2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIt's not complicated: if you like how the US is doing these days, you should back Hillary
Hillary has been about as an important part of US politics as has anyone over the past two decades. Hillary, Bill, and the rest of the ThirdWayDNC substantially own what's going on today. So if you think things have gone well, then backing Hillary makes sense.
But if you think, like most Americans, it's been a disaster, then backing Hillary in the primaries is a puzzling way to go. If Hillary is the nominee, then voters in November 2016 will have a choice between someone they associate with disaster, and someone else. Will that someone else be so obviously awful that Hillary's record looks good by comparison? That's something I prefer not to contemplate, and I think we should avoid that possibility altogether.
The best defense is a good offense. Let's not defend disastrous decisions and policies; rather, let's move forward, let's take the battle to them. That's how Americans win. That's how everyone wins.
Bernie Sanders is taking the battle to them. That's why he's making such wonderful progress. And with our help, that progress will continue, and he will win, we will win, America will win, and the planet will win.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)is taking this nation -- out of the hole the GOP dug us into.
What does it say that someone can see change occurring everywhere and yet assume tomorrow will be just the same anyway?
Any of our candidates could drop out tomorrow and change would continue -- because it's time, because it comes from us (those of us who are stickers), and because it does not depend on any one person.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
antigop
(12,778 posts)Response to antigop (Reply #2)
FlatBaroque This message was self-deleted by its author.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)....makes you think anyone will, or should , pay any attention now? The IWW now stands at about 3000 members . Moribund , atiquated , going nowhere .
mdbl
(8,639 posts)It's amazing how our political system gets people to vote against their own best interests, even when they live in squalor.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... is the human cost of socialism's long history of failures . Solidarity, comrade !
mdbl
(8,639 posts)To me it's sad that we were changing that paradigm and allowed the last 30 years to wipe a lot of it out. What are you talking about?
merrily
(45,251 posts)understanding it."
I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked (1935), ISBN 0-520-08198-6; repr. University of California Press, 1994, p. 109.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Most Americans think the last 7 years under Obama have been a "disaster"?
Sid
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Look again at your little chart. Compare the numbers under Obama's presidency to those of Bush's. You'll see that Bush had higher numbers - even though the nation was going down the crapper. That's because we didn't have a black President then.
This is really the classic example of the horseshoe theory, in action. I guess I'm not all that surprised to find Bernie-fanatics on the same side as the outright racist right. And for whatever the state of the nation is, don't think that your conspicuous blaming of Obama, instead of Congressional Republicans, goes unnoticed.
Meanwhile about half of Americans are feeling better about their financial situation, according to polling.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Fascinating.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Probably it is. At least I hope. You can't be that stupid.
A "direction of the country" poll has nothing to do with whether people are actually doing better or worse. Pro-lifers and communists can equally agree that the country is totally going in the wrong direction, regardless of whether they're actually doing better personally. It's mostly a measure of alienation, and it's stylish in this day and age to pretend to be cynical - rather than actually learn basic facts about the nation.
But even then, when Obama came into office, it was 20/73. Now it's down to 27/69. Bush enjoyed (until he trashed the economy past the pain point of even the racists) much better numbers.
So that 69% is pretty much:
* 30% of people who always say things are getting worse, for thousands of different reasons (*)
* 5% of people for whom Obama has actually been bad for them (caught in some weird ACA loophole)
* 34% Republicans and/or racists (considerable crossover)
(*) I include you as part of these malcontents. I don't recall you ever being happy, Manny, despite your very comfortable status in a first world country.
Insofar as whether the country is actually screwed up, it's much more telling to ask them if they expect they're going to be better off next year. That has (as it does in many first world countries) held up remarkably well
So your pretending that Obama fucked up the country, as you do, is... well it's just a Naderite firebagger being a Naderite firebagger, I suppose.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Yikes!
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)But just for clarity, to help you remember what your OP was about....
You said "If you like how the US is doing these days, you should back Hillary", bashing clearly bashing President Obama.
You then tried to use some "Right direction/wrong direction" polling as back up to that.
I then explained what you got wrong.
You then brought up "Mr. Dithers". Not sure if you meant Sid Dithers, or Bumstead's boss in Dagwood, but in either case, it has nothing to do with your bashing of Obama.
So now, go back, reread, and either respond to my deconstruction of your reasoning with actual facts and/or cogent commentary, or just whine a bit. A dismissive one-liner that sounds like you're on a bender doesn't cut it.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Obama has done some great things. Other things, not so much.
But I think Manny was referring to the accumulated damage of the last 35 years. By any metric -- income distribution, who holds power, economic insecurity, etc. -- we've been on a downhill slide, except for the few at the top, and the large Corporate and Banking Monopolies.
