2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMaybe Hillary Clinton just isn’t a very good candidate
<snip>
And yet, here we are. Clinton is in the midst of a full-scale Democratic freakout due to her faltering poll numbers and ongoing questions about how she has handled her private e-mail server. Joe Biden is considering running. Al Gore's name -- yes, Al Gore -- was even floated!
What gives? Increasingly, Democrats -- privately, of course -- have begun to wonder whether the problem is not the campaign but the
"She has always been awkward and uninspiring on the stump," said one senior Democratic consultant granted anonymity to candidly assess Clinton's candidacy. "Hillary has Bill’s baggage and now her own as secretary of state -- without Bill’s personality, eloquence or warmth."
That same consultant added that he expected Clinton to easily win the Democratic nomination despite her weaknesses. "None of her primary opponents this time are Obama," the consultant said. "Each lacks the skills, message and charisma to derail this train unless she implodes."
But. "The general [election] is another question."
<snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/18/maybe-hillary-clinton-just-isnt-a-very-good-candidate/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Don't care for her delivery-- sounds forced, and awkward. So yes, not a great candidate, but given the GOP, she could still win.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)
1monster
(11,045 posts)of absolute rage.
Hillary has her problems, but comparing her to Nixon may be a bit harsh...
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bob-woodward-clinton_55d1f553e4b0ab468d9dbe94
The comparison is becoming more frequent now.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)That'll leave a mark.
Or maybe more like a bruise.
oasis
(53,693 posts)He was kissing GW Bush's ass, big time until Chimpy fell out of favor. Woodward is the last person I'd ask for an opinion.
Roy Rolling
(7,632 posts)It is not as much the content if her message as it is her lack of charisma. Ironically, some people agree with a flat delivery saying it gives a candidate the "no nonsense" look.
As for me, a forced image seems hard to maintain and she should just be herself. If this is her real persona, then it is what it is.
musiclawyer
(2,335 posts)Like Rachel says about John Boehner ( that he is bad at his job ) , HRC is a bad candidate.
If she gets the nod, it will be a squeaker. Close enough for the voting machines to factor in.
Not even getting into emails and MSM fake scandals and GOP irrational vitriol. Just sit back and watch and listen. She's not a natural politician. Her delivery is wooden, the smile looks fake, has a laugh that comedians make fun of. When passionate, it's more scolding than revving. It's not her fault. It's just who she is.
Like when the comedian on Larry Wilmore's show said , she comes across like the HS principal you want to avoid, but Bernie Sanders comes across like the cool teacher you want to high five ..or words to that effect.
Election decisions are made by the heart and not the brain. The right has known this for a long time. People right left and center are beginning to feel Bernie Sanders from the heart, moved by his big heart. HRC looks cold and calculating in comparison.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)She's won one race in her entire life. One. Against Rick Lazio. A buffoon who is an equally-bad campaigner...and who was probably going to beat her too. She'd been in terminal decline for weeks and had a narrow lead that everybody but her own campaign conceded was going to evaporate when he committed his terminal gaffe during their debate by appearing to (and actually trying to) bully her. Short of that...she's won as many elected races as Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan in her lifetime.
That's what we're going to be reduced to if Hillary secures the nomination...hoping that Trump or Jeb! or clown-car occupant #46 blows their own candidacy on the verge of crushing Clinton out. We can count on Hillary to not be electable without outside assistance and divine intervention.
(I just can't understand why she can't just go away and her supporters can't recognize that she imperatively needs to go away for the good of the Democratic party and the good of the nation.)
Metric System
(6,048 posts)
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)In New York. Which was not hard at all since her Husband moved his office to Harlem and Chappaqua for their (the Clinton's) personal home years before, as both moves were widely covered by the MSM, the NY Democratic Party were in the tank for her (which would have been expected) and she ran against opponents that her on a elementary school level of political campaigning, at best.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He was replaced with Lazio as the designated loser.
