Dear Hillary

will you delete our first two posts, given that they are no longer valid comments on the OP?

She speaks for me.

Nice to see you.

I guess we've come to this, all we're offered is shit soda, just in two flavors.

One flavor supports equal pay for women, equal marriage rights, maybe a few other things.

But both support war, globalism, offshoring of jobs, deregulated banking, and worse.

But we have choices, two shit sodas, nothing natural, no pure water or fruit juice, just artificially flavored soda, empty of nutrition.

So sad, but you nailed on the head.

Thanks because I am tired of typing now.

a populist woman, instead of someone who has to hire consultants to figure out how to sound like one without sounding like a "combative populist" or "demonizing" the wealthy.

It is disappointing how anxious you all are to restrict the choices available to the American people in order to promote your own views.

There was a conversation off line about that lock.

The circumstances for the lock had more to do with preventing unnecessary drama than restricting anyone's choices.

Bernie was launching and the image was an innocent attempt to point out the irony of it all and a few members were turning it into a distraction.

All's good, she and I are friends.

and it is part of the ongoing mantra of taking the country back, the same one the GOP engages in. I wish I could say I was surprised it was met with applause. There is a reason there are so few Democrats of color left on this site and that is one of the reasons this site bears no relation to the Democratic base. In general, the site is more affluent, older, whiter and more male than the Democratic voting base, and that meme is a perfect example of that kind of exclusionary politics in action.

I would like to think Bernie Sanders would have been every bit as repulsed by it as I and some others were.
This little country club is become more and more exclusionary all the time, and aggressively so. Yet while people insult the few who don't fall in line with the site orthodoxy, few of you has the courage to confront the owner over his support for Clinton, while none acts on those convictions by refusing to contribute to the site's profits. Instead, people prefer to devote themselves to insulting the non- straight white, non-male and non-affluent segments of the population.

There was nothing innocent about it. Clueless, perhaps, but not innocent. That you now continue to defend it tells me that the problem is not its bigotry but that some of us caught on. Like with Romney's 47 percent comment, the problem wasn't that he said it and what that signaled about his world view, but that others heard and talked about it.

This is what happened. I was inviting a bunch of Facebook friends to like Bernie Sander' s page. These friends include many strong women, feminist activists, equal rights activists from my days in NYC working for inclusion of the bisexual and transgender communities, so many dynamic women...and I was wondering, how many of these women might support Hillary Clinton? And I wondered if any of these women would ask me to justify why I was not only standing against her in the primaries, but asking them to do the same.

And I thought about the "old boys club." I was thinking about how much of our activism has been about breaking into the "old boy's club" which we all understand has been predominantly an old white boy's club. I mean the reason we have black history month and women's history (or herstory) month is because we don't need to have white male history month. Every month is white male history month.

So I started thinking, with the two most influential leaders in the Democratic party - the party with which I have aligned myself my whole life - being a person of color and a woman, and having framed the struggle to empower the disempowered in terms of this old boy's club, isn't it freaking ironic that the person I feel is best suited to represent progressive, egalitarian, democratic principles is the old white guy.

It's not a racial slur, it's not anti-feminist. It's just straight-up irony. I was completely blind-sided that it could possibly be seen in any other way.

I don't even know how one thinks about something like that. I see nothing ironic about it. People have views, but one's race and gender is not an absolute determinant of their worldview. Sarah Palin is a woman and Ben Carson is black. So what? They have the right to advance any political views they want. Subject position has an influence. Sanders is less tuned into issues of race and gender than either Clinton or Obama, while he advances other positions they don't. People are individuals with an array of experiences and views.

That meme feeds into the idea of taking the country back for that old boy's club. You really ought to think more carefully. These things are read in a broader context and there are people on the so-called left who greatly resent the decline of their own privilege vis a vis women and people of color. You need to think before you feed into that.

...part of me was hoping you were going to say, "Oh,I get it."

Of course just because someone is a woman does not mean her positions support the interests of women, and just because someone is a person of color doesn't mean his or her positions serve the interests of people of color. But in the most general of terms, it's ironic when a man is a better feminist than a woman.

I don't get how the meme even comes close to taking the country back to the old white boys club. Because, as you imply, being an old white boy doesn't mean you represent the old white boys club...and that's irony.

I've heard of iron deficiency. I think irony deficiency may be a bigger problem.

has not been about race and gender. Sanders is not a better feminist than Clinton or a better civil rights activist than Obama. He may be better at speaking to the interests of the white middle and upper-middle class. in fact, the entire thrust of the discussion concerning Sanders on this site has been from that perspective. There is some pretty active hostility toward the concerns of feminists and people of color in those discussions and on this site more generally, which is why we have only a very small handful of African Americans left on this site and HOF has been decimated.