That takes more than "more of the same." We need a commitment to incremental reform, just to get back to a more balanced state of affairs.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)the recovery. Most of are the recipients of the cuts to the safety net. I think the OP is correct.
ibegurpard
(17,081 posts)Living in Canada with single payer healthcare, a much more robust social safety net, and higher relative wages despite the best efforts of the conservatives to destroy all that I really wouldn't expect you to understand.
How about that NDP though eh?
enid602
(9,681 posts)Your comments were truer last year before the CAD tanked. Your future is uncertain if you can't find a market for your dirty oil.
zappaman
(20,627 posts) 
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Makes sense.
Then there's the Obama/McCain re-do.
We all know how many feels about Obama. Sometimes I wonder just which side he wants in the WH. Of course he seems to post and run these days so it's hard to ask.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)(But I'm flattered by your dossier on me.)
zappaman
(20,627 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
zappaman
(20,627 posts) Response to zappaman (Reply #74)
merrily This message was self-deleted by its author.
Number23
(24,544 posts)who also happens to be a Democrat with an 83% approval rating from other Democrats is a winning strategy for their candidate. Who is trying to run as a Democrat. 
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)The id controls the keyboard lol.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)We have a chance to move away from the disastrous policies of the last 35 years that have elevated the oligarchy while pushing down everyone else, or we can actually acknowledge the problem and do something to move towards significant reform.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)The broad brushing of Hillary and Bernie on this site just sucks. It's just Manny being Manny, but it doesn't make it right.
The last 7 years there has been progress...not all we want but progress.
The Clinton years weren't the worst either....we can thank Reagan, Bush/Cheney for the worst.
No facts, no research just broad brush third way tripe....no intellectual value whatsoever...and yet let the recs flow........
Armstead
(47,803 posts)During the Clinton years, the economy went through an artificially inflated boom while the fundamentals were being eaten awy underneath. Instead of dealing with those fundamentals, the Clinton Democrats hekped to sell the illusion, and also enthusiasyically pushed through crap like NAFTA and "free trade", Telecommunications Deregulation, Welfare Deform, and privatization and deregulation that led to the disasters that occurred under Bush.
Remember how they elevated tight wing economist Alan Greenspan to Godlike status. Remember "the era of Big Government is Over?" Remember how the "New Economy" was going to create a wonderful "service economy" to replace those nasty old manufacturing jobs that were disappearing overseas? Remember all the talk about how there was never going to be any more recessions because of the Economic Miracle and the Recession Proof Economy?
It was all a House of Cards, but instead of fixing the problems they told everyone to look away and not look at the decimation that was occurring in their own communities. THis wasn't only the GOP dong it.
Obama inherited a mess, and perhaps he did the best he could. But it wasn't helpful when he brought in many of the same people who created the mess to fix it. Norr was it helpful when, instead of negotiating from position of principle, everything was done on the GOP court.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)So what if Clinton:
Passed the Family Medical Leave Act
Passed the Brady Bill
Paid down the national debt
Lowest government spending as a percent of GDP since the 1960's
Created 22 million jobs.
Yeah yeah house of cards...all bad.
There's just no perspective in your thoughts. No empathy for what it takes to deal with Congress, and absolute certainty Bernie is the answer.
It's just a bunch of malarkey to me.
I like Bernie but he's not perfect. If he gets in he'll be no more successful than President Obama was.
Reality is a bitch.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But things have been screwed up in many ways that were avoidable, and I just don't think recycling the same folks and approach, and avoiding those core issues, is going to help matters much.
Yep reality is a bitch, but that's not any excuse to try to do better.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)children living in low income families.
Our infrastructure is collapsing and millions have lost their homes and retirements.
SS is under attack by the R-Cons with the Conservative Democrats putting up little fight.
We are killing people in sovereign countries with an innocent death to suspect death ratio of about 110 to 1.
Our fresh water is being polluted by fracking that both Clinton and Obama support. Oil profits apparently more important than water for the 99%.
Our environment is under attack by big corporations.
Free trade agreements are sending our jobs overseas at an alarming rate and giving corporations unlimited power.
On the good side (for the 1%) corporate profits are at an all time high. I see why those that support the 1% want to hold onto the status quo.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Oh heck, I'm tired of thinking,
Everything is wonderful.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Pointing out the terrifying truth is bashing Obama - so just stop it.
Why can't Bernie and everyone who is concerned about their country just stfu and learn to live with their lot?
Seriously - good post.
Some people just can't handle reality.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)very profitable status quo. IF this country is to end that poverty, the money has to come from somewhere, and THEY KNOW where and they are not about to let that happen.
So, it's up the people to make sure they end this corrupt, 'rigged system' and that the people get THEIR share of what belongs to them.