In the second, she basically ran unopposed. There was nominally a Republican running against her, but he was the former mayor of Yonkers, was virtually unknown in the rest of the state, and received virtually no support from the Republican party. He was basically there so that the "Republican" side of the ballot was not blank.
Clinton's first seriously contested election was 2008.
Lazio was her opponent from the day the GOP primary was over. He wasn't some last minute replacement candidate.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Article I read claimed a different Republican won the nomination but was indicted. Appears that article was wrong.
CanadaexPat
(496 posts)and he pushed her hard in her first race, even introducing her as a candidate at his upstate home.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)Why didn't she run in Arkansas? It was the Clintons' home state for years...
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)On behalf of my fellow plebeians I thank you for descending from Mount Olympus and instructing the rest of us how to act and think.
#lol@me
still_one
(98,883 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 19, 2015, 10:59 AM - Edit history (1)
supporters. So your statement:
"I just can't understand why she can't just go away and her supporters can't recognize that she imperatively needs to go away for the good of the Democratic party and the good of the nation"
Is not only insulting to supporters of Hillary Clinton, but also quite self-destructive for Bernie Sanders, because if you piss enough Hillary Clinton supporters off with those kind of condescending remarks, why would you think those supporters would jump to support Bernie if he is the nominee? There are Bernie supporters on DU that have already declared they will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee. Well, I tell you, that is a two way street.
My suggestion is stay with the issues why you want Bernie and not Hillary, and stay away from the negative hyperbole, especially toward Hillary supporters.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Let's be clear...my interest in the race is in taking out Hillary and her monied Wall St. interests from having any influence in the Democratic party. That is my agenda...ending Clintonism and the third-way. Divorcing the Democratic party from business interests, banks and Wall St. I'd be taking this position even if Sanders wasn't in the race.
As for Clinton's supporters...I couldn't care less what they do. I want them crushed out of thinking that they can ever have any influence again and to realize that they need to fall in line just like they've spent the last 30 years telling the left they have to. I want them permanently marginalized as a political entity of any influence whatsoever. Frankly, they are my enemy just as much as any Republican.
still_one
(98,883 posts)unless they have Hillary supporters voting for them if they get the Democratic nomination, they will lose the general election
So denigrating Hillary with various hyperbole will not help your objective with whichever candidate you support
but since you could care less for what Hillary supporters would do if your candidate wins the nomination, I suspect that is not a winning strategy
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Winning is secondary to annihilating the Clintonites, Corporatists and Third-Way for me. It really is.
I'd like to win. I really would like Democrats to win the presidency again in 2016...but winning with the support and influence of the Clinton Corporatists is a Pyrrhic victory and losing without them is at-worst a strategic loss in a victorious long-term strategy. Long-term, the metric isn't winning any single election or electoral cycle...it's permanently destroying the influence of the Clintons, their ardent supporters and their corporatist backers within the Democratic party.
My victory condition is asymmetrical to yours. I don't care what her supporters do because winning means they just don't matter anymore. I'm saying we're just better off without all y'all. You can all go third-party or join the GOP or commit ritual seppuku for all I care as long as your taint is off the Democratic party so we can begin the healing of Democratic and progressive values.
still_one
(98,883 posts)HappyPlace
(568 posts)And Bernie is very thoughtfully NOT bashing Hillary.
So, when Hillary's campaign fizzles her voters won't see Bernie as the bad guy.
There are, of course, a few hard core supporters who might just sit it out, but nobody is going to stay home because of what a few DU people write and they can't get angry with Bernie because he's rising above negative politics.
I think we'll be fine.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)this particular thread was because of what I consider the flame bait OP. I have seen it on the other side also where they say Bernie cannot win as a Democratic Socialist.
However, it appears that these types of "Hillary or Bernie can't win" threads are not very productive for any candidate.
A person I was engaged with a similar discussion, I was told I didn't get it. The reason I didn't get it was because I didn't subscribe to the other individuals point that:
"Winning is secondary to annihilating the Clintonites, Corporatists and Third-Way for me. It really is. "
I realize that is not the consensus among most of the Democratic candidates' supporters, but in my view it indicates how a position can move from defending or advocating a candidate over issues to becoming evolving into something that becomes self-destructive that it effectively divide, and propels the republicans into not only the executive branch, but both houses of congress.
