General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Derangement Syndrome about her Presidency begins 30 months early
"Is anyone else scared Hillary will incite a war with Iran" - http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5286402
This is a nutty and sexist viewpoint that suggests Hillary will start a war because she is a woman and thinks she will need to prove something.
"Wall Street and Neocons embrace Hillary" - http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017204678
The same folks that are attacking Hillary nonstop already and have manufactured scandals partially aimed at Obama but mostly aimed at stopping her election particularly Benghazi, are supposedly 'embracing' her.
PLEASE let no one ever 'embrace' me like that. And no, its not triangulation, its a full out war to stop her election. Get a grip those of you trying to claim this.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)to cabinet positions before he had a chance to do anything. That was weeks before his inauguration and THAT was bad. This insanity is likely 7 months or more before she has declared whether she is going to run, 28 months before the election and 30 months before she would be sworn in if everything works out.
Folks need to get a grip. If they are going insane like this already, they are going to burst a blood vessel in their head long before election day in 2016.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)But we aren't even there yet - nobody has even announced their candidacy. I have to agree, that was totally over the top. Settle down, folks.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)There are a segment here at DU that are almost as desperate as Republicans to stop her from becoming President.
DURHAM D
(32,596 posts)IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)rather than see their own favorite lose to another Democrat. They're dogs in the manger.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,698 posts)I was a moderator during the 2008 primaries. To say it was intense is putting it mildly.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)like if they appoint bankers and neocons and stuff. BTW, it is also innappropriate to try and prevent them from getting nominated.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)maybe that would make sense, but go for it.
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)in their head at any time, I don't know how we could tell the difference.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Sorry but if a "hope and change" candidate immediately brings in the same old crew that helped to cause the mess -- people have every right to complain.
Just as if the Democratic candidates and "strategists" decide to ignore any lessons from experience going into the next round, people have eery reason to complain and try to steer the ship away fro the iceburgs.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)That's yet to be confirmed, but I've been watching counterpunch and consortiumnews for the story.
Sid
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)This is going to be a long, long, loooonnnnnnnng primary season.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Breaking News banner is up now!
greatauntoftriplets
(175,698 posts)since no one has announced their candidacy. Yet I agree that the reaction is way over the top. It's annoying (to say the least) and will only get worse.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Who has declared their candidacy? We know who I would love to support in a primary, but gosh, we don't even have anybody running yet.
Let's all settle down before bashing anybody.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)ODS, now HDS all boils down to, "Thou shalt love the people in your party." Hillary hasn't even been nominated yet, and anyone who has reservations with her is "deranged".
Disagree with spying? DERANGED!
Disagree with "trade agreements" that result in lower wages in this country? DERANGED!
Why don't we all just become like Republicans and elevate our leaders to GOD status?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)They're deranged.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)policy preferences and their ideological affiliations. Fair is fair!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)to beat up anyone who opposed domestic spying. At first, the claim was that it was just metdata. We've since found that the collection of data on Americans is much worse. But those who opposed it were just "deranged" about Obama - they were Obama haters.
Now, you are applying the term to people who don't like Hillary. While I agree that, possibly, wondering whether she will attach Iran is a little far fetched, how often will the term HDS be applied? I think it's very likely she would pursue "trade deals" that harm American workers, just like Bill did with NAFTA. Are those concerns indicative of derangement? Once this term is used, how much more will it be used?
If a Republican had been in office when Snowden released his stuff, we would have been outraged. When Republicans try to pass trade deals that hurt workers, we're outraged. And we should be. But when you deride people here for being outraged at Democrats for doing the same things, you are effectively saying that the issues don't matter, only the party that does them. After that, your opinions are highly suspect.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)by a Republican president who thought he had the rights under his "war powers", where was the outrage from Snowden in the years where the warrantless wiretapping was occurring, he was cheering Bush.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)I'll discuss Snowden in another thread if you'd like, but in this thread, the point I'm making is that we - democrats - were annoyed at Bush for collecting data, are now more annoyed at him for the scope of it, and that's fine. But we have to apply that annoyance to our own guy too.