In order to see an irony you must have some pretty strange ideas of race and gender, which is why I asked if you were an essentialist. Rather than answer that question you blame me for not getting your little joke directed at the in crowd.
Don't acknowledge that you created a meme in poor taste. Instead, you go right on blaming those of us who found it troubling. It scores points with the in crowd.

...vs white and gold dress.

We could go on and on and never understand why the other person doesn't see it clearly. You are right, I should consider more carefully how things are perceived. Sometimes that is difficult when it seems like we really are speaking different languages.

Honestly, I meant no disrespect.

It is far more white, male, affluent and older that the Democratic party's voting demographic. The site's lack of racial diversity is particularly at odds with the party and is evident in the arguments that emerge on the site. A handful of alerters are also working to make it more homogeneous by targeting the few remaining African Americans left on the site, when African Americans are the single most Democratic voting demographic.

So I have no doubt she speaks for many on DU, but that is in no way shape or form the Democratic base.

and many, many others.

It's a diverse base. I thought about removing those words for that very reason, but I left it because there are enough who share this point of view that it does constitute a group who shouldn't be left out of consideration, and we are a significant part of the base.


Edit to add that I also left it to emphasize that I and other similar progressives could be part of her base, and would be if she were a progressive choice. I included it because she has narrowed her base. She's a top-heavy pyramid.

But signing your base is presumptuous.

But whatever. Nit the end of the world.

No one thought you were claiming any right to speak for Hillary supporters or every registered Democrat.

You don't have to keep apologizing because one poster after another gets overly literal.


Chandler Bing called to say, "Can it possibly get any more ridiculous and authoritarian in here?"

people have been telling me I'm off-base for years.

I guess you just helped me figure out what the hell they were talking about.

for a woman who has risen from the ranks in spite of the obstacles and has pulled other women with her.
When no proof is set forth for accusations it isn't different from right wing blab.

But now that she is, we need to get used to the fact and get ready for some dialogue.

It's better without the shouting.

I hate oligarchy, and I hate that the Democratic leadership does not challenge oligarchy, and I hate that Hillary allows her self to be a tool to uphold oligarchy, and I hate that anyone who tries to hold her accountable for that is just dismissed.

Absolutely wonderful letter. It is inspiring.

I am grateful to you for writing this. I wish I could have it printed in the LATimes, NY Times and the Chicago Tribune.

Brava!

I know it's very feeling-based, but I had to get it out.

Thanks for being brave enough to let it fly. I would not have written this OP, mostly because I usually feel that my views are not representative of this site, which seems (and whose owner recently confirmed) to ally itself with the Hillary wing of the party. I agree with pretty much every word you wrote, for me it is the truth.

Sadly, Hillary and Bill (and I would include Obama, though most on this site would not) are not outliers, they are where the current incarnation of the Democratic Party resides. The outliers are the ones who actually represent what the Democratic Party claims to represent. It's an empty facade, they cash checks from the lobbyists, do their bidding by legislating their interests (often literally typed and handed to the by the lobbyist), and work on improving their image to the people without actually offending the big money interests. We deserve, and this planet depends on us coming up with, representatives who will fight tirelessly for the least of us.

Here's a video clip, George W. Bush hamming it up, telling his joke about the elites being his base, "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base." A rare honest moment, kidding on the square is what Senator Franken calls it. It could just as easily have been uttered by Hillary, or by most of the people our party promotes.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4500665/people-call-elites-call-base

All were working, secure in their homes and work or retirements, nice looking homes at that.

I believe that the campaign thinks the people depicted are average, but reality is that they are not.

The average is getting poorer and more desperate, and none of these people were to be seen anywhere in the video.

I have absolute faith in the Hillary team's marketing skills, they will do a great job of honing her image. Her announcement made reference to some progressive causes, she's got the Scooby van, their web site has the cute family Duck photo for their 404 page not found error, Hillary's picture was beautiful, they're showing her speaking and interacting with everyday people in cafes and shops, very well done IMO.

But I see the whole thing as a Hollywood movie set of an old western town, a facade of main street business fronts, hollowed out, the shop owners long ago moved away due to the big box stores taking their business, the phony store-fronts polished up for photo ops. It's a well-thought-out and executed bit of theater, using money from the people who put the main street businesses out of business to produce slick marketing material and speeches designed to get the vote of those abandoned people, and it will probably work, because they are the good cops, not as bad as the bad cops, all by design.

