Ms. Clinton

[steve2470]

Bravenak informed me of a statement Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton made in 2008.

Here's the quote from her interview with USA Today:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

I've never been anti-HRC, but quite frankly, that comment bothers me. Does anyone have any additional information ?

[marym625]

1. I do about some other things

But not specifically related to that statement.

[steve2470]

3. ok thanks

I was wondering if she had spoken to the AA community about it. If Bravenak remembered it from almost 7 years ago, I'm sure many many PoC do.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

97. No! She never apologized for it. Fuck her racist ass. And fuck her husband and their supporters!

Other racist statements were made during the primaries. I'm shocked that people pretend not to remember. (Well...seeing what DU has now become, I'm no longer surprised...)

Other dog whistle comments:

She alluded to Bobby Kennedy's assassination during the time that she knew Obama was receiving a high number of death threats.

Her "hard working white folks" comment was never challenged, even here on DU; white "liberal" Democrats defended her.

Her surrogates, particularly Geraldine Ferraro, suggested that Obama's race benefitted him despite his personal accomplishment, even when she faced similar treatment regarding her gender when she ran for Vice President--her racist comments went unchallenged.

Bill Clinton's racist comments about MLK/LBJ and Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al. --- never challenged by so-called "progressive" white Democrats!!!

Hillary's half-hearted comment regarding Obama's "Christianity...as far as I know"--contributed to his assume allegiance to Islam that has dogged his presidency from Day #1. Can't stand her for that!

So much more. Hate this woman!!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

128. I missed that Bobby Kennedy one, but I remember the rest of those, especially Ferraro. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. Yes, I agree - as bad, or inartful, as that statement is by Hillary, there are far worse things she has said that are racially insensitive.

She needs to be much more careful in the future in showing this side of herself as the campaign rolls on.

[marym625]

28. personally, I would prefer she doesn't become artful at hiding her racism.

That would just mean she is artful at lying. Which, she already is. Just not in this area, yet.

The momentum behind her frightens me. There is so much wrong with her as a candidate for the Democratic party and so many refuse to either see it or admit it.

I have had many discussions here on DU and most have been very acrimonious. But I have yet to receive an answer to the simple question, "why back a candidate, at this point in the process, that; has as her main adviser the man that both authored the End Game Memo and threatened Elizabeth Warren on her first day as a senator, and that voted for the war in Iraq and is a known warmonger?" Not one answer.

I didn't even bring racism into it because I have seen responses to that from her backers. The response being along the same lines as the responses to the Iraq war. Excuses.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

31. Yes ur right Mary in demanding honesty from Hillary. Just sayin she needs 2 step up her game 2 avoid showin her racially insensitive side 2 have any chance of becomin President...

Agree with your other points and would only add that one shouldn't openly pledge blind loyalty to Hillary in the general - even if one intends to vote for her if she wins the primary - and give up the leverage required to make her work for progressive votes by moving left, instead of her inclination to always move right.

[marym625]

33. Well said

Thank you

[Jackpine Radical]

77. Indeed, you have expressed the exact idea that has led me

not to comment on whether I would vote for Hill in the General. I'm not giving up that infinitesimal bit of power for no reason at this point. Just as, if I were Liz Warren, I would not be making ironclad statements about whether or not I were running. Whatever her ultimate intentions, the ferment around her possible candidacy helps draw attention to her issues, and magnifies her senatorial "Bully Pulpit" effect.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

80. If progressives stood united, Hillary wud hear our collective "infinitesimal" voices loud & clear. Elizabeth again sets the example 4 all of us.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

100. Not "racially insensitive". No such thing. She's a racist. Period.

There's no such thing as "racially insensitive". Either one is a racist or one isn't.

She demonstrated what she is in 2007. She knew what she was doing during the Democratic presidential primaries.

She, her husband and their surrogates engaged in pure evil. Anyone who supported what they did and how they played that racist card are racist. TRUTH!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

104. I would agree with you LS, in most cases, yes. Ive seen situations, however, in which, someone says something...

that can be interpreted multiple ways, one of which has racial overtones, though not intended that way. You could say that was "inartful" without necessarily making that person a racist. That's all I'm sayin.

Now in Hillary's case, on that point, we can debate whether she deserves the benefit of the doubt. Bill on the other hand, while not overt, I seriously do wonder about him when he contnually says things that, to me, shows his "inner racist" side.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

107. These are very intelligent people. I would argue that both Bill and Hillary Clinton

are people who arguably are among the most brilliant people this world has ever seen.

They both have lived in the South. They both know very well about Lee Atwater tactics. They both have witnessed KKKarl Rove tactics. Rove was a student of Atwater. Atwater was the father of the Southern Strategy.

You are telling me that all the so-called "racially insensitive" statements made were innocent. You want me to believe that neither Bill nor Hillary had a clue what they were suggesting? You are telling me that when Bill, Hillary or any one of their surrogates ran to Bill O'Reilly's show or Rush Limbaugh's show to mock Obama or suggest that his race is the only reason he has made it thus far--they didn't know what they were doing? Really????

Me and many others believe that the Clintons were deliberately playing the race card, knowing fully well that Hillary Clinton was winning in states where whites were refusing to vote for Barack Obama. The voters openly admitted that they would vote for a white woman before a black man. And yet the Clintons and their supporters continued to make "racially insensitive" statements. As they did this, they continued to chip away at Obama's lead and push on in the campaign. Obama would have wrapped up the nomination earlier had it not been for the Rovian efforts and scorched-earth tactics on behalf of the Clintons--this knowing full well that they were actually running out of money. Shameless!!!!

You really want me--and not just other blacks, but many whites who strongly believe that the Clintons and their surrogates were actively exploiting racial tensions--to believe that they didn't realize what they were doing?

You'll have to do more convincing than that.