I understand a few believe if that happened it wouldn't matter if Hillary was the Democratic nominee, but I beg to differ on that view point. Personally, I have no problem voting for any of the Democratic candidates in the primary, except Jim Webb. I am not sure what I would do in a case like that, and because of that I do understand and empathize with the position of supporters of other candidates.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Works right into the parody of a right wingers mind-set. Very funny. Unintentional, but funny none the less. He would slide right into the WaPo as validation of his premise.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I don't find her likable at all. She will never get my vote.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)
tazkcmo
(7,419 posts)I don't see eye to eye on several issues with Sec. Clinton but I wouldn't call her awful and I will vote for her if she wins the nomination. She is not my choice but given the alternative should she win the nomination, I'll take her over any Republican.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)And I would rather she win than any R, but I still think she's pretty bad. I do not want another Clinton or Bush.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)yes, not very good...
dirtydickcheney
(242 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 19, 2015, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)
I don't know anyone that sees her and gets so excited to say "Oooohhh! Give me more of THAT!!" Actually, I don't know anyone that sees her and gets excited at all.
She's stiff and wooden and I realized that Trump is more progressive on his stance on the Iraq War and trade policies than she seems. What's her stance on the Keystone XL Pipleline?? Well, we'll just have to wait and see until she becomes President to really find out.
My point - the more you see her the less you like her. and she's not remotely good enough speaker to overcome what I'd call her poor positions on policy to what the Progressive Wing of the Democratic party really wants.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)And her numbers have taken a nose dive since last month. Your poll lends evidence to the OP. And yeah... its "not very good".
ericson00
(2,707 posts)like you who can't accept your candidate is unelectable and will not be the nominee, both on the will of voters and party elders.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)The OP is about her being a not great candidate. Those numbers prove that. If it doesnt bother you that the majority of Americans feel that Hillary is unlikable and untrustworthy, good luck with that.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)Clinton beats 'em all. The end.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)
Qutzupalotl
(15,824 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)which Hillary is winning outside of the MoE against every single Republican. No one goes to a ballot and votes "Candidate A: favorable (check box) unfavorable (checkbox)". They see "Candidate A (checkbox) Candidate B (checkbox)
Qutzupalotl
(15,824 posts)and Candidate B is a Republican, so maybe I'll just stay home.
Unfavorables matter. Turnout counts.
Vinca
(53,994 posts)She's been "overhandled" and kept in a bubble since day 1 of the 2008 campaign. I blame her handlers for the email scandal because I would bet anything they convinced her a private email server would keep her emails away from Republicans in the next presidential campaign. I think she's a very smart woman who is afraid to be spontaneous and that's too bad.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Hillary did lose a 30 point lead to a lesser known Illinois Senator named Barack Obama.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Obama was the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (listening to his speech that night it was clear he'd be POTUS one day) and he's very charismatic. Most importantly, he's a neoliberal like Clinton. Sanders has never stood a chance. Lefties have to do much more between election cycles in order to lay the groundwork for someone such as Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders to be nominated. We're nowhere close to seeing someone like that in the White House.
The Wizard
(13,735 posts)near the center.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)In a sane country, the likes of Sanders and Kucinich (once described as a "European centrist"
would be thought of as moderate. But, as Bernard Chazelle once wrote, "America has lefties but no left." Lefties haven't laid the groundwork necessary for someone like Sanders to be the nominee. Look no further than the visceral reaction so many have to "socialism," even though every single person in the US relies heavily on socialism (any publicly funded entity: public schools, police and fire, military, FDA, EPA, etc.). Lefties need to get organized at the most local level, and then go from there. Until then, there's no way someone like Sanders will be viable. In the meantime, we're stuck with neoliberals and neoconservatives.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)The themes of socialist philosophy that are laid down in the substrata of European politics take their root from Europe's history. Essentially, we reached a point where we just couldn't afford to fuck each other over any more.
