Hillary Clinton speaks to 'crowd' at campaign rally in Oakland

[J_J_]

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign made its way to an Oakland elementary school gymnasium Friday, where Clinton spoke at a rally about topics ranging from the gender pay gap to college tuition.

The rally took place at La Escuelita Elementary School in Oakland, which was filled to capacity with Bay Area residents, including several UC Berkeley students, who came to hear Clinton’s platforms and demonstrate their support.




For some members of the crowd, the rally did not appear representative of the Oakland community’s diversity. Oakland resident Frank Rodriguez was particularly critical of the press.

“The entire thing is a photo-op,” Rodriguez said. “(Clinton) is so out of touch with my community.”

http://www.dailycal.org/2016/05/08/hillary-clinton-speaks-crowd-campaign-rally-oakland/

Hillary supporters have explained to me that Hillary doesn't have crowds because
a) Hillary people are a silent majority
b) Hillary people have to work, they can't attend rallies
c) Hillary people don't need a crowd to feel confident

So here Hillary is, obviously trying to get a a mass amount of people together for a photo op, the media obviously trying to push this as a 'crowd'...and this is the best shot of the 'crowd' they can get?

I could be wrong so perhaps the Hillary people would like to post their own pictures of the crowds she has been drawing in California...

[Faux pas]

1. ...

TeeHee

[whatchamacallit]

2. Yes, but all of them will vote

twice.

[pdsimdars]

52. There must be dozens of them there.

As opposed to the tens of thousands for Bernie's rallies.

[GreatGazoo]

88. I count 54 people in that photo, 56 if you add in Hillary and

that concerned looking woman on stage with her.

[AgingAmerican]

3. "People have to work"

This is the traditional Republican excuse for low attendance at Tea Party rally's.

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. If this had been a Bernie picture...

...Camp Weathervane would be screeching about how the majority of people are white.

[arcane1]

8. Oh yes, they LOVE to play "Where's Black Waldo" with Sanders rallies.

Then they throw BLM under the bus for daring to protest Her Highness.

Black people to them are just another tool to exploit for votes.

[Aerows]

110. Even Trump is smart enough to hire people to fill the stands.

Hillary is playing this like amateur hour.

One of two things is at work:

1) She doesn't have the money to hire enthusiastic supporters beyond throwing a few $mill at internet trolls

or

2) She and her campaign orchestrators are so filled with hubris that it consistently catches them off guard by how little enthusiasm she is generating.

It's baffling

[NCTraveler]

6. It is well known why Clinton does smaller events. Control.

Sanders is forced to do large events. I promise you he wishes he could campaign like Clinton and gain more control. He wouldn't have to waste enormous amounts of resources just to have a guy upstage him with "whore" comments.

[J_J_]

11. "Control" that's the new excuse? weird one....

or were you joking?... I can't tell...

[NCTraveler]

12. I had no clue it was new.

I have said it for months.

How much of Sanders news cycle did the comment I mentioned above take away from Sanders? While you ROLFL with your emoticons I will continue to embrace common sense.

[J_J_]

13. you were serious?

Hillary can't draw a crowd because she doesn't want to and Bernie wishes he had her 'control'

You really don't realize how absurd that sounds?

[NCTraveler]

19. You avoid the question. I understand why.

I'm glad I don't have to make your argument. Sanders has spent a lot in resources and lost valuable time that Clinton hasn't. All because the manner in which he has been forced to campaign also gives up control.

The really foolish argument it that crowd size equals votes. That is the head scratcher.

[J_J_]

24. he's not wasting resources, he is increasing his voters, spreading the word

And Don't tell me 'Hillary is winning' because that is exactly the question here.

Holding large campaign rallies is not wasting time and resources, you just aren't making sense to me.

He is proving that he has the popular vote, that he alone speaks to the masses.

Just get real already, If Hillary could draw the same crowds as Bernie, she would.

No one is excited about her, no one cares.

That she has to hire people to speak well of her online (and just look at the type she hires) does not speak well of her popularity.

[NCTraveler]

28. You just argued a bunch of things I never said.

Well done. Along with some other items that have no basis in reality. But if you feel better taking cheap shots have at it.

[NCTraveler]

41. Sanders tells BDS Members to shut up.

Seems you might be right. He has no control in small groups either. Do you know he was telling BDS members, his supporters new favorite organization, to shut up in this video?

https://m.

Seems he does need the podium to himself.

[Sparkly]

21. I'd rather see him take questions in small venues

from people who aren't necessary supporters.

[frylock]

61. I'd like to see Hillary take questions from the press.

How long has it been now?