And honestly, I know many black Americans and a good number of whites and Hispanics who were completely turned off by the Clintons--and to this day may sit out in 2016 due to the racism displayed in 2007-8. Now, mind you, many of these folks I know live in Blue states like me. But many live in down south where I'm originally from. While they many appreciate and even like Bill when we was president, they do not like how Barack Obama has been treated since he's been in office.

If Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee and if she starts making snide comments against Obama and running against his accomplishments in any way, I think she runs the risk of turning off many in the black community--even those who may be a little disappointed in Obama for some reason or another. Even for those who are disappointed in him and/or don't really like him, they also don't really like or trust the Clintons, either.

This is only my view, but I think the majority of Democrats have become more racially intolerant since Obama became president, and have made it known that they don't need blacks, anymore. They believe that they don't need our vote or support anymore. They talk down to us and come to our communities every election season to pacify us. I think it's a huge mistake. I think the Clintons will make a huge mistake if they treat us the same.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

109. Here again, your makin a lot of sense and, as far as Bill's racist attitudes are concerned, I completely agree. Perhaps, Hillary just hides it better

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

110. Here again, your makin a lot of sense and, as far as Bill's racist attitudes are concerned, I completely agree. Perhaps, Hillary just hides it better...

In any case, Hillary is in DEEP trouble if she loses the black community, so I wouldn't expect her to throw President Obama under the bus. To the contrary, she must sell herself as Obama's third term to have any chance.

[Nay]

134. Add me to the whites who agree with everything you said. I considered her racist statements about

Obama in the prez race to have permanently deleted her from any consideration going forward. I was nauseated when she said that stuff. I don't even want her for dogcatcher. Anyone who would stoop that low to get white voters certainly doesn't deserve black votes, and I sure won't vote for her, either.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

98. NO!! Her comment was not "inartful". It was DELIBERATE!!!

[Thinkingabout]

2. If Hillary never advocated for Civil Rights, women's rights, children's rights, better

Education for young kids, all if this occurred before she was First Lady, would it make a difference?

[steve2470]

4. if she never had, it would, yes

I don't think she's a racist, but her comment strikes me as very tone deaf. I would not say that.

[Thinkingabout]

5. She fought for Civil Rights in her college days and her record shows she worked

On the other issues during her time in Arkansas. While on the Walmart she advocated for promotions,for women and "Buy America".

More information can be found on this site:

http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

[steve2470]

6. thanks nt

[marym625]

29. I might get behind Hillary Rodham.

But not Hillary Clinton.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

99. Civil Rights for WHITE WOMEN! She could give a shit for blacks!

She was a BARRY GOLDWATER REPUBLICAN!

She's a racist! Showed her true colors in 2007. She and her supporters!!!!

[Thinkingabout]

105. Your rant about Hillary being a Goldwater girl, she was 16 at the time of the election in which

Goldwater ran. Why would you say she was racists when she has advocated for Civil Rights in her college days? Maybe you should read up on the history of the Civil Rights movement before you make yourself sound racists.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

106. If you don't know who Barry Goldwater was and you are making excuses for Hillary

supporting him by attacking me, then you have absolutely no credibility. Civil Rights isn't just about race. Civil Rights applies to race, gender, religion, age, etc. Civil Rights is broader than race. And we know that many white women didn't care about the plight of black women back then.

What is more, Hillary Clinton revealed her true nature and beliefs about black people during the 2007-2008 Democratic primaries. Her racism was unforgivable. It didn't surprise me that she called herself a Barry Goldwater Girl...she bragged about that. She knew damn well who Barry Goldwater was; she admitted that her own father was a racist who supported Barry Goldwater. She embraced Goldwater. But let's give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she didn't fully know what he stood for--wouldn't she be silly and stupid for embracing someone so fully, understanding that his views on race and "states' rights" were front stage and right in our faces? She was fully of shit then, and she's full of shit now.

Please miss me with your feigned outrage.

Ann Richards was more of a champion of Civil Rights for ALL people than Hillary Clinton could ever be!

[Thinkingabout]

108. I know who Goldwater was, the point I was making was she was 16 years old, I don't know if I had my

political legs under myself at 16. Criticizing and setting in stone whatever one once and early in their life is quiet harsh. Since I lived through these times, was held back because I am a woman and in fact was passed over by I did not see much consideration from any males so to say this is racists is harsh also. She did march in Civil Rights marches, you may not feel any benefit from the Civil Rights Act but I bet if you had lived as a young man when MLK was growing up you would have felt differently. I am beginning to get the feeling you do not follow a non discrimination path in life.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

115. I don't give a shit how old she was. At 16, I was politically active. Of course, I lived

in Atlanta, Georgia...the cradle of the Civil Rights Movement. And sure, my family was heavily involved. But Hillary "Rodham" was also always heavily involved in politics. She says so herself. She had always had a passion for politics. Hell, I taught 16 year olds government and politics. You're telling me that she followed a man by the name of Barry Goldwater and knew absolutely nothing about his politics? You expect me to believe that bullshit? But she knew enough about him to understand that her father supported him and connected her father's beliefs on race to Goldwater's political platform. It's just bullshit. I'm sorry, but you can't convince me otherwise. Now, she did eventually have a change of heart. Good for her. Kudos. However, having had that experience; then, living her life down in Arkansas, being exposed to and understanding Southern Politics--wouldn't any reasonable person hold her accountable for her behavior in 2007-2008 during the primaries? I think so unless said person has no credibility, no moral standing, and/or cares more about their candidate winning an election than about racial progress.

[leftofcool]

127. Oh please!

[JustAnotherGen]

142. Oh please! We are a demographic that counts!

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/report/2014/10/30/99962/women-of-color/

For purposes of the data analyses in this issue brief, “women of color” includes the women-of-color Census categories: Black or African American; American Indian and Alaska Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander; and Hispanic or Latino—in other words, all groups of women except non-Hispanic white women. This brief also includes analyses of the three largest women-of-color groups—Latinas, black women, and Asian women—to provide additional context. A forthcoming report will delve more deeply into other constituencies within the women-of-color bloc. It is also important to note that the analyses presented here do not posit that women of color are a homogeneous group but rather that they represent an important demographic and dynamic in the nation that merit a closer look.

