Hillary Clinton responds to her critics: "They never said that to any man who was not elected."

[Miles Archer]

The 2016 election is over and Donald Trump is president, so why is Hillary Clinton still making public appearances and talking to crowds?

Or, as Ruth Mandel director of Rutgers Eagleton Institute of Politics, put it to Clinton Thursday at Rutgers in Piscataway, why still talk when "People say get off the stage and shut up"?

The former secretary of state's response was direct:

"They never said that to any man who was not elected."

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/heres-hillary-clintons-blunt-response-say-get-off-stage-shut/

[duforsure]

1. Why?

Why shouldn't she have the right to speak out, and promote whatever she wants? Does anyone think trump would have kept his mouth shut if he would have lost?

[Butterflylady]

2. Hell no,

Bonespurs would be shouting from the rooftops to have her impeached for all kinds of crimes a d the right would be egging him on.

[PatSeg]

4. I can't imagine Trump

keeping his mouth shut under any circumstances.

I am amazed at how much crap Hillary has taken over the years and she is still standing.

[PJMcK]

9. Except, strangely, about Stormy Daniels

Why has he been silent about her?

It is totally out of character for Trump.

Strange.

[PatSeg]

31. I know

Very strange. There is more to that story than what we've heard so far.

[LiberalBrooke]

36. Because she is a woman.

Women, especially smart women scare don the con voters.

[calimary]

69. Welcome to DU, LiberalBrooke!

Yep. Unfortunately, that's probably a lot of it. They'd go after her if she were a man, because she's a liberal and a Democrat, but she's a MASSIVE repeat target, so the magnitude and frequency was amped WAY up.

She's an uppity woman, who doesn't know her "proper" (read: subservient) place. And we simply cannot have that, now, can we.


https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/how-americas-largest-local-tv-owner-turned-its-news-anc-1824233490

[caraher]

40. In fact, the plan was the opposite

He was supposed to lose and use the campaign to launch Trump TV

[Nailzberg]

64. He literally failed all the way to the top.

[lunatica]

67. Groan...

He sure did.

[Squinch]

3. I'd like to see her become more vocal and less circumspect in her statements than ever before.

The problem most of them had with her was that she was a woman who was smarter and more successful than they were. I wish she'd speak constantly, giving her sanity to the issues of the day and making those idiots crazy.

[PatSeg]

32. Yes

In the early 1990s, Hillary was more outspoken and direct. Years of being attacked by the right and the media has made her more cautious and circumspect. I think she should throw caution to the wind and say whatever she feels like. What does she have to lose?

[BlueMTexpat]

66. + a million or so!

[mackdaddy]

5. Why should she not speak out? Trumpie is still running against her, rather than actual governance.

N/t

[dalton99a]

34. +1

[riversedge]

51. Lets face it--many Democrats have said or indicated for her to be quiet. Yes they have...

[Nonhlanhla]

6. She won the popular vote by 3 million votes

and would be president if it wasn't for the electoral system that gives more weight to votes based on location. And even within that system, she would be president if it wasn't for the interference of the head of the FBI. So telling her to shut up is just misogyny. She has the right to speak.

[Farmer-Rick]

27. Don't forget about the secret involvement of Russia

That conspired to take away her Victory.

Add her to the growing list of Democratic presidents that have had their win stolen from them.

[edhopper]

28. Damn right!

I hate the way that is constantly ignored in the Media.

[Cha]

60. Also, Nonhlanhla, the russian collusion

between them and the rigged in asshole.

There's always the rightwingers at CA, Illegally interfering, to throw in the mix.. conspiring to keep Hillary out of the Oval office

Thanks to Christopher Wylie we now know about that.

[Ferrets are Cool]

7. Did running for president remove her 1st admendment rights? nt

STFU deplorables.

[Angry Dragon]

10. +2,000

[EffieBlack]

13. No. Her uterus did.

[NurseJackie]

22. Boom! This!

Exactly!