[MADem]

72. He never will--all he does is the 'stump speech.' He even does the 'stump speech' in debates.

It's kind of sad. He has not demonstrated an ability to think on his feet.

[MADem]

100. I'll bet he wishes he could "control" several million people sufficiently to cause them to

VOTE for him! There's a reason why Hillary is winning--more people bother to VOTE for her.



What's absurd is mocking the person with MILLIONS more votes--the most votes of anyone in this race from either party, by FAR--and trying to make something of her campaign style.

You can watch some griper do his same-old, same-old stand up act (Blah blah blah one puh-cent, blah blah blah twenty seven DOLLAHS....blah blah blah ... free college .... blah blah blah make the RICH pay they-ah fay-ah shay-ah....) that is all about problems with no path to solutions, or you can go to a small venue and actually ASK the candidate QUESTIONS--and get answers. Long, thoughtful, considered answers that are responsive to the questioner's concerns.

What you're snarking at is the REASON she's winning.

[Logical]

27. Of FFS, what a silly post! Nt

[NCTraveler]

29. it's logical. Nt

[bjo59]

31. Control over what? I've seen nothing about Bernie Sanders massive crowds that suggests

someone would need to control them.

[NCTraveler]

35. How much time did the "whore" comment take from his news cycle.

And when he tried to jump on someone else's gathering and had to answer for "we've already taken care of race problems."

There are a ton more examples. We all know them.

[Buddyblazon]

42. It's "control"?

That's the reason for the measly turn out at her events? That is officially the biggest stretch of truth I've ever heard.

[J_J_]

7. lots a interesting comments at the link...

AdornMeJewelry

At Bernie’s rallies you see just a huge sea of people — tens of thousands of people, along with an estimate of the number of people there. At Hillary’s rallys, you see these close-up, tight shots that try to hide the fact that hardly anyone is there, and gives no number of attendees. But of course, “she’s winning.” We’ll see.



brim

A RALLY in an “Elementary School Gym”….”filled to capacity”….with what: 125 supporters? If this is the best she can do in Oakland– with a handful of “Berkeley Supporters in the Crowd” as well…..I’m FEELING THE BERN.

[ucrdem]

9. Wel, since you asked, she's taking it to the people who vote for Dems.

Bernie is taking it to suburban stadiums, with predicable results. Here's Hillary in East LA on Cinco de Mayo:



Where's Bernie?

[KPN]

10. Okay 450-500 people.

[pdsimdars]

55. I wonder how much they paid each of them. . . . . .

[pdsimdars]

54. Here you go since you asked.

Let's do the compare and contrast.




Bernie, feel the Bern.
Hillary, feel the drop in the bucket.

[eastwestdem]

14. I volunteer at Hillary's Oakland office. When we found out she was coming last week,

we were told that they purposefully don't want to schedule large events. They like to keep things small and low-key. It is apparently a deliberate campaign style choice. Unofficially, we are also told that by having 'last minute' small events, it kept the Sanders protesters away since they didn't have time to find out and mobilize. Amazing she has to worry about such things from a fellow Democrats' supporters. Oh wait...

[joshcryer]

17. Yeah, she's making herself inaccessible.

And people still don't get it. Low key events = easier to control, less risk of bad crap happening like poor phrasing or something.

[eastwestdem]

22. It seemed like a good strategy when you have a violent opposition.

I like that Hillary is protecting her supporters from harm.

[Arugula Latte]

34. ...

Good one!

[frylock]

63. Did somebody get hurt?

Or is this just another bullshit narrative to paint Sanders supporters as no different than Trump's?

[Amaril]

96. "Violent Opposition"

Seriously? You're going with that characterization?

You guys really are the eternal victims, aren't you?

[FlatBaroque]

33. .

[J_J_]

43. She sounds afraid that more protesters will show up than supporters

which is probably exactly what would happen.

She is also probably trying to avoid pictures of her in a larger venue which show she has no support.

This "packed gym" at an elementary school photo illustrates they would like to pretend she has more support.

[frylock]

62. This is why they like to keep things small and low-key.

Wouldn't want something like this to happen.

[brooklynite]

94. She's still winning; right?

[frylock]

99. Yep, she sure is.

Thanks for the reminder. You saved me some valuable time scouring news sites.

[MADem]

74. +1. nt

[Capt. Obvious]

97. /r/thathappened

along with the 4 Bernie supporters you flipped

[AtheistCrusader]

104. Oh bullshit.

" we are also told that by having 'last minute' small events, it kept the Sanders protesters away since they didn't have time to find out and mobilize."

If Hillary supporters can find out about it in time to show up, so can anyone else.
That's basically passive-aggressive trash talk, because it's meaningless in the real world.

