General Discussion

enigmatic

(15,021 posts)

46. I was here in 2008

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 09:23 PM

Jul 2014

As were many, many people who still posting here today. I remember very well when Obama supporters (many who are still here as well too under their old and new usernames) smeared Hillary (and Bill) Clinton and their supporters as racists during the primaries, over and over. A good chunk of those who did support her were pretty much driven off the board by those people who have now suddenly pivoted and are now calling those who don't support her misogynists and worse. Why do they support her now? Because she's the establisment pick. Obama and Hillary's records weren't really any different from each other's; it was just that one set of supporters decided to support their candidate by any means necessary.

I didn't support either at the time; I really didn't have a horse in the race one way or another. But I know what I saw, as do those who were there at that time, too. It's all in the archives for anyone who wants to see it, and there's plenty to see.

That's the hilarious part of this; that they can literally stop on a dime and switch their attacks not because she or Obama have changed, but because they have a common enemy on this board (anybody to the left of them) is breathtaking in it's audacity.

This kind of stuff is what turned me off to this board, and national politics in the US in general. It's sick. Truly.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

158 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary Derangement Syndrome about her Presidency begins 30 months early [View all] stevenleser Jul 2014 OP

You would think she is the devil incarnate if you listened to some here. hrmjustin Jul 2014 #1

I thought people were ridiculous with Obama, attacking him just after his election for appointments stevenleser Jul 2014 #2

I proudly admit who I want to support Aerows Jul 2014 #6

I am not looking foward to next year. hrmjustin Jul 2014 #10

I'm afraid the 2016 primary is going to make the 2008 primary look tame. stevenleser Jul 2014 #19

Many of them are Republicans. nt DURHAM D Jul 2014 #65

That's because they're full of themselves; I know some would rather lose to the GOP IrishAyes Jul 2014 #80

Me either. greatauntoftriplets Jul 2014 #26

Yes a read a but of it at the time. This will not be fun. hrmjustin Jul 2014 #29

Oh you mean you can't attack them for stupid shit after the fact either betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #13

It's a free country. You can do whatever silly stuff you want. And I will call you on it. nt stevenleser Jul 2014 #23

If I were embarrassed about my preference for different candidates betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #37

Let 'em go at it then. I have ZERO tolerance for the GOP. If they did burst a blood vessel IrishAyes Jul 2014 #78

So we should just shut up and let them indulge in the same old crap Armstead Jul 2014 #140

I heard she kicks puppies for distance and accuracy... SidDithers Jul 2014 #3

I thought it was lighting kitten fur on fire but you might be right. stevenleser Jul 2014 #9

MSNBC just confirmed it... Agschmid Jul 2014 #154

I have no clue who I will support in the Illinois primary 20 months from now... greatauntoftriplets Jul 2014 #4

Nor do I Aerows Jul 2014 #5

Oh Jesus H Christ mindwalker_i Jul 2014 #7

Yes, they're deranged. Their already projecting foreign policy choices and imputing GOP support stevenleser Jul 2014 #8

You can project foreign policy choices based on a persons past betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #16

Please proceed, governor. LMAO. nt stevenleser Jul 2014 #21

The term ODS was used mindwalker_i Jul 2014 #28

There was opposition to the warrantless wiretapping, guess what it was changed in 2008, ordered Thinkingabout Jul 2014 #102

That's an orthogonal issue mindwalker_i Jul 2014 #113

Are you saying the warrantless wiretapping is continuing? Thinkingabout Jul 2014 #129

I only mentioned Snowden in reference to mindwalker_i Jul 2014 #137

Wiretapping is not the same as phone call records. Thinkingabout Jul 2014 #147

GOD status ...in process. L0oniX Jul 2014 #55

And so it begins.... IrishAyes Jul 2014 #84

This OP Is Lame? billhicks76 Jul 2014 #96

If you say so, master. IrishAyes Jul 2014 #105

I Just Did billhicks76 Jul 2014 #107

My, how nice to be able to just snap your fingers like that and make your words true! IrishAyes Jul 2014 #150

Truth billhicks76 Jul 2014 #153

She Might Win But... billhicks76 Jul 2014 #155

Where we disagree is the matter of distribution. IrishAyes Jul 2014 #156

I think that person has been here under another name. wyldwolf Jul 2014 #11

That's nice n/t betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #14

Where did anyone mention her gender? betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #12