When Bush did it, it set the stage for spying on all of us and he should be tried for violating the constitution. However, Obama kept it up and expanded the program. The people who try to sidestep that issue and who say it's ok that Obama is doing it - by saying it's just metadata or any of the other excuses - are showing that the issue doesn't matter, just the person doing it. That's hypocrisy at its worst.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)It stopped in 2008, Obama was not inaugurated until 2009. What ai said was this was overlooked by the gang until 2013. Were in the hell was the gang in Bush administration, yep, cheering on Bush and Rand Paul.
BTW, you brought up Snowden.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)when when the leaks started, and that if they had started under Bush, we'd all have been flipping out. I made no comments about Snowden.
i'm not entirely sure whether you're being sarcastic when you say "warrentless wiretapping stopped in 2008," or whether you mean that a specific type of tapping and breaking the law happened, but it was made legal after 2008, or something. Are you saying that metadata and phone calls have not been collected since 2008?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Wiretap Definition
1.A concealed listening or recording device connected to a communications circuit.
2.The act of installing such a device.
1.To connect a concealed listening or recording device to.
2.To monitor (a telephone line) by means of such a device.
3.To install a concealed listening or recording device or use it to monitor communications
A wiretap requires a warrant whether ordered a judge on a local, state or federal level.
Phone call records are also collected on these levels but what most people do not understand is the phone call records are owned by the provider so the warrant goes to the provider not the user.
The FISA act occurred around 1979 or1980 and was implemented to prevent the president from requesting the wiretapping in which Nixon was doing in which at the time he could do legally. Legally from the Constitution a warrant could be issued to search.
In 2008 another provision was enacted to halt the warrantless wiretapping Bush was doing in which he thought he had the right to do so under his "war powers". Again, a lot are up in the air about the warrantless wiretapping which occurred under Bush, It is legal to wiretap under the Constitution with a warrant, I don't think this will change unless the Constitution changes.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 25, 2014, 06:06 PM - Edit history (1)
The author is the one bringing it up. And Hillary is the one inserting herself into every narrative way too early like the calculating politician she is. Buts it's unwise since more Democrats than Repubs are sick of her presence. Repubs like her out because they get excited bashing her. I'm too tired of her for that. And she is a military industrial complex cheerleader. She is the neocons favorite Democrat. She is Wall St's favorite democrat. Crying sexism Everytime someone disagrees with her will not help her cause. Bill is called Bush Sr's 5th son by none other than Bush Sr himself and I will not vote for such a close family friend of that evil family. This whole column makes me think of the word Shadowboxing as Clinton imagines she's the center of the world and everyone is piling on her. It hasnt even started and I would bet everything that Hillary will not be the nominee. She had her chance and blew it with the Iraq War vote. After Obama feeding the status quo people more than ever want actual change and trust me they know it's not going to come from a Clinton...or a Bush. If we had Clinton vs Bush again the public will feel betrayed more than ever and that's not going to happen with the anger people feel today.
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)We are all hoping for a good candidate. We are over Republicrats. Some people are living in the past and see everything from static snapshots in time. But the political reality is dynamic...always evolving and changing at a moments notice. Those who see Hillary as inevitable are our version of the old guard Repubs that were convinced Romney would win. Younger people want substance not image. Hillary is filled with platitudes and subservience to corporations that favor war more and more. Don't be surprised when she loses either the primary or if she gets that then the general election.
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)Will you teach me this valuable skill, perhaps?
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)The funny thing about truth is that for something so rare and precious the supply still seems to exceed the demand.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)I think it would be a huge mistake and looking backwards instead of forwards. Isn't that what Bill asked us to do...look forwards instead of pining over Bush Sr's crimes. That was the past he said. I wish that worked in court for ordinary citizens. But it was all a scam of two elites agreeing to share power and cover up transgressions. He knew full well he was paving the way for another Bush to usher back in Bush Sr's entire administration later, at least the ones who weren't too old yet. And that's exactly what we got with 911 and the Iraq War as frosting on top. And Obama did it again. Same phraseology dismissing investigations into Bush crimes. All so we can look forward and not back. But they keep bringing these jerks from the past back later. The American people or at least Democrats didn't see it coming. I have since 2000 as have many progressives not eager to pat themselves on the back just because a Republican didn't win with the most recent swing of the pendulum. Nominating a Clinton is looking back. And because of Obama protecting GW Bush we could very easily get another one as President, Jeb Bush. How many times do you have to witness this cycle to understand what is happening? These aren't sports teams we are rooting for. This isn't a game.