Thankfully there is a choice this time, rather than the usual campaign rhetoric, that those statistics show means NOTHING, or after decades of both parties having an opportunity to DO something about it, we wouldn't have to be looking for someone who just might MEAN what s/he says during campaign season.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)How are things in Canada btw? Do you have any Forums we Americans can join to tell them how to run THEIR country?
I live here. I know people in many states here. How about you?
Do you post on blogs in your country? Which ones, I would like to participate on blogs in your country. Who do you support in Canada?
You have a lot to say about our country, but not much about Canada. We would like to know more about Canada from YOUR perspective.
I have a lot of friends in Canada. They're not very happy with their government theses days. How about you? Who do YOU support in Canada? I don't believe you've ever said who you support in Canada.
Thanks for your input, but you don't seem to understand this country at all.
I love the energy I'm seeing all over the country right now. People are more excited than they have ever been, they are energized, ready to end the neocon/lib policies here, same thing in Europe, there is a worldwide revolt going on and it's EXCITING.
Let me know which Canadian blogs you frequent so we can participate and have some interesting discussions.
That would be so fun!
azmom
(5,208 posts)The government has to work for everyone not just a few.
ibegurpard
(17,081 posts)I don't like privatization of public goods and services.
I don't like a poltical system dominated by a gold-plated megaphone.
I don't like a country where we think it's OK for Black people to be targetted by law enforcement and then look for any possible excuse except racism to explain it.
I don't like the fact that people are working harder for less money.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)
that one really fits here, doesn't it?
pangaia
(24,324 posts)
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Thanks for that!
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)
corkhead
(6,119 posts)it will be too late when we are holding our noses in an attempt to keep one of the crazy RWNJs out of the White House.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I liked Red Scare Minion Bernie so much I made him my avatar as a tribute to the ignorance of people who don't know the difference between Communism and Democratic Socialism!
corkhead
(6,119 posts)we got them from the same TWM post a week or so ago. I think it is Hillarious, which I don't think was the intent of camp weathervane.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It's gotta chap some hides that we embraced their red scare propaganda!
DFW
(60,159 posts)In Germany, the PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism) was the new name that the SED, the East German Communist Party, took after the wall fell. This was 24 years ago, and has nothing to do with Bernie or anyone else in the USA, but northern Europeans gag when they hear the label.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)which is much closer to Bernie's ideas.
I will never forget big Willy, who was one
of the best chancellors.
DFW
(60,159 posts)But the SED-PDS here chose their name two decades before Bernie's campaign was even a notion, and in Europe, "Democratic Socialists" are the people who tapped everybody's phone, put dissidents into psychiatric hospitals and shot them if they tried to leave the country.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Democratic Socialists have not changed, other than trading Trabants for Volvos.
Americans need to know the Truth! Perhaps we can start a newspaper...
Regards,
TWM
DFW
(60,159 posts)We must travel in different circles. It happens 
Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #96)
Name removed Message auto-removed
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)
marym625
(17,997 posts)I just do not understand how people, who I have seen your Senator Sanders praises prior to his announcement to run, and who have, very often, condemned money in politics, the corporatists, the Wall Street bail out, the ruining of our government with privatization, the militarization of police, privatized prisons, while applauding everything Elizabeth Warren says that has been said by Bernie Sanders for decades, including, but certainly not limited to, what she said to Black Lives Matter recently, and have hated what has happened to education because of"No Child Left Behind" can support Hillary Clinton.
But, they are. And they're excusing her trickle down economics and her taking money from private prison companies.
Just SMDH.
cpompilo
(323 posts)Response to cpompilo (Reply #13)
Scootaloo This message was self-deleted by its author.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)THE LEFT TO VOTE FOR A CORPORATE OWNED CANDIDATE NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU THREATEN. It didn't work in 2000 and it certainly won't work in 2016. There is an easy solution, vote Sen Sanders.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)corkhead
(6,119 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)How 2008 of you.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But if it's Bernie, the road to the White House will be very difficult. Fortunately, it doesn't look like that's going to happen.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And the only way any Democratic candidate can lose, is if they lose a section of the Democrats. And you have voice nothing but hatred about non-Clinton candidates, so, if we're losing votes, you're first on the list.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)horrible gun industry immunity bill. But he's still great. And I've always been clear that I will support the Democratic nominee. The only people on DU I've seen threaten otherwise are Bernie supporters.
The big problem with Bernie is that he can't win the general election. But other then that, go Bernie.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You've also been a participant in every stupid, ugly smear that's come down the pipes at him. You've been selling us right-wing red-baiting scare tactics since May. You've shown absolutely nothing but contempt, hate, and a little fear.
You only seem to "like" Sanders, when someone points out your extensive record of hate, slander and calumny against him. You sound like Donald Trump and his "love" for Mexicans.
