She's starting to snap at people

[SHRED]

Her and Bill are whining.

Oh...and the anti Bernie propagandists are working overtime shoveling the shit.

I think they're feeling some Bern.

[dchill]

1. If you can't stand the heat...

Get out of the way.

[Capt.Rocky300]

2. Can you imagine what breakfast in their.....

Westchester mansion will be like when Bernie is campaigning in September for the Presidency and HilBill will have nothing to do?

[Hydra]

4. Death glares for breakfast :p

[Hydra]

3. I thought the terror level at Team Hill was bad last week

But geez, look at how hard they are having to work to cover Hillary every time she's in public lately.

I was expecting a meltdown, but not this soon and not this raw and visceral.

[RufusTFirefly]

5. In her defense, can you really blame her?

Despite her shameless dog-whistle politics, she lost to a relative unknown in 2008. Now it looks as though it's gonna be "deja vü all over again" in 2016.



You don't like me! You really don't like me!!

[Left Coast2020]

6. I have to ask a stupid question....

Although it may be obvious to many, but I have yet to figure why her supporters are backing a "corporate shill", a person who flagrantly lie's, could care less about climate change, gives different answers to a single question etc.

Are they all repukes in sheep's clothing, or is it because they have to have a woman in the WH?

Or could it be that her supporters must be into S & M: they enjoy getting slapped/knocked around for 4 years at a time.

I'm befuddled. Does anyone have an answer?

[grasswire]

7. a partial answer, perhaps

I know from reading in the Hillary group that many there really like her elegant manners, her expensive coif, and her "pumps". Seriously.

[Contrary1]

8. They would never admit it, but they want Bill back in the White House...

Hillary can live there too.

Good times, huh? Especially for the wealthy.

[surrealAmerican]

9. She's a "business as usual" candidate.

For some voters, a challenge to the way things are done now is too big a risk. They're afraid that any substantive change might backfire.

[Donkees]

10. "Honest People Never Fear the Truth"

[karynnj]

11. They do not see her like you describe

Last edited Sun Apr 3, 2016, 11:41 AM - Edit history (2)

They see a woman, who worked hard to get healthcare as First Lady and blame the insurance companies and other powers for the failure. They believe that she then created the CHIP program, which came out of the Senate and for which she did provide important support even if she did not head the effort or "create" it. They see her as a democrat supporting health, education, and welfare of people. It is easy to take that apart, but it is more likely that she did work sincerely on all of those things. The counter that she hurt education by being a very early proponent of tying teacher evaluations to student performance or that the Clinton era welfare bill and crime bill were both on balance harmful is easy to make, but it does not mean that she and Bill were insincere, it means that key things they proposed was counterproductive.

However, many, not looking at the actual result, remember an engaged First Lady speaking of the need to provide everyone with healthcare, a decent education, and a decent quality of life. Just like every Democrat. For many, she was seen as the first professional (a lawyer) who became a First Lady - right when her generation was breaking through in the corporate world. (This ignores that there were many accomplished earlier First Ladies - including Eleanor Roosevelt, Roslyn Carter and even Jackie Kennedy, who used her Fine Arts background to lead on redecorating the WH and bring in the arts.

Then, they saw her as SoS -- and she did travel the world and her celebrity did make her visits to allies near Presidential visits. Yet even with that, I have noticed that whenever anyone posts after a Kerry accomplishment that he is the best SoS in their lifetime, not a single person corrects that to "except HRC". This suggests that they do see her limitations there, but they also see she worked very word (and she did - she looked haggard at times) and that it was "putting in her time" leading to the best resume ever. (No serious discussion on what her own recommendations were count - even though she is clearly a hawk.)

On personality, it is easy to see that she is very easy to anger and when angry, she can not hide it. This was true in the WH, as SoS (remember when she went off on the guy who asked Bill's opinion in Africa), and on the campaign trail. They see it as justifiable.

[ProfessorPlum]

12. excellent reply

thanks for a thoughtful post

[karynnj]

13. Thanks - I think we are, unfortunately, in a period of everything being "black" or "white"

where the HRC has gradually moved to consider Bernie a threat. Therefore, they are trying to define him in solidly negative terms, while arguing that even insufficient praise of Clinton means you are right wing. Their gleeful posting of "fact Checkers" on the Greenpeace analysis is an example of this. The actual Greenpeace info is correct - and the Sanders campaign simply pointed to that. What the fact checkers dispute is whether the amount given is "significant" -- and that depends on what people think. The word is not used in a mathematical or statistical sense. The fact is the Clinton super Pac got over a million dollars from that industry's lobbyists bundling it. I guess it depends on what truth means.

In fairness, they are saying we are doing the reverse. That we ignore anything Sanders does that theoretically we should dislike. That may be true for some, but it is also true that her opposition research has stretched pretty far on somethings. (ie Sanders can not claim to be for Wall Street regulation because he voted with all but 4 (led by Ron Paul) against the Commodities Futures bill rammed through by the combination of the Clinton administration and Phil Gramm or arguing he is more for the wars as he voted for more funding bills than anyone else (he was in Congress longer) )

One observation: In any campaign, you can see the people comfortable with who they are and their platforms. If you think of the last week, there are almost iconic images of both. Bernie, with a smile so happy it is almost child like, with the little bird ..... and scarily angry Hillary with her in the face response to a young girl, no matter how much she hated the question. Although neither reflects even remotely the whole truth, they send strong messages especially to people not intending to get into the nits of Congressional records.

Think of the smiling images of Obama 2008 contrasted with HRC haughtily speaking of him being "just a speech". Remember the weekend before Iowa in 2004, with Kerry, quietly responding that "anyone would have done it" after the man he saved in Vietnam, reunited with him after decades again thanked him ... and Dean the same day being captured on video yelling at an (annoying) elderly heckler to sit down! Now, in all three campaigns, the campaign positively seen was not always that perfect, nor was the campaign showing a negative side always bad. However, it really helps when a campaign is seen as the happy one, not the angry one. (If you want you can add 1992, when GHWB's campaign went negative calling their opponents "Bozo and OzoneMan", which certainly took away from being Presidential.)

I do not think the many Clinton allies throwing every kitchen sink they can get their hands on would have started a few months ago, if they were not concerned he really had some chance. That is amazing for a campaign that even the home town crowd thought had a chance when he announced last May. I suspect that the Clinton people might have been responding to fear of 2008 deja vu, but I think it hurt them when they went negative.

[marlakay]

14. My hubby thinks if a woman wins

Any woman not just her, it will help all the other women to get ahead.

I have him convinced to vote for Bernie with me but he thinks thats why she would be good. He thinks women leaders would force her to be accountable to them. I am not so sure of that.