2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy people distrust Hillary Clinton
Since I'm banned from the Hillary Group, and can't reply to a post, I'll just respond with an OP of my own.
Why people distrust Hillary.
First we should parse distrust a bit, as there's more than one kind of distrust:
1. People distrust that she has the judgement for the job.
2. People distrust that she's honest.
There's plenty of reasons for BOTH as we'll see.
JUDGEMENT:
Where to begin?
- IWR
- All the flip flops, including on Dem plank issues like healthcare for all, and gay rights.
- Corporate money for speeches so close to an election
- Doubling-down on a failed 2008 campaign strategy
- etc.
There's so many issues where people look at Hillary's experience and don't see it as a strength. Experience can be good and bad, which is something the Hillary campaign can't bear to consider, much less say out loud.
Any of those reason could be enough to make a voter distrust Hillary. Together they form a pretty awful rainbow of reasons to distrust her.
HONESTY:
- Flip-flopping for political gain
- Huge ethical lapses during her time at State
- Lying about issues around her server
- Playing political games with her speeches
- Pretending almost criticism of her is sexist, Bernie won because he's from Vermont, she's the biggest foe of corporate crime, etc.
- Numerous extremely corrupt looking arrangements and decisions regarding her Foundation
- Handing back 5K to protest Walmart one campaign, then taking 300,000 from them in another
- Etc.
Again, if even one of those makes you distrust her, then she's screwed. As a whole, she's screwed with huge percentage of voters - who do distrust her.
Between the two types of trust there's AMPLE reasons to distrust her. And there's many more in her past. And by attacking her opponent in an area that is HER greatest weakness, she's making her situation worse. Demonstrably.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)suddenly claims to be the biggest fighter for campaign finance reform. You can't make this stuff up.
The Clinton campaign machine has decided if you can't beat em then attempt to co-opt their message.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But she made a conscious decision, as far as I can tell, to signal loud and clear once she got to the senate that she was "Hillary Clinton, moderate", "Hillary Clinton, defense hawk", "Hillary Clinton, values traditionalist"
if it was just one instance, okay, but it was a continual pattern, from the IWR vote to "marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman" to proposing flag burning legislation, for fuck's sake.
it's pretty hard to walk that shit back or imagine that no one is going to remember.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Wilms
(26,795 posts)Does that poster really have no knowledge about any of the things you listed? Or the fact that those things are an issue for many, even if not for them?
I'm reminded, constantly, of what Bill Clinton said about republicans, "Facts bounce off them".
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Because of Bernie, she's leaning more to the left.
Bernie would never change stances because of anyone else.
We know she's capitulating to the voters and will go back to the side of big business if she's elected.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Where was her concern for women and children when she advocated for the crime bill that removed husbandsfathers from families, thus increasing economic pressure for women and negatively affecting the quality of life for millions of children? To add insult to injury, she promoted welfare reform.
Her contribution to the oppression of women is significant and undeniable, and it turns my stomach to hear her dishonestly trying to write a narrative based exclusively on her work with the Children's Defense Fund.
In a way, it is consistant with her history to have feminist icon surrogates use misogynistic talking points.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html
I don't blame HRC for providing legal defense to a child rapist, but offering a dishonest defense which included blaming a child rape victim for her own rape shows HRC's character is such that winning is more important than ethics, even in the most extreme circumstances. That's why she can't and shouldn't be trusted.
djean111
(14,255 posts)her to do. Now she has HUGE money telling her what to do.
No core to her. Just expediency and calculation. IMO.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Pretty much for all of the reasons EdwardBernays gives in the OP.
I don't trust her any further than I could throw her.
eilen
(4,950 posts)While adding people to the OMalley caucus to prevent them from joining Bernie's groups and the high handed manner in which her supporters in Iowa concluded that primary might have influenced voters, I also think that the speaking fees collected by an already-millionaire from organizations not only like Goldman-Sachs and Exxon but also collected from Boys and Girls Club of America (one would think that she would be more charitable in that instance....--gives some insight in her character and what it means to have a lot of money to offer her in relation of her time and attention. I don't hate Hillary, nor think she is evil or a horrible person. But I think the political machine that she and Bill have built and the way in which she is open to criticism (not) -- even the statement of actual problems by others is such that she presents an intimidating persona and a tendency to deny them and dig in. As I heard on the radio-- as with many politicians...the angel of self awareness flew over her home without a visit. Criticism is always perceived to be an attack with the Clinton campaign-- and (at least lately) it is answered with a hammer. Now flipping to the Bill Clinton strategy of appropriation, she seems to be trying to out-Bernie Bernie and it is not believable.
eridani
(51,907 posts)However, her own actions are no help whatsoever.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)One phoney scandal after another. Whitewater, Vince Foster, Benghazi, emails, etc. It's been effective even though nothing substantial has ever stuck. Thirty years of attacks have taken their toll--people have an uneasy feeling that there has to be something there because they keep hearing stuff!
eridani
(51,907 posts)So there are some substantive reasons for mistrust. I've never taken the Benghazi/Whitewater bullshit seriously--it's so transparent. The wingers who do take it seriously will never vote for any Democrat.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)of those. Most people I speak to, unlike people on DU, have very little interest in facts. Low information voters are the norm for the general populace. They absorb impressions while half listening to the headlines and don't delve an further.