[madokie]

118. She doesn't anounce

Hillary needs an out and by what you're saying here she has her out. Hillary can't draw a big crowd. How many made it to her official announcement way back in June of last year in New York, 5,000. 10,000, how many? It was no where near what Bernie draws in a one or two day advance notice in any state or city in this country.

Hillary will never be our president, that you can bet on.

[vintx]

15. This is gonna be one ugly GE if she's our nominee

[J_J_]

46. Ugly GE? Imagine if she wins- 4 years of Republican attacks, US going nowhere fast

House Republicans are already preparing to impeach her, and this time they have real evidence of corruption, not a bunch of BS.

I really cannot stand to watch our country fall further at this point, we really need to pull it together.

We have serious issues in this country that need to be dealt with, not more dog and pony show while they drain the remaining savings that any of us lower class Americans might have.

[NewImproved Deal]

127. Yes. She would be the weakest and most mediocre Dem Candidate...

...since Mike Dukakis.

[Art_from_Ark]

132. But Dukakis didn't have all the baggage

[Sparkly]

16. Trump gets big crowds.

So does Yanni.

[Attorney in Texas]

25. Yet Hillary cannot draw the crowds that Yanni draws: Cause for concern or sweep it under the rug?

[Cali_Democrat]

30. Yet Bernie cannot draw the number of voters Hillary can

That's why he's losing.

[Attorney in Texas]

39. She's won 23 states, and Sanders has won 19 states - let's see how Oregon and Kentucky go next week!

[Cali_Democrat]

40. And even if Bernie wins those states

he'd still be losing by every measure

- Pledged Delegates
- Popular Vote
- States Won
- Superdelegates

[Attorney in Texas]

49. Why reinforce Hillary's image as a dishonest liar with dishonest arguments? There isn't a vote total

(as you most assuredly know) because votes aren't totaled in many caucus states (and Sanders generally did better in caucuses where high information voters participate at higher rates and enthusiasm plays a bigger role than name identification).

She is ahead in pledged delegates and states won, but 8 states haven't voted yet.

Superdelegates haven't voted yet and they may (or may not) LEAVE HILLARY IN DROVES JUST LIKE THEY DID I 2008.

If you think the primary is over, you're in the wrong forum, and you should fly your "mission accomplished" banner in Kentucky and Oregon next week. Good luck!

[ContinentalOp]

111. It's easily estimated

Some caucus states do record vote totals, and for others we have estimated turnout numbers which can be used to estimate vote totals.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511949686

[Attorney in Texas]

113. Why is Hillary using the uncorrected vote totals if the real vote total is "easily estimated" to

correct for all the caucuses which are under-reported by the misleading numbers Hillary throws around?

It is this sort of misleading bullshit that has earned Hillary horrible assessments of her honesty and trustworthiness. As of May 10:.

Do you agree or disagree that Hillary Clinton is honest and truthful?

Disagree 62.1%
Agree 20.3%

[ContinentalOp]

114. Is she? Evidence? Link?

Which misleading number did she use and what's the actual correct number?

[Fawke Em]

51. That doesn't change the fact that she's a weak candidate.

[MADem]

75. She's won states with lots of people, he wins states with populations the size of small cities. nt

[Attorney in Texas]

92. Then you should proudly fly your "mission accomplished" banner and stay home next Tuesday!

[MADem]

98. I WILL STAY HOME NEXT TUESDAY!!! Are ya happy now?

Unless I have to take some nice little old lady to the doctor or the grocery store!


What would I be concerned about Tuesday, when I've already voted in a Commonwealth that Clinton won?


I notice that the further Sanders falls behind, the more his minions think they can turn the tide by making up stupid graphics like the embarrassing one you've slapped up, here. That kind of thing, you see "be like" .... really stupid. "Yo, ya feel me, bro?"



This one is particularly offensive, given the "urban" slant of the phrasing and spelling, and, of course, noting that the overwhelming majority of people who actually USE that phrasing and spelling routinely as part of the daily lexicon wouldn't vote for Sanders on a hot bet! I'll bet the creator of that stupid thing does not use those terms in HIS (oh, it's a HE, you can tell) everyday life. If he thinks he's "relating" he's not.

It's Bye Bye Bernie time. You're in the grieving stages at this point. Lashing out, denying, bargaining, posting clueless and tone deaf graphics that fall flat in an embarrassing way...none of it will make any difference.

A point in time will arrive when you have to decide--play the dog in the manger, vote for Trump or some loser just to "show THEM," or suck it up, realize you can't get everything you want--even if what you want is a grumpy whining man who says the same thing over and over again-- and vote to change American history?

Because with you--or without you--history will be made. You can be part of it, or you can stand over on the sidelines and shake your fist and mutter. Your choice.

