to hillary people: do you have anything positive to say about your candidate??

[restorefreedom]

i just checked gdp and i see at least TEN threads slamming bernie on the first page (and i stopped about halfway down).

if your candidate is so great, how about posting POSITIVE stuff about her for us to read instead of trying to lift her status by tearing down the other guy?

believe it or not, some here might like to read an interesting policy position or something good that she has done on the campaign trail.

and fyi, tear down politics did not work in 2008 and they wont work this year either

its just a thought

[Jackie Wilson Said]

1. So your approach is to attack supporters for attacking.

My head is swimming with the double negatives around here.

It is not normal for people who consider themselves liberal or a democrat to take the position that it is their candidate or nothing.

That seems to be the real argument around here.

[H2O Man]

19. Are you kidding?

That was a pretty straight-forward, absolutely non-confrontational OP/

[UglyGreed]

25. Just as you have

[restorefreedom]

43. who said their candidate or nothing?

i am asking a genuine process question...if hillary and bernie supporters want to campaign for their candidate, how about ya, know, campaigning? telling us why supporting the candidate is worth considering?

[merrily]

53. I'd throw your head a life preserver but there's not no double negative in the OP

or in your post.

[notadmblnd]

73. What do you tell people about Hillary when you're knocking on doors canvasing for her?

Do you say "you should vote for Hillary because (fill in the blank)"? Or do you just tell people why they shouldn't vote for Bernie?

Perhaps a cup of tea and some nice calming music would help with your anxiety with regards to feeling attacked?

[libtodeath]

2. Supporting Hillary can mean the following

Defending NAFTA.
Defending Walmart donations.
Defending Sachs and 600 plus thousands payments for speeches.
Defending Iraq war vote.
Condemning FDR and The New Deal.
Defending the MIC.
Red baiting.
Attacking the idea of universal health care.
Attacking progressive taxation.
Defending secrecy in government.

The list goes on and on.

[Maedhros]

5. You forgot "Defending Kissinger." [n/t]

[AgerolanAmerican]

6. you forgot "defending the destruction of Libya and the chaos that followed"

[SCantiGOP]

8. You forgot

Causing 9/11 and bombing Pearl Harbor.

[beaglelover]

27. OR it could mean supporting the candidate who is most qualified to be the next POTUS.

There is always that reason why we support Hillary.

[restorefreedom]

30. would you like to expand on that?

what is it about her qualifications that you like best? not snark, honest question.

[beaglelover]

34. She was a great first lady, a great Senator, and a great Secretary of State.

She has established relationships with world leaders everywhere. She's extremely intelligent. She knows how to get things done in DC. Etc, etc, etc, etc. The best candidate running hands down.

[restorefreedom]

37. thank you for replying and for your thoughts. nt

[beaglelover]

38. You are welcome.

[TDale313]

55. Thank you. One of the more straightforward answers I've seen on this question.

[OhZone]

56. ^ these and the economy was great in the 90s under Team Clinton.

Lots more but, my honey wants lovin right now.

[merrily]

57. Nothing in your post is correct, other than that she is intelligent (in certain ways)

[beaglelover]

64. In your opinion, of course.

[merrily]

65. No. Saying she was a great first lady is sheer opinion. Saying that, while

First Lady, she got a subpoena, didn't comply with it for two years and claimed unbelievably that stacks of papers had just magically turned up in the family dining room of the White House is a fact, to name just one fact.

[angrychair]

60. First Lady is not an elected position

But an honorary title that does not mean, nor implies, anything other than that person is the spouse of the president.
I have become increasingly irritated that this is used to back-fill her credibility. She was a senator and a SoS. She was decent but not outstanding at either. Outside of traveling a lot as SoS, she did nothing of significant historical note in either position. FYI, not a bash on her in that regard, lots of people come to a position in government and serve their role fine but are otherwise unremarkable.

[beaglelover]

62. Your last sentence pretty much describes Bernie, no????

[angrychair]

91. I assume

You mean this:
"FYI, not a bash on her in that regard, lots of people come to a position in government and serve their role fine but are otherwise unremarkable."

No, does not apply to Sanders.

*Longest serving Independent in the history of the U.S. Congress

* Has caucused with Democrats for over 20 years

*He was co-founder of the Congressional Progressive Caucus

*Sanders was an Independent that managed to successfully win dozens of elections, against both Republicans and Democrats at the same time.