As for Bernie's chances... It's demographics, DanTex. We outnumber and outweigh the republicans by a solid margin. This has been demonstrated time and again (and the republicans affirm it, with their desperate, tortured gerrymanders.) Democratic turnout is always highest in presidential years. And the most "wobbly" portion of our voting bloc - the left - would be well-cemented by a Sanders nomination.
The only way Sanders or any other Democrat could lose the presidency is if a portion of the Democratic voting bloc stays home or jumps ship to the Republicans. And our options are...
1) the traditionally unreliable voting bloc on the left... who all seem really excited by sanders.
or
2) people who spend all day every day ranting and raving about how awful Sanders is, that Hillary Clinton is the Chosen One, that any vote for anyone else is a vote for Republicans, who rage and spew and kick and scream at their cage endlessly in wild-eyed, froth-flecked anger that anyone is even CONSIDERING a non-Clinton candidate, who in 2008 jumped ship to the Republicans rather than vote for a non-WASP... but who also promise they'll vote for the guy they're delivering all this invective and slander towards, if it comes down to it.
Hmmm.
I take your promises to vote for Sanders the same way I take your "like" for Sanders - it's cover-your ass bullshit.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)About damned time someone said it!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)As for "ugly smears", Bernie supporters have a very low tolerance for any mild criticism of their candidate. Have you seen the threads full of supposed progressives trying to make excuses for his vote on that horrible gun industry immunity bill? LOL. It's not my fault he made that vote. I'm not supposed to point it out? I'm supposed to just accept his laughable "hammer" excuse for it? Sorry, but I'm not going to forget the gun violence issue simply because Bernie needed to placate his gun owning constituents.
Bernie's chances, we've discussed. I don't see it. I think your whole analysis is wrong. There are moderate and independent voters, as well as D's and R's. Most of them won't vote for a socialist. There's polling on this. He's further left than anyone who has ever won any major election outside of a few blue states. Hillary is the prudent choice.
But I'll vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it ends up being. The most important thing is electing a Democrat. Which Democrat is a distant second.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Or how idiotic you are. Take your pick.
You said you like Bernie but then you claim all the smears against him are true. Let's pretend they are true for a brief moment.
This means you are claiming to like a candidate who has been painted by Hillary supporters as racist, a gun-humper, a sexist pervert, a traitor to his country, I know I'm missing something but let's carry on. So these are the traits someone you like?
Like I said, you are either being disingenuos or you are an idiot. That just doesn't add up.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I like Bernie, but he's made some very bad votes on gun control. I like his economic record, I agree with most of his platform, I think he's been a great progressive voice. I just don't think he has much change in the general.
I don't think he's racist or any of that nonsense (actually, nobody I've seen has called him a racist on DU, that's a false claim used to smear Hillary supporters). I like him. But bringing to light his gun votes is not a "smear".
Nothingcleverjustray
(37 posts)Bernie's vote on gun manufactuers killed fewer people than Hillarys Iraq war vote.
senz
(11,945 posts)
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #33)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Beautifully done. 
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)I think it's something like, "With friends like you who needs enemies." Yeah that's it!
The only thing you didn't add was "Bless his white socialist heart."
Bernie will get Republicans to crossover and vote for him, Hillary will get Republicans to come out in record numbers to vote against her while Democrats sit at home and say "why bother?"
GoneOffShore
(18,018 posts)The 'damning Bernie with faint praise' is always a favored tactic around here with regards to those who say that they want HRC as the nominee.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)not vote for her and even many of those who poll for her have not been showing much enthusiasm, which does not bode well for GOtv. That is a heavy lift.
merrily
(45,251 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)same. Both are candidates for the 1%.
antigop
(12,778 posts)"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
So, yes, for some it IS complicated.
merrily
(45,251 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
BlueWaveDem
(403 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
BlueWaveDem
(403 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
merrily
(45,251 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Certainly not a utopian one where the overlords share their good fortune with the serfs.
Please. You can't possibly be paying any attention to what's going on in the world of corporate takeovers and say that. Why is everyone suffering then? I'm going to assume you agree that there are people suffering in this world.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)these years.
BlueWaveDem
(403 posts)I didn't say there was no suffering, I said far less today than in the past.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)either a good welfare program or food stamps - I agree historically it was worse.
merrily
(45,251 posts)BlueWaveDem
(403 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)But only my reply lacks a lesson? Typical double standards.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)allowed to have? Things were certainly worse in the Great Depression but if we continue to allow the oligarchy to pick our candidates we will be back there very soon.
It is immoral to support the status quo that has given us 16,000,000 American children living in poverty. But Goldman-Sachs doesn't care about those children. Don't vote for Goldman-Sachs.
historylovr
(1,557 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)with Third Way Manny?!!!!!!
Response to Indepatriot (Reply #28)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Baitball Blogger
(52,309 posts)Mayberry Machiavellianism policies of the last twenty years.