[carburyme]

101. K N R

I will be part of history that's for sure

[Attorney in Texas]

18. Hillary is the Democratic version of Jeb! All status quo establishment; zero grassroots for change

[Sparkly]

20. You can keep saying that.

Doesn't make it so.

[Attorney in Texas]

23. Are you (1) disputing that Hillary = establishment or (2) arguing she inspires grassroots enthusiasm

You have a pretty overwhelming task in either event.

[chervilant]

90. hmm...

I could have SWORN I put you on my IL months ago...

[BillZBubb]

32. To be fair, jeb? has all the energy of a used up D cell.

Hillary at least has energy.

[Attorney in Texas]

44. Huma Abedin's candid emails admit that Hilary is "often confused," needs naps and frequently claimed

to be exhausted.





Do you THINK Trump is going to use these emails and 1,000 worse emails in the fall MAYBE?

[BillZBubb]

45. Well, I was comparing her energy to jeb?'s.

You've got to admit she wins that one.

[Attorney in Texas]

56. Hillary and Jeb are indistinguishable in several respects: energy level (if you believe Hillary's

closest confidante), foreign policy, immigration policy, support of "Patriot Act," support of fracking and offshore oil drilling, support of death penalty, support of KeystoneXL, etc.

I understand that he's a dude and she's a lady, he's a RINO and she's a DINO, but -- really -- don't you know that she would love to pick him as her VP and he'd love to jump on board?

[madokie]

121. I was watching something recently

and it showed Hillary stepping up on a stage, not a high stage but like maybe one or two steps and she was having a problem doing that.

[bigtree]

26. her crowds show up

...where they count, at the polls.

I like this type of campaigning, where the candidate is more accessible to actual voters, as opposed to those mega-rallies where the candidate preaches down from a podium a mile away. I think she's done this effectively throughout the campaign.

[KingFlorez]

36. Again, Hillary Clinton talks to people, Bernie Sanders talks at them

Sanders nags and waves his finger at his crowd about how right he is and how the rest of the world is wrong about everything. He hates retail politics.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand actually talks to people and listens. She is winning because she utilizes retail politics and listens to people. It's clear that her method works because she is ahead by millions of votes (and no, there are not millions of unreported votes out of caucuses for Sanders that would change that gap).

[BillZBubb]

47. She is ahead by millions of votes because she is the establishment candidate.

It has nothing to do with her puny crowd sizes or her phony "listening".

The brand name goes a long way, even if the brand is tarnished.

[KingFlorez]

50. Cheap, stupid excuse

Clinton has won more votes because she is had the better strategy to turn out her voters and they turned out in force. End of story.

[BillZBubb]

53. Sorry, but it is name recognition that got her a lead.

Plus the backing of the establishment and corporate donors.

[NurseJackie]

58. Hillary listens ... Bernie only hears himself.

That's the beauty of intimate gatherings and town hall type meetings.

[frylock]

64. Hillary listens to what?

Are there Q&As after these intimate listening events?

[reddread]

122. pink floyd

[basselope]

37. They look so enthused.

lol

[Tarc]

38. I know, right? The candidate with the biggest crowds obviously gets the most votes

Don't they?

[runaway hero]

48. Why does this matter?

It's the votes that count, not the rallies.

[Ed Suspicious]

57. It's the black boxes that count, not the votes.

Her campaign, evidenced by shit like this event, just don't pass the smell test.

[CentralCoaster]

59. What, 50-60 people? And to think that any event has 100 Secret Service agents, minimum.

I saw Bernie yesterday. Over 7,000 guests.

[pinebox]

60. It reminds me of this

[frylock]

65. Did she ride in on that trailer?

[MADem]

69. Who, Debbie Stabenow?

Speaking in Iowa, on behalf of Clinton?

Who won that state? Refresh my memory....



http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/sen-debbie-stabenow-d-mich-speaks-to-a-small-crowd-as-she-news-photo/484300116


I think it's kind of sad when people misrepresent pictures to try to gain advantage.

It makes me wonder why people would do such things, to create these kinds of false impressions? Why do you think someone would do something like that? Any insight?

[Ed Suspicious]

77. She rides a private jet. I wonder what her jet fuel to supporter ratio is at these rallies.

[MADem]

105. Debbie Stabenow rides on a private jet? Who knew?

That picture is of Debbie Stabenow.

It's pretty doggone amusing that y'all keep shopping it around like it's Clinton, trying to make fun of her outreach skills (in a state she WON, too--she who 's last, 's best, you see).

If sending in Debbie Stabenow on a trailer to speak with small groups of people is what it takes to win, she should keep doing it.