More from the link:

This brief presents initial research aimed at re-evaluating prevailing assumptions about women of color as participants in our democracy. While not a monolithic group, women of color comprise an important demographic that can, when acting in concert on issues of common concern, have a profound impact not just on elections but on public policy as well. This impact is particularly salient in the state-level data presented in this brief. The data are from select states where women of color are concentrated in the largest numbers.

Women are the country’s largest voting bloc, and women of color are the fastest-growing segment of that group. When coupled with the fact that women of color make up just more than half of the emerging majority—in other words, people of color, who by 2043 will represent a majority of the country’s population—it becomes clear that this new reality points to a vastly altered political landscape, one in which women of color may wield great influence.

But why focus on women of color specifically? As the research in this brief implies, causes and candidates that speak to the unique interests that women of color share would surely benefit politically. However, far more important are those benefits that will flow to women of color once the democratic process is more responsive to their needs and concerns.

Keep up - the Democratic Party needs to keep comin' and courtin'. . . because the Koch Brothers gave $25 Million dollars to the United Negro College Fund last year and one of them has come out strongly against our Criminal Justice System.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

149. Again, no credibility, no moral standing. And guess what? Because of that we will have a

Republican president in 2016.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

129. In the AA group, you're going to talk about AAs being racist?

That takes a lot of chutzpah.

[Thinkingabout]

130. Rant about whatever you want, be truthful, she was 17 about two weeks before the election.

[JustAnotherGen]

141. Erich is not 'rant' ing about anything

This is what you wrote to LiberalStalwart this morning.
Maybe you should read up on the history of the Civil Rights movement before you make yourself sound racists.



If you did not outright call her that - you at least wrote that she 'sounded' it.

Now in the AA Group I will 'go there' - a black woman in her early 40's (we are about the same age and were the blatant pointed targets of the Republicans in 1994 - sick vicious bastards) -

Are you really saying she sounds racist because she's warning you that a SOLID DEMOCRATIC VOTING BLOCK has issues with Clinton's behavior and past?

Truthfully - TBH - I have less issues with her than the other darling of DU- Warren.

I said down thread a few weeks ago - 2014 proved that when we can vote - we do. We believe in the process.

I'm a member of the HRC Group. There I'll play nice. Here - as a group host - I won't.

I'm not gonna gild the lily for ya' anymore than LS did . . . And it's better for HRC's staunch supporters to bring this up now and bring it to light - because I do not believe for one minute that white working class men are going to vote for her in droves in 2016 if she goes up against Paul, Cruz, Walker, etc. etc. They've refined playing to that segment of voters (I'm voting against my financial interests because I don't want the blacks and mexicans taking things from me) and she can never catch up with them.


Pretending it didn't happen is not wise.


And accusing people of racism for pointing out her words and actions and beliefs - isn't cool.

[Thinkingabout]

143. Think you have the wrong person to reply, I am not the one posting about AA.

[JustAnotherGen]

144. Post #105

Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #99)

Wed Mar 11, 2015, 09:16 AM

Thinkingabout (11,528 posts)

105. Your rant about Hillary being a Goldwater girl, she was 16 at the time of the election in which







Goldwater ran. Why would you say she was racists when she has advocated for Civil Rights in her college days? Maybe you should read up on the history of the Civil Rights movement before you make yourself sound racists.

I'm stepping in on this to make sure ErichBloodAxe (regular group member back here) doesn't get alerted on. He responded to you/questioned you - on your statement to LiberalStalwart.

[Thinkingabout]

145. I rather doubt Hillary is racists, she marched in favor of civil rights in her young days.

You may take exception to my post by it can be a two way street.

[JustAnotherGen]

146. I didn't say she was

But LiberalStalwart has never been a white woman, married to the President, then a Senator, then SOS.

She's never been in a position to implement racist policies.

Us speaking the truth seems to offend those who don't look like us - doesn't it?

It's automatically - you are a racist for pointing out seedy past behavior.

Funny.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

150. I'm saying, point blank, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a racist! There!

Now come back at me all you want.

If you call me a racist, I will see to it that you are flagged and alerted!

[Thinkingabout]

152. Are you threatening me or trying to scare me?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

153. You take it as a threat, but I promise you that if you dare call me a racist, I'm TELLING you

that I WILL alert you!!

[Thinkingabout]

154. I can have any opinion I want, I am free to do this, don't stalk me.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

156. You continue to respond to me and insinuate that I am a racist, not HRC!

You have your opinion. Fine. Congratulations. I have a right to disagree and voice mine. Slavery is over. This is a free country now.

[JustAnotherGen]

167. You called Liberal Stalwart a racist - at DU that is a hide able offense supported by admin

Reference post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11876548#post85

Response to bravenak (Original post)Sat Apr 26, 2014, 08:04 AM.  Skinner (60,165 posts) 

85. That would have been deleted on DU2 also.

You called someone a racist, and implied that another member is a racist.

Response to Skinner (Reply #85)Sat Apr 26, 2014, 08:22 AM
 bravenak (11,170 posts) 
86. No.

I called the op about the fish racist, not him. 
I implyed that the other person was judging 1sbm, calling him rude, arrogant, childish, while not noticing much worse things by others. He said in fact, that this was the first time he noticed anything like that. Which i questioned and did not believe. 

I do not mind that it was hidden. At all.

Response to bravenak (Reply #86)Sat Apr 26, 2014, 08:42 AM Skinner (60,165 posts) 
88. I don't know what the op about the fish is.

But your post clearly calls MannyGoldstein racist. And the implication of your post is that rrneck is also racist because he did not respond to MannyGoldstein. 