We take the time to examine exactly how these political philosophies have impacted our society, and move accordingly. While the other side relies on the same visceral grunts of partisan sound bites.
Persondem
(2,101 posts)
ibegurpard
(17,081 posts)Millions more insured? Insurance company windfall. Do the insurance policies mean people can actually get the care they need? A $3000 out of pocket may as well be a million for most people and there are still millions of people that fall into the gap between Medicaid and these subsidies to Insurance Inc. Millions more employed? At two and three jobs with flat or declining wages and no benefits. Blocked by the GOP? Certainly not on corporate free trade...on which he fought his own party.
Persondem
(2,101 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Persondem
(2,101 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)There's a 60-year drive to get us to where we are today. You're pretending we're only talking about the last 7, because that suits your political beliefs.
Persondem
(2,101 posts)seemingly forgetting that we had 8 years of Bush/Cheney then 7 years of some relief with Obama. You are taking it back even further to 60 years. Is Hillary responsible for events from when she was a child? Or shall we take it back further (hyperbole being the thing here) and blame the Robber Barons? or the Whigs? or the Federalists? Whatever your cutoff point I am sure the Clintons are to blame.
merrily
(45,251 posts)helped found the DLC for the promise of a Presidency, like the Clintons, and including Hillary, who, with Al From, took the DLC gospel to Europe and hooked in, at a minimum, Tony Blair.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And it was DLC Democrats that surrendered the economy to the Republican's tax-cut mantra. And she has been quite a fan over the years of DLC policies. For example, welfare reform was one of the tenants of "It Takes a Village". She also helped lobbying Congress in order to pass NAFTA, by her own admission.
She is responsible for her record. All of it, not just her record since 2013. That record has been generally supportive of the policies that have decimated everyone not in the 1%.
Persondem
(2,101 posts)NAFTA was not her thing. So she lobbied,.... on behalf of her husband, the president. She didn't make any votes for any of the members of congress who voted for it.
The DLC had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. Both were passed by parliamentary bullshit maneuvers of the republicans. Here's a little refresher. Clinton voted against both iterations of the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. How about she gets some credit for those votes.
Also, she had little if anything to do with the founding of the DLC. "The DLC was founded by Al From in 1985 in the wake of Democratic candidate and former Vice President Walter Mondale's landslide defeat to incumbent President Ronald Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. Other founders include Democratic Governors Chuck Robb (Virginia), Bruce Babbitt (Arizona) and Lawton Chiles (Florida), Senator Sam Nunn (Georgia) and Representative Dick Gephardt (Missouri).[6]"
I agree that the Hillary Clinton has been a part of the DLC, but I can't find anything that says she founded it. Ignoring facts (that she voted against the Bush tax cuts) and using exaggerations (that she founded the DLC) do nothing for your cause.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yes, I always lobby for things I oppose.
Hang on, the Clinton supporters keep claiming that she's her own woman, and a strong woman, and a powerful woman...but if her husband tells her to do something she doesn't want to do, she does it?
Or did she actually support NAFTA?
You're gonna have to pick one - she abandoned her beliefs because hubby said so, or she liked NAFTA.
Once again, history did not start when convenient for you. And the Bush tax cuts are not the beginning of handing over the economy to the 1%.
The DLC was a relatively small group until both Clintons became major recruiters for the DLC. Then it basically took over the Democratic establishment. "Helped found" was shorthand for "took it from near irrelevancy to dominance"
Persondem
(2,101 posts)You know she just might be more experienced at presenting her own views. First ladies usually do not get to do that.
Once again, history did not start when convenient for you. And the Bush tax cuts are not the beginning of handing over the economy to the 1%.
Another statement you use to cast HRC in a negative light, but you offer no way to link HRC to "the handling of the economy over to the 1%". You give her zero credit for opposing the Bush tax cuts. Could her votes be uncomfortable facts that don't fit your narrative? Might she actually oppose the handing of more $$ to the 1%? Apparently not in your world.
So Hillary took the DLC from nothing to dominance ... that's funny. I guess that list of prominent democratic governors who actually DID found the DLC had nothing to do with it. And again you offer only your words as proof of your claim.
I realize it's just inconvenient for you to admit that HRC is not evil incarnate, but you Sanders supporters need to get out of your little echo chambers and knock off the exaggerations and lies (excuse me - "shorthand"
. I've seen this kind of crap for months.Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)but they were all on board with this one:
The $104 Billion Refund
The most absurd corporate tax giveaway of 2005.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2006/04/the_104_billion_refund.html
Persondem
(2,101 posts)Also, the vote was by voice vote so we cannot tell how senators Clinton and Sanders would have voted.
Thank you for your comment ref. the Bush tax cuts.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)and all the DLC votes for it
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/108-2004/s211
House votes
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/108-2004/h509
Persondem
(2,101 posts)vote on the conference report.
