General Discussion

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)

51. My complaint is with your post #11.

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 06:20 PM

Mar 2015

You stated that all the criticisms of Clinton that you had seen on DU were without substance.

One criticism of Clinton that you must have seen on DU is that she voted for the IWR and she shouldn't have.

If you now join her in admitting that that vote was a mistake, than that's a criticism that has substance.

Your point #4 is a straw man. No one has said, "I refuse to vote for anyone who's ever made a mistake." Given the likelihood that all the candidates will be human, that would be silly. Nevertheless, we certainly are entitled to consider each candidate's history. You're free to conclude that some of us are giving too much weight to the IWR vote, but you have no basis for describing that criticism as being without substance.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

55 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

DU on Clinton: Hard-hitting criticism or smears? [View all] Vattel Mar 2015 OP

K&P Jackpine Radical Mar 2015 #1

Both. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #2

Yeah, so far I am in the "nothing-to-see-here" camp on the email thing. Vattel Mar 2015 #4

There is "something to see" with the email server issue, Maedhros Mar 2015 #12

You would think! Vattel Mar 2015 #19

I've heard people absolve her bad judgment as roguevalley Mar 2015 #42

Strict rules should be in place that regulate where official documentation can be stored Maedhros Mar 2015 #49

Criticism of any politician is good, discussing issues and actions by Democrats is good. Autumn Mar 2015 #3

I agree so long as the criticisms are not smears, they are to be encouraged. Vattel Mar 2015 #5

I don't think any criticism of the email thing HappyMe Mar 2015 #6

Both. DanTex Mar 2015 #7

That is a problem the Clinton camp will have to address. mmonk Mar 2015 #8

They're sounding like tired Republicans now. Can't be FOR anything? Then go negative! randome Mar 2015 #9

I think now is the time to subvert her. Vattel Mar 2015 #14

There are professional hate spotters here on DU. Rex Mar 2015 #10

smears rock Mar 2015 #11

Really? All the criticism of her for supporting the invasion of Iraq, Vattel Mar 2015 #16

To answer your question a second time rock Mar 2015 #33

Clinton herself has said her IWR vote was a mistake -- was her comment without substance? Jim Lane Mar 2015 #40

So what's your complaint? rock Mar 2015 #43

My complaint is with your post #11. Jim Lane Mar 2015 #51

Humans make mistakes rock Mar 2015 #52

This is astounding. What would you consider to be a substantive criticism? Jim Lane Mar 2015 #53

Admittingly you have covered all the details very precisely rock Mar 2015 #55

I've seen smears, but mostly criticism accused of being smears. arcane1 Mar 2015 #13

How about the HSBC thing. Do you think that was fair criticism? Vattel Mar 2015 #15

I'm not familiar with that one. arcane1 Mar 2015 #22

Hard-hitting criticism bigwillq Mar 2015 #17

I guess I disagree to an extent. What is said here is maybe a mere drop Vattel Mar 2015 #20

When posters are using sources like the Washington Free Beacon... SidDithers Mar 2015 #18

Some smears sure but often I think what some call a smear is actually TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #21

Nice post. I agree that there is a distinction to be made between not being charitable and smearing Vattel Mar 2015 #24

Depends on whether or not you see HRC as the Anointed One or not. hobbit709 Mar 2015 #23

Well, sure, that will color one's assessment. Vattel Mar 2015 #25

Depends on the post. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #26

Smearicism. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #27

yes, people disagree, but that doesn't mean everyone's opinion is equally valid. Vattel Mar 2015 #28

How many people are willing to weigh the evidence and change their opinion? Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #30

There are certainly two sides as I see it. A microcosm of what's happening to the rhett o rick Mar 2015 #36

What Progressives would need for real change as the see it is a majority in the House and Senate Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #39

I see you saying that there is really zero hope for progressive change and the best rhett o rick Mar 2015 #44

Rhett, please reread what I wrote. What I said is you can not do it fast or with just one candidate. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #45

"Progressives need to take a long view, not wish for a miracle." FSogol Mar 2015 #48

Sorry, I mistakenly thought you were justifying support for HRC. rhett o rick Mar 2015 #50

+1 Well said. n/t FSogol Mar 2015 #47

oh shoot I totally forgot about that one Man from Pickens Mar 2015 #29

I think what she was doing was showing that the race isn't over until someone has won Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #31

Q: You don't buy the party unity argument? Fumesucker Mar 2015 #37

Both. Some seem to criticise her and want her to do better. Some hate her no matter what she does OregonBlue Mar 2015 #32

I agree with your sentiment daredtowork Mar 2015 #34

well-said Vattel Mar 2015 #35

It will be characterized as smears and right wing attacks by Clinton loyalists, just like most dissentient Mar 2015 #38

We need Venn diagrams. Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #41

There's a variety gollygee Mar 2015 #46

Depends. Sycophant, or objective voter? cherokeeprogressive Mar 2015 #54