Something for the Anti-Clinton Camp to Keep In Mind When You Feel Belittled

[McCamy Taylor]

I am sorry that some real liberals who can not stand Clinton feel that they are being discriminated against at DU. I am sorry that you feel as if you are the victim of a witch hunt or vendetta or a smoke-filled back room coordinated offensive to deprive you of your free speech and your vote. But remember, nothing occurs in a vacuum, and context counts.

The anti-anti-Hillary crowd is not being masterminded by anyone in a corporate office. The anti-anti-Hillarys are speaking up on their own. Because they remember 1972. They remember when Dick Nixon and Pat Buchanan manipulated the press---and Democratic voters---into ignoring their most general election viable candidates and throwing all their eggs into a basket which the GOP had already filled with holes in preparation for the general. Tactics which have been recycled again and again. They remember 1968, when a lack of Democratic solidarity cost this country six more years in Vietnam, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, Kent State and a whole lot of other pain.

So, no, none of you personally is on the payroll of CREEP II or CREEP IX or whatever the GOP smoke filled back room is calling itself this time. None of you have personally gotten the memo with the GOP talking point du jour---Hillary is Insincere.--in your inbox. None of you is anything other than you seem---

But, from the perspective of someone who does not know you, someone who can not see your face, when you start trying to tear down the most popular Democratic candidate we have---well, warning bells go off. Because we have been burned before and many of us have vowed never to get burned again.

Here's my advice. Read Hunter S. Thompson's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72." Then read his essays about Watergate. Then, when you sit down to spell out your issues with Clinton, you will know exactly how to phrase your ideas without giving anyone the wrong idea. Note--that means no character attacks. Anytime anyone starts indulging in character attacks, be very, very afraid. The GOP does not slime on issues. They attack character. Phrases like "war hawk" and "corporate" sound an awful lot like a GOP Big Lie, like Gore is a Liar or Kerry is a Waffler. ALL politicians will support some war, sometime---think WWII. All politicians take some money from some rich people---think Soros.

Yes, it is a pity that we can not all write exactly what we think and be believed. But if we believed everything that was written, the entire US Gross National Product would not be the property of some guy in Nigeria.

[cali]

1. I don't feel discriminated against by HRC supporters. I strongly oppose her

but I respect many of her DU supporters and I don't question their liberal credentials.

I have read Hunter. Hell, I knew Hunter. I hung out with him and had more than a few one on one in depth conversations with him. I don't think reading him is helpful regarding HRC.

Better than the repuke is a given, but sorry her hawkish stance is real and her corporate entanglements are real.

I think she's a terrible candidate for many reasons, just as you think she's a good one.

My opposition to her as has nothing to do with republican memes.

I certainly don't need you to instruct me on how I should oppose her anymore than you need me tell you how you should support her.

[AtomicKitten]

4. +1

Thanks. I have to work now and am grateful you expressed my sentiments as well.

[McCamy Taylor]

6. Funny thing. Pat Buchanan was a good buddy of Thompson, too.

I mention this, because I have always suspected that Buchanan may have played a role in the role Thompson unwittingly (I hope) played in the 1972 election with his Rolling Stone articles.

That's why I suggest reading the Watergate essays. You will catch glimpses of the self-hatred which Thompson felt at being used by Nixon like a two dollar you know what. None of us wants to end up like that. I hope.

[cali]

9. why is it a funny thing that "Pat Buchanan was a good buddy of Thompson, TOO?

you really need to be more subtle with passive aggressive digs. Now, I'm sure you're going to tell me that you weren't, oh no, you weren't in any way comparing me to Pat Buchanan. Baloney. Codswallop.

[Marr]

23. That was assinine.

You received a very reasonable response, and instead of acknowledging it, chose to illustrate exactly what so many people dislike about Hillary supporters.

[cali]

29. pretty funny, actually. Taylor piously explains to us about how we shouldn't

use certain language and then doesn't hesitate to stoop really low by lumping me with with one of the most hateful repukes her beautiful mind can come up with.

Nah, no hypocrisy there.

[Ms. Toad]

31. +1 n/t

[zeemike]

39. Fortunate really.

To have it happen right in the first few posts, so I don't need to waste any more time on it.