Not sure how you can determine the DLC influence though.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)16,000,000 American children living in poverty and 32,000,000 living in low income homes. Vote for Clinton and go for 20 million living in poverty. Goldman-Sachs, Citigroup and Bank of America don't give a crap about those children living in poverty, I hope you do and support Sen Sanders.
It's immoral to support the status quo.
Autumn
(48,952 posts) askew
(1,464 posts)She is much more hawkish on foreign policy and has had a long history of ethical lapses. We've been blessed with an almost scandal-free presidency with a president who won't be pushed into a war or other entanglements to appease the beltway.
onecent
(6,096 posts)askew
(1,464 posts)He is the most popular figure in the Democratic Party and beloved by the AA community. You can't win the primary by attacking Obama.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)did what he could given the opposition but the fight is not over and we do not need status quo.
askew
(1,464 posts)I think Bernie supporters need to learn about how to talk about Obama and his incredible presidency without insulting Democratic voters. Voters love him and are protective of him and his legacy. Obama voters watched the party establishment sprint away from him in 2014 and aren't interested in backing a candidate who attacks Obama.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)I am and I do not attack President Obama but I certainly do not think the recovery is complete. Too many in my family and friends are still hurting. I do not blame him for that but I do blame the corporate Rs who do not give a damn about any of us.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I criticize his bad policies and praise his good ones. It's just that the former drastically outnumber the latter.
askew
(1,464 posts)Democrats love Obama especially minorities. You do your candidate no favors with this.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I'm not a Democrat, and I view emotional attachment to politicians to be detrimental. He has done much that is harmful - indefinite detention, executing citizens without due process, greatly expanding drone operations, increasing military operations in Africa by 217%, allowing 'signature strikes' and 'double-taps,' condoning torture, pushing the TPP, prosecuting whistle blowers acting in the people's interest, and criminalizing adversarial journalism.
On the other hand, he's done a few good things - the watered-down ACA, repeal of DADT, the Iran Deal.
I condemn the former and praise the latter, without "loving" or "hating." I'm a citizen, not a personality cultist.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)you are on a Democrat board? We are all Democrats. My whole family are minorities. We like President Obama but we do not always agree with him - is that what you are calling blind attacks?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)I knew there had to be a reason for all of this fact free angst and moaning from one side and nervous, vaguely desperate high fiving about how "awesome" the supporters of a certain candidate are on the other.
And then I saw that the NEA had endorsed Hillary and everything just kind of fell into place.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)never apologize for it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that isn't attacking him. I assume you support the TPP and moving jobs overseas and letting big pharma charge more for drugs.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)that simply does not have any integrity. They'll wail and gnash their teeth when Bush destroys Iraq on the basis of bald-faced lies, then turn around and praise Obama for doing the same thing with respect to Libya. They'll express righteous indignation at Romney for hoarding corporate cash for his Presidential war chest, then praise Hillary for doing the exact same thing. They mock "Bring 'em on!" and cheer "We came, we saw, he died."
I have no time for any of these people. They're too busy fawning over Hillary's New Clothes.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)more war and more wealth concentrated at the tippity top.
bernie will work to change that.
DFW
(60,159 posts)Obviously, there are many out there who have done poorly since Jan. 20, 2009. I am not one of them. On the other hand, I don't hand the credit for that to Hillary, but more to Obama, who, if I recall correctly, won a bruising battle AGAINST Hillary for the nomination in 2008. I do fault Obama for choosing Rahm Emmanuel for White House Chief of Staff in 2009, which froze Howard Dean out of the Administration. Not all of his decisions have had great results, but we were in such a deep hole by the end of the Cheney administration, I can't help but say that things improved in the time Obama was in the White House. The buck stops at Obama's desk, not Hillary's.
While I don't credit Hillary with contributing overly much to the improvement, I don't say outright she'd bring it to a screeching halt either. Nor could I say, at this point, that Bernie in the White House, especially if we don't take back both houses of Congress, will suddenly turn America into the Happy Hunting Ground. If the White House could do that on its own, we would have had massive health care reform in 1994 instead of a successful Gingrich revolution of the right.
stonecutter357
(13,045 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Your mileage may vary.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
How I disagree with the OP: IMO, Barack Hussein Obama has been a much better President than Hillary Rodham Clinton will be or could be.
Among many other things, he spoke out publicly against the war in Iraq; she speechified on the Senate floor (and national TV), urging that her colleagues vote to grant Bush authority for the invasion. And, AFTER it was too late, she began flip flopping about it.
to
Granted, as Bubba famously pointed out in his "fairy tale" soliloquy, Obama did not have a vote on the matter at the time. However, IMO, Obama's lack of need to take a stand on Iraq was all the more reason to praise him, not to dismiss him. Not compelled to take any stand at all on the Iraq invasion, Obama did go on record opposing it; and he never flip flopped about it.