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)Regardless, this has gone on long enough. I have no more time for you.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)he/she is nostalgic for the time DU was "more progressive" - and he/she only joined up last year.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)How is it sexist? I fully confess I don't want her be the democratic nominee. I would prefer Bernie or Liz, but there was nothing in either of those posts that mentioned her gender. That is just stuff you imagined.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)... establishment."
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)aren't we supposed to measure evils?
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)doesn't mean it is my exclusive concern. Hillary is about 2/3 bad. Foriegn policy bad. Economics Bad. The only thing good is social issues, and there it is pretty limited to the courts,since I am pretty sure she will avoid advancing any legislation to help women, on things like childcare or family leave.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)If you want to do a comparison of the Clinton and Warren economic record, let's do it.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)I prefer fair trade over free trade. I don't think bankers should be appointed to work in position involving economic policy. On those issues Liz is definitely better than HRC.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Someone who HAS a record vs. someone who's only talked a good game. But based on your logic, Warren will only be seduced by neocons there, too.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)which is why they can join either the democrats ore republicans. Liz has made her ideas on economics pretty clear in her books, interviews, and through the legislation she has passed. Hillary has too. She's a free trader, and believes that the banks should be formulating our economic policies.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Neoconservatism generally endorses free markets and capitalism, favoring supply-side economics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#Views_on_economics
FDR was a free trader, btw, as was Truman, Kennedy, etc. and show us links proving Hillary "believes that the banks should be formulating our economic policies."
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)so it is a good fit, for neocons.
FDR believed in reciprocal tariffs which would be fair trade not free trade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Tariff_Act
It is not true that he believed in free trade as modern free traders use the word. There is no evidence he would have allowed foreign nations to race the bottom on jobs or environmental protection. There is no indication he would have ceded the US governments authority to unelected foreign trade associations.
The Clintons gave Robert Rubin his first white house job, and they gave bipartisan legitimacy to Greenspan.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Trade protectionist pre-Franklin Roosevelt were all Republicans - Reed Smoot, Willis Hawley and Herbert Hoover, for example, the President who signed the GOP's infamous 1930 tariff.
President Hoover, in office between 1929 and 1932, had believed that Americans lose when we trade -- and that we lose most when we trade with the poor. Calling on Congress to pass the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill in the first year of his administration, he wrote that with America's high standard of living, we cannot successfully compete against foreign producers because of lower foreign wages and a lower cost of production." In the fall of 1932, he warned Americans that repealing this law would force American workers to "compete with laborers whose wages are only sufficient to buy from one-eighth to one-third of the amount of bread and butter you can buy."
Roosevelt argued the converse. Confident that Americans could succeed in an open world market, he asserted that worldwide reduction of trade barriers would benefit both the United States and its trading partners. His victory marked the beginning of America's modern trade policy; a year later, the signing of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act on June 12th established a commitment to open markets and trade liberalization sustained by each of the next ten presidents.
With FDR's support, Democratic Secretary of State Cordell Hull negotiated a series of bilateral trade deals that Harry Truman used as the basis for the revival of the multilateral trading system known as GATT in 1947.
In 1941, FDR and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill issue the 'Atlantic Charter', a joint statement setting out eight "common principles ... for a better future for the world". Drawn up at sea, off the coast of Newfoundland, the charter includes commitments to national sovereignty, democratic government, free trade, improved labour, economic and social standards, freedom of movement, world peace, and the abandonment of the use of force.
John Kennedy pushed for freer trade with Latin America as part of his Alliance for Progress.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)like the race to the bottom modern free traders they lucked out by having a Europe devastated by WW2 and the rest of the world completely undeveloped.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)I bet you can't.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)policy as has her fellow "New Democrat" Barack Obama. She's made it clear in her speeches she thinks bankers are being picked on.