I don't see one drop of policy that will actually address the problems we are facing, quite the opposite. Myself, I used to be pretty well off, computer programmer, wife, kid, home-owner, money in the bank, nothing much but I was never worried about money. Now I am long-term unemployed, house value crashed to less than 30% of what it was worth at peak and still after some recovery only 70% of what I paid for it so I can't really sell and relocate without being foreclosed upon, my wife had a good job and left the sinking ship (after she refused to allow me to sell the house before the collapse because she thought I was being an alarmist and the crash would never come), and there are many like me or worse that aren't getting any help anytime soon from the mainstream of either political party.

On the macro level, the cause of it all can be traced directly to the Clinton-Gingrich-Gramm deregulation in the 90's, H1-B's to bring in cheap Indian programmers rather than train or even just pay qualified workers here, massively leveraged financial pozi schemes, police state for the unfortunates, not to mention the post-9/11 war orgy the same people led the nation into. On the personal level, there were things I could have done differently and better to avoid some of the problems I am facing, I suspect it is always so for anyone who goes through this.

This stuff sounds like petty pony demands to the comfortable, but to many, it is about ruined lives, unimaginable psychic pain on top of the more quantifiable pain of not having what you need to get by, and environmentally, we face a climate challenge we can't even get our heads around it's so immediate and critical, there are no words to do it justice. We've been down this road way too long, one party drives a little faster than the other but they're on the same road and it's straight up a road to ruin. It's insanity to go on supporting it.

of Democrats IRL.

True or not, don't be afraid to post what you want. It's your voice. Use it. Ignore bullying.

ETA: "true or not" refers only to poetic license, such as the OP took, and has very patiently explained over and over, with her sign off on the letter in the OP. IMO, sincere, rational people would not have put that in the context of the beginning of the letter and not even raised it, let alone piled on about it.

I am not urging the OP or anyone, to post falsehoods of a different kind. To the contrary.

Hopefully the admins here will realize we really care about the issues and tolerate the dissent, as we tolerate their pragmatism or whatever it is. I think the discussion between these two camps is worthwhile if we can all hang with it.

and she'll read it, and it will get to her.

I am trying hard to like her and see the positives but you
said it all.

...or to Newsday...but I'd hate to edit out the swearing.

If you want to send this vile BS, you may, but please take off the signature line. You do not speak for me, and I find you arrogant and insulting to think that you do.

Doubt the name-calling letters get past the interns though.

will we vote for her? will we have a choice?

There's no legal obligation to vote at all, let alone vote for her.

I'm with you 100%.

Hillary ate at a Chipotle Mexican Grill Tuesday afternoon so that she could look like she's an everyday middle class person but it backfired on her. If she really is who she pretended to be, then why hasn't she eaten at any fast food restaurant in the past and posted about it. It's all theater and a photo op to fool people into thinking she's one of us. Bullshit! What a phony.

speak for me.

And I am certainly part of Hillary's base.

There was a little conversation about this up top. But as a liberal feminist, I really should be part of her base. That's why I decided to keep that closing.

Don't speak for me...and I am a LOYAL Democrat!

Why can't we all just let this play out? Let the primary season take place and listen to the candidates and see who the nominee is? Personally, I expect it to be Hillary, and I'm very happy if that happens. If by some chance it does not happen, then I will vote for whomever is the nominee.

But I don't think it serves anyone to have a Democratic candidate vilified on a democratic discussion board at this stage of the game.

She's being shoved down our collective throats, like she's entitled to the presidency.

Plus, many feel as I do that she and her husband are corrupt, liars, phony. And I, for one, have been warning the party that the most loyal members of the Democratic Party base--black voters--have not forgotten the racism that was practiced by the Clinton camp and their supporters during the 2007-8 primaries.

I think the Democrats are making a huge mistake supporting this candidate, and I truly believe with all my heart that if she's the nominee, we will have a Republican dominated government.

Hope I'm wrong, but I think the Clintons are incredibly dangerous! Their hunger and lust for power makes them careless, reckless, arrogant and spiteful. Remember the campaign they ran. Just remind yourselves how reckless and careless they were. As they grew more desperate, especially when they realized Hillary was losing, they became more spiteful, more reckless, actually pretty hateful. I and many others did not like what we saw. That behavior is expected of Republicans, not Democrats.

Running to Faux News to play race politics--I will never forgive the Clintons and their cheerleaders for their disgusting scorched earth politics.

These are dangerous people!

As I said in my previous post, I want to let the primary process play out.

I don't have the same feelings about the Clintons as you do (and you are entitled to feel as you wish). I do hope we have a robust and meaningful debate during the primary process. I simply don't (at this point in time) see anyone that I believe is going to be more qualified than Hillary.

I posted on fb and a du friend there responded so I decided to drop in over here. It's been a while.

