Ultimately, if Hillary has inspired dislike, distrust and even hatred, it is on her.

[Bonobo]

I really can't say it any more clearly or directly than that.

Call it the principle of karma, or whatever, but our actions do have consequences.

Even if you were to, irrationally I think, decide that everyone with a negative opinion of Hillary (and it looks like that is over 50% of the Democratic voters) was at fault for disliking her...

Even if you were to decide that the people that dislike her are vindictive, misogynistic, stupid, illiterate, uneducated haters...

It wouldn't change the brutal mathematics of this thing... You don't have over 50% unfavorables and win an election. THOSE numbers are reserved for someone that is already in office and has worn on people...

But mathematics aside, Hillary has bought her own ticket, taken her own ride... If you don't like where has arrived, too bad.

Here is where she is.

[JoePhilly]

1. "You made me hit you!!"

Call it karma, or whatever ...

[BlueCaliDem]

27. Exactly.

What silly reasoning by the OP.

[Fawke Em]

39. It's not the same thing at all.

Last edited Wed Sep 2, 2015, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Obviously, the actions or words of one person do not really control the actions of another. The person striking out made a conscious decision to do so. They control their own arms and hands.

But action isn't the same thing as emotion. If you consistently lied to me or acted in a manner that I found distasteful, then I have every right not to like you. I'm not hitting you. I just don't like you. My emotion isn't reaching over and sucker-punching you. It just means I won't hang out with (or vote for you, in this case).

"You made me hit you!" is aggressive.

"I don't like you," is passive.

[R. P. McMurphy]

96. ^^^ Exactly ^^^ eom

[pnwmom]

81. Yup. She has been hated since the day she said she didn't want to just bake cookies.

Last edited Thu Sep 3, 2015, 04:30 AM - Edit history (2)

After that, the Rethugs wrapped her up in whatever slime they were wrapping her husband in.

[JoePhilly]

125. Absolutely correct.

They've been smearing her since that exact day.

This is why the GOP calls something that upsets them a "scandal".

They say it over and over so that down the road, the details (and their failure to find anything) gets lost.

The "Scandal" is all people remember.

And sadly, some on the left have now adopted all that RW smear nonsense as if it were truth.

And then call it "Karma".

[senz]

132. I liked her after she said she didn't want to just bake cookies.

And I liked her as First Lady. When she moved to NY to run for Senator, I was surprised but tried to withhold judgment. But her behavior during the 2008 campaign made me not like her. And haven't liked her since.

So it's not just "baking cookies."

[eridani]

138. I'm fine with her not baking cookies. Being diabetic, I don't do it either

And I'm fine with her keeping her name after marriage--like her I did it in 1970 when people still asked if it was legal to do that. And I think taking her husband's name to avoid political flak was a perfectly reasonable compromise. I don't think that compromising on bank regulations is a good compromise at all.

[jwirr]

97. A political campaign is much different than what you

are suggesting. A campaign is the attempt to gain the approval and the loyalty of the party. It is the responsibility of the candidate to earn this approval and loyalty.

The OP is correct. If she is not gaining in the party it is her responsibility to work on that. It is not something she has just because she is a candidate. Or even the leading candidate.

She cannot hide away from the public. And she cannot gain approval and loyalty by refusing to speak plainly regarding where she stands on issues. The public want plans not open ended speech.

She also cannot win the approval and loyalty of the public by playing the numbers games - super-delegates, dividing the races just to gain votes, endorsements by party bigwigs, etc. This is going to be an issues race. Anyone who does not want to play will fail and it will be their own fault.

That may have worked in the past but it is not going to work now. Voters are waking up.

[SidDithers]

112. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[NanceGreggs]

2. Of course, she brought it on herself.

Having the RW smear machine aimed at her for decades had absolutely no impact on anyone's opinion or perception.

[Fred Sanders]

5. The joke is on the ones believing the mass media is not out to get Hillary....head, meet sandbox!

12% GOP controlled Congress approval....12% Hispanic approval for the GOP runaway front runner...not news!??

[Armstead]

20. The mass media is out to get ratings

They just want sensationalism and stupid stuff to keep pounding home to get ratings. They don't have an agenda of which candiodate they want to elect.

If Donald were caught in love nest with a chimpanzee, that's be covered for weeks on end 24/7. They;re not exactly going out of their way to make Bush look good.....

[Fred Sanders]

21. Making Bush look good is the plan after a week of trying to make Cheney look good. They can do it. Word:

Trump.

[BlueCaliDem]

36. No. The mass media are out to get another Republican in the White House.

To believe it's "just about ratings" is to willfully ignore the 2012 Pew Research study. They proved that in 2012, U.S. M$M gave Rick Perry the most favorable news coverage early on, and sitting President Obama the least favorable coverage (second only to New Gingrich).

During the bruising Republican primaries, again, President Obama got the least favorable news coverage. U.S. M$M gave Mitt Romney the most favorable.

Howard Kurtz 04/23/2012:
Overall, it was no contest. From Jan. 2 through April 15, Romney’s coverage was 39 percent positive, 32 percent negative, and 29 percent neutral, the researchers found. Obama’s coverage was 18 percent positive, 34 percent negative, and 34 percent neutral. That means Romney’s depiction by the media was more than twice as positive as the president’s. So much for liberal bias.

Figures don't lie, Armstead.

[Armstead]

45. The Mass Media is not monolithic

That's the thing. You'll find people of all political persuasions in there on a personal level.

As a "left" Sanders supporter, I feel the bias too.

But its a bias towards lowest-common denominator Enfotainmaint. Shallow. Scandal du jour stuff, regardless of who it is.

They highlight Clinton's problems because it makes for good "reality TV"

(I do not include Fox in that. They are an arm of the GOP.)

[BlueCaliDem]

56. Actually, it is. Only SIX corporations own over 90% of what we hear, see, and read.

90%+ makes anything pretty monolithic by any standard.

But its a bias towards lowest-common denominator Enfotainmaint. Shallow. Scandal du jour stuff, regardless of who it is.