[jaysunb]

10. Amen and thank you. n/t

[Taylorz]

24. My sentiments, exactly.

Thank you, cali!

Let's hope we can get someone like Bernie to give us progressives a real choice.

[FarPoint]

33. Discuss the issues in a proactive fashion.

Dislike and hatredd voiced here of a Primary Democratic Presidential Candidate only feeds the GOP.

[Autumn]

2. I see some people bashing those who do not support Hillary at this time and what's funny is

in 2008 they were the very same ones bashing those of us who supported Hillary. Yeah there was a witch hunt then aqnd it's comming around again. I served on a jury for a post today where a poster can't wait for the purges to begin.

In an OP that calls for no character attacks the OP ignores their own call.

[McCamy Taylor]

3. Pardon me. Who did I attack--other than GOPers who "slime"?

At worst, I have "accused" some people who post of not phrasing their criticism in a way which will make their meaning clear. If you pay attention to context, it is very easy to make a case against Clinton without giving alarm to those who fear GOP meddling in the primary. Unfortunately, American politics has gotten extremely sloppy. Everyone makes characters attacks, because they are the equivalent of sound bites, easy to remember, easy to repeat.

[Autumn]

5. Okay

Words be words.

[liberal_at_heart]

7. so we're allowed to criticize as long as we word it the way you want us to. No thanks.

[McCamy Taylor]

8. You misunderstand me. You can write anything you want. DU is allowed to distrust YOU

if you phrase your complaints in such a way that they appear to have come out of a GOP talking points memo.

Fun fact: If you Google Hillary Clinton and war hawk you do not get Noam Chomsky or Elizabeth Warren or even Greg Pallast. You get Rand Paul.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/24/rand-paul-hillary-clinton_n_5704507.html

What does this mean in practical terms? Any Republican president is 10 times more likely to get us involved in a Middle East war for oil than any Democrat. That's because Democrats hate wars for oil. Is Rand Paul signaling that he supports a Democratic president rather than a Republican? No, he is trying to fuck with the Democratic primary. The GOP is using him in his roll as Libertarian Poster Boy Who Can Say Things That Other Republicans Can't Say in order to roll out one of their Big Lies. So, the GOP labels Clinton a "war hawk" knowing that this will piss off Democratic primary voters. When we move on to the general, the GOP will no longer be calling her a "war hawk." They will call her a commie-Lesbian who married a draft dodger. And, all of a sudden, the same Democrats who swore that she could not wait to start another war will find themselves defending her against opponents that argue that being a woman, she will not have the balls to defend the country in time of crisis.

[cali]

11. LOL. "DU is allowed to distrust you". Big of you to

tell us what DU is allowed to do. And you don't speak for DU.

How should one phrase Hillary's strong support for Israel's attack on Gaza last year? How should one phrase her support for attacking Syria? How should one phrase her support for the IWR and her backing of that vote for years subsequent to the vote? How should one phrase her support for the attack on Libya?

[liberal_at_heart]

12. Voting for the war in Iraq is a legitimate criticism. 99% of the criticisms I have heard on DU have

had to do with policy positions, not character. I will write whatever I want. People can think whatever they want about me. What it won't do is change my vote. I've voted in every election for 19 years but have only been to one primary. I was shocked at how it works. So much bullying to try and get people to vote for their candidate. Why can't people just leave each other alone and let them vote for whomever they want to vote for? Why all the bullying? I will go to the 2016 primary but I will be better prepared this time. I will not be bullied into voting for someone else's candidate. I will vote for my candidate.

[okaawhatever]

14. Word it any way you like, just know that if your criticism sounds like the right wing

criticism it may be regarded as such.

[liberal_at_heart]

16. my criticism does not sound right wing, and I still get compared to them. It is a tactic to try

and bully and I will not be bullied.

[cui bono]

19. Repond however you wish, but know that if your response is full of disdain for the left

it will be regarded as right wing as well.

[cali]

30. but it's OK for the op to lump me together with Pat Buchanan, right?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. I don't feel bad...The mob made Socrates drink the hemlock, nailed Jesus to a cross...

