This message was self-deleted by its author

[guillaumeb]

This message was self-deleted by its author (guillaumeb) on Mon Jan 2, 2017, 03:51 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. And the alternative is a republican who would make Hillary look like Mother Theresa

It is called the gray area of the real world.

[guillaumeb]

2. like Mother Teresa?

nice image, but can we not try to change what is possible in this shared construct that we call the real world?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

3. Like a god damn saint who would not legalize discrimination

[jeff47]

7. Oh no! Every other Democrat has been killed?

No? You mean there are other people who could actually run in an election? Boy, that's a relief.

[libdem4life]

4. She did not handle the email non-issue well. I cringed throughout the entire speech.

All she had to say was, it was legal and common back then. This "two gadget" faux pas was embarrassing and not becoming of someone looking to be President. And I think it was her first "campaign" speech...forced, at that. But, then again, it's easy to be Monday Morning Quarterback.

[guillaumeb]

5. agree about Monday morning quarterbacking

But even if we accept the "first campaign speech" theme, HRC has been in the public eye as First Spouse, Senator, and Secretary of State. She is not a novice running for the Town Council in Wasilla Alaska.

Plus the issues raised in the article are far more serious than the non-issue of email. Her hawkishness raises the question of her foreign policy outlook and what real change an HRC Presidency would represent compared to a GOP hawk.

Besides, compared to the 5 million emails that the Bush Administration deleted, HRC's email matter is a tiny deal.

[libdem4life]

6. Agreed. It forced her out defensively and it didn't need to...that was my point. I'm feeling

a bit better about some Primary action. But, we must win 2016 and the worst Dem is still better than the best Rep.

[guillaumeb]

8. true. but why do progressives often have to settle

for "still better than" an increasingly crazy GOP?

[libdem4life]

12. My best hope for turning the tide our way is Julian Castro as VP. It won't happen overnight.

[guillaumeb]

17. I must confess I did not recognize the name

already found 2 very nasty articles about him on right wing hate sites so I will do more reading. If you have any links I would appreciate them.

[libdem4life]

23. You'll quickly see why the right wingers hate him/them.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/julian-castro-san-antonio-mayor-history-latino-give-keynote-speech-democratic-national-convention-article-1.1151371

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/about/principal_staff/secretary_castro

He's a twin...Joaquin is a Texas Representative. Their mother, Rosie, is to me an amazing person and why I feel they have so much political, ethical and First Hispanic Family potential.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/From-political-matriarch-the-sons-also-rise-3905913.php

[guillaumeb]

29. thank you.

[misterhighwasted]

33. Mine as well. He would disintegrate Jeb's play for the Hispanic vote.

Castro is squeaky clean & the GOP doesn't have enough billions of dollars to defeat the DEM ticket with Castro's name on it.
I am sure they would be out en masse slinging made up mud & boxes of nails, & immigrant fears & guns & gods & gays & flag waving.
Their game is in lies. But the RW will never win 2016 with Castro just standing there smiling at the crowd before him.
He is loved & smart & kind & articulate.
They should fear a DEM ticket that includes Castro's name.
If they are already speaking his name, be certain that they fear him.

[libdem4life]

35. That's why I posted his Mom's bio...they are the epitome of the American Dream, especially for

immigrants. And Obama just brought Julian to DC...reportedly to start his national education. And we know that Keynote Speakers at Conventions are often on their way up.

A real Tejano will definitely bring out the Hispanic vote ... young and old ... for the Democrats.

[misterhighwasted]

37. Agree. Thanks for bringing his name to the conversation.

I enjoy your posts.
Hopefully we will be hearing more about him.

[libdem4life]

40. Thanks

[great white snark]

14. Progressives "settle", Progressive Democrats vote for whoever earned the nomination.

It's understood when you join the party. Don't like it that's fine but I'd suggest not joining an organized political party if you feel that way...you're just setting yourself up for constant disappointment.

[jeff47]

20. Yeah, look how the Tea Party has had no effect on Republicans. They do nothing but settle.

It's just always the way that everyone settles for the mainstream candidate. Yep. That's always what has to happen.

[guillaumeb]

22. I am not disappointed in that sense

but I hope for better and will always vote for the best AVAILABLE candidate.