The above is just part of the strategy by the rich and powerful to control the masses. It's known as psychological operations.

Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare

Give the masses brain-killing infotainment and word all reporting in a way that forms the opinion for the listener, watcher, and/or reader. If an informed citizenry is the foundation of a democratic government, then a misinformed citizenry is a danger to it and, I believe, to themselves.

[arcane1]

103. And 2016 will be their most money-making year ever, thanks to Super-PACs and unlimited funds

Ka-ching!!

[BlueCaliDem]

128. We need a Congress to curb that corruption. We need a SCOTUS to overturn C.U.

And we need a Democratic President to do it; one who will appoint progressive justices to replace the projected four SCOTUS justices (Bader-Ginsberg, Breyer, Scalia, and Kennedy) in the coming decade. We can't afford to lose the White House now or it's only going to get worse for us under the Roberts Court and if we allow a Republican president to appoint successors.

SCOTUS is my prime objective. This country needs a Democrat in the White House forever more, but at the very least, for the next twelve to sixteen years. No way will either Kennedy or Scalia remain on their posh seats for that long period of time. They'll have to retire or keel over in their seats a la Rehnquist. Either way, they're on their way out and we need to ensure a Democratic president appoints their successors.

[Armstead]

108. I'm well aware of that....and have been for decades

It's a disgrace, and should not have been allowed to occur.

And that's one of the many reasons I support Bernie over over Hillary and the whole Corporate Democrat Status Quo. Sanders has been opposing the media consolidation since the 1980's, while the Democrats eitehr ignored it or aided and abetted it. And he fought against Bill Clinton's 1996 Media Deregulation that basically handed over what was left of independent broadcast media (and much of the related Internet) to those corporate Robber Barons.

The Democrats have been best friends of Big Corporate Media for years. They only discovered it -- and downplayed it -- after the horse was out of the barn when Bush was president. Before then, not so much. Since then, not so much, although a couple of bad things were stopped by the Obama administration after enormous public (and industry) pressure.

But I don't think Big Media Corps are engaging on "psy-ops" as a monolithic cabal por some larger political goal. They simply want to make as much money as possible. Whether its a Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush in the WH is not of much concern to them. They do their buying and selling behind the scenes with campaign bribes.

[BlueCaliDem]

129. That was then. This is now. Maybe Dems back then were too complacent. Maybe they liked big money,

too. But times have changed since 1996. The nineties was a time of anti-gay everything. It no longer is, is it? Times have changed and the people's attitudes have, as well.

Still, in order for there to be change in national policy to re-regulate U.S. media, we need a Congress to work with the president. I don't see that happening with Bernie Sanders. He has no allies in Congress. Nothing will get done under a President Sanders administration.

[Armstead]

130. Of coure nothing will get done. That's been the mantra for years about everything

Sanders was absolutely correct about the Media Deregulation legislation. And guess what?

That doesn't mean he was a rocket scientist. It means he applied some fricking COMMON SENSE to realize that lifting ownership caps, at a time when the media had already become far too concentrated was, er, not in the best interests of the nation.

That was plain to anyone who paid attention. Bit did the Democratic "centrists" do anything about it? Noooooo. That was either political cowardice, ignorance or corruption. No excuse for any of that.

And unfortunately, that was just one issue in which a common pattern could be seen.

Yes times change. But do we really want to turn to the same people who helped to create the mess to solve it?

[BlueCaliDem]

133. With a President Sanders, it's a guarantee nothing will get done.

He doesn't have the allies he needs in Congress, and as far as I can tell, he's not interested in making any.

Sanders was absolutely correct about the Media Deregulation legislation.

That's water under the bridge now. Shoulda, woulda, coulda is a waste of time. We shouldn't be looking to the past, to mistakes made twenty years ago, but toward the future in order to rectify them. We should look at the trend President Obama has set as he worked through Congress to get rid of DOMA and DADT (instead of issuing a dangerous E.O. that was a temporary fix; something the Left shouted that he should do), and use that tactic to get rid of C.U.

I'm happy with Hillary Clinton's statement for campaign finance reform. It tells me she's for it.

Holding her first official campaign event at Kirkwood Community College in rural Monticello, Clinton identified campaign finance reform as one of several pillars of her 2016 presidential campaign.

"We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all -- even if it takes a constitutional amendment," Clinton said in opening remarks at a roundtable event with Kirkwood students and instructors.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/04/14/hillary-clinton-says-she-would-support-a-constitutional-amendment-on-campaign-finance-reform/

I'm certain Joe Biden, Martin O'Malley, and Bernie Sanders feel the same way. We need to have a campaign finance reform bill that can actually pass Congress and a president who has the allies to push it through. Amending the Constitution is NOT feasible in this antagonistic political environment, although it's a feel-good bit of rhetoric.

Appointing SCOTUS justices when the four rumored to leave actually do leave, and then getting them confirmed through a hostile Senate Judicial Committee is key to the end of C.U. and the return of Section 4 of the VRA. New lawsuits could be filed to challenge the constitutionality of Citizens United and then we can right the wrong the Roberts Court has done, overturning it. It's the quickest and sure-fire way to undo those disastrous rulings.

[Armstead]

135. I disagree with your characterization except to say...

Sanders is not as antagonistic as you seem to think -- and the GOP will be gunning for Clinton, so i don't think yo should assume she'd be any more successful.

As or the rest, we probably share a lot of basic goals, but I just don't see the DLC types changing their spots when it comes to really challenging the Big Money Oligarchs.

[BlueCaliDem]

143. We can agree to disagree, then. But here's a vid that supports what I claim.

When Bernie Sanders is confronted by a heckler at a townhall meeting in VT last year, he lost it and became antagonistic. It's all caught on video.

But a little intro first.

At that townhall meeting, as the conflict in Gaza was happening, Bernie Sanders began by saying he thinks he believes Israel “overreacted” in its offensive against Hamas and was “terribly, terribly wrong” in its bombing of UN facilities. “On the other hand,” Sanders said, “you have situation where Hamas is sending missiles into Israel,” adding that those rockets are often originating from populated areas.