Actually, you believe Warren would be weak and taken advantage of by the "neocon dominated DC... wyldwolf Jul 2014 #15

She would be a real improvement on economic policy though. betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #20

but your concern is war with Iran. A good economic policy has little to do with that wyldwolf Jul 2014 #22

The fact that I posted concern about Iran betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #24

So? The fact is you posted 'concern' about Iran and said Warren would be taken in by neocons wyldwolf Jul 2014 #27

I doubt we share much criteria betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #35

in other words, you don't want to compare them wyldwolf Jul 2014 #38

Neocons don't genreally have an economic policy betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #40

No? Tell that to these people: wyldwolf Jul 2014 #45

DLCers generally favor supply side economics too betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #47

you're avoiding the question - PROVE Hillary believes banks should set economic policy wyldwolf Jul 2014 #50

I would also point out that to the degree they were betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #53

Making things up as you go. Now PROVE Hillary believes banks should set economic policy wyldwolf Jul 2014 #57

Her husband allowed them to set econonomic betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #58

If so, so? Prove it and prove Hillary believes that.. and just remember... wyldwolf Jul 2014 #59

I revised the post with links. n/t betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #60

which in no way proves what you're asserting wyldwolf Jul 2014 #61

Well she is sympathetic to banks in ways that are generally betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #67

that's your opinion. Your link in no way says or implies that wyldwolf Jul 2014 #70

Isn't this the same talking point used against Obama in the 2008 election? blackspade Jul 2014 #62

What? That Obama would be seduced by Neocons? Don't recall that wyldwolf Jul 2014 #66

He has been seduced by neocons betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #69

How so? wyldwolf Jul 2014 #71

He appointed betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #76

That's nuts wyldwolf Jul 2014 #81

You mean Obama didn't call for regime change against Syria betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #82

Yeah, he DID. For breaking international law. Now prove Obama is seeking revenge on Putin wyldwolf Jul 2014 #85

There are many countries the break international law in many ways betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #92

which of our allies gassed their own people? wyldwolf Jul 2014 #94

More ADD arguments. betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #115

More conspiracy theorist arguments. You're really contending Assad didn't gas his people? wyldwolf Jul 2014 #119

Well that went over you head. blackspade Jul 2014 #124

not, it just didn't illicit the response you were expecting wyldwolf Jul 2014 #127

ANd what would that have been, Omniscient one? blackspade Jul 2014 #130

oh who knows? When you replied with something incoherent, the obvious conclusion was you were... wyldwolf Jul 2014 #133

And you would know incoherence.... blackspade Jul 2014 #134

for real! Especially after conversing with you. wyldwolf Jul 2014 #135

Bravo, you're so clever with your insults. blackspade Jul 2014 #136

The golden rule wyldwolf Jul 2014 #138

Says the engineer of the insult train. blackspade Jul 2014 #139

Say the owner of the railroad wyldwolf Jul 2014 #141

Fail. I'm too poor to own a railroad. blackspade Jul 2014 #142

I'm sorry you failed. No not really wyldwolf Jul 2014 #143

Oh, you can do better than that. blackspade Jul 2014 #144

Yes but why waste it on you? wyldwolf Jul 2014 #145

Now, that's better. blackspade Jul 2014 #146

Well Obama's real record hasn't been very good betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #68

So now Obama has let banks 'formulate economic policy?' wyldwolf Jul 2014 #73

So Geithner wasn't a banker? n/t betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #77

how does that prove Obama is letting banks "formulate economic policy?" wyldwolf Jul 2014 #83

What does the Secretary of the Treasury do? Clean parks? n/t betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #88

Advices the president on economic matters - which doesn't mean the banks run things wyldwolf Jul 2014 #90

I don't think he should have appointed all those goldman sachs people betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #97

that's your opinion and it still doesn't prove the banks set US economic policy wyldwolf Jul 2014 #99

This isn't a court of law betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #100

Public opinion? Really? You have evidence the public believes banks set US economic policy? wyldwolf Jul 2014 #103

Evidently it is working to get some politicians elected betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #106

Evidently? How so. wyldwolf Jul 2014 #108

LOL MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #109

LOL wyldwolf Jul 2014 #112

You're claiming that Durbin isn't an expert at how our government works? MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #114