[Ferrets are Cool]

49. I hate to disagree with you but that is not correct...

deplorables with a uterus can speak up all they want (even if they have nothing to say) but if you name has a "D" behind it, you are expected to STFU.

[EffieBlack]

50. You've got a point there

Let me edit that to read "A uterus and a brain."

[Ferrets are Cool]

52. There ya go. Now we agree 100%.

[FakeNoose]

8. Hillary and Obama should both speak up more

Cheeto is actively trying to destroy Obama's legacy and reputation, why should anyone keep quiet while this is happening?

And we all know that Cheeto has got some phobia where Hillary is concerned. Never has a sitting President acted in such a craven manner. This isn't normal behavior and it shouldn't be treated as such. We should not normalize the orange asshole, and we must speak up when he attacks a Democrat's reputation.

[EffieBlack]

14. They should if they want to

But neither is required to

[karynnj]

11. It is wrong for people to say she should not speak, however

there is a related issue. When she does speak, she is no longer the nominee and she can and will be attacked if Democrats think WHAT she said negatively affects them.

That incidentally has been true for everyone, even the previous male nominee in other years. The Clinton wing of the party certainly, but unsuccessfully pushed Kerry to stop talking, especially as he and Feingold introduced Kerry/Feingold. Another example, was that Carter, a former President, was not given a convention speech until 2004 and when he spoke out in the 1980s and 199os, his comments got flack as Clinton's do.

These two things have been conflated as I have heard far more of the latter, criticism of what was said, which is then responded to as wanting her to go away.

[EffieBlack]

16. "The Clinton wing of the party pushed Kerry to stop talking ... as he introduced Kerry/Feingold"

Source, citation for this?

And Clinton has certainly been told to be quiet and go away - repeatedly. That's not a mere interpretation of criticism of the substance of her comments - it's a plain fact.

[NCTraveler]

21. Its an empty phrase used to malign Clinton.

Since the Clinton wing can be defined as the party itself, it allows them to insinuate any comment made by a Democrat is attached to Clinton.

What would they call the other “wing” during the time-frame they reference.

It simply opens the door to attack Clinton for the statements of others, as was clearly outlined in their post.

[karynnj]

45. There were many articles in 2006 that made it clear that the Clintons thought

no one should speak about Iraq because it could hurt in the midterms. Finding links from 2006 is difficult. What I will point to is the way Kerry and Feingold were treated when their amendment was brought up by the Republicans for debate. You can find it in the Senate record -- where Reid actually gave DEMOCRATIC time in prime time to Joe Lieberman who trashed Kerry and Feingold personally in addition to stating his position.

Here is a link that explains the split - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13456702/ns/politics/t/democratic-fissures-senates-iraq-debate/#.Wr5SkojwY54 Here is a Daily Kos diary that described how Kerry was attacked. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/8/31/378899/-

June 2006 was yet another defense appropriation battle in the Senate. The Republicans ran the chamber with a healthy majority, and there was no doubt that the funding would pass. However, the anti-war sentiment out in the country found a voice in two Democratic Senators -- John Kerry and Russ Feingold -- who had put together an amendment that would set a timetable for withdrawal. It was a radical plan at the time, and the Democratic leadership was very angry that Kerry and Feingold insisted that their amendment be debated and voted upon. Many Democrats went to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other publications, and said that John Kerry was a "big embarrassment", that his plan went too far, and that it could cost them in the midterm elections. Not only that, Harry Reid made sure that the Kerry/Feingold amendment would be debated after the evening news, safely late in the night, where no one would notice the plan. In 2007, this is all water under the bridge, seeing that the Kerry/Feingold amendment is now the Reid Resolution which at last count received 54 votes in July. It was an idea which needed time to gain support, as it only garnered 13 votes that June.

There was a NYT magazine article that described in detail the behind the scenes, but I can not find a current link - it is 13 years ago!

