WTF is wrong with Schumer bashing Hillary like this?

[SHRED]

A simple Google search reveals the RW media is loving this.

I am thoroughly disgusted.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Who knows what he is thinking. Couldnt have said a more

non productive thing if he tried.

Amazing.

Personally, I have accepted the loss of my country, it happened the day McConnell and a minority of Americans told the president and the majority of the american people that their constitutional right to appoint a SC justice was being denied.

It ended that day, as it turns out the country is going to be owned by Russian oligarchs, who woulda guessed that one!

[Flo Mingo]

15. Unless.........

Whether we like it or not or whether we think it's fair or not, the "vast right wing conspiracy" against the Clinton's has continued unabated since the 90's. Lies about the Clintons have been repeated and repeated ad nauseum so often and so consistently that much of the country has come to believe at least some of the smears and innuendo that have surrounded them for nearly 30 years.

Repeat a lie often enough.........

Perhaps Schumer is trying to distance the party from the Clintons so the attention can turn to Trump and his merry band of liars, thieves and traitors. The special counsel is churning away and Schumer surely knows there will plenty of ammo in the arsenal come midterms. Is Schumer trying to get Democrats out from under the "sore loser" banner and be seen as the party ready to govern and not get bogged down in scandals and their outcome. At least not as a campaign issue.

If that's not what he's doing, then it's a total dick move. If he's trying to steer the narrative to what's next, then it might turn out to be a good strategy.

I hate, as much as anyone, that Republicans and their smear machines have trashed the very honorable Hillary Clinton. It is a sad commentary about where we are as a country but nevertheless it has to be dealt with in some manner. Either by completely embracing and defending her or distancing themselves from the negativity that exists around her.

[Alice11111]

52. ...sorta was the start

I wish O would have stood up to him & made a recess appt asap, catching them off guard, instead of trying to talk sense into them. They were so rude and mean. MM did a similar thing to O when he was going to go public late in the campaign with the Russian story.

Wonder how many people MM has stopped from doing the right thing, by threatening the worst, and we will never know it.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Our senior Senator has always had some "issues" but he seems to be installed for life...

so we just deal with it.

[elleng]

3. 'Sorry' I've missed 'news.' How 'bashing?'

[SHRED]

5. Here

https://tinyurl.com/ybprg4ln

[KPN]

12. Huh? He didn't bash H.

Develop some skin folks. Schumer as leader took responsibility. He stepped up and said we/ the party deserve some of the blame for Trump. How is this bashing Hillary? If he bashed her at all it was only for not admitting the same. Geesh.

[bluecollar2]

20. that was my impression also

And God knows I'm no fan of Chuck..

[KPN]

21. Thanks for saying so. I am no fan as well.

Seems like the notion of doing anything different as a Party -- whether it platform/position on issues, general strategy, Party persona -- makes some protest around here.

[bluecollar2]

25. no worries

Chuck may be a little late to the party but at least he showed up...

About damn time the Party leadership acknowledge that a change of approach is in order.

2018 isn't that far away and a hell of a lot needs doing between now and then.

We lost...

Now let's get on with putting it right.

[Alice11111]

53. Yeah

[R B Garr]

22. Yes, and of course Trump is quoting Schumer now to his advantage:

Donald J. Trump
✔ ‎@realDonaldTrump

After 1 year of investigation with Zero evidence being found, Chuck Schumer just stated that "Democrats should blame ourselves,not Russia."

3:52 AM - Jul 24, 2017



28,357 28,357 Retweets

99,192 99,192 likes
_______________________________________________________

How unbelievably ridiculous to give him anything like this when the actual reality is that Russian interference is a very real investigation.

[Egnever]

35. Does not make the Russia fiasco any less important.

And in fact it takes away his excuse that it is just sour grapes over losing.

[R B Garr]

58. No, it completely undermines the Democrats because it

makes it personal about Hillary, and we all know whose narrative that supports, and it's not just the GOP.

[emulatorloo]

40. And they say Biden is a "gaffe-machine". Schumer walked right into a trap.

[R B Garr]

59. Yes, he did. He gave away power,

which can only be explained as a ploy to gain favor with Hillary haters, which he apparently thinks will be worth it.