You could certainly try to argue that you only called Manny's OP racist, but did not call Manny racist. But that is kind of like arguing that Cliven Bundy isn't racist, he just said some racist stuff. You can't really separate the person from the comments. 

For the record, I am not going to argue whether or not I think your accusation was fair. My point is that the jurors had a reason to decide the way they did. Indeed, I can see the names of the jurors who voted to hide your post and I promise you that they are not all people who are sympathetic to MannyGoldstein's politics, nor are they clueless people.

[JustAnotherGen]

166. Group Host Hat On

You need to be aware that members have had alerts and hides for causing others at DU of being racist.

If you search user name bravenak - in this group - you will see where Skinner had to step into a thread where she did just that - and support the hide.

I'm asking you to step away, put the group on ignore, and let it go.

That's not a threat that's not accusing you of anything.

I've not seen you participate in the group outside of this thread - whereas this has for a long time been a safe haven for Liberal Stalwart.

[randys1]

7. They pulled the race baiting switch a couple times back then, and some did NOT

forget it.

At the end of the day she is going to be the best option America has if she is the choice opposed to the cons.

But some will never forget that.

[steve2470]

8. yes I'll gladly vote for her versus any Republican

I think it would be wise for her to have some meetings with the AA community. Just my layman's opinion.

[randys1]

9. Indeed, she needs to have meetings with lots of groups, liberals 2nd to the top of the list

[Scootaloo]

57. Well, when a bunch of Clinton supporters get so pissed the black guy won that they go republican...

I don't lay that turd at sec. Clinton's feet, I think she's a much better person than any of those cretins were... but I still wonder what they saw in her... and what their usernames are.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

151. What they saw in her is a non-black person. That's what they saw.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

137. I and many other persons of color will never forget

Last edited Wed Apr 8, 2015, 01:13 PM - Edit history (1)

...and neither should we!! I understand that white folk don't give a shit. They never do. Black voters have always been clear about how the Democratic Party really views black folk.

Just don't be surprised if many of us stay home and simply don't give a shit anymore.

And don't blame us, either!

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. I really do not have a problem with her statement ...

she was identifying a Demographic where candidate Obama was losing support ... (unsurprisingly, un/lesser educated white folks) ... the " working, hard-working Americans ..." part was just inartful speech.

[steve2470]

11. ok I'm glad you said that

Just struck me the wrong way.

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. Further, I think what happened was she was trying NOT to she what was in her head ...

the "working, hard working Americans" thing was to soften what everyone knew was occurring ... the un/under educated, working class whites was the only Democratic demographic that candidate Obama was losing. But she couldn't come out and say that ...for obvious reasons.

[steve2470]

14. yes

I'm glad, if she runs, the Republicans will have a very hard time making this one *stick* to her. Like I said elsewhere, I've never seen her as racist but I'm just not accustomed to hearing her speak so frankly about demographics.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. LOL. Mark my words ...

It's NOT going to be "republicans" that will be trying to hang that on her ... it'll be (racially concerned) "Democrats."

[JustAnotherGen]

52. I like that Jim Webb said it

He just out it out there.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

101. For the first time, you and I do not agree. She was playing that racist Southern Strategy.

Marched right over to Faux News to play it. Racist to the core. I don't support the racist Clintons. Never have and never will. I am in the minority. I accept that. They are Barry Goldwater Republicans. That's all I need to know.

[bravenak]

12. I also had issues with the things her surrogates were doing.

I'd like to hear more from her about it. I have never felt comfortable with either one of them since. Maybe I'm too young to have developed a bond with the Clintons. People tell me she donates to causes and fight for civil rights, and I think to myself, ok. The Koch's donate millions to the United Negro College fund and the NAACP. Should I trust them? They love talking about prison reform. They give scholarships to young black men for STEM education. ( that's the reason quoting philanthropic efforts makes me shrug)

I see some people who saw nothing wrong with it. I see others like myself that saw the entirety of the campaign and are not willing to say oh well, it's politics. The way her campaign talked about Obama maybe being a drug dealer, oh, no, we're just prepping him for the Republicans, wink wink. Saying his middle name over and emphasizing it started there with her campaign. I wan't to know we won't have another 'welfare reform' brought to us by the Clintons based on buases that they seem to have shown or to have her play triangulation games with blacks vs poor whites to get the 'moderate' vote. That shit is not cool. Be sad if she went up against Ben Carson and acted a fool and let them win. Oh, and , republicans don't seem to do that shit to their black candidates, just ours. I see hear laments about Herman Cain being set up. They loved him so.

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. You're right ...

I had far more problems with the "drug dealer" insinuations and the dog-whistle middle name usage of her surrogates. That was not cool; but, it was clear that many of her surrogates (and probably her campaign) thought more of the working class (presumably, racist) white vote then the Black vote.

[bravenak]

16. Glad I'm not the only one.

I just didn't want to do a big list in GD. There are enough Hillary is the worst threads. Never the worst. Joe Lieberman is one who really makes my upchuck factor raise.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Do I believe HRC is a racist? ...

Nope.

Do I think she gives much thought to Black people, and/or our issues (beyond the posing required to not offend the Black vote)?

Hell No! No more than any American politician.

Will that knowledge stop me from voting for her in the 2016 General Election, should she be the Democratic Nominee?

Absolutely not!

[bravenak]

19. I feel the same way.

As long as I don't have to pretend I like it. Can't vote for Cruz or fucking Carson or (lord help us) another Bush.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. I'm 50+ years old ...

registered to vote on my 18th birthday. Worked a campaign that summer and voted for the first time that November.

AND EVERY SINGLE VOTE I'VE CAST, THAT YEAR AND IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, HAS BEEN A LESSER OF THE TWO EVILS VOTE.

[bravenak]

21. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that.

About EVERYBODY. I just want to have an idea of what to expect from candidates. And not an on the issues list. I have time. I can wait.