Note: The Israeli campaign killed around 2000 Palestinians, most of them non-combatants. Gaza rockets, most of them are tiny high school science projects, land mostly uselessly in the desert. Over the past decade, those Gaza "rockets" have killed 44 Israelis. 2000 Palestinians > 44 Israeli. There is no excusing this disproportionate use of military force by Israel.

As members of his audience began to shout out their opposition to his statements, Senator Sanders responded, “Excuse me! Shut up! You don’t have the microphone.”

I wonder what Bernie Sanders supporters would have said were it Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton telling the townhall audience to "shut up"?

Under the YouTube poster's vid she adds: (Published on Aug 17, 2014)

Town hall meeting in Cabot VT: an angry & defensive Bernie Sanders defending Israel's shameful bombings of #Gaza - and then tries to distract and deflect (and he says he isn't a politician) by "this isn't the only problem in the middle east - have you heard of ISIS?"
Shameful showing.
He called State Police on 6 protestors, and clearly has a "me and all the rest of you" attitude that folks outside of VT rarely see (quotations marks added for clarity and bold are mine)

Start at 3:25 for the beginning of the antagonistic shouting match. Watch the entire video for context, though. But you can't deny he was being antagonistic rather than trying to calm the room.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=211&v=Vf2cCdgwgoM

[Armstead]

144. I'll agree to disagree on that too

He was trying to answer a question, and there were people in the crowd who did nit want to hear the answer, and wanted to talk over him. He got impatient and angry that they kept trying to shout over his answer. But I don't think he "lost it." He didn't storm off the stage and he continued trying to answer the question. He was forceful but calm, considering the circumstances.

And people in the northeast tend to be, er, demonstrative when they get their back up. I live here. This is everyday stuff.

You don't like his personality? You prefer Hillary's way of handling hecklers? Fine don't vote for him.

[BlueCaliDem]

147. Okay.

[cali]

66. I believe own eyes and ears and brain.

[pinebox]

68. Really?

Are you kidding me? It has. She has an overall negative perception among American's. It would be wishful thinking if you honestly think the RW "smear campaign" hasn't had an impact on her overall image.

[CanadaexPat]

93. They've gone after Obama to little effect.

The thing with Hillary is, there's some there there. Even if it's just Bill lying about Monica, there's enough Clinton history to give GOP insanity just enough possibility of being true for people to buy it.

[DanTex]

3. And, if Democrats prefer Hillary to Bernie by a large margin, that's on both of them.

Call it karma, or whatever but our actions have consequences. The consequences of Hillary's actions have made her a heavy favorite to be the Democratic nominee, and a slight favorite to be the next president. And, for whatever reason, Bernie's actions have made him an underdog to win the nomination, and almost no chance at becoming president.

Just the way the cookie crumbles, I guess.

[DonCoquixote]

4. as much as I have antipathy for Hillary

We cannot deny that the Billion dollar machine has done a lot, is doing a lot, and will keep doing a lot to ensure people dislike her.

The problem is, Hillary shoots herself in the foot a lot, and some of us suspect that is because she has not told the web of Democratic campaign politicos, the same people that lost her 2008, to bugger off!

Let's give an example...suppose she decides to add more debates, giving Debbie "I lost two midterms" Schultz a heart attack. What will Debbie do, accuse Hillary of being anti-woman like she planned to do to Obama? Accuse Hillary of being anti-Semitic like she tried to do to Obama? No, people will see that Hillary is willing to give a slap to people in the name of principle, which is EXACTLY the appetite the GOP wants trump to feed. Instead of being the hyper calculator, Hillary would show she can can a tooth cracking, jaw-busting left hook as hard as anyone else.

[Armstead]

23. I tend to agree -- Clinton doesnlt help hwr case by being "above it all"

She could do a lot for hr imge, I think, by agreeing with the other candidates that more debates are needed and sooner.

It''s kind of a simple thing, that would help her credibility. Bit she doesn't think of such things.

[A Simple Game]

100. Oh, I'm sure she thinks of such things, and does what she thinks is best for Hillary.

What is best for Hillary is her primary concern and I don't see that changing even if she is elected President. Just one of the reasons I can never support her.

[Fred Sanders]

24. Comparing the GOP war on women to terrorists war on woman was not a left hook to the jaw?

And what was the reaction of the mass media to that?!

"Get Hillary" is the name of the game.

[Armstead]

48. That was clumsy on Clinton's part

Her point may have been valid, but she expressed it in a heavy-handed crude way that alienates a lot of middle voters by equating it with terrorism.

[Fred Sanders]

50. So Clinton just needs more training on how to properly bait the media and land a political punch....like Trump?

Back to my point...that was a left hook to the jaw.

Maybe she will get better.....now that we agree she did throw a heavy, albeit, unskilled punch?

[Armstead]

53. I would hope at this point in her life and career she would not need training

The point of the OP was that she brings on a lot of animosity unneceessarily.


But people who support her keep touting her experience and "electbility." if so, she should be able to land punches skillfully without any help.

Not to harp on the otehr Sanders (Bernie) but he knows how to make extremely strong points, without making them seem like gratuitous personal attacks.

[Fred Sanders]

57. Sanders does not attack anyone but those needing attacking, and none of them has been Clinton.

[Armstead]

60. Prsonally I think Sander's approach is a possible solution to the "What's the Matter with Kansas"

question.

Whether Bernie or someone else...

He channels the righteous anger many people feel about a system that is screwing them and their neighbors. But he focuses it on the systemic problems and issues.

He doesn't demonize people who disagree with him. He doesn't even demonize the 1 percent as people. "I believe the Koch Brothers are absolutely sincere. But I happen to think they are wrong and their policies are destructive."

That, IMO, is likely to make people who may have specific disagreements on some issues to be less defensive, and at lest receptive to listening.

[Fred Sanders]

62. 100%.

[The Green Manalishi]

75. Bernie seems to attack the IDEA, not the person

And I like that.

