Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumJust want to give the HRC room a big hug!
HILLARY CLINTON ROOM.
Huging you all of you and Hillary gave a great speech yesterday. She showed us why she will be our next president.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)to Democrats and should be to republicans also. Yes there is voter fraud, after Texas run theirs through there was a guy in Fort Bend County who voted in Texas and Pennsylvania who thought he could vote in both states since he owned a house in both states. He also ran for an office in Fort Bend as a republican.
Hillary wasn't only on the mark but gave a wonderful speech, she's good.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Gothmog
(145,335 posts)I really loved HRC's speech yesterday at TSU
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Gothmog
(145,335 posts)This is forcing the debate onto grounds that are good for Democrats. In particular, the GOP candidates have to try to defend their positions and their defenses are weak. The main defense is voter fraud but the facts do not back up that claim. The media is aware of the research on this issue and the GOP claims that voter fraud justify these laws will not work.
Yesterday, Rick Perry defended the Texas voter id law by claiming that you have to have a picture id to fly. That claim is false and people are calling Rick Perry out on this
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Appears hrmjustin & Hillary are polling even.
Hrmjustin-------------------*
Hillary -----------------------*
This is a close one guys!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think Hillary wins there.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)shenmue
(38,506 posts)calimary
(81,323 posts)I still think it's time that we see what a woman in charge could do, for a change. It's been wall-to-wall men ever since the days of the first President. I think we need a change.
I DO like Bernie Sanders a LOT, and I've loved Elizabeth Warren since I first saw her interviewed on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show, early-on. But I see Hillary as best positioned to go all the way. My first choice is Hillary Clinton, but I will willingly and enthusiastically vote for Bernie if it turns out that HE's the one to be our standard-bearer in 2016. And I am sad and a little worried to see so little of that same sentiment coming from non-Hillary supporters. Painting it as holding their nose and voting, fomenting all kinds of discord so we're all fighting with each other, threatening to stay home and pout if they don't get their way (I mean, SERIOUSLY, we have the teabaggers already taking care of that position just fine thankyouverymuch), insisting on the perfect as opposed to the good and/or the most practical.
The rigidity here and elsewhere on our side is what troubles me. I don't want to see another Eugene McCarthy vs Hubert Humphrey thing developing here, which is what happened in 1968. That did NOTHING but divide our side and shove richard fucking nixon down our throats. Dear GOD I do NOT want to see that repeating itself again now! It terrifies me that we'll be so divided we'll find ourselves stuck with a president walker or a president cruz or GOD FORBID another president bush.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)Ive wondered why Bernie decided to run for Prez as a Dem? I mean, he has been just fine all these years being an Independent so why the switch now when running for Prez? Why not as an Independent which hes sure to win the nomination?
Heres what I think and I admit I may be way off base. I dont think Bernie wanted to run as an Independent because if Hillary does win the Dem nomination, I dont think he wanted to be remembered as another potential Ralph Nader and possibly give the election to the Repubs (see 2000).
As a side note, I never blamed Nader for the 2000 election; youve got to win votes on your own. But we also know Gore actually did win!
Anyway, I may be going out on a limb here, but I think Bernie really likes Hillary Clinton. I believe he is more to the left than she is, but I believe he has a real fondness for her. So maybe part of the reason he is running as a Dem is to pull her further to the left.
Of course that is assuming that Bernie does not win the nomination and Hillary does. If that plays out, Bernie wants to make sure she leans left more so than normal and he wont be an Independent and possibly cost her votes and the general election.
Thats my two cents worth. On the other hand, I could be full of it, too! Thoughts?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)He did a bad thing but he is in my prayers.
Thank you for violating or safe haven here.
Bye.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)If anything, he seemed to be supporting HRC. You know, not being happy with those that call her horrible names.
okasha
(11,573 posts)since truebrit is not a Hillary supporter.
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)I, too, am a Hillary supporter, but I really like Bernie a lot. I like Warren, but not as much as others on this board. I am not yet enamored with Chafee, though. He seems to be nothing more than not Hillary. And since I love me some Hillary, that doesnt work for me!
But, we Dems have some fine candidates for Prez and our party is infinitely repeat INFINITELY better than the opposition!!!
calimary
(81,323 posts)Glad you're here! And not just because you gave me a shout-out, either.
Hey, let's be practical here. I LONG for the days when idealism really does carry the day. Politically. Spiritually. Socially. Economically.