[freshwest]

86. I paid her no attention in 2008 and didn't caucus for her.

But she gave Obama her full support when he won. I've posted videos of how she and Bill both gave Obama enthusiastic support at that time. It was her supporters that really ticked me off!

Some were racists and ended up voting for Palin because they wanted a woman, despite the fact that her positions were decidedly anti-woman when all was said and done. That a 'Democrat' could do that - really made me undisposed to her for 2016.

Obama though, has been doing what she would have done in office. I find the anti-HRC to match almost perfectly in most of their views, to be the same as anti-Obamas and they use the exact same smears on both. That's very telling to me.

[bravenak]

87. You're right.

It was less her, and more her surrogates and supporters. I hope she makes better decusions this time on who to hire. Some people just hate her. Nothing to o about it. They never will like her, just like the people in our party who refused to vote for Obama.

[freshwest]

88. I lost a lot of 'friends' over their not voting for Obama. Their reasons were nonsensical.

I don't know whatever happened to them and I really don't care, sorry.

They were never as deep into Equality as they made out to be. At least we see them in all their glory here at DU, and it's pretty obvious they don't care about it. They have more 'important issues' as privileged folks. They are sooo oppressed!

Full Equality is the core of the Democratic Party, and they couldn't live up to its principles. So good riddance!

I agree, some of Hillary's campaign team stank, as did some of Obama's.

My dream candidate is Van Jones. But he'd likely be shot, the hate on him is so powerful. They'd hate on him more than even Obama and they ran him out of office. He's their worst nightmare.

We were gifted with a once in a lifetime chance to elect the best president of my lifetime. I miss him already.

[bravenak]

89. I miss him too.

After this, I just won't ever be as excited.

[freshwest]

90. Am I wrong to say as I have, that it's all downhill from here?

[bravenak]

91. Nope. I see it too.

[Nay]

135. Yeah, I love Van Jones. Vocal, intelligent, take-no-shit kind of guy. No wonder they

got rid of him.

[freshwest]

136. RWNJ media made such a stink for a few weeks the Administration was fielding their nutty questions

everyday and nothing else was getting reported. Van Jones left with no hard feelings.

But now he's working with Democrats to write a liberal version of the contract with America. That is what those running in 2016 will be talking about and showing why it's the best way for us move forward.

Van Jones will steer them the best way and he's quite capable ofa lot of public speaking. I'm glad he had what time he had in the Administration.

He's continued to push for better policies since he left. Very busy, actually. And he's a genius, I might add.

[Nay]

140. I'm glad he still has his hand in. I really miss him. nt

[kwassa]

22. I have a photo of Hillary holding my daughter in 2008.

When my beautiful little girl was only 18 months old.

We were at a major Democratic fundraiser in DC.

[steve2470]

24. that's awesome :) nt

[JustAnotherGen]

23. It doesn't bother me

Jim Webb made a similar comment - and I don't think his was either. If you take his comment standing alone it sounds terrible. When you take a deep dive and read the entire statement - aha! He's been saying the same thing I have - I don't understand why poor and working poor white men vote Republican. Can he get that vote? I think that's for his exploratory committee to decide.

[steve2470]

25. ok I'm glad to hear this!

I'm so glad you all are so kind to me with my questions. I really appreciate it.

[politicman]

26. If HRC is candidate, I'm staying home for sure

The way I see it is if the Democratic Party ends up nominating HRC as our nominee, then I can definitively say that I will stay home and not vote at all.

And if we end up losing the general election then the blame will rest solely on the shoulders of all those so-called 'progressives' who would have nominated Clinton.

And I pray there are many more likes out there.

If the Democratic Party wants to keep Repubs out of office, then give people like me a left candidate that I can vote for, not a centrist corporate shill.

We have done things the centrist way too many times in the apart and each time we keep giving more and more power to the 1%ers.

This time, give us a candidate that will fight for progressive values, or don't expect me to vote for a corporatist that you put up.

[Thinkingabout]

34. Who do you think isn't a corporate shill?

[politicman]

35. isnt your question an indictment on us if some people believe we cant even find a candidate not..

beholden to the money from the 1%.

But to answer your question, The main 2 that are the closest to being clean on our side are Warren and Sanders.

Warren shows that she isn't a corporate shill with her actual actions, by standing in the way of the banks and co. while they try to regain their previous unlimited freedom to speculate with the economy and peoples lives.

Sanders, well he definitely is not a corporate shill, I think we can all agree on that.


Now many people will say that those 2 I mentioned could never win a general election because they can't raise as much money as the candidates like HRC who are corporate shills.
To that I say, so what !


The reason we are in this predicament at the moment is because the 1%ers have too much power, and if we just keep backing the shills that sell themselves to the corporates, we will never break free from the control the 1% has over the country.


We need to put up left candidates, ones that are not affected by the money from corporations, and if we lose a bunch of elections in that process, then so be it.

Eventually we will come out the other end clean from dirty money, and be all the better for it.


Again some might say that we can't afford to let the Repukes get control of the WH because of the disasters they could inflict on the country, but IMO that's the price we need to pay for allowing ourselves to be in this predicament in the first place by giving the corporations the reins of our party.

IMO we need a cold turkey approach where we just dump corporate candidates and go through the pain of losing elections to work on ourselves until we are strong enough to never need a penny from the corporate idiots that care only about their wallets.

[Thinkingabout]

36. Now to set the record straight. Warren has been very open about getting campaign contributions

From Wall Street, she is a smart lady and $42M was spent on her campaign for Senator. To finance elections candidates know they accept corporation money and it does not halt her from doing the job in the Senate she had planned to do do this story of politicians not being able to function in Congress if they take corporation contributions has been proven wrong.

Now on Bernie, he shows up at meetings put on by lobbyists from oil, tobacco, and energy. He doesn't run around saying these things but it is true. By definition from some people this makes him a corporate shill also. Now this can be quietly put to sleep and another rumor can either be debunked or proven true.