Perhaps they (Hillary and Barack) both did what they thought would serve them best whenever they might decide to run for higher office. If so, at a minimum, his judgment was better, even on the politics of it.
And that's only one issue of many. There are also many differences in how they operate.
But, I digress: While I have criticized Obama, I believed in 2008 that he would make a better President than HRC and I still do. I would say if you are willing for worse, and quite possibly much worse, than the status quo, vote for Hillary.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Thank you Manny.
It's beyond me how people can support her.
Broward
(1,976 posts)She's part of the problem.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Never again. EVER.
lobodons
(1,290 posts)Hillary Clinton is much better than any of the GOP Clown Car peeps.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)And still hits it out of the park. 
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)onecent
(6,096 posts)all Hiliary wants is war...or her backers or whoever WANT WAR. FUCK WAR
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
msongs
(73,718 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Obama did what he could to deal with it, but we need to do much more.
It's not a binary either/or D/R pro-Omaba/Anti Obama thing.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)Quite simple really , if you loved Bush Jr and the way Obama kept the wars going then your voting for Hillary. If you have an open mind and are outright angry at the far right Conservatives for committing treason. (the 47) (2013) Then your voting for Bernie. And possibly Trump because neither of them can be bought. Hillary already bought and paid for via Big Pharma , Wall Street and Big Oil.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)and, to date, no Hillary supporter has expressed any logical reason why they are voting for her.
So I figure they must all be wealthy, and are voting for her because of her economic policies of protecting and promoting wealthy private interests.
That's certainly why the banksters, the private prison industry, and other wealthy private interests are supplying her with all that campaign cash.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)They're just not as selfish, self-absorbed and self-centered as the rich supporters of other candidates.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)Money, money, money is all that come out of certain mouths around here.
That's the only thing that makes sense, if they came out and said as much I could at least give props for honesty.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)Is it hidden under faerie dust?
merrily
(45,251 posts)See Reply 9
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)One is a poll reflecting the priorities of Democratic voters concerning the nominee for the 2016 Presidential race - responsive to the OP.
Can you guess which one?
Uncle Joe
(65,089 posts)Thanks for the thread, MannyGoldstein.
IronLionZion
(51,212 posts)
They would LOVE to take battles to places you don't want to go.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)relaxing regulations for Wall Street banks and insurance companies and engaging in new military campaigns in the Middle East, there's always Hillary.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)moobu2
(4,822 posts)he wouldn't become some kind of dictator right? He wouldn't be able to get free college tuition for anybody and no universal healthcare either and no, well, no anything at all. Look how hard it was for president Obama to get Obama Care enacted. Presidents can not just do anything they want to. A Bernie Sanders presidency would be total gridlock and a majority would blame him for being so rigid and if he compromises with the Republicans his followers would turn on him. It would be a total disaster. I doubt Bernie could even get any of his cabinet or even his federal judges approved. If I were one of his supporters I would hope he would drop out because he's going to damage his cause for generations.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And come into a situation with a a narrow voctory and a hostile establishment and roll up his sleeves and get practical stuff done and be pragmatic while while sticking to his principles and getting continuously reelected
kjones
(1,059 posts)and Bernie complained about it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)get Republicans to vote with her? I mean, surely you are saying she will, unlike Bernie, accomplish something, right? What would it be? Where is she going to find agreement with Republicans to pass something?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)stands a chance against a right wing candidate in today's environment. We can't afford another McGovern, Carter second term, Dukakis, etc.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)What is she gong to get Republicans to vote with her on? Do tell.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Court Justices, that's better than what the Republican who likely beats Sanders would do.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)You: Bernie won't get anything done!
Me: What will Hillary get done?
You: Bernie is unelectable!
BBZZZTTTTTTTT!
LOL. Since you can't name a single thing Hillary would get done that Bernie wouldn't, QUICK! change your argument to he is unelectable (even though you were just arguing he wouldn't get anything done WHEN he was elected).
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)you did it again...got all the supporters of the 1% all riled up...
K & R
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)KG
(28,795 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)They know Bernie can win the general and there's an astronomical amount of power and money opposed to Bernie's agenda.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)who just lurrrrrrrrves that corporate gravy train they have been riding since the Nineties.
And Bernie will derail the train and tear up the tracks.
They are loading their trousers at the thought of no more of that beeeeyooootiful MONEY.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)The more others lose, the more the planet loses and the more conservative the approach can be to addressing our issues, the better for them.
We are being slowly asphyxiated by the most democracy shareholders will allow. With every dollar in the markets they share the burden of ownership, shield the evildoers and assure another cycle of more of the same and less for everyone else.
