HRC is running a smart campaign

[MaggieD]

I like that she gets that she has to appeal to more than just the disaffected to win. Meanwhile, the republicans are falling all over themselves trying to appeal to their various fringe supporters.

"Hillary Rodham Clinton is running as the most liberal Democratic presidential front-runner in decades, with positions on issues from gay marriage to immigration that would, in past elections, have put her at her party’s precarious left edge.

The moves are part of a strategic conclusion by Clinton’s emerging campaign: that it can harness the same kind of young and diverse coalition as Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012, bolstered by even stronger appeal among women.

Her approach — outlined in interviews with aides and advisers — is a bet that social and demographic shifts mean that no left-leaning position Clinton takes now would be likely to hurt her in making her case to moderate and independent voters in the general election next year.

The strategy relies on calculations about the 2016 landscape, including that up to 31 percent of the electorate will be Americans of color — a projection that may be overly optimistic for her campaign. It factors in that a majority of independent voters already support same-sex marriage and the pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants that Clinton endorsed this month."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-to-the-left-hillary-clinton-is-banking-on-the-obama-coalition-to-win/2015/05/17/33b7844a-fb28-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html

[upaloopa]

1. But but but but I demand she answer

all the questions of Bernie supporters first!

[MaggieD]

3. LOL!

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. !!!

[Cali_Democrat]

8. It is indeed very funny watching some of those folks trying to give campaign advice to Hillary

These same folks bash her 24/7 and suddenly they want to give her advice on how to run her campaign.

Clearly it's in her best interest to listen to these folks who are soooo very concerned.

[Logical]

26. I would be happy if she answered ANY question. nt

[Liberal_in_LA]

42. lol

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. So I can yell, loudly, how much I don't believe her answers! ...

and get 100 "Yups" for me effort.

[hrmjustin]

2. Hillary knows what she is doing.

The media is out to destroy her and she will not allow that to happen.

[MaggieD]

5. I believe this is not her first rodeo

[In_The_Wind]

7. ...

[Logical]

29. Remember, the last rodeo she lost 30 point lead! nt

[MaggieD]

36. True

But Bernie is no Obama. Not even close.

[Cayenne]

104. You mean he isn't as smoooth?

Bernie is better known and respected at this point than Obama was. Obama was still an unknown to most people. That also was Hillary's election to lose and she lost it.

[MaggieD]

108. Most people don't even know who he is

So how can he be more respected? Sorry, that makes no sense.

[eloydude]

18. What's what *YOU* think..

In fact, Clinton already destroyed herself by not being upfront about her corporatist side.

Cali has accurately pointed out that in Clinton's memoir that she was for TPP. Now she's "against TPP".. Waffling on the issue?

[hrmjustin]

27. After what you said to me earlier i have no desire to speak to you.

[eloydude]

49. That's fine, don't speak to me...

I'm just saying that if you are not interested in anyone but Clinton (and not even listen to what he has to say), then you have an huge issue.

[hrmjustin]

50. I listen to what he says and after your insulting me earlier I have desire to

speak to you.

[Agschmid]

46. *That's

[Thinkingabout]

53. Is this what you get out of Hillary saying she is waiting until the final agreement is presented?

Wow, missed again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Yup, my watch is running on time

thanks.

[greatlaurel]

9. Cannot agree more. This is a very good campaign so far.

She learned a lot from the 2008. Her campaign is making the GOP look ever more desperate. The GOP water carriers in the news media have exposed themselves quite well by the whining about her in the last few weeks.

[MaggieD]

11. Yep - and I think no one....

Really pays attention to the HRC poutrage anymore. Except the press of course. And she can handle that. She will definitely sweep the floor with a Republican that runs against her, I believe.

[eloydude]

19. Because PEOPLE are sick of the SAME OLD SHIT.....

in other words *STATUS QUO*

In other words, Meet Hillary, same as Obama. Republican Lite.