I don't feel bad...The mob made Socrates drink the hemlock, nailed Jesus to a cross, and burned Joan Of Arc at the stake. My sacrifice is a small one.

[liberal_at_heart]

15. Excuse me? Now we're being compared to the mob that killed Jesus and burned Joan of Arc?

How long until we are called Nazis? Support Hillary or be compared to those who killed Jesus. Wow. Just wow. Guess what? It still changes nothing. You cannot bully me into voting for Hillary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. You're accusing me of being a bully to diminish, demean, dehumanize, and demoralize me is ...

You're accusing me of being a bully in an attempt to to diminish, demean, dehumanize, and demoralize me is a form of bullying itself but you know that and that's why you continue to do it, and do it so effortlessly.

[liberal_at_heart]

22. You may think whatever you like of me. I am voting for Bernie Sanders and I am putting you

on ignore.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. The only thing more ugly than naked aggression is passive aggression .

I am truly hurt by your attacks...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

42. All you can do is sit back and laugh at the ridiculousness of some (not all) Hillary supporters. The name calling certainly does not reflect well on their so-called "champion."

[cui bono]

18. Not sure how one can be discriminated against on DU except by groups...

however, when people who voice their concerns over Hillary's policy stances and alliances get told "you are not the base", "we don't need you", that the left is "high and mighty, holier than thou" and that the left is "welcome" in the Dem Party but not to "control" it, well that's not very nice, is it?

While I agree that there shouldn't be character assassinations of candidated, most of what I've seen is disagreement with her policy. Given the snotty posts I've seen from Hillary supporters full of disdain for the left - the group that actually completely embraces the Democratic Party values/principles and wishes the party would return to them, seems you might do better to lecture your own camp so as not to alienate everyone else.

[djean111]

28. Amen to that.

[William769]

20. Kick & recommended.

[freshwest]

21. Prepare for Incoming. I'm ready:

[pangaia]

38. Most ....perceptive comment here.

But then, I have accused you of being perceptive before.

[djean111]

26. Never occurred to me to feel "discriminated against". Much less "belittled". Bwah!

Annoyed by the constant posting of poll results, as if the primaries were over, but that's about it.
I do not like the TPP or war or the stranglehold that Wall Street has on us. Sorry if that is, bizarrely, some sort of RW position.

[Jim Lane]

32. What phrases, pray tell, will be acceptable to the anti-anti-Clinton camp?

You write in part:

Anytime anyone starts indulging in character attacks, be very, very afraid. The GOP does not slime on issues. They attack character. Phrases like "war hawk" and "corporate" sound an awful lot like a GOP Big Lie, like Gore is a Liar or Kerry is a Waffler.

As a preliminary, let me note, as others have done, that your attempt to conflate DU criticism of Hillary with that of the GOP is ridiculous. The center of gravity of the Republican criticism of Hillary (as of just about any other prominent Democrat) is "weak on national security" (i.e., not enough of a war hawk) and "hostile to the job creators" (i.e., not enough of a corporatist). Rand Paul is an outlier, as was his father (who voted against the IWR, unlike some war hawks I could mention). Even Paul has, in the last several months, tacked toward hawkishness for purposes of his Presidential campaign.

More to the point: There are genuine substantive criticisms of Hillary Clinton on policy matters. To call her a "war hawk" or "corporatist" isn't a character attack. It's a shorthand way of alluding to a particular subset of the criticisms.

You can't reasonably object to shorthand on a message board. There are contexts in which I'm simply not going to take the time to go through her actions and statements on Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc., or to review her history with issues relating to big business, income inequality, etc.

If you contend that making those substantive criticisms in any way is playing into Republican hands, then we really have nothing to discuss. Put me (and quite a few other people) on Ignore.

If you admit that raising those arguments is legitimate, then please clarify for us "exactly how to phrase (our) ideas without giving anyone the wrong idea." I read Thompson but it was years ago, so maybe without my rereading the whole book, you could just give me a cheat sheet? If "war hawk" is prohibited by your rules, maybe "militarist"? If not "corporatist", -- ah, well, here I stalled, I was going to add another possible alternative but didn't even come up with anything to parallel with "militarist" as a suggestion. Anyway, I hope you get the idea.

Those of us who sometimes criticize Clinton await your guidance.

