You can't just dismiss all critiques of HRC as "right-wing smears"

[Ken Burch]

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose her economic, trade, and war policy positions.

[hereforthevoting]

1. Honestly I have scared myself

Reading RW materials and having massive cognitive dissonance. But another thing that would produce such a feeling would be actually voting for her, so.........

[pinebox]

2. We can start here

Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors
An investigation finds that countries that gave to the foundation saw an increase in State Department-approved arms sales.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

And there is a ton more.

[nichomachus]

22. What -- that right-wing rag?

Mother Jones. Worse than Fox News.

[CorporatistNation]

56. What Is It That People See That Allows Them To Ignore Facts And Truth Straight from Their Idol

Here is some more info that needs dissemination...

[Betty Karlson]

3. K&R for truth

But I believe it is the new meme du jour among "paid contributors", since the revived sexism charge didn't work.

[DanTex]

4. True, just most of them.

And once you filter out the right-wing smears, what's left is a strong progressive candidate. This is why we keep seeing so many right-wing sources from DU's Hillary bashers.

[Ken Burch]

7. Every critique of her militarist foreign policy is from a progressive perspective

We can't keep fighting in the Middle East and have anything progressive happen herre.

We can only have real gains if we dial back on wars for awhile.

And on right-wing trade deals like NAFTA(as a Democrat, Bill C. owed it to American workers to withdraw that one from consideration)and the TPP, it is progressives raising legitimate issues.

Same on Wall Street.

Same on Honduras.

[DanTex]

8. Also, true, some anti-Hillary stuff is of the Glenn Greenwald loony-left variety.

If it wasn't for Rupert Murdoch and Glenn Greenwald, the Hillary-bashers would have no material at all.

[ucrdem]

13. And Karl Rove.

Yes, he is involved, and just one fish in a large pond:

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/26/468216156/conservative-superpacs-ads-take-aim-at-hillary-clinton

[Scuba]

15. Exactly! All Hillary criticisms are either right-wing memes or loony-left conspiracy theories!

That's the ticket!!!

[JonLeibowitz]

29. GG is loony-left? Last I heard MSNBC was calling him a libertarian?

Glenn Greenwald is absolutely not loony left though he is left of center. He just pays more attention than most.

[DanTex]

30. He's both. There's quite a bit of overlap between the far left and libertarians.

[Bread and Circus]

33. There are definitely some loons around here.

[Armstead]

38. If it weren't for Daniel Ellesburg, those LBJ and Nixon bashers would have no material

I saw that on DU in 1971.

[DanTex]

40. Because Rupert Murdoch is exactly like Daniel Ellsberg!

[Armstead]

41. It's a ridiculous statement to illustrate a ridiculous statement

Criticisms of the Clintons and the Democratic Party are not based on the GOP or Murdoch....It's apples and oranges to compare them.

Yes there are also occasional overlaps when criticisms are non-ideological, but if the GOP said the sky is blue on a clear sunny day, I'd have to agree with them on that too.

[DanTex]

43. The fact that a lot of the anti-Hillary stuff that gets posted in GDP comes from right-wing media

is a fact. It's not a "ridiculous statement." The other big source is Glenn Greenwald type outlets (e.g. HA Goodman, who predicted Hillary would finish third place in Iowa).

You're right, if the GOP said the sky is blue, you'd agree. The thing about the Hillary-bashing is that for some reason it's very often only the right-wing media (or the Greenwald/Goodman left) saying those things. Which kinda has to make you wonder. Why are only Rupert Murdoch outfits saying this stuff if it's so obviously true?

[Armstead]

44. Then you are missoing all of the OPs from....

The Nation, Wash POst, NY Times, Salon, Huff Post, The Progressive....etc. etc.

And what you either cannot or choose not to see is that the reasons the right wing dislikes the Clinton's and the left wing dislikes them are the exact opposite of each other.

[DanTex]

46. Look at who the authors are. A lot of Hillary-bashers try to sneak in their right-wing smears

by using the journal as the author rather than the person. For example, yesterday there was an article by right-winger Ed Rogers posted in the Washington Post. And the other thing they do is find one journal that writes a story that is entirely sourced from another in a right-wing media. This also happened yesterday with that Charles Gasparino NYPost piece about how Obama's "hacks" were stonewalling the FBI investigation.

