just my view. I hope women use their anger as an opportunity to clean house in 2014. Repug operatives are most likely terrified that will happen as well.

[el_bryanto]

30. Republican operatives who have low post counts are easy enough to spot

There have been plenty of attacks on Hillary Clinton from people with high post counts - what's your thoughts there?

Bryant

[TBF]

31. I think once it starts people pile on -

I could be wrong of course. And I do know there are serious progressives looking for better candidates and I post in the Elizabeth Warren group when I find things of interest on her Facebook page - I'm a fan. That's definitely out there and I expect those voices to be loud during the primary season. I'm just talking about this period since June 30th.

Just wondered if anyone else had the same thoughts and that is why I posted the OP.

ETA - edited for badly worded repetitive post.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Or, the Clintons deserve criticism.

And, I see little reason to stop criticizing because of what Repugs do.

[TBF]

32. Most politicians do in one form or another -

the timing and fierceness of the attacks the past few days made me wonder though if it went beyond that. Starry could be correct though - I may just be sensitive to the rampant sexism. It's really pervasive.

[Maedhros]

33. Opposition to Obama is not "racism", and opposition to Hillary is not "sexism." [n/t]

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. I haven't noticed any sexism regarding Hillary. Have any examples?

[TBF]

38. That's not what I said -

I said sexism is rampant on this site. If you want examples of that we'll be here all day - but I'll give you this thread for starters: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5206323 (as you make your way through it you'll see various examples).

My overall point is that I think there are people who want to take the heat off Hobby Lobby. So we're bashing women, we're bashing Hillary (who happens to be a woman) and we're not talking about Hobby Lobby.

Maybe the rest of you have moved on after 8 days. I guess I haven't. Of course I'm still talking about economic inequality and I've been stuck on that topic for years. I guess I just have an extremely focused mind.

[Oilwellian]

39. Hillary has put herself in the news lately

Are we supposed to just be quiet about it?

[TBF]

41. Everyone knows about her book & the superpac

raising money. Has there been something new?

[WilliamPitt]

40. PATRIOT Act. IWR. Keystone XL.

Encompass the fact that people have legitimate grievances. Her judgment has been shown to be questionable on historically-important pivot-points regarding personal freedom, war, and the environment.

Not that those are important or anything.

:headdesk:

[TBF]

42. No argument on legitimate grievances -

my point was the timing. As I said above I know about her book tour and the super pac raising money for her. I wasn't aware of any other new revelations that have come about since June 30th.

[Oilwellian]

46. Perhaps you're just not paying attention

Just do a Google search of Hillary, July, 2014

[TBF]

47. I actually did before I posted my question -

The only thing I saw was that Hillary leads in new poll results - Rand Paul on the repug side. That's hardly earth shattering. Folks know Warren is more of a long shot without the name recognition.

[BainsBane]

51. I'll note that you are a socialist

self-proclaimed, but don't feel the need to vilify Hillary to prove your political leftiness, much to your credit.

[TBF]

55. The problem from my perspective is that our capitalist

Last edited Wed Jul 9, 2014, 11:50 AM - Edit history (1)

economic system is driving all that we do. No one we elect is going to be that great given the economic system we and they will be dealing with. The most we can do is try to hold the rights we have. At least with Hillary or Elizabeth running we will have a shot at putting a woman in office. My personal preference is Elizabeth but I'm not going to tear Hillary down because it weakens a decent candidate. She is so, so much better than the potential candidates I see on the right - especially Paul Ryan or Rand Paul. Those 2 have especially dangerous views of women and we really don't need that given the Hobby Lobby ruling. We are going down a very dangerous path.

Thanks for your comment.

[BainsBane]

58. I agree with much of that.

My whole issue with declaring Clinton or Obama corporatists is that it fails to recognize that all US presidents serve economic interests. That is in fact the function of the state under capitalism. My personal approach to politics is quite pragmatic and has been that way since Bush was elected. As for candidates, I figure I'll wait to see who actually runs.

[Phlem]

52. Hillary Bashing?

[joshcryer]

53. She comes out against inequality, we get rehashed talking points.

I think it's quite telling. But I've been predicting this for awhile. I hope she doesn't run. It's going to be nasty. And no I don't support her for President. But I'm going to have to defend her from the crap.

[TBF]

56. Exactly -

I agree with everything you've said here.

She's not my favorite candidate either. But I'm not destroying someone who has been able to raise a lot of money and is positive towards women.

[Union Scribe]

54. Please link to one of these GOP operatives' threads

so that we can duly report them to management.

[B Calm]

57. Timing is everything