I think it hurt us when we progressives attacked GWB as a person. His ideas and actions were as vile as those of any political leader of the last half dozen odd decades, but like Reagan, attacks on the man seemed to backfire.

Trump, of course is in a different category, something more akin to celebrity, televangelist or other huckster and seems to be judged by those standards, rather than with the scrutiny that Hillary and Bernie receive.

Hillary is not naturally warm and sincere; that isn't an insurmountable obstacle, not even for a female politician (cf Thatcher) but it is a factor, and one that has and will be used by the opposition.

I think the American people want (the appearance of) competence. They want someone who has succeeded at something else already. Hillary has SOS and Senator, Bernie has Senator (and a very distinguished record for being on the right side of history and reality more often than pretty much anybody else).

I agree with Bernie: Hillary is a good person, she is mostly right about policy, she would make a fine President; but she is very wrong on some very important things and if she wants the nomination she has to respond to those of us who are NOT on the same side as Wall Street or the MIC and address our concerns.

[onehandle]

6. The GE is 14 months away. The primary is in 5 months.

The only absolute at this moment is that Hillary is far ahead in the polls and is universally predicted to win the nomination. She was nowhere near this strong at this point in the 2008 primary.

But, whatever.

[Fred Sanders]

30. At this point in the 2008 primary media campaign, I believe Clinton was ahead of Obama in Iowa and it was tight in NH.

Amnesia is not a good thing to have.

Let me help:

?w=610&h=477

[onehandle]

37. When did they rename The United States of America 'Iowa?'

I've said from the start that Hillary could lose one or two states.

But that's it.

[Fred Sanders]

41. Clinton's national numbers are even stronger than her Iowa and NH very early numbers.....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

[cali]

69. any loss demonstrates her weaknesses

[onehandle]

76. Yeah. Like that Obama guy back in 2008.

What ever happened to that guy anyway?

[AgingAmerican]

95. Unlike Obama

There will be no 'bait and switch' with Bernie. No RW trojan horse.

[BlueCaliDem]

46. Yes, but let's not forget that Obama got more delegates than Clinton. It made all the

difference, and it secured him the nom.

Although Hillary Clinton received more in popular vote (18 million to Obama's 17.6 million), she got under 100 less delegates than Obama. He had worked hard to get those delegates, and eventually won the nomination.

To date, Bernie Sanders has failed to get a single delegate.

Hillary Clinton has already locked up 60% of the super-delegates, which puts her 1/5th of the way to locking down the 2,246 delegates she'll need in order to win a majority at next year’s convention.

[Fred Sanders]

49. Hence the gnashing of teeth over those "unfair" Democratic Party rules well known for years.

[BlueCaliDem]

58. That's something that has me scratching my head. It's always been this way and the best

candidate won. Why change now?

[frylock]

67. People aren't gnashing teeth over those "unfair" Democratic Party rules well known for years..

People are cautioning super delegates that are clearly in the tank for Clinton that if Sanders wins a majority of primary elections, that it wouldn't be wise for them to ultimately decide who the candidate should be. What people are "gnashing of teeth over" is the exclusivity clause, which is not a Democratic Party rule well known for years.

[1939]

105. In 1972, Humphrey had more popular votes in the primaries than McGovern.

McGovern won because the true believers steamrollered the convention states with superior pre-organization.

[BlueCaliDem]

127. Yes, but in 1968 through delegates, Humphrey won the Democratic nomination just as Obama

had done in 2008 despite Hillary Clinton having a higher number in the popular vote (18 million to Obama's 17.6 million).

Unfortunately for Bernie Sanders supporters, there will be no repeat of 1972 in 2016. Times have changed. Demographics have changed. As I've listed many times here at DU, Hillary Clinton has received the endorsements of 103 Dem U.S. Reps, 30 Dem U.S. Senators, and 7 Dem Governors - including the endorsement of Governor Peter Shumlin of Vermont (back in May), and she enjoys the support of 70-80% of African-Americans and 73% of Latinos/Hispanics.

That's not to say that she's got this primary in the bag. Far from it. Anything can happen. But the number, at this moment, are on her side.

[Armstead]

51. Direct comparisons are not valid -- John Edwards

With all due respect to Martin O-Malley, the early primaries were a more crowded field, and strongr three-person race with Clinton, Edwards and Obama. This the vote splits can;t really be compared to today.

[Fred Sanders]

52. Which was kind of the point of my response!

[Armstead]

54. Maybe you and I agree more often than it seems to me

I dunno. Players and scorecards. If I misinterpreted you, my apologies.

[Ed Suspicious]

94. "Universally predicted to win the nomination." I don't think "universally" is the right word.

[NRaleighLiberal]

7. and sometimes you can have a preference for one without dislike of the other choice

I admire both Bernie and Hillary. Both are so far head and shoulders above what the other side is considering it is not in the realm of calculation.

It's just that this nearly 60 something originally New England born very liberal gardening fellow, and his family, are finding deeper resonating with Bernie's principles - but I would happily accept - welcome! - either - as our next president.

And you can add Biden and O'Malley into that as well.

[HappyPlace]

31. O'Malley especially.

He's really been swinging and hitting the right notes.

I'm a smidge more for Bernie, though.

[Squinch]

99. This is my thinking. We are sitting in the catbird seat here, with two good

candidates, either of whom I will vote for happily. Especially given the Republican field.

We should be glad about this, but it seems like people like this OP are determined to make it a war, which weakens the Democratic position.

[NRaleighLiberal]

113. I think that most people seem to like to fight, squabble, thrive on drama and conflict.

The internet is like a catalyst. It's not my way at all - life is too short to spend so much of it riled up.

[Squinch]

115. On another note, I thought of your photos when I bought some beautiful

heirloom tomatoes at a stand this weekend!

[NRaleighLiberal]

116. I spent much of the morning sorting through my plants - some thrive still

some are gone - but having live, often healthy, producing plants in Sept is rare for me in Raleigh. Tonight -ratatouille with our peppers, eggplant and tomatoes. We are going to miss our garden produce when it's gone, that's for sure!