* Sanders is known as the "Amendment King" and it is amendments that were uniquely progressive. He has passed more amendments than any sitting member of Congress.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you

So not like HRC at all. Like no one that has ever been in Congress. Sanders has had an amazing career.

[Matariki]

94. Actually it would be great if you would expand on this post

In your opinion, what made her a great first lady? What made her a great Senator and SOS? What policies did she champion that are important to you?

What do you mean when you say she knows how to get things done? What makes you think that?

Do you think she's 'progressive' like she's been claiming lately or moderate? (Moderate seems more likely to me personally)

[beaglelover]

107. She's a progressive who can get things done, unlike Bernie who really has a shitty record

in Congress of getting anything done.

[Matariki]

115. Okay. That's substantive.

[Ned_Devine]

32. That's cool. Can you expand on the reasons why she is?

[beaglelover]

36. See above or below...not sure where it is. But I just gave my answer.

[Ned_Devine]

42. Sounds good to me! Thanks

Has your state voted yet?

[beaglelover]

45. No. I live in CA. We're pretty much last.

[Ned_Devine]

52. I stayed in the Redondo Beach area of Los Angeles a couple years ago

I rode a bike along the beach up to Santa Monica and it was everything I hoped it would be and then some. I need to get back there!

[TheFarseer]

102. Dick Cheney is more qualified

Maybe you can draft him.

[beaglelover]

106. I'm a democrat, why would I want a republican to be POTUS?

[TheFarseer]

108. He's more qualified

Isn't that the most important thing?

[restorefreedom]

31. there is no question that there are issues of concern

i was hoping some supporters might like to share some of her strengths as they see it.

[HooptieWagon]

40. Defending dropping cluster bombs on women and children.

[merrily]

54. All that and more has been done on this Democratic board.

[dflprincess]

97. You forgot supporting the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Honduras nt

[creeksneakers2]

112. The first half of your list applies

The second half is nonsense. Did Hillary condemn FDR and the New Deal? When did she do this? She's been working toward universal health care ever since she got to Washington. Where did Hillary come out against progressive taxation?

[AhhMass]

3. There is a front page thread

about how we have a hatred problem on this site. As a new user, my third comment was on that topic, about how both sides were being malicious, without stating any preference of candidate.

Unfortunately, I posted that in the Hilary Clinton section and was promptly banned from ever posting there again.

So, since that is where the "we have a hatred problem on this site" thread is posted, I cannot comment on it there.

But I agree with the sentiment.

[H2O Man]

21. Interesting.

Thank you for this.

[restorefreedom]

33. thanks for commenting and welcome to du! nt

[840high]

89. Welcome to Du.

[Maedhros]

95. What is 'hateful' about pointing out that defending Kissinger is atrocious?

If you want to suggest that pointing out that Hillary claims Kissinger as a mentor is hateful, I would have to disagree.

[onehandle]

4. She's positively going to be our next President. nt

[timlot]

10. Exactlly....

There really is no need to convince folks about Hillary. Either you like her or you don't. Thats why defending her against the barrage of Bernie supporter here is futile. I just read their comments and hope at the end of the day that BernieUnderground understands that she is going to be the Democratic nominee and next President and come around to supporting her.

[nichomachus]

16. That's not a plus

She would be a truly horrible president. She may get rammed down our throats, but her presidency will be the end of the Democratic party.

[restorefreedom]

35. that is a declaration, not a qualification.

any thoughts as to what she would do well as president? one thing? she will be good at.........

[MADem]

7. Anytime anyone puts something up positive about HRC, it gets swarmed and stomped on.

It's just going to stay this way until the primaries are over.

There's really no point in the minority of contributors here venturing out of protected spaces to offer up anything for "positive" conversation--it always ends badly, unfortunately.

[sheshe2]

14. Protected spaces are not safe either.

So many alerts and hides today.

That is all I will say.

[MADem]

68. I know from personal experience. nt

[sheshe2]

85. Yup.

[H2O Man]

22. I hope not.

Sanders's supporters need to be respectful.

Lots of my good friends support Hillary. I support Bernie. This in no way makes me think less of my buddies. It's all good.

[NCTraveler]

29. I really like a lot of your ops that I have read.

That will not change if we disagree on something in the future. I have truly enjoyed reading many of your posts in support of Sanders. Your manner of story telling keeps me interested and the angles you take always meet back at a point.

