Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Left concern about HRC is NOT "hatred"...it's about what we stand for as a party and a country [View all]woo me with science
(32,139 posts)131. I think Savannahmann is on the right track re: what running Hillary will accomplish:
Savannahmann's post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5432518
You see Rand won't be running on the more war platform. He'll be running on the reduce the militarization of the police platform. He'll be running on the legalize Marijuana Platform. He'll be running on the reduce our military presence overseas platform. Those are the Libertarian Planks that his run will be based upon. So who would vote for him?
Well, Moderates who were shocked by the behavior of the Police at Ferguson. The stats here are interesting.While only 33% of whites think that the cops were not justified in shooting Michael Brown. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/new-poll-shows-sharp-racial-ideological-divisions-on-michael-brown/article_9334decb-3f97-5564-80b1-0bb11889beca.html It's important to note that at the moment, Rand Paul is on the populist side of the issue as far as Blacks are concerned.
Legalization of Marijuana. Rand is smart enough to make a campaign pledge to work for this goal. The people that are aware of what is going on in Colorado regarding the taxes collected will be on board. The law and order Rethugs won't, but they won't be happy about the previous position either.
He's been opposed to the NSA spying for a long time now. Do you think he will suddenly abandon that position now that the election is going to go national?
So our base will be made of Liberals, Defense Contractors who want the foreign wars to continue, and people who think the cops should have all that military gear. Oh, let's not forget the keep marijuana a crime group. All we need for the full spectrum is for Hillary to insult some minorities and we'll get the Klan vote too.
You guys are assuming that Rand is going to run a traditional Rethug campaign. He's never done that. He won't now. He's going to be the nominee, because with Perry out there isn't anyone left. Paul Ryan is a policy wonk and that won't fly with the Rethugs. Nobody is going to go Bush for the third time. Romney won't do it again. Nobody is left. It's Rand.
He's going to run on what works for him, what he's known for. He's going to run on Libertarian/Conservatism. He's going to blast the Government for bailing out GM, the Banks, and wall street. He's going to tap into the residual anger of many Americans. He's going to go out and talk about Government Health Care. He's a Doctor, so he is going to have a unique point of view.
Whoever decided to indict Perry is an idiot. Because the moron was a good front runner for the nomination now that he has glasses on that make him look smart, which we know from the debates for the 2012 nomination that he can't string a sentence together. The public already think that the prosecution is a political witch hunt. But no worries, because they'll never hear anything else about it, they don't go to LW sites.
Hillary is going to see that the left is well covered by Rand, and she'll do what she does best. She'll run to the right. That will lose the base, and she'll lose. Because she'll be running as a big government conservative Democrat. She'll be in favor of Obamacare, keeping the troops in the fight against ISIS. In favor of the NSA, and the spying they have to do to "keep us safe". Opposed to the legalization of Marijuana.
Now, who do you think will win that election?
You see Rand won't be running on the more war platform. He'll be running on the reduce the militarization of the police platform. He'll be running on the legalize Marijuana Platform. He'll be running on the reduce our military presence overseas platform. Those are the Libertarian Planks that his run will be based upon. So who would vote for him?
Well, Moderates who were shocked by the behavior of the Police at Ferguson. The stats here are interesting.While only 33% of whites think that the cops were not justified in shooting Michael Brown. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/new-poll-shows-sharp-racial-ideological-divisions-on-michael-brown/article_9334decb-3f97-5564-80b1-0bb11889beca.html It's important to note that at the moment, Rand Paul is on the populist side of the issue as far as Blacks are concerned.
Legalization of Marijuana. Rand is smart enough to make a campaign pledge to work for this goal. The people that are aware of what is going on in Colorado regarding the taxes collected will be on board. The law and order Rethugs won't, but they won't be happy about the previous position either.
He's been opposed to the NSA spying for a long time now. Do you think he will suddenly abandon that position now that the election is going to go national?
So our base will be made of Liberals, Defense Contractors who want the foreign wars to continue, and people who think the cops should have all that military gear. Oh, let's not forget the keep marijuana a crime group. All we need for the full spectrum is for Hillary to insult some minorities and we'll get the Klan vote too.
