Sadly, over the Hill

[Fumesucker]

Another blast from the past, some great writing here, powerful stuff.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5314138

<snip>

When I heard Hillary’s comment that she and John McCain brought the necessary experience and expertise to the table, while her fellow Democrat, Barack Obama, was to be dismissed as nothing more than a speech, I was truly astounded. This was not the Hillary of sense and sensibility, but the Hillary of pride and prejudice, a woman who would stop at nothing to achieve her goal, with an immediate and vicious bias against anyone who had the audacity to try and stand in her way.

This code of conduct has not subsided, but instead has persisted and become more blatantly apparent with every passing day. It is the same “you’re with us or against us” mentality that has divided a nation for more than seven years; it is the same rhetoric that screams of entitlement and arrogance, rather than a sense of accepting the will of the people who have spoken, and continue to speak, about something more important than the ego of one politician with their eye focused on nothing else but the prize.

<snip>

[RobertEarl]

1. No surprise then

While she was SoS, Libya was destroyed, Syria collapsed, and Russia took over parts of the Ukraine when it too was influenced by our State Department. Also: ISIS rose up and Israel bombed the crap out of Gaza. Coincidence? I think not.

And all the while she was stuffing her own private computer with State secrets. No wonder 100 FBI agents are investigating.

[SusanCalvin]

2. That's the exact reason

I made my first-ever pre-general campaign contribution.

To Obama.

[Fumesucker]

3. The whole thing is amazing, by a DU "name" too...

I am truly heartsick that the Hillary Clinton I admired for years is gone – or, more sadly, perhaps never existed other than in my own imagination.

Being a woman of a certain age, I am aware that politics is a dirty game, and probably won’t change any time soon.

But there are certain rules of engagement, and Hillary’s campaign, along with the candidate herself, have chosen to bend them, belittle them, besmirch them – or simply ignore them.

There was a definite and all-too-obvious line to be crossed here, and Hillary Clinton has crossed it. Unfortunately for Hillary, it wasn’t the finish line.

[Scootaloo]

6. Ten bucks that "Name" was railing hate against Obama prior to Super Tuesday that year

[Fumesucker]

11. It's a powerful piece, very evocative

Truly right up there with Pitt, better in some ways.

[Doctor_J]

29. good writing, and completely insincere. she was infatuated with Obama then, she's

infatuated with Clinton now. How is it that people can have no soul?

[TheFarS1de]

39. You have to be human in the first place.

However money in the modern age seems to fill this missing void quite adequately .

[KittyWampus]

155. So you are calling out a DU'er. If I was pathetic, I'd dig through other DU'ers past posts

and point out their hypocrisy.

With Sanders himself being a hypocrite these days, it wouldn't be too hard.

[LiberalElite]

143. me too - but not

the only one. My ignore list has grown by leaps n bounds lately.

[MissDeeds]

151. +1

I hate to have so many on ignore, but it makes DU easier to take during the primaries.

[KittyWampus]

156. It's so mature to talk about who you have on ignore. I should look and see if you ever

posted about SuperPacs… or the MIC… or gun control… or any of the other issues Sanders is a hypocrite on.

But it probably wouldn't open your eyes, unfortunately.

[passiveporcupine]

164. You are right and I should not have posted that

eom

[SusanCalvin]

199. Me too, apologies.

And I admit that I started it. I had become very irritated very recently, not that that's an excuse.

Apologies in general, and especially to you, passiveporcupine.

[passiveporcupine]

201. not necessary

I am a grown up and responsible for my own actions.

[SusanCalvin]

202. Me too.

[sabrina 1]

191. Feel free to search comments. I see Jackpine Radical in that thread. So consistent

wrt to Hillary. But I'm shocked to see the anti-Hillary posts there by some of the people who are so anti-Bernie/pro-Hillary now.

I'd love to hear why people who posted such awful stuff about Hillary back then, changed their minds. Very interesting thread.

[Bobbie Jo]

159. This subthread...

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[R. P. McMurphy]

4. That is truly some insightful writing.

Good catch!

[Fumesucker]

15. Thank you, the writer is still posting here in GD-P, I hope she will take a bow

I'm someone who appreciates good, clear writing and think it should be recognized.

[R. P. McMurphy]

19. I recognized that author.

Everyone has a record here, DU'ers and politicians. I like to know who is/is not consistent.

Glad you posted this. Its good to be reminded what some people would have us believe before their personal agendas changed.

Again, good catch.

[Fumesucker]

20. Since your post count is fairly low I checked when you joined

Figured you were clued in, joshcryer has kind of let the cat out of the bag though.

[Scootaloo]

5. But remember!

Bernie's campaign having a picture of AARP members in a campaign mailer is supposed to make us all switch to Clinton.

[Fumesucker]

13. The 2014 debacle is entirely due to Bernie failing to properly charge the flux capacitors in 2016

[Scootaloo]

14. ...you know, now that you mention it...

[Fumesucker]

16. This explains much

[John Poet]

66. Yep, I sold my house, my car, my clothes and parts of my body

and sent all the money to Hillary, because Bernie's people used that AARP logo.

Didn't.... everyone?

[sabrina 1]

121. Did she ever produce a link to prove that btw, I know I asked abut twice, but got nothing.

I am stunned by people who outright call politicians like Hillary 'liars' and then for whatever reason, and this isn't the first example I've seen here, completely 'trust' them a few years later.

How do you do that? Have any of the anti-Clinton people from 2008 who are now pro-Clinton people ever made a statement to say why they were wrong back then and apologize to her or anything, or do they just go with the flow, assuming no one will remember what they said back then?

Another interesting comment in that thread from one of the, now, most passionate Clinton supporters. Lol, member of the Hillary site where anything goes wrt to hating Bernie and his supporters. Amazing to look back.

[Cary]

173. I was never "anti-Clinton"

I am a Democrat.

You doth projecteth too much. It isn't that I am "pro" or "anti."

That's not as difficult to understand as you may believe. Most are like I.

[sabrina 1]

179. Well, I don't believe I was talking about you in my comment. More about one of the most

rabid anti-Sanders Hillary supporters here. I am a Democrat who is for THIS COUNTRY FIRST. Like a whole lot of other Democrats.

Now if I believed what I see some of those in that old thread so emphatically said they believe about Hillary, or any candidate at that time, I would never be able to support the person THEY describe there, for such a high office in this country.

I would choose the one who has a history of being right on major issues, such as the Iraq War. It's not as if those who were so opposed to Hillary back then don't have a choice since they made it clear she was a 'liar' in their view.

So the puzzle for me is, were they sincere back then at all? Are they now?

What is the reason for supporting someone you were so fiercely, and I didn't support Hillary then but would never have attacked her they way she was attacked by the same people who are now attacking Bernie, against??

Not that I ever gave any credibility to the few here whose MO is to attack anyone who doesn't agree with them. But seeing the flip flop in writing, well, let's say it confirms my opinion.

I see Parry was popular with some of them then too, now I see the same people slam that great journalist.

Yeah, darn..it's really too bad she feels she has
to lie to make herself more presentable, especially using the Fake Courage Under Fire Bosnia Fire by Sniper story when there are so many real Soldiers under fire that she totally disprespects by going there.

<snips>

Why Is Hillary Clinton Lying?
by Robert Parry
March 26, 2008—Two weeks ago, I wrote a story that observed a disturbing trend in Hillary Clinton’s campaign – her growing tendency to stretch the truth, twist what her chief rival was saying and then rely on her supporters to go on the offensive against you if you spoke up.

These tendencies were troubling, in part, because they mirrored what had become so common during George W. Bush’s years: to declare that a fantasy is the truth and then to attack the patriotism or sanity of anyone who thinks otherwise. I wrote

A week later, I cited a report in the Boston Globe about Clinton exaggerating her behind-the-scenes support for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program – which was fashioned and passed by a bipartisan congressional effort led by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. I noted that Clinton had transformed her peripheral role into a central theme of her campaign.

<snip>

Not surprisingly, these articles questioning Clinton's truthfulness drew furious reactions from Clinton’s supporters who seem on perpetual alert to any criticism of their candidate, so it can be repudiated as an example of “sexism,” “Hillary bashing” or membership in some “Barack Obama cult.”