Had a conversation about Christie a few days ago. I asked this guy (successful broker, obviously intelligent) why he liked Christie. "He's a good guy, tells it like it is." There was nothing else that he could come up with.
It is discouraging but true.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--your policy proposals. i canvassed for a transportation bond last year, and one 3 for 3 voter told me she threw her ballot away because she didn't want to waste a stamp voting for just one issue, so I get the frustration with low information.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)What did influence me was when she supported Bill as he signed NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act and Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
That generated much of the uneasy feeling because those pieces of legislation were so destructive to our interests.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Again, I believe that 9 out of 10 voters could not recall those actions and may have just a name recognition of NAFTA.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)gordyfl
(598 posts)I've noticed she's changed around the time she became a member of "The Big Club".
(I'm also banned from commenting on the Hillary Group.)
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)"Its just so frustrating listening to Hillary Clinton. Her speech last night was I'll get things done, I'll get the things...like what are your issues? Why are you running? Weather we have her on the show to interview her or we see that speech last night, its basically the same argument that some of the Republican side have, who's chances have collapsed."
-Blow Scarborough, 6:17AM
kracer20
(199 posts)I watched some late last night when I got home, and now Joe Scar this morning, and it is like a new channel.
I told my wife that it seems like they all jumped on the Bernie bandwagon. Like they were waiting for him to win NH just so they wouldn't look bad.
Fingers crossed he will get some more positive coverage on other stations as well.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Normally this guy talks about how Bernie's chances are nill and none, now its like he's feeling the Bern. But I'm just like you in hoping that he gets positive coverage from here on out. He needs it!
olddots
(10,237 posts)maybe thats a good thing but with Bernie I see in him what I like in myself . ( sorry kinda weird )
ejbr
(5,856 posts)at my own transformation. Before Bernie put his hat in the ring, I was firmly for her. Neither of them are perfect. Who is? But as I came to understand her proclivities, I realized that she has been sucked up in the establishment bubble that believes that bread crumbs for the peasants should keep us happy. More war, less regulation will make her and her pals richer. Meanwhile the Democratic and Republican power brokers can play make believe tug of war on social issues while they both laugh all the way to the bank. It's as if we are living in a real world Matrix where some of us stay blind by taking the blue (red?) pill and the rest of us have taken the pill that allows us to really see what is going on.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)the Clinton Administration.
"Meanwhile the Democratic and Republican power brokers can play make believe tug of war on social issues while they both laugh all the way to the bank."
Should be written in stone.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)That's your souvenir for having the temerity to post there.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)that wasn't even a criticism of her.
Man, those people live in a freaking bubble.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)am banned from supporting or voting for her in the GE if she is the nominee? HC and her supporters burn their bridges with hit type attitudes and lists.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)She said, (paraphrasing) 'What was she thinking? If you are thinking about running, you don't do those, it's going to come back to haunt you. She didn't need the money.'
noamnety
(20,234 posts)for forgetting to mention Kissinger.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)That's my bad
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Progressive??? What a laugh. She's not even liberal. And looks at young Black boys as superpredators. Yesterday's news. I'll blame everyone here if this neocon is nominated. What is wrong with people who still think we can work within this corrupt system. Their small minds make me sick.
jalan48
(13,881 posts)The Clinton's are in that group of powerful people. I don't think Hillary realized that taking money from Wall St. firms was that big of a deal, the people she runs with would do exactly the same thing, that's an accepted value of her group. It only becomes a glaring issue when exposed to values of the average citizen when she's running for office. The average person has no idea how the really rich and powerful live and act, they aren't like us. Chelsea Clinton currently gets $75,000 a speech, why? Because she's part of the same group, a junior member if you will in training.
Iggy Knorr
(247 posts)Cayenneman
(10 posts)Don't forget about the political calculation of voting for the Iraq War!
erlewyne
(1,115 posts)says it all!!!
They act just like her and I don't trust them because
I was banned for notagreeing with them.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)running in the Democratic Party for the future. The ultimate flip-flop would be a generational move to the IOP-Independent Oligarch Party.
Beowulf
(761 posts)With triangulation as her primary tool for solving problems, I don't have a sense of what isn't negotiable with her. Perhaps women's reproductive rights, but even there I wouldn't be shocked if she would trade away some of those for her own political well-being. That's why I'm skeptical of the Supreme Court argument to vote for her. If I was confident she'd appoint more RBG-types, then perhaps, but I'm not that confident.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)But as you indicate, her campaign seems to be dredging up the same old tired strategies.
She'll probably get the nomination. Frankly, it's up in the air to me as to whether she can win the general election. But this primary season hasn't done much at all to convince me that she can pull it off or that, if she does, she'll be the president I believe this country desperately needs right now.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)25 years of right-wing smear.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)Now she is the Front runner in the democratic presidential race.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)I'm a lot more left wing than most people - certainly more so than Hillary, and I believe there's AMPLE evidence she's dishonest... And it's go nothing to do with Whitewater or who Bill sleeps with.