[emulatorloo]

60. You and I are in agreement

A poorly thought out strategy to appease the Hillary Haters. Who will never be appeased and a majority will never vote for a Democrat. Instead he just gave ammunition to the GOP and the delusional "no evidence of Russian interference" crowd.

[RKP5637]

4. Yet another of my many WTF's each day! n/t

[Not Ruth]

6. Hillary was his protege, as Gillibrand is now

Wonder how Gillibrand is playing this.

[LovingA2andMI]

29. Hopefully Senator Gillibrand Is Focusing On Her Job...

Continuing to try and pass her Paid Leave Bill, and gearing up for a Presidential Run in 2020.

[Not Ruth]

31. She has already said that she will not run in 2020

2024?

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-york/articles/2017-05-02/gillibrand-on-2020-presidential-run-im-ruling-it-out

[LovingA2andMI]

50. She can change her mind....

Which is exactly what we hope she would do!

[unblock]

7. silly gaffe. bad at any time, but steals headlines from his own intended re-branding message

[marylandblue]

8. I understood him to be blaming the Dem Party not Hillary herself

He said "what did WE do wrong," and did not mention Hillary by name. MSM is spinning this against Hillary, but it is not what he said.

[geek tragedy]

9. the point that the Democratic party--under Clinton's leadership--

ran a failed strategy in 2016 should be uncontroversial at this point. That we need to learn from our mistakes and figure out how to expand our party's appeal to people we may not like so much but whom we need to take Congress and the White House back should also not be controversial.

[boston bean]

10. We need to learn how a foreign gov't took down the first woman candidate of a major party for

president.

We also need to know why Comey did what the fuck he did, which caused a collapse in support.

We also need to stop taking it like it is written in stone that the Electoral college works well for todays day and age.

We need to UNDERSTAND she WON by a LOT the popular vote.

So screw all this revisionist, hillary's campaign sucked bullshit... sorry geek, but you are too willing to buy into that narrative and it is sort of depressing me.

[emulatorloo]

41. The fact that you need to tell us "What Schumer Really Meant" indicates what a poor job

he did on the roll out.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029364776#post13

[Egnever]

42. I know we want to pretend here that Hillary was the perfect candidate

She was not. She was the second most despised candidate to ever run for president. Second only to the dumpster and not by much. The idea the whole parties message was wrong because we ran a candidate with such large negatives is jumping to the wrong conclusions IMHO.

Yes we need to improve the messaging we do, I would not argue that for a second. That said pretending Clinton would have won if only the party were better at messaging is ignoring the elephant in the room. Despite her negatives she would have still likely won if not for Comey/Russia still a candidate with lower negatives would have won it despite the Russia involvement and Comey. The Electoral college was lost by less than 300k votes. Spread through three states. Better messaging probably could have change the outcome but running a candidate with such high negatives was not a good call.

Had Obama been able to run again he would have crushed Cheeto. Laying the blame at the feet of the party messaging and ignoring Hillary's flaws is not looking at what happened honestly and will bring some bad conclusions. You can't solve problems by only looking at half of what causes them.

Hillary would have been a highly competent President. I have little doubt of that. That said she was not a good candidate. Until the American people prefer competency over personality competency does not matter. We have seen it in the last republican presidential "wins" Bush a dunderhead but more like able than Gore. Same with Bush and Kerry. While Trump was not much more like able than Clinton it was close enough for Russia/Comey to make the difference in a few states.

Better messaging might have been enough to change it but that was not the main issue IMHO.

Better messaging is always needed, pretending that is why we lost is ignoring a big part of why we lost.

[Raine1967]

43. What were those mistakes and failures?

Honest question, I would like to know what you think they are.

[geek tragedy]

46. We all have our theories. Would love to hear the person at the head of the organization

weigh in.

[Raine1967]

49. I'm not trying to play a gotcha game, I really want to know what you think.

I respect you an awful lot on this board and would appreciate your perspective.

I am not sure what mistakes were made, and honestly, and would like to know what I am missing.