[Squinch]

117. Sounds great! I bought so many of the tomatoes that I'll have to use quite a few for dinner tonight.

I'll miss the produce too.

Peaches here this year were fabulous too.

[Fred Sanders]

8. 12% for Congress, 12% approval of 60 million Hispanic voters, at least, for the GOP frontman.

Where are those headlines, sir?

Stay focused, the mass media is no friend to any Democratic Party candidate.

What, you think the otherwise unprofitable corporate mass media CEO's pining for all that CU cash to keep them afloat another election cycle will give Sanders/Biden/anyone else a pass?

That is dangerous and unhelpful thinking and it is no longer a thing at DU.

Try to keep up, do not fall into the media web. If you do then few here at DU, if my math is correct, are coming to the rescue.

12% for Congress, 12% of the Hispanic vote...even Teabaggers would likely vote for anyone not GOP for actual President, not a poll, when poll comes to ballot.

P.s. Bernie detests the mass media as much as Hillary...are they both wrong?

[OKNancy]

9. Glaring error in your post - Her favorability among Democrats is 80%

"What's more, among fellow Democrats, Clinton boasts a higher favorability rating of 80 percent to Biden's 70 percent. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/02/hillary-clintons-image-is-struggling-but-shes-no-donald-trump-or-jeb-bush/

[Romulox]

10. People dislike her, because she stands with the powerful, monied class against the rest of us. nt

[Gloria]

12. But Sanders talks like he did 40 years ago BUT is firmly

in the present when he turns on his efforts with Ron Paul to audit the Fed and goes with a watered-down version to protect the system...

http://popularliberty.com/7697/ron-paul-flashback-bernie-sanders-watered-down-audit-fed-bill

In other words, Bernie is in the game, too, when he wants to be...

[Maedhros]

89. Can't listen to video on this computer...

...but I'd suggest that maybe Bernie's side of the story is a bit different than Ron Paul's.

[Gloria]

101. They had the bills ready for the Senate and the House

They had worked on them for months, and then Sanders abandoned his side of the bargain.

So, as a Bernie person (?not sure if you are) do some research...blind faith is not the way to go on anybody...including Sanders.

[Maedhros]

110. I'd certainly like to see Sanders address this.

I don't refute the facts of the situation, I'm just cautioning against taking Ron Paul's word on it exclusively.

[Gloria]

118. The video is worth seeing...he cites the bill numbers and

Is trying to get people to contact Congess. He wasn't hostile but disappointed after months of working on with Sanders.
I am not a Paul person, but do understand his concerns on economic issues. I found this link in a thread on a marker site.

It was H.B. 1207, Senate 604.

By his sudden switch Sanders decided to go against transparency that many groups wanted, including progressives, transparency into what the Fed does with foreign Central Banks, Wall St. etc. SO, who got to him??? Moe importantly, WHY? What was given to him, what deal did he get out of it? It could have been something good, but what could that have been?

I have really focused on the rigged system and my bigger concern about Sanders is that his wonderful sounding ideas just won't fly given the debt and global growth issues which will be with us well into the future. You really have to have your ecomic house in order...save money, cut unecessary expenses to protect yourself.

I may break this out as a separate post....

[Maedhros]

119. I'm of the opposite position: business-as-usual will not work.

I like Sanders' plans for reinvesting in American people and infrastructure.

We are literally transferring trillions of tax dollars from public coffers into private defense contractors' accounts, all to fight a never-ending 'war' against an ever-changing enemy. It's a scam, designed by PNAC and perpetrated by both parties.

If we stop giving away trillions to the defense industry, we can actually fund public works projects that will provide good-paying jobs and give us a tangible benefit.

[Gloria]

121. Unfortunately, this will not happen...

Really, I'm a very liberal person at heart, but I am facing reality. Our economy is subject to the Fed, IMF, World Bank, etc.
Everything is intertwined.

I actually added a thought to my original post...why did Sanders suddenly abandon his bill? Did he figure it was less important than the subsequent bigger bill that came out of Congress? I mean, what deal was cut, if any?
Later, the bill was resubmitted but I don't know the outcome of that....in any event, the original chance seems to have been lost in murky stuff. ( House 1348, Senate 513 were the later bills.) Paul's video was about the first bills, that were lost in the shuffle of bigger politics....
I tried to find the later bills' but could not come up with anything other then it had to start again with some co-sponsors. I'm assuming it just died.

That's why I wish people would spend more time learning about what's going on and really take more steps in their private lives to help themselves. No politician, not even Sanders, will really be able to change this big picture. The Dems can only make adjustments around the edges in the system the way it is set up....Even the BEST of them has compromised. And so has Sanders!!

[Maedhros]

122. "Whether you say you can, or you say you can't - you're absolutely right."

I know many Democrats who believe as you do: the transition from Republic to Empire cannot be halted, the best we can do is to eke out a few more years of relative prosperity before everything falls apart.

This is undeniably true as long as Democrats continue in this belief.

[Gloria]

123. But it's not just Democrats that change this...

I think what ultimately will change things...PERHAPS...will be a total economic collapse.
But..the top will be well-protected, the small fry will be creamed.

So, even that type of event probably won't be a solution.

That's why I grow a garden, store some food, keep cash on hand, etc etc. It's a feeble attempt at self-sufficiency, at least for the short term.

Thanks for this conversation that is actually interesting and non-hostile!!!!!

[Maedhros]

124. "Stop fighting" is not much of a rallying cry.

I'll be voting for the candidate who is ready to fight for us - Bernie Sanders.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Her favorabilities among Democrats is 80%

Even if you were to, irrationally I think, decide that everyone with a negative opinion of Hillary (and it looks like that is over 50% of the Democratic voters) was at fault for disliking her...

Her favorabilities among Democrats is 80%, ergo

http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1144a51ClintonTrumpBushBiden.pdf

PG 4



BTW, I hope you and your compadres hate me too, lol.Thank you.

[Romulox]

15. That's probably not good enough to win the Presidency. You guys keep forgetting that the Primary is

only the first step.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Yet she leads all her presumptive GOP opponents and Trump and Bush are more underwater.