You don't have to like Hillary but the Bill O'Reilly spin does not make these stories true.

[politicman]

38. ...

Like I said, those 2 are the closest we have to not being corporate shills.

Again, it is an indictment on us that our very own party has no one that we can seriously argue is free from corporate money and influence, but at least Sanders and Warren are not selling themselves out to the 1% the way that Hillary has.

I firmly believe that if we put up a candidate that speaks and looks after the interests of us normal people, then that candidate can raise just as much money as a corporate shill.

Think about it, a candidate with the right message that is free of corporate influence can raise just as much money or more money that a candidate that sells himself/herself for corporate money.

A handful of big donations from the 1% can easily be countered by millions of small donations from the 99%.

We just need the right message to appeal to the 99%, and until we get a candidate like that, we will be forever stuck in the quagmire which is corporate shills coming from both parties.

[Thinkingabout]

39. The right message is important but separating Warren and Bernie from being a corporate shill is not

Possible because their actions. This name needs to be put to bed, candidates on the national level needs more money than is available from the 99%.

[politicman]

40. I disagree..

I'm sorry but I disagree completely.

Obama in 2008 showed just how much money can be raised through small contributions from millions of people.


Do the math, if a candidate needs a billion dollars to run a successful campaign then that equates to small donations from about 5 million of the 99%.

If we cant find a message that appeals enough to at least 5 million of 290 million people, so that they donate a small amount, then we certainly can never implement any meaningful changes that will help anyone other than the 1%.

[Thinkingabout]

41. When many in the 99% is making minimun wages there isnt any money left to donate.

It is a long way from 5 million to a billion, do the math again.

[politicman]

42. why do you think many are making minimum wage?

The reason many in the 99% are making minimum wage is precisely because we have let the corporations become the masters of our politicians.

You think by continuing to support and elect candidates that bow down to corporate money, that the situation will improve?
It was corporate money influencing our candidates that got us to this point, somehow I don't think that relying on more corporate money to win elections will fix the situation that came about because of corporate money originally influencing our candidates.


And my math isn't wrong, 5 million people donating $200 dollars each comes out to a billion dollars.

You might say that many cant afford 50 dollars let alone 200 dollars.

I say that with the right message that appeals to and looks after the interests of the 99%, 5 million might very well be prepared to sacrifice enough to donate $200 especially if they know that the $200 that they donate will reward them in future with policies that benefit them rather than destroy them

[Thinkingabout]

43. Peehaps because I am making minumun wage, have lots of people arond me making the same and

Those making more can't afford to donate $200, and BTW the donation would perhaps only cover one candidate and there will be congressional members and state elections. One billion isn't enough.

[politicman]

44. Without sacrifice to change, things will only get worse in future

Again why do you think you are making minimum wage that is barely enough for you to live on?

Do you think it could be because the 1% have control of the politicians, you know the very same 1% that influence policies that are making them all time profits whilst you try and get by on minimum wage?

And you want to continue the cycle of voting for more politicians that are beholden to the 1% for their campaign contributions?

Really, if you had a choice between accepting the status quo where things get more and more dire with each election cycle, or sacrificing important things in your life now to be able to donate 200 dollars to a candidate that vows to and then actually goes ahead and implements policies that will serve you and the other 99% in the future, which would you choose?


200 dollars is a lot of money for someone on minimum wage, but that 200 dollars with the right candidate can translate into a brighter and more fruitful future for you and everyone else instead of just for the 1% who are more than happy for the status quo to continue

[Thinkingabout]

45. You know, there needs to be a reality check here. Now if I donate $200 out of

$300 a week then it would not be asking too much to ask you to donate as much money as to have left over the amount of money you are asking others to do. This sounds like a RW refusing to tax the wealthier because the wealthy just can't afford to pay those taxes. You can set the example you are asking of others.

[politicman]

46. I agree....

I agree with you, I don't ask people to do anything that I would not be willing to do myself.

But my problem is not the donating the same percentage of my wage that I am asking lower wage earners to donate, my problem is having the right candidate with the right message to donate to, otherwise my donation and everyone else donation means nothing.


And that's why I am arguing that the right candidate with the right message that aims to help the 99% instead of the 1% is the way to go, because unless we get that candidate then we are left with the status quo of the rich making all time profits while the 99% lose more and more wages.


It all boils down to the following:

Income inequality has grown and keeps growing because the 1% have too much influence over our candidates and politicians with their money.
Somehow I don't think that continuing to support and vote for politicians and candidates that are beholden to corporations will improve this situation, especially because this situation came about precisely because politicians and candidates started being influenced by corporate money.

The only way out of this mess is to end the status quo, and get to a point where the candidate for at least the highest seat in the land works on behalf of the 99% instead of helping the rich to get even richer at the expense of the working class.

[Thinkingabout]

47. Don't believe the RW crap, even the RW crap posted here on DU.

There are some who do not know Hillary's history and wants to judge her by the wealth acquired by Bill since he left office. Yes, both Clintons have written books and made big bucks but they also started out working and did not get the money until years later. They have a success story but I don't see them out shoving it in our faces. Warren started out on low income and perhaps through the efforts of her husband has also risen in the income level. Why judge Warren and Hillary differently? Hillary is speaking out about in on disparity, sponsored a bill which got the last increase in minimum wages.

[Thinkingabout]

48. BTW, I am not referring to percentages on donations, I am saying

To donate to where you only have $296 a week left before paying taxes, this would be what you are asking those on minimum wages to do.

[politicman]

49. so are you happy with continuing the dynamic we have at the moment then?

And please tell me what the alternative is then, to let the 1% continue to heavily influence politicians and their policies until we get to the point where you cannot afford to live period?

Because unless we change the status quo of supporting and voting for politicians that are beholden to the 1%, then we will continue to see the income inequality gap widening and the rich having even more power over politicians to get make it that gap even wider in the future.