[jeff47]

9. And before the speech, she kept reviving the story.

Story comes out -> News media talks about it, notes Clinton did not release a statement about it -> Republicans sent a letter to Iran?!?! -> Clinton releases statement, derailing Iran story -> story starts dying down again -> "I'm gonna hold a speech and press conference!!"

Some times, it's important to shut the fuck up.

[libdem4life]

13. That would have been the best of all options. It surely did provide cover for The Repub Letter.

She barely mentioned it...it was all about her.

[tritsofme]

10. What a bunch of nonsense. Do you agree with the article that Obama and Clinton are war criminals?

[guillaumeb]

11. I did not write the article

so I cannot defend it, but drone strikes against civilians fall in the range of "collective punishment" in my view. And collective punishment and targeting of civilians are war crimes.

Killing Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, both civilians, qualifies as extrajudicial killings. Unless both were tried, convicted, and condemned by a secret court.

What is your view?

[tritsofme]

15. So your answer is yes? Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are war criminals?

My answer is no. This administration has acted within the law using legitimate presidential authority in matters of war and peace.

[guillaumeb]

21. only the Internationl Court at the Hague can answer that.

and only after a trial. Which would never happen because the US will not recognize the legitimacy of the Court as it applies to US actions.

Does any President have the authority to violate International Law and signed treaties? I am not a former lecturer in Constitutional Law but even I know that the answer is no, he/she does not.

[villager]

24. Well as long as it was *within the law*, because that's all that matters during war time!

Never mind how malleable "the law" is during such times.

What were those crazy judicial fucks at Nuremberg even thinking, anyway?

[tritsofme]

26. So now you are equating President Obama and Hillary Clinton with Nazis?

Completely unhinged.

[guillaumeb]

27. not the Nazi comparison?

I think what was meant was that Nuremberg established certain standards for conduct, even in war.

[villager]

30. I am saying there's a long standing tradition -- in America -- of "the law" not being an excuse

for atrocities during wartime.

By making it an excuse, you, actually, are saying that was espoused in tribunals like Nuremberg was... wrong.

[bvar22]

16. How much influence did Hillary have in the disaster of joining a Civil War in LIbya?

Turns out, quite a bit.
She pushed for this war that destroyed the country that had the highest standard of living in North Africa, and help AlQaeda gain another failed nation.
In Libya, we fought FOR that same people we are fighting AGAINST in Syria.



Great work for the largest vendor of weapons in THE WORLD.

[guillaumeb]

18. great point

but when war is always the ultimate answer what can be expected?

What every colonial power does, we do. What Russia did in Afghanistan, we did in Iraq, Iran, Libya, and on and on.

[FSogol]

19. Unrec. You Better Believe it!

[oberliner]

25. Socialist Worker?

Yes, I would imagine that would be their take.

[guillaumeb]

28. when one cannot argue the facts or alleegations

try and impugn the source. Works for many.

[Thinkingabout]

31. Facts you don't have is the number of people which was not killed by the terrorists. Of course this

may not be important to some.

[guillaumeb]

32. I am unsure of your meaning

please explain

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. But..but..we're supposed to overlook those crimes as mere faux pas and support her

because she can WIN!

She's the ultimate Not as Bad candidate that requires that we forget the dead and take a deep breath before holding our noses as usual.

[guillaumeb]

36. harsh

but difficult to disagree. And the dead have no voices here. Except when we remember them.

I cannot understand how many can excuse crimes by THEIR side that they would condemn if committed by the other side. At least be consistent in your principles.

[Oilwellian]

38. Neoliberal foreign policy is brutal

We have got to stop electing Third Way "Democrats," (I always thought that was an oxymoron) into power. From your article:

Back in the U.S. government's self-declared "backyard," Hillary Clinton had been more than willing to support the ouster of the democratically elected president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, in 2009, overthrown by right-wing golpistas. The Center for Economic and Policy Research's Mark Weisbrot wrote:

The homicide rate in Honduras, already the highest in the world, increased by 50 percent from 2008 to 2011; political repression, the murder of opposition political candidates, peasant organizers and LGBT activists increased and continue to this day...

