2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary goes for the race card against Bernie
This could get very dirty. I don't know if Bernie will take her bait but this could get very bad, especially considering the baggage she has, $1500 hair cuts, Iraq war vote, threatening Iran, Chelsea jogging around the WTC on 9/11, ducking sniper fire, and that is just a few problems she has with character issues. I won't even go into policy. If Bernie goes after her, it very well could be worse than Obama did in 2007.
Hillary Clinton Is Stepping Up Her Smear Campaign Against Bernie---First she suggested the Vermont senator was sexist. Now shes reaching for the race card.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/hillary_clinton_keeps_smearing_bernie_sanders_as_a_sexist_now_she_is_reaching.html
On Oct. 23, Hillary Clinton opened a new front against Sen. Bernie Sanders: She framed him as a sexist. Clinton took a phrase Sanders had routinely used in talking about gun violencethat shouting wouldnt solve the problemand suggested that he had aimed it at her because when women talk, some people think were shouting. Several journalists called out Clinton for this smear. But she refuses to withdraw it. Instead, her campaign officials and supporters have escalated the attack. And now, Clinton is adding a new dimension to the controversy: race. Some feminists applauded Clintons initial zinger. Hillary Baits Bernie Beautifully, said a headline in Salon. Another article accused Sanders of old-fashioned tone policing and dogwhistling about womens shrillness. On Oct. 27, Stephanie Schriock, the president of Emilys List, conceded that Sanders hadnt singled out Clinton. But Schriock insisted that Sanders was referring to a lot of folks who have been very adamant about [guns] and a lot of women who have been leading the fight on gun violence across the country. And I do think that is disrespectful.
Now Hillary Clinton is doing to Sanders what Bill Clinton once said was done to her.
Clinton was in Charleston, South Carolina, addressing the local NAACP. She spoke against a tragic background: the massacre of nine black people in a Charleston church by a white racist. Naturally, she talked about guns. But she added a new line: There are some who say that this [gun violence] is an urban problem. Sometimes what they mean by that is: Its a black problem. But its not. Its not black, its not urban. Its a deep, profound challenge to who we are. Now Clinton accuses others of playing the race card. In Charleston, she told the NAACP, Some candidates talk in coded racial language about free stuff, about takers and losers. And boy, are they quick to demonize President Obama. This kind of talk has no place in our politics.
Clinton, too, speaks in code. But in this election, her coded phrasessome people think were shouting, some who say that this is an urban problemarent designed to veil racism. Theyre designed to veil her meritless insinuations that her Democratic opponent is sexist and racist. You can argue, based on power or privilege, that playing the race card or sex card from the left isnt as bad as playing it from the right. But even if you believe that, Clintons smears bring discredit on the whole idea of bigotry. If accusations of misogyny and racism are casually thrown at Sanders, voters will conclude that these terms are just rhetoric.
Seven years ago, when Clintons own campaign was accused of prejudice, her husband was outraged. She did not play the race card, but they did, Bill Clinton said of the Obama campaign. The former president went on: This is almost like, once you accuse somebody of racism or bigotry or something, the facts become irrelevant. Three months later, Mr. Clinton was still fuming. They played the race card on me, and we now know from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along, he protested. This was used out of context and twisted for political purposes by the Obama campaign to try to breed resentment elsewhere. You really got to go some to try to portray me as a racist.
Now Hillary Clinton is doing to Sanders what her husband said was done to her. Shes taking Sanders remarks out of context and twisting them to breed resentment. Youve got to twist the facts pretty hard to portray Sanders as a racist or sexist. But politically, its easy, because once you start throwing around charges of bigotry, the facts become irrelevant. Youre just another beautiful baiter. And you wont be silenced.
djean111
(14,255 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

SoapBox
(18,791 posts)jkbRN
(850 posts)I would take her down with the Clinton foundation.
I am so sick and tired of her.
randys1
(16,286 posts)stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)I am having difficulty seeing myself doing it as a result of her campaign. She's just so bad.
I have always voted for the Democrat in every election (local, state, federal).
And HRC is currently testing that commitment. Her fault. Not mine.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I'm no longer in that position. I will not vote for her.
She has no prayer of winning my state so it won't have an effect on the national results, so it isn't exactly a massive act of courage.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)I'll probably end up voting for her in the G.E. should she win the primary, but my GOD do I find her disgusting. Just horrible.
I can't believe we can't do better. It's shocking for me.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)For the Democrat to win NC, they have to overcome the rural/urban divide, and the "urban" side is barely bigger than the rural side. Rural voters will always show up, and will overwhelmingly vote Republican. Urban voters are much less reliable, especially when the candidate runs a DLC-style campaign.
