Clinton Hatred Fatigue

[McCamy Taylor]

At the start of this year, I had no particular opinion about Sen. Hillary Clinton except that I knew that she was the front runner for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, and, if nominated, would probably win the general.

Two months later, after reading the never ending stream of crap that keeps getting written about her, I must say that I hope that she is the party nominee. I pray that she is the nominee. America needs Hillary Clinton. DU needs Hillary Clinton. The House GOP really needs Hillary Clinton.

The anti-Hillary rhetoric is so shrill and so mindless that at this point, I firmly believe that giving in to it would be like giving in the Catholic Church when they insisted that the sun revolved around the earth and anyone who said different was a heretic. The only way to convince those suffering from pathological Hillary Hatred (I think this may be a DSM category) that their unreasonable fear of the woman is not justified is to let them observe her as president. Maybe, if they see that she does not invade every other country on earth and does not strip us all of our Social Security and Medicare and does not force men to wear veils and walk seven paces behind their wives and does not use her legendary witch powers to control our minds and sap us of our precious bodily fluids---

Maybe then they will find something more interesting to talk about. Like slime mold. Or golf handicaps. Anything but yet another Hillary Clinton conspiracy theory.

[MADem]

1. So many people showed their hand with their eagerness to believe a poorly sourced, slapped together

accusation with sketchy sourcing in Judy Miller's New York Times. Ruined their fun when the archivist of the United States said there was nothing wrong with having multiple email accounts and that HRC did nothing either "wrong" or "illegal."

I love the fact that they've either got to leave their words standing, in all their erroneous glory, or run around deleting all those hate-filled screeds.

Either way, it's easy to see 'em coming now.

[Skittles]

29. it's not like they had to give themselves away

they were already over-the-top ridiculous

[Number23]

132. The ignorance seems to only be overshadowed by their petulance

The "I WON'T VOTE FOR HER AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!!1" crowd are just obnoxious and sad. As if people here are begging them to vote at all, let alone for Hillary. I mean, if you can look at the aftermath of the 2014 elections and see what happens when people don't vote and still scream "YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!11" then voting is probably the least of your problems.

It really astonishes me that grown folks act this way. And then these same folks will turn around and scream, "why do we have so little power?11 Why won't ANYONE listen to us???!!!1one"

[MADem]

146. What it is, exactly!!!! nt

[NBachers]

2. Makes me scared to come here. Maybe that's the objective. I really am sick of it, too.

[lovemydog]

3. It's kind of funny in terms of of how rabid it is.

I probably won't go so far as you and do the opposite of what some are yelling nonstop about, just to spite them, lol. But I won't decide who I vote for in a primary until I see who the heck is running.

Frankly it does feel to me like some of the ones who incessantly attack President Obama here also incessantly attack Ms. Clinton. And that doesn't make me feel all warm & fuzzy toward their arguments. I'd like to see a good primary. I'd vote for Warren or Sanders if they ran.

As for a general election, I'd vote for a democratic cardboard box over a republican nominee for President. I think maybe the purpose of some of the vitriol is to try and get democrats to not vote. Though I'm a democratic socialist (my political views are most in line with Sanders) no one here will dissuade me from voting. When democrats don't vote, we get disasters like George W. Bush, the right wing of the Supreme Court, and the lunatic tea party republicans currently in the majority in Congress.

[Cha]

17. Bonzai!

"Frankly it does feel to me like some of the ones who incessantly attack President Obama here also incessantly attack Ms. Clinton. And that doesn't make me feel all warm & fuzzy toward their arguments. I'd like to see a good primary. I'd vote for Warren or Sanders if they ran."

Check out my similar post# 8 below, lovemydog..

Sweet Dog Dem

[lovemydog]

20. Haha, I saw your post as well.

We're pretty similar in our views about this stuff. Hey, we have to find some things on which we vehemently disagree Cha! Ha ha. Not on dogs though. I love them! How's the weather there in Kauai lately? Cold & kind of rainy / snowy here in New Mexico. I love that dog out the window photo my friend!

[Cha]

22. Oh, there's probably something we disagree on.. but, this was

so remarkably similar!

The weather here has been coolish today where as Monday it was hot enough to whip up a good sweat when I ran(I love that).

I saw that doggie pic out the window awhile ago and saved it. This is the first time I've posted it anywhere.. seemed perfect. I was looking for a yellow dog and decided that will do!

I love New Mexico! Ole!



http://theobamadiary.com/2015/03/04/rise-and-shine-1022/

[lovemydog]

25. Cool. I picture you running out there

along the gorgeous beaches! Cheering for the President as much as me!

Here's a little tidbit about New Mexico. One of the most common questions at restaurants is 'Red or green?' That means 'What type of chile would you prefer?' I usually say 'Christmas, on the side.' That means a little of both.

Thanks for your positivity Cha. It's much appreciated. Ole! Mahalo!

[Cha]

35. Cute! I knew what "red or green" meant before you told me.. I use to live in Arizona and Cali back

in the day. I like that "Christmas on the side"!

In my neighborhood beach town, 2 blks away.. we have 3 Mexican Restaurants.. all lined up. More down the Main St.. It's too good and too much fun not to be so popular.

[RKP5637]

72. My thoughts too. The Obama hatred is now morphing to the Hilary hatred. Always

makes me wonder who is really on DU, anyone can join.

[AgingAmerican]

103. Which is somewhat ironic

...given that most Obama supporters I knew back in 2007 - 2008 hated Hillary with a seething passion.

[Number23]

127. Yep!! "makes me wonder who is really on DU"

Seems like a lot of politically impotent people who scream more than anything else.

And the zombies. Don't forget the zombies.

[RKP5637]

154. Yep, the hatefests on DU really get tiring. Often the merits of individuals are

overshadowed by snide remarks and the conversation goes down into a rat hole. Beware of the zombies.

[freshwest]

79. Yes to you and lovemydog! And Ben Gawi downthread!

[Cha]

157. ..

[Hekate]

110. Adorable dog with floppy ears! Likeminded people seem to be at the top of the page, so...

...I'll put my thanks to McCamy for her OP here. to the rest of you, too.