[MADem]

68. That's Debbie Stabenow, you know.

Probably, you don't know that.

If you did, and were passing it off as someone other than Debbie Stabenow, well, shame on you.

But it is Debbie Stabenow.

She was speaking on behalf of Clinton, who wasn't there. Oh....and where was "there?"

Why, IOWA. Who won that state? LOL!

So....whatever.





http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/sen-debbie-stabenow-d-mich-speaks-to-a-small-crowd-as-she-news-photo/484300116

[Sunlei]

66. Mrs. Clinton should do her hair like the woman on the right (the one who looks a bit like her)

open rally or ticketed for Oakland area supporters? Elementary School seems quite small for an open rally.

[MADem]

70. She doesn't do Megachurch Rallies. She never has.

She likes to talk TO people--not "at" them. A giant venue makes that kind of thing impossible.

They ask questions, she answers.

Look, I know Sanders' stump speech by heart. I don't learn anything new from appearance to appearance.

But Clinton? What she has to say depends on what questions people are asking her. You should try watching some of the live feeds of her town halls--you'd learn something. She is prepared--she understands state and local issues. She can and does answer questions with specificity, care and thoughtfulness.

[Sunlei]

80. I understand what you mean about their differences in campaign styles.

I like them both, I want them to team-up and unify the party.

[brooklynite]

67. I'm guessing that the "crowd" is made up of "voters"...

Perhaps Sanders should try looking for some. I take it that's part of the reason his CA Political Director quit.

[MADem]

76. His CA director did want to do that--but I guess Tad wants to continue on with the

wildly successful strategy used in NY and SC of TV ad buys (LOL) using ads that were crafted in-house (at no doubt a hefty price tag) by dear old Tad's little consulting business. I guess Tad's priorities aren't getting a GE nominee, but making payroll for HIS staff back in DC.

That silly CA director wanted to do voter outreach--what's WRONG with a fellow like that?



The Clinton campaign should call him in for a meeting!

[AzDar]

71. K & R

[amborin]

73. here's another! Probably 30 people!

[Bonobo]

78. Puppet show and Spinal Tap. nt

[reddread]

81. !

[bvf]

85. Nailed it.

https://m.

[BootinUp]

79. To be honest with you, when a politician starts drawing rock star like crowds

I get concerned.

Hillary wears out her shoes going to meet and talk to people. That's working for votes and for people.

[Warren DeMontague]

82. How come-

bad memories?

[BootinUp]

83. Here's a couple reasons

1) I'm not one to follow a crowd generally.

2) If politicians are dealing with issues in a serious manner instead of promising the moon, then there won't be those kind of crowds.

I am just stating my own thoughts on the matter. Its not a rule. As far as Obama, he was a unique candidate that created hype without a lot of effort on his part (I would suggest).

[Warren DeMontague]

84. I think enthusiasm generates crowds.

If Hillary were dealing with issues in a serious manner, you might have a point. But meaningless poll-tested pablum about "the middle class needs a champion" is not serious issue-dealing.

I'm not one to follow a crowd, either, but sometimes the crowd is there for a reason. Depends on the crowd.

[BootinUp]

86. What you describe as meaningless poll tested pablum, I would substitute

a plan to get elected and achieve goals in office.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. And I see a plan that is at least 20 years outdated or worse, coming from insulated beltway

poobahs who still think the key to the electorate is mythical fields of "soccer moms" or "values voters" (now combined into "megachurch moms&quot .. who don't grasp the fact that we are in a new century, and the rules of 1980s and 1990s political cynicism are no more applicable to today than the logic of prohibitionists or isolationists would have worked in 1964.

The GOP is not immune to this phenomenon; I mean, someone thought giving a crapton of money to Jeb! Bush was a good idea. Ooops.

The philosophical and electoral landscape has changed, and it becomes glaringly apparent particularly once you get west of the Rockies.

[BootinUp]

89. But it sounds like you don't know anything about her plan.

First off I would like to point out that she had one of the most liberal records in the Senate.

I would then suggest that the reality of her plan is that it is attractive to liberals and in many ways not that distant to Sanders.

It is certainly NOT a plan put out by a third way think tank. Nor is it similar to something we saw 20 years ago.

So, either you are telling the anti-Hillary spin that is so common, just because, or you haven't looked at it much at all.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. Look, man, I've marinated in politics for years. You can certainly accuse me of being wrong-headed

But you're not gonna be able to get me on not knowing what I'm talking about.

I've watched both her proposals and her campaign strategy; this cycle, as well as 2008.... which unfortunately she didn't seem to learn too many of the right lessons from. And it is the campaign strategy, the approach to politics itself, which is 20 or more years out of date.