Obama pulled it off in 2008 with "Hope and Change". When it turned out to not be so hope-y or change-y, he lost the state in 2012 - urban turnout dropped.
Clinton can not get out the same people who started the "Moral Mondays" protests. "I'll research that" on a giant laundry list of issues is not good enough.
In addition, we're going to need mops to clean up after the Republicans orgasming in the voting booth when they vote against Clinton. Yes, they really are that excited to vote against Clinton.
Finally, there are much easier "swing states" for Clinton to win in order to get 270. So she's not going to bother campaigning here enough to change that dynamic.
This isn't to say Sanders or O'Malley would win the state. They'd have more of a chance than Clinton, but there still would be easier states to win to get to 270.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)We went blue in 2008.
But remember we just missed going blue again in 2012.
But the Koch and Pope money had just begun to dupe the rural folks. By the midterms, they had duped them good! Usually by making candidates like Hagan out to be Obama clones. Hell, with the negative ads run back to back from 7:00 to 9:00 PM, you'da thought Hagan WAS Obama....she apparently was solely responsible for the dreaded Obamacare!
I don't want to vote for Hillary because she is so past tense, so 20th century, and so fake with few accomplishments. Even her NY Senatorship seems calculated for a presidential run. But I will hold my nose and do it, probably.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Someday, our candidates will be smart enough to figure out that running against the party does not get good turnout among the party.
But that's a long way off.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)She isn't/wasn't Obama. Why would she work hard to appear to be what she is.
Obviously it didn't work, because they thought she WAS Obama.
jkbRN
(850 posts)I want to like her and trust me, I have tried. But, this type of crap really turns me off, as her antics did in 2008. If your gonna go on offense use facts, and that's my problem with her--it's basically like fuck the facts, I'm gonna outright lie and call someone racist or sexist. It's disqualifying in my mind.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Bernz brains cells. How stupid are people to fall for the medias shit here. This author backs up their headline in no way. Yet some will truly be dumb enough to buy into the narrative because they were desperately looking to do so before reading it in the first place. My heart goes out to people stupid enough to think some type of attack was sent in Sanders direction.
If someone directs a comment at conservatives, and you take it personally, you might just be a little too closely aligned with conservative thought.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)And Sanders supporters take it personally. Very interesting indeed. Noticing that a lot lately.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)for writing an article linking IQ with race:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/features/2007/created_equal/regrets.html
Not exactly someone who's opinion I value.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Sure, they are really concerned here.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)it is what it is, I'm just the messenger bud. Those things happened. Don't blame me.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I wasn't aware DU was a RW site but what do I know? http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:O0QEzif3-AwJ:www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php%3Faz%3Dview_all%26address%3D389x698126+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I like to pretend that forwarding an invalid, unsupported editorial predicated wholly on inaccurate inferences, the author of which equates race and IQ, results in me merely being a messenger too.
No blame... merely an accurate illustration of character (or lack of) and rational thought (and again, or lack of).
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)and both of those are factual and happened. I'm just saying.
We can discuss sniper fire too if you'd like XD
luvspeas
(1,883 posts)and there are people who would accuse her of trying to swiftboat bernie because if she supports his ideas they must be wrong or that she has some ulterior motive because you can't trust her.
Progressives should not be doing this to one another. Or I should say Progressives should not be doing this to Hillary because the cards are certainly stacked that way around here lately.
but this is the present-day DU, where people can do anything.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)They backed it up.
Look, I'm no Hillary supporter but honestly, this kind of shit is pure slime and nothing but. We need more debates and those debates should be ON THE ISSUES. Sadly, the DNC isn't allowing that to happen.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)They backed nothing up and I'm truly sorry you are offended when republicans are attacked. Some people will buy anything sold to them. This is a perfect example. The dishonesty is extremely transparent. It is directed at LIV's. It's as shady as it comes.
Where did I ever say I'm sorry that I'm offended that Republicans are attacked? WHAT? Dude come on, don't make me get an image of a Kodak projector off Imgur lol
It is what it is and she is technically doing it. The points were all backed up. Illustrated quite clearly. What's shady is her getting $1500 haircuts but hey! lol
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Hillary pays $1500 for a haircut.
Meanwhile....
Who's in touch with the American people? Cue the Mitt Romney music with elevators in his garage.

hootinholler
(26,451 posts)What a pant-load! Let me guess, you're not really very good at reading dog-whistles.
How is misquoting Sanders and then using the misquote to imply racism not an attack?