Before that, when Kerry returned to the Senate, there was a whisper campaign -- that spread to both DU and Daily Kos - suggesting that Harry Reid was angry that Kerry continued to speak as a Democratic leader. (Note A Democratic leader, not THE Democratic leader.) Search Daily Kos for 2005 or 2006. Kos himself made several posts that blasted Kerry whenever he accepted a chance to speak - claiming that he was not Reid's choice to do so.

My guess is you were possibly less interested in the post 2004 election or you agreed with the overwhelming sentiment on DU concerning Kerry. The fact is that both powerful Democrats and people on message boards were as willing to tell him to go away as they are now with Clinton.

As to hitting them when a statement they made was seen as potentially harmful, Hillary herself stabbed Kerry in the back calling his misreading of a joke (leaving out "us&quot "inappropriate". I will always hold it against her that she did this. It would have been fair game had she simply attacked him as having made a gaffe and that it was unhelpful. Calling it inappropriate backed the Republicans who said he criticized the troops in Iraq, which he absolutely didn't and wouldn't do. Inappropriate is a very strong word with moral implications. I don't think any of the Democrats have called her words inappropriate.

[EffieBlack]

46. Considering neither article you linked to even mentions Clinton

your argument fails for complete lack of proof.

And your "guess" about me is just as baseless as the rest of your claims on this topic.

[karynnj]

47. Your arguments RARELY have any proof attached --

The Daily Kos article alludes to the "Democratic establishment" reaching out to mainstream papers against John Kerry. That happened ... The fact is that both DU and Daily Kos were far more hostile to Kerry in that time period than they are to Clinton now.

It is extremely difficult to get 13 year old links from google -- and I do not have the time today to get them. That does not mean that the Clintons were NOT lobbying for not speaking of Iraq in 2006 -- they were. Whether or not I have a link. If, you were here and do not remember that, the problem is with your memory.

[Angry Dragon]

12. When was the last time a sitting president(fake) attacked their opponent

over a year later??

[bluescribbler]

41. Reagan attacked Carter during the 1984 campaign.

His opponent was Walter Mondale.

[Angry Dragon]

44. But did Raygun attack after he was elected??

Raygun should have been in prison for making the hostages wait being released until he was in office............just more dirty dealing

[bluescribbler]

70. He did.

In 1984 he was running for reelection to his second term.

[betsuni]

15. It's like the song "Every Breath You Take"

Every move you make (everything she does is obsessed about, like when she said in an interview that she carried hot sauce in her purse. which she has been on record as having done for decades, and idiots were right there saying she was pandering to spice-eaters). Every step you take (she stumbled when walking down stairs, idiots saying she is seriously ill). Every word you say (OMG she said something about Trump voters). I'll be watching you. Weirdos. Can't think of men they do that to.

[Cha]

61. "..and idiots were right there saying she was pandering to spice-eaters."

I certainly remember that.. Damn!

Great song analogy, betsuni

[DylanUSC]

17. Well, she pretty well nailed it because it is true & she provided the facts of the matter.

[vsrazdem]

19. The problem is, facts don't matter in Trumpland.

[3catwoman3]

29. Only "alternative facts."

Last edited Sat Mar 31, 2018, 01:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Was there ever a more ridiculous term? (Well, probably, but this one is right up at/near the top of the list.)

[DylanUSC]

43. Understand but for those you are speaking of that seems it will always be the case.

[DownriverDem]

25. Not to mention

that the millions of us who voted for her totally DISAGREE! I still support Hillary. Let's see, Bernie is 76. trump is 71 and Hillary is 70. It's ideas that count.

[thesquanderer]

18. I think she should speak as much as she wants, BUT I don't like her answer.

the article goes on to say, "Clinton, who lost her White House against Trump, then rattled off a list of recent presidential hopefuls whose campaigns also failed to get them to the White House, and didn't disappear afterward: Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain and Mitt Romney. 'He's running for Senate!' Clinton exclaimed after naming Romney, the two-time Republican presidential nominee."