[H2O Man]

39. Thank you.

That means a lot to me. I have no problem saying that, even if we support different candidates, I recognize you as one of the most decent and intelligent friends that I have anywhere. And definitely not just on the internet. Yet the internet has allowed me the privilege of getting to know you over the years, and enjoy talking with you. What I'm trying to say -- though fumbling for proper words -- is that I have great respect for you; hence, when we do have a difference of opinion, I make a conscious effort to keep an open mind. For I know you come to your beliefs for good reason.

Peace,
Patrick

[NCTraveler]

59. Those are very kind words.

I over post these days which often takes away from thoughtful posts. I think I really had years of thoughtful contributions to DU before this primary. While I do have numerous posts I have given my best thoughts on in this primary, and enjoyed sharing them and reading the feedback, I've overall taken a nosedive. Lol.

Interestingly enough, it's not DU that has changed, it's that I really only post in one forum anymore and most of those posts are reactive. The opposite of what I was doing. I do read a couple of forums but don't really post.

Why do I recognize that and not change?

DU, which you are influential participant, has changed the way I think on numerous topics over the years. One poster here, in one post, completely changed how I view the prison and justice system. Many of the "debates" here really do happen at an impressive intellectual level. Reading your past and recent ops highlights that.

[H2O Man]

90. Right.

I've found new information that has changed my viewpoint numerous times here. And there are people who format "old" information in new and intellectually challenging ways.

I'm glad you viewed my statements as kind. I see them as accurate. Good when the two overlap.

[restorefreedom]

47. well, what about

reconsidering some of the 500+ people banned from hillary group? you guys obviously have the right to ban anyone you like, but perhaps allowing a few more people in the group(on both sides) might allow for a substantive discussion that is not as contentious as the ones in gdp.

[MADem]

61. You seem to forget that the HRC group predates the Sanders group by nearly eight years.

People were shitting on her in 2008, too. Memories are rather short here.

It's a protected group.

I was banned from the Sanders group for PROVIDING A VIDEO LINK to a statement made by Sanders, way back when he first declared.

That's fine--each group has the right to do what they want--but I didn't say one word against him, I didn't make any comments, save to correct the mis-impression that CNN didn't have him on, when they did.

I was "accused" of not being sufficiently supportive by one of the hosts.

Look--bottom line--if they don't want ya, they don't want ya. That goes for me, that goes for thee.

There is only one place on the board where HRC supporters can go and not be attacked TOO much--there's always some new person who wanders in there for almost every post, even the ones that are clearly marked HRC group (and maybe they aren't new, either) with a load of snark and meanness--and they get tossed.

And people who do not support HRC go in that group, read the posts, and alert on them. I know this because it has happened to me--for no good reason, either.


I can't wait until the winner of this primary becomes clear, the people who want to withdraw do that, and the divisiveness ends.

[restorefreedom]

81. i do sometimes read group posts

have never alerted on a group post. i understand why the groups exist. i just guess it would be nice to have a middle ground....someplace where we can disagree but without the vitriol in gdp...like gdp lite....idk...just sick of the fighting i guess

[MADem]

93. I've given up coming here as often. It's all good--we've had some warm weather

and I had to do a little traveling this month, so I spend a bit less time here.

There can't be a middle ground--there will always be people who try to jump in and f-ck with it. You see this happening in AA all the time...that's a place where there are long term members who support different candidates, and we all manage to be fairly civil to one another and have decent conversations. But the truth of the matter is that the only time the poop plops against the fan, it's someone going in there with a GOAL to smash, trash, snark, and get really personal about someone's choice of candidate. The hosts there don't play, though--anyone who starts talking down, getting snide, getting personal, etc., they just get the heave-ho...and they always deserve it when that happens. The hosts usually just say "There's the door..." but some people come back and taunt them nonetheless.

If this viciousness ends soon, I will come back more often. If it keeps on for too much longer, though, I may find myself de-motivated to return. I'm really, REALLY sick of the ugliness and often passive-aggressive accusations. It's just stupid and pointless. And the alert stalking, and hiding because someone said something "mean" about a CANDIDATE? I mean, come on.

If someone calls a Sanders supporter, or a Clinton supporter, i.e. a DUer who posts here, an ugly name, I'm down with telling them to go sit in the corner. But I'm not voting to hide speech about public figures unless it's horrifically bigoted or offensive. Saying "Candidate X didn't do Y" or Candidate A has a bad attitude about B and C" is not hide-worthy. But I see this happening all the time and it is destroying this place. I sometimes wonder if the people who are voting to hide that kind of thing WANT that result...?

