Something for the Anti-Clinton Camp to Keep In Mind When You Feel Belittled

[Jim Lane]

32. What phrases, pray tell, will be acceptable to the anti-anti-Clinton camp?

You write in part:

Anytime anyone starts indulging in character attacks, be very, very afraid. The GOP does not slime on issues. They attack character. Phrases like "war hawk" and "corporate" sound an awful lot like a GOP Big Lie, like Gore is a Liar or Kerry is a Waffler.

As a preliminary, let me note, as others have done, that your attempt to conflate DU criticism of Hillary with that of the GOP is ridiculous. The center of gravity of the Republican criticism of Hillary (as of just about any other prominent Democrat) is "weak on national security" (i.e., not enough of a war hawk) and "hostile to the job creators" (i.e., not enough of a corporatist). Rand Paul is an outlier, as was his father (who voted against the IWR, unlike some war hawks I could mention). Even Paul has, in the last several months, tacked toward hawkishness for purposes of his Presidential campaign.

More to the point: There are genuine substantive criticisms of Hillary Clinton on policy matters. To call her a "war hawk" or "corporatist" isn't a character attack. It's a shorthand way of alluding to a particular subset of the criticisms.

You can't reasonably object to shorthand on a message board. There are contexts in which I'm simply not going to take the time to go through her actions and statements on Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc., or to review her history with issues relating to big business, income inequality, etc.

If you contend that making those substantive criticisms in any way is playing into Republican hands, then we really have nothing to discuss. Put me (and quite a few other people) on Ignore.

If you admit that raising those arguments is legitimate, then please clarify for us "exactly how to phrase (our) ideas without giving anyone the wrong idea." I read Thompson but it was years ago, so maybe without my rereading the whole book, you could just give me a cheat sheet? If "war hawk" is prohibited by your rules, maybe "militarist"? If not "corporatist", -- ah, well, here I stalled, I was going to add another possible alternative but didn't even come up with anything to parallel with "militarist" as a suggestion. Anyway, I hope you get the idea.

Those of us who sometimes criticize Clinton await your guidance.

ETA: I also wouldn't completely rule out statements that actually are character attacks. Calling someone a war hawk is not a character attack but calling him or her a liar is. Well, guess what, there are liars out there, and some of them are Democrats. It's a legitimate consideration. Not just Hillary Clinton, but any candidate running for any office can reasonably be asked to explain himself or herself if some past statement appears deceptive, and especially if it appears to be a pattern.

For example, I've paid virtually no attention to this State Department email brouhaha, because my quick impression was that it was much ado about nothing. Nevertheless, if someone were to present solid evidence to show that Clinton lied about something in that connection, I can't see that discussion as being impermissible here. Let the criticism be aired and let the Clinton supporters respond. A response of "that's a character attack," without more, won't strike me as persuasive.