<more>
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/032608Parry.shtml


hilary is my senator too and I stopped believing in her when I realized that when she voted for the IWR without reading the 90 NIE report that she was planning on using that on her resume to run for president in 2008.

Too bad for our Soldiers it wasn't like bush, cheney, rummy, et al promised it would turn out. hilary put her faith in bush? What judgement she has.

Now how do you go from THAT to the exact opposite? Glad I read that thread, I will ask the authors of those comments themselves the question if I run into them again.

[Cary]

182. I was an Obama supporter.

And you might call me a Hillary supporter now. One weighs the pluses and minuses and does not always reach your conclusion. In the meantime while I have not said one negative thing about Sanders I have been abused by Sanders supporters here the same way I was abused here for being an Obama supoorter. I do not hear people saying if Sanders is nominated they will not vote for him, but all of the people abusing me say they will not vote for Clinton.

Further all of the stuff you say about Clinton is not new or unique. I hear it all the time from "conservatives" so I identify you with them. I got to posts on my Facebook wall from "conservatives" who make me sick saying virtually the same things you're telling me.

And you can't understand what's wrong with that?

What motivates me? The idea of replacing Ginsberg with another Thomas, Scalia, or Alito motivates me. We need a Democrat to fix the judiciary and you Bernie supporters are mouthing "conservative" smears. You don't understand that? Of course you do.

[sabrina 1]

188. You heard all that stuff about Hillary From DEMOCRATS. See the thread featured in this

OP. I think you are a bit confused. I'm surprised that a few people here even KNOW what the 'right' has to say about anything since personally I have no interest in their assinine garbage.

I AM very interested in what OUR PARTY is doing. Because i am a Democrat, not a Republican.

And what I am seeing here is extremely disturbing. Dems who say one thing one day sounding, as you pointed out, because there are DEMOCRATS calling Hillary a 'liar' and slamming her for 'Sniper Fire Story'.

Wait, are you saying the the author of that thread in 2008 and the commenter whose words I posted among others in that thread, are RIGHT WINGERS slamming Hillary?? Seriously? Wow, that explains a lot. Thanks because I could not imagine any Democrat slamming a Dem Candidate with all thowe Right Wing talking points, such as the comment I posted.

Do you know this for sure, that all those Dems, now claiming to be Hillary Supporters are actually Right Wingers??

[Cary]

190. I wonder how you managed to make that leap

Odd.

[sabrina 1]

192. Okay, I posted a comment from that thread by someone who is NOW a 'Hillary Supporter'.

The comment used, as you pointed out, Right Wing attacks on Hillary, ie, 'the sniper fire' incident.

Today, that same poster is a fierce Hillary supporter. Slamming people who use exactly the same sources.

Now that makes no sense to me. But YOU pointed out that those kinds of comments are from the Right Wing.

So, I assume you are saying that this individual is a Right Winger? No?

It made sense to me actually because people do not go from calling a Democrat, Hillary in this case, a 'liar' or invoke the 'sniper fire' incident which Right Wingers do. But then suddenly become a 'Hillary Supporter'.

I hope that makes it easier for you. What do you think? Is this person a Right Winger who back in 2008 was spewing anti-Hillary Right Wing garbage, but now is claiming to be a rabid, yes RABID, Hillary supporter???

[rhett o rick]

193. It's one thing to say that you prefer Obama to Hillary, it's quite another to give the

reasons and then execrate those who now agree with those reasons.

Just saying you are a Democrat is a cop-out. We are embroiled in a civil war within our Party. The Progressive Wing supports the 99% while the other Wing (I say Conservative) support the 1%. It's a class war and not hard to figure whose on whose side.

You say you are worried about the SCOTUS in the future. I don't know you, you might honestly think that, but for many that's a rationalization. There is solid evidence that Sen Sanders will do better in the General. Those seriously worried about the SCOTUS would be interested in determining if there is a possibility that could be true and not blindly following Clinton.

I am a Democrat also, but I support the 99% in lieu of the 1% and consider those that choose to side with Goldman-Sachs over the middle and working classes as DINO's.

[Cary]

194. What you judge to be "a cop out" is reality

I realize that you will never accept that because you are an ideologue. I'm not.

And you have no idea what I did or did not accuse Hillary Clinton of 8 years ago. I "accused" her the same way I "accuse" Sanders: meaning I didn't and I don't. But I didn't appreciate abuse back then either.

I was correct back then and am correct now.

[rhett o rick]

195. I am speaking about the OP. And I think it's a little audacious for you

to claim to know what "reality" is. Philosophers have been struggling with that for centuries.

As far as trying to disparage me by calling me an "ideologue" I challenge you to tell me what I want that you don't want. Here is a partial list. Tell me where we disagree.

I support:
Strengthening Social Security (e.g., raising the cap)
Opposing job killing "Free Trade" agreements
oppose fracking for oil company profits over people's water quality.
Helping college students afford college (telling them to get a job doesn't cut it)
Making major corps pay their fair share of taxes
Ending the unregulated domestic spying
Ending drone killing of terrorist "suspects" in foreign lands that kills 100 innocents for every suspect.
Reducing the defense budget
Taking a hard stand against torture and indefinite detention.
Ending the militarization of our local police forces.
Ending Prisons for Profits
Legalizing marijuana esp. for medical use.
Funding rebuilding our neglected infrastructure.
Single payer health insurance.
Regulation of Wall Street (e.g. reinstate Glass-Steagall)
Break up the big bank and media monopolies.

[Cary]

204. if you find that being an ideologue is not desirable then that's on you

I find myself to be well grounded. If you don't like that, too, that's on you.

We don't disagree on the issues. Where we disagree is in this idea that you have about peraonalities. I find that to be naive.

Reality is that there is very little difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and both will be as constrained as President Obama. Plus you fault Hillary Clinton for working within the existing system. I find that grossly unreasonable.

Democrats must win in Novemeber. Reality is that if nothing else we will be affected by Supreme Court appointments. I see you spreading nothing but discord and discontent and that does not win elections.

[rhett o rick]

206. To say that there is very little difference between H. Clinton and Sen Sanders is naive.

H. Clinton has amassed $50 million dollars in the last 15 years. That has to be a major focus in her life. She and Bill's wealth put them squarely in the top .1%. She is not like Sen Sanders one iota. If she works for the poor it will secondary to her working for profits for the Wealthy.

You still havent explained why you think I am an ideologue. Is it because I want to work on solving the problem of poverty while those that support H. Clinton are more interested in the profits of Goldman-Sachs?

Democrats must win in Nov and Sen Sanders can bring together more Democratic votes than H. Clinton.

[Cary]

207. Sez you

Again, your problem not mine.

[rhett o rick]

210. Yes Sez me and millions that are tired of the disaster that the Oligarchy has brought to us.

Thanks to the Oligarchy we got the Iraq War, which not only caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands and ruined the lives of millions, also saw the transfer of trillions of wealth from the People, the 99%, to the 1%.

Thanks to the Oligarchy we had a major transfer of 5 trillion dollars in a very short time again from the 99% to the 1% because of the Housing Ponzi Scheme crash in 2008.

Those supporting H. Clinton, who with her husband accumulated $150 million in the last 15 years, either like the domination by the Wealthy 1% (Oligarchy), don't care what happens to the 99%, or are delusional enough to think that giving support to Goldman-Sachs (HRC) will bring about a change in the current culture.

[Cary]

212. We shall see

Lots a luck. I'm not going to hold my breath, waiting for your ideological mythology to play out.

[rhett o rick]

213. Holding your breath reminds me of children. If that is all that you will do I will be happy. But

I suspect you will vote to continue the corrupt culture that has given us 16,00,000 children living in poverty.

My "ideological mythology" to reduce poverty, esp for our children might be considered by you to be "a unicorn" but I think it's worth fighting for. Sadly I will be fighting not only Repubs but also those Democrats that worship the Oligarchy.

[Cary]

214. i see, so now your sez you is that because I don't buy your mythology I am a child

What I am is sober. I have seen your movie before.

As I said, lots a luck.