[bigtree]

101. quite true

...I suspect the op knows this well.

[MADem]

103. If he didn't know it before, some of the replies to his thread

might provide him with a sense of how people who don't support her on this board tend to react.

[CalvinballPro]

9. People like you demand this just so you have something to attack.

I've seen it a thousand times now, it feels like.

"Say why you support Clinton!!111"

"<legitimate post from Clinton supporter explaining their support>"

"F*ck you, neoliberal! "

Fool me once, shame on you, yada yada yada.

[NCTraveler]

26. It is blatant hypocrisy all on its own.

Let me attack you and then project my thoughts on your negativity.

[restorefreedom]

51. i am not posting this

in order to troll for new attack material. my concerns about clinton have been iterated multiple times here and i don't need to rely on her supporters in order to provide me with information about the things i am already concerned about.

i was hoping we could discuss the endless stream of "candidate x sucks because..." and maybe move toward "candidate x just did something cool. here it is..."

[Coincidence]

58. Congrats on victimizing yourself in your concocted fictional scenario, Berniebros should be ashamed.

[Lucinda]

11. Plenty to read in the Hillary Group

Many dont bother to post them in GDP

[litlbilly]

15. I read them, nothing there of substance at all.

[Lucinda]

18. Uh huh. n/t

[beaglelover]

70. In your opinion, of course.

[nichomachus]

20. You mean fawning puff pieces and indefensible arguments

Which is why they have to post them in the walled garden where no one can point out their fatal flaws.

[Nailzberg]

12. Yep. Shes the best. Can't wait to vote for her.

[Punkingal]

28. Tell us why she's the best. Can you?

[PWPippin]

48. I have asked friends who support Hillary to tell me more about her accomplishments

and less about the various jobs she has held. I was going to say "less about the various positions she has held", but thought that might sound a little snarky. They tend to fall back on talking about her as a person and her work with the Children's Defense Fund, but they skirt the issue of her accomplishments in her various positions. I am genuinely curious.

[Nailzberg]

92. I could tell you my own feelings, but I don't feel like it.

DU is far too nasty for me during primaries. I've listened long enough, I'm pretty sure I have my choice and when the ballot arrives I'll mark it and send it off.

[litlbilly]

13. Im sure they will if they can find any.

[Lisa0825]

17. Pot, meet kettle. nt

[asiliveandbreathe]

23. Just politics folk's - I read some of the comments here and

thought I was on a republican site...just an observation....

..I remember the PUMAS in '08...

.as an Indy, I do hope the Democratic Party will come together, as you did for President Obama in the end.....

May the best person win the nomination for the Democratic Party - I'm there....

[NCTraveler]

24. I have spoken positive about her..

And her positions every single day I post here.

[restorefreedom]

49. i will look for them, would like to read some. nt

[NCTraveler]

66. You have. You have also responded to many. Nt

[restorefreedom]

71. well, i hope my responses were fair, even if not in agreement.

will continue to look for positive info from you. not snark.

[NCTraveler]

72. Try searching my one and only post in the Sanders Group.

Throw you a curveball for fun.

[restorefreedom]

76. i hope you have not been banned from bernie group, that was fantastic news

the comments all seemed quite positive

oh, lol,i just noticed i was one of them!

[NCTraveler]

83. Banned ten minutes after making it.

It really is all good and I fully understand why. With some of the things I've said outside of that group, there would be some members of the group who would always question my motives. I believe banning was necessary to uphold the concept of protected group.

I will say I have great respect for protected groups and wouldn't pull any bs in them. I reserve my bs for GD. P. Still, I understand their need to do what they did.

[restorefreedom]

86. holy crap!

well i don't know who banned you and would never ask you to reveal that. and as you said, they may have had their reasons.

it brings up an interesting point about groups, though. i always thought that a ban would occur because something said in group was unacceptable, not because the poster may have said some things outside of group.

hmmmm i am conflicted about that.

[Dsocialoutcast99]

41. Minds are made up

It doesn't make sense to attack either candidate, they agree on the important points and are both just trying to get a final foothold.
I voted for Hillary right through the primary in '08. I remember being angry with Obama for not letting her win.
From Michigan I already voted for Bernie Sanders because in my opinion she has lost something I saw before, or maybe he just to me is the best choice I have ever seen run for president.