[Cha]

158. Mahalo to Hekate~

[Unknown Beatle]

24. GWB didn't win crap.

He would never have been the president of the US if not for jeb, harris, and the SCOTUS. They stole the fucking election twice. Enough dems voted for Gore and Kerry to make either one the legitimate POTUS. The argument that more dems should have voted is not the point.

Let's imagine that the dem turnout was greater in 2000 and 2004, those repug crooks would have found a way to steal the election anyway, just like they continue stealing elections to this day.

[lovemydog]

26. I think that's true.

I also think Gore would have won Florida and the election outright if those who voted for Nader in Florida had voted for Gore. I don't discount what you're saying. I do think though that democrats can and do win. Every little bit helps. I'm not thrilled about the current makeup of our Congress. I don't discount that a hell of a lot of people didn't even bother voting.

[RedstDem]

63. Uhm, Gore had more votes in Florida

After a statewide recount after the fact.

[Rex]

85. It's frightening how little people seem to know or remember about 2000 and 2004. nt

nt

[lovemydog]

131. There were a lot of different things in play.

I followed it very closely both during and after what happened. It's still nauseating. What do you think 'people don't seem to know or remember about 2000 and 2004.'

[Rex]

136. Well for one thing, Al Gore DID win. How people forget that is beyond me.

Second, they LOVE LOVE LOVE blaming the Green Party - yet it was 100k Dems in Florida voting FOR GWB that made the difference. For some reason people are pretending people did not show up in large numbers to vote, I guess they are getting 2000, 2004 and 2014 mixed up.

[lovemydog]

145. Yes, I hear what you're saying Rex.

I'm glad you brought that up. I blame the 100k democrats in Florida who voted for GWB (and all who voted for GWB) FAR MORE than I blame anyone who voted for the Green Party in Florida in 2000.

As a practical matter I tend to kind of look at how the national situation might play out before casting my vote. I know others may not and I don't want to fault them too heavily for that.

I also fault Al Gore for running away from the more positive elements of Clinton's economic agenda. I think he tried to distance himself too much from that, and it cost him greatly.

I'm a democratic socialist. Left of mainstream democratic party. I've voted for Green Party and socialist candidates in local and state elections. I've voted for them in national elections when I've felt secure the democrat would win in my state, to send a message to democrats to get more progressive.

I try and look at whether my vote might or might not be a quixotic one, especially if it could possibly lead to a republican winning and resorting to truly regressive, reprehensible policy. I vote quixotic if I already feel secure that the republican is ten points or so behind in the polls.

I don't recall how the polls were running, going into the Florida vote in 2000. Do you recall?

[Marr]

172. +1

[lovemydog]

129. Yes, that is true.

I prefer to win overwhelmingly so that there's no chance of it going to state & federal court. I think democrats can do that. Particularly if their message is unabashedly progressive.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

128. Get rid of the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County and the world is very different

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/rubinfeldd/thebutterflydidit.pdf

We show that the butterfly ballot used in Palm Beach County, Florida, in the 2000 presidential
election caused more than 2,000 Democratic voters to vote by mistake for Reform candidate Pat
Buchanan, a number larger than George W. Bush’s certified margin of victory in Florida. We use
multiple methods and several kinds of data to rule out alternative explanations for the votes Buchanan
received in Palm Beach County. Among 3,053 U.S. counties where Buchanan was on the ballot, Palm
Beach County has the most anomalous excess of votes for him. In Palm Beach County, Buchanan’s
proportion of the vote on election-day ballots is four times larger than his proportion on absentee
(nonbutterfly) ballots, but Buchanan’s proportion does not differ significantly between election-day and
absentee ballots in any other Florida county. Unlike other Reform candidates in Palm Beach County,
Buchanan tended to receive election-day votes in Democratic precincts and from individuals who voted for
the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate. Robust estimation of overdispersed binomial regression models
underpins much of the analysis.

[lovemydog]

133. True that. It's all pretty surreal.

If Gore hadn't run away from Bill Clinton's strong economic record as well, I also think he would have won Florida without the need for recounts. I suppose we're all second guessing now. I'm still not thrilled about those who cast votes for Nader in Florida while knowing it was going to be a very close election. But hey, if they voted their conscience then I can't criticize them too much. I do wish more democrats would vote, vote early, and win decisively!

[Katashi_itto]

4. I will not vote Hillary. Period. I now simply avoid the threads.

It's pretty easy really. No hate. She just doesn't represent my view of what the democratic party is in my opinion.

[lovemydog]

5. I'll blame you and other democrats who don't vote

if Clinton is the democratic nominee and we get a horrendously right wing shitty President. Of course, I'll blame those who vote republican more. But I'll also blame democrats who don't vote.

[Katashi_itto]

7. Tough. Find a better Dem candidate then.

[lovemydog]

10. Who would you prefer as a candidate?

I'd prefer Sanders or Warren.

But I can't just call someone up and make them the democratic party nominee for President.

[Katashi_itto]

11. Oh well. I wont spend my vote on what I view is a poor brand.

We are put in a position where we are supposed to "choose" to vote for the lesser of two evils and I am done with that.

We have to choose between slow poison or a bullet in the face. I'll take the bullet in the face.

Maybe the country will wake up. Maybe not.

[lovemydog]

13. She's not my choice as of now either.

I'd very enthusiastically support Warren and / or Sanders.

In a general election I just wouldn't spend my vote allowing a shitty republican who would take our country back to the W. era either.

Oh well, I'm sure we agree on a lot of other things. I hope you enjoy a good night.

[Katashi_itto]

14. I agree that we agree on other things. You have a good night too!

Suffering from the crud. Will try to get some sleep.

[lovemydog]

19. Sleep well

and hope you get over that darn crud soon.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

130. Libertarians with little at risk are the least likely to worry about a republican president

Those with the least to lose tend to be the ones that wont support Hillary.

[merrily]

51. It's hard to tell who you want when party higher ups discourage Democratic primaries.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/chuck-schumer-elizabeth-warren-2016-elections-99869.html#ixzz3TAVO0MoF

(Note: Schumer is not discouraging only Warren. He does not want any primary and, beyond that, has made avoiding Senatorial primaries the official policy of the DSCC since 2005. And I am quite sure that Schumer did not adopt this policy all by lonesome and without clearing it with anyone.)