No, I'll pick someone else who's more for the people than they are for the corporation.

Income Inequality continues to be a major issue for me.

[MaggieD]

20. Apparently others don't see it that way

She is killing everyone in the polls.

[eloydude]

24. I'll wait for the debates in August

and Ms. Clinton will be left behind - and her supporters saying "What the fuck just happened here?" when people start learning about Bernie and the support shifts, and shifts big.

Then what are you going to do? Whine some more? Find more positions to "triangulate" or are you going to join the smart money and bet on Bernie?

[MaggieD]

28. Not by anyone more liberal

But you keep believing! Hold on to that feeling!

[eloydude]

31. And what are you going to do when Hillary loses her lead when people know more about Bernie?

Panic?

Negative ads against Bernie?

Dig for dirt against Bernie?

Try the "socialist' label against Bernie?

What?

[MaggieD]

34. I'll vote any Dem that gets nominated

But I don't think it's going to be Bernie.

[eloydude]

35. Good luck then.

[quickesst]

111. do you mean...

... Do what Sanders supporters have been doing all along?
and thank you for admitting, contrary to many of your colleagues, that Clinton supporters have not been doing that, and may only "start" if she loses the lead. Takes guts to go against the majority, and I for one appreciate it

[Cha]

62. No, you're showing your ignorance now.. nowhere near "republicon lite" .. that's just

propaganda spread on the internet. People need to get their heads out of the sand.. no Dem candidate is going to win running from President Obama's record.

[eloydude]

80. Read her memoir and her stance..

then ask me again...

Are you a part of the 1%?

[Iliyah]

107. This

[840high]

71. Thank you.

[greatlaurel]

40. I agree, MaggieD, the only people who are pushing the silliness are partisans with an agenda.

Sanders is good, but he is not perfect. He has several positions with which I do not agree, at all, but I have no reason to attack him with ridiculous right wing talking points. It is great to promote whatever candidate, especially at this stage of the campaigns. The attacks on HRC are absurd. Attacking any Democratic Party candidate just helps the GOP and does nothing to help the preferred candidate. If another Democratic Party candidate runs a stronger campaign than HRC, then the country and our party will be better off. I just do not see anyone so far in the anti HRC camp who is running a better campaign, yet.

I have heard HRC speak in person and she is fabulous in a live setting. She is very smart to go out and speak to as many people as possible at this stage. She gives a great speech and is genuine. It is funny how the only things people come up with against her are right wing talking points.

Love the term poutrage! The poutrage is starting to have a very distinct ring of desperation.

[hfojvt]

10. wow, she's taking a whole bunch of "left leaning positions"

on social issues.

[MaggieD]

14. And she has been before ANY of you ever heard of Bernie

[Agschmid]

47. I feel like we are comparing something in the lockeroom...

Oh DU sometimes...

[zappaman]

57. No kidding.

"17 years!!!"

[Jim Lane]

12. If by "smart" you mean "finger expertly in the wind", then yes.

As even your excerpt makes clear, her campaign tack isn't based on principle. It's based on polling. On issues like marriage equality, she is "to the left" by the standards of past election years because the electorate is farther to the left than it's been in past election years.

She's doing a smart job of calculating what she can say to seem acceptable to progressives within the Democratic Party (so as to dissuade them from supporting a primary challenger from her left) while still "making her case to moderate and independent voters in the general election next year."

It's also smart (again in the limited sense of probability of electoral success) for her to avoid being specific about issues. For example, as even the discussions on DU reveal, there's no explicit position she could take about TPA/TPP that wouldn't tick off some of the voters she's trying to reach. If her principal goal were good public policy, she could wield some influence now by endorsing it or by opposing it. Instead, she can say that she's for good jobs and for American prosperity and against weakening our national security, and thus avoid saying anything that anyone might disagree with. It's a classic front-runner strategy.

I'll add a prediction: As part of her "smart" campaign, she'll do as little as possible to acknowledge her rivals. Unless the polls change dramatically, we'll see no equivalent of the "3:00 a.m. phone call" attack ad that she ran against Obama in 2008. She would probably prefer to have no debates at all (which was the course she elected in 2006 when she had a similar big lead against her progressive opponent in the Democratic primary). Unable to get away with that, she'll prefer having as few debates as possible, and the DNC seems poised to help her out by trying to limit the debates to six.

[MaggieD]

13. Finger in the wind on what?

Can you provide some specific examples?

For one thing, she has been pretty damn specific about trade agreements for a long time. Sometimes I think people that maybe aren't paying attention make group think type assumptions. Because it's just BS to state she doesn't have a long record of being against BS trade agreements.

[Jim Lane]

15. Two specific examples are in your own OP

She is taking "positions on issues from gay marriage to immigration that would, in past elections, have put her at her party’s precarious left edge." Both of those are issues where the electorate is to the left of where it was in past elections.

As for trade agreements, yes, she is as you say "against BS trade agreements" but she's for the trade agreements that are good for the United States. So where does she stand on the specific example I mentioned, TPP, and the related fast-track bill (TPA) now before Congress?

You say people aren't paying attention. I was paying attention when she described TPP as the "gold standard" of trade agreements. I would also love to be paying attention to her press conference or even her tweet where she says "I urge the House of Representatives to ________ the TPA bill", where the blank is completed with "approve" or "reject".

What she's doing instead is, as I said, the classic front-runner strategy of vagueness. If you don't like TPP, she has "a long record of being against BS trade agreements." If you like TPP, she was Secretary of State during much of the negotiating process and knew enough about the deal to describe it as "the gold standard". Ah, but, if you don't like TPP, well that "gold standard" quotation was from before the agreement was finalized, so she's not clearly committed to supporting TPP in its final form. Until she expressly supports or opposes the TPA that's now before Congress, she's trying to work both sides of the street.

[MaggieD]

16. Oh get real....

She has been supporting civil unions for a decade, and has been very vocal on GLBT rights for a very long time. The GLBT community loves her for good reason.

In addition, she has voted against every major trade pact that came up when she was a senator.

So much for your unsupported accusations.

[eloydude]

22. Ah, but she writes it on her memoir, not her voting record

So your accusation is unsubstantiated.

The facts are there, and there is no denying what Ms. Clinton wrote.

[MaggieD]

25. Writes what in her memoir?

[Jim Lane]

39. Hillary Clinton disagrees with you, or at least puts a different spin on it.

What you say: "In addition, she has voted against every major trade pact that came up when she was a senator."

What she said today: "I have been for trade agreements; I have been against trade agreements."

I don't know if it's true that she voted against them all as Senator; if it is, then her for-them-and-against-them statement presumably refers to trade agreements she supported before her Senate career (NAFTA) and since (TPP).

The linked article reports that, campaigning today in Iowa, she "said she wants to see rules included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership that would penalize countries for driving down the value of their currencies in order to give their exports a price advantage in the U.S. market." OK, that's nice, Secretary Clinton, you've told us about your ideal agreement. Meanwhile, back here in the real world, even a prole like me, with no inside information, knows that currency manipulation is not in the TPP and that it won't be -- the other countries refused to consider it and the U.S. backed down, at least according to this letter from Jack Lew.

So, she's said that the TPP is the gold standard. She's also said that she wants it to include currency manipulation -- which it doesn't and won't. Oh, and she's come out strongly in favor of national security, let's not forget that.

What we're still waiting for is the clear-cut statement of support for or opposition to the TPA bill now before Congress, and the clear-cut statement of support for or opposition to the TPP as it actually stands. Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley have managed to voice their opposition, but, to be fair, neither of them is in a position to follow the classic front-runner strategy of ducking the hard choices.

[MaggieD]

44. That's very simplistic thinking

She voted for trade bills with tiny countries like Chile that would in no way impact workers here. She is very clear as far as I'm concerned. She is not reflexively against trade or an isolationist. She is against trade that harms American workers.

And that has been her 100% consistent statement on trade bills since she entered politics. And she has been very clear that her final assessment of the TPP hinges on that as well. I don't know about you, but that kind of thoughtful decision making is exactly what I want in a president. That's a leader's job by the way.

Given her excellent voting record on trade in the past there is absolutely no objective reason not to believe her. You all consistently claim she on,y says what people want to hear, but in the next breath you claim she isn't giving the knee jerk reaction you appear to crave.

Which is it?

[eloydude]

51. Ah, the big difference is.. Bernie has access to TPP and Hillary doesn'f

but Hillary knows what's in it because she helped DRAFT the TPP.

[MaggieD]

54. No she did not write the TPP

My god, where do you folks get this stuff?

[Hekate]

95. I think they get it from

------ or maybe Discussionist. It's beyond bizarre. I keep expecting the zombie of poor Vince Foster to be dug up any day now.

[Jim Lane]

112. "She is against trade that harms American workers." Oh, well, that alleviates all my concerns. Not.

To say "She is against trade that harms American workers" is precisely the kind of innocuous front-runnerism I'm talking about. Any politician would proclaim himself or herself to be against trade that harms American workers. Do you think Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders or the Libertarians or the Greens or anyone else will announce a position in favor of trade that harms American workers?

The actual division comes when you get beyond the generalities about prosperity and competitiveness and national security and helping workers, and take a position on specific controversies. So, what's her current position on TPP? She hasn't said.

What she has done, per the link I gave you, is to make some vague noises of concern that enable her to appeal to the anti-TPP voters, while not unduly upsetting Obama loyalists and other pro-TPP voters. Thus, the "leadership" she's exhibiting on this issue is to opine that an ideal agreement would address currency manipulation (which we know TPP doesn't and won't) and to express concern about including ISDS provisions (which we know TPP does and will), while not repudiating her prior description of TPP as "the gold standard".

By the way, as to ISDS -- yes, all we've seen are leaked drafts, but when a draft reflects more than four years of negotiation, it's not reasonable to expect a dramatic change in the last few months. It's particularly not reasonable when the Obama administration, far from pressing to eliminate ISDS, is touting it as a major virtue of the deal: "{T}he investment provisions under TPP are designed to protect American investors abroad from discrimination and denial of justice."

So, no, I'm not looking for a knee-jerk reaction. I'm looking for a couple things:
(1) She explains the glittery golden promise that she previously saw in TPP, acknowledges that there are also problems with it, and, having weighed the pros and cons, comes down on one side or the other.
(2) The related issue that you don't want to address is TPA, the fast-track bill. The pundits are saying that the vote in the House will be close. Many of the House Democrats favor Clinton for the nomination and would be influenced by a recommendation from her. I'd love it if she urged them to vote Nay; she might actually be the key person in defeating the bill. If she came out and expressly urged them to vote Yea, I'd be pissed, but at some level I'd respect her for at least taking a clear position. She just doesn't look very Presidential if the most she can say is that she's against harming American workers.

[frylock]

103. another great post

rec

[eloydude]

21. That's exactly what Clinton is doing - TRIANGULATION

You describe it perfectly.

The people are sick and tired of right-wing conservative assholes.

Lurching further to the right, and trying to go back to the left to give lip service disgusts me.

Clinton continues to lurch to the right, and Bernie doesn't have to do anything. He's already right there, and speaking the brutal truth.

Corporatists are afraid of the truth because they have been lying to the 99%'ers for so long they forgot what the truth is.

[MaggieD]

23. She has a lot of support from liberals....

... In the polls. So I guess you are wrong about "the people."

[eloydude]

30. Not the liberals I've been speaking to...

Your definition of liberals are much different than mine.

Bernie is what the true progressives want. Not Hillary as she represents nothing of the Democratic Party on issues OTHER than social issues.

Fiscal issues? Fail.
Foreign policy? Fail.
Diplomatic skills? Fail.

She used the Secretary of State position to further her ambition, not for the people, but for the corporations that have paid her "speaking fees" to advance their interests in negotiations and pulling a few strings to shake up a few countries that weren't listening to the said corporation(s).

The Democratic Party are already on the right end of the spectrum, so far to the right it just might be called "Republican Party Lite".. I'd rather vote the ACTUAL progressive who views my issues well. Especially when it comes to income inequality. Ms. Clinton will never understand poverty and she isn't expected to. Bernie chose not to enrich himself, and knows exactly where the 99% are coming from.

I'm sorry, but Clinton is not my first choice, or even second choice. If she is the nominee, I will just hold my nose and vote for her.

She is too far to the right, and the debates will prove her downfall, if not sooner.

[MaggieD]

32. Okay, good luck with that....

And in pretending the polls aren't real. LOL!

[giftedgirl77]

98. Wow, just wow....

You couldn't load more bullshit into one post if you had a fuckin truckload of cow shit. That is some of the most rediculous nonsense I have heard thus far except for listening to RW talking heads spew their hateful crap on Sunday morning news shows or during countless hearings.

[Hekate]

97. All caps makes it so much more believable. I'm real impressed.

Just don't strangle on your triangle, is all.

[eloydude]

17. "most liberal"?

Try "most Third Wayer" "The most authentic Republican Lite you'll ever meet" "Ms. Triangulation"

[Bobbie Jo]

33. Welcome to DU

Right out of the gate, even.

[Hekate]

99. I'm sure he'll enjoy his stay here.

[Doctor_J]

37. Yes, hiding is her best bet

Her gender and name recognition will be enough to carry her to the WH, as long as she doesn't reveal her republican economic policies, and is not called to account on being the last one on the bandwagon for gay rights.

[MaggieD]

38. Which republican economic policies?

Can you be specific?

ETA - she was in no way last on gay rights. I met her through her vocal pro-GLBT rights stances. The gay community loves her. Google Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Birch. You will find no end of pictures of them together. No dig on Bernie, but he has never been vocal on the issue (maybe in Vermont?).

[Doctor_J]

41. TPP, KXL, Heritage Care, Drilling, Fracking, NAFTA,

TPA.

[MaggieD]

43. Links?

[greatlaurel]

48. HRC has a record that we can check to counter the absurd accusations.

I do not see a lot of GOP positions here:
Government action to tackle recession, not tax cuts. (Feb 2008)
The economy is not working for middle class families. (Jan 2008)
We need immediate relief for home heating & housing crisis. (Jan 2008)
Voted to limit credit card interest to 30%. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Consistently against making bankruptcy stricter. (Jan 2008)
2005 bankruptcy bill was by big credit cards & lenders. (Jan 2008)
No evidence as to how Obama would pay for new programs. (Jan 2008)
Foreclosure moratorium mitigates agony; doesn’t prolong it. (Jan 2008)
90-day moratorium on foreclosures; freeze interest rates. (Jan 2008)
Call for a moratorium on housing foreclosures for 90 days. (Jan 2008)
Freeze mortgage interest rates for five years. (Jan 2008)
Look back to 1990s to see how I’d be fiscally responsible. (Dec 2007)
Help people facing foreclosure; don’t just bail-out banks. (Aug 2007)
Balanced budget replaced with rising costs & falling wages. (Jun 2007)
Last six years were challenging; let’s try a new direction. (Oct 2006)
Co-sponsored bills totaling $502B in spending thru 2005. (Oct 2006)
Use tax dollars to upgrade infrastructure, not for stadium. (Oct 2000)
Pay down debt & cut taxes within balanced budget. (Sep 2000)
Stimulate upstate economy by more local decision-making. (Sep 2000)
Supports Niagara casino, but prefers job creation strategy. (Sep 2000)
Protect next generation by paying off national debt. (Aug 2000)
We have outlived the usefulness of Bretton Woods. (Jun 1999)
The economy creates consumers but cannot create citizens. (Jun 1999)
Invest in people instead of “smokestack chasing”. (Feb 1997)
Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages. (Dec 2007)
Reform mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy. (Feb 2008)

or here

$5B for green-collar jobs in economic stimulus package. (Jan 2008)
Voted against and consistently opposed to Yucca Mountain. (Jan 2008)
A comprehensive energy plan as our Apollo moon shot. (Jan 2008)
Advocate a cap and trade system. (Dec 2007)
Better track kids’ products for exposures to toxic materials. (Dec 2007)
Support green-collar job training. (Aug 2007)
Put someone in charge of Katrina recovery who actually cares. (Aug 2007)
Overcome almost criminal indifference to Katrina rebuilding. (Jun 2007)
Launched EPA study of air quality at Ground Zero. (Jun 2007)
Scored 100% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007)
Stands for clean air and funding the EPA. (Sep 2000)
Reduce air pollution to improve children’s health. (Jun 1998)
Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Remove PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles. (Apr 2001)
Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)
Sponsored bill for tax credit to remove lead-based paint. (Nov 2005)
Sponsored bill for commission to examine Katrina response. (Sep 2005)
Sponsored health impact bill for environmental health. (Apr 2006)
Grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act. (Apr 2008)
Inter-state compact for Great Lakes water resources. (Jul 2008)
Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting. (Jan 2007)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Thanks, MaggieD!

[Thinkingabout]

56. Hillary had advocated for the lesser fortunate for many years. I know the talking points always

wants to have other beliefs but the truth will help.

[MaggieD]

109. Exactly.

Man, the republican lite BS here gets old.

[Cayenne]

105. Hillary has Brave Sir Robin's minstrels

[link:

|

[ucrdem]

45. I think so.

2016 is about Hillary Clinton and she is well advised to stay out of the swamp.

[darkangel218]

52. Lol!

@ the article.

[bunnies]

58. Member since: 2001, Number of posts: 1,941, Number of posts, last 90 days: 1560

Whats up with that?

[DesMoinesDem]

60. Someone's sockpuppet just came back to life.

[Cha]

64. Are you calling MaggieD a "sockpuppet"?

[morningfog]

76. Isn't it obvious? She said she's already been banned once.

[hrmjustin]

78. link?

[morningfog]

79. You can find it in her journal.

[hrmjustin]

83. Ok just read it thank you but the admins haven't banned her so i see no issue.

[Cha]

85. Actually, you know.. what difference does it make? will pitt was banned and he's still

pumping out "Trojan Horse" crap.

[Cha]

81. I'll need proof.. even so.. will pitt was banned and he's still around spewing his theories.

[hrmjustin]

66. Do you have proof?

[SMC22307]

88. A certain punctuation-abusing ranter who is on timeout?

Ya never know.

[hrmjustin]

92. Have the guts to say the name?

[SMC22307]

93. There are two, now that I think of it. (n/t)

[hrmjustin]

96. whatever.

[SMC22307]

100. "whatever woman"

whatever woman.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6682830

[hrmjustin]

61. What are you implying?

[bunnies]

63. I asked a question.

Simply that. Its rare to see a poster lie dormant for 14 years then suddenly write an op every 5 minutes. When someone decides to come out of nowhere to make themselves a bomb-thrower on the board, people take notice. Im curious. Aren't you?

[hrmjustin]

65. I was a member from 2001. hrhjustin.

Lost my password and decided not to get a new account due to the fact I rarely posted. 2012 i signed up again as this account. In Nov of 2012 i found my old password in a notebook. Decided to stick with this account. Skinner knows all this.


My point is that there are all different kind of stories on du.

On mirt we see dormant accounts become active fairly often.