[sabrina 1]

200. So let's review, I'm a REALIST and I find it hard to understand things that are illogical.

According to you, correct me if I'm wrong, Hillary was everything described by people in that thread, a liar, untrustworthy, lied about 'sniper fire' etc etc.

Now some people in the thread because they are CONSISTENT, which, again correct me if I'm wrong, to YOU means Ideologue? Right? Those people didn't support then and still don't support her. To you, they are the ones with a problem????

I'm having a hard time getting my mind around this, so help if you can: Honesty, ethics, consistency to you = 'ideologue'. Not sure what you mean by that, but to me it means the opposite of the qualities I just listed.

So now, you have the same candidate you believe is a liar and untrustworthy AND you have a candidate is the opposite of that.

Now you say you prefer the one who is a liar, and that makes YOU NOT an 'idealogue'??? Seriously?

Could you help us understand this because maybe it's me, but it makes absolutely no sense at all.

See here's the thing, a majority of the decent, ordinary people in this country do not want liars running things.

Include me in that.

IF I had ever believed that Hillary was a liar, I presume you did, like a majority of Americans, naturally I would not want her in a position of power. Personally I never called her a liar, YOU all did. I didn't agree with her POLICIES.

You, however are telling us that NOW it's okay to put 'a liar' in the WH because you are not an 'idealogue'.

Does that make any sense at all? Seriously??

You do a complete about turn on what you claimed was important, and then you attack those of us who are consistent?

Do you really think anyone is going to take that seriously? Really?

I'm beyond words at this point. One word though keeps pushing its way into the back of my mind. I'll wait a bit before saying what I really think is going on here.

Looking forward to your explanation as to how it is that the people who are decent, who want honest people in government, are the 'ideologues' while those who don't care if liars get elected are the smart ones???

[Cary]

205. Nice word salad

What language are you using?

[sabrina 1]

208. I don't blame you, I wouldn't be able to explain it either. But then I would not be supporting

someone with all the nasty qualities attributed to her in that thread in the first place, so I never do have to explain such things.

I know one thing, no one is ever going to take anyone in that thread who is now a Hillary supporter, seriously ever again.

Someone actually said in that thread: 'She's mentally ill'!

Those comments are NASTY. And these are the people who have had the gall to attack those of us who didn't support her then and for the same reasons, don't support her now.

There is only one explanation for such odd behavior!

[Cary]

211. (Read slowly) You don't say?

[sabrina 1]

215. I did say, and I'll say it again. Not one of those people in that thread who called Hillary

'mentally ill', or a 'liar' or unethical, who used the Fox right wing talking points, or so they say NOW re the sniper fire incident, have one shred of credibility left.

And if you missed it this time, I'll be happy to repeat it.

[Cary]

216. I'm not bothering to read your nonsense any more.

So knock your socks off and enjoy your Kool-aid while you still can, because this too shall pass.

[Amimnoch]

217. Of course they don't understand. They'd rather see the party burn, and Republicans win.

There's so many posts saying as much it'd be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

[Cary]

218. true

[DRI]

197. Bandwagon

Unfortunately there are many who just jump on the popular bandwagon rather than sticking to a set of principles.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. Well, isn't that interesting.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[Fumesucker]

8. Yes, yes it is...

Any predictions on the possible length of this thread?

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Not long?

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[Fumesucker]

12. Probably not

[Flying Squirrel]

64. I was Juror #6

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:36 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Sadly, over the Hill
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511094422

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

It's completely inappropriate to have a thread that exists for the sole purpose of trying to shame a fellow DUer.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:43 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Talk about lame reasons for an alert. This alert is just that: a lame one. I don't think Nance Greggs would have a problem with this being posted. I sure don't. Leave it alone.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alert message.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alert
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Let her explain her change of heart - she is around to do so.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Disagree with the alert on this particular post. Debate the points, don't hide.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[stillwaiting]

140. I don't get why some people around here would HIDE a thread simply because

it points to compelling arguments that they made in the past (if it differs with their current position).

They should have an opportunity to discuss their extreme change of heart/mind. We shouldn't hide previous opinions around here.

It seems very Ministry of Truth to me. Down the rabbit hole, and don't you dare point it out to anyone or we'll Hide It.

[frylock]

168. close one!

kick

[SammyWinstonJack]

32. Isn't it?

[frylock]

10. Flashback Friday

kick

[joshcryer]

17. Cute.

So virtually every Clinton supporter around now was an Obama supporter and Clinton hater. Beacool seems to be the only consistent one.

[Fumesucker]

18. It's quite bizarre, this is a very intelligent person, you can't write like that and not be

Hell, she's a lot better writer than I am and probably smarter too.

Here's another bizarre thing, I know an entire blog that's just like her.

[joshcryer]

22. Nice to see a post from then, though.

Obama the savior... Clinton the evil.

[Fumesucker]

24. Do you think Bernie would have voted for FISA and retroactive telecom immunity?

That's when I figured out Obama was another politician and a good chunk of DU was full of shit.

[joshcryer]

27. TARP was it for me.

And, of course, I went back and read his speeches. Escalate in Afghanistan, put everything on the table with regards to social security, offshore drilling, Keystone, free trade, etc, etc.

Sanders may be the most honest candidate since Carter.

[SusanCalvin]

45. I don't remember the exact point,

But I know that corporations need to be muzzled and leashed.

[delrem]

138. I recall that at the time I was elated about one thing and happy about another.

I was totally elated that the USA could elect a man who was unabashedly "black", who was mocked by pictures of him in a turban. And not just by Republicans, but in fact led by Dems:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/26/barackobama.uselections2008

"Barack Obama's campaign team accused Hillary Clinton's beleaguered staff yesterday of mounting a dirty tricks operation by circulating a picture of him in African dress, feeding into false claims on US websites that he is a Muslim.

David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, described it as "the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election". Obama has spent much of the campaign emphasising he is a Christian not a Muslim and did not study at a madrasa."

It was so outrageously wrong, and Obama was so brave. His bravery, his ultimate win, made me feel good inside.

The only other real note to remember from my "deep thinking" at the time was that he didn't vote for the Iraq war and did come out against it, and he did say that it was a time for a new direction after the * years, and he did say it was a time for hope.

So when I saw the absolutely massive crowds exalting in his victory I was also part of that. I was part of that, it was a good


Now the Clinton camp calls out Sanders and supporters as being "tone deaf on race", in their lighter moments.

"Now the bricks lay on Grand Street
Where the neon madmen climb
They all fall there so perfectly
It all seems so well timed
An’ here I sit so patiently
Waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of
Going through all these things twice
Oh, Mama, can this really be the end
To be stuck inside of Mobile
With the Memphis blues again"

[Arazi]

21. .

[Phlem]

23. Thanks Fumesucker.

excellent writing for just the bit I read.

Excellent find!

[retrowire]

25. the internet never forgets. nt

[Fumesucker]

31. Kind of make the "Camp Weathervane" meme seem even more apt

I have no idea what is going on in their heads, some of the recent posts are like a cat trying to cover up scat on a tile floor.

[BeanMusical]

35. Your sig line is very appropriate for this thread.

[senz]

106. Cannot believe Doctor J got a hide for that.

It was fairly mild and completely true.

[BeanMusical]

108. I totally agree.

[Enthusiast]

166. Me too.

[NanceGreggs]

28. As I just responded in another thread ...

... that linked to the same piece:


In 2008, I was a staunch Obama supporter. I thought HRC's campaign was off-track, often focused on her opponent's negatives as opposed to her own positives, and was far too reliant on some really, REALLY bad advice from many who influenced her strategies.

As I said in that piece, "That was then, and this is now."

Hillary has matured, as an individual and as a politician, since 2008. She has learned from her mistakes, and is now going forward with a lot more experience under her belt - including the experience of having been Secretary of State. Her perspective has been changed by that experience and maturity, and her ability to actually listen to what the country's citizens want and need has been amazingly on point. That's undoubtedly why she's the front-runner this time around.

In 2008, I had a choice between HRC and Obama - I chose to support Obama, and NO regrets in having done so.

Right now I have a choice between HRC and BS - and I support Hillary 100%, without hesitation or reservation.