I'm yielding to the definition of the 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy wyldwolf Jul 2014 #116

You're seriously claiming that Durbin isn't an expert at how our government works. MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #118

I'm yielding to the definition of the 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy wyldwolf Jul 2014 #120

So, you're seriously claiming that Sen. Durbin isn't an expert on how our government works. MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #121

I'm yielding to the definition of the 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy wyldwolf Jul 2014 #122

Less this, one suspects: Smarmie Doofus Jul 2014 #25

And you did feel the need to point out that Rand Paul would never pick a fight with Iran. Even in Squinch Jul 2014 #30

Actually, it's Senator Elizabeth Warren from the great State of Massachusetts. sheshe2 Jul 2014 #89

Off by about 120 months! whistler162 Jul 2014 #17

How the hell is that sexist? leftstreet Jul 2014 #18

If YOU don't understand why, then MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #32

DU will implode during the HillaryPrimary leftstreet Jul 2014 #34

And implode again when inevitability 2.0 fails. morningfog Jul 2014 #49

Gee Manny, if only you could spend a bunch of time rubbing elbows over at FOX news, you could Dragonfli Jul 2014 #42

It would be nice to be a member of the Smart Set MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #111

You got it all wrong, you get to use as many facts as you want, as long as you make them up Dragonfli Jul 2014 #123

It had to be sexist because racist didn't fit. Dragonfli Jul 2014 #33

this. KG Jul 2014 #36

+1 leftstreet Jul 2014 #39

The Bieberette types always appeared deranged to me as well, but apparently hero worship is just Dragonfli Jul 2014 #44

yep exactly. nt m-lekktor Jul 2014 #41

I was here in 2008 enigmatic Jul 2014 #46

Epic MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #110

Ayup LondonReign2 Jul 2014 #132

Lefties like that are constantly stuffing the right's straw men with more straw. nt conservaphobe Jul 2014 #31

right. Phlem Jul 2014 #54

Republicans could do a lot worse than Hillary RedstDem Jul 2014 #43

"Trying to stop her election" as if it is a forgone conclusion morningfog Jul 2014 #48

She is an absolutely terrible choice. DeSwiss Jul 2014 #51

And actually I don't think she can win in the general election. zeemike Jul 2014 #93

! DeSwiss Jul 2014 #104

Agreed. Plus... appal_jack Jul 2014 #149

Third Way approved puppet rehearsal. L0oniX Jul 2014 #52

spot on. Phlem Jul 2014 #56

no DonCoquixote Jul 2014 #63

How did she "try to start a war in Syria"? BainsBane Jul 2014 #64

here DonCoquixote Jul 2014 #74

Yeah! How DARE she criticize a Dictator whose regime uses chemical weapons on its citizens... brooklynite Jul 2014 #95

Neither would I want to be embraced by a bunch of snakes. IrishAyes Jul 2014 #72

I will certainly support Hillary.... the_sly_pig Jul 2014 #75

That whole article is a massive troll, and anyone who buys in is lost. MADem Jul 2014 #79

Clickbait journalism. joshcryer Jul 2014 #86

That's it, in one word! nt MADem Jul 2014 #91

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=204842 Phlem Jul 2014 #98

He's not "buying in." He's pointing it out and if it works for him, fine with me. nt MADem Jul 2014 #101

K. Phlem Jul 2014 #117

the first one comes off as someone making fun of the things Catherina/Tiniore would post JI7 Jul 2014 #87

Where's the "sexist" part? Hillary is a crappy, neolib, 3rd Way, candidate who voted for war. Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2014 #125

+1000 djean111 Jul 2014 #126

ok so now you accuses this OP to be mysigynist mylye2222 Jul 2014 #128

This thread represents a new low. It's just pathetic, and reflects much more poorly Romulox Jul 2014 #131

I don't have one left leaning friend IRL who dislikes Hillary. NCTraveler Jul 2014 #148

+1 freshwest Jul 2014 #157

Oh, so now it is "Hillary's Presidency"? Bit of hubris there, or trying to influence expectations djean111 Jul 2014 #151

Hillary isn't my kind of liberal Prophet 451 Jul 2014 #152

Next hit will be Vince Foster, Monica and the blue dress... Oops, that one's being linked, too. freshwest Jul 2014 #158