BTW, I hope my last sentence in the post your responded to is abundantly clear.

[Romulox]

19. No, she loses to various Republicans in several polls. Again, it's self-delusion time. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. NO, SHE DOESN'T

. No, she loses to various Republicans in several polls. Again, it's self-delusion time. nt

NO, SHE DOESN'T.


And I am not delusional, pal.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html


Again, I hope you read the last sentence in the first post of mine you responded to in this thread, lol.

[Romulox]

28. LOL. It works better with your fingers in your ears!

Ali wasn't a sucker puncher for the powerful, afraid to insult a man to his face (check another thread for an insult to you!!!!) A less fitting choice of avatars I have never seen.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Keep insulting me, pal.

LOL. It works better with your fingers in your ears! Ali wasn't a sucker puncher for the powerful. A less fitting choice of avatars I have never seen.

You made a silly claim which I easily refuted.

Keep insulting me pal...

Oh, you don't get to choose my heroes...One of the many reasons Ali is my hero is because my uncle was a professional boxer and my dad was a Golden Gloves boxer and I have boxed many times myself.

[Romulox]

33. Will do! nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. I am sure you will... It's easy to do over the internet.

I am sure you will continue to disrespect me over the internet. It's easy to do...


Even someone of your intelligence and understanding can make the correct inference from the above statement.

[Romulox]

38. LOL. An internet tough guy! You're too much. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. There isn't anything I have ever said to anybody on the internet I wouldn't say in person.

38. LOL. An internet tough guy! You're too much. nt

There isn't anything I have ever said to anybody on the internet I wouldn't say in person.

That proposition is easy to test.

Oh, and please re-read the last sentence of my seminal post in this thread.


Thank you for reading.

With love,
DemocratSinceBirth

P.S. Love them insults.

[Romulox]

71. Internet threats are still gauche, even if you style yourself a "real life" tough guy. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. I wasn't threatening anybody.

I merely stated I don't use the cloak of anonymity to insult/disrespect virtual strangers.

[Romulox]

80. Of course not. You're *far* too clever for that. But you gave me such a hint! nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. The hint was that I don't use the anonymity of the internet to gratuitously insult virtual strangers

The hint was that I don't use the anonymity of the internet to gratuitously insult virtual strangers with gratuitously being the operative word.

[Romulox]

85. And yet here we are! nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. Yes, a modicum of respect for your interlocutor is a good thing

Yes, a modicum of respect for your interlocutor is a good thing, in real life and in anonymous forums.

[seabeyond]

13. i jsut expressed myself here. now, granted, i only read you title.

seabeyond (103,856 posts)
11. clintons unfavorability. i have not weighed in. but i have decided. i am not concerned.

any democrat is gonna have the stage in 2016. all the people are looking for.... i believe, the majority and not fringes, reasonable.

not too fuckin much to ask. we do not want a beer, or rally, or jump on a ship teabagging.... we are hiring an employee. that is it.


the primary always heats up both the party within and all of repug. that is a lot of the political world. and thankfully, that time is limited. most are not even following primary. most. are not following primary. they wait for their two choices.

they will not even start listening until the two choices are provided.

it feels like, clinton obviously recognizes..., being so much smarter than me, and oh, having played this game for decades (yes, authentic sanders too) .... that this is the inevitable. keep eyes opening if an issue needs addressed, otherwise ignore the insults and get to work

so, strategically, what did she do? during this time she has quietly and rather positively set up a base and structure to win the primary, .... statewise and nationally. that is where she is spending her time. personally, i think it is smart. kinda keeps her out of the fray. you know.... 3/4 or less of the political world.

i figure she will jump in once the debates start and three months out...... three months is more than enough time for sander supporters... repug, .... to come at her before the vote. what they are itching for. and i gotta tell you, as a woman wife and mom.... ya know. let 'em. play it smart. base, then a sigh, walk out, let them do their worse, and kick ass

then i think, if she wins, and a part of the two decisions for president? she will be able to really get into the campaign, and most of the people are looking to see which is reasonable. and will be fine with clinton.

conclusion. she has about 5 more months of unfavorable, and then she can move on.

anyone else?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=565587

[Autumn]

14. I like Hillary, I just don't want her in or near the White House. I don't trust her to put my needs

first over the bankers and Wall Street. I base my distrust of her on her past actions and in some cases she has shown very poor judgment. I supported her in 2008 because I wanted a woman President in my lifetime but her time has come and gone and I have no interest and I am not vested in defending her from her own actions any longer. I won't vote for more of the same, we need and deserve better.

[pinebox]

74. You said it!

Well stated and said. If you look back to say 18 months ago, HRC was still defending DOMA. Sorry, I'm not supporting or voting for a DINO.

[LuvLoogie]

16. Isn't this like your 10th anti-Hillary post this week?

[Romulox]

17. Truth hurts...a LOT.

[Fred Sanders]

42. Word:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

[Fred Sanders]

26. I only count 9.... But of course all one is doing is forwarding the messages of "messengers".

Sometimes the messenger deserves to be shot along with the message.

[Faux pas]

22. Yep it's that old

reaping and sowing thing.

[Le Taz Hot]

29. Nailed it.

She CAN'T win with negatives like that. And those negatives continue to climb. That's NOT going to change even if she "wins" (with lots of help from the DNC and super delegates) the nomination, she won't win the General. The "who else you gonna vote for" worked for a few election cycles but people are fed up and it just doesn't work anymore. She would LOSE the General. The Democrats HAVE to have someone else representing them or this country is forever screwed.

[HappyPlace]

34. The country has "Hillary Fatigue" and will never elect her to office.

She might win in the primary but if she does we are fucking toast in the general.

Her name recognition won't save her, and her hard-core supporters are but a sliver of the electorate pie.

She has no message that hasn't been worn into the ground and sounds staged, and her baggage can not be overcome.

We need a Bernie or a Martin or else we will be screwn.