The cry of the Bernistas has been that Bernie hasn't changed his mind about anything in four decades. They call that "consistency" - I call it an inability to adapt to an ever-changing world. I find it remarkable that Bernie supporters think that HRC's paying attention to polls and surveys that reflect what voters want is somehow a negative. I would think that ANY presidential candidate - or president - should be more than willing to hear what's being said by the citizenry, and act accordingly. A president's job is to represent the people - not tell them what HE thinks should be done.

Do I want a president who is swayed by the voices of the country's citizens? You're damned real I do.

It's simple. Being POTUS is the most important position we, the people, can elect any individual to fill. In 2008, I felt that Obama was the right person for the job. And here in 2016, I think Hillary is the right person for the job.

Like HRC, I realize that the times change, the needs and wants of the citizenry change, and the world around us changes on a daily basis. These changes require a president who can adapt to those changes and address them - not a president whose mindset is hopelessly lost in the past as though nothing has changed at all.

The fact remains that Hillary is the front-runner, has more endorsements, delegates, and support than either BS or MOM. She remains ahead in the polls, and apparently appeals to more voters as representative of what they want than either of her opponents. The Bernistas can continue to dismiss that reality all they want - but that reality won't be changed.

So yes, I was against Hillary being the Party's nominee in 2008. And yes, I am FOR Hillary being the Party's nominee in 2016.

I have the ability to look at things in the context of the here-and-now - and I am supporting the candidate who has that same ability, rather than the candidate who chooses to pretend that we're all living in the same world he's been stuck in for forty years.

[morningfog]

36. I read "matured" as "mutated." And it still made sense!

[SammyWinstonJack]

46. That's a lot of mutating...er..maturing in 8 short yrs.

[Fumesucker]

41. You're a lot better writer than I am and probably smarter too

But your posts now are totally full of crap.

I'm sorry, I can't buy that kind of turnaround, Clinton is showing herself not to have changed at all. She's just a couple of years older than I am and I've been watching her for much of my adult life, I completely agreed and still agree with Nance Gregges v2.0.08.

I can't believe I made enemies defending the Clintons during Bill's administration, what a damn waste of lifespan and psychic energy.

[NanceGreggs]

72. I've always considered myself to be ...

... a serviceable writer - nothing really beyond that.

I realize that you thought posting a link back to 2008 would embarrass me. I hate to disappoint you in that regard, but it doesn't.

You see, I am really not the least bit interested in what gets said on DU these days. (And according to the Alexa stats, fewer and fewer people are interested in what gets said here every day). As a result, I am also not the least bit interested in anyone's opinion of me.

I only read/post here out of a need for laughter - and nothing makes me laugh more than self-declared True Progressives (TM) embracing all of the RW bullshit that now gets posted here, or how quickly they embrace obvious RWers as one of their own.

DU - by Skinner's estimate - consists of 85% BS supporters and 15% HRC supporters - which is probably closer to 90%-10% given how many HRCers have left for other sites, and how many newbies purport to be BSers.

Well, we've all seen the poll numbers - and it's obvious that BS isn't supported by 85%-90% of Democrats. Given those numbers, it is obvious that DU is no longer reflective of Democrats as a whole, as it once was.

So I am no longer interested in what opinions people hold about me here any more than I would be interested in what the opinions of posters on FreeRepublic about me are. It is totally irrelevant to my life.

But, hey, nice try - sorry it didn't work out for you as planned.

[Fumesucker]

74. Not the least bit interested but posting away

I could read a pocket Bible through you.

[NanceGreggs]

76. I told you why I still read/post here.

And it has nothing to do with being interested in anyone's opinion of me.

I'm sorry things didn't go as you'd planned.

[Fumesucker]

77. Why would I believe a word that you say?

You have no credibility, you destroyed it just like Hillary is doing to herself.

Do you really think you are helping Hillary with this performance?

[NanceGreggs]

81. Why would I care ...

... whether you believe a word I say or not?

I don't. I thought I'd made that abundantly clear.

"Helping Hillary with this performance"? I doubt that Hillary's nomination and subsequent election hinge on anything anyone says on DU.

[Fumesucker]

84. Of course you care or you wouldn't bother to reply

You would just leave or ignore me.

[BeanMusical]

83. +1

[sabrina 1]

203. So you believed that Hillary was a liar, unethical etc etc so you didn't support her in 2008

I never thought of her as a liar, or any of the things I see in that thread, I simply didn't like her policies. I still feel the same way.

But, explain to us, when did you decide she was NOT a liar and all the other reasons given in that thread for slamming her?

Did you learn something you didn't know back then?

Are you saying you were wrong back then?

Have you posted something apologizing for all that nasty stuff your thread generated explaining why you now support this woman you thought so little of back then?

Are we missing something? I mean no one supports a candidate if they feel the way you expressed you felt back then if they care about this country.

So, what is it that caused you to support someone you had so little faith in??

All those right wing attacks on Hillary by the same people who call any critique of her policies now, right wing attacks??

Stunning to read that thread in light of the nastiness aimed by some of the very same people who are in that thread attacking Hillary from the Right, at people who don't support Hillary now. Simply beyond belief to read that thread frankly

I hope none of them ever talk to me again about 'Bernie Supporters' the talking point that failed, but still is used by those same people.

Something is really off about all this. I have a few thoughts but can't prove them, YET.

[NanceGreggs]

209. "Something is really off about all this.

... I have a few thoughts but can't prove them, YET."

I'll just add this to the lengthy list of things you've "thought" in the past, and said you would "prove".

[Doctor_J]

42. more bs

I guess you're consistent on that front. Which of Sanders beliefs of forty years ago would you prefer that he would have flip flopped on? Racial discrimination? Income disparity? Environmental issues? Healthcare as a right? Reproductive rights?

Do you expect lucid people to believe that between the ages of 60 and 68 she's gone from being a Machiavellian schemer, unfit for the office, to being the best hope for the future?

I cannot grasp what goes on inside of a brain to completely reverse one's principles. It's got to be exhausting.

[morningfog]

50. It's text book double thought.

[Godhumor]

43. From looking through this thread, I'm pretty sure this is the kind of behavior the Sanders campaign

Is quietly apologizing for.

You have no need to explain yourself here.

[Fumesucker]

49. This poster left me in tears when her husband died, she wrote such a powerful piece about it

It was all about how great single payer was in Canada and all the great treatment her poor husband got and it was either free or very low cost. She then went on to tell us how much she wanted us to have it.

Then I find out she didn't mean a single damn word of it.

[SammyWinstonJack]

52. Single payer good enough for Canadians, not good enough for

us.....NO WE CAN'T.

Yes, I remember that post.

[one_voice]

70. That's probably one of the lowest things...

I've seen on DU. You bring up the memory of her recently deceased husband so you can trash her position on single payer.

Beyond disgusting.

[Fumesucker]

71. She brought it here to DU and bragged about single payer to us

Single payer that she herself enjoys.

But doesn't think we are good enough to have, her entire post that left me in tears was a tease.

[NanceGreggs]

90. Again, I invite you ...

... to provide a link to where I have said anything other than what I said in my post about universal healthcare at the time of my husband's passing.

Link or slink.

[Fumesucker]

91. The choice is stark, one candidate is for single payer and the other is against it

The candidate you used to loathe but now love is definitely against single payer.

You are interested, yes?

[NanceGreggs]

94. Well, it's obvious that you are going to continue ...

... to misrepresent what I've said about single payer, despite the fact that I responded to you about it.

So I'll repost my response here (from two days ago) - and then you can explain to everyone how I've allegedly changed my views:

"I have always wanted to see my fellow citizens have the same healthcare I have enjoyed for 40 years.

HRC is not "opposed to single payer", no less "firmly opposed". Saying that something is not do-able does not equate to being against it. Hillary is simply not making promises she knows can't be delivered.

The GOP have voted over 50 times now to repeal Obamacare. Do you honestly believe they're all going to do an about face and embrace single payer just because Bernie says they should?

Look, if you want to believe that a president Bernie can somehow miraculously deliver single-payer to US citizens, that's your prerogative. But he can't, not with the current make-up of Congress.

ALL of the arguments FOR universal healthcare make perfect sense. It IS more economical than private insurance. It also has a positive impact not only on the health of individuals, but on entire communities.