[lovemydog]

44. Well, she's not 'my candidate' in the sense that I haven't pledged

to vote for her. My state's primary isn't until June. I may vote for Bernie if it's still close. But I will say some positive things about Hillary. She has worked tirelessly for years to expand and improve health care in the U.S. and around the world. She was one of the most liberal Senators in Congress, successfully representing the State of New York, receiving something like a 92% liberal rating.

While her initial instincts appear conservative and hawkish, she does tend to eventually hear and respond to the better voices in the nation. She tends to learn from her mistakes like her awful vote allowing the President authorization for the Iraq War. While she has a lot of big corporate ties (that rightfully make many of us on the left uncomfortable) she tends to evolve in her positions in ways that are responsive to the liberals in the democratic party. She has been through a lot of stress and strain in both her personal and public life, and keeps getting back up and fighting for the poor and the disadvantaged.

As Secretary of State, while her term was justifiably criticized by the left in her party, she avoided starting any major or incredibly costly wars or military interventions. After a bitter campaign against Barack Obama, she turned around and became his ally when he asked her to serve the country as Secretary of State. She has chosen a very public life, which is not easy for anyone at the highest levels of government.

[taught_me_patience]

46. There are hardly any left here in GDP

it's become a cesspool of negativity. Clinton supporters are alert swarmed daily here. You don't want to hear anything positive, you just want to criticize and demean. Enjoy your Bernie circle jerk.

[restorefreedom]

50. sadly, you kind of made my point. nt

[merrily]

63. To be fair, there's very little to be said that can't be contradicted.

[restorefreedom]

69. yes, and hence the constant back and forth

i was just hoping to encourage a little more positivity instead of the endless stream of "bernie sucks because" without an equal number of "here is what i like about hillarys social security plan" (or whatever)

all of us will have to decide in the ge whether to vote dem or alternate. it might be good for both sides to present some affirmative reasons why we might consider their candidate if ours is not the nom.

i guess i am just fed up with the poo flinging.....maybe i am just tired.

[Buzz Clik]

67. Let's see:

I agree with her on 99% of all issues.
She has an achievable agenda.

That sets her apart from her opponent.

[restorefreedom]

74. thanks for your response

follow up if you care to...what do you think will be the first or likeliest agenda item to get done?

for bernie, i think he will campaign hard against tpp and make sure it does not go through

[Buzz Clik]

75. Didn't Congress pass and Obama sign TPP already?

For Clinton, it's hard to say what her first item will be. I hope to God it's the beginning of restoration of environmental enforcement.

[restorefreedom]

79. sonofafucking bitch, he did sign it in secrecy

well then i guess bernie will be doing something to reverse or mitigate it

i hope either will focus on the environment, too

[leftofcool]

77. Yes we do, but we don't post those things here.

There are many HRC forums and sites, mostly private, where we discuss Hillary's campaign strategies and good works. We have Congressional and State leaders as well as campaign staff and workers who post in those forums and they would never step foot in DU.

[restorefreedom]

84. and the fact that some of those folks

would never step foot in du, is that a positive? how does it help the candidate to avoid a place where dems and progressives congregate?

would their presence here bring better discussion of the issues? perhaps it would.

[leftofcool]

96. Sorry, no. We have other places to discuss accomplishments of HRC.

[restorefreedom]

98. your choice, but when people have a hard time seeing the positives,

maybe its because they are not seeing a lot of positives

[lovemydog]

121. That's a good point.

I like mixing it up. In fairness though, I too don't like personal insults or changing the subject. I appreciate your honesty and forthrightness without being defensive.

[Godhumor]

78. Yes, of course

But I feel literally no need to defend why I support her, so my statement is going to stand as that.

[restorefreedom]

82. no one should have to defend their choice

but perhaps some would like to share why they feel so positively about their candidate or highlight an accomplishment.

many seem to think that beating the crap out of the other one will help their candidate. this does not apply to only one candidate. poo flinging to go around for all.

[Capt. Obvious]

87. This isn't the site for that

This is just place to settle old scores.

Now with the primary as a theme.

[restorefreedom]

88. mmmmm....thats too bad imo.

[XRubicon]

99. She is electable

The whole socialist - Castro praising thing wont work outside of Vermont in a general election.

[bigtree]

100. that's rich

...with an entire campaign of anti-Hillary posts here.