[Armstead]

55. That's a good way to say iot "Hillary Fatigue"

I think she reestablished a lot of goodwill and acceptance when she got out of "politics" and became Sec of State. Among the majority of the public (including many of us who oppose her in the current race) we cold appreciate her better qualities, and her baggage was less important.

But when she steps back into the ring, all of the negatives also reemerge. And for many people they remember everything back to the "What Is Is" days, and just sigh and say "I'm really not up for all that stuff again."

[HappyPlace]

59. What's more....

Her gig as SOS looked good on the surface but there was a whole lotta "statecrafting" going on that favored global energy interests over the will of the people.

Between that and what was going on with aspects of the Clinton Foundations just doesn't look right, even if nothing unethical was going on.

Her only hope, and the campaign strategy, is to stay away from open mics and unscripted questions and appearances and keep pushing the memes that are safe: women, families, children, etc., because she's weak on things like minimum wage, banking reform, defense, etc.

I'm optimistic that Bernie will overcome the money against him, and/or O'Malley.

[MisterP]

83. plus Honduras, Libya, and the runup to Yemen and Syria as SoS

[SoapBox]

77. Yes to the fatigue.

There is Bush burnout...there is Clinton burnout...but Hillary burnout tops them all.

Currently she has been virtually hidden from the public, hosting private money raisers and "invitation only" "conversations"...if and when she becomes public, millions and millions of voters will remember why they sort of dislike her all the way up to hate her.

She cannot and will not win the Presidency.

[Fred Sanders]

43. Another word:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

[liberal N proud]

44. So I take it you hate Hillary

Let me say that post like this are not going to do anything to change anyone's mind.

[jalan48]

47. Wait until the debates-Hillary's numbers will really tank then.

She's just not exciting or charismatic. It's unfortunate but many people are swayed by those two factors, Obama has both and excelled against the Republicans. Hillary is more in the Mondale/Dukakis mold and we know what happened to them.

[jeff47]

63. It's no so much "on her" as "her problem to solve"

If people see her as untrustworthy, she has to build trust. It can't be fixed by people saying "You are wrong to think she's untrustworthy".

Clinton in NH in 2008 would be unstoppable. But she never went back to that person. She was her old, "cold", political persona when she lost IA, she showed herself between IA and NH. She won NH. Then she reverted to the old persona for the rest of 2008.

She's still using the old persona. 2008 NH shows she can be a better candidate. But she's apparently not willing to take the risk.

[world wide wally]

64. I have to say that right now, I am leaning toward Bernie strictly for his policies.

However, I would be proud of voting for Hillary if she wins the nomination. Unfortunately, from what I see in here, the Republican slime machine has even Democrats thinking that Hillary is the enemy. I refuse to fall into that "groupthink" mentality, and I would suggest to those of you who see her as "the enemy" take a much closer look at the reality of what is going on.
Like it or not, we are all in ths together.

[JDPriestly]

65. I'm talking to voters in Southern California.

When I mention Sanders, they don't say a word about Hillary.

Not for, not against her.

Her name does not come up.

What I see is faces lighting up when I say Bernie Sanders.

What I hear is, "I agree with him on" either everything or just about everything.

I hear, "He says what I say," "He speaks for me."

This election is beginning to shift away from what is wrong with Hillary to what is right with Bernie. People just aren't thinking about Hillary at all because they like Bernie so much.

That is what I am seeing and hearing.

Of course, Southern California is very blue.

But this race is not about Hillary. It is about Bernie and his ideas.

[L0oniX]

70. I'm starting to feel sorry for her...

NOT! Fooled ya!

[Darb]

72. What an enormous crock of shit.

Yeah, right, she is just exactly like the rest of us. Except for the fact that the CIC has been lying about her for two decades.

[WI_DEM]

73. I have no candidate yet, but the media comes down on HRC every day due to that silly thing

about e-mails and people ask why her negatives go up. On the other hand the media by and large ignores Bernie or write about his huge crowds and things like that--and so his positives go up. Ultimately they will--especially if he wins NH--come down just as hard on Bernie as they do on Hillary and his negatives will also rise.

This is what the media does.

[DrBulldog]

78. Talk all you want about Bernie's and Hillary's credentials . . .

. . . but I want all of you to stare at this fact: Last summer Hillary received $1.6 million for delivering speeches for the Canadian energy industry.

Think about that. Let it mull awhile in your brain . . .

[kath]

92. Hmmmmmm....

Veddy intareshting
(Add Arte Johnson pic here)

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

84. Voter Turn out in the General Election is what will really matter

no matter if it is Bernie, O'Malley or Hillary or Biden or...?

There is no doubt what so ever Bernie is INSPIRING and Motivating individuals to turn out and donate money and time to him, currently more then any other candidate.

I am of the option that if Bernie is not the Democratic Party Candidate in the GE, voter turnout will be low, really low, potentially historically low.

Except for FEAR, fear of a lunatic like Trump winning. The RW will turnout for Trump but will the people turn out for Hillary to vote against Trump to vote for her? I don't know but in my gut people won't, it will be a repeat of the midterms.

People who don't follow politics like baseball box scores are tired of what has been going on for over 30 years now and just may stay home because to them it does not really matter who is elected because there will be no change for them.

Low voter turnout is what the TPTB, 1% and GOP wants so the issue will be how can Hillary motivate voters to turn out besides FEAR?

Anyway that is the way I see things now.

Feeling the Bern..............

[Renew Deal]

86. Do you also blame Obama for the kenyan muslim stuff?

Hatred blinds

[Scootaloo]

111. Funny you ask!

Then, as Obama marched toward the presidency, a new suggestion emerged: That he was not eligible to serve. (See: Birther debate alive across U.S.)

That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.

“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/birtherism-where-it-all-began-053563#ixzz3kbRRVGcV

The idea of going after Obama’s otherness dates back to the last presidential election—and to Democrats. Long before Trump started in, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, recognized this potential vulnerability in Obama and sought to exploit it. In a March 2007 memo to Clinton (that later found its way to me), Penn wrote: “All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared toward showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting it in a new light,” he wrote. “Save it for 2050. It also exposes a very strong weakness for him—his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values.”