The first thing that has to be done in the US is educating the public about how universal healthcare works - and that will mean undoing the the negative propaganda perpetrated by the Republicans for decades. It also means clearing up the "myths" that many people believe are reality. I am still asked by US friends if my doctor works for the gov't, if a gov't official has to sign-off on any treatment I require, if I am restricted to a doctor the gov't has assigned me to, etc.

I've no doubt that over 90% of Americans would demand universal healthcare - if they all KNEW how it operates. But the vast majority of them don't - and that education isn't going to come about overnight. People hear "higher taxes" and "socialized medicine" - and dismiss the entire idea out-of-hand. They think of the gov't dictating what care they receive and from whom. They picture having to travel miles to see a "gov't-approved" physician they've been assigned to. They imagine bureaucrats making their healthcare decisions for them.

ALL of that has to be overcome. Without that groundwork in place, you're always going to have your own fellow citizens actually fighting AGAINST any move towards real reform out of simple ignorance of the facts.

Right now - aside from all of the above - the current composition of Congress is what it is. And whether HRC or Bernie is elected POTUS, single payer is a losing battle. It's just not going to happen in this political environment.

I've seen it over and over here on DU. When BSers are asked exactly HOW Bernie is going to get single payer passed, the answers become, "Well, uh, well, ya see ..." And saying "Well, at least he'd try" is pointless. With all of the challenges currently facing the nation, having a president who's wasting time tilting at windmills doesn't accomplish anything.

Hillary isn't pushing single payer because she KNOWS that in today's political climate, it's just not a realistic goal - and certainly not one she is going to promise to achieve just because it sounds good on the campaign trail.

Idealism is great. Setting high goals is fantastic. But reality has to be taken into consideration. At some point, you have to say "This is what we can do - so let's get started on doing it".

But as I said, YMMV. If you believe that a president Bernie could magically persuade Republican congress-critters to approve single payer, you are perfectly within your rights to do so."

That being said, please proceed, Fumesucker, to explain how I've changed my position on single-payer.

[BeanMusical]

98. "Hillary isn't pushing single payer because she KNOWS that in today's political climate..."

Hillary Clinton’s Single-Payer Pivot Greased By Millions in Industry Speech Fees

Single-payer, the Canadian-style system in which the government pays for universal health care, takes the health insurance industry out of the picture, saving huge amounts of money. But the health insurance industry has become so rich and powerful that it would never let it happen.

That was certainly Clinton’s position back in the early 1990s, when she was developing her doomed universal coverage proposal for her husband, Bill.

But in the ensuing years, both Clintons have taken millions of dollars in speaking fees from the health care industry. According to public disclosures, Hillary Clinton alone, from 2013 to 2015, made $2,847,000 from 13 paid speeches to the industry.

...

Hillary Clinton’s paid speech circuit came to an end as her campaign revved up. But for her husband, with whom she shares a bank account, it hasn’t. This summer, he was the keynote speaker at America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the industry group that poured almost $100 million into trying to defeat health care reforms during the fight over the Affordable Care Act.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/hillary-clinton-single-payer/

[senz]

174. Excellent, BeanMusical! HRC's health care policy paid by industry $.

Valuable link, a must read. Hillary's corruption comes through loud and clear. She will be as much the corporate-owned president as any Republican.

Democrats need to know this about Hillary Clinton.

[BeanMusical]

176. Thanks!

[Hekate]

116. +1,001 Nance

[Lisa D]

73. Disgusting post.

How dare you bring up her husband to try to score some cheap political point. Do Bernie supporters really approve of this?? Would Bernie?

[Fumesucker]

75. She brought it here to DU and bragged about single payer to us

I wouldn't know except for her powerful and moving pro single payer post that left me crying because one of my own family members had recently had a far, far worse experience with pathetic insurance not covering what she needed to die with dignity.

Now I find it was just a tease to get reactions, she has single payer and doesn't think you are good enough for it.

[Lisa D]

78. Do you hear yourself?

If this type of post represents Bernie, then I want nothing to do with him.

[Fumesucker]

79. What did you think of the rheoric I quoted?

Did you think it is a fair description of Hillary or not?

[Lisa D]

85. I think your posts in this thread should embarrass you.

I'm positive they'd embarrass Bernie.

[Fumesucker]

89. What, pointing out things people have writtten on the internet?

That's about 90% of what happens on DU.

[Ned_Devine]

82. You didn't want anything to do with Bernie any way. Who are you kidding?

That's such a bullshit throw away line

[Hekate]

113. Bernie's worst ambassadors are his supposed friends. Go figure.

[stonecutter357]

196. +1

[treestar]

185. She was not bragging

that is ridiculous. You are twisting things very meanly here.

[NanceGreggs]

87. I responded to that accusation.

I asked for links to where I had disavowed anything I'd said about single payer. You wer unable to provide any.

I then reiterated my position on the topic in a second lengthy reply (#22 in that thread) - which you chose not to respond to.

Unless you can point to anywhere where I have changed or altered what I originally said on the subject, your accusation that I "didn't mean a damn word of it" is rendered meaningless.

[kristopher]

172. Your response is inadequate.

Hillary ethics are tainted, her position is compromised by living the 'pay to play' politicians game.

You have no answer for your flip-flop except that you accept her defeatism, which itself is a product of her compromised ethical framework.

This is just one woman’s opinion – but I wanted to share the fact that a lack of support for Hillary, on my part and on the part of others, is not, as some would spin it, about sexism or racism, the victim, the soundbyte, the Reverend tape-loop, the pinned-by-sniper-fire story, the he said/she said, the "but he/she did it, too" gotcha moment.

It is instead about rules being pledged to and then reneged on when convenient. It is about promises being made and then broken when all else fails. It is about decrying the disenfranchisment of voters in states you suddenly need while, in the same breath, advocating the idea that superdelegates should overturn the will of all voters if things turn out not to your liking.

In short, it’s about integrity – which, somewhere along the way, Hillary Clinton lost, misplaced, forgot, or simply discarded as an expendable obstacle in her failed race to what is proving to be the bitter side of nowhere.

You really should watch and attempt to internalize this message. It isn't bullshit.

[Sheepshank]

95. How disgusting....all for the sake of Bernie politics

You would perform in such a despicable, low, sleazy, mealy, calloused manner towards another Democrat. All to try and promote your chosen candidate. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Fumesucker]

100. What do you think of the passages I quoted, unduly harsh or justified?

[Sheepshank]

171. dont give a rats arse for anything you have to say, or ask of me

You stepped over the bounds of decency and do not deserve review of any request you may try to pursue as a diversionary tactic.

A sincere apology and a deletion would go a long way in reparations. Doubt you will do it though. Pride goeth before a fall.

[BainsBane]

104. I was going to say I can't believe this post

but really that would just be an expression because I have more times than I can count seen the most revolting attacks justified by promoting one man's career.

Your subject line a few posts up was correct. It went downhill from there. The idea that all we have to do is vote for Sanders to get single payer is absurd. Even Sanders himself knows that is impossible. He said as much in 2010 after Obamacare was passed, and that was when we had a Democratic majority in both houses.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reminded the progressive media gathered on Capitol Hill today that single-payer health care reform was dead before it started in the Senate.

"It would have had 8 or 10 votes and that's it," he said, addressing a topic central in the minds of many who the bloggers and left wing talk show hosts gathered for the 4th annual Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit in Washington reach everyday. . .


Sanders said it was still possible for single-payer to come to the U.S. eventually -- but he said the road will not begin in Washington. If a state like California or Vermont ever instituted a single-payer system on its own, Sanders said, it would eventually lead to national adoption of universal coverage.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance

Now you make personal attacks about someone's recently deceased husband because she doesn't buy a politician's campaign promise that he can institute single payer with a Republican House and Senate when he declared it a non-starter under Democratic control. We are expected to now believe the Tea Party House will automatically move from a veto-proof majority vote to overturn Obamacare to supporting single payer all because of Bernie. That she judges that an incredible promise evidently makes you feel entitled to use her recently deceased husband's death to attack her.