It's sad how invested Sanders, himself, has become in his negative campaign.

[NanceGreggs]

111. It looks like ...

... Bernie "I've never run a negative campaign in my life" Sanders has gone the way of Bernie "If I ever ran as a Democrat, I'd be a hypocrite" Sanders.

[Doctor_J]

104. There isn't much there that isn't part of the platform of most of the REPUBLICANS.

Someone posted in the thread they agree with 99% of Hillary's positions. That person pretty much must agree with 80% or more of the republicans positions. IMO such people should stop claiming that they are democrats. They are the reason we are barely alive at this point in time.

[creeksneakers2]

110. Hillary isn't similar to a Republican

That's the kind of wild exaggeration that only makes things worse here.

s Hillary a corporatist or a Republican?

I wanted to take an objective look at the question so I went to the website of Americans for Democratic Action. ADA scores are the most often cited measure of liberalism. ADA scores voting records of members of Congress on a scale of zero to 100. 100 is the most liberal while zero is the most conservative. ADA scores the 20 votes they believe are the most relevant and each vote counts for 5%.

ADA has endorsed Bernie Sanders. Here are Hillary's scores from the time she was in the Senate:

2001 - 95%. Average Democratic score = 91%. Average GOP score = 13%.

2002 - 95%. Average Democratic score = 85.5%. Average GOP score = 11.1%

2003 - 95%. Average Democratic score = 85.7%. Average GOP score = 13.3%.

2004 - 95%. Average Democratic score = 89.6%. Average GOP score = 19.6%

2005 - 100%. Average Democratic score = 94.4%. Average GOP score = 13.4%

2006 - 95%. Average Democratic score = 89.1%. Average GOP score = 9.4%.

2007 - 75%. Average Democratic score = 87%. Average GOP score = 20%. Hillary lost 25% for 5 missed votes. No votes against ADA positions in 2007.

2008 - 70%. Average Democratic score = 90%. Average GOP score = 20%. Hillary lost 30% for 6 missed votes. No votes against ADA positions in 2008.

Sanders supporters have a list of legitimate complaints about Hillary's past actions. But what they have is a cherry picked look at Hillary. Calling her a corporatist or Republican is a gross exaggeration and a refusal to look at her whole record. Its also a pathetic excuse for not voting against letting the GOP take the country to Hell.

http://www.adaction.org/ click publications then voting records.

[Doctor_J]

113. Yes she is

Here's a brief list of the similarities. There is also social security cuts, for profit healthcare, for profit prisons, charter schools instead of public schools, torture, poverty level minimum wage, regime change as policy, and so on.

[creeksneakers2]

114. Hillary has never opposed gay rights

She didn't favor gay marriage until more recently but she never opposed other gay rights.

Hillary voted against reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

Rest of the chart is a slanted view, as opposed to what I posted which is measure used by many researchers.

You said 80%. You have examples, but nothing like 80% agreement.

[NanceGreggs]

105. Discussing anything positive about HRC on this site is pointless.

... and has been pretty much since last spring.

So you're seeing threads slamming Bernie? Wow. Have you ever noticed how many threads there are every single day slamming Hillary? You didn't mention that.

Here's how a "discussion" goes on DU:

"Have you seen Hillary's position on _____, a position which you've said you agree with?"
"Oh, sure, she says that NOW - she'll change her position the minute she's elected."

"Hillary wants to tighten-up gun control laws to prevent events like Sandy Hook ..."
"What about all the people who died in Iraq because of her?"

"Hillary has come out strongly for ..."
"Oh, Camp Weathervane strikes again - she'll be against it tomorrow."

And so it goes, day after day. This site is comprised of 85% BS supporters - probably closer to 90% now, given how many HRC supporters have left - and how many newbies have signed up, who NEVER say anything positive about Bernie, but post anti-HRC crapola exclusively, often lifted from RW sites, bloggers, etc. (And BTW, why aren't you asking THEM why they don't have anything positive to say about their (alleged) candidate of preference?)

Despite the 85% BS supporters on DU, I still see posts about how "you can't say a single thing against Hillary here, or you'll get a hide." Come on, restorefreedom - who's zoomin' who?

How do you engage in serious political discussion with people who think every Democrat who endorses HRC has been bought-and-paid-for, or has been "threatened" into doing so?

How do have a meaningful conversation with people who throw EVERYONE under that proverbial bus the minute they declare their support for HRC?