Ordinarily these masters of the universe might have groaned at the idea of a politician taking the microphone
But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish.
Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and were all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isnt going to improve the economyit needs to stop............
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/wall-street-white-house-republicans-lament-of-the-plutocrats-101047.html?hp=t1
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)... if you can tie what you think is bad about Bill to Hillary, we can tie what we think is good about Bill to Hillary and we'll definitely win that argument in the court of Democratic party opinion.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Not even close. If you believe it does, explain to us how.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)associated with people who don't think they're being given a fair shake.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)"Someone who HAS a record vs. someone who's only talked a good game."
Hmmm?
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)But I DO recall the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left when Obama admitted to being a New Democrat, and the constant whining about him from 'proooooogresssivvveees' ever since.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x119115
Hmmm?
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)He appointed Nuland, and he is agitating against Syria.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)Victoria Nuland. She is Robert Kagan's wife. Robert Kagan is a founder of the PNAC. Obama is now agitating against Syria which has long been on the PNAC agenda for regime change. I also believe, the destablization of the Ukraine was revenge against Putin for blocking their attempt to overthrow the Syrian regime.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)It in no way implies 'seduction' in any sense.
Obama is now agitating against Syria
Now? links?
I also believe, the destablization of the Ukraine was revenge against Putin for blocking their attempt to overthrow the Syrian regime.
Still making it up as you go, LOL.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)You're inability to pay attention to current events isn't my problem.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts), including our allies, and the US itself, but we enforce violations against countries on the hit list and ignore violations by our allies. For instance, the Saudis are much more oppressive of gay people than Putin, but we focus on him because he opposes us in Syria, and the Saudies don't.
Nuland admitted she funded opposition groups in her scandalous phone call.
From an essay by Robert Parry
Now, you have Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan, acting as a leading instigator in the Ukrainian unrest, explicitly seeking to pry the country out of the Russian orbit. Last December, she reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve its European aspirations, we have invested more than $5 billion. She said the U.S. goal was to take Ukraine into the future that it deserves.
The Kagan family includes other important neocons, such as Frederick Kagan, who was a principal architect of the Iraq and Afghan surge strategies. In Duty, Gates writes that an important way station in my pilgrims progress from skepticism to support of more troops [in Afghanistan] was an essay by the historian Fred Kagan, who sent me a prepublication draft.
I knew and respected Kagan. He had been a prominent proponent of the surge in Iraq, and we had talked from time to time about both wars, including one long evening conversation on the veranda of one of Saddams palaces in Baghdad.
Now, another member of the Kagan family, albeit an in-law, has been orchestrating the escalation of tensions in Ukraine with an eye toward one more regime change............
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/23/neocons-and-the-ukraine-coup/
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)Seymour Hersh: Obama Lied About Syria
President didn't mention that jihadists may have gassed Syrians
By Neal Colgrass, Newser Staff
(Newser) President Obama lied about the chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of Syrians in Augustor at least spoke way out of school, writes Seymour Hersh in the London Review of Books. "In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts," writes Hersh. "Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the countrys civil war with access to sarin," which the UN says was used in the attack. What Hersh found out:
The Obama administration talked as if it had monitored Assad's movements to organize the sarin strike in real time. In fact, they knew nothing in real time and never proved it later.
"The immediate assumption was that Assad had done it," a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. "There was a lot of political pressure to bring Obama to the table to help the rebels, and there was wishful thinking that this [tying Assad to the sarin attack] would force Obamas hand."
Highly classified US intelligence reports had already stated that al-Nusra, a powerful jihadist group linked to al-Qaeda, knew how to produce sarin. But the Obama administration never admitted that al-Nusra may have gassed innocent Syrians.
Al-Nusra is the most influential among 1,200 Syrian opposition groups, and the Free Syrian Army has been complaining about their attacks. In other words, the FSA is "more worried about the crazies than it is about Assad," said a senior intelligence consultant.............
http://www.newser.com/story/178845/seymour-hersh-obama-lied-about-syria.html
Good night!
