Hillary's Campaign Bewilders Me

[Demeter]

She doesn't take a stand on ANYTHING....and Bernie does. So he's eating her lunch right there. Her policy pronouncements are so wishy-washy as to be meaningless, subject to whatever interpretation one wishes to impose upon it, with a wink-wink to the people pulling her financial strings.

She doesn't even take a stand on Bernie...while he takes the chivalrous (and politically astute) stand that he will not attack her. BUT, every time he takes a stand on anything else, it literally is an attack on the woman who couldn't take a stand on anything herself. The contrast is more than black-and-white...it's the difference between alive and dead, not even the shock of freshly dead but the awfulness of lengthy decaying in the hot sun.

Hillary takes occasional stabs at GOP candidates, but this is the primary, not the general election. Ignore that fact, Hillary, and you will be out on the street when the nomination comes to a vote, not in the halls of power.

The constant prettifying of the package cannot conceal the emptiness within. All the listening in the world will not change or make up her mind. She's just looking for a way into the conversation, as an agitator. Hillary's too boring to agitate anyone, except at the thought of her being nominally put in charge of anything....

Too bad there's no market for lessons in how to lose. Hillary could really clean up in that field.

[sarge43]

1. She's taken a stand on some women's issues such as wage inequality.

Problem is if a woman is receiving the same wage as her male counterpart, but it's minimum or worse, it's not doing either any good.

Or her husband's job is outsourced or her kid's school is falling apart. These are not women's problems; they are symptoms of a far greater problem affecting this country. We're being robbed blind.

So Madame Secretary, what is your stand and what are you going to do about it?

[Demeter]

4. That's not a stand--that's just observation

a stand is a plan to do something about it!

[sarge43]

5. Point taken.

Paraphrasing, "The rich and the poor can starve equally."

[antigop]

11. as one DUer has said: "We'll all be equal in the breadlines." nt

[HooptieWagon]

15. That would be me.

Although other DUers may have independently also coined the phrase.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

23. They can, but they won't.

It's possible for the rich and poor alike to starve, but the reality is that the rich won't starve, just the poor.

[Half-Century Man]

26. An old observation.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Anatole France, The Red Lily, 1894, chapter 7
French novelist (1844 - 1924)

From quotationspage.com

[Demeter]

29. Sure they can

All they own is paper. If they don't have a subsistence farm to retreat to, in case of a serious crash, they are up the creek without a paddle.

The rich can starve--and only the suicidally compassionate would prevent it.

[LiberalElite]

7. Elect her and find out -

[antigop]

8. or her job is outsourced...or her job is replaced by an h-1b visaholder...or her husband's

job is replaced by an h-1b visaholder

[Cosmic Kitten]

2. It's only bewildering if you look at it logically...

Seen through a lens where the goal is
to maintain the status quo, while the
democratic base taken for granted and
given a hobsonian choice between Hillary
or a republican it does make sense.

It's all about maintaining the status quo

[Demeter]

3. That's exactly it

I'll let Dylan provide the answer to that idea:

[MindfulOne]

17. If the Top 1% Get 99% of the Income and Wealth, They Should Pay 99% of the Taxes"

Gotta love that line at the bottom of your posts.

[antigop]

10. yes, the goal is to maintain the status quo...and keep her mouth closed as much as possible

and hope to stay in it because of name recognition and to appeal to those who want a female prez sooooo badly.

[senz]

30. And let the American people live with the result.

[ybbor]

6. Her campaign is a empty of any substance

Even white bread finds her boring. She makes beige seem colorful in comparison. Phony and bland do not a campaign make. Blah!

Bernie on the other hand is shaking things up!

Go Bernie go!

[Enthusiast]

9. She looks nice. Did you see her hair the other evening?

[senz]

31. And that seems to be important to her followers, too ...

[A Simple Game]

12. Hillary always does her best leading from behind, let's hope she keeps it up in the primaries. n/t

[nashville_brook]

13. you make a good point -- it is a stark difference

and she could literally be taking stands on things that don't matter too terribly much. not doing so make the difference stand out all the more.

keen observation.