I've also been observing Secretary Clinton for a long time. Believe it or not, I was once a big fan. I still don't dislike her, but frankly "one of the most liberal records in the Senate" is negated to my mind by things like the IWR, proposing flag burning legislation, "marriage is a sacred bond.." etc. etc.

I think any Senator who voted for the PATRIOT act should explain why it was sold to "fight terror" and has been used primarily to go after drug users; particularly if they are now asking for additional "special tools", like a manhattan project to make sure no one can encrypt their snapchats.

She "pivoted" right during the 2002-2006 years, it's pretty undeniable- to build up her cred on things like "national security" and to establish herself as a DC moderate and not the ultra-liberal she had been (incorrectly) portrayed as.

I didn't go looking for her to diminish in my estimation over those years, nor was I particularly susceptible to "anti-Hillary spin". It was her own performance and track record which accomplished that, nothing more.

I'll vote for her if she's the nominee- but my wanting her to win is part of the reason why I want her to start leading more- and that includes taking bolder and potentially controversial stands on things- and stop listening to the mutton-headed advisors who tell her to triangulate or go after creationist moms in Kansas, instead of coming 5 feet in the direction of Millennials, etc. to garner some real enthusiasm.

[MADem]

103. Good grief.

I stopped at "flag burning legislation." You say you marinate in politics? Well, you might want to preserve your brain in some of that marinade, because you're FORGETTING something about that legislation that was a "big fucking deal" to quote Joe Biden.

The GOP wanted a Constitutional AMENDMENT to outlaw flag burning. A fucking Constitutional amendment!!!! And they damn near had the votes to get that rolling!

The legislation that she crafted was -- in essence -- a bone thrown in the barn to a rabid dog, that enabled the farm hands to lock the rabid dog in the barn so it wouldn't harm anyone else.

Her proposed "legislation" CHANGED NOTHING.

It outlawed flag burning...on FEDERAL property. (But wait....it's illegal--and punishable with hefty fines and jail time-- to start fires on federal property ANYWAY).

It gave the GOP Senators something to vote on so they could go home to their states and SAY they voted against flag burning.

It was the purest political theater anyone could have asked for--it was brilliant. She bamboozled the damn Republicans. Never thought there'd be DEMOCRATS who couldn't see what the hell she was doing. Robert Byrd (he who waved the Constitution at every opportunity) found her "shenanigans" quite brilliant. She gave them a good dose of sound and fury...but it signified abosolutely NOTHING.

smh. The path from point A to point B is not always a straight line. Clinton's tactic of legislative distraction was sufficient to keep the Republicans following the shiny object that was a pointless bill that changed nothing, but it prevented passage of a Constitutional Amendment against flag burning, (who knows what a Scalia court would have done with that shit?).

Of course, in the tradition of "Let's Shit on It" DU, all she gets here is shade.


Again....good grief.


P.S. You might want to look at this, too--he's not a sage, possessed of unusual insight, he's a POLITICIAN who panders with the rest of them:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8FLYbegXp9JNENTR0pVelk3bHM/view

[Warren DeMontague]

106. Pandering. Plain as day, and the NY Times called it as such.

You don't stop a constitutional amendment by proposing an equally constitution-crossing law. There was no groundswell, no clamoring of "oh my god do something". She could have just stood up to the people trying to pass the amendment, which as any lawyer knows, is a pretty high fucking hurdle to cross.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/senator-clinton-in-pander-mode.html

(emphasis added)

Hillary Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill to criminalize the burning of the American flag. Her supporters would characterize this as an attempt to find a middle way between those who believe that flag-burning is constitutionally protected free speech and those who want to ban it, even if it takes a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, it looks to us more like a simple attempt to have it both ways.

Senator Clinton says she opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment. But her bill, which is sponsored by Senator Robert Bennett, Republican of Utah, is clearly intended to put the issue back before the current, more conservative, Supreme Court in hopes of getting a turnaround.

It's hard to see this as anything but pandering -- there certainly isn't any urgent need to resolve the issue. Flag-burning hasn't been in fashion since college students used slide rules in math class and went to pay phones at the student union to call their friends. Even then, it was a rarity that certainly never put the nation's security in peril.

[MADem]

107. Your assertion is entirely wrong. She DID stop that push for a Constitutional amendment in

its tracks. Her little "pander" did the trick. She did not WANT the amendment to pass, fachrissake. She thought it was stupid and unconstitutional--which is why she VOTED AGAINST IT (did you even read the damn link I took the time to provide for you?).

I read YOUR link--from the New York Times OPINION PAGE. smh! The blowhard that wrote that didn't even have the stones to sign his name. FEH.

