Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
hgc said:
I don't recall it as being particularly nasty. Yes, they fought tooth and nail, but I remember it as generally respectful. Mostly I remember becoming annoyed that she and her spokespersons were spinning a tale of unreality about her path to winning the delegate count, long after that horse had already fled the barn.

The 3 AM phone call? Child's play.
Click to expand...

Stuff like this:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-hillary-clinton-nevada-union-20150503-story.html

My memory is fuzzy on other specifics beyond the general campaign attitude. Most of this stuff came out late into the primaries because of how dragged out it became. Hillary chased the nomination back then almost to the bitter end and for a few months where it was apparent that Obama was going to win the nomination. I don't think it was quite as harsh though as a few people have already suggested
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Hillary chased the nomination back then almost to the bitter end and for a few months where it was apparent that Obama was going to win the nomination.
Click to expand...


I hope no one will think this sounds like a conspiracy theory but doing that was healthy for the eventual Democratic nominee. Even though that might seem like it would be the opposite at first.

And they both knew it.

It's the same with "Pro" Wrestling and with Rap Music. :) Having a feud gets eyeballs on newspapers. (It gets people interested, maybe even active.)

And the die-hards for both sides may say they will never vote for the other, but when it is all said and done and it is between the other guy and the Republican... they switch.

I'm not saying she didn't still wish she could win, or even still want to win, but she was bright enough to know during those last few months what the future held. She was helping future President Obama get those eyeballs.
 
This is The End said:
I'm not saying she didn't still wish she could win, or even still want to win, but she was bright enough to know during those last few months what the future held. She was helping future President Obama get those eyeballs.
Click to expand...


I don't remember it that way. I'm lucky enough to know a few very, very well-connected Democrats, including some so-called super-delegates. They were prepared to vote for Clinton at the convention. She may well have been able to turn that into a win. It would have been a win that alienated a lot of primary voters, but she'd have gotten the nomination.

As far as I remember, she was very seriously courting super-delegates right up until the end. I don't think it was to help Obama get attention; I think she wanted to be President.

In the end, she made the right choice to keep the super-delegates out of it and preserve the primary system. Obama, for his part, made the right choice in appointing one of the hardest-working policy wonks in the party as his Secretary of State.

And I made the right choice chopping up blue cheese, bacon and tomato with just a touch of vinegar for my salad tonight. So, really, everybody wins.
 
Myron Proudfoot said:
as noted earlier, that's a myth. It was started on the rightwing site Free Republic. A small handful of Hillary's online supporters tried to run with it but it was about 99% right-wingers trying to insist he was born in Kenya.
Click to expand...
The infamous PUMA PACWP

And FWIW, once Hillary admitted defeat and started backing Obama, those supporters immediately jumped ship and began supporting Palin. They came up with some fairly creative conspiracy theories to explain why Hillary, whom they viewed as a shoe-in for the nomination, backed down.
 
varwoche said:
Please quote the part that supports your assertion.

This much I know: Clinton's campaign secretly released a picture of Obama in Somali garb, initially denied releasing it, then admitted it while pretending it was innocent. It was slimy and disgusting, and that's one reason I didn't vote for her.
Click to expand...

And why I am not now. If I had no choice, or if she wins the nomination, yeah I will feel compelled to vote for her but not in even the slightest way happy about that decision or confident that she won't screw things up royally.
 
BenBurch said:
And why I am not now. If I had no choice, or if she wins the nomination, yeah I will feel compelled to vote for her but not in even the slightest way happy about that decision or confident that she won't screw things up royally.
Click to expand...

I see nothing at this point which would compel me to vote for HRC, nor do I see any means that she could convince me that she is progressive and would consistently aim Left, even when forced to compromise. Given that, I will do as I've said, I will support Bernie. If he is eliminated from the running, I will cast my top of the ticket support for whoever the Green or progressive party nominates, and tailor my down ticket choices based upon individual policy preferences as I have always done. I am not alone in this there are a lot of progressives who will not support HRC (most of whom have said that they will sit at home before they would vote for Hillary). Most of the people I know that support Hillary, are tepid at best in their support,...she is not generating excitement or enthusiasm about her run for the presidency, at least not in any of the western states where I have spent much time over the last several months.
 
I've donated to Bernie's campaign but in the likely event that Hillary wins the nomination I will certainly vote for her in the general election. And frankly, I think that any Bernie supporters that would not do the same are fools given that she will be significantly to the left of whichever GOP clown she runs against. I'm sure Bernie himself would much rather have her be elected President than a Republican.

The future of the Supreme Court alone should be enough reason for anybody on left to vote for her given that it is perfectly possible that the next President will select four new Justices.
 
Tony Stark said:
I've donated to Bernie's campaign but in the likely event that Hillary wins the nomination I will certainly vote for her in the general election. And frankly, I think that any Bernie supporters that would not do the same are fools given that she will be significantly to the left of whichever GOP clown she runs against. I'm sure Bernie himself would much rather have her be elected President than a Republican.

The future of the Supreme Court alone should be enough reason for anybody on left to vote for her given that it is perfectly possible that the next President will select four new Justices.
Click to expand...

Trouble is that many of Bernie's supporters are not Democrats and would vote third party or not at all were Sanders not running. I don't think we can get them to vote for HRC under any circumstances.
 
BenBurch said:
Trouble is that many of Bernie's supporters are not Democrats and would vote third party or not at all were Sanders not running. I don't think we can get them to vote for HRC under any circumstances.
Click to expand...