Penn also suggested how the campaign might take advantage of this. “Every speech should contain the line that you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century,” he advised Clinton. “And talk about the basic bargain as about [sic] the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child, and that drive you today.” He went on: “Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t … Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds [of campaign events].”

Penn was not a birther. His memo didn’t raise the issue of Obama’s citizenship. Furthermore, he was acutely aware of the political danger that a Democrat would court by going after Obama in this way, even subliminally: “We are never going to say anything about his background,” he wrote. Still, his memo is the earliest example of a strategy that metastasized. The Republican tactic has been to make explicit what Penn intended to be merely implicit—and then carry it to its furthest extreme. Soon, the belief spread among many voters that Obama had been educated in a radical madrassa, that he was secretly a Muslim, and, finally, that he had not even been born in the U.S.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-05-30/the-democratic-roots-of-the-birther-movement

Both of those stories comport with what we here at FactCheck.org wrote two-and-a-half years earlier, on Nov. 8, 2008: “This claim was first advanced by diehard Hillary Clinton supporters as her campaign for the party’s nomination faded, and has enjoyed a revival among John McCain’s partisans as he fell substantially behind Obama in public opinion polls.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/was-hillary-clinton-the-original-birther/

[Fumesucker]

142. Well played..

[stupidicus]

88. well, you simply can't have the "paper of record" after you and yours

for decades without struggling with perception management.

when all is said and done however, I think your assessment rings true for the most part. Her numbers dipping into negative territory likely has far more to do with those educated dem voters that disapprove "knowing" the real HC in all the ways they can and that matter.

Predictably (because it's a given and part of the political landscape) the "liberal media" hasn't been the bff of BHO, and if anyone has provided input into creating negativity about her, it would be them and NOT the rightwingers. Thise that assert that are simply trying to stifle dissent with the "you're just like the rightwingnut!!!!" turd they don't even try to polish....

[progree]

90. Only Latte-driving, Volvo-sipping white elitists hate Hillary

or something like that, I guess.

[Nay]

91. To be fair, though, both of the Clintons have been hounded mercilessly by both

the right wing nutjobs AND some elites of both parties who thought they were uppity rednecks from Arkansas. Lots of the shit that has been flung by both groups has stuck, rightly or wrongly. I don't know what you can do about the fact that decades of baseless lies end up as truths in the consciousness of the brainless public. That's how propaganda works.

As a Bernie supporter myself, I don't hate Ms Clinton. I don't think she'll be much more than a timid placeholder if she's elected, however. That's not what I'm looking for, thus Bernie. But I also don't think it's going to matter much with respect to our climate challenges which one is elected; the neocon structure of this country will disable any real change.

[Squinch]

98. So if someone dislikes and distrusts you, Bonobo, you accept that as being your own fault?

You know, because of the karma and consequences and all that?

[AgingAmerican]

102. Like or dislike tends to be personal preference

But trust is earned.

[Squinch]

106. Again, the premise of the OP is that if people dislike or distrust Hillary, it is her

fault because of Karma.

If someone dislikes and distrusts you, do you accept that as necessarily being your fault, resulting from Karma and the consequences of your actions?

[AgingAmerican]

107. If someone doesn't trust you

You more than likely did something to make yourself untrustworthy. Schmoozing with banksters, for example.

[Squinch]

109. So you agree with the OP that when someone dislikes and distrusts AgingAmerican, they are

necessarily correct and you just have to accept that you are untrustworthy and unlikeable.

[Bonobo]

146. I never said they were correct

That is your simplistic thinking. What I said is she is responsible.

Reflect on the difference.

[Squinch]

148. .

[JI7]

134. in this case just look at those who hate her, and yes i mean the ones who hate

not disagree or even just don't like her. i'm not a huge fan of hers but the ones who do hate her turn me off so i know it's them not her .

[saiyo]

104. Just an issue of personality?

Does reflect on something deeper, i have to say.

[Metric System]

114. Blah, blah, blah.

[Puzzledtraveller]

120. My position is that not everything against her

is part of a vast right wing conspiracy. There is too much, and blaming it all on some conspiracy or claiming it's all much a do about nothing is putting your head in the sand.

[HassleCat]

126. Blaming the victim (eom)

[senz]

131. But wait -- she inspires shameless flattery from her email correspondents

except Cheryl Mills, according to a Politico read of her emails, published yesterday --

The only person who says no to Hillary: Cheryl Mills' tart emails stand out amid the shameless flattery of other Clinton aides.

That posture stands in great contrast to the sycophantic praise, or deferential pose, that many of her staff and outside allies used when communicating with Clinton.

It all stands in stark contrast to the tone that many longtime Clinton confidants use with her — like former White House counsel Lanny Davis, who wrote a groveling email to Clinton in September 2010, asking if she might speak to the American Lawyer for a profile the publication was writing on him.

“I hate to email you too much and to ask you for any favors,” his email began. “I feel as if I am taking advantage of a great privilege that you allow me to send you a personal email every so often.” He adds, “Aside from Carolyn, my four children, and my immediate family, I consider you to be the best friend and the best person I have met in my long life.”

And a few more examples in the article...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/cheryl-mills-hillary-clinton-aide-213242

So you see, Hillary has lots of adoring friends.

[applegrove]

136. Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi. Mean anything to you?

I guess not. And that is telling.

[eridani]

137. She inspires nonoe of that in me. What I don't like is her policies n/t

[Major Hogwash]

139. She's got a ticket to ride, but she don't care.

She punched her own ticket a long time ago . . . to nowheresville, man.

[Scuba]

140. I liked her - a lot - when she was advocating universal health care, but when she ...

... made her speech advocating for war I started disliking her, a lot.

Once I learned where she stood on TPP, fracking, H1B Visas and Wall Street I knew that she did not represent my interests in any way.

[Bonobo]

141. For me, her sociopathic statements like "We came, We saw, He Died!" reveal her true self.

And I will freely admit I do not like it. But there is so much.

Here is an example of something not important, but also revealing.

[Katashi_itto]

145. K&R!