Despite this, however, both under Clinton and [Clinton's successor as secretary of state, John] Kerry, the State Department's response to the violence and military and police impunity has largely been silence, along with continued U.S. aid to Honduran security forces. In Hard Choices, Clinton describes her role in the aftermath of the coup that brought about this dire situation...Clinton admits that she used the power of her office to make sure that Zelaya would not return to office.

"In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary [Patricia] Espinosa in Mexico," Clinton writes. "We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot."

[BainsBane]

39. If you voted for Obama, you voted for that troop surge

Last edited Thu Apr 2, 2015, 01:51 AM - Edit history (1)

He campaigned on it. Claiming it was now Clinton's doing is disingenuous. Every single one of us contributed to it by voting for Obama. How about people start taking responsibility for themselves for a change instead of vilifying Clinton?

The shocker: An American Secretary of State promoting US dominance around the globe, like every other since WWII. America is an empire. That must be a woman's fault. How dare she implement the policy of the President we voted for? She should have single handedly dismantled the American empire, like Kerry is doing, right? Oops. Not so much.

The level of dishonesty in many of these arguments against Clinton are astounding. When people twice vote for a policy that they then turn around and blame someone else for, they don't deserve to influence anyone's vote.

I get that the main goal is to keep Clinton from becoming President at all costs. But is there anything you all actually stand FOR? If it's peace, why did people vote for John Kerry? Why did they twice for for the surge in Afghanistan? If you all were so opposed to ousting Qaddafi, why didn't you vote for Mitt? The GOP did oppose that intervention. In fact they continue to squawk about it to this day. You all voted for the president who implemented those policies, and now you turn around and blame his Secretary of State for them. It's weak and dishonest.

For an article that talks about hypocrisy, it sure employs a lot of it. I expect more from the Socialist Worker's Party. One thing I expect is some basic historical context. I guess any hapless liberal can do their commentary now. Since when do socialists refer to themselves and their readers as "liberals and progressives"? They are supposed to be leftists for God's sake. Liberalism and socialism are antithetical ideologies, and someone writing in a socialist publication should know that much.

[guillaumeb]

41. HRC was the Secretary of State, correct?

She was not forced into the position. She was carrying out policy that she presumably agreed with. Alternatively, she disagreed with the policy and lacked the courage to say so publicly. The article actually talked about Obama and Clinton. To say that the point of the article and the post was to vilify Clinton misses the point, which is that if one wishes to vote for someone it helps to know a little bit about the person's political history. Recounting some of that history does not constitute "vilification", it is simply informing people.

I can only speak for myself here, and keeping HRC from becoming President at all costs is not my goal. I will vote for the best AVAILABLE Democratic candidate no matter who that candidate is, but I would prefer that the candidate also be the most progressive candidate in the field.

As to liberalism and socialism being antithetical ideologies, how so? Can a liberal or progressive not have socialist leanings? Is there a style handbook that I have not read?

[LanternWaste]

42. Those then are the two, and only two rational explanations you believe are possible?

"that she presumably agreed with. Alternatively, she disagreed with the policy and lacked the courage to say so publicly..."

Those then are the two, and only two rational explanations you believe are possible?

[guillaumeb]

43. Offer more

But yes, she either agreed with the policy or she did not. That seems obvious.

If she agreed with the policy she would obviously not speak against it.
If she disagreed, she could speak against it or not, but then one can question the why.

Was it political calculation?
Or cowardice?

[BainsBane]

44. No, she wasn't forced into the position

Nor were you, but you twice voted for the policies. Well, I'm assuming that you like I voted for it or you wouldn't be on this site.

Liberalism is tied to the notion of free markets as the best and most efficient means of economic production. Adam Smith was a liberal, as was John Locke. Liberalism emerged as the political corollary to capitalism. The term neoliberal should clue you in to its meaning. Americans are parochial and ahistorical in their conception of political ideology and thus manage to miss the fact that around the world liberalism is associated with the center-right. Liberals are not socialists and socialists are not liberals. Socialists oppose capital and seek a post-capitalist world order. Liberals don't critique capital. They seek to benefit form it. The socialist tradition in the US was systematically purged by the state, through the Palmer raids, deportation of socialist union leaders and activists, and ultimately through McCarthyism.