I fear that the US can still afford to plenty of fucking over of whoever the fuck it likes.
frylock
(34,825 posts)that's for damn sure.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)As Bernard Chazelle said, "America has lefties but no left." Without an organized Left working tirelessly day after day between elections (and not just waiting every 4 or 8 years in hopes of electing an actual progressive candidate), we will be stuck with neoliberals such as Obama and Clinton.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Not accurate or helpful.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Lefties haven't laid the necessary groundwork for someone such as Sanders to be nominated. Lefties have to get organized and start a grassroots movement from the local outward. As opposed to simply waiting for the election cycle to roll around and hoping this will be the year we nominate a progressive candidate (as opposed to just another neoliberal).
Sanders himself said the following: "And now let me tell you something that no other candidate fot president will tell you.
And that is no matter who is elected to be president, that person will not be able to address the enormous problems facing the working families of our country.
They will not be able to suceed becuase the power of corporate America, the power of Wall Street, the power of campaign donors is so great that no president alone can stand up to them.
That is the truth. People may be uncomfortable about hearing it, but that is the reality. And that is why what this campaign is about is saying loudly and clearly: It is not just about electing Bernie Sanders for president, it is about creating a grassroots political movement in this country."
Again, "that person will not be able to address the enormous problems facing the working families of our country. They will not be able to succeed..." So, is Sanders being a "defeatist" or is he just tellin' it like it is?
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)The Berenistas always talk they make it sound like Obama crushed her. That was not the case. Obama won thanks to the overwhelming support of AA voters (not even in your wildest dreams Sanders will get that).
And she won the Latino vote.
So this time around even if Sander managed to siphon half of the black voters from her (which is not happening) Hillary still wins by a good margin.
dirtydickcheney
(242 posts)Then how did she come in third place behind Edwards?????????
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)The difference between Obama and Hillary was less than one percent
Please do your research before posting.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)While Hillary carried the cities in Iowa and New Hampshire. In Nevada, Obama won every county except for Clark county where Las Vegas sits and has the only substantial Black population in the state (which is also where Hillary tried to get the rules changed to make it more difficult for African-Americans to get to the polls).
The primary was only *thisclose* because:
1. Hillary violated the agreement not to run in Florida.
2. Hillary violated the agreement to remove their names from the primary in Michigan.
3. Obama suspended his primary campaign after he had it won letting Hillary roll up a string of late victories.**
4. The numbers used to justify this claim ignore the caucus states. And Obama dominated those states.
** I always hated Obama's decision to suspend the campaign. Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia are a lot like Indiana. He won Indiana in the general election. So he should have had a shot at those other three had he bothered to campaign there.
artislife
(9,497 posts)at the end so she ended better than she would have.
And continued to help her by giving her SoS.
He is such a decent man. He really didn't hold her bs of the campaign against her.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)I think it was pragmatic politics more than decency. He had the Special Envoy to the Middle East report directly to some White House staffer instead of State while she was Secretary. The moment Kerry became Secretary, Obama switched the Envoy back to State. It was a highly damning move to anyone who noticed.
But it does highlight a very important distinction between them. The Clintons propelled Rahm onto the political stage. But he and Obama were both part of the Chicago legislative team in Washington. So Rahm remained neutral in the primary. Obama accepted that. It made sense. It was pretty much all Rahm could do.
Hillary, by all accounts, now considers Rahm dead to her. She seems to have taken it as personal rather than pragmatic politics.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Also, it does seem they take things more personally than Obama.
He is amazingly buoyant even after the vile things hurled at him from all sides.
MBS
(9,688 posts)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)which we see resurfacing now with the e-mail problem. It gets tiresome and her defensive responses the past couple of weeks don't help her going forward.