Thanks for the tip.

multiple places.

I love the goal, but thinking Hillary will bow out voluntarily is too far-fetched for even an SNL skit.

And I would hate to lose Warren' s voice in the Senate. I do wish there were two of her....or ten.

Not saying that for any reason, other than I am proud of it.

Had there been the same draft Warren move there is now and no Hillary, I do believe Warren would have declared, even it it had not otherwise occurred to her. (Why would it have?)

I will vote for who ever wins the primary. I support Hillary but will gladly support any Democrat including Joe Biden who also vote for the IWR.

Just thought I'd bring that up before some of the fanatical Clinton apologists start shrieking about it.

Great post BTW. Clinton and the republicans are basically two sides of the same coin. All the flashy overpriced campaign videos in the world won't change the fact that this campaign is nothing more than a cynical attempt to sell us the same bullshit in a different wrapper.

She really does need to get the fuck out of the way. She has nothing to offer but the status quo.

Excellent post. You really nailed it.

What a transparent piece of garbage.

Nice try.

Your allegations are completely factless. Her record shows that she is a shill for no one. Her record is one that apparently you refuse to research before creating the shit you want to throw at her.

She certainly did learn the political craft--which is what she did to be able to lead the country. She has excelled at every job given her from health care advocacy, to the senate, to Secretary of State.

Suspiciously absent from your outrage is your letter to Obama, or Kerry, Or Howard, or O'Malley, or any other politician who have also taken donations from corporations. Your outrage is certainly selective. It makes me wonder if you are a sexist wolf in sheep's clothing. Of course Ms. Clinton is held to a completely different--unobtainable standard.

I suggest you look at her senate votes, what she did for NY, her stands on women's rights around the world, and her stance on the middle class. And, also, before you beg the inexperienced Ms. Warren to run, you may want determine Warren's donations, and review her obvious foreign policy inexperience and blunders. It certainly does not appear that you have.

You have the right to spew any vile, ignorant bull shi** you want. Just don't say you speak for me. You do not.

To explain how the big banks caused the meltodwn of 2007 and how they need to be regulated, held accountable, and taxed on a fair basis?

"She has excelled at every job given her from health care advocacy, to the senate, to Secretary of State."

What bullshit. She failed at "health care advocacy", she was a fair-weather sailor in the senate, and did not shine at the state department.

Where does this glorious resume spring from? The only thing Hillary has is her all-consuming ambition. Nothing more.

She's not likable. She's a liar. She's a corporate shill. She sat on the board of Wal-Reich for fuck sakes. She used race-baiting during the '08 primary.

Most importantly, she's the most unifying person in the world...for the other party. She would not be able to get ANYTHING done, as they would be more dogged then ever to block everything on capital hill. If you thought they hated Obama....

She's not acceptable.

What color pony do you want?

as for what color pony? I can buy my own goddamned pony TYVM since I can't seem to get any candidate for the Presidency that will raise taxes on my top-5% ass; I've got money to burn.

(I also have a pony already. It's chestnut.)

In case you didn't know, the answer is no. I think that you did know however.

What the fuck? If you want a candidate that can unilaterally raise taxes then you must be hoping for a pony. Another one. This one multi-colored with a big, fat cock.

I will, maybe with a bad taste, vote for her if she is the Dem nominee.

Better than any Repub. We just can't afford that party.
Although my true belief is that the R's don't see the president as the true power position.
I think they see the two houses and the Supreme Court where the true power lies.
The POTUS election is secondary. It would be nice, it would be easier, but.....

Yeah so I'll be a Dem across the board

... And it's a lot to think about. But our fear of splitting the vote is problematic. The fact that we are currently on track to sign the TPP, part of the reason we are there is because we are held hostage every year by the prospect of an even worse choice.

To be honest, I may do the same as you. But for now, I'd like to elevate a better candidate in our primaries.

Instead of tearing her down why ur candidate is best to be the Nominee & how you think they will fair in the General Election?

...but I think we're too obsessed with winning.

I think Democrats misuse primary season, and that has been a serious contributing factor in moving the center to the right.

I remember during the primaries in the lead up to election 2004, I was working for the Kucinich campaign. My job was to go to different groups in the NYC LGBT community to represent the platform and get endorsements.

Everywhere I went I was told the same thing. Everyone said that Kucinich was closer to their values, but that Kerry was more electable. Every group endorsed based on a winning strategy and not based on the elevation of their ideas.

And Kerry lost anyway, so it was a total waste.

We've lost a lot by being afraid to lose.

I just don't think that's okay.