You guys are assuming that Rand is going to run a traditional Rethug campaign. He's never done that. He won't now. He's going to be the nominee, because with Perry out there isn't anyone left. Paul Ryan is a policy wonk and that won't fly with the Rethugs. Nobody is going to go Bush for the third time. Romney won't do it again. Nobody is left. It's Rand.
He's going to run on what works for him, what he's known for. He's going to run on Libertarian/Conservatism. He's going to blast the Government for bailing out GM, the Banks, and wall street. He's going to tap into the residual anger of many Americans. He's going to go out and talk about Government Health Care. He's a Doctor, so he is going to have a unique point of view.
Whoever decided to indict Perry is an idiot. Because the moron was a good front runner for the nomination now that he has glasses on that make him look smart, which we know from the debates for the 2012 nomination that he can't string a sentence together. The public already think that the prosecution is a political witch hunt. But no worries, because they'll never hear anything else about it, they don't go to LW sites.
Hillary is going to see that the left is well covered by Rand, and she'll do what she does best. She'll run to the right. That will lose the base, and she'll lose. Because she'll be running as a big government conservative Democrat. She'll be in favor of Obamacare, keeping the troops in the fight against ISIS. In favor of the NSA, and the spying they have to do to "keep us safe". Opposed to the legalization of Marijuana.
Now, who do you think will win that election?
My response:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5432640
I think you are right.
I have been fascinated by the ostentatiousness of Hillary's Third Way, neocon campaign, by the trumpeting of her "gaffes" about being poor by the corporate media, and by the level of deliberate obnoxiousness of many of her mouthpieces online. It would hardly be possible to run a campaign better suited to alienating the Democratic base and voters generally.
I thought for a while that the plan was just to infuriate the base as much as possible so that when a fake stealth populist appeared late in the game, Democrats would rally around him or her mindlessly and without demanding any serious vetting.
But in watching the play, I have decided that it's more likely that the corporate PTB have decided that it's time for a Republican.
I agree with you that Rand Paul will run on all those things, appealing to the general mood of the country, which is sick and tired of war and the shredding of our Constitution.
I think Hillary will run ostentatiously to the right of him and is planned and expected to lose.
By then we will be embroiled in another war, and all promises of reining in the military or reducing the police state can be explained away as impossible for the time being, and we will instead receive more major privatization and gutting of social programs.
We are screwed no matter which is elected, because Hillary will have already run on all the things Rand Paul will end up actually doing.
The PTB have us by the throat, because they own both parties, and they will play us once again. If genuine, non-corporate, non-infiltrating Democrats had any power left in the party at all, Paul wouldn't have to be a problem. He wouldn't even have to be an afterthought.
People are drawn to these formerly fringe Libertarians and libertarian-style Republicans only because they say some of the right things re: reining in warmongering, curbing the drug wars, and stopping the outrageous surveillance state. Every poll shows that people across party lines despise their willingness to scrap social programs/gut Social Security. All Democrats would have to do to blow them away would be to re-embrace the principles and policies they were supposed to stand for all along but have abandoned since selling out to corporate interests: being the party that reins in Wall Street, ends the surveillance state and the police state, restores our Constitution, reduces inequality, ends the outrageous drug wars, and STRENGTHENS social safety nets.
But our party is purchased now by the same ones who own the Republicans, and that's not going to happen.
So corporate Democrats will threaten and bully that we must support Hillary in order to avoid Paul, and they will claim to be vindicated when Paul is a disaster for human beings. But the truth is that The PTB will pursue their agenda under either one of them. Hillary's ostentatiously Third Way/neocon/neolib campaign is designed and backed by corporatists to enable or even ensure the coming of Paul and the continuation of the corporate takeover of this nation.
I think you are right.
I have been fascinated by the ostentatiousness of Hillary's Third Way, neocon campaign, by the trumpeting of her "gaffes" about being poor by the corporate media, and by the level of deliberate obnoxiousness of many of her mouthpieces online. It would hardly be possible to run a campaign better suited to alienating the Democratic base and voters generally.
I thought for a while that the plan was just to infuriate the base as much as possible so that when a fake stealth populist appeared late in the game, Democrats would rally around him or her mindlessly and without demanding any serious vetting.
But in watching the play, I have decided that it's more likely that the corporate PTB have decided that it's time for a Republican.
I agree with you that Rand Paul will run on all those things, appealing to the general mood of the country, which is sick and tired of war and the shredding of our Constitution.