Her record at State needs to be examined more carefully. The spokespersons she put forward at State were incompetent and an embarrassment in dealing with the Press. Also...aside from Benghazi Inquiry...her involvement in overthrowing Ghadaffi and her chuckling comment "We Came We Saw....He Died" was so dreadful that I fear for her Presidency and our Foreign Policy if she is elected. Her recent joke about getting a "Snap Chap" account "...so that those e-mails just Disappear!" was OTT to be joking about an FBI investigation that she obviously doesn't take seriously.
PassingFair
(22,451 posts)The DNC is now just part of the Clinton campaign.
frylock
(34,825 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)because if you had, you'd understand that Hillary losing by less than 1% is relevant, because now, even if she only gets 50% of the AA vote( and I'm being waayy to conservative here), She'll crush Sanders
frylock
(34,825 posts)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)
Gore1FL
(22,951 posts)Her biggest strategy failure this time is not answering questions. The Keystone pipeline question should have been a no-brainer, for example. When Democrats are afraid to take Democratic positions, they lose. See also 2010 and 2012.
Nay
(12,051 posts)like doing. She has to be out there, answering questions from everybody, being honest about stuff like TPP, the Keystone pipeline, etc. I have no idea who is advising her, but they aren't doing her any favors. She acts secretive, she meets with small handpicked crowds. This isn't going to cut it, I don't think.
"When Democrats are afraid to take Democratic positions, they lose." YEP. And when they aren't willing to meet and greet crowds and kiss babies, well . . .
HFRN
(1,469 posts)than purely using them as stepping stones
not a fan of hers, but, credit where credit is due
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)I find when I put that accent (big trouble for moose and squirrel), it makes the posts somewhat entertaining (although they are generally still loaded with nonsense).
They are just like the cultists of Ron Paul, which is why I've decided to refer to Mr. Berns as the Ron Paul of the Left:
*Promises a unicorn in every garange.. even though anyone with just an inkling of common sense knows even if he does get magically elected, he'll NEVER be able to deliver on half of those promises. (they conveniently forget about the legislative branch of the government, and what they do)
*Has great internet presence, devouted internet audience, AND he can bring in a good turnout at a bar-b-q, yet, other than little bumps is still barely out the starting gate in the polls.
*his cultists have an excuse for everything.. and boy do I mean everything! Heck, there's already numerous posts out there making excuses of everything from corruption, to poll fixing for when he loses.
cali
(114,904 posts)They do exist on both team Hillary and team bernie, but nope not caught up in it. I've been very clear that I think Hillary will win the nomination. And my opposition to her has zip to do with my support for Bernie. I've been posting about my opposition to Hillary here for years.
you come off as someone who is not on friendly terms with facts.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Because I applied that accent to the Yawn comment and that made it hella amusing!
Blue_Adept
(6,499 posts)On Wed Aug 19, 2015, 11:07 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Apply a Borris and Natashia accent to this person's posts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=529851
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"They are just like the cultists of Ron Paul?" hell of a way to talk about DU'ers supporting a Democratic candidate.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Aug 19, 2015, 11:26 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Either all's fair in primaries or things need to be cleaned up. Community moderation so far seems to believe these things are okay. Until we get something more formal than random juries on it, I'm inclined to leave it.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation:
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: wow. no words...
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Comparing DUers to "the cultists of Ron Paul" is right on the line. If the poster continues the crapola, call MIRT and flush.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)It makes me sick to my stomach to use this kind of discussion against one of our candidates. In the end, I actually admire and like Bernie.
I do wonder though, if this alerter also alerts on the posts that calls Hillary Clinton "just another Jeb Bush"? Do the ones that have a problem with what I wrote also have a problem and alert on those calling us "pro-corporatist's" or "corporation sellouts"?
If they can't take it, they shouldn't dish it. I was very happy to keep it respectful in the beginning, when I see the respect coming back I'll happily go back to being respectful of them and the candidate they support.
Thank you for your participation in the DU jury selection though. I'm not surprised at all at the dislike of what I posted.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Thus getting more people to see it.
Kinda makes this counter-productive.