I don't know if you're blind to it all, or you just prefer not to pay attention. But if you're trying to pretend that there isn't a heavy amount of right-wing stuff posted on DU to bash Hillary, you're simply wrong.

If, as you say, the right and left hate her for different reasons, why does the supposed left keep linking to the right wing sources?

[Marr]

59. Some is, you're right. But in my personal view, it's a small amount. The amount of dishonest

Last edited Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:58 PM - Edit history (1)

attacks on Sanders from the Hillary campaign has been overwhelming.

I've seen very little in the way of honest criticism of Sanders' record from the Hillary campaign and it's surrogates. There's been a lot of deceitful misrepresentation and outright lies, but not much in the way of substantive criticism.

[colsohlibgal]

5. Of Course

The Hillary crowd will rebut with generalities like that but no real point by point rebuttal. Because she did vote for the unnecessary and terribly costly in money and lives Iraq war, she has taken millions from Wall Street, yada yada.

Just heard Thomas Frank discussing his new book " Listen, Liberal" where he details what happened to the Democratic Party since FDR to LBJ. The democrats went to being the party of the top 10%, the democratic elite, they cater to the upper crust not the riff raff of everyday working people, unuions, etc. He isn't making this up, he found documents detailing all this.

[casperthegm]

12. Ain't that the truth

I tried getting a grown-up conversation going based on real issues, like fracking, embracing Wall Street, opposing Glass Steagall, etc last night. All I got back from a HRC supporter was a bunch of lol's. How can it be that many issues that used to be embraced by Republicans are now adopted by HRC and her supporters just laugh it off?

[Vattel]

6. and her immigration policy positions

[Sky Masterson]

9. Nonsense

Anyone who brings up her exact words spoken by her on positions she held is Right-wing Smearing her.
Because like she said "Marriage is between a man and a woman"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/435624/-
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, dated October 10, 2002

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom."

[hrmjustin]

10. You guys get too excited over any little thing fox says about her.

Sorry but i don't take any of it seriously. So mang on du hate her and I will not give them an inch.

[Ken Burch]

19. I don't care about what Fox says.

I care about what The Nation, The Progressive, and people like Noam Chomsky say about her.

It's critique...not hate.

And you have nothing to be smug about.

[hrmjustin]

20. There is hatred of Hillary on this site.

[snooper2]

39. Not hatred, just tired of the Clintons, it is 2016 the 90's called and want their Clintons back

Worst Field Of Candidates EVER!


Obama, 4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years! PLEASE!

[Ken Burch]

57. There is hatred of Bernie here, too.

But there aren't any posters here who disagree with HRC from the left who don't want to see a woman in the presidency.

Everyone here who supports Bernie would still do so if "Bernie" was short for Berniece.

[JaneyVee]

11. Plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose Bernie's policies as well.

[TCJ70]

21. Like what? n/t

[Lizzie Poppet]

25. *crickets*

[Armstead]

42. He's a commie

[Donald Ian Rankin]

47. His tax and spending plans don't even come close to adding up.

His numbers are grossly overoptimistic and unrealistic.

That sums up pretty most of my objections to him, actually - he's a basically well-meaning individual whose judgement is catastrophically clouded by wishful thinking.

[TCJ70]

49. That's almost a criticism I could get behind...

...I disagree and think we have more than enough resources in this country to pull it off. I don't know that it's a valid reason to oppose the policy itself (single-payer or college tuition coverage). Implementation can be tweaked, but the core policy is, in my mind, something most if not all Democrats could support.

[Tarc]

14. Yes, we can

[Lizzie Poppet]

23. And I've little doubt you will, too.

[JonLeibowitz]

31. I see nothing!!

[Vote2016]

16. Hillary's self inflating lies (like the Bosnian sniper fire lie) are not rightwing smear. Her

hawkishness and brown-nosing to AIPAC and wrist-slapping approach to Wall Street abuses and put-US-workers-last attitude toward trade agreements are not rightwing smears.