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-1500-killed-in-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says/2013/08/30/b2864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html
Some have criticized Hersh's use of anonymous sources in his reporting, implying that some of these sources are unreliable or even made up. In a review of Hersh's book, Chain of Command, commentator Amir Taheri wrote, "As soon as he has made an assertion he cites a 'source' to back it. In every case this is either an un-named former official or an unidentified secret document passed to Hersh in unknown circumstances... By my count Hersh has anonymous 'sources' inside 30 foreign governments and virtually every department of the U.S. government."[49]
David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker, maintains that he is aware of the identity of all of Hersh's unnamed sources, telling the Columbia Journalism Review that "I know every single source that is in his pieces.... Every 'retired intelligence officer,' every general with reason to know, and all those phrases that one has to use, alas, by necessity, I say, 'Who is it? What's his interest?' We talk it through."[50]
Nevertheless, in response to an article in The New Yorker in which Hersh alleged that the U.S. government was planning a strike on Iran, U.S. Defense Department spokesman Bryan G. Whitman said, "This reporter has a solid and well-earned reputation for making dramatic assertions based on thinly sourced, unverifiable anonymous sources."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Criticism
blackspade
(10,056 posts)wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)... caught off guard.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)Bye.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)If u don't want to be insulted, don't insult someone first.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)All aboard!
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)That was weak.
This was actually starting to amuse me.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)if you don't want to see banks formulating economic policy, but he isn't running again. It is only interesting in so far as he is from Hillary's wing of the party.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Got another totally vague link you can read that into then share with us?
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)So you're saying a staffer's former profession means his old pals set US policy in that field? Void of any proof. I just want to make sure that's your position before we continue -
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)no.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)it is public opinion. That it a conflict of interest I can live without.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)why else would a person vote for Liz? Anyway this is like debating someone with ADD. I have got other things to do.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Warren won a Senate seat in MA by 8% - a state with just 11 electoral votes. ADD is not being able to stay on topic - a perfect explanation for your posts.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Dick Durbin: Banks "Frankly Own The Place"
If youre caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good youre going to jail. Evidently, if you launder nearly $1 billion for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night.
- Elizabeth Warren
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And that Sen. Warren doesn't know the facts around how bankers are treated?
Tell me that I'm misunderstanding your post here.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)... that just because he is a Senator and works in government, it doesn't make his statement true or valid. So, dude, after all this your argument still comes down to what you suspect to be true, not what necessarily IS true.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Holy #%^*.
Wow.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)... that just because he is a Senator and works in government, it doesn't make his statement true or valid. So, dude, after all this your argument still comes down to what you suspect to be true, not what necessarily IS true.
Holy #%^*.
Wow.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)It's pretty clear.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)... that just because he is a Senator and works in government, it doesn't make his statement true or valid. So, dude, after all this your argument still comes down to what you suspect to be true, not what necessarily IS true.
It's pretty clear.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)>>>That is just stuff you imagined.>>>>
Than a tactic to be employed.
My advice: get used to it. Esp. if it becomes a real contest.
In a protracted one on one with the right opponent.... she doesn't have a whole lot going for her.
She... and/or her backers.... will grab whatever politically blunt-force cudgel they can find.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)your fevered imagination.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5286435
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)or Elizabeth Warren or EW for short. Her name is not Liz.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)leftstreet
(36,081 posts)wtf
There's nothing in the link you provided that suggests Hillary's war-mongering is related to her gender
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)YOU are THE problem.
See! I'm learning!
leftstreet
(36,081 posts)The servers will make the Death Star look like it only had a flat tire
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)learn enough tricks to post excellent OPs such as this one.
There is a learning curve and you may have to play the token liberal to get in, but as long as you stick to the neoliberal style of token liberal, you might just make it past the front door and be famous just like Harold Ford Jr. Which could lead to a gig at Morgan Stanley $$$$$$.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I could give it a shot, but would probably screw it up by using "facts" and/or "logic".