ETA: I also wouldn't completely rule out statements that actually are character attacks. Calling someone a war hawk is not a character attack but calling him or her a liar is. Well, guess what, there are liars out there, and some of them are Democrats. It's a legitimate consideration. Not just Hillary Clinton, but any candidate running for any office can reasonably be asked to explain himself or herself if some past statement appears deceptive, and especially if it appears to be a pattern.

For example, I've paid virtually no attention to this State Department email brouhaha, because my quick impression was that it was much ado about nothing. Nevertheless, if someone were to present solid evidence to show that Clinton lied about something in that connection, I can't see that discussion as being impermissible here. Let the criticism be aired and let the Clinton supporters respond. A response of "that's a character attack," without more, won't strike me as persuasive.

[cali]

35. great post, as are so many others of your posts

[JDPriestly]

40. Thanks. So right.

[Doctor_J]

34. So HRC is the victim of some grand plan, but

no one, anywhere, is plotting and maneuvering on behalf of the hyper-rich.

[mopinko]

36. there really is a vast right wing conspiracy.

of that there is no doubt. and a very successful one at that.
and shit runs downhill.

[JDPriestly]

37. I want to be very positive.

I think we can do better than Hillary. She is the corporate candidate par excellence.

I have volunteered for Bernie Sanders.

I also like Elizabeth Warren.

I suspect that Warren will only run if Hillary Clinton blatantly goes toward the right and does not at least pay lip service to Elizabeth Warren's economic issues. Hillary Clinton will probably avoid that mistake.

But Hillary Clinton's campaign could crash and burn.

I note that she looks great and that her voice has improved since 2008, but she has quite a history to deal with. And the history of Bill Clinton's relationship with the bankers, with Citigroup, with Summers and Geithner and with the media and "free" trade -- will be hard for Hillary to explain if she has any challenge from the left.

Hillary Clinton will face a barrage of mostly unfair and unfounded criticism from the Republicans. She tends to take things personally (based on what I have seen in the past). Needs to do a lot of prayer and meditation if she is to withstand what is about to happen to her. No. It isn't fair. No. It isn't nice. But it is going to happen.

I repeat that I have volunteered for Bernie Sanders.

I think that Bernie Sanders has the selflessness and the innate fairness that will make him an even stronger candidate than Obama was. Bernie is fully himself, and that is his strength. He shouldn't change a hair and he should own every wrinkle and laugh at every joke about his appearance, Brooklyn accent, etc. And that is what he is doing.

I think that in spite of all the challenges he will face, Bernie is a guy that will grab America's heart. He has a kind of contagious way about him that makes you like him. He is unassuming. There isn't the slightest bit of conceit in his body or brain. He seems to be a bit of an absent-minded professor as we used to say, but he is always focused and in the moment. He has an extremely sharp mind and so many years of experience that he does not need a lot of handlers to tell him what to say. He will make mistakes but they will be honest mistakes that make him more appealing, make him seem all the more authentic to voters.

So I'm backing Bernie Sanders. I think he has a good chance to win the nomination.

If Hillary cannot win the nomination due to the fact that other potential candidates enter the field, then she will not be able to win the general election.

Neither Hillary nor any other potential candidate has anything to lose due to the presence of other primary candidates.

[stupidicus]

41. I find efforts at belittlement from thirdwayers/HC supporters as amusing

as those made by their rightwing cousins who'd mistake me as a supporter of hers simply because I'm a lefty.

I find this effort to be more than a little amusing as well, given how I've long thought and argued that it is her camp that best mimics the rightwing tactics (character assassination, etc) when it comes to adversarial debate.

ANd those of us old enough to have lived through those events of yesteryear also remember what a liberal dem was compared to the current counterparts/crop of posers.

This effort on your part reads like a plea to observe the compromising power the fear of rightwingnuttery commands, lest the "good guys" lose again, even though it is that pro/con list derived "good" part that we find questionable.

You wouldn't be offended if we failed to appreciate or adhere to the advice given by one promoting the idea that it is us rabble that don't understand, while demonstrating a severe lack of it?

WHen you can show how descriptions like "war hawk", etc are untrue and undeserved, try again eh....

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

43. +1