I've been have been saying this for months and DUers have been calling me a conspiracy theorist. Who knew I was part of Schumer's conspiracy?



Anyway.....You want a decent-sized primary field so that you can hear what people with whom you are less familiar have to say for themselves, how likely they seem to get votes, etc.

Among the people I want to hear from are Sherrod Brown and Wyden. Supposedly, neither of them wanted to run. However, that well may be because they knew the drill.

I'd also like to hear from Feingold, Merkley, Gillebrand, O'Malley and quite a few others, including people in Congress. (I am not all that familiar with many Governors, but invite DUers to comment on their current and recent past Governors.)

But, with no one challenging Hillary from the left, it's hard to make a definitive choice, isn't it? Isn't enabling us to make an intelligent choice exactly what primaries are for?

[brooklynite]

57. I have seen ONE...and ONLY one...citation for suggesting we not have a Primary

That does NOT constitute a conspiracy to deny people a choice for President.

[merrily]

60. So? I didn't say it did. And that "one" is head of the DSCC not exactly some low

level Democratic minion. Besides, as my post pointed out, I highly doubt he adopted this policy as to US Senators all by his lonesome. Nor that he is alone in thinking Democratic primaries are undesirable. (Well after kvelling on and on about how great the extended 2008 primary was for the Party.)

What I actually posted was I had been accused of being a conspiracy theorist.

Besides, as I have indeed been posting for months--and you've tried to contradict me several times--it's been painfully obvious to me since at least 2012 that something was afoot.

You told me it was only that Hillary was just so darn universally loved, but that only made me laugh.

Since then, Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, and others have referred to it as a coronation. I've used anointing, but I'm pretty sure we mean pretty much the same thing.

Finally, the fact that you've seen only one link does not mean there are not more. Did you google for more?

That said, it's also not surprising that you've seen only one. I dropped my jaw when I saw even the one. I didn't think anyone would admit that publicly.

[brooklynite]

69. "One" is NOT the head of the DSCC..."One" has not been the head of the DSCC for four years

And no, I have haven't searched for other instances, because I'm not the party making the assertion. That would be your job. But if so many Clinton supporters want to skip the Primary, it should be an easy job.

[merrily]

147. Sure,

former head of the DSCC. Still not a low level member of the Democratic Party.

That would be your job.

What would be my job?

To back up my own claim, I provided a link from a high ranking party official and former head of the DSCC saying he hopes Warren does not challenge Hillary, primaries are killers and that he made avoiding primaries for seats in the United States Senate the official policy of the DSCC when he took it over in 2005.


Suddenly, one strong link to back up a poster's claim is inadequate?

Once I provide a link to back up my claim, the burden shifts to someone challenging the validity of my link to prove their challenge to my claim.

It's not the job of a poster making a claim to meet escalating demands of anyone who expresses doubt, even if they put ONE link in all caps. Because if I were to give you another link, you then could post that you've seen only TWO links or only THREE links and so one. Heck, the Party has lots of officials. Or, another poster could say "only FOUR links. And so on.

So, as far as I've ever known, the burden has now shifted to you. That's how I've understood posting protocols about whose job is what for over ten years of posting. This is the first time anyone has asserted anything different.


If you honestly believe that Schumer is an outlier on this, that he instituted a policy of avoiding Senate primaries in 2005 being all mavericky, that he is the only party official discouraging a Presidential primary challenger to Hillary, you can go ahead and prove that to me. Or not. I don't care. I've suspected it for more than two years now and, as far as I am concerned Schumer confirmed it. (BTW, wasn't that multi-challenger 2012 Presidential primary a humdinger?)

Besides, as I said in my prior post, in this instance, it's jawdropping that there's even one link to a statement by such a high ranking Party official for such an extraordinary statement. It's not the kind of thing you expect a high official in the Party to say publicly.

[tabasco]

153. Ahhhhh...how nice it must be to be so comfortable

that you will not suffer any real harm under a corrupt republican regime.

Millions of us cannot say the same and hold people like you in great contempt.

[Katashi_itto]

155. Don't worry,

I hold creatures like you in equal contempt
If its any consolation here is my current write in:

[tabasco]

180. Isn't that special???

The juvenile thinker made a funny!

[Katashi_itto]

181. Awww, tabasco thinks it's hot.

[LittleBlue]

12. Their party is shrinking and they've been clobbered in two consecutive presidential elections

If she can't beat unappealing candidates like Jeb or Walker, who represent a dying, aimless party, then those who nominate Hillary will have only themselves to blame.

[lovemydog]

18. I do see your point LittleBlue.

I was pretty enthusiastic about Howard Dean a while back, and that's how I felt at the time when Kerry got the nomination. But I did vote for him in the general, mainly because I opposed W.

I was enthusiastic about Obama in the last two elections. But I would have voted for whoever was the nominee in order to prevent McCain & Romney from becoming President.

We just don't know how it might all play out at this time. I would very much love to see Warren and / or Sanders run and I would cast my vote for either of them.

I hope you can see my point as well. I can also say that if Hillary is the democratic nominee for President and she has a lead in my State and there's a socialist on the ballot, I'd vote for the socialist. In a close State (like what happened with Gore/Nader/Bush in Florida) I'd go with the democrat.

While we can't predict it all now, I will still exercise my vote. I wouldn't want to contribute to a repeat of the W. years, which were an absolute disaster imo.

[LittleBlue]

33. I see yours, also

And I can't find fault with your reasoning.

[lovemydog]

36. Thanks. Same with you my friend.

Hope you enjoy a good Thursday.

[AtomicKitten]

16. +1

[treestar]

88. Perhaps you just aren't a Democrat

Your assertion does not meet the logic test. If she wins the nomination, the Democrats will have picked her, so they must think she represents the views of the party.

[Katashi_itto]

89. Perhaps your a teabagger. Demanding loyalty oaths and such. Deciding who and who does not belong

to the party. Obedience to the party before all else.