When a Democrat works on policies that favor the wealthy, or military adventurism, or domestic surveillance, or fracking, or offshore drilling, or supports a drug war which is really a way to target and incarcerate the disgruntled proletariat, or any number of policies our base doesn't actually support, us Democrats might wag our heads in disapproval, but it's our person doing it, so we pull the punches, and those who don't are accused of not being supportive of our politicians. Examples of this are all over this site, everyday. When a Republican pushes these policies, however, we are properly outraged and fire up, and we put up a hell of a fight. So many of these policies slide through without much of a fight when a Democrat is pushing them.

So it isn't just that I don't trust our corporate Democrats (I certainly don't), it's also that I don't trust us Democrats to be activated on policy issues when our corporate Democrats are triangulating us out of everything we supposedly believe in. We failed that test miserably in the past 6 years or so, accepting policies which would have been entirely unacceptable had a Republican been driving them.

I don't think it's better to lose, but I do think the dynamic of not challenging our own means there is even less benefit to a corporate Democrat than one would naturally expect.

Also fully agree with the point you made above, by focusing just on winning we often are not even remotely involved in advocating progressive reforms, which are mysteriously "off the table" and not talked about, despite their popularity when the issues are polled. And if we won't do it, nobody will.

"{Candidate X} represents my position, but I'm voting for {Candidate Y} because they'll win."

When someone says that Kucinich, or Sanders, or whomever, is "unelectable" it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They are unelectable because we've all collectively internalized a defeatist agenda.

would have "burned her to the ground" long ago.

Nice violent metaphor.

Very progressive.

Loved this.

This:

You're not going to fight to end corruption. You're not going to fight to reclaim democracy from the clutches of a handful of multinational corporations. You're not going to make any progress on any issues that matter to most Americans, let alone those that matter to progressive voters, because you benefit from the system that stands in the way of progress. You are entrenched. You can't do any good. So I wish you would get out of the way.

... is crystal ball BS.

I bet you have never seen HRC's voting record or her ratings by scores of organizations. Check out Project Vote Smart.

I will tell you and every other denizen of the uber left echo chamber this ... Hillary Clinton could well be the ONLY person standing in the way of the Cons really taking over this country. If the republicans take over the WH and get to appoint replacements to the SCOTUS for 4-8 years, then we are DONE as a democratic country. All the gerrymandering will be locked in place, the money in politics will only increase, women's and minority rights will really start reversing, religious oligarchy will begin to take hold as the wall between church and state is dismantled, a constitutional convention will be called to change to the way senators are elected and the way presidential electors are assigned, tax codes favoring the wealthy will be etched in stone as the government keeps piling on debt, climate change will be ignored as fracking is promoted, stupid wars will be fought continuously ala 1984. Debt will pile up and the US's ability to do good will diminish. Eventually we will be broke, with few resources and a stupid, backward populace. Yeah, shit like that does happen, has happened, throughout history. The election of 2016 could be a very critical crossroads for the US and the world.

You want a permanent Republican government running amok? Keep on running your mouth, doing nothing, and seeing the world with your short sighted, myopic eyes.

Elizabeth Warren will NEVER be president. Bernie Sanders will NEVER be president. Get over it. Generally speaking leaders of the US have to lead from the center, they can lean a certain way, but usually one foot is near the center.

Just because HRC doesn't pucker up and kiss the backside of every liberal cause is no reason to throw her under the bus. She could well be all that stands between the possibility of hope and a great, long lasting darkness.

I mean, some of us even doubted that Libya and Syria could go wrong, and we were in Damascus in January 2012!

and did you SERIOUSLY just say that Hillary is the only thing keeping us from debt, fracking, warmongering, and destruction of education, and blame people "running their mouth" for the Dems' repeated mediocre performance?

The future will be shaped by those in power, and a divided house is more likely to fall. I am living in a state that is experiencing first hand what could happen nationally should the R's get all three branches of government under their control. It is disgusting. Instead of bashing HRC, find the good. It is there to be seen if you and your ilk would take off your blinders of hate and get out of your little echo chamber.

I will ignore your straw man-ish exaggerations of my post.

You can speak for me any time if you're going to do it so well.

At least this piece is pretty much just straight-up personal hatred of Hillary Clinton, instead of dressing itself up up as a policy critique.



P.S. This author is not part of the base, never was, just a hater.

I think it's also presumptuous of you to kick me out of the Democratic base.

I can see why you would call me a hater, because my letter is vitriolic. I'm really pissed. The state of things really angers me, and I think it is fair to say that Hillary Clinton is an establishment candidate who does not represent real change. And I think it's fair to say that the culture within the Democratic party has been a factor in moving the center to the right, and that we have given up a lot of vital territory in order to increase our chances of winning in a broken system.