What Hillary said:
What Bernie actually said:
You assert that this is not an attack?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The author who promotes that Africans have a lower IQ than other groups. But hey, that's you guys thing. I'm getting dizzy.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... then she is right on. This is exactly the way some people think - that gun violence is a urban / black problem and they have no responsibility ... as long as it's happening to "those people" it's nothing I should be concerned about. This is a bigoted attitude and it should be called out whoever might bring it up.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Hil's statement is spun so tight that it would take the jaws of life to unwind it...a complete misrepresentation of what Bernie was saying. But, hey, she's got the best, highest paid handlers to provide her this "material"
For the record, I come from one of the most rural states there is (Wyoming), and have since lived in Dallas, TX and now live in the Bay Area of Cali...I can tell you from first-hand experience that people who live in rural areas have a completely different view of guns than urban dwellers. And it has NOTHING to do with race, and everything to do with recreation (hunting), the occasional need to protect oneself from wild critters, and personal rights.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... when rural people talk about "urban problems" they are talking about racial issues . That's pretty common.
People who are more concerned about their own recreation than the health, safety and well being of their urban brothers and sisters are suspect and need to be called out, and their indifference needs to be examined in light of the racial biases that are real and allow that indifference to exist .
Bernie gave hillary the opportunity to do little straight talking on that issue and Im glad she took the opportunity to do so. If it didn't go so well for him, too bad.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)You'd think it was Fox News, if it wasn't Hillary.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Lovely use of doublespeak and circumnavigation.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)"I come from a state where there is virtually no gun control. But the people of my state understand, pretty clearly, that guns in Vermont are not the same thing as guns in Chicago or Los Angeles.
In our state, guns are used for hunting. In Chicago they are used for kids killing other kids or gang members shooting at police officers, shooting down innocent people.
We need a sensible debate about gun control, which overcomes the cultural divide that exists in this country, and I think I can play an important role in this."
More Bernie...
tishaLA
(14,777 posts)because if they weren't, they'd prove the point exactly.
tishaLA
(14,777 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Put em up just the same.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)Because you love him, right?
Faux pas
(16,356 posts)are not what I look for in a Presidential candidate. Keep it up hillary, would l-o-v-e to see you lose again.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)And not necessarily her campaign staff. For a refresher see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251758204
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)all over Social Media she is being trashed for this AGAIN. People remember, she may forget.
Let her keep lying about Sanders. She already has a trust problem. It only helps him the way it helped Obama in the end.
It is truly shameful behavior.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)with her sudden interest in promoting gun control around the country. it is clear that this was a well thought out plan from her schemers...uh, handlers,,,uh advisors yeah got it.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)she's referring to Sanders then YOU may want to take a closer look at yourselves. We in the minority communities have been hearing this shit our whole lives. Not just from conservatives.
I'm curious, how do you know what color I am? XD
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Sanders: This is an urban problem
Clinton: It's an urban problem like he said, but when he said he meant black problem.
She gets more revolting with every trip out of her war room.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)LexVegas
(6,959 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)When people say it's an urban problem, they mean black. Meanwhile, nearly all of these mass shootings happen in suburban/rural areas.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)URBAN
adjective
1. of, relating to, or designating a city or town.
2. living in a city.
3. characteristic of or accustomed to cities; citified:
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)You've been living in a bubble?
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)In the context of Bernies statement?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)"The people of my state understand, I think, pretty clearly, that guns in Vermont are not the same thing as guns in Chicago or guns in Los Angeles,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-gun-control.html?_r=0
---------------------------------
Chicago and Los Angeles are urban cities with a lot of minorities. Vermont is overwhelmingly white and rural.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)And diverse, ayup.
But is THAT what he meant? Honest opinion.
Was he here speaking in code for 'guns in White Vermont are not the same things as in Black Chicago and Latino Los Angeles'? Not any other mundane use.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)He likely doesn't even realize he was using right wing talking points that I've heard for years. Wingers especially love to talk about gun violence in Chicago.
The problem with Bernie is that he's sort of a one-trick-pony. When he starts to talk about other issues such as gun control, he becomes very clumsy.
His main issue is income inequality. When he ventures away from that territory, he's like a fish out of water.
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #81)
cui bono This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,931 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)she is tilting her hand, showing her desperation. plus, once again, she is showing her true nasty colors and reminding the u.s. why they did not vote for her in 2008.
history is repeating itself.
and it is a good reminder to me why i will NEVER vote for her
see how ugly this gets when she really starts shedding support. i predict a FL/MI redux at the convention.
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)Before you ask yes I read it. Why twist everything she says into an attack on Bernie?