Of course it's a "simple attempt to have it both ways." DUH! That was the damn IDEA.

You implied you were sophisticated about these things--silly me, I was taking you at your word.

She was gaming the system--giving those dickheads on the right side of the aisle something to CHEW on, so they would go away. This happens all the time. It would be nice if it didn't, but our legislature is dysfunctional--and the fault lies with the far left as much as it does the far right. Compromise is NOT a dirty word, even if some want to insist that it is.

Bottom line: It solved the problem. It avoided a Constitutional amendment, which might have passed. Best of all: It's not law.

As I said, it tossed a bone to the rabid dogs, it distracted them. They got to pretend they were doing something by voting for something that didn't pass, and everyone moved on, smartly to the next pointless exercise. But what she did was PREVENT a Flag Burning Constitutional Amendment, which would have sucked if Scalia, Thomas, et. al., had gotten a hair across their asses the day that case got heard.

I have a funny feeling you will learn some things from The Confessions of Congressman X, coming out at the end of the month. I really did think you were more aware of how the sausage got made--I guess I was mistaken.

[Warren DeMontague]

108. The same New York Times that has endorsed Hillary Clinton?

Here's Richard Cohen, in the WaPo. Apparently he wasn't afraid to sign his name:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401887.html

Last month Justice Antonin Scalia was politely quizzed by Norman Pearlstine, the outgoing Time Inc. editor in chief. The event, held in Time Warner's New York headquarters, was supposedly off the record, but so much of it has already been reported that it will not hurt to add Scalia's views on flag burning. He explained why it was constitutionally protected speech. It's a pity Hillary Clinton was not there to hear him.

The argument that this famously conservative member of the Supreme Court advanced -- actually, reiterated -- was that while he may or may not approve of flag burning, it was clear to him that it was a form of speech, a way of making a political statement, and that the First Amendment protected it. I could not agree more.

Clinton, apparently, could not agree less. Along with Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, she has introduced a bill that would make flag burning illegal.

Cohen calls this for what it is; not some brilliant 50-dimensional political chess move, but rather simply Hillary "modify(ing) her image if she's really serious about running for president."

[MADem]

112. Why in hell are you trying to pretend that the NYT--or the WAPO--of today are the same

entities that they were over a decade ago? There is a lot of water under that bridge, you know.

New owners, new corporate interests, completely different POVs. When Clinton was using parliamentary tricks to stave off a frigging Constitutional amendment, The Aspens Were Turning and Judy Miller was holding sway at NYT.

Her opposite number, Mr. Cohen at the WAPO, is part of the problem today--they LIKE division, they are enemies of compromise, because compromise is HO HUM, but division, hatred and screaming matches sells column inches.

Now you're just playing pick-pick-pick. Here's what you keep missing: She solved the frigging problem. And she did it over a decade ago, with no muss and no fuss.

Is there a Constitutional Amendment re: flag burning? NO.

Did her "both ways" stunt do the trick and satisfy the rabid right? YES.

Did her bone tossed at the rabid right become law? NO.

The result was what was wanted--all you're doing is carping about how she managed to achieve it, which is short sighted and not at all astute, to be blunt.

All a knock-down, drag out full frontal assault would have done is give the GOP the FIGHT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR. She DENIED them that.


smh. You have a nice evening.

[Warren DeMontague]

115. No, the Amendment was going nowhere, no matter what she and the Republican Senator from Utah did

it was pandering, pure and simple, just as saying that "marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman" was.

I hope it's not just the WaPo and the Times which "aren't the same entitites they were over a decade ago", know what I'm sayin'?

[MADem]

116. Are you kidding? It missed being enacted in 2006 by ONE VOTE

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/washington/27cnd-flag.html

And Clinton was there to tamp that shit down:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/washington/28hillary.html

You don't like her 'Stoop to conquer' approach? Too bad. Ariana Huffington didn't like it either--but no one gives a shit about her anymore. She's not all that and hasn't been for, oh, damn near a DECADE. FEH!

There's still no law, and there's still no Constitutional amendment.

And if you're REALLY opposed to "marriage being a sacred bond" pandering (wow, LOL-- QUICK pivot and subject change, there), you'd better talk to the former mayor of Burlington about that, too, because he--divorce and failed non-marital relationship that resulted in offspring not withstanding, said that shit first--and he even included LIFELONG COMMITMENT in his screed!

Here, we're gonna hold people to account for old shit from days gone by, let's do it:






https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8FLYbegXp9JNENTR0pVelk3bHM/view

Read that damn document. 1982, baby! 1982!!!!! Who signed "APPROVED?" It wasn't a Keebler elf!