I know I wouldn't. I am sick to death of the cancerous New Dems, and their neo-liberal, corporatist agenda. If Sanders gets the Dem nod, he gets my vote and my campaign dollars. If Clinton gets the nod, she doesn't get a penny from me, and it's Jill Stein in the general.

Granted, I am from Massachusetts and due to the electoral college my vote won't really count, but it is the principle of the thing.
 
Random said:
I know I wouldn't. I am sick to death of the cancerous New Dems, and their neo-liberal, corporatist agenda. If Sanders gets the Dem nod, he gets my vote and my campaign dollars. If Clinton gets the nod, she doesn't get a penny from me, and it's Jill Stein in the general.

Granted, I am from Massachusetts and due to the electoral college my vote won't really count, but it is the principle of the thing.
Click to expand...

Of course that electoral college bit causes some problems, doesn't it? I would support Bernie, and probably also Hillary, given the alternatives, and since I'm not as much of a Hillary hater as some, but as a Vermonter, my vote is essentially symbolic. We grow our crunchy hormone free treats for export.
 
Will Hilly and Billy retire in Hope?

…Though Republicans dismiss Mrs. Clinton as an outrageous partisan, her campaign rhetoric contains hints that she, too, is thinking about how to work with opponents. For sure, her standard stump speech is full of attacks on “out of touch” Republicans, and Democrat-pleasing lines about gay marriage, climate change and gun control. But at the Grover Cleveland Dinner in New Hampshire she gave a more sorrowful than angry account of arriving in the Senate in 2001, as George W. Bush proposed steep tax cuts that favoured the wealthy. Rather than call Mr. Bush’s move wicked, as Mr. Sanders might, she framed it as a missed opportunity. She listed bipartisan policies she had hoped to see passed: from shoring up the solvency of Social Security and Medicare programmes for the old, to investing in education, medical research and science. Alas, Republicans had a different approach, she sighed.

Turning to the future, Mrs. Clinton called for repairs to America’s crumbling infrastructure. She dropped hints that she might means-test new benefits for the elderly and called for “more competition” in the health-insurance market, even as she vowed to defend Obamacare. Those are all centrist priorities.

“I know how to find common ground, and I know when to stand my ground,” Mrs. Clinton said in New Hampshire. That can be hard. History recalls Grover Cleveland’s first term as an exercise in frustration, as he used veto powers against Congress hundreds of times. But as a pragmatist, Mrs. Clinton knows that the middle ground is the only place she will get anything done.
Click to expand...
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ill-face-hostile-congress-reality-shaping-her

This is what insured that Obama would never much accomplish anything near what he and his supporters aspired to. He spent most of his administration reaching across the aisle to people who were only elected because they promised to spit in Obama’s face regardless of what he offered. In addition, these were populists in tea-party heavy districts eager to live their elected mandate. Now, Hillary is determined to follow Obama's blueprint toward right-leaning dysfunction, because it is who she is, and she learned the wrong lesson from 2007-08.

This yearn to reach right, is why she is not the least bit interesting to Progressives.
 
We Can All Stop Pretending That Hillary Clinton Hates Goldman Sachs Now

We Can All Stop Pretending That Hillary Clinton Hates Goldman Sachs Now
http://dealbreaker.com/2015/11/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-war-warrenistas/#idc-container

…With Hillary’s nomination more of an inevitability than ever, many on The Left are looking for something of a smoke signal from Camp Clinton that it is serious about cracking down on the evil banks. As the idea of a Joe Biden insurrection becomes but a memory, and Bernie Sanders begins his inexorable fade, the Warrenista Wing of the Democratic party will become borderline desperate for Hillary to make some dramatic show of loyalty to party over friendly financiers.

But Hillary Clinton is not a liberal. She’s a Clinton…

…So, let’s ask the real question: Why would Hillary restrict herself to selecting from a pool of mostly career public servants when she could pick from people who actually know what’s going on? You know, the people in the corner offices that have been writing checks to her and Bill for all these years…

…Basically, this next phase of the “Is Hillary Clinton TOO Close To Wall Street?” narrative seems to be presenting new ideas on an old theme, but unfortunately they seem to be as dumb as they’ve always been.

Hillary is very close to Wall Street, and everyone on the left will just have to accept that because she’s the only game in town.
Click to expand...

This is what a HRC administration looks like to progressives. Corporatism with conservative-lite seasoning. If she wins, she will operate as though she has a mandate to do things her way if the left doesn’t like it, what are they gonna do, vote Republican?
 
Trakar said:
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ill-face-hostile-congress-reality-shaping-her

This is what insured that Obama would never much accomplish anything near what he and his supporters aspired to. He spent most of his administration reaching across the aisle to people who were only elected because they promised to spit in Obama’s face regardless of what he offered. In addition, these were populists in tea-party heavy districts eager to live their elected mandate. Now, Hillary is determined to follow Obama's blueprint toward right-leaning dysfunction, because it is who she is, and she learned the wrong lesson from 2007-08.

This yearn to reach right, is why she is not the least bit interesting to Progressives.
Click to expand...
Already nothing has gotten done and polarization is at record levels because one or both sides have enabled it, and you're arguing in agreement that behaving like the perceived problem source is going to solve the problem? That sounds to me like a position in politics that invites even worse conflict... I get wanting to push a progressive agenda, but too many purebred forms of these policies can cause problems. To deal with congress you really need to sway people's opinions so they don't vote the whackos in, in the first place.

ETA: I agree she's int the bed with corporatists she criticizes so much. But if Sanders wants my vote he needs to show he can do his stuff without completely alienating half of the country forcing some his ideas.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom