General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Wait, did you think nobody would notice the obnoxious double standard?"
Last edited Mon Sep 18, 2017, 06:26 PM - Edit history (3)
"Hillary will sit down and shut up when Bernie does."
It doesn't matter that she's not an elected official or in the government now. She's an American and that gives her a right to speak out -- and to use the public platform she has (the popular vote winner of the Presidential election) -- on any topic she chooses.
https://thedailybanter.com/2017/09/hillary-should-sit-down-and-shut-up-when-bernie-does-draft-share-preview-publish/
The most recent battle over control of the narrative is Hillary's book "What Happened." With the volume of outrage this is eliciting, you'd think that a losing candidate had never written a book before.
Here's how The New York Times speaks about it:
"Whats to be done with Hillary Clinton, the woman who wont go away?
"Her account of her election defeat, What Happened, comes out on Tuesday. Predictably, her re-emergence in the public eye is stirring the toxic brew of Clinton-hate and Clinton-worship, along with a certain discernible fatigue and disorientation."
Eliot Rosewater
(31,096 posts)On the day of the election votes were flipped, voters were prevented from voting.
Nope, not a single link to prove it, but it happened and by the time we find out that it happened it will be too late.
Hillary won, if I were her I would never stop talking about our country being invaded by our enemy and our democracy stolen
FakeNoose
(32,328 posts)I totally hear you, and I've been saying the same since last November.
Hillary has a right to tell her story and call it the way she sees it.
Anybody in the GOP who wants to publish their own account - well it's (still) a free country.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And I didn't object to that because I thought it was too harsh on him.
Bern is a tough old bastard who can take care of himself-he made mistakes in 2016, but it's clearly not his fault personally that Trump is president.
I said what I said because I felt that, at a time when we need unity, the comments in that one small part of the book-not anything in the REST of the book-could cause at least some of his voters to stay away from the polls in 2018 AND 2020, without bringing in any other groups to even match their voting strength, let alone exceed it enough to allow us to make gains.
As 2016 taught us, we can't ever get those voters to the polls(and we can't win without getting them to the polls)by dissing them and then following that up with a DEMAND that they vote to stop the bad guy. I learned that the hard way last fall, spending countless hours on social media, when I wasn't doorbelling/canvassing for Hillary during the day, begging unreconciled young people who'd backed Bernie to vote HRC on antifascist grounds AND going beyond that to argue that they should back her because I thought her platform deserved their support on the merits.
My comments were never an attempt to control her-I would never even WANT to control HRC and have too much respect for her to believe anyone even could control her-or about trying to control women-whom I also respect deeply enough never to want to control. It was about simply a respectful observation that senior people in the party should be working positively now rather than negatively. And I'd have said the exact same thing if it was a male former Democratic nominee writing the exact same thing.
And I've said it before in various forms but I will say it again: I wish Bernie would also find a more positive way to make his arguments for change in the party-to frame them as the path to improvement, not always as a jeremiad. We need radical change, but there is a way to argue for that that is hopeful and inclusive rather than just scolding.
We need to pull together if choice is to be defended, if social oppression is to be defeated, if we're to do any of that or to achieve anything else any of us want to achieve.
And I say all of that as a person who wants our next nominee to be from the next generation-and is as likely to support Kamala Harris in the primaries as anyone else from that generation, though I support no one at the moment.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)of the Russian meddling voter suppression, and the Comey letters, all of which had a significant effect on an election she only lost by 70K thousand votes in 3 states.
She has the right to defend herself from unfair charges like his.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 18, 2017, 08:45 PM - Edit history (1)
It's fine for her to talk about what her campaign did well-and it did a number of things well.
She ran a very effective primary campaign, winning demographics she had overwhelmingly lost in '08. She gets full credit for that achievement.
Defending her campaign wasn't what that section read as to a lot of people.
I read it, and I think a lot of people read it as her saying she'd have won in the fall if only she'd been nominated without a significant campaign, it only Bernie hadn't run. And I think a lot of his younger supporters, even the overwhelming majority who did work and vote for her in the fall, read it as a raised middle finger.
My loyalty is to those younger voters and to our need to connect with them.
We are not going to be able to do that if we essentially tell them "everything that went bad in '16 was YOUR fault-and if you want to be in this party, from now on you have to give up working for any of the causes you care about, settle for what WE give you, and do what you're damn well told!"
These are people who do not have a solid brand loyalty to OUR party yet. They won't go GOP, but they might go minor party or just drift away from political involvement.
We can't win in '18 or '20 if they do. There are no other blocs of voters whose presence at the polling booth is going to rise enough to make up for us losing those people on a long-term basis.
That's why I've sometimes seemed like a broken record on some things. We need those people to win and we need them to be the people who share the work of keeping this party going in the future.
And engaging them doesn't mean throwing any of our current supporters under the bus, because these people are all solidly pro-choice and solidly committed to social justice, as they are committed to the other causes they fight for.
LuvLoogie
(6,854 posts)The people who support her know better. It's people like you and Bernie who claim that certain actions by Hillary and establishment Democrats, imagined or real, are a middle finger raised to young voters--that the pragmatism expressed by the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is, somehow, a middle finger to the dreams of the young. Bullshit.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Obviously, her younger supporters wouldn't have seen it that way.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I did not mean to type "hers".
JHan
(10,173 posts)No we don't see it as a middle finger.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)My comments were simply as an observer.
re Bernie ...." And I think a lot of her younger supporters, even the overwhelming majority who did work and vote for her in the fall, read it as a raised middle finger." So you're suggesting the only youth support Clinton ever had was Bernie supporters who switched over to her when Bernie lost?
sigh
honestly not surprised, nobody cared to profile hillary supporters last year.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
JHan
(10,173 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 19, 2017, 07:37 PM - Edit history (1)
....before commenting on its content, and not rely on the opinions of reviewers or media people who are not necessarily objective.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
George II
(67,782 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
haveahart
(905 posts)happened to her.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But I drew a lot of flak as part of what I said in the exchange and wanted to clarify what I was and was NOT saying.
I never called for HRC to be silenced.
Nor did I want the book to not be published.
OK?
Squinch
(50,773 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)It's disrespectful for anyone to be dismissive of the information she has to share, and the story she has to tell. It shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand just because of who she is, or because of the subject matter, or because someone's feelings might get hurt. If someone is old enough to vote, then they ought to be mature enough to be able to cope with Hillary telling her side of the story and expressing her opinions. If it wasn't important to her, then she wouldn't have written about it. (I think we can all agree on that, can't we?)
At least twice a month someone posts (or reposts) a quote where he's trashing Democrats or the Democratic Party... but I've do not recall any time where you've openly criticized those attacks in any sort of meaningful and timely way... in the ACTUAL threads/OP's where it's being discussed. It's almost as if one's silence could be interpreted as a form of passive approval.
Mild statements... made DAYS and WEEKS later... outside of the context of the original posts... well (and let's be honest here) I'm just saying that it isn't a very brave or direct way to confront the behavior that you say you oppose. It kinda loses its impact.
Well, that's my opinion and maybe it's something you'll take a moment to consider.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)...how much responsibility do I have about what the guy says?...
Am I accountable for what Bern does simply because I think some of the ideas his campaign presented should be part of where we go in the future?
You're obsessed with the fact that I said that one small section should have been left out for that period of time. Given that I'm not her publisher, given that by the time I posted that the passage had been spread around the world, what difference does it make that I said that? I would never have actually tried to block people from reading the book, for God's sakes. I'd have posted the exact same thing if that section were in a book by a male former nominee.
I have no desires to control HRC, or you, or anyone else.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... but what I am saying is that you risk appearing hypocritical if you're only willing to criticize him in the shadows... weeks after the fact... rather than in the actual threads and OP's where his smears of Democrats and the Democratic Party are being discussed.
Here's the thing... you appear to take great pride in being an independent thinker and letting us know that you don't approve of his smear tactics. Okay, that's great! I love it! Good for you! Kudos! But... where's the evidence to support your claims?
Like I said before, one's silence suggests approval. If someone repeatedly fails to speak out against something when they have the opportunity, then it's difficult for me to arrive at any conclusion other than the one I mentioned previously.
I'm sorry, but that's not respectful at all. You're accusing her and blaming her for being divisive. If only you'd show the same distaste for divisive rhetoric when another person uses it. It seems to be a one-way thing sometimes. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see no evidence to contradict my observations.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)This is being framed as a gender issue.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I hope you'll take my observations to heart and think about what I've said.
What I'm saying to you comes from the heart and I mean it sincerely.
paulkienitz
(1,295 posts)But with that "pony" crap she dismissed Bernie, and Bernie's supporters, as having nothing to contribute to the Democratic party. This is not only insulting but a grave tactical error for rallying activist voters.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)minority wing of a minor leader under the umbrella of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
philly_bob
(2,419 posts)I supported Bernie, but I was thrilled to hear her on Rachel's show. Hillary wrote a book, it was interesting and topical, and some parts of it offend some people, same as any good political book.
OP links to an article that perpetuates divisive Bernie v. Hillary story line.
Stop refighting the 2016 primary. Look forward.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)from any kind of leadership role because she had her chance. I disagree.
catrose
(5,047 posts)Not to mention John McCain. And others who happened to be...men.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)catrose
(5,047 posts)Maybe we'll understand it by and by. OR CHANGE IT.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... in their minds it's okay to silence Hillary temporarily and she can tell her true story in eight to twelve years. (But I can see right through that.)
R B Garr
(16,919 posts)It's amazing that her book has energized so many Democrats and how threatening that is to some. So agree with this post. She is giving voice to the majority of Democrats who are tired of the false reality/narratives. I so love it that she will challenge those who malign Democrats. She can speak, too. I stand with her!
jalan48
(13,797 posts)in her own way in the public/private sphere. I'm not sure of the current status of the Clinton Foundation but it has been a very active group for years.
Autumn
(44,745 posts)I hope to god they both continue to speak.
R B Garr
(16,919 posts)Autumn
(44,745 posts)R B Garr
(16,919 posts)"obnoxious" double standards referenced in the article.
Autumn
(44,745 posts)R B Garr
(16,919 posts)"Wait, do you think nobody would notice the obnoxious double standard?"
Here's a quote from the article. It wasn't my first choice for this, but it's still a good one. The whole article is teriffic, Recommend.
"As long as Bernie is exerting influence on the party, it is fully appropriate for Hillary to do the same if she so chooses. Telling her to go away says far more about the person making the demand than it does about Hillary. She doesn't owe her critics a damn thing; not an apology and certainly not her silence. She's spent decades making the world a better place and no one puts baby in the corner."
But you might as well stop trying to explain it. If they didn't get it before, they ain't going to get it now.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Neither one of them has lost the right to speak up as loudly as they wish, including the woman who won the popular election by almost 3 million votes.
Autumn
(44,745 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)...according to the author in the OP?
Squinch
(50,773 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)Sometimes it appears bloggers and writers will say incendiary things to inflame the Bernie/Hillary feud to get more clicks.
So yeah, I'm having fun with the author's phrase.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)I have criticized what she wrote when I disagreed with what I've read, but she does have every right to speak regardless of the consequences.
And I can criticize and even mock the author in the OP if I want.
This is what democracy looks like.
mcar
(42,206 posts)And certain parties still ignore/excuse it.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)(Sigh.)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)But why the fuck must any citizen, much less a beloved candidate and recent de facto leader of the party, have to be silent?
No, she's not going to shut up, nor should she, no matter what Sanders does. Her life's work is not dependent on him.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)No thank you. She is one of the best witnesses!
Eliot Rosewater
(31,096 posts)it drives me INSANE
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Is he really that much of a victim?