The only way to change this dynamic is to support and vote for a candidate that vows to then actually implements policies which start to serve the interests of the 99% rather than the 1% whose money the politicians currently rely on.

[Thinkingabout]

50. This is why I am backing Hillary, she has been in the 99% much of her life.

You may not remember struggling to rise up the economic level but many of do remember, I don't forget there are many more struggling than has been in the 1% though I was surely never in the 10%. I am happy for those who have made it up, I don't try to tear them down. The CGI helps lots of the lower income, they don't help the 1%. Hillary has already been talking about the disparity in wages. Perhaps in the last week or so with Walmart and some other companies giving raises the trend just may be changing. Maybe they are beginning to listen.

[politicman]

54. I believe different.

And I can't for one second believe that Clinton who is relying on corporate money to fund her campaign will be anything but beholden to the 1% as well as the MIC.

I definitively plan to sit out this election cycle if Hillary is our nominee, and if we lose because I and others like me don't vote, then I will place the blame squarely on the shoulders of people like you who would have made Clinton our nominee.

If you want us all to vote, give us something to vote for and not someone that we believe is another in a long line of politicians beholden to the 1%.

[Thinkingabout]

59. Yes, tell me again how this is going to happen, if you dont believe Warren and

Bernie are just as beholden to the 1% you are wrong. Hillary is hard core liberal, the same as Warren. Hillary has the foreign experience over these two and we are going to need a strong foreign experience. Hillary is on record with her votes for minimum wage increase.

[politicman]

61. Warren and Bernie at least have stood against the 1% with legislation

First I can never and will never forgive Hillary for her vote for the Iraq war.
Either she is a warmonger who was only too happy to believe the obvious lies that Bush was peddling, or she voted yes for political expediency.
The second is just as bad as the first, because if she can easily vote yes to an invasion that would kills thousands and thousands of people just for political expediency, then she certainly cannot be trusted to abandon the 99% if political expediency calls for it in the future.


Not for one second do I believe that Hillary is hard core liberal, her money ties to corporate America and her willingness to accommodate the warmongers in our country are the 2 biggest examples of just how far from the left she is.

IMO she is at best centre, at worst centre-right.

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. What, exactly, is the "legislation" you keep talking about & did it pass? Is it law?

[Thinkingabout]

71. ISIS Resolution

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

132. Yeah, but...

We were told to 'leave it all on the road' for Obama in 2008. To donate everything we could afford to. And a lot of people did, under the hope that he would actually do something to pull us back out of poverty. Instead, even more of us are in poverty than before he took office, with less money available to donate to anyone else. If you want the 99% to be donating, that money needs to come from the top 5% of the 99%.

[JustAnotherGen]

51. If any asshole Republican gets near the White House

You can't count on this group to help you at all in the future.

They will do anything in their power to put our toes on the line of the cotton field - and that includes completely dismantling our right to vote.

So go on ahead and give it to them. Give them that SCOTUS appointment(s). Have a day.

I just gave a chunk to Webbs exploratory committee and I hope he runs as someone who can say in a primary debate - I'm the real contrast to Clinton because we were both Democrats in 1994 when the Republicans and the people who voted for them decided to inflict their contract on America (non white, not straight, not WASP, non upper middle class).

[politicman]

56. it will be the fault of those that nominate a centrist if we lose

If any asshole Republican gets near the White House, then IMO the blame will rest squarely on people in the democratic party that give us someone like Hillary as our nominee instead of someone people like me can vote for.


We have done things the DLC and third-way way many times in the past and now we are demanding that we get a candidate that fights for the left before we are prepared to give our vote again.

So if I don't get someone as our nominee that I can get behind, I definitely will not be voting at all.

[JustAnotherGen]

66. I disagree - you do realize there have been

Succesful attacks to disenfranchise the black vote - don't you?

This is why legalization of weed as a "black civil rights issue" pales in comparison to so many other issues. It makes me wonder -

Does the far left want us docile and stupid?

I can't get behind Warren until she admits what she was in 1994 and gets out to black organizations and explains her transformation.

She's going to have to appeal to us and explain why she was against us - before she was for us.


So you better get all over her - because black women vote. Proven in 2014.

If I were to guess - I would say 2016 will be determined by older white men and black women of all ages. We believe in the process . . . When we are allowed to vote.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

131. Never stay home.

There are always more candidates than just two, and plenty of downballot races you might want to vote in. If you can't vote for a given Dem, you could still end up voting for a lot of others in other races.

[mwrguy]

30. Hillary's campaign also started the whole birther thing

Before the rethugs took up the mantle.

[Thinkingabout]

37. I need to see some proof of this one, this is the first time I have ever heard this one.

[JustAnotherGen]

53. There's truth in this

The Clinton's are very good at the game - think Jeremiah Wright and the "god damn America" statement. That occurred during the primary.

[freshwest]

124. What ticked me off about her personally were two things:

The 'Obama needs to pick a VP now - hint, hint - because RFK was killed during the primary.'

Ms. Clinton and I are of the same age and knew how traumatic that memory was, and I think she put her foot in her mouth (up to her knee) with that.

She may have been looking at the past, but also the time of the primary, as there were not only death threats against Obama, but actual shootings from the white supremacists who shot up a black neighborhood and planned to kill a lot of black people, too.

There was the Waffle House Putsch gang as well, but that may have been later, I confess I'm not sure of the time line. It was history repeating itself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beer_Hall_Putsch&printable=yes

It was a serious time in 2008, and it absolutely rubbed me raw for her to say that about picking a VP before the nomination was done. To me, it was like wishing him dead on a spiritual plane. I know that sounds nuts, still...

Ms. Clinton and I both lived in the South... there was no way that the atmosphere on the GOP side was anything but racist. I literally cut off cable when I saw Palin in some of her southern rallies and it was exactly like a KKK rally. I thought I was going to have a heart attack watching what to me was a nightmare.