[Beowulf42]

14. Right On

There are some quibble points in this, of course, but this article is spot-on. Hillary and her advisors seem to have learned nothing from getting the crap kicked out of them in her last attempt at running for the office. She appears to be separated from the actual concerns of the real issues her base is affected by. Please, Hillary, give us some meat. A bun with lettuce is nice and neat, but without substance, NADA.

[Faux pas]

16. Oh Bravo!

[JayhawkSD]

18. That's because she only has one guiding principle.

She wants to be president.

She believes in nothing else. She stands for nothing else. She has no other principles.

She will believe whatever beliefs the voters will vote for. She will stand for whatever stances the voters will vote for. Her principles will be whatever principles the voters will vote for.

The primary is her "listening tour." She said so herself. She is listening so she can find out what she should believe, what she should stand for and what principles she should hold. Once the voters have made that clear she will be able to speak out definitvely and clearly.

But she has a problem. There are too many conflicting beliefs, stances and principles out there. She is going to have to try to come up with a campaign that will embrace all of them and her head will explode.

[djean111]

19. Exactly. She wants to be president. End of story.

And there is NOTHING in her record that leads me to believe she would not be more of a Margaret Thatcher than a Liz Warren. Nothing at all.

[senz]

32. + 1000

Although so far she deals with the last point by being very, very vague.

[cui bono]

35. I truly believe that about her.

She wants to be president. Period.

It'll make so much history, first woman, first husband/wife. Meh, I'd rather get someone in there who is really fighting for the people. We know who that is. And he'll make history too! First Jewish president.

Someone else can be the first female president.

[SoapBox]

20. Camp Weathervane just can't stop spinning...

Atop Hillary's House of Waffles.

Bernie has been spot on for his career.

In fact, I've been reading "The Essential Bernie Sanders and his Vision for America" by Johnathan Tasini.

It starts with his announcement speech...heck, it's the same that he is saying now...no spinning, no changes, no wait and see...just the same, consistent platform.

And it's about the vast majority of Americans, our country, the world and our planet.

We NEED Bernie!

[Babel_17]

21. It is what it is, the Clinton campaign is a machine designed to defeat the Republican candidate

I'm not saying it won't break down, I'm just saying that Clinton staffers mapped out a firm plan to take Secretary Clinton to the White House. DWS is playing along, it's just that the circumstances of reality aren't. Many, many, Democrats are aroused and participating at a very early stage of the primary season. They're demanding a lot more than the Clinton campaign has so far seen fit to offer. That's a problem for the Clinton campaign as they apparently have a pretty rigid schedule for how they'll unfold their platform and engage with voters about it. They seem averse and unable to adapt to these changing circumstances and that's compounding the impression of being out of touch with this groundswell of Democrats who are asking for more.

Another month of this and the bar is going to be set extremely high for how extensively the Clinton campaign will have to deal with this perception. This bar will apply to the debates, and to engaging with real, unscripted, moments of having a dialogue with crowds of primary voters.

It's come to pass that the Democratic primary is going to be a real contest. Candidates will have to persuade the voters by dint of their articulated ideas, and the projection of their value as a politician.

[senz]

33. Good, interesting analysis. Although I doubt that the point is to defeat a Republican

simply for the sake of defeating a Republican. I think the point is to catapult Hillary into the presidency just to have her there. Defeating others is merely a stepping stone. She and her followers will be fully satisfied if and when Hillary is installed into the presidency. It won't matter what she does after that. Nothing else matters.

It could easily be considered grotesque.

a : a style of decorative art characterized by fanciful or fantastic human and animal forms often interwoven with foliage or similar figures that may distort the natural into absurdity, ugliness, or caricature

Very easily.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

22. For decades, that sort of politicking has worked.

We're at the point where we HOPE enough people have woken up to the fact that they keep voting in people who turn around and screw them over and refuse to stand for the waffling any more.

[Divernan]

24. "the awfulness of lengthy decaying in the hot sun"

And of course the sunlight will be hottest and harshest in a debate.