TBF
(36,669 posts)with her and Bill. His remarks were that Bill was always out campaigning but that Hillary was extremely smart and always very focused and prepared. I don't think she has the charisma to be president (especially in this country where "having a beer" with a candidate seems to be the ridiculous bar people set), but she would likely make a remarkable supreme court justice. That's where I always thought she would be best, just based on those comments from someone who knew her.
demmiblue
(39,720 posts)Nay
(12,051 posts)I also think she's very intelligent. Like me, she's an introverted nerd who just doesn't care for crowds, campaigning, etc., but give them some books and a project, and away they go. She's trying for a job that is not especially suited to her personality.
Having said that, I also think she has no real competition in the Republican field. They are all raving idiots. So there's that.
TBF
(36,669 posts)I'm an introvert too and can definitely empathize.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)...and she'd have that job for life, instead of just four to eight years, so why would she insist on the presidency?
TBF
(36,669 posts)it's probably been something she's thought about for years. She's a very bright person. But yes personally I think the Court would suit her personality better.
SCantiGOP
(14,719 posts)Right now this post is above the one about a CNN poll showing her wiping out the GOP competition in a general election. OP should be classified as forced political fantasy.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)I just want to take a screenshot of the front page... This is one of those times.
Such a disconnect on this site.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)This is a Dem board that expresses diverse opinions-- not sure what the problem is.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)But "Maybe Hillary Isn't A Good Candidate" is a disconnect from reality. You don't have to support her, but base your arguments in reality.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Not sure how that is connected from reality.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)And at the time this was posted, there was an article right above this on the home page showing Hillary crushing every Repub in the polls.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)-Dan Pfeiffer
-DemocratSinceBirth
#lol@me
potone
(1,701 posts)To say that she is "just as good or better than just about everyone in the GOP field" is downright insulting. She is 1000 times better than anybody in the GOP field. None of them should be anywhere near the White House. Good lord!
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)eom
Vattel
(9,289 posts)competing with someone who everyone thought was the clear Democratic choice, far behind in both polling and money, he needed to be far superior to Clinton as a candidate to end up with as many votes as her.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Obama had the nom sewn up, so he didn't campaign in a few states toward the end of the primaries, essentially benching his starters. That allowed Clinton to play catch-up. So while the score may have looked close in the papers, the reality is that game was over in the third period.
Chasstev365
(7,798 posts)Hillary and Bill's policies are not much different than Richard Nixon and, while Bernie Sanders probably won't win, his campaign reflects a growing rebellion against Corporatist America really running the country. Let's face it: she's not Elizabeth Warren! I fear Hillary would lose a general election.
“If a voter has a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, he’ll vote for the Republican every time.”
President Harry S. Truman
ibegurpard
(17,081 posts)There's a reason I was behind Obama in 08. Unfortunately he turned out to be exactly what I would've expected from her as president
earthside
(6,960 posts)She is a terrible candidate and she has a baggage train ten miles long.
I'd almost like to say 'Go ahead, nominate her and see how badly she loses.'
But, of course, I care about the future of my country.
I'm telling you, after a year of primaries and intense media exposure, the people of the U.S. will have had enough of her pie-plate eyes and plaintive pleas for votes.
All along, I've maintained that this is Democrats real opportunity to nominate a real populist progressive and actually get her/him elected President of the United States.
Sanders provides on such opportunity.
Clinton is the anti-opportunity candidate; she is retrograde and can very well lose to the likes of a Cruz, Walker or Kasich.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)"Time after time I am being asked to criticize Hillary Clinton. That is the sport you guys (the media) like."
"I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I like her, I respect her, we disagree on a number of issues, no secret."
Take a hint. Stop playing the sport of the media.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128039647
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)It's clear that the Clinton team cannot compete on an issue by issue basis when only one candidate in the debate is focused on facts, figures and specifics directed against the candidate who walks a tightrope to stay within vague generalities.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)In the video. Just click and listen! Do not take my word for it!
sibelian
(7,804 posts)He can therefore say what he likes.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)I prefer listening...try it! Because no mind reading required, just take advantage of my services and link to the conveniently provided video!