[geek tragedy]

56. 1) going for mobilization at the expense of persuasion; 2) playing for a 400 EV blowout

instead of recognizing that she faced real vulnerabilities; 3) taking PA/WI/MI for granted by assuming that no one who voted for Obama would vote for Trump; 4) "basket of deplorables"--who on god's green earth thought that was anything less than moronic?; 5) utter failure to do more to get out in front of Clinton foundation as a potential influence peddling storyline; 6) giving big speeches to Wall Street after the subprime financial crisis almost wrecked the country--really? REALLY? Why not just draft attack ads and donate them to the opponents; 7) the idiotic "Donald Trump is making our children cry" campaign theme; 8) thinking that she could win over Romney Republicans.

[LakeArenal]

11. Well, just one more simplistic opionion on why we lost....

There is no one reason why Clinton lost. Sound bites and Media relevance have become the norm anymore. No one wants to read beyond headlines.

Schumer wants to separate himself from the losing baggage dems have. This is not the first time I have disagreed with Schumer, that's for sure. But if you listen to all he had to say this weekend, you would see some solid policies he is endorsing.

I disagree more with him saying Dems, Clinton, didn't wouldn't focus on issues and policy. I feel, she just couldn't be heard and media was not interest in the minutia of policy and only wanted the drama of the election.

Most highlighted by the miners' debacle. She spoke the truth about those jobs being gone forever. Media hyped dump promising to bring those jobs back. She was hated. The liar was elected.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Pelosi did a better job with the roll out

Schumer could have made a better effort to keep from stepping on his own message. He should have known how his words would be spun. He could have made a point of praising Hillary for her vision, for her leadership qualities, and for her commitment to the priorities they that both share, along with the rest of the Democratic Party. THEN he could have delivered his main point, that Democrats need to become more effective at clearly stating to the public who we are and who we fight for. Because we do have to improve there, that part is true. Whether or not there is foreign interference in any future election, we have to get our own messaging right. It still shows up in polling. The fact that Clinton would have won had Russia and Comey not interfered doesn't change that particular truth.

Hillary would have delivered on the superb Democratic platform that she ran on. She excels at governance, but she is not as exceptional as a campaigner. Most people know that isn't high on the list of her many strengths. In fairness to Schumer I don't think he actually mentioned Clinton by name - commentators filled that part in. But again, Schumer should have stressed that the Democratic Party offers serious quality leaders for the times that we live in, unlike the Republicans. And we will continue to do so, while doing all that we can to communicate effectively with the American people how and why we stand with them.

[KPN]

14. Seriously?

Schumer did not bash H. He as leaders should took some of the responsibility for Trump by saying we/Democratic Party.

Develop some skin folks.

[BainsBane]

17. Lol

Skin? All the freak outs we've seen because some suggested might not be perfection itself, earth, and now you're saying to "develop skin?

When have we seen the critics of the party accept responsibility for losing every single one of their elections? They haven't won any, anywhere, underperforming Clinton and other Democrats. That of course is never their responsibility. Nothing is.

Nor did we see demands that Kerry and Gore accept responsibility for their losses. Instead we have seen those same critics make excuses for those losses.

Schumer was trying to placate a group of people who loathe him almost as much as they do Clinton. He also proposed a series of positions they had previously supported, only to have them attack him for doing so. Schumer has no idea what he's dealing with. He could incorporate every single one of their demands and they'd still want his head.

His manouever was politically naive. He tried to ally himself with people who don't want his support and would under no circumstances back him for a leadership position or anything else. And in the process, he managed to alienate those who have supported him. Pelosi would never make such a blunder.

What he said doesn't bother me nearly as much as his lack iof understanding of what he's up against.

[KPN]

18. Well, we obviously disagree on a lot of fronts.

There's a reason that critics are critical. Maybe they are idealistic, but when things don't actually get better over time, winning just to win apparently isn't an attractive option. Recognizing that is being "realistic".

What bothers me about what Schuler said is: will the proof be in the pudding?

Enjoy your comforts while they last.