I don't know whether you have willfully suspended any awareness of the legislative process and constitutional limits on the presidency, or if this campaign is simply a pretext for you to attack people in the cruelest ways you can imagine. You seem to take pleasure in ridiculing someone about the death of loved ones. So have at me. My father died a few months ago. He was sick, sick for a very long time. I was in the hospital with him for the last few days of his life, watching him die. He didn't have single payer, but he did have Medicare. So by all means, resurrect his corpse. Weave some political pretext into a personal attack based on his death. You score political points and cause pain. It's a win/win for you.

[ismnotwasm]

105. Oh I believe it.

Not only is it not surprising, it's a completely expected type of commication at this point. in a way, it's a kind of Benchmark for certain posters.

[Hekate]

118. Your last paragraph, BB

[BainsBane]

128. Thanks, Hekate

[MineralMan]

145. I will simply not respond to the OP of this thread.

I find the entire concept odious.

[treestar]

187. There are claims that "Bernie would at least try" and demand single payer

Interesting that he realized it would not pass even in the one term D Congress. Most of Bernie's supporters have set up standards by which they should throw Bernie under the bus. He doesn't meet them.

[Iggy Knorr]

147. post survived alert

On Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:59 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

She brought it here to DU and bragged about single payer to us
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1095118

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is sick. Just sick. You don't play politics with this. She lost her husband and you are playing troll games with it. I'm so disgusted.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:06 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It seems like a legitimate concern.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: nothing offensive about this post other than the pearl-clutching BS alert
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Starry Messenger]

152. A new low, even for Camp Tinfoil.

[KittyWampus]

158. Yeah, right. Now I should waste time going through your posts and find some prime examples

of hypocrisy. It's a creepy sort of thing to do. Someone did it to me once. Took a VERY old post from DU v.1.

It would be very easy to call out each and every Sanders supporter for hypocrisy.

SuperPacs
Gun Control
MIC
Stealing data
Misappropriating logos

And that's quickly off the top of my head.

But speak the truth about Sanders, his campaign and his supporters and you get alerted and hidden.

[treestar]

184. Of course she wants us to have it

That is separate from the question of the politics in the US and whether it will pass. Geez. That was not very nice of you to misrepresent things like that. I've always found the attacks on her for living in Canada to be un-liberal and mean-spirited. Just because a person lives in a country with single payer has nothing to do with whether we can get it here and whether the ACA was the best we could do at the time. The ACA has improved things immensely.

[morningfog]

54. She can't explain the contradiction.

Same as the others who "have seen the light" after recognizing Hillary for what she is 8 years ago.

This is not rudeness for an endorsement. This is calling out blatant hypocrisy.

[Fumesucker]

56. I don't believe for a moment they can't tell the difference

Actually thought that one was trying to be halfway reasonable, not any more.

It's turtles all the way down.

[BainsBane]

110. Firstly, she did explain it

Last edited Sat Jan 30, 2016, 08:36 AM - Edit history (1)

This is a different competition. Obama isn't running. Her choice is now between Sanders and Clinton.
I supported Obama in 08 and support Clinton now. Millions of people are in that position. There are also people who supported Clinton in 08 and now support Sanders. Different election, different candidates, different qualifications and criteria.


What you think of her explanation is entirely inconsequential. She nor any other voter has any responsibility to explain their vote to you or anyone else. You get one vote, no more. No matter how entitled you feel to control the votes of others or demand they explain them to your liking, in reality you have no such right.

[morningfog]

137. Don't be silly. It's not about who is preferred.

It is what was said about Hillary, traits that cannot be changed.

[senz]

109. There's nothing wrong with what's written here.

You're not making sense.

[Lisa D]

48. Great post, Nance!

Signed,
Obama supporter in '08
Clinton supporter in '16
Democratic supporter in EVERY election!

[PADemD]

63. Yes, times change.

Time to break up the big banks and prosecute the people who have tanked our economy, time for companies to pay their fair share of taxes, time for single payer universal health care, time to end poverty and homelessness, time for gun control, time to take care of our country's infrastructure, time to tackle climate change, time to reform our justice system, and time to stop engaging in wars against countries that have not attacked us.

Time for a person like Bernie Sanders to be President.

[sheshe2]

80. + Infinity~

[BeanMusical]

88. Hi Buzz!

[Cha]

92. Brilliant, Nance.. they try to embarrass me with my posts from the 2008 primary, too.

Exactly right. that was then and this is now. Too bad they can't keep up.. there's no time for grudges.

Hillary has learned so much since then.. I actually started liking her at the Democratic Convention.. She showed a lot of Class.. and it just got better.

I'm with President Obama who chose Hillary to be his SOS.. they came to work together for the greater good of the country. That's what happens when we're working for something bigger than ourselves.

Obama: Making Hillary Clinton secretary of State one of my ‘best decisions’

Asking Hillary Clinton to serve as secretary of State was "one of the best decisions I ever made as president," President Obama told philanthropists and donors gathered Tuesday at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York City.

The president showered the former first lady — and front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination — with praise, saying he "will always be grateful for her extraordinary leadership."

Obama went on to joke that he still had "a lot of debt to pay" because of the miles Clinton traveled when in his administration. But he also praised the former New York senator for her "post-administration glow."
"She looks much more rested," Obama said to laughter.

MOre~
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/218666-obama-making-hillary-clinton-secretary-of-state-one-of-my-best



Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leaves behind enormous 20-year legacy with exit from office following start of President Obama's second term

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/obama-new-term-hillary-clinton-leaves-20-year-political-legacy-article-1.1244485

I admire Hillary so much for her answer to President Obama's call to service. They started working together for the good of the country and our Planet. Not stuck in the past like so many people who only want to go on and on about it.

Evidently they've remained good friends.. and I couldn't be happier.

I have absolutely nothing to say to those who only have personal attacks.. just leave them with this..

I'm with Michelle, too.. LOL

[Hekate]

112. +1,000 NanceGreggs!

[mcar]

141. Bravo!

[NastyRiffraff]

161. Bravo, Nance!

In 2008 I did support Hillary...UNTIL Barak Obama won the nomination, just as I would support the Democratic nominee in 2016. That's more that can be said for too many of Sanders' supporters.

Yes, things do change, and the ability to see that has been a hallmark of the Democratic party, and of liberals in general. Contrast Republicans, many of whom are still obsessing about the '60s, the cold war, and (OMG!) gays. Many of them still believe that women should just have babies and clean house. Unlike Republicans, we liberals recognize that society changes, and that lately it has been changing very rapidly. Any politician would do well to recognize that.

So, yes, I am supporting Hillary Clinton because she is willing to change.

[BeanMusical]

33. OMG, isn't this fascinating.

Good thing that I wasn't drinking anything when I clicked on the link.

[morningfog]

34. Like Hillary, her (current) supporters shift to follow power.

Hillary had no moral compass, she stands only for what she thinks will bring her power. Many of her followers are similar. Except they don't gain power, they only think they are rooting for the winning team. They are enamored with authority figures. Sycophants.

[BeanMusical]

37. +1

[Broward]

44. That captures many of them.

[Zynx]

58. Define "many."

[Broward]

61. Here you go.

1
: consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number <worked for many years>

[Zynx]

67. It's a hollow statement. What percentage? 1-2% of a large number is still large, but also

meaningless. I can find "many" people who back any widely supported candidate for totally BS reasons.

[SusanCalvin]

51. I hope that's not completely true,

But I fear it may be.

[Zynx]

60. Of course it isn't true. It's just petty bile and unbecoming of decent people to indulge in it.

[SusanCalvin]

68. OK.

I still dislike and distrust Hillary for a lot of reasons.

[Zynx]

53. It could be that I simply support the person I think would be the best president in this context.

Of course, you can call me a sycophant who has some emotional insecurities that lead me to support the establishment if you want.

[Fumesucker]

59. Look at the rhetoric of the piece, it's very harsh..

That's not "supporting a candidate" it's bashing the other candidate.

[Zynx]

65. I'm responding to the uncalled for and miserable excuse of a post that I replied to.

When people start lobbing the term "sycophant" around about their fellow committed Democrats (of course, many like to think they are the arbiters of that) I'm entirely disgusted.

[Fumesucker]

69. We are tired of people who used rhetoric like I have quoted then whining about others doing the same

To the *same* damn candidate...