Glad to see I don't match your idea of what a Democrat is.
I could never do the goosestepping thing very well.
I am sure though, you'll find plenty of mindless drones interested in supporting the status quo to make up for my non-vote.

[treestar]

91. That has nothing to do with my point

The Democratic Party does not demand loyalty. You are free to leave it any time. There are third parties out there and the Republican party to join if you wish.

A party is a combination of people, so it can't reflect one person's views. It is what the members together are, so if you think that should be different, it doesn't matter, at least not until you can persuade others to agree with you.

[Katashi_itto]

93. I have no plans for leaving, being a registered Dem. Nor will I spend my vote on a poor brand.

Nor do I feel a need to persuade others to my point of view.

Unlike you I am not recruiting anyone to my "cause" if Hillary is a reflection of the Dem party's third way dogma it can do without my vote this time.

[treestar]

95. lol why don't you need to persuade others

if you expect to get the reps who vote the way you want?

You might have noticed that demanding other Democrats have a party the reflects your values is not working.

[Katashi_itto]

98. Cognitive Dissonance on your part. Again I am not demanding anything, unlike you.

Maybe it's projection on your part.

[treestar]

115. Well you are complaining that a party that includes other peoples' views

does not conform to your standard of what it should be. Why bother then? You plan on remaining a minority of one.

[Katashi_itto]

121. Why bother indeed.

[Agschmid]

125. Waffles?

[Katashi_itto]

126. Waffles.

[Bobbie Jo]

182. .

you're

Perhaps you're a teabagger.

You're welcome.

[Cha]

8. I can relate because of the hate directed towards President Obama since 2009. It's been crazed

at times.. I don't like the "shrill".. there can be debate without pitchforks.. that is to say.. I don't mind the constructive criticism at all.. it's the ignorant knee-jerkin that actually says more about the poster and nothing about those on the receiving end of their cheap pot shots.

Hillary is not my person at this point in time.. there will be a primary and I will be observing what comes down the pike. I hope she doesn't get anyone like Mark Penn again to run her campaign.

So, you didn't support Hillary in the 2008 primary, McCamy?

[McCamy Taylor]

107. I was an Edward supporter. When the Press trashed him, I was neutral on Clinton and Obama.

[LittleBlue]

9. So this will be our version of BDS then?

When we voiced concerns about preemptive war, yellowcake, the supposed alliance between Al Qaida and Saddam, etc etc, we were told by the right that we just had Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).

That is how you dismiss legitimate concern over a politician's credibility.

So now, once again, our concerns are dismissed as irrational. It's CDS- errr, Hillary Hate. And rather than make an informed voting decision, you're letting people who you call "shrill and so mindless" have the decisive influence on your vote. That doesn't make any sense. Why would you let so-called irrational people decide your vote?

[Scuba]

41. +1

[Enthusiast]

45. Pluuuuuus one!

[merrily]

148. Sure, why not? We've been accused of ODS for quite some time already. Why should Hillary change

that?

Why not stick with a "winner" like variations on "BDS?"

[world wide wally]

15. I've seen all the hate directed at the President that I care to see for a long time.

If Hilary is our nominee, she will get my support. If it ends up Bernie or Elizabeth, they will also get it.
Enough of the hatin' already.

Just hope it's not a Republican!

[lovemydog]

21. Hi world wide wally.

It's nice seeing someone else here with a similar outlook. Hope you're enjoying a good evening or night time or whatever it is there where you are!

[RKP5637]

73. Same here! n/t

[Skittles]

23. fuck the mindless Hillary haters

seriously, FUCK THEM ALL

[lovemydog]

27. I'd prefer not.

I'm not that promiscuous.

[AtomicKitten]

28. you are confusing opposition with hatred

some Democrats just want another choice
and aren't into loyalty votes before the damn thing starts

[Skittles]

30. NO, NO, NO I AM NOT

*I MYSELF* did not support Hillary during her first run, because of IWR. But this non-stop over-the-top hatred, day after day, is SICKENING

[AtomicKitten]

39. I don't see hatred. I see honest opposition.

Opposition for solid, damn good reasons.

Her foreign policy proclivities scare the shit out of me.

[Scuba]

43. +1

[Enthusiast]

46. PLUS ONE, a huge bunch!

[peacebird]

48. +1

[merrily]

71. By far, the greatest part of the hatred and shrillness I have seen here

comes from Hillary supporters. And its directed at anyone who disagrees with the

DU's left tends to reason, analyze, provide facts and links and discuss politicians and political issues.

Even if a Hillary supporter opens with that, refutation soon brings on the shrillness, name-calling and/or insinuations. The very title of this thread is a case in point.

Hillary haters, trolls, Republicans and on and on

[Capt. Obvious]

84. pretty much

[frylock]

134. word up

[Jim Lane]

159. Exactly. There is intemperance on both sides....

and one aspect of that is being hypersensitive to over-the-top rhetoric from one's adversaries, while completely ignoring what comes from one's allies.

For the record, I didn't hate Hillary in 2008. I just opposed her. If she'd been the nominee I would've voted for her.

I still don't hate her. I just hope very strongly that she's not the nominee.

[Marr]

173. +1

[hrmjustin]

74. I think some are honest but some are not.

[Hekate]

109. It's hatred. "Honest opposition" would offer viable alternatives, for one big thing. Honesty would...

...require honest sources for allegations, and would consider the sources of the smears. Things that make me go hmmmm are the GOP Benghazi Committee remaining alive, various parts of the MSM beating the war drums, and the same sources that supported Ken Starr tearing down the former SOS.

When I see sources like those quoted here with a straight face, I question the honesty of the opposition. Especially when combined with "I'll stay home and not vote at all." There's a name for that kind of thing.

[AtomicKitten]

111. Apologists for her reckless behavior aren't doing her any favors.

[Hekate]

116. LOL. Rules that were not imposed until *after she left office* ? Seriously.

[AtomicKitten]

117. Oh the rules were imposed in 1950, revisited in the 1970s.

It wasn't until recently that what she did was made illegal. She was obligated to preserve all private emails on the State Dept's servers, and she did not. What she did do was find a way to duck FOIA requests.

[Hekate]

118. They had emails in the 1950s? Commonly in use in the '70s? The NationalArchivist has cleared her btw

The National Archivist. And others.