OOOPS. Waaaah! Flip flop! Pander! IOKIYBS!

Please.

[Warren DeMontague]

117. Tamp Down? More like enable.

She didn't save us from anything. And the bar to get an Amendment into the Constitution is higher than just 2/3s of the Senate, as you certainly know.

So go ahead, keep trying to change the subject (BUT LEAVE ARIANNA ALONE! .....Pffffffffffft, I stumped door to door against her husband in his doomed California senate run. Arianna Huffington, indeed) to, you know, whatever.

[MADem]

120. LOL-you changed the subject, not me! Nice try--but fail. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

123. You responded to me, first.

I happen to think a document using the words "husband and wife" in Burlington in 1982 that was not written in the context of any debate over same sex marriage is at all equivalent to a flat-out answer of "no" in relation to a question "do you support New York legalizing Same Sex Marriage" in 2002 or whenever; nor is it equivalent to a statement "marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman" in 2005, again, in the context of the debate around same sex marriage.

Hell, using "husband and wife" as Sanders did in 1982 is not really very different than the "mother" and "father" indicators on federal forms Hillary Clinton was defending as recently as a few years ago, in her emails.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/01/hillary_clinton_on_gay_rights_a_new_email_is_troubling.html

[MADem]

124. There you go again--changing the subject one more time!

It's like a runaway TV remote, the way you keep flipping!

[Warren DeMontague]

126. I'm addressing the point you attempted to make.

You're just screwin' around, here.

Which is fine, if it keeps you entertained. But lets not pretend it's more than that.

[MADem]

128. No--husband and wife is NOT like mother and father.

They're not the same at all.

And the two documents have no relation to one another.

If I'm "entertained," you're the one on stage performing....

[Warren DeMontague]

129. Was the Husband and Wife Document produced in the context of any sort of conversation or debate

around Same Sex Marriage?

Because "Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman", was. And the changing of the Federal Forms from Mother and Father was likewise done specifically to accomodate Same Sex Parents.

[MADem]

133. A proclamation signed by the mayor is not a federal form. But you know that. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

134. That's not the question I asked, and I suspect you realize that.

If the Burlington Proclamation was made "to honor the institution of marriage", it might have been put out in response to a rise in the divorce rate, or something like that, which would make sense for 1982.

It's highly doubtful it had anything to do at all with Same Sex Marriage.

[MADem]

135. I can't read "for" you. Read the documents. A proclamation signed by a mayor is

NOT a federal form. That's not a response to a question, that's a simple fact.

[Warren DeMontague]

136. it's not a relevant response to Hillary's statement that "marriage is a sacred bond between a man

And a woman".

Because she made that comment in the context of the ongoing debate around gay marriage.

The thing you found from 82 didnt have anything to do with gay marriage, now, did it?

Speaking of "fail".

[MADem]

137. Sanders opposed marriage equality as late as 2006, so, "what-evs" as the kids say.

Speaking of "fail"

You're going rather far afield, you'll never find your way home.

[Warren DeMontague]

138. Well now that, at least, is a relevant response.

If not entirely accurate.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/10/27/sanders-defends-2006-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/

I personally make a distinction between saying "politically i believe we should wait a little while" which was Sanders' 2006 position in VT-

and "I am categorically opposed on philosophical (really, Biblical) grounds", which was Hillary's stated position in the Senate circa 2005.

But YMMV, as always.

[Octafish]

93. Crowd size doesn't translate into votes.

That's Premier Election Solutions' department.

[ThePhilosopher04]

125. THIS. +100

[Todays_Illusion]

95. Barbara Boxer is there.

[november3rd]

102. Hillary and Trump

They both must be getting sick of all this, especially being who they are.

[Aerows]

109. David Brock should have hired people to show up in person

instead of blowing a few $mill on internet trolls.

Trump is old hat at that shit.

I swear, some days Hillary acts like she wants to lose. I don't know why she gets in the way of herself - it's either pure arrogance or an incredibly wrong reading of the public in terms of photo ops/conducting rallies/generating enthusiasm.

[Bleacher Creature]

119. Remind me again of the size of Bernie's "lead"?

[Liberal_in_LA]

130. Stop it. We are on the same side

[BainsBane]

131. Bernie does crowds. Hillary organizes voter turn out

and she's got 3 million more votes. Enough said.

Those who see politics as spectacle and entertainment will never understand the importance of grassroots organizing. In fact, Sanders CA campaign director just quit because Bernie refused to devote resources to organizing and instead wanted them directed toward TV ads. Ads haven't won him elections so far, but they do generate a handsome 15% fee for the agency or individual who places them.

[J_J_]

139. Fighting for us

Slogan should be: Fighting against us, for herself