But Mitt Romney and Al Gore practically went into hiding after they lost. McCain and Kerry were still serving Senators. Yes, Romney is running for Senate, but he essentially disappeared for 5 years first. Al Gore became the climate change activist, but again, he essentially disappeared for 5 years first. Neither took to the public stage criticizing the person they lost to in the aftermath of their loss, and for that matter, neither really did Kerry or McCain even though they were still politically active as senators.

So the circumstances are quite different. Not *everything* negative that happens to a woman has to be because of misogyny. If Romney had been speaking out and railing on Obama in 2013, I have a feeling a bunch of people here would be saying, "Hey, Mitt, you lost. Get over it and shut up."

[EffieBlack]

23. Romney, Gore weren't constantly and viciously attacked by the new president, his base and a network

Hillary has barely said anything in the year and a half since the election. Yet she is in the news nonstop - not because of anything she's said or done - but because the current president is leading a smear campaign and is using all of the powers of his presidency and the media to destroy her - including using the Justice Department and the FBI to try to criminalize her and "lock her up."

Given this, she has every right to speak up whenever and however he chooses to defend herself and point out the criminality of this administration.

You can't compare anything that's happening now to the aftermath of Gore's and Romney's defeats.

[BeyondGeography]

30. It is good politics for them

Compare the number of likes for a “Crooked Hillary” tweet to the average; he’s an idiot, but he can still count. They’re baiting her, it will continue and they’re the last ones who will be telling her to shut up. They run on hatred, so when she goes after their voters she plays right into their hands. She didn’t go there last night and, after the fallout from her India remarks, I don’t expect she will again.

[thesquanderer]

33. Yes. Your answer is better than Hillary's.

The answer she's giving is essentially, "I won't stay quiet. Others in this position did not stay quiet, I'm only being criticized for it because I'm a woman." I think that answer is wrong.

Your answer for her is essentially, "I won't stay quiet. Others in this position did stay quiet, but unlike them, I am continuing to be vilified by my former opponent, and I refuse to give him a platform unopposed." I can't speak to whether or not that is her true motivation, but at least the underlying facts are correct.

(And by "staying quiet," I am speaking in terms of, again, taking to the public stage criticizing the person they lost to in the aftermath of their loss.)

[EffieBlack]

35. There is more than one answer

And her answer is just good as, if not better than mine.

Of course, if she had said what I said, she'd be attacked for whining and playing the victim.

The bottom line is that her answer was HER answer, her truth, on that day and in that moment, yet people still feel the need to tell her what she should and shouldn't say and how she should say it.

[thesquanderer]

37. I agree that she'd be attacked either way.

And I agree that she is entitled to her perspective, and if she wants to attribute it to misogyny, that's her right. What I take issue with is that the facts she is basing that answer on seem incorrect. That said, attributing it to misogyny might well play better to many of the folks who come to see her.

[JI7]

53. Obama and Democrats were not attacking Romney after the election

While the piece of shit is always going on about crooked Hillary.

[gratuitous]

20. These critics of Clinton are often the same ones who say

These critics of Clinton are often the same ones who say that Trump has the right to defend himself, like the President of the United States has to stop and tweet out inflammatory bullshit against every private citizen who doesn't show the most craven obeisance. I haven't liked any Republican President during my lifetime, but even Nixon refrained from making official denouncements of individual critics (which isn't to say he didn't sic the FBI or IRS on them).

Trump shows absolutely no constraints in bullying individual citizens from his pulpit.

[NurseJackie]

24. The lame protest against her Rutgers speech (organized on Our Revolution) comes to mind...

... they absolutely want to silence her. I even remember there was once someone here who adamantly proclaimed that it would have been better for everyone if Hillary had waited eight or twelve years before writing her book, "What Happened". It's all a symptom of the same thing.

[Cha]

62. Oh yes.. the "our revolution" protest that decided

to cancel under pressure.. read they were still going to do it under another name.. do you know if protesting a private citizen actually happened?