People are upset about this, you are upset too I can tell but realize that everyone else has emotions also.

[Hekate]

119. Look at you, digging up a grave

[Fumesucker]

120. She dug my grave up first

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1095457

[NYC Liberal]

126. Bernie Sanders is the one who shifts with the wind.

Let's see, Sanders has spent years attacking Democrats and the Democratic Party. He has remained an independent for his entire time in Congress. Yet, when he decides he wants to be president he has no problem joining that same party because he needs the fundraising base.

Sanders is a massive hypocrite, and a DINO to boot. Yes, a DINO: he is a Democrat now only because he wants power, not because he actually supports the party.

[senz]

131. He has not attacked them.

He could not swallow the Democratic Party's shift to the right in the late 1980s/early 1990s, so he signed on as an Independent, but on most of the issues, he voted with the Democrats and always caucused with them.

Don't invent a false history for him.

[pinebox]

149. What?

What are you talking about?
Who cares if he attacks the Dem party, I like facts, people are MORE important than party, it's THAT simple and apparently Hillary fans don't get that.

A DINO? A name which is usually reserved for conservative Democrats? How ironic you say that when Bernie's policies are much more in line with Democratic principles than Hillary's. You say he only wants power yet remind us again who supports a living wage and who doesn't? Who wants universal health care and who doesn't? Who has shifted on EVERY MAJOR POLICY and who hasn't? Tell us, who is busy giving $200k/hr speeches and who isn't.

Bernie wants power? #FeelTheBern and tell us, who really wants power.

[frylock]

169. Posts like this really help to underscore how loyalty to the Party is more important than issues.

There's a reason that only 30% of voters are registered as Democrats.

[Autumn]

162. Another OP and thread proved that to me. I was stunned by the lack of compassion

and the need to trash Bernie to protect Hillary even at that early date in the primary. The OP was even asked in that thread if she was staying on DU and voting for Hillary if she was nominated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251450454#post86

[slipslidingaway]

86. Great writing, but how do you change heartfelt positions so easily ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5314138

"...It is instead about rules being pledged to and then reneged on when convenient. It is about promises being made and then broken when all else fails. It is about decrying the disenfranchisment of voters in states you suddenly need while, in the same breath, advocating the idea that superdelegates should overturn the will of all voters if things turn out not to your liking.

In short, it’s about integrity – which, somewhere along the way, Hillary Clinton lost, misplaced, forgot, or simply discarded as an expendable obstacle in her failed race to what is proving to be the bitter side of nowhere."

[chervilant]

93. This:

But there does come a time when one should know instinctively that they have gone too far, that they have substituted self-interest for the interests of others, that they have replaced a passionate sense of vision with ambition that is not only blind, but destructive in the extreme.

AND, this:

In short, it’s about integrity – which, somewhere along the way, Hillary Clinton lost, misplaced, forgot, or simply discarded as an expendable obstacle in her failed race to what is proving to be the bitter side of nowhere.

I'm beginning to understand why I have a tough time "getting" this person--seems like "Camp Weathervane" is a reasonable moniker...

Hi11ary STILL has problems with blind ambition and serial deceit. Like a significant percentage (over half) of survey respondents, I cannot support her.

[Fumesucker]

99. Ambition is monkey on your back like any other

You get to 60 years old you aren't getting that monkey off.

The serial deceit is simply the servant of the ambition.

[w4rma]

96. Jesus Christ, I'll be glad when the Clintons are out of politics, completely.

The sooner it happens, the better. The Clintons are just duplicitous bullshit.

[senz]

97. I didn't know she could write this way. I have not seen this side of her

which, despite some irritation at the misuse of two Austen's titles, I admire. This elegantly written comment does not match the person I dismissed a few months ago, after receiving a lecture about Bernie's "Democrat" status, as a mere party apparatchik. She's much more than that. But as one who has also experienced significant diminution in the poetry of personal expression, I'm in absolutely no position to criticize.

What's really hard to comprehend is the change in her assessment of Hillary, especially since the Hillary we see today is a condensed, thickened, hardened version of the Hillary we objected to in 2008. This one is worse.

I do not understand what brought about the change. (And I hope the title of this OP was not intended as an insult.)

[BeanMusical]

101. "And I hope the title of this OP was not intended as an insult."

It's the original tittle of the 2008 OP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5314138

[senz]

102. Ah, that's right, thanks.

I skimmed the original but didn't retain the title. Good, because otherwise it could have been hurtful.

[BeanMusical]

103. No problem.

[pinebox]

111. Gettin' a tad personal there for my taste

I agree on going after candidates but on supporters , ehhh, not so much.
Can we at least TRY for civility?

[Fumesucker]

114. She made it personal between us some months ago

I lost a child thanks to the profit hungry insurance companies and hearing someone with single payer tell me that I and mine are not good enough for it stick in my craw.

She lost a husband who was terminal, I lost a child who didn't have to be.

[senz]

117. I'm sorry this happened

sorry you are going through this suffering, the loss of a child. Unimaginable. Should not happen.

Nance is grieving, too.

[NanceGreggs]

122. Can you provide a link ...

... to where I ever said anything even remotely resembling "that I and mine are not good enough for it stick in my craw"?

I just KNOW that you would never stoop so low as to attribute such a statement to anyone, unless you had the proof thereof.

So now's the time to share that proof with everyone here. Now is the time to provide the evidence that I ever said any such thing.

Please proceed, Fumesucker. We await your response - along with the appropriate links.

[Fumesucker]

124. Do you remember this conversation?

"I feel your pain".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251704260#post107

Then *I* apologized to *you* and you kept right on with the insults.

[NanceGreggs]

125. So THIS is your example ...

... of me telling you that "that I and mine are not good enough for it stick in my craw"?

Really?

Link or slink. Show me where I said anything remotely like that.

[Fumesucker]

127. I thought you didn't care about this?

For someone who doesn't care you sure are posting a lot.

Imagine how a sarcastic "I feel your pain" sounds to someone who has lost a child.

[NanceGreggs]

129. Let's stay on topic, shall we?

You've attributed statements to me that you very obviously can't provide any evidence of.

If you lost a child, I am sorry for that. But given that tonight is the first I am hearing of it, I can hardly be held responsible for you perceiving "sarcasm" that couldn't possibly have been intended.

I invite you yet again to provide a link to where I have said that anything even close to "that I and mine are not good enough for it stick in my craw"?

You've asserted that I said THAT.

So you can either back-up what you've said, or you can admit that you were - hmmm - "mistaken" in accusing me of saying something I never did.

[Fumesucker]

130. Of course it was intended, you just didn't know my particular history

Not that you would care...

Hillary today said that there will NEVER, NEVER be single payer, shouting even more than Bernie, very emotional about it. You support her, that's all anyone needs to know. You have single payer and your candidate tells us NEVER! You don't think we deserve what you have.

I apologized to you in that thread and you kept right on insulting me, everyone is welcome to go and look, that's what I put the link there for so they can see how you treat others.

[NanceGreggs]

132. In other words ...

... you cannot provide any links to what you have accused me of saying - because I never said those things; ergo. no such links exist.

If I "didn't know your history", how could anything I said be "intended" to refer to your history? That makes no sense whatsoever.

But the fact remains: you insisted I said things I never said, and when asked to provide the links to show me saying those words, you couldn't come up with anything.

I think we're done here. Everyone reading this thread now knows you - were, hmm, less than truthful.

[Fumesucker]

133. It never occurred to you that anyone else might have a history with tragedy in it?

And that such a person might be passionate about the health care system and the horrendous and deadly flaws still in it?

In the context of the thread the fact is that your "I feel your pain" is obvious sarcasm.

[H2O Man]

157. Yep.

[BeanMusical]

170. +1

[NanceGreggs]

175. The link you've provided ...

... is from your OP entitled: "'I won't vote for Hillary' is the canary in the coal mine"

There was NOTHING in our exchange about healthcare, or having lost someone - not a single word.

My response was: "I feel your pain. Clearly HRC's front-runner status and her ever-rising poll numbers are reflective of a complete lack of enthusiasm for her candidacy, and demonstrative of a feeling of apathy among Democrats," etc.