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Fox News and Talk Radio
Extremism and conflict make for bad politics but great TV. Over the past two decades, conservatism has evolved from a political philosophy into a market segment. An industry has grown up to serve that segmentand its stars have become the true thought leaders of the conservative world. The business model of the conservative media is built on two elements: provoking the audience into a fever of indignation (to keep them watching) and fomenting mistrust of all other information sources (so that they never change the channel). As a commercial proposition, this model has worked brilliantly in the Obama era. As journalism, not so much. As a tool of political mobilization, it backfires, by inciting followers to the point at which they force leaders into confrontations where everybody loses, like the summertime showdown over the debt ceiling.
But the thought leaders on talk radio and Fox do more than shape opinion. Backed by their own wing of the book-publishing industry and supported by think tanks that increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics.
http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/index2.html
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)They have to shift gears for the new neoliberal that we mustn't criticize. Luckily, anyone that disagrees with either still gets to be labeled deranged, they get to keep that one.
I originally thought the 'deranged' part referred to the followers/Tiger Beaters
Which made sense to me
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Pragmatism
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)enigmatic
(15,021 posts)As were many, many people who still posting here today. I remember very well when Obama supporters (many who are still here as well too under their old and new usernames) smeared Hillary (and Bill) Clinton and their supporters as racists during the primaries, over and over. A good chunk of those who did support her were pretty much driven off the board by those people who have now suddenly pivoted and are now calling those who don't support her misogynists and worse. Why do they support her now? Because she's the establisment pick. Obama and Hillary's records weren't really any different from each other's; it was just that one set of supporters decided to support their candidate by any means necessary.
I didn't support either at the time; I really didn't have a horse in the race one way or another. But I know what I saw, as do those who were there at that time, too. It's all in the archives for anyone who wants to see it, and there's plenty to see.
That's the hilarious part of this; that they can literally stop on a dime and switch their attacks not because she or Obama have changed, but because they have a common enemy on this board (anybody to the left of them) is breathtaking in it's audacity.
This kind of stuff is what turned me off to this board, and national politics in the US in general. It's sick. Truly.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Win.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Never too early for Foxy Stevie to trot this one out, apparently. The transference is just too easy; change racist to sexist and they can cut and paste from thousands of previous baseless posts with no problem.
conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)RedstDem
(1,239 posts)They should quit their whining, for gods sake!
morningfog
(18,115 posts)That is a part of the problem. We shouldn't do inevitability.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Unless you want more of this fucked up shit we've got now.......
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But that is my opinion.
I think that people want a change not a dynisty...and that is why Obama won the primary and the election...he was different and promised hope for change.
And now that we got fooled again the prospect of another Clinton will not sit well with the average voter.
And the right will pound her with her past, which they already have siting there just waiting to use...and we will see a GOP president in 16...that is my opinion and my prediction...for what it is worth.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Agreed. Plus, I think that the Ready For Hillary club is jumping the gun to call anything "Derangement Syndrome" prior to Hillary winning an election, much less even a primary.
The phrase "ODS" actually has some legitimacy, in that Obama won both the Democratic Primary and then two elections, yet the RW nutjobs still try to act like he is some furriner-muslin-socialist-usurping-traitor. Of course, I think that using "ODS" as a shortcut toward silencing legitimate criticism from the left which was crucial to Obama's election success is in itself deranged, but that's the bloodsport known as politics for you.
Hillary has not yet won a single national Democratic Primary or election. If she fails to muster the votes, that's not derangement on the part of voters, that's democracy.
She is a poor candidate, for her Wall Street coddling, her neoliberal and hawkish predispositions and actions, and many, many (3rd-Way Manny) other reasons. As much as I want to see a Democrat elected again, I do not see her winning a national election.
-app
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)"This is a nutty and sexist viewpoint that suggests Hillary will start a war because she is a woman and thinks she will need to prove something. "
No it is because she tried to start a war in Syria. Nothing sexist about that.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)and in the process, she heated up the cold war with Syria's ally, Russia.
brooklynite
(93,873 posts)IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)I'm sure they'll pull out every misogynistic myth from history to fling at her or any other Democratic woman candidate. If they could, they'd probably call for female genital mutilation of 'social undesirables' - meaning the liberal women they fear so much. Don't think they wouldn't try that crap if they thought it would help them politically. They don't mind insisting that the poor deserve to starve and die bankrupt, and they want to make the middle class the New Poor so they can pick them off too.
the_sly_pig
(740 posts)but I'm also tired of both the Clintons and the Bushs. 8 years Obama has been refreshing.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You are quite right that neither you, nor me, nor anyone, needs to be "embraced" in such a fashion.