[Cha]

68. Exactly Justin.. it could be any number of reasons. Just because someone doesn't like what is

posted is no reason to call them a nasty insult like a "bomb thrower".

[hrmjustin]

69. or call them a sock.

as someone else just did. That is brazen.

[bunnies]

89. She IS a bomb thrower.

Alert on me if you want. Constantly insulting those who dont agree with her? Hating on "stupid liberals"? Come on! Have you read the things shes posted and now are defending it?!

[Cha]

102. I don't alert on nasty insulting posts.. have at it.

[bunnies]

70. I wasnt questioning you.

I don't doubt your authenticity. But there are others I find just reek of bs.

[hrmjustin]

72. And because she is a vocal Hillary supporter she reeks of bs?

[bunnies]

75. No Justin.

"A vocal Hillary supporter" who:
goes out of her way to insult on everyone else, has been dormant on DU for 14 years, suddenly cant stop stirring shit and walks the fine line of trolldom.

[hrmjustin]

77. Well there maybe a few insults i haven't seen so i can't speak to that.

But she posts positive ops about Hillary and some don't like that.

[bunnies]

84. Lots of people do. & I have no problem with that.

Its the way she treats / talks to people. Read one of her threads objectively. Nastiness and condescension drive me nuts.

[hrmjustin]

87. ignore is your friend.

Look you don't care for her that is your right.

[bunnies]

90. eh. point missed. nevermind. nt

[hrmjustin]

91. i get your point.

[Iliyah]

106. Nah, to cause positive conversation

[Cha]

59. "Clinton is banking on the Obama coalition to win".. she is smart.. there's a

lot of votes out here that went for the President. No one is going to win running from his accomplishments.. even though some on the internet like to paint him as the "Trojan Horse".. that's just more horseshit from the usuals who can't see the forest.

In real life President Obama's approval ratings are quite high.. Dem candidates would be silly to disregard this..

"According to the latest CNN/ORC poll, the Obama resurgence is being fueled by the growing economy. Fifty-two percent of respondents called the U.S. economy very or somewhat good while 48% said the economy was very or somewhat poor. The President’s approval rating has increased with 18-29-year-olds (57%), women (51%), Democrats (88%), and liberal Democrats (97%).

snip//

Many supporters of the President will view his increasing approval numbers as Obama finally getting credit for the economic turnaround after pulling the country back from the brink of a potential depression when he took office, but these numbers could foreshadow a Democratic strong point in 2016. If the economy keeps growing, Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, will be able to run on maintaining and expanding the Obama economy.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/21/president-obama.html

Mahalo for the link, Maggie

[MaggieD]

82. I love your first paragraph

Man, ain't that the truth.

You're welcome. I will be posting pro-HRC stuff as often as possible to provide some balance here. I hope others will join me.

Go Dems!

[Ms. Toad]

67. Precisely my main concern about her.

Her positions depend on what she believes will get her elected. In past elections these positions would have put her at the party's left edge - which is precisely why she did not hold them them. There has been a sea change on both issues since the last election and neither position is exclusively a liberal position any longer. I have no idea what she actually believes, because every significant position I have seen her take is calculated to make most electable at any given time.

[840high]

73. ...^ that

[MaggieD]

86. She was senator of one of the most liberal states

.... In the country. And her actual voting record reflects it. That's the bottom line.

[Rex]

74. Of course she is, she is a very smart lady.

The fear of her turning into Ultron and eating the planet, is somewhat of an exaggeration.

[Throd]

94. Well, she seems to have already eaten you.

Hilary is the Hilary candidate, and stands for whatever you will vote for. All things considered, I probably agree with Hilary on more issues than Bernie, but Sanders isn't afraid to make his positions known.

[Rex]

101. I actually support Sanders over HRC, the M$M pretending she will turn into Ultron

once elected...is a very large exaggeration.

[Iliyah]

110. Hopefully from all the disagreements,and I say that lightly,

The Democratic Party will come together and defeat the true opponent.