[AtomicKitten]

120. What she did was not illegal but it was wrong.

She flouted the federal regulations. That it was not illegal was the extent of being "cleared."

[Hekate]

123. "Flouted"! Flouted, I say!

Thanks for the unintentional laugh

[AtomicKitten]

124. you're welcome

Have a nice evening.

[merrily]

143. No emails in the 1950s, but the wording of the statute was broad enough to cover emails anyway.

It is not a silly claim.

Remember, lawyers and legislators know technology changes and try to draft to that, so they don't have to amend every other law whenever a new technology comes into being.

If it was government business, the 1950 statute covered it "regardless of form" or something to that effect. Also, in 1976, the 1950 Act was amended to include, as an example, materials in machine readable form. Emails are certainly machine readable.

What (I think) the changes effective in 2014 did was get more specific about rules for personal email accounts, like the one Hillary had. So, Hillary cannot be expected to have complied with those. Still, the 1950s Act, as amended through the date Hillary left office did apply to emails in general.

[Segami]

135. +10000

The only hatred I can see is coming from the parading Hillary lackeys cruising GD that are trying to shut down any and all candidate valid concerns or criticisms that can definitely hurt our chances to keep the WH.........six months from now, all those stellar lopsided polls favoring Clinton will begin to stretch back to earth.


Lets hope it doesn't stretch back too far because as it stands, we have put all our eggs in the basket for Hillary and any other candidate entering the race, short of Elizabeth Warren or Sanders, will be nothing more than a dog and pony show for the masses.

[qazplm]

149. Little column A...

little column B

[Maedhros]

113. You are acting like a petulant child.

Declaring opposition to be "over-the-top hatred" and telling all of us who oppose her to "Fuck off."

Try making valid arguments instead of insulting people.

[frylock]

137. and this is what people hate, right there..

the dismissive tone from Clinton's supporters, claiming that concerns of progressives are irrelevant, as well as their votes. all this while they grease the skids for scapegoating those same progressives if things happen to go sideways.

[Maedhros]

150. Hell, I'd be happy if they could denigrate us with a little reasoned argument.

It's the empty, tired labeling that gets me. "Haters." "Sexist."

They've got nothing to bring to the debate, other than cheap invective.

[Logical]

176. YES, YES, YES YOU ARE!

[leftofcool]

32. Then convince Warren to run.

[Skittles]

34. SHE DOESN'T WANT TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT

HOW MANY TIMES DOES SHE HAVE TO SAY THAT?

[leftofcool]

37. I know but the "we want another candidate crowd" has high hopes

[Skittles]

38. speculating over a better candidate is fine

Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)

this constant stamping of the feet screaming I WON'T VOTE FOR HER!!! and repeating repuke talking points and sources is DISGUSTING

[AtomicKitten]

44. It's the Clinton supporters who keep demanding loyalty oaths.

Don't ask, and we won't tell.

[merrily]

65. Hey, if DADT was not good enough for Joe McCarthy, why should it be good enough

for Hillary supporters, even though loyalty oaths were declared unconstitutional in 1964.

[Skittles]

96. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

just fucking STOP

[AtomicKitten]

97. you stop

you stop with the puerile name-calling and mean-spirited labeling of others that don't agree with you

[Skittles]

99. LOLOLOL

and already said it all sounds like PRESCHOOLERS STAMPING THEIR FEET!!! EXHIBIT #5000!!! OK now I fucking DONE here - THIS IS BORING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AtomicKitten]

100. good job illustrating my point

[frylock]

138. the disconnect certainly is a thing to behold

[Marr]

174. It's very strange-- I've come to associate that demeanor with

people who are very devoted to the party establishment, or politicians like Obama and Hillary. Perhaps it's just my bias coloring my perceptions, but it really seems to me like those specific groups have a near lock on that sort of staccato, insult-laden posting style.

[KittyWampus]

171. you keep posting this bullshit about "Clinton supporters". There aren't really that many on DU

so the fact you have to make up crap says volumes.

Calling out the over-the-top Hillary hating nonsense doesn't make us supporters.

[AtomicKitten]

177. Being opposed to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton isn't anywhere in the ballpark of hating.

Last edited Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:34 AM - Edit history (1)

I oppose her recklessly aggressive foreign policy positions.
I oppose her obsequious kowtowing to Wall Street and banks.

I opposed her in 2008 and as I recall so did you. The fact that you've changed your mind does not give you license to attack people who haven't changed their minds. Why do you feel the need to confront people in such an aggressive manner for expressing a different political point of view? It has nothing to do with you.

It's the snottiness and gratuitous personal attacks on posters here not coincidentally on behalf of Hillary Clinton that are the root cause of the unpleasantness and conflict here.

I have not and will not personally attack anyone here during this crazy season. You're welcome.

[Enthusiast]

47. She not only wants to run, she is running and campaigning right now.

I have never seen such an effective non-candidate. Now that is just my opinion. Chalk it up to Hillary hate or women hatred, or something.

[Hekate]

119. Her most rabid supporters think Liz is a liar, have you noticed? Doesn't speak well for...

... them, or her.

Although I think she's telling the truth, and it's really all about them.

[Thinkingabout]

139. I don't think she is lying when she says over and over she isn't running but

Her backers continue to say she is, now who is calling who a liar. She is very good at her field of expertise, probably is smart and wise to make her decisions.

[sheshe2]

140. Thank you Skittles!

You are right, she does not want to run. I keep saying that over and over, she wants to be our Senior Senator from Mass. IMHO...she will be kicking ass there.

[Hekate]

141. Speaking of kicking ass, I think our Skittles needs only to be pointed in the right direction today!

[Logical]

175. Lol, nap time? nt

[Skittles]

184. yes, it would be nice if those assholes took at timeout

ABSOLUTELY

[Logical]

186. You seem to whine a lot! nt

[Skittles]

187. LOL, no I am not the one whining

I one of the many DUers SICK of the constant whining about Hillary - ENOUGH ALREADY

[Beacool]

183. Hear, hear!!!

Although I have never expressed it here, I admit to have thought it more than once.