[reformist2]

17. We need to get out there and talk to our friends about these issues, not these die-hards.

[etherealtruth]

18. There are tons of reason to have grave concerns about her .... there are sources of good analysis

... and very good reporting.

The Blaze, the Daily Caller, Breitbart, etc are not those sources

[H2O Man]

24. Recommended.

That failed attempt to dismiss all critiques is a poor strategy in the primaries; if she is the party's nominee, it will be problematic in the fall.

[NWCorona]

26. I find it funny that you can post a video

Of Hillary giving a speech and if it's in a bad light it's doing the RW's bidding.

[MaeScott]

28. Kicked nt

[revbones]

27. Wanna bet?

Hillary followers certainly seem to be able to dismiss all critiques as "right-wing smears". Just look at any legitimate complaint or criticism of her and their response.

That happens regardless of whether they are smears or legitimate...

[Lorien]

36. Our problems with Hillary are not the same as the GOP's issues with her

The GOP LIKES her support of the Iraq war, fracking, Monsanto, Walmart's business practices, the TPP, Keystone XL (which she will support again when the price of oil goes back up), for profit prisons, a police state, lack of Wall Street regulation, and so forth. The right wing would never try to "smear" her on issues they agree with, so the argument isn't valid in the least.

[2pooped2pop]

32. that's right. some Republicans can read

There is a shitload of scandals on Hillary to be read. Its not all right wing. Much of it is a simply facts.

[amborin]

34. how about her blatant prevarication?

[Lorien]

35. Assuming that we could ever get her supporters to even talk about her positions

on the issues. I've asked them time and time again to tell me WHY any of us should support her BASED ON THE ISSUES (which is all that's important). The only response I get, if I get any at all? "We can't tell you because if we do our response will get hidden." THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED! Seriously; if you have to make up an excuse like "I can't tell you why you should vote for her based on her positions on the issues, because people will hide my response", you've got nothing. You don't even know why YOU are voting for her, other than as a kneejerk response to team branding and advertising.

[PeaceNikki]

37. Sure, but it's the same reason why one should check, double-check and then re-check the damn source

when one flings poo in here.

Like RP says: "...if you declare you despise the other candidate, you should ask who you're believing, especially when it comes to Clinton. You might be laying down in a bed of slime." ~The Rude Pundit

[Else You Are Mad]

45. HRC's tactics is the same as how the right defends themselves...

That is, anytime there is a legitimate critique or comment made that is negative to a conservative, they dismiss it and just say that is liberal media lies. Now, taking a page out of the GOP playbook, when faced with legitimate critiques, HRC and her camp just deny it and blame it as right wing lies without actually providing a counter to what she is being accused of.

It makes you wonder....

[VulgarPoet]

52. And they say people who can't tell the difference between Hillary and a repub are idiots... nt

[Punkingal]

48. I am tired of the "she's been harassed by the RW for 25 years" defense.

That sure gets used a lot.

[JoePhilly]

50. Its hard to find real criticisms amidst the Gish gallop attacks.

There is so much noise being produced by the angriest Bernie supporters that its impossible to take it all seriously. Its become tiresome.

[RandySF]

51. Then stop recycling the ones from the 90"s.

[rock]

53. Can too

And would be over 99-44/100% correct!

[Kalidurga]

54. I looks like Hillary supporters can indeed be dismissive of all critiques as rw smears.

They are incorrect of course, but that doesn't keep them from being dismissive.

[bettyellen]

55. No, but there have been so many RW hit pieces lauded here, so many rumors and

exaggerations that it is hard to sort out the bullshit from the truth around here. There is too much of a fog of bullshit.
I think they are both flawed - just in different ways. I think politicians tend to be pretty imperfect.

[morningfog]

58. Yep. Too many are so emotionally invested that honest

and justified criticism is taken as a personal attack on themselves. They are then blinded by rage and cannot engage in anything but dismissiveness and deflection.

[eridani]

60. You mean the wingers you know DON'T support Medicare for All? n/t