Sorry for the edits fucking auto correct
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)What makes you think making up shit will help Bernie? She never said anything about Bernie in that speech. This playing the victim is pathetic.
You keep thinking that. Have fun.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Republicans have been saying guns are an urban/Black problem for eons. This has nothing to do with Bernie.
hedda_foil
(16,985 posts)Her internals must be getting a little shaky in her campaign's polling.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)pa28
(6,145 posts)Sickening.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)issue to attack them on guys. Get over it.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)and suggesting that Bernie is racist.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)I'd like to see/hear her comments in context.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)MineralMan
(151,268 posts)As in this case, they can backfire. The author of this piece is not a reliable source for factual information.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)the evidence is backed up. I could care less who writes something as long as it's factual.
MineralMan
(151,268 posts)Seeya.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)and later.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)zappaman
(20,627 posts)No surprise there.
840high
(17,196 posts)zappaman
(20,627 posts)
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)language against black people?
She's not fighting Bernie here -- he never talks like that. She's fighting the Rethugs.
840high
(17,196 posts)longer vote like that. Go Bernie.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Especially for a self described "liberal republican".
MisterP
(23,730 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)is like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith (Senator Smith) Goes to Washington, Senator Sanders Goes To Washington. Feeling the Bern.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Tarc
(10,601 posts)Why are DU'ers regurgitating long-debunked Dick Morris lies?
Dick Morris again falsely claimed Clinton said Chelsea "was jogging around the World Trade Center on 9/11"
pinebox
(5,761 posts)has something to do with it? XD
zappaman
(20,627 posts)Bernblu
(441 posts)Next she'll imply that Bernie is an anti-Semite.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)And "taking----remarks out of context and twisting them to breed resentment" is what Clinton opponents do for a living. Luckily, they are preaching to the choir. The only people who nod their heads "Yes, she is so mean" are those who already think her mean.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)The Clinton campaign has failed to make Senator Sanders go away. He's not Larry Lessig, and they're not DWS.
The media has an abundance of pundits with time on their hands, and as the public starts to get very interested in the upcoming primaries, an opportunity will present itself.
A Clinton campaign going negative is a Clinton campaign ripe for on air dissection. That's the stuff of life for these people. It was a tactical decision to go so negative. It has, and will continue to, show dividends. They know it will come with a cost, we'll have to wait and see how high that will be.
I don't think they've chosen wisely. Senator Sanders, by not going negative first, and after being cynically attacked responding with great temperance, has chosen wisely.
It's dangerous to want something too much. Lol, in case anyone forgot that part of the moral from the movie.
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)and who push the virtues of small town and rural voters. They're the ones who conflate urban people and black people.
She didn't mention Sanders. She's showing us how she will be speaking out in the general election, against the Rethugs.
And Sanders better be on top of these issues, too. Because the Rethugs are going to continue decrying the "losers and takers" and they're going to continue to put the interests of rural voters first.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)Rather than speak to policy and her own qualifications, she attacks. Too bad, Hillary, you have lost my vote!
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)....when it's so easily refuted that you promulgated a lie to promote your agenda.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251765621
frylock
(34,825 posts)and that's why they're running the same campaign.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)I no longer recognize third way candidates as Democrats and will not vote for them, nor donate money to help their cause.
For thirty years we've watched as the middle class lost ground to the very rich, party because of policies that the Democratic party controlled by dinocrats and neoliberals supported..
George II
(67,782 posts)It's funny how people on her deny stuff but oh well, it paints quite a picture
George II
(67,782 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)I consider non-fiction but whatever
George II
(67,782 posts)....if it didn't happen it's fiction.
Quite simple.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)it happened. So then it's context, right? Yup.
George II
(67,782 posts)NonMetro
(631 posts)Maybe, but on the sexism one, there's no doubt at all.
But I don't she actually considers Bernie Sanders a racist. She may even have been talking about him, but I don't think she meant it that way, if she was. She knows he's not a sexist, too. On that one, she was just lying in a lame attempt to score points. She does that sometimes.
OTOH, this could be another lame attempt at something?!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)She was speaking of Republicans, but if he feels that it sounds far too similar to his own statements, perhaps he needs to moderate his speech so as to not offend the large urban voting population. Many blacks live in urban areas and we often know urban refers to us. I think Sanders is very intelligent and smart enough to know what phrases the GOP uses as dogwhistles.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)HRC must be using secret coded messages that appear to be directed at the GOP but she's really talking about poor Bernie.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)People are allowed to talk about race and racism, or perceived racism. It isn't "playing a card." It's a legitimate topic of discussion, and in fact something that should be discussed regularly.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)Lies. Lies. Lies.