It is also clear the SW is lost without the former Soviet Union. It was always a publication that took it's cues from the USSR rather than Marxism itself. Now they seem to have abandoned Marxism entirely. That piece could have been posted on Think Progress or any other liberal site. I have read some very good, thoughtful articles in the International Socialist Review, http://isreview.org/issue/96. They certainly aren't going to endorse a candidate like Clinton, but they engage in critique grounded in Marxism, which matters to me.

You may not have defeating Clinton as your primary goal, but some do, and have even promoted Republicans like Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina over her. It's great that you want to support the best available Democratic candidate, only we have exactly zero Democratic candidates for President so far. Nor do I see an explanation for why O'Malley, the only other likely entrant into the race, is so much better than Clinton.

When so many people devote their political energies (some for years on end) to taking down a Democratic candidate, it is not an unreasonable conclusion that that is in fact their primary goal. Again, I'm not talking about you, but en masse the threads create a general impression.

Around 2001, I reconciled myself to the fact that I would have to choose among pro-capitalist candidates in the Democratic Party if I was to play my part in keeping the country from the kind of disaster that was the Bush administration. I now make political decisions pragmatically. I continue to care a great deal about worker oppression and income inequality, but as a feminism with a doctoral background in history, it bothers me to see attributed to Hillary Clinton all the ills associated with capitalism and American empire, characteristics that have defined this nation for as long as any of us has been alive. I would never suggest you should vote for Clinton or anyone else because she leads in the polls or any of that nonsense. You should vote for and support whichever candidate you choose, as I will make my own decision upon watching the debates and hearing the actual declared candidates positions. Yet when thread after thread focus entirely on attacking Clinton and advocating FOR nothing, I get pissed off.

[guillaumeb]

45. my sincere congratulations on an excellent post

While I agree with much of what you said, I think part of the problem is in defining our terms. If we were to agree that to be a liberal or to accept liberalism as a philosophy one must posit an acceptance of capitalist theory than I would agree with you.

But if instead we accept this particular definition:

liberalism definition. In the twentieth century, a viewpoint or ideology associated with free political institutions and religious toleration, as well as support for a strong role of government in regulating capitalism and constructing the welfare state.
(https://www.google.com/#q=define+liberalism+in+politics)

then liberalism is not inevitably dependent on capitalism (as it currently exists in the US) for its existence. (I think a sticking point here would be how much regulation and what type of capitalism.)

Another great point that at present there are no declared candidates from the Democratic side. My personal feeling is that anyone who feels Rand Paul or Carly "golden parachute" Fiorina are acceptable candidates should be voting in the GOP primary.

And yes, we agree that much political energy has been and will continue to be devoted to Clinton hatred. I could list many reasons to dislike William Clinton, including NAFTA and the sanctions against Iraq, but that is pointless when discussing HRC unless one assumes that she has no political existence outside of her marriage to William Clinton. And I do NOT assume that. She is a highly intelligent, highly capable woman who could make a good President.

I have nothing to say about your last paragraph other than I feel your pain about the necessity of choosing among pro-capitalist candidates. As far as US history, I have had many debates with US citizens about history and it is amazing how little so many of them know about their own history.

Again, great response.

[BainsBane]

46. Thanks, and I'm glad you are aware of some of

the gendered ways in which Hillary Clinton is characterized.

Just to be clear, I don't think a disagreement on theoretical terms should get in the way of more important solidarity on making the country a better place. However, there is a difference between regulating capitalism and the creation of a welfare state that deals with its excesses and seeing capitalism itself as illegitimate. Also the focus on the individual is a particular hallmark of capitalism. We of course live in a capitalist society, not a theoretical one. So we are left with making our choices among very imperfect Democratic candidates. We shall see what our options will be in the upcoming election.

I would love to see public financing of elections so that those options can better reflect the interests of the people.

[guillaumeb]

47. as to "the gendered ways in which Hillary Clinton is characterized"

they are impossible to ignore. That anyone could talk about her pantsuits in any political discussion is ridiculous. (The equivalent would be discussing Trump's chimp like hair.) Similarly discussions of her supposedly "abrasive" personality. Pure discrimination.


Funny thing that in all the promotion of the cult of the individual there is no recognition or mention of the essential sociopathic behavior that underlies it.

Only a large grassroots effort will get the US to public financing of elections. The current system works so well for the rich and their robed servants on the SCOTUS.