General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"She’s ready for them. More than ready. Obama-level ready."
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by pintobean (a host of the General Discussion forum).
that Clinton calmly held her own for the entirety of the rather sickening, epic assault, during which not a single new or damning fact was uncovered, isn’t the most impressive part. It’s the other thing, how Clinton essentially showed America and the world exactly how she’ll respond – with what level of class, calm and intelligence – when she’s faced with this exact level of GOP venom and ineptitude nearly every day of her stewardship, should she become president.
In short: She’s ready for them. More than ready. Obama-level ready. She can take the “worst” the GOP has to offer – their most calculating buffoons, their nastiest pile-on tactics, their months of savage preparation, their inbred misogyny – and leverage it to her/our advantage, all without even breaking a sweat.
But it’s not just the GOP. It’s safe to translate that skill, that temperament straight over to how she’ll deal with all those other supposedly tough-minded, troublesome, macho world leaders, from Putin to Netanyahu, the U.N. to King Salman. “Reassuring” doesn’t begin to cover it. “Totally in control and sort of badass?” That’s more like it.
But there’s an even larger upshot: No more lukewarm liberal support. No more tepid fence-sitting for the large chunk of Democrats who’ve long been wary of Clinton, who’ve complained that, despite her obvious smarts and tenacity, she’s far from an ideal progressive candidate, for all the reasons you already know: too hawkish, too front-loaded with political baggage, too friendly with Wall Street, and so on.
Well, enough of that. If you weren’t much impressed by her before, it’s downright impossible not to be, now. Yes, Bernie is engaging, too. But Hillary just took it all to the next level – the truly presidential one.
http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2015/10/23/all-the-president-hillary-you-can-possibly-handle/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
world wide wally
(21,740 posts)The way these pigs spit venom at her and accused her of being nothing less than a cold calculating murderer when in fact she went out of her way to work with her people in Benghazi and everywhere else. Seeing these small minded assholes attack her when she did all she could and then attended funerals and talked to families was beyond the pale.
I am sure Gowdy and the others could have attended those funerals too since they were in office, but instead they bring out the crocodile tears when talking about 4 dead Americans because of Hillary. They couldn't care less beyond politics.
We got your back, girl
Fuck them
delrem
(9,688 posts)Bought out by Wall St., who cares!
She's a winner!
Kabuki Kabuki Kabuki!
I mean
USA! USA! USA!
Oh god, what a moment.
I'm exhausted! What about you? Got a cigarette?
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)The media is so powerful.
They really know how to lead us where they want us to go.
Too many people buy in to style over substance. This superficial level of making political decisions will never yield optimal results. Ever.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Do people actually listen to what she says or do they just hear what they want to hear and make up stuff in their own minds.
A different view doesn't mean "be damned." And one vote for a bad war didn't make it happen. There must have been a majority who believed as she did.
frizzled
(509 posts)That means you're voting for a candidate who supports and enables neocon wars, and who's bankrolled by Haim Saban. There's no way to get around that.
On the other hand, is Hillary in office much more likely to be better and saner than any Republican? Would the left wing of the Democratic Party have much more influence with Hillary than with any Republican? Few could disagree.
murielm99
(30,734 posts)Thank you.
delrem
(9,688 posts)in comparison to how photogenic HRC is.
murielm99
(30,734 posts)
MattSh
(3,714 posts)What the hell does that even mean? Oh right. If Hillary's elected, it's 4 or 8 more years of the middle class slipping into irrelevancy.
Are you ready? Hillary is!
eight more years of corporate greed. Eight more years of the rich getting more more more.
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)Some posters apparently can't help letting their venom spill through though.
It does not help their cause at all, IMO.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)If you can't understand this anger and frustration when the middle class, working class, and poor continue to lose ground year after year, then there's really nothing left to discuss here.
From my point of view, the anger and frustration is completely understandable. And, it's a shame that some of the LOYAL, Democratic base feels as strongly as they do about HRC (i.e. that the economic wealth and income inequality that continues to increase year after year will not begin to turn around with her at the helm). Since they genuinely and strongly feel this way, how could you not at least sympathize and empathize on some level?