[leftofcool]

31. DU falls for this right wing crap all the time. Emails=Ben Gawzi

I've seen more links to RW junk in the last 6 months than I ever have on DU and the subject is always Hillary. I love the "I will not vote for HRC no matter what" crowd. As though HRC or anyone else gives a shit who they vote for. As though their vote is the be all and end all of all votes. As though in the grand scheme of things their vote really matters.

[Skittles]

40. it's like being in a room with a bunch of preschoolers all having tantrums

Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2015, 02:33 PM - Edit history (1)

I keep thinking, GROW THE FUCK UP

[leftofcool]

42. Hillary is not perfect

I realize this as do all of her other supporters. No President has been or ever will be perfect but she is our best chance to keep the WH.

[treestar]

92. It does but only in combination with others' votes

I see that too - it is ridiculous to say your vote has to be "earned" as if the person saying that is the only one that matters. They only shoot themselves in the foot if there is a Republican president. They don't punish the Democratic candidate they found too impure.

[Bobbie Jo]

189. Along with an encore performance

of a particular RW troll who shamelessly duped a number of members with their phony "righteous progressive" act. Back to posting RW sources, concern upon concern, and the whole shebang.

Yep, this phony will be sporting another 18,000 posts in no time.

They fall for this nonsense every. single. time.

btw....agree with your post in its entirety.

[Bugenhagen]

49. This is a sweeping attempt to paint everyone who opposes her with the label "Hillary hater"

This is a sweeping attempt to paint everyone who opposes Sen. Clinton with the label "Hillary hater". Effective, but incorrect. Many people find legitimate reasons to oppose Sen. Clinton's candidacy without hating her. Things like foreign policy, election reform and finance reform are very important to, I dare say, most of us.

The idea that you had "no particular opinion about Sen. Hillary Clinton" is absurd. I can't be the only one who remembers that you were a super-prodigious supporter for Hillary in the 2008 race.

[RiverLover]

50. Good observations. nt

[leftofcool]

52. If you find legitimate reasons to oppose her, good!

It is the regurgitation of RW talking points that is offensive, not legitimate opposition.

[Maedhros]

114. But you will just define any opposition as a "RW talking point" so as to avoid acknowledging it.

I'm on record as stating the recent email incident is really more of a failure on behalf of the Administration for having insufficient security protocols in place. It's an issue, but not one I pin on Hillary.

This has been a repeating theme: criticism of Hillary's policies are not met with counter-points, but with accusations.

[leftofcool]

156. I don't like all of Hillary's policies but she is a damn site better than any Republican

I will vote for the Democrat nominee no matter who it is.

[Maedhros]

169. What if everyone did what you are doing?

Announcing, before the primaries even begin, that they will vote for whatever Democrat is on the ticket?

We guarantee that the Democratic nominee will be the most corporate-friendly, hawkish, pro-Israel austerity peddler that the leadership can find - because, hey, the rubes will vote for anyone.

The message I want to send to potential nominees is this: YOU'D BETTER DELIVER PROGRESSIVE POLICY, OR WE WILL FIND SOMEONE WHO WILL.

That's a much more effective message than: DO WHAT YOU WANT, WE'LL VOTE FOR YOU ANYWAY.

[still_one]

55. Agreed. However, some equating a financial institutions donation to the Clinton foundation as proof

that she is corrupt, or assertions that she is a "republican" or other hyperbole are also over the top

[sendero]

94. I for one.....

.... am not interested in another corporatist neocon president. Anyone that thinks that "corporatist" and "neocon" labels are right-wing talking points is daft. They are right wing POSITIONS and they describe HRC perfectly.

Y'll can call me a "hater" all fucking day. It's STUPID.

[McCamy Taylor]

108. You are the only person who remembers I was a "super" Clinton supporters cause I was an Edwards

supporter and I still think and and his wife would have been great in the White House and the Banksters would have gone to jail.

How have you been here since 2008 and only managed to accumulate 81 posts?

[Hekate]

122. It just boggles the mind, doesn't it? I also supported Edwards initially, but he dropped out....

I sometimes wonder if DU's sock drawers are full of footwear that are folded and stacked, or balled up; also if they are sorted by color and style. Or maybe it's just one big miscellaneous laundry pile. I wonder if that makes a difference.

[AtomicKitten]

178. Could it be all the OPs you authored during that time staking out that position?

The internet never forgets.

[still_one]

53. I agree the Hillary hatred here is quite tiresome. Hell, there was similar hatred by some here

against President Obama. It got really ridiculous. It wasn't just disagreeing with a policy or action, it was a demonizing to a degree of irrationality that was absurd.

[djean111]

54. The attempts to conflate hatred of Hillary's policies with "hatred of Hillary" are both transparent

and doomed to failure. The attempts to equate an email dust-up with things that some of us really do "hate" - TPP, war, you know, stuff like that - and then marginalize the whole mess, whilst throwing in a little "BENGHAZI!!!! on the side, as if DU had ever been concerned about that - is also transparent, and also doomed to failure.

I've got "Labeling dislike of Hillary's policies as Hatred of Hillary" fatigue.
I guess that is a familiar tactic, though, any criticism of Obama's actions is now just called ODS or something. Hyperbole seems to be the kind of boring go-to thing, now, like hair on fire, exploding heads, whatever. Ridiculous. And a bit puerile, really - "Ooooh! I bet their heads are exploding!" - good grief.

[Maedhros]

151. They have no solid arguments, so they fall back on the "BENGHAZI!!!!" taunts and "Haters!" rhetoric.

If they did have valid points, we would have seen them by now.

[LiberalElite]

56. You REALLY

had no particular opinion about Hillary Clinton? Boy that's rare!

[BeyondGeography]

58. The fatigue is real though

The Clintons are a force, have been for about 25 years now. And here we are, with both of them pushing 70, and they still dominate the discussion. And all they've done over the years is grow richer, more powerful and less interesting.

What sucks, and I don't care who you're for or against, is the absence of a strong challenger so far. It doesn't give the people who oppose Hillary a positive way to express themselves. It also isn't the best thing for any nominee, no matter how seasoned.

[hrmjustin]

59. The anti-Hillary stuff by some has become ridiculous.

the HRC room is open to all HRC supporters only so join us if you are a supporter.