But I don't think it's fair to say that I am not a part of the Democratic base. I have been a registered Democrat, participating in every local and federal primary election since I was 18.

I certainly am part of the fucking base.

Scott Walker or Bush III then nope not part of the base.

You obviously don't owe her a vote in the primary. I myself will probably vote for Bernie if he runs.

And you're right, that's unclear. I am very much about our misuse of primary season, so it's on my mind so much I forget to clarify.

EDIT TO ADD: For transparency, let me say, I don't know what I will do if she ends up being the nominee. I might write in someone or vote Green.

I'm in New York, so that's an easier choice for me.

Thanks rbnyc.

Past is prologue, so let's examine HRC's:

She was inevitable in 2008, too. She was in it to win it. She was assured that her name and money were sufficient, until Super Tuesday proved her wrong and she resorted to kitchen sink tactics against BHO, even going so far as to praise McCain. Then, still not knowing when to quit despite running on empty money wise, she proceeded on to California because you never know, remember Bobby Kennedy. That was the straw for many, including the Democratic leadership which asked her to bow out in summer 2008. She gracelessly did so, on condition that Obama and the party pay off her campaign debt. Wow, what great leadership skills, what sound management! Screw up, squander a formidable campaign war chest on a 1992 style campaign, then demand that someone else bail you out... kinda like Wall Street which is quite appropriate.

In 2008, HRC also touted her 20 years of experience -- 12 as first lady of Arkansas and 8 as first lady of the US. But if she was, and is, to claim the Clinton legacy, then she has to assume the blame for that job sucking travesty NAFTA, for the Gramm-Bliley-Leech Act which overturned Glass-Steagall, for the Telecommunications Act which has produced the horrid consolidated media of today, and for Welfare Deform which has deepened the abyss of poverty. BTW: imagine the ridicule HRC supporters would heap on Babs Bush if she ever made a similar 'experience' claim based on 4 years as 2nd lady of the US, 4 years as 1st lady of the US and 8 years as 1st mom!

Then there’s 2002, HRC's first term in the Senate. How can anyone forget that IWR vote, that callous, finger-in-the-political-wind vote cast because of her POTUS aspirations. That vote makes her ultimately culpable for the death, debt, destruction and destabilization that war of choice has caused. Sure Bush would have gone to war anyway, but without the votes of Democrats like the would be presidents Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Biden and Dodd, it would truly have been BUSH’S war. Instead, HRC and the others were profiles in political cowardice displaying politically ambitious calculation, awful judgment, and a stunning lack of morality while providing the liars and thieves in the Bush White House bipartisan cover. Here at DU, we knew better than to believe the Bush cabal. Democrats like Edward Kennedy (a genuine liberal), Bob Graham (of FL who even now points correctly to the Saudis), Robert Byrd and others not only cautioned their peers about such haste (casting votes just before the 2002 midterm elections) but warned, like canaries in the mine, about the long term consequences. Never forget Byrd’s poignant speech about the rush to war, the cost of war, the waste of war... It didn't take a classified report to see the facts. And those who think that vote is outdated, past history, something to be forgotten because HRC apologized for it, called it a mistake… just think, there are no do-overs for votes that cost so much in terms of death and destruction.

HRC is no friend of the common man. She pays handlers and marketing personnel to package her as the people’s champion, but it’s all smoke and mirrors because Wall Street (the likes of Robert Reuben, Larry Summers, Lloyd Blankfein aka Mr. Goldmann Sachs, etal.) owns her. She is the mistress of triangulation who helped found the DLC and who remains 3rd way to her very core. She is tone deaf and thin skinned (see that 2008 primary campaign, again) and lacks the natural political skills and charisma of Bill. On that note, I would even go so far as to say, she is no pave-the-way feminist. She is where she is today because of Bill.

After law school, she may have ever so briefly worked on the Nixon impeachment committee, but she was no heavy hitter, she didn’t pass the DC Bar, and she didn’t last long there. So what did she do? She ran off to Arkansas (to Arkansas… who goes there, who goes from Yale to DC to Hope Arkansas, if they are such a gifted and talented attorney… sorry Arkansans). She followed Bill because she recognized his innate talents and his rising star quality, and she latched on to him. She made it because of being Mrs. Clinton not because of being Hillary Rodham. Her only real lawyering was shilling for Walmart (a corporate lawyer for WALMART… so much walking the talk of being the people’s champion) and at the Rose Law Firm, she relied heavily on Vince Foster!

If she's the best the Democratic Party can offer at this critical time in history, then we're fucked. Go ahead and flame me, I really don't care

She is tone deaf and thin skinned

And so are some of her supporters.

See this video which shows chart of Hillary's favorability going down and unfavorability going up!