There are consequences to such huge levels of income and wealth inequality.
lostnfound
(16,176 posts)Strong confident women who led major nations..it's about time that the U.S. Had one. And Hillary is well-qualified.
The problem is that large numbers of my fellow citizens have been trying to live for too long on peanuts, and have been driven deeper in debt by unfavorable policies like for-profit college loans and mortgage crisis where the banks got bailed out, not the people. And Wall Street really wants to get their hands into social security.
Last night,on Rachel, I wanted to see genuine quiet conversation from Hillary about these issues of central, critical importance. What is her real vision for social security? Why does she continue to espouse middle-class-punitive solutions to wealth inequality and indebtedness problems (college students working off their loans, or possibly, means-testing on social security), rather than strongly progressive policies like the "stock speculators tax" that Bernie supports?
I wanted to see her answer to a question of what are the cultural values and political realities that have enabled the destruction of the middle class, and does she see the role that superpacs and corporate funding for campaigns has played? And why does the DNC establishment not support truly progressive candidates, the ones that raise those kind of questions, with the same vigor that Third Way candidates are supported?
I don't even care if she rides a pile of corporate money into the White House, in the end, as long as she lands their as a true progressive. That would really be awesome. But I can't imagine it. It will be telling to see who she picks for VP running mate.
frizzled
(509 posts)Maggie T. destroyed British industry at the same time as Germany preserved theirs; she's the reason the country is little more than a money laundering center today.
I don't even care if she rides a pile of corporate money into the White House, in the end, as long as she lands their as a true progressive.
Why exactly do you think corporations and donors are giving money to candidates? Not out of goodwill, I can tell you that.
I'm not even against Hillary Clinton; but it's dishonest to say she's something other than she is. Deeply flawed, compromised, and with a record of warmongering. The job of leftwing Democrats would be to get her into office then spend the next 4 or 8 years working their guts out to push her to positions that didn't hurt the middle and working class.
lostnfound
(16,176 posts)I don't want a Thatcher, no.
If and when we get a female president, I would love that she was strong, as formidable, as Eizabeth I. Thatcher's policies I utterly hate, but she had no reticence about holding the reigns of power and using them.
Hillary showed herself to be formidable. That's a good thing.
If only she had more progressive creds on wealth inequality and war..these are not minor issues. And I wouldn't even care that the banks are funding her, if she has the guts to turn her back on them once in office. Like FDR, governing from further left than people thought he would. That would be awesome.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Thatcher was so horrible that, when she died, the air was full of the sound of people singing "Ding Dong the witch is dead!". Thatcher was the ONLY reason that there was a Falklands war, you know. She wanted to go to war, to prove that she was STRONG. On other people's dead bodies. She inflicted austerity, sent London police to bust up coal miners' strikes - yeah - that is EXACTLY how I think Hillary would be. She is a corporate 1%-er.
I think she will smile sweetly and hand Social Security to the hedge fund managers. And I think those hedge fund managers will continue to not have to pay taxes on their income.
I don't give a flying fuck about the Benghazi kabuki theater. That has nothing to do with the issues. Not one damned thing.
frizzled
(509 posts)Unions just about taking over the government and holding cities hostage; constant demands for huge wage increases; winter of discontent; continuous strikes; garbage uncollected for weeks...
It's also not fair to entirely blame Thatcher for the Falklands, she didn't force Galtieri to invade.
djean111
(14,255 posts)frizzled
(509 posts)Britain just about turned into a third world country in the late 70's. When your basic services and infrastructure go to shit, people get desperate and the pendulum swings back hard.
lostnfound
(16,176 posts)That's why I'm disappointed Rachel didn't ask about that last night. I really want any to hear her thoughts about that,, not a stump speech, but all of her views on it, elucidated by someone who would probe it intelligently, not bullshit interview questions that pretend that SS is in imminent danger and the only solution is to cut it. I expected Rachel to question her from a progressive angle, and she really didn't give progressives the answers we are looking for.
KG
(28,751 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Some parts of DU aren't going to like that at all.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Sorry, host consensus is that it belongs in GDP.