And for those who do welcome the hug and boast about it--well, we know 'em when we see 'em.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)I've started to just ignore this crap.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)nt
JI7
(89,182 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Does she get a pass on the above because she's a woman? So was Maggie Thatcher. So is Sarah Palin.
djean111
(14,255 posts)mylye2222
(2,992 posts)He/she didnt spoke anyway about HRC wanting to prove something because of being a woman. He spoke of her ties with RWingers......
Romulox
(25,960 posts)on the OP than anybody he's trying to call out.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I only see it online.
She polls great among the left and has wonderful friends on the left. I firmly believe that much of this is manufactured outrage from the right, tailored as meat and potatos for the left. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with her on issues and don't find her to be perfect. But some of the shit is just laughable.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)The more she is presented as a foregone conclusion, the more she is likely to suffer the same fate as in 2008. Methinks.
I want to see and evaluate ALL ACTUAL candidates, based on their policies (as much as can be done). Her working on and championing the TPP is something I cannot get past. And that is no fucking "purity" thing, it is a damned big deal that affects many many millions of people, in many ways.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)She's too wishy-washy on Wall St, she voted for a war that the entire world (outside the US) could see was founded on lies (although if she's apologised then A, I missed it and B, I'll forgive that one), I'm concerned that she would attack welfare in the same way Bill did and I have concerns about her apparent closeness with The Family/Fellowship.
However, there are very, very few politicians who I'm entirely happy with and Hillary is better than most. Assuming she's nominated, your nation could do far worse than elect her.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)You are correct that she is being portrayed as unstable as a woman. Anyone who has dwelt within a female body knows the misogynist construct being used very well. The PMS smear comes to mind. How many times has the right tried to demonize her and how many CT outlets carry water for them?
As Obama's SOS, she followed his new paradigm, and there will be no new wars. He's been steadily acclimatizing the MIC and Americans into a different way of doing things.
And the quote about Iran is *always* edited. Hillary said if Iran was to make a *nuclear* attack on Israel they would be obliterated. That's what she said, but they leave the word nuclear out, always. That one word edited out changes it all as most people hearing it knows what she meant. She said that before the transformative presidency of Obama, who got Iran to sign onto the CWC which was held over Syria's head and it includes nukes.
She was in no way advocating *starting a war* no more than Obama was going to invade Syria.
And the link saying Clinton was being blackmailed by Israel over Pollard by using mythical all-knowing Israeli intelligence on Lewinsky doesn't match up. People ascribe an almost supernatural quality to everything about Israel, who cannot even stop Hamas from bombing it!
The link alleging blackmail, that said Bill was *so* scared, didn't get Pollard released, did it?
Even if it was true, it would not make sense for Hillary to bow to further attempts at blackmail, when her husband didn't give in either.
I believe she *was* bitter over how her husband's agenda was derailed from Day One, and how her ideas were treated, trying to work with the Gingrich majority on healthcare and the rights of children. I don't think she is bitter now, she has found her place. But they have reason to fear what she was intending then, and what she'll do now to stop their anti-female agenda continuing.
It can be her time to transform the world through women, and that's going to bring down a lot of the power structures that are howling now. Uplifting half the world's population is a great danger to the status quo than any corporation.
Cheap speculations are being made that don't match reality, only CT. Just as with Pollard. He is eligible to be released from his life sentence by law, November 21, 2015, but maybe not be released. So neither Clinton was so frightened and or spineless, neither is Obama.
If Pollard's good time is taken into account in 2015, no doubt the next thing claimed will be that Hillary has been paid off by AIPAC and given the presidency by Israel, since they are supposed to own the USA and the Democrats are all blind followers. If the Democrats are part of an Israeli 'scheme,' they are ineffective collaboraters. They could've sent troops from Anerica already.
This stuff is covered by the TOS, and it's getting old. Recycling Scaife material for those who didn't hear it the first ten times or more is more than tiresome.
Meh.