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I'm unsure what you mean by "mind-reading"...?
tblue
(16,350 posts)even tho I'm for Bernie! There is literally nothing I'll help Republicans do, and that includes this.
Rose Siding
(32,629 posts)I must agree
George II
(67,782 posts)jalan48
(14,914 posts)It's just hard to get excited about a candidate so guarded with her positions on key issues. We know where Bernie stands, where does Hillary stand on the big issues like the Keystone Pipeline, trade agreements, drilling in the Arctic, Wall St. reform, etc. It's easy to take the right stand on social issues, that's what Democrats all do, but the economy and the environment, that's where the differences arise. To simply say she's better than the Republicans doesn't really answer the question.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)
HFRN
(1,469 posts)whatever one makes of her husband, he is a great salesman, and all great politicians are great salespersons
leveymg
(36,418 posts)cold, self-satisfied condescension. That's what she radiates, particularly when pressed about issues she doesn't want to address, such as her response yesterday, "Like with a cloth?" That's going to be re-run to death, if she's nominated. There's a whole library of similar moments that the public is going to see, over and over and over again.
HFRN
(1,469 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)I don't see any Teflon on Hillary.
zentrum
(9,870 posts)….especially the base, can barely stand her, then what makes the party think Republicans will vote for her? If they want Republican -lite, they'll vote for a Republican.
Our only hope then would be that the Republican candidate is so frightening that the majority will vote against whoever that will be.
This is again an anti-vote, not a pro-vote. The Democrats are a totally exhausted party if that's how it goes down.
The party will survive as an opposition party only if it really reforms around people like Sanders, Warren, Feingold. People who haven't been bought and sold.
Meantime, as a lifelong Democrat, I'll be working hard for Bernie.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)I'm not a Hillary supported right now, but I'm very happy to concede that she would make a strong president. I can see, however, why there might be concerns about her winning the general (and no, I don't care at all about her showing in national polls 15 months out; they mean nothing).
Here's a game you can play: think about recent elections, and ask yourself, "what Dem campaign and campaigner does Hillary remind me of most?" Don't think too hard about it; what are your quick, gut answers? For me, it's Gore and Dukakis -- really smart guys who would have made good presidents but were charisma-impaired mediocre campaigners (and spare me the "Gore technically won" stuff -- yes, he did, but he was coming off the most successful Dem administration since FDR and running against a moron; it never should have been that close). That's what I find troubling.
(I will say, though, that I find it even more troubling that Dem fantasies of an alternative candidate turn to yesterday's men like Gore and Biden, instead of a rising talent like Kaine, Gillibrand, Sherrod Brown, etc. That's very GOP of us.)
ibegurpard
(17,081 posts)As far as campaigns go. As far as policy? More third-way privatizing in the name of Democrats.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)IMHO, she is serviceable...It's not as if there are any charismatic candidates on the other side...
Trump is entertaining in a odd sort of way but he isn't going to be the nominee.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Just a thought.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)I can see why such a shiny bauble would be irresistible to flame-baiters.
JackHughes
(166 posts)It's not by accident that Hillary is on the ropes. It's the result of a sustained political attack -- aided by a credulous and easily manipulated press corps -- by what she accurately dubbed the "vast right-wing conspiracy" over twenty years ago.
When hyper-partisan Republicans' Whitewater investigation hit a dead end it simply morphed into the Lewinsky impeachment investigation. Similarly, the fruitless Benghazi investigations also became open-ended, an inquiry searching desperately for evidence of any wrong-doing by Hillary Clinton, even if it had to be manufactured with half-truths, distortions and, when necessary, outright lies.
Since Republicans struck-out on Benghazi after all their dishonest wailing and garment-rending, they suddenly changed the subject to her emails. Oh my, Clinton had a server in her BATHROOM! The Fox-watching goobers in the GOP base didn't seem to even notice the switcheroo.
After years of this type of sustained character assassination, yes, Hillary Clinton's "trustability" quotient has declined. That was the whole point of the huge investment in time, money and spin by the Republicans.