Also note that she may very well self destruct so we need to think of alternatives.
Her own arrogance and crookedness could very well derail her campaign. his was just from today "Hillary Clinton misrepresents family history" http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/16/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-grandparents/ 2 days ago we learned this: "Hillary Clinton Was Asked About Email 2 Years Ago" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/us/politics/hillary-clintonwas-asked-about-email-2-years-ago.html?_r=0
She is an arrogant dishonest person who could very well destroy her own chances. It only makes sence to be thinking about alternatives.

Over this next year all that will happen is a media beating with mostly negative press.

This intense focus of all the media on her is an opportunity for Mrs. Clinton to take one of her policies or one of Obamas policies and bring it to fruition.

Something like focus on raising the Federal minimum wage.

...and those who have condemned it. I'm glad to know where you stand.

One funny thing, since a bulk of criticism has been more about my audacity in identifying with the base and less about the actual content of the letter, I find it interesting that after I posted this on facebook, it became my most frequently share status update.

I think there are a lot of frustrated people, and I don't think it's a great idea to just kick us out of the Democratic Primary process.

and they alienate, even in the primary. They believe you must take the loyalty oath to Hillary. If you question ANY of her policies you are a troll, basher, or hater according to them.

I used to be much more active here. There's always been a kind of divide between a group who perhaps could be described as pragmatic, who seem far more aligned with people than with issues, and a group who could be described as idealistic, who care most about elevating issues.

Every time I come back here, I see how that divide has grown.

After she lost the nomination to POTUS.

You may want to update your commentary (which was otherwise well done) as that reference suggests that it is recycled from the 2008 primaries.

I thought that. I was looking at a big list of her top contributors over a period.

The mistake is out there, so I'm just going to leave it.

When the opposition is Scott Walker, even a global corporatist looks good.

But make no mistake, she appeals to our social justice side, but what good is, say, equal pay if you still need to be on foodstamps because jobs were sent overseas?

I'll be honest, I think she and Bill's ambition far exceeds their sense of compassion.

I think she is the very definition of a carpetbagger, moving to NYC specifically to become senator.

People will say, "yeah, so-and-so did that too" like that makes it OK. FTS (fuck that shit)

Same thing with the War Vote.

And, finally, "you're helping the GOP".

FTS, rbnyc

FTS

I know that's a quaint notion in these environs but I know I came from my mother's womb and wasn't dropped onto Democratic Underground from Mount Olympus.

they would vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. Many of the anti-Hillary people on DU go out of their way that they would not vote for her if she is the nominee.

It is like Rachael Maddow said the other day, if Hillary came out and announced the cure for cancer, they would criticize her for that

That is how in my view, credibility they bring to the table. In other words, very little

We will see how popular she is among rank and file members of the Democratic party in the fullness of time and not isolated portions of it.

She is right...Hillary has made a lot of compromises to get where she's got...You know what? So has every successful national politician since George Washington.

You don't rise to the pinnacle of politics without losing a bit of yourself. As they say "don't hate the playa, hate the game.". Politicians don't ride in on white horses to save the day, well not the successful ones for sure.

if Hillary is not the nominee, stepping aside is not an option.

I'd be in.

...I would rather focus on positive support of the candidate I believe in.

I was so angry when I wrote this, mostly because I think we always lose opportunities during primary season by jumping ahead and only caring about "viability" in the most narrow of ways.

I am so excited and grateful that Bernie is in. I am going to use all of my efforts and resources to add to that movement.



(Good to see you.)

And there always is some slight chance that Bernie won't get the nom, & we might regret whatever we did to tear Hill down before having to throw up a little in our mouths and vote for her.

(I know myself & know a totally Republican Government could signify the doom of the biosphere, and, living in what has been a very narrowly Democratic state in Federal elections, I can't imagine throwing my vote away on some third-party candidate just to vent my spleen with the Democratic Party when all that is at stake.)

So a fact free rantlette.

I don't mind the OP hating Clinton, I mind that they can spew this shit without feeling the need to prove what they claim.

+

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/why-liberal-democrats-are-skeptical-of-hillary-clinton-in-one-paragraph/282304/



+

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/10/just_how_liberal_is_hillary_cl.html

But, yes, this was a personal letter. It was about me being so disappointed that as a liberal feminist, I cannot support a female leader in the Democratic party. Clinton is the establishment candidate, and at the time I wrote this, there was NO opposition. We were just going to throw the primary away. So I was personally angry and upset and expressed my feelings.

As well, the main point of the letter was not to prove to you why Clinton represents the status quo, but to affirm to Hillary that her approach has alienated a group that should be a really hot piece of her target market. Marketing is actually almost never about facts. That's why I consciously deferred issues analysis. But by all means, we can have that conversation.