BUT WE AIN'T THERE.
Or, to put the most hopeful spin on it - we aren't there YET.
And I am, again, very happy to vow that if Bernie Sanders is "it", then I am ALL-IN. Eagerly, enthusiastically, and gleefully! But I want a woman in command, for a change. There is so much going on these days that all boils down to rolling back the progress that the woman's movement achieved during the 60s and 70s. We called it Women's Liberation. Women's Lib. Which meant we the believers or advocates of same became "libbers." It pushed all sides and corners of the proverbial envelope in the cause of justice and equality and fair play and a level playing field for women. Evening things up a little. Applying some corrections, pushing boundaries, defying conventions, challenging set ways and attitudes, rewriting and redefining just a freakin' boatload of assumptions about women. Assumptions that some ahead of my generation by maybe seven to 12 years were breaking through and rendering outmoded and increasingly irrelevant. Like, for example, the convention that a woman's place was in the home. Pretty much exclusively. She was to buckle down to baby-making and home-making. Anything else was not the norm.
As I was growing up, there was this prevailing notion of the "career gal" - the odd woman out, at the office, usually the kind of sassy young exception-to-the-rule featured in a series of Doris Day movies. The "career gal" was the label given to the young woman who did not go straight from college or her family home into the arms (and bed) of a husband to set about bearing the children of her new lord-and-master-in-training. The "career gal" was the oddity, the exception, the other thing that some women were venturing out to do. I saw that in my husband's family. They welcomed me but still, I didn't follow the conventional path. My husband's brothers all had wives who either got pregnant straight away or planned to do so in the first year or two of getting married. I was busy working. They even referred to me as the "career gal" of the family.
We've since evolved enough that the phrase "career gal" doesn't even come up anymore. But women are still, somehow, ridiculously, incomprehensibly under siege. The early fruits of the "Women's Lib" movement included the campaign for the Equal Rights Amendment (sheesh, the opponents decried that women would be forced to go into combat! When we today have women just about everywhere in the military including all the hot zones), Roe v Wade, and more jobs opening up to women. It started in the 60s, in general, with the civil rights and anti-war movements - that by the 70s had begotten the woman's movement. It's because the 60s stirred things up and compelled us to start looking at things differently. There was a whole new post-war generation growing up and coming of age, and looking at things differently. So we had change - which in so many cases is now being rebelled against - on steroids. I wonder if maybe people who didn't want change tried to hold their tongues or cope or understand what was evolving and changing all around them and finally just couldn't deal with it anymore. Which seems to me is what we saw with the rise of the teabaggers in response to the very idea that there'd be a black man in the Oval Office who wasn't the janitor.
Seems to me we're seeing that rebellion against the constancy of change. Change is the only constant. Things WILL NOT stay the same as they always were. Things CHANGE. Things grow, evolve, stretch, stretch out of shape - or stretch into some new and more workable shape. And if you don't change as the times change, and change WITH those times, you become irrelevant. As Exhibit A, I give you the GOP platform with all its regressive, increasingly irrelevant and out-of-touch, outmoded, reactionary planks. The fact that they seem to be growing worse and more extreme and more Neanderthal by the day, I'm guessing, is some pretty good anecdotal evidence of how badly that side of the aisle hates change. How extremely that side of the aisle hates change. Hates being shaken out of their comfort zones. Demands that things be the way they've always been, now and forevermore, amen - despite the changes we see everywhere around us, in every institution, indoors, AND outside, too.
WAY long-winded rant that routes back to why I really want a woman in charge next time. Especially since we finally have a candidate who's seriously and credibly AND REALISTICALLY up to it. Women have YET to be fully-represented, OUR needs and OUR issues fully represented and integrated and responded to, even in this day and age. In the 21st Century forcryingoutloud. And that simply has to change. We MUST outgrow this shit we're in now.
And women's issues aren't just OUR issues - they're EVERYBODY's issues, crossing state lines, races, ages, faiths (and the lack thereof), economic strata, gender identity, ALL of it. Hillary is NOT perfect. So what? I'm not a perfectionist. I like to think I'm a little more of a realist, even if the reality isn't the ideal I'd prefer. And I'm voting for the next Supreme Court picker. So whoever it is, that candidate is gonna have a "D" by his/her name.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)mcar
(42,334 posts)She did a great job - named names, offered sound ideas.