What's disappointing is how weak the Clinton campaign has been in responding. Where are her surrogates? All the campaign would have to say is that Secretary Clinton didn't want the Republicans sifting through her emails looking for dirt.
Nobody could doubt that sensible position.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)But it won't stop the machine from grinding to an eventual halt. Just remember if you have objections to her actions your a fauxbot, or that's what I keep hearing.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Hillary haters are getting desperate, that's for sure.
cali
(114,904 posts)favorability ratings and watching her, suffice just fine. That botched presser and her poor performance at the BLM meeting illustrate that.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)For 4 months now. Like every day from the Hillary hater club. Yet she's still miles and miles ahead of every other Dem running. So these threads are just starting to be funny. Thanks for the laughs.
George II
(67,782 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)"I think her problems are greatly overstated," said Dan Pfeiffer, a longtime senior adviser to President Obama. "She isn't as natural a politician as Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, but that's like saying Scottie Pippen isn't as talented as Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson. She is as good or better than just about everyone in the current GOP field."
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)These hit pieces nicely support cali's daily anti-Hillary rage, but this one's not particularly impressive.
The only person interviewed who would speak without anonymity said:
Enjoyed the read though, thanks! and remember:
Bernie! Bernie!
Rocks the House!
He's the CAT!!! and they're his MOUSE!!!!
Uben
(7,719 posts)I'm still in the Clinton camp, but will definitely support Bernie if he wins the nomination. The republicans and the media have been trying to tear down the Clintons for ages now. They get their asses whooped every time, but can't seem to stop making an idiot of themselves trying to find something, anything, that they/she has done wrong, when many of the accusers are themselves guilty of equal of worse offenses. If you wanna jump on that wagon, be my guest, but be prepared to eat some crow, cuz its a dish the Clinton's seem to serve up best!
I am elated we have two such great candidates in Hillary and Bernie. I wish they would consider running together regardless of who wins the nomination. It's a winning combo, IMO.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)her crowd automatically turns to comparing her with the GOP circus and state that she's the clear winner? That's like trying to decide if you wanna be screwed with lube or no lube (you're getting screwed anyway BTW).
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Every press conference will be a nightmare.
Before her term is up, I fully expect her to tell us that she is not a crook.
ecstatic
(35,075 posts)After the midterm elections, the anti-Clinton push started almost immediately on DU and other sites. It was like a light switch and it was so blatant. The effort was wildly successful--now many liberals (at least online) have either switched to Sanders or won't admit to being Clinton supporters.
Secondly, as the article states, Clinton is terrible at campaigning. It's just not her thing, but she can overcome her weaknesses by letting go of scripts and polls and just speaking her truths. What's there to lose, at this point? I actually found her mini presser refreshing. "Wipe with a cloth?" Coupled with an eye roll. Kick GOP ass, mock them, get angry, etc. Let's see more of that!
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... relative to the baseless attacks
Response to cali (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)plenty of public HS educated students who actually studied journalism, and went to as good or better undergrad schools probably got passed over at the WaPo for him. Cilly went to Loomis-Chaffee (part of that name looks familiar), a 40k/year boarding place, so he's special.
cali
(114,904 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)I see Bernie folk always doing it, or attacking Clinton because of their wealth (even tho Clintons' wealth is not inherited like the family of Cilizza, Trump, Koch, Bush, Kerry, Kennedy, etc.)
I got personally nothing personal against trust-babies except when they try to stymy politicians like the Clintons who help those not born into wealth too.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)lacking "Bill’s personality, eloquence or warmth."
LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton in the GE if she is nominated. I can't vote for her with a clear conscience.
If she is not nominated, I can vote for the Democratic candidate for the thirteenth consecutive GE.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)Uff da!
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)That in itself may serve as a bomb on a train. People who have worked hard all their lives don't like to see people coasting. People who suffered after 2008 - many of whom are still suffering despite Washington's frequent "cover up" numbers - realy don't like to see people at the top coasting. When someone is described as "inevitable", they are coasting.
Just by being the de facto underdog, Bernie gets an automatic popularity boost.