[merrily]

62. And the denial by "some'" has become vastly more ridiculous.

Sometimes, I roll my eyes. Other times, I just laugh.

[hrmjustin]

66. rolling your eyes is a good hobby. Enjoy.

[merrily]

67. Thanks. I do enjoy laughing.

[hrmjustin]

68. Enjoy.

[RedstDem]

61. best reason to vote for her that I've heard

Bravo

[Sancho]

64. I have to wonder how much of the haters are trolls...

Really.

Even if you are simply a neutral Democrat, the number of crazy posts is amazing.

I respect thoughtful criticism of standing Democrats (Obama, Hillary, etc., etc.). That's particularly true when people have particular topics they champion. Fine, let's have a debate.

OTOH, there seem to be way to many attacks that parrot right-wing memes to simply be random.
If there is nothing new, then why jump in.

As my computer sometimes reminds me, "Patience mortal!"!

I hope that some veteran DUers realize that by posting the same thing over and over they hurt their own reputation. Newbies, to me, seem to be trolls planted on DU. It's a bigger problem than I remember from the past. I called one out recently and they disappeared. I guess that was a hint.

[99Forever]

70. Perhaps your "fatigue" is in your...

... complete failure to browbeat anyone to your will.

The more the Clinton Camp screams at me that I MUST join them OR ELSE, the less likely it is that it will happen. The trait of thinking you can bully people into accepting a candidate that doesn't have OUR best interests as her top priority IS NOT a Democratic Party value. So if you are tired, I highly suggest you GIVE IT A REST.

[HappyMe]

76. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I think I have Clinton fatigue.

[djean111]

77. Nailed it perfectly. The exasperation has morphed into shrill anger.

[Skittles]

188. what a bunch of horseshit

many of the DUers sick of the non-stop Hillary hatred were not even supporters of hers - me included (I have never forgiven her support of IWR)

GIVE IT A REST

[bigwillq]

75. I find all the Hillary threads rather entertaining.

Best part of DU is when we're at each other's throats.

[tridim]

78. Do you think there are any legitimate reasons why Democrats might not support Clinton?

Or is any criticism automatically labeled "Clinton hatred" by people who see no fault in Clinton whatsoever?

Nobody is perfect. NOBODY.

[Jim Lane]

160. Good question! The absence of an answer is very telling.

The author of the OP has posted in this thread since your post, but has chosen not to answer your question.

The other Hillary Clinton supporters who've posted here have also chosen not to answer your question.

Call me a naive optimist, but I believe there are some decent Clinton supporters who are embarrassed about the knee-jerk personal attacks that some of their allies indulge in.

[LWolf]

80. For me, it's all about

issues. For others, it appears to be about what people say instead of issues.

HRC loses on most of my top issues. Not all. Most.

[spanone]

81. k&r...

[gwheezie]

82. Most of us will get over it

Like we did in 08. I voted for hillary in my 08 primary but since I'm not insane I enthusiastically volunteered for obama and voted for him in 08 and even more happy to vote for him in 12.
I'll probably vote for Hillary again in my primary but it's not like she's my sister and I have to vote for her. If someone better runs and I think they can crush the GOP and bring down ticket voters along I might not vote for Hillary. Believe it or not it is possible to not have strung feelings about hillary. I like her. I've liked her for decades. I don't love or hate her. I'm not going to bash fellow dems.

[ismnotwasm]

83. Yeah you know it's all kinds of weird when you think you're on a Rebublican site

I just started trashing threads, and it looked like DU again

[Jim Lane]

162. Trashing threads is a much better option than vilifying other DUers.

I've never thought I was on a Republican site, but it has occasionally seemed like a junior high school site.

If, this long before the primary season, the level of discourse so often gets so low, then it doesn't bode well for what we'll be seeing down the road.

[ScreamingMeemie]

86. I don't think that's actually a thing.

[treestar]

87. It's already old and the primaries haven't even started

And no one has declared, not even Hillary.

[romanic]

90. I don't like some of Hillary's centrist politics

but I couldn't put all of my focus on criticizing her obsessively the way some posters are doing.

[lewebley3]

106. Hillary can be a Centrist, Let Warren me majority writing laws, Hillary will sign them!!

Its takes a good fighter and good centrist get elected,
then she can move to the left.
She will need money, so she has to play the game , like
Obama, he could not get us a public option this time around,
but maybe next time with the right amount of votes Warren
can and Hillary will sign it.

[Maedhros]

152. It's primary season.

Many don't want Hillary to win the primary, so it's fair game for them to campaign against her.

[daredtowork]

101. LOL

All the "Hillary Hatred" comes in response to the never-ending stream of Inevitable Hillary coronation posts. Why aren't you sick of those? I don't believe for a second you didn't come in predisposed toward a particular candidate.

[Dawson Leery]

102. Emailgate is just another nontroversy for the Clinton haters to

rally around.

[ffr]

104. K&R. Republis need to be unhappy.

They're unhappy people, so if Hillary hatred is at a boiling point that can only be a good thing. The same was true when Bill was president. And we all know how that turned out:

Longest economic expansion in American history
More than 22 million new jobs
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt
Highest homeownership in American history
Lowest unemployment in 30 years
Raised education standards, increased school choice, and doubled education and training investment
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
Lowest crime rate in 26 years
100,000 more police for our streets
Enacted most sweeping gun safety legislation in a generation
Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
Higher incomes at all levels
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union
Protected millions of acres of American land
Lowest government spending in three decades
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
More families own stock than ever before
Most diverse cabinet in American history
- NARA.GOV

[lewebley3]

105. I Agree: Three Cheers for Hillary!!!!!! Bash GOP not her!!

I agree with you, If you are not Helping the democratic party you
are helping the GOP.

[BainsBane]

112. I must say it's had a similar effect on me

I didn't support Clinton in 2008. In fact, I never considered her because I was so mad about the war. But after years of Hillary bashing on this site, rhetoric that is all about image and perception rather than any particular policy, I find myself wanting to support her. (People site the war, but then support others who voted for the war, like Kerry). I don't really make decisions about candidates until close to when I have to vote. I learn about them during the debates and through the process of the campaign. I find cults of personality, for or against, inane. I don't know who will be running against Clinton, but this doomsday scenario that she will be uncontested strikes me as highly unlikely. I am so fed up with rhetoric that irrationally visits on her all frustrations with the current political and economic climate today, I feel more and more inclined to support her.