I think Hillary will run ostentatiously to the right of him and is planned and expected to lose.
By then we will be embroiled in another war, and all promises of reining in the military or reducing the police state can be explained away as impossible for the time being, and we will instead receive more major privatization and gutting of social programs.
We are screwed no matter which is elected, because Hillary will have already run on all the things Rand Paul will end up actually doing.
The PTB have us by the throat, because they own both parties, and they will play us once again. If genuine, non-corporate, non-infiltrating Democrats had any power left in the party at all, Paul wouldn't have to be a problem. He wouldn't even have to be an afterthought.
People are drawn to these formerly fringe Libertarians and libertarian-style Republicans only because they say some of the right things re: reining in warmongering, curbing the drug wars, and stopping the outrageous surveillance state. Every poll shows that people across party lines despise their willingness to scrap social programs/gut Social Security. All Democrats would have to do to blow them away would be to re-embrace the principles and policies they were supposed to stand for all along but have abandoned since selling out to corporate interests: being the party that reins in Wall Street, ends the surveillance state and the police state, restores our Constitution, reduces inequality, ends the outrageous drug wars, and STRENGTHENS social safety nets.
But our party is purchased now by the same ones who own the Republicans, and that's not going to happen.
So corporate Democrats will threaten and bully that we must support Hillary in order to avoid Paul, and they will claim to be vindicated when Paul is a disaster for human beings. But the truth is that The PTB will pursue their agenda under either one of them. Hillary's ostentatiously Third Way/neocon/neolib campaign is designed and backed by corporatists to enable or even ensure the coming of Paul and the continuation of the corporate takeover of this nation.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
393 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Left concern about HRC is NOT "hatred"...it's about what we stand for as a party and a country [View all]
Ken Burch
Aug 2014
OP
I think it's not a question of whether she could win, or how many people love her.
Voice for Peace
Aug 2014
#179
So its not a question about the fact that she can beat every known Republican potential...
VanillaRhapsody
Aug 2014
#284
I deeply dislike and distrust HRC's hawkish stance on foreign policy. I really, really do.
BlueCaliDem
Aug 2014
#381
If Sarah decides to run, by that measure, Hillary doesn't stand a chance.
Voice for Peace
Aug 2014
#213
She's got nothing but harassment for those of us that won't side with Goldman-Sachs and the
rhett o rick
Aug 2014
#234
NO see that is not how it works....as I stated before....unless YOU have something that beats that
VanillaRhapsody
Aug 2014
#289
I can't push back when they trash her so vilely? With such disgust and disdain?
VanillaRhapsody
Aug 2014
#291
Could you provide a link to her page? Because I can't find the one with 2 million fans.
Luminous Animal
Aug 2014
#210
calling other Democrats "Centrists" seems to be the favorite of ad hom of the
VanillaRhapsody
Aug 2014
#50
OHHH so now YOU are the arbiteur of what is or isn't Progressive too....
VanillaRhapsody
Aug 2014
#57
Meaningless statement....Alot does not necessarily mean "most" does it?
VanillaRhapsody
Aug 2014
#63
NO I would say YOU are the one being presumptious in thinking that YOU might
VanillaRhapsody
Aug 2014
#70
We do know one thing, if you supported Hillary in '08 you were in the minority.
A Simple Game
Aug 2014
#93
I voted for the winner of the Democratic Primary....yes before that I supported Hillary Clinton
VanillaRhapsody
Aug 2014
#108
You can really say that Hillary is to the left of President Obama? I notice you can't
A Simple Game
Aug 2014
#127
I believe you would earnestly like to influence those of us who have concerns.
Voice for Peace
Aug 2014
#182
I don't feel like a big fish in a small pond. I try to avoid feeling like a fish, if possible.
Ken Burch
Aug 2014
#100
there are idealists....you are one...and there are those that know the true makeup of the Democratic
VanillaRhapsody
Aug 2014
#186
I am concerned that you have created a fantasy world, in which few progressives have
Voice for Peace
Aug 2014
#194
Oh I am suppose to hold your hand while I vigorously disagree with you?
VanillaRhapsody
Aug 2014
#258
Well, personally, I consider them DINOs, but that's an ad hom, so I didn't use it.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Aug 2014
#86
I note that HRC is a "centrist" when it's convenient for her supporters here
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2014
#95
Well it seems even Ronald Reagan would be called one by the current Teabaggers.....get it?