Propped up for public display in a bright orange pantsuit, but it's an empty suit. As many have observed of her constant "evolving" on some issues and non-statements on other issues - there's really no "there" there. Who is Hillary Clinton? As Bill famously said, it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Very powerful post, Demeter.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

25. She's "listening"....

Actually, she's paying polling firms $300,000.00 a MONTH.

It's called, "Trying to buy a clue".

[sabrina 1]

27. I don't think it's all that puzzling to be honest. Simply put, the Establishment, run by the

Billionaires, allow a show contest each election season to continue the illusion of democracy. And in each election they have THEIR candidates ready to 'win' which is done with the huge amounts of money poured into these election.

It is as corrupt a system as can be imagined under the cloak of democracy.

They were not worried about upstarts like Bernie gaining support from the people. They have allowed this to happen before, until they were ready to put a stop to it.

Arrogance is the answer to 'why is she not really trying'. She has been assured that she doesn't need to.

THEY will buy THIS election for either of their two chosen candidates, no matter what the people want.

I am sure they are all drinking their cocktails, watching the 'little people' with their Populist candidate THINKING they have any power.

Since they have been so successful for so long with this method, why should they think their money won't buy yet another election?

However, they may be getting a little worried that they allowed this to go on for too long. Which is why we saw Brock's little escapade so early in the primaries.

Since that failed so spectacularly and raised nearly 2 million for Bernie, I'm sure there are meetings going on in Private Mansions around the country to try to figure out WTH is going on.

But they will stop at nothing, and their chosen candidates are no doubt confident of this, to stop Bernie from winning.

And that is why the People must be as relentless, as fiercely committed to winning as they are. Or once again, they will get what they want.

Imo this is the most critical election since the stolen 2000 election.

Iow, it is us against them. Can the people win? I think so, IF they do not give up.

[senz]

34. Gotta say...

some of your imagery there had my inner torch&pitchfork a quivering. But I know we have to concentrate on out-thinking and out-numbering them. The only way they could maybe, maybe, stop us in our tracks would be to seize control of the internet. I almost hate to say it, but if I can think it, they undoubtedly already have. I believe we have to give it all we've got and be ready for anything.

We live in interesting times...

[Babel_17]

37. More and more our system resembles a tragi-comical farce

As has been pointed out by others, we need a return to having debates in the style that The League of Women Voters used to use.

The League sponsored the United States presidential election debates in 1976, 1980 and 1984.[6][7] On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release condemning the demands of the major candidates' campaigns. LWC President Nancy Neuman said that the debate format would "perpetrate a fraud on the American voter" and that the organization did not intend to "become an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Women_Voters#Controversies

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19881003&id=IUcjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YcwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6676,4271877&hl=en

That link has an image of a newspaper article. It's worth clicking on.

[MisterP]

28. all they can do is swing at the Pubs' low-hanging fruit

Clinton of course HAS a record and it's not 100% "Bush but without believing gaying causes hurricanes"--but they have to keep the primary studiously turned away from actual policies and programs

everything positive she's done she's either counterbalanced with shit that would have us in the streets had it been Mitch or Paul, or something that everyone believes she'd jettison for the most temporary of advantages

she's sort of cornered herself and might not even realize that DWS's flagrant deck-stacking isn't just making her campaign look desperate but is precisely what's turning people towards Sanders: it's not just that people want jobs, health, and education back (and that Clinton's worked damn hard to mail all of those to either China or the Caymans), but that they want a political system that allows them to seek those goals: the party's chased "values voters," worked to keep us peasants from interfering with the cash flow, and basically relied on the tech and housing bubbles to keep us from revolting; they're sick of having any power slapped out of their hands by whistle-shrilling flying-monkey hall-monitor types who know what's best for us, sick of cosmic-level promises followed by disregard for the most basic laws--remember when McBride was supposed to "save the party"? Liebermush? Kerry?

[senz]

36. Well said. So many good comments in this thread.

Am pretty sure DWS = hall monitor. With a little "teacher's pet" thrown in. She needs a badge, a nice shiny star.