Like the good plebeian I am I need to catch the bus as I can't afford a car...

I will check it when I get back.


Thank you in advance.

Thanks. I also appreciate that you take the bus. I do too.



I have not looked it up yet so I can't speak to it, but I didn't want to ignore you.

I am, however, very excited about this:

BTW, I have looked it up several times...BHO's and HRC's donations are erringly familiar.

A campaign fund to match what Elizabeth Warren used to run for Senator in one state.

Ok, I'm very tires and may be confused, but are you saying that Warren raised $2,100,000,000?

Fifty states. If he raised $1.5 in 24 hours then he will need to raise this amount for another 1400 more days.

...But I don't think it scales like that. Raising $1,500,000 a day it would take 500 days to raise what Obama raised in 2008.

Citizens United, things has changed.

It has gotten out of hand, I keep telling myself, WTH are we trying to do, spending this much money to get someone elected to do a job which pays $400,000 a year. Doesn't make financial sense.

has achieved greater wealth than they probably imagined when they were young does not have anything to do with the fact of their assets but everything to do with her experience and strength to do the job of president.

...and we're not part of an evil corporation.

...Thanks. Lehman did not survive after all. But that's incidental.

state you won't support them? You tossed yourself aside if Hillary is the candidate.
One thing I see in your type of rant. It is always someone else's fault you don't get your way.
If Hillary is the nominee I think she will win without your support. You should thank her for putting herself out there so you could write this rant and tell us along with others that you intend to take yourself out of the game.

...when she ran for Senate. I supported her campaign. She lost me as I observed her on her path.

me included. I can almost hear her on the phone telling the banksters how this is only part of the campaign talk, calming them down.
If Hillary ends up as our nominee I will not campaign for her but she will have my vote because I can't imagine all that one of the R's could do to us. I'll be kicking and screaming but I will vote for the nominee.

And also, this is more about big ideas than anything. It's about an old way of doing things vs. a new way of doing things.

I know people are upset because I'm being very general, but it is very general.

i hope it finds its way to her.

...I'm so freaking scared every time there's a reply to this post.

Now that Bernie is in, I am so happy to have a positive outlet for my concerns.

Though I doubt it will do any good.

DU hate mail with the person who wrote to DU thinking it would get to MSNBC.

"Get out of the way." Why let the people decide when you get to determine that the country should be led by the right kind of people?

You don't think much for democracy or the rights of the people to make their own political choices, do you?
You could just vote for the person you want, but that isn't enough. You need to control others' choices. You need to control the entire race. She needs to get out and leave government to the the right kind of people. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=7544


As I've said several times since Sanders announced, if he wins, it will be despite his DU supporters who seem to be working overtime to alienate as many voters as they possibly can.

The only change I would make is to put Bernie's name where you put Elizabeth Warren's.

While Elizabeth Warren's message on economics is important and welcome, even her policy agenda does not clearly challenge the wars and the secret government/surveillance state/police state that are dismantling democracy in this nation.

Bernie is the only candidate right now acknowledging the scope of this oligarchy and the destruction of democracy itself.

We don't just need to be more economically comfortable within an authoritarian state. We need restoration of our democracy and our Bill of Rights.

We need reform of our elections. We need restoration of our civil liberties. We need an end to secret government and the surveillance state and the militarization of our police forces, and the private prison industry, and the endless wars for profit.

Mrs. Clinton is not a trailblazer; she isn't an innovator; she isn't bold; she isn't progressive.

She is the face of the establishment Democratic Party; she is a voice for the status quo; she strives towards centrism.

Now that a plain-spoken, unabashed progressive has enter the nomination process, Clinton's 'conservatism' becomes even more starkly apparent.

I wish she would get out of the way -- the Clintons have had a good run -- it is time for the arc of change to continue upward.

Democrats most assuredly ought not to go back to the future.

I'm glad to contribute to the evidence that so many people are gravely disillusioned with party leadership that it has become boring.

But honestly, now that we are positioned to have a legitimate primary, I kind of wish this thread would die.

emphatically do not! I believe it is important that your post stays a while longer. It does
help to invite readers to take a calm and deep look into their own minds.

When we feel very strongly for or against some cause, obviously some of the principles and
values felt and held deeply by us have been touched upon. It is exactly these principles and
values that give us a clue as to where we are as human beings. I believe that an occasional
dose of introspection could be a healthy exercise for everyone.

I guess that's why I put it out there.

mean that you don't believe that there is any truth to what the author has said? After all,
opinions should be formed based to a large extent on truth (or lack of it) in the statements
made. Correct?