VanillaRhapsody
Aug 2014
#152
If free trade is solid Dem policy, then Dems are solidly wrong on that one.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Aug 2014
#189
I'm no Clinton booster, but remember that the supporters are not the person.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Aug 2014
#356
Yet on election day your "superior ethical standards and moral convictions" go out the door....
VanillaRhapsody
Aug 2014
#191
sad to report there are a lot of people who will never vote for Hillary.
Voice for Peace
Aug 2014
#219
Democrats are people that uphold Democratic Principles. H. Clinton is a Democrat only in name.
rhett o rick
Aug 2014
#241
Actually no....Democrats hold Primaries and they decide amongst themselves
VanillaRhapsody
Aug 2014
#256
Keep up the rationalizations, it must make you feel better about supporting
rhett o rick
Aug 2014
#261
I will support Democrats, not all Democrats like some corporate sell-outs, but I will always support
rhett o rick
Aug 2014
#272
so you are not really a Democrat...you are an Independent who happens to vote Democrat....
VanillaRhapsody
Aug 2014
#229
that doesn't matter...IF you are not committed to supporting the nominee the other Democrats
VanillaRhapsody
Aug 2014
#259
... and the DBC and damn near every Democrat since 2001 who accepted DNC funds?
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#297
Exactly....these Far Lefties want to hold to their high and mighty ethics.....over the Democratic
VanillaRhapsody
Aug 2014
#361
I'm "concerned" alright. Concerned about the fact that she still thinks it's a good idea to campaign
Chakab
Aug 2014
#11
Bu t it is a proven fact that whoever the Powers that Be want to win the election
truedelphi
Aug 2014
#176
Not surprising, the Clintons have more in common with Ryan than they do with
A Simple Game
Aug 2014
#97
Wow you got in as response number one. Best spot for a thread hijack. If you wish to convince
rhett o rick
Aug 2014
#232
Good for TWM. I was waiting for you to show up. Now if only the Stock Market would
rhett o rick
Aug 2014
#250
I'm concerned, given the relative ages of the Justices, that choosing an unelectable
Trust Buster
Aug 2014
#12
Hillary's supporters will continue to try to misrepresent her opposition, because there are valid
w4rma
Aug 2014
#17
I had to log in just to comment & rec. She would be the second Walmart president.
silvershadow
Aug 2014
#18
HRC will have the Obama coalition to pick up your slack. The only thing preventing her from.....
Tarheel_Dem
Aug 2014
#24
Why would I want to remain a member of an organization that no longer reflects my values?
GiveEmEnoughRope
Aug 2014
#348
No. It's not. It's obnoxious and simple-minded to brush all critical opinion of HRC as such.
stillwaiting
Aug 2014
#46
Everything that has been said about HRC has also been said about MEN with the same views.
Ken Burch
Aug 2014
#228
Exactly. I am concerned that she is not what everyone thinks she is. We are a party that has a
jwirr
Aug 2014
#33
Nobody on the left is opposed to the very idea of a woman as president. You know that. n/t.
Ken Burch
Aug 2014
#67
So if you were on the left, and informed, would you be concerned about Clinton's positions?
A Simple Game
Aug 2014
#113
Accusations of hate and misogyny are what folks are stuck with because other than lame warmed up
TheKentuckian
Aug 2014
#42
That's been pretty much the mantra of the Dem party for the last 20-30 years.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Aug 2014
#78
HRC - Too Supportive of Wall Street And The MIC - Too Old School - Not Progressive
cantbeserious
Aug 2014
#52
Yes someone explain to someone that supports these positions on H-1B is "Progressive"?
cascadiance
Aug 2014
#257
''Those, who have anointed her obviously fear that she might not do so well if confronted
JaydenD
Aug 2014
#201
This same statistically insignificant, hysterical component of the "left" has done the exact same
Number23
Aug 2014
#268
Another example of a 'proooogresssiiivvee" who thinks he/she's smarter than the rest of.
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#314
Amazing the number of people anxious to vote for her - despite the dire warning of 'proogressiives"
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#354
it seems to be the only language the 'more liberal than thou' progressives understand
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#106
but you, alone, don't get to decide if your principles are right the whole party
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#133
None of us said we did...but we do have the right to keep fighting for what we stand for.
