General Discussion

rock

(13,218 posts)

55. Admittingly you have covered all the details very precisely

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 07:55 AM

Mar 2015

I do not disagree with anything you say except your assessment of the severity of her vote. It's not the way that I would have voted and I wished that she had voted the other way. But it would have made no difference and it is trivial - her vote would have changed nothing. You might as well be arguing that she spit on the sidewalk and then jaywalked. This is what I mean by lacking substance.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

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