Obviously, "I feel your pain" was a sarcastic response to your OP: "You can harangue DU until your keyboard is reduced to smoking ruin, that might get a few dozen or a few hundred DUers to vote for Hillary but it's not going to change the minds of the millions of others who would normally vote for a Democrat but will most likely just stay home if Hillary is the nominee."

Trying to insinuate that my response had anything to do with "your pain" at having lost a child (which I didn't even know about) in a discussion about HRC's electability is truly beneath contempt.

What happened here is obvious. You accused me of making statements I never made - and when challenged to provide a link to any such statements, you simply took a comment of mine on a completely unrelated topic and attempted to mislead people into thinking our exchange was about single payer healthcare, or your loss of a child.

Well, you provided the link - which means that anyone who bothers to follow it can see what the exchange was actually about, and can see that you lied about its subject matter and content.

You really should be ashamed.

[questionseverything]

177. telling us we are whining because we are going to die of treatable diseases

because of the for profit insurance industry is just evil

[NanceGreggs]

178. Link to where I did so, please.

TIA!

[questionseverything]

180. you don't seem to care this is life or death for some

NanceGreggs (18,644 posts)
107. I feel your pain.

Clearly HRC's front-runner status and her ever-rising poll numbers are reflective of a complete lack of enthusiasm for her candidacy, and demonstrative of a feeling of apathy among Democrats.

That canary is not only alive and well - it will be singing on election night next November, while people like you are still whinging about how no one was supposed to vote for her.
/////////////////////

i am not someone that cares for sarcastic wit when it comes to people needlessly dying and that is what we will get with hc

[NanceGreggs]

181. That OP ...

... and my response to it, had absolutely nothing to do with healthcare, people needlessly dying, telling anyone they are whining because they're going to die of treatable diseases. Not even close.

That thread was about HRC's electabiity, and Fumesucker's contention that millions of Democrats would stay home rather than vote for her. Thus my reply about HRC's nomination "while people like you are still whinging about how no one was supposed to vote for her. "

How you get "sarcastic wit when it comes to people dying" out of an exchange about Hillary's electability is beyond me.

How you translate "whinging about how no one was supposed to vote for her" into "whining because you're going to die of treatable diseases" is so utterly ridiculous, it borders on - well, I'll leave it there.

If you want to quote me on the issue of universal healthcare, you might want to find a comment I made about THAT subject, instead of taking a comment about Hillary's electability and pretending it was about healthcare.

[Hekate]

123. She neither said nor implied what you think she did. Only your grief excuses ...

....your gross unfairness and mischaracterization, and that just barely.

[Fumesucker]

136. What she said to me was a sarcastic "I feel your pain"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251704260#post107

I feel your pain.

Clearly HRC's front-runner status and her ever-rising poll numbers are reflective of a complete lack of enthusiasm for her candidacy, and demonstrative of a feeling of apathy among Democrats.

That canary is not only alive and well - it will be singing on election night next November, while people like you are still whinging about how no one was supposed to vote for her.

I replied like this..

Wisihing pain on me won't make your own pain less

There's almost nothing any of us can do as individuals to have an effect on history so we try to predict what will happen but all our predicting won't make it so. Some of what we do is for bragging rights other is for laughs. I saw the same behavior in the alternate history newsgroup when I was there long ago.

I don't mean any harm and I apologize if I have hurt you in any way.

And she came back with a final comment..

I've "known" you via DU for a long time, and know you are not a stupid person. Don't you think the combination of sour grapes and absolute childishness has gone far enough?

My grief is a lot older than hers, I'm a grandfather several times over now but I still have that giant gaping wound in my heart and she stomped on it with hobnail boots while I was trying to be nice to her.

[pinebox]

146. I came close

VERY close to dying and if not for the ACA I wouldn't be here. It literally saved my life but I also know that I am fortunate because not everybody is covered under the ACA and that is WHY we need single payer. You can read my story here http://stupidrwnjshit.tumblr.com/post/67848631840/why-the-aca-works-my-story

[senz]

183. Hope things are good for you now.

Sounds like a horrible experience, pinebox. It would have been easier if our "advanced" nation could accept what Bernie keeps telling us: health care is a right, not a privilege.

[cali]

139. I was the first to respond to that OP. Here's the post.

1. I start from a different place, Nance
I was never a huge admirer of either Clinton. I never saw the integrity in Hillary that you did. I remember her behavior around the Healthcare project, and how many putative allies she estranged with her high handed behavior. I recall her indignation over Flowers and others and how it couldn't possibly be true when she knew damned well it was. I realize that there wasn't much else she could do, but she always went straight for the other woman's jugular with all the power she commanded instead of admitting that her husband bore any responsibility. It always seemed to be about damage control more than anything else. I have some sympathy for Hillary Clinton- in fact quite a bit of it, and I recognize her intelligence and capability- but I have never admired her.

[Motown_Johnny]

144. I can't wait to see her try that with Trump as their nominee!!!

That will be one for the ages.

[SixString]

148. DU Rec.

[H2O Man]

150. Fascinating OP/thread.

Recommended. Thank you for this.

[H2O Man]

154. In my humble opinion,

a person has a right to change their opinion. That is especially true in the context of eight years, when the choices are very different than they were.

What I find offensive, though, is when that person ends their explanation with an undignified, inaccurate attack on the character of another candidate -- one who is giving a voice to millions of passionate citizens, who are sincere in their desire to improve this nation.

[KittyWampus]

153. Clinton For all her faults is still more competent than Sanders.

[passiveporcupine]

167. That is your opinion, nothing solid to base it on

Many of us disagree with your opinion. We see Sanders as more competent and more ethical.

I don't hate Hillary (I don't waste my energy on hating anyone, it's a very draining emotion that only hurts the hater) and I think she would be a better choice than many for President, certainly the GOP...but she is not as progressive as me and I don't like many of her positions and don't trust much of what she says in her campaign outreach, as I've seen too much evidence in her past of what she really stands for and will fight for if she becomes President. Some of it good...some of it bad. Too much of it bad to make me comfortable with her as President when we have a much better choice. She does not acknowledge and honor the valid grassroots movement that is sweeping the country. She will fight us (and already is) every way she can.

I don't see anything in Bernie's record that is bad, except that he needs to take a more progressive approach on gun control. And he's coming around on that. He has always been in favor of more/better gun control, but not as strong as I am. And because of his consistency, honesty and integrity, I trust him when he says things that show he's coming around on that.

So...you are welcome to your opinion, but I heartily disagree.

[senz]

186. I don't think she's demonstrated competence in anything but enriching herself.

She wouldn't have been elected to the Senate if she hadn't been the previous First Lady for eight years. Her Senate career was undistinguished except for incredibly bad judgment on Iraq. She didn't run a good presidential campaign in 2008, losing to a virtual unknown. SOS was handed to her by President Obama and she has little to show for that except a lot of weapons manufacturers donations to the Clinton coffers. She messed up with Libya. John Kerry is a much better SOS. The only thing she is competent at is enriching herself.

Bernie was elected Mayor, Congressman, and Senator all by his own efforts; he didn't have a famous name and corporate money backing him. He did it himself. That is competence. He was good at everything he did and kept being reelected by wide margins. He hasn't messed up and failed like Hillary. His judgment is consistently good.

Bernie is far more competent than Hillary.

[treestar]

160. Yawn

This must be the 100th such OP about at least the 3rd DU poster who supported Obama in 2008 and now supports Hillary.

Obviously when the primaries are over, people get over it. Hillary herself supported Obama - I still remember her 2008 convention speech.

[corkhead]

163. LOL

I about spit out my coffee when I followed the link

[Enthusiast]

165. Oh, baby! K&R!

This is amazing!

[senz]

189. Reading through this thread

it's clear that you greatly admire Nance. I think that's a good basis for friendship. Sometimes people who have been hurt by events become defensive and put up a wall around themselves. I hope whatever wall was built up between you and Nance can be brought down. You might find you have much in common.

Just my two cents.

[zentrum]

198. Remember it well.

It was appalling.

Was always going to vote for Obama and not HRC, but when he won, I had such a huge sense of relief that the majority of American people had done the right thing.

Hope that happens again.