[BainsBane]

19. My comforts?

What comforts do you suppose those are? The kind that allow women who grew up on welfare to think they have a right to a job that pays the national median rather than recognizing their sole purpose is to "bend the knee" to those born into bourgeois privilege? The "comforts", that since 1965, have guaranteed people of color the right to vote? The "comforts" that have resulted in the Democratic party being supported by and representing people of color, single women, and the poor, rather than "bending the knee" to their superiors? Are those the "comforts" you refer to to? The ones that allow those you posit against "idealists" to have any representation at all, or even the right to vote? So just how, I wonder, does a minority--an even shrinking demographic--imagine they are going to succeed in stripping away those "comforts," when they haven't been able to win a single electoral contest anywhere? Enter the efforts to replace primaries with caucuses, a system with the lowest voter turnout that most penalizes the poor, people of color, elderly, and disabled? If the existing electorate doesn't produce the desired results, keep the undesirables from voting. "Idealism" achieved.

What exactly is this "idealism" you refer to? Would that be the idealism of funneling billions of dollars to defense contractors (especially Lockheed-Martin) and protecting the corporate gun lobby from civil liability so that their profits don't have to be encumbered by the rights of mere citizens? The "idealism" of genocide by gun? the "idealism" of putting toxic waste dumps in Latino communities and then profiting from them? Is that the "idealism" you refer to? The "idealism" that prompts an endless barrage of demands for the party to abandon civil rights and reproductive rights and instead understand that its sole purpose is to promote the economic demands of those who already earn well above the national median?


For all the proclamations of "idealism," we see no mention of a single issue because, as Schumer found out, issues are no more than rhetorical justification for power and dominance. When issues once denounced are suddenly embraced, and vice versa, depending on who proposes them, claims of "idealism" become increasingly transparent.

[betsuni]

45. +1

[lunamagica]

16. Right. Feed the RW media. Brilliant idea.

[ProudLib72]

23. I don't care what his intent was

You don't bring up HRC like that. And you don't dismiss Russia.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

24. I don't know if you heard or not but Donald Trump won the election

and Hillary Clinton is not the President, she ran a disastrously bad campaign and lost.

[emulatorloo]

26. 'She-Ran-A-Disastrously-Bad-Campaign' Registered TradeMark, Patent Pending

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

38. How about "Lost election to the most reprehensible person to seek the office since Strom Thurmond"

Even a Hillary victory by relatively narrow margins should have been severely alarming.

[emulatorloo]

39. You are definitely up on your Pundit-speak!

Well done!

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

48. At least make an effort...

shouldn't you be ranting about Putin and Comey and brogressives?

[emulatorloo]

57. Ha ha. You're the one regurgitating cliches

from the punditocracy.

Don't you have an important "think-piece" to write?

[VOX]

27. Chuck, you if you posted your crap on DU, your thread would be locked.

**Don't bash Democratic public figures**

[Alice11111]

28. I have no idea what you are talking about. Would you please

Post the tweets. I cannot see them. I've tried many times, many ways, but they don't come through, ever, from you.
I'm not on Twitter or FB, but most people who post tweets
Make them immediately accessible, when I go to the thread. If you have suggestions, let me know.
Thank you.

[emulatorloo]

30. OP not referring to twitter or tweets. He gave a link a few posts down

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029364776#post5

What he linked to:

https://tinyurl.com/ybprg4ln

[Alice11111]

32. Couldn't get, but I will try that again. Thank you.

[emulatorloo]

33. Try this link instead

https://www.google.com/search?q=schumer+blaming+clinton

His "tiny URL" (https://tinyurl.com/ybprg4ln) links to that google search page.

[Alice11111]

34. I got it. Thank you!

[emulatorloo]

36. ...

[Alice11111]

37. Yes

[triron]

44. Schumer is a jackass.

[tavernier]

47. Heaven Forbid we dems should ever be allowed

to put blame on anyone but ourselves. Yes, let's put on our hair shirts, go cut a switch and beg for a flogging. And then apologize to the flogger for taking up his time.

Shut up, Schumer. you boys have far too long rolled over for the republicans. Either stfu or retire and let someone who will fight for our party take your seat.

[Alice11111]

55. Agree. Roll. Roll. Roll. That is why I was initially disappointed

that he would be the leader. He did a bit better than expected, until now.

[Alice11111]

51. Not helpful. Apologize and keep your opinions to yourself.

[LyndaG]

54. Exactly