When they start developing a liberal conscience, we can start delivering a democratic society,
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)I love how our country is doing. Sure things could be better, but we have made great strides in civil rights, national healthcare, we see the rise of good social movements like BLM, we see that our country is actually considering a socialist for president, and the economy compared to the rest of the western world is doing quite well. But, you're telling me I should back Hillary because I like how the US is doing these days? What a funny argument!
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)If you want to go back to the 1990s
you'll love Hillary 2.0
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)I'd be in my 40s again.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)And hopefully not make the same mistakes.
kjones
(1,059 posts)I see a lot of BS supporter attacks on HRC supporters for apparently defining HRC's campaign based
on BS unelectability. Putting aside the specifics of that, it boils down to criticizing HRC being (in their
view) defined in opposition to BS. Yet, I see post all the time which are explicitly that for BS...your OP
is one, in fact. "Vote Bernie because Not Hillary!" Am I the only one to find some sort of ironic humor in
the abundant pro-Sanders posts in which Hillary's name is the only one in the subject line? Actually, it
seems to be pretty common that "pro-Sanders" is one in the same as "anti-Hillary,"...pro-Sanders
arguments often take the form "Hillary is _____ and does _____. Screw that, go Sanders!."
On the other side, sure, I have doubts about Sanders ability to win a general election (big ones), but
that's never been my primary reason for my opinion of him. I found him agreeable since he came onto
my radar a few years ago (2008 was the first election I could vote in, just for reference), but my support
for him, at least him over any other run of the mill D or I politician (as my support for him over an R would be "fervent" ,
has steadily declined. I do not see whatever people claim to see in him. There is nothing particularly special about him
that sets him apart from other politicians. Self avowed socialist, that's kind of interesting in the
US...but at the end of the day, he's a politician, and he does play the politician's game. He's proved
it himself, by voting for expedient reasons. Brady bill? No, I have to think about reelection in a
gun state. F-35? Well, someone is going to get it, should be us. Criticizing Obama for reaching
out to conservatives? If it gets me likes. Reaching out to conservatives? If it gets me likes.
Tossing away the principled Independent label and jumping in with the Democrats? If it helps.
He plays a game, just like any other politician, and given that "not playing the game, independent
outsider" seems to be his primary selling point (when it's not "he's not Clinton), well, there's just
not a whole lot to draw me to him. So when I stack "reasons I like BS" and "reasons I like HRC" next
to each other, I end up choosing Hillary. "anti-BS" or "anti-HRC" weren't particular factors in the decision.
Disclaimer: This post is about my opinion on Bernie. This is NOT a "Bernie sucks, so I'm voting Hillary" post...
it is a "everyone is saying things about Bernie, but I just don't see it" post. There is no need to criticize it as such.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)If Bernie wins the primary, he'll have my full support.
And I will have zero problem voting for Hillary if she wins the primary.
ion_theory
(235 posts)
MineralMan
(151,210 posts)It's a mixed bag. If you want negative things to look at, you can certainly find them. But, you can find positive stuff, too, if that's what you're looking for. Thus has it ever been.
My LGBT acquaintances are getting married. That seems like a good thing.
My small business clients are hiring people and updating their web sites. They seem optimistic.
The DOW has gone up a lot since Obama took office. It still fluctuates, but the area in which its fluctuating is a lot higher. People with retirement money in a variety of 401K plans like that a lot, and I can't blame them.
Unemployment is down. Way down. People are getting jobs who hadn't been able to. Not everyone, but it's better.
Most of the foreclosed houses are no longer on the market, and home prices have gone back up considerably. Anyone who owns a home likes that pretty well.
Interest rates are low for mortgages, still, although they're going up a little. People thinking about buying a home are encouraged, and sales are up.
In many areas, the minimum wage has been raised. That's a good thing, although it needs to go higher still.
Obama's about to reduce the number of US military in Afghanistan to just 1000. Iraq is no longer in play for US troops.
The Auto industry has pretty much recovered from it's horrible lows. That's good for everyone in that industry, even though import sales are up, too. Car dealers employ lots of people, most of them Americans.
Buildings are being built, both residential and commercial. That's a good thing, too.
It's not all bad, Manny. Go have a look. Look for improvement, not just for what you call "disasters." They are out there, if you look for them. Of course, you can also find bad stuff if you wish. But when wasn't that true?
Wanna know what would make things even better? A huge GOTV effort that got a Democrat elected as President and got us a Democratic majority in the Senate. That would make things better. I'm for that, so that's what I'll be working on in 2016. I hope everyone else does, too. We can pick up some seats in the House, too, and some state legislative seats. Maybe in 2018, we can return control of the House to Democrats, too. Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing?
Things are far from perfect, but there's been some progress. If we work really, really hard, we can improve on that progress. I'm sure that's what you want, too.