I've never been one to join in group think. I suppose I'm contrarian by nature, and those folks have seriously turned me off, particularly since the only thing they seem to care about is keeping one woman from becoming president. Assertions that if you support Hillary you are aligning with the 1 percent or Goldman Sacks are probably the most vapid thing I've ever heard in my life. I have seen people who I suspect are economically privileged, but certainly are prevailed in terms of race, gender and sexuality, insulting people who have been discriminated against their entire lives simply because they don't see Clinton as the embodiment of all evil. I could go on, but I'll simply say I see a lot of hypocrisy, and it has turned me off completely. They can thank themselves for making Clinton seem like THE candidate on this site, since they are the ones who have posted about her continually for years. And now they can pat themselves of the back for generating support for her.

[lovemydog]

142. My experiences are similar to yours in this regard.

To expand on your thoughts a bit. There are financial types who welcome more regulation of Wall Street, so long as those regulations are very clear. There are one percenters like Warren Buffet who advocate for more taxation on them to make for a more secure & robust economy all the way around.

The differences between, say, Hillary Clinton as a President and someone like Rand Paul or Jeb Bush, who would tend to favor the laissez faire or conservative one percent, can be profound. An economic team like Clinton might assemble might have more effectiveness in proposing raising the capital gains tax than someone like a Sanders or Warren. Whereas a Bush or Paul economic team wouldn't even try raising the capital gains tax, or would actually lobby hard to lower it even further than Congress has already lowered it, or to make a lot of that stuff even more permanent.

A lot of this kind of nuance, especially concerning the actually likelihood of effectiveness on very crucial economic matters, seems kind of lost on some of the more shrill anti-Hillary critics. At least, I never seem them raise those issues, or care much about them. I care most about not only the policy positions, but also our ability to actually implement them.

That's one reason I credit the Obama Administration with pushing the Affordable Care Act. Not because it's perfect. But because it's a start toward universal health care in our country. It's up to future voters and legislators to keep pushing for universal health care. Both social security and civil rights developed in these kinds of fits and starts, with great controversies and much argument. They were eventually strengthened through court decisions, changing views amongst the public toward embracing them as fair and just, and then pressure on legislators to properly represent the people's desires.

[Jim Lane]

164. I understand your reaction, because I'm in that situation but on the other side.

My attitude has been that, among the oft-mentioned possibilities for the Democratic nomination, I'd prefer to see just about any of them other than Clinton as our nominee; but that, if she is the nominee, I'll almost certainly vote for her in November.

Every time I read junk like this OP, though, I get a little more ticked off. More and more, it feels as if voting for Clinton in November would be giving in to this kind of bullying. And, like you, I see a lot of hypocrisy, though we probably aren't seeing it in the same places.

I'm still at the point where I'll almost certainly vote for the Democratic nominee in November, whoever it is. Many of the Clinton supporters on DU, however, are acting in such a way as to make that less likely. If they spend 20 more months trying to demonize legitimate disagreements, they may succeed in changing my mind.

[BainsBane]

165. Except the anti-Clinton threads have out numbered the pro-Clinton

significantly. I actually wish everyone who knock it off until we have actual declared candidates, but it's not going to happen.

[Jim Lane]

166. I haven't tried to count gross numbers -- though some of the posts are pretty gross.

There've been rhetorical excesses on both sides.

As for whether to knock it off, I have no problem, even before candidates declare, with posts about policy. It's the self-righteousness and the demonizing of other DUers that I could live without.

[BainsBane]

167. I certainly agree with that.

[tularetom]

144. If the republican nominee wins the state of California by one vote, feel free to blame me

And then and only then can you say that I'm responsible for crappy supreme court nominations, Social Security cuts, Medicare and Obamacare cutbacks, unlimited foreign wars, and whatever other mischief a republican president and congress can concoct.

On the other hand, if Ms Clinton is elected and any or all of the above occur, you can be certain that I will remind anybody who bemoans the situation that I had no part in her election.

Rightly or wrongly (and I believe it is wrong) we do not elect presidents by a national popular vote. As obsolete as our electoral college is, it's still the law.

And BTW, I have not yet decided I won't vote for her. Emailgate may be sort of a nothing burger legally, but it does reflect a sort of poor judgment and disdain for public opinion.

I'm not ready for for four more years of Clinton drama. But its a year and a half until the 2016 general election and things could change.

[we can do it]

161. I'm sick of the shit, too. She's not my first choice, but will be my choice if she gets nominated.

Not another naderfuck ego candidate.

[Jamaal510]

163. As far as most of the stuff I see on TV about her,

I couldn't care less about it. I don't give a fuck about her emails. The Benghazi shit is played out. There are way more important things going on in America that are relevant to people's day-to-day lives, but the mainstream news won't highlight those as much.
With DU, it's fine for there to be people to not support Clinton's possible Democratic nomination (in fact, Sanders is my #1 choice right now for the would-be nominee), but it looks pathetic as Hell when people call HC right-wing even when presented with all her progressive stances, and when DUers threaten not to vote for her if she goes on to be the nominee.

[Major Hogwash]

168. "Two months later . . . "

Hillary hasn't even announced whether she is running or not yet!!!!!

[Beausoir]

170. DU has profited greatly for many years by whipping up Clinton hysteria.

We'll see how that pays off for them when she is President.

Wandering in the wilderness.

[Man from Pickens]

179. point of inquiry

What caused you to go from "I love Hillary." on April 27 2014 to " no particular opinion about Sen. Hillary Clinton" in Jan 2015?

[Beacool]

185. The perpetual nastiness is counterproductive.

They pile so much crap on her that it ends up being overkill and people stop listening to any valid point that they may have had. How well did it work for Republicans back in the 90s? Bill keeps going up in historians' presidential polls and Hillary is still the person to beat in 2016. No one in either party polls higher.