They certainly do want to silence Hillary.

I read she was paid less than Snooki to speak there but I'm not going to link, because it had a rw crowing slant that Hillary isn't getting paid as much as other celebs to speak at Rutgers, and other Universities.. therefore, there was crowing involved.

Jackie

[bronxiteforever]

26. I encourage the GOP to continue to run against her

Since Clinton is a private citizen not running for office, I think it best for the country if the GOP spends all of its campaign money on attack ads against her.

[barbtries]

38. also she was elected

and her office was stolen.

[left-of-center2012]

39. God bless Hillary!

We want her to be the voice and face of our party as we battle the GOP!
Our "Joan of Arc".

[FBaggins]

42. Actually... that's nonsense. They say it to almost EVERY man who was not elected

"They" also say it to the former presidents as well.

The difference here isn't gender... and it isn't even true (IMO) that she's "on stage" more than prior losing candidates may have been. I think the difference is the coverage, and the things that people want to ask her (based on the wackiness of the current administration and the unique circumstances of her "loss" ).

Prior losers and former presidents (including Obama) don't really slide off into obscurity based on an intentional choice to stay out of the limelight... they mostly fade away because they become less relevant. She is not that.

[EffieBlack]

48. Specific examples with links?

Including identifying who "they" are.

[hughee99]

54. Here's a few...

Romney, shortly after the 2012 election
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2012/11/15/republicans-to-mitt-romney-exit-stage-left/?utm_term=.9760ec29637e

Mccain, from 2010
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article29129146.html

Kerry, this one if from 2008, though, not just after the election.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-milazzo/john-kerry-should-just-go_b_81452.html

Admittedly, it's easier for party insiders and strategists to tell someone like Clinton or Romney to go away when after the election, they don't still hold elected office.

[EffieBlack]

55. Thanks for taking the time to find an post these links.

They are good examples. But they're still rare and pale in comparison to what's being said about and done to Hillary. For example, while there were occasional calls for Romney and McCain to go away, it was nothing like the constant drumbeat we hear regarding Hillary Clinton. And unlike with McCain and Romney, they are constant and coming from every direction - the new administration, Republicans, her own party and the media. And I don't think anyone can deny that there's a nastiness, a mean-spiritedness in attacks on Hillary, led by the president who has sicced the FBI and DOJ on her, tweets about her endlessly and still leads chants of "lock her up!" and an entire news network that makes a top priority of smearing her. This is completely unprecedented.

And, on top of that, some Democrats are joining in the call for her and other powerful women to go away, with the excuse that they've been around too long, their time has passed, they need to make room for younger, fresher faces - while getting absolutely giddy at the thought that Joe Biden, who's older and has been around much longer than they have may run for President.

It's different, it's unprecedented and, yes, it's largely - even if not totally - based on her gender.

[hughee99]

56. I know this isn't something that we're really supposed to say, but there were a lot of people

who didn't like Hillary long before the election. They've been nasty and mean-spirited for years. This isn't new, or because she lost the election.

You can believe that this may be totally based on her gender, and nothing I've written or will write can prove you are wrong, but I don't believe it.

[EffieBlack]

57. I didn't say it was "totally" based on her gender. In fact, I explicitly said it was not totally

based on it.

But you're correct, nothing you write will make me think that it's not largely based on it because I've seen too much evidence to the contrary.

[hughee99]

58. Sorry, I misread your comment

It's different, it's unprecedented and, yes, it's largely - even if not totally - based on her gender.

I'm not sure why, but I read it as "if not even totally". My mistake on that. I apologize.

[EffieBlack]

59. No problem - we all do it

Things move pretty fast around here and things often get missed.

[Susan Calvin]

63. True dat.

I am not into "my turn," and Bernie wuz robbed.

But that statement is the simple truth.

[BobTheSubgenius]

65. Damn straight!

Give 'em Hell, Hill.

[malaise]

68. John MCCain was on every network years after losing to Obama

She's right