How do you discuss important issues with people whose only response to everything pro-Hillary is "She's a warmonger! She's a corporate shill! She's a pathological liar! She's a whore for the 1%!"

Well, the short answer is: you don't. You don't bother. You don't engage. You don't waste your time.

[Matariki]

116. How do you reconcile her shifting positions though?

Take for instance the TPP (among the many other things she's changed positions on) . As recently as 2012 she was pushing it. Now during an election, when it's not popular, she says she's against it. How else are people supposed to evaluate a candidate? When they appear to change positions just in time for elections, you really can't blame voters for have trepidations or viewing the candidate as untrustworthy.

In Australia in 2012, Clinton delivered remarks on the general topic of the U.S.-Australia relationship. Here’s everything she said about the TPP in that address, with the "gold standard" comment in bold.

"So it's fair to say that our economies are entwined, and we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. Australia is a critical partner. This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment."

Clinton announced last week that she no longer supports the international trade deal, despite supporting it while serving as secretary of state -- once calling it the "gold standard." CNN anchor and debate moderator Anderson Cooper picked up on those words and asked Clinton about her reversal at the Oct. 13 debate in Las Vegas.

There are many more examples. It seems crazy to fault people for actually noticing her inconstancy.

[NanceGreggs]

117. You do understand ...

... that the TPP has been under negotiation for many years and, as a result, was constantly being changed, modified, added-to, etc.?

In 2012, the treaty was obviously not the same treaty it was when finalized in 2015. What do you think was happening in the intervening years - a three-year debate over whether to use the Oxford comma or not?

It seems crazy to fault someone for changing their position on an agreement that was constantly undergoing changes itself - literally up to the last minute before its signatories agreed on the final draft.

[Matariki]

118. That's a fair explanation.

But can you understand at least the perception that she shifts positions? I'm trying to figure out if it's a fair assessment, or if it's more nuanced as you are explaining.

The TPP is just one of many things where she has seemed to shift stances. I could list off many others.

[NanceGreggs]

122. Thanks for your fair response.

I have no problem with a politician who shifts positions - because the nation as a whole shifts positions constantly as well, and that should be reflected in anyone the country elects to represent their views.

I'm in my late sixties, so I've been around for a while. I can't imagine any current-day politician who would have championed same-sex marriage forty or fifty years ago, simply because the country was still not accepting of the idea. Of course nowadays, we look at politicians who don't champion that right as being out-of-step with the electorate they serve.

HRC has often been pilloried for taking polls into account. I think it's an asset that she does so. How better to understand what public opinion is on any given topic - and shouldn't it be a politician's job to KNOW what the public is thinking, and then act accordingly on their behalf? In a democracy, shouldn't elected "representatives" actually represent the will of the People?

It IS a matter of perception, to be sure. Some see a politician who never changes their mind or their positions as being steadfastly committed to their own personal ideals. Others see that same politician as stubbornly rigid in their thinking, and blind to the ever-shifting opinions of those they were elected to give voice to.

I, for one, would love to see a president who runs on-line polls on a regular basis. The internet is a great way to take the nation's pulse, as it were, on all kinds of topics - and a president who is truly interested in serving those he/she governs would alter their course accordingly, should they find that their own thinking is at odds with the thinking of the nation as a whole.

I would much prefer a president - or any elected politician, in any office - who is willing to change tack to be reflective of the people, rather than one who is insistent that their own personal views be the only opinion considered.

[creeksneakers2]

109. Hillary is tenacious

Nobody in the world has been the victim of more witch hunts and lies than the Clintons. Yet, Hillary has survived all that and is still fighting. She'll do a good job battling the slime the Republicans will dish out if she gets the nomination.

[Chitown Kev]

119. Yes, Hillarycare was a failure

for all sorts of reasons, including her own mismanagement but...

...at that time, she was simply under relentless attacks and pressure and people thinking that she was out of space and out of pocket for taking the lead role that she did.

I also think that her experience with health care reform in 1993-94..."scarred" her(not exactly the word that I want to use) in ways that reverberate even nowadays...her proposal then remains to the left of ACA.

Not my candidate but I always found that toughness and fortitude quite admirable.

[JackRiddler]

120. Science and Math say she's got a 420% chance of winning...

she's up by a 130% margin in all states. Her delegate lead is an insurmountable 9,023 to 1. Everyone should stop voting and talking and all this democracy blah blah blah immediately! Surrender!!!