Ken Burch
Aug 2014
#239
No, I said her policies contradict what progressives and, on some issues, the American majority,
Ken Burch
Aug 2014
#337
all those words you typed in reply on re-enforce the point - you think 'progressives' along speak...
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#351
actually you said "it's about what we stand for as **a party*** and a country
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#378
the Loyalists have never been right in 12 years, neither on what it takes to get into office
MisterP
Aug 2014
#91
I'm open to Warren or Bernie...also possibly Feingold(if he were to run)and several others.
Ken Burch
Aug 2014
#110
Not building myself an escape hatch. Just saying there are several candidates I could back.
Ken Burch
Aug 2014
#124
spoken like a true fundamentalist. You just have the squishy truthiness feeling inside.
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#149
What name calling? 'Fundamentalist' is a very accurate description of 'progressives'
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#160
The country simply can't afford another Republican President -- from either party
RufusTFirefly
Aug 2014
#123
Well, some people here might hate HRC as a person. But that's really beside the point.
Dark n Stormy Knight
Aug 2014
#130
I think Savannahmann is on the right track re: what running Hillary will accomplish:
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#131
We should start by identifying the most fundamental problem, then look for the right candidate.
Maineman
Aug 2014
#140
and when you "find" the "right candidate," what then? Beg that person to run?
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#143
You are going on one interview, I prefer to take her record, I do not support candidates on a single
Thinkingabout
Aug 2014
#325
When I read many post since the interview and excuses those writing the posts is HRC is too hawkish
Thinkingabout
Aug 2014
#359
Apparently you're confusing nouns and verbs. Perhaps a refresher in English is on your agenda.
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#355
She has said nothing about Ferguson and she endorsed what Netanyahu did to Gaza
Ken Burch
Aug 2014
#238
as opposed to Warren who sent one solitary tweet on Fergusan and endorses what Netanyahu did to Gaza
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#244
The tweet means Warren wasn't silent. It's different from saying nothing at all.
Ken Burch
Aug 2014
#371
it means she took 3 seconds to tweet it and *poof!* all done and lost in the sea of tweets
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#380
Did you read her position on the issues? She voted yes on IRV with Bush using all options
Thinkingabout
Aug 2014
#249
Because Rand Paul is to the left of Hillary, Libertarians doesnt believe in doing anything
Thinkingabout
Aug 2014
#309
Lots of unnecessary bile here. As long as it remains issue-based, we're all on safe ground
DFW
Aug 2014
#222
Hillary Clinton's <<POLICIES>> are NOT conducive to a healthy, winning DEM Party.
blkmusclmachine
Aug 2014
#235
Yeah, she has a lot of name recognition, but notice that her support is FALLING over time!
cascadiance
Aug 2014
#265
The only thing many people KNOW is that she's SLIGHTLY better than today's Republicans...
cascadiance
Aug 2014
#324
a matter of perspective. What isn't a matter of perspective is the numbers anxious to vote for her
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#352
Because frankly this country is SICK of how it's been destroyed by Republicans and these Democrats
cascadiance
Aug 2014
#260
except no one believe that hogwash except the 'more liberal than though' left
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#290
No blaming those that claim that "money is free speech" which is what CREATES this crap!
cascadiance
Aug 2014
#364
When One Defends The "War And Wall Street" Factions Of America - The Criticism Is Deserved
cantbeserious
Aug 2014
#294
No other candidate has ever said the stupid things she says. Except on the right.
JaydenD
Aug 2014
#319
YIKES! 75% of the replies are on my ignore list-- as a DUer since 2002 this says something
carolinayellowdog
Aug 2014
#273
So, A Relentless Defender Of The Clinton's Is A Centrist Troll - Would You Be On Your Own Ignore List
cantbeserious
Aug 2014
#293
this will fall on deaf ears. Those of us who object to Arne Duncan "hate Obama"
Doctor_J
Aug 2014
#281
Why do people keep telling HRC to engage on particular issues? In one post last
Welibs
Aug 2014
#302
I think after 6 years of President Obama we can safely say there actually was little or no
JCMach1
Aug 2014
#384
At least...as of this point...we haven't bombed Iran yet. Or gone all-out in Syria.
Ken Burch
Aug 2014
#390