Ever seen one, from back in the day, I mean. We knew what they were capable of and still want to do. You never forget it if you see those knuckledraggers. They slaughtered black people and their white supporters for over a century. It's only been since the relief of Obama's survival tI don't fear them as much as I did, and I'm white.

The other thing she did that got under my skin was what she did in the debates. I was so grieved about the war in Iraq. And nothing seemed to be able to stop it under BushCo. When the guy I caucused for tried to steer to the conversation on the war to a more human level, she threw back her head and laughed. I was so ticked off.

At the same debate, Obama took a different approach to the anti-war candidates than the 'self-named serious contenders.' He was respectful and listened to them. That struck a chord with me. I knew then I was seeing genius at work and a man with a belief in the process of democracy and equality. He has far exceeded all that I hoped for as POTUS.

I saw an interview this past week that I'd missed, before Obama became president. It as a long interveiw, the kind I wish that everyone had had a chance to see. He said that Democrats had bought into the war for several reasons, and HRC had too, but he didn't fault them. He said though, that he didn't agree.

But Obama forgave Clinton all that happened in her run for the nomination, calling it a tough campaign with no slaps at her. That is the kind of man he is.

I still don't know what the appeal of Jim Webb was, but believe he has no chance of winning the nomination, much less the presidency. I'm sure he has some great ideas such as Sanders and Warren have. But so much of what we think of a candidate comes from their supporters. Obama ran a tight campaign with great people and great plan.

Saying 'community organizers' as a perjorative is ridiculous. Those skills came into play and Obama won. But not just that, but because of what kind of man Obama is. Those without blinders could see it. i'm just not hearing much from HRC or Webb or O'Malley to judge them by in the present time.

[mwrguy]

62. Here you go:

During the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primaries, anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced that questioned Obama's citizenship in an attempt to revive Clinton's faltering primary election campaign. These and numerous other chain e-mails during the subsequent presidential election circulated false rumors about Obama's origin, religion and birth certificate.[25][26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Origins_of_the_claims



[25] Hollyfield, Amy (June 29, 2008). "For True Disbelievers, The Facts Are Just Not Enough". St. Petersburg Times (Pulitzer Prize website). Retrieved March 24, 2011.

[26] Smith, Ben (April 22, 2011). "Birtherism: Where it all began". Politico. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2011.

[Tarheel_Dem]

65. Well, let's hope those people won't be associated with her new campaign. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

70. Or trolls trying to get rumors as this one going. There seems to be some

RW posters here on DU and lots of RW talking points gets repeated here on DU. I listened to Bill Kristol the other day and he could have been reading post on DU.

[Tarheel_Dem]

73. Bill Kristol and his allies are here, and they've been here all along. Ya Better Believe It!

[freshwest]

83. Oh, yeah!

[freshwest]

82. I hope you will find the candidate you can support next year. n/t

Last edited Tue Apr 7, 2015, 04:45 AM - Edit history (1)

[Thinkingabout]

69. Read it again

anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced that questioned Obama's citizenship in an attempt revive Clinton's faltering primary election campaign.

This was not from the Clintons, no different from post and emails which claim the Clinton's started this. It could have been emails from trolls.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

102. That's right. She is a racist. Her, Bill, their surrogates. I don't understand why people

don't get this.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

116. mwrguy is right: HRC *did* start that secret campaign, plus her dog whistle

comment about him being a "Christian...as far as she knows..." as if she didn't. Of course she knows that he is a Christian! That started the Muslim rumors.

When she said things, they were subtle dog whistles, but many blacks saw what she was doing--that was the beauty of the Southern Strategy: you may subtle suggestions, not explicit ones. She would allow her husband and her surrogates to be more explicit in their attacks. It's the classic "good cop, bad cop" strategy. And it worked to divide the Democratic Party.

[Thinkingabout]

117. I need to see the link, the infirmation I have seen proves she did not start this

Another falsehood and it continues to be told. If she was guilty it is one thing. Just as the RW went on and about the birther issue and Obama was a Muslim and continues, it is not true. It is wrong for the RW to continue the lies about and it is wrong to continue these lies about Hillary.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

120. It is absolutely true that she went on Bill O'Reilly show and never batted

any of these "rumors" down. Never once did she stand against the birther accusations. Even John McCain spoke out and defended Obama--he did so half-heartedly, but he did it.

The Clintons are self-serving pieces of shit. That's just it.

[Thinkingabout]

123. It doesn't make it true because she did not but it down any more than

Obama birther crap or the racists title because he attended Wright's church. Lies does not equal truth.

[Thinkingabout]

119. Read mwrguy post #62 again, if mwrguy is correct Hillary is not the source.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

121. But her surrogates are, and she STILL never issued any statement, never batted

down any rumor, never made any effort to correct the record.

Piece of shit.

[Thinkingabout]

122. then the people who continue to repeat the story needs to correct the record.

Just like the die hard liars about the birther issue, it will never be correct.

[Sarcastica]

55. First, her name is Secretary Clinton.

Second, she is quoting an Associated Press Article. Are you bothered by the text of an article (that she didn't write), or that she quoted the article, or are you challenging the veracity of the article....what?

Third, how do you have "additional information" about a story that appeared 6 or 7 years ago?

[steve2470]

58. I never knew her first name was Secretary

/sarcasm off. Her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton. I also titled my thread "Ms. Clinton", which is about as respectful as you can get.

She made a statement in 2008. It struck me the wrong way. I obtained feedback on it. I'm fine with it now.

It's obvious you're in attack mode here. I was asking for feedback, forgive me for not stating that with the precision of a Ph.D. in English.

Good day to you, and please go relax.

[Sarcastica]

68. Again, "Ms." is a title that you have assigned to her,

Secretary or Senator are titles that she has earned. Titles that until not too long ago were not available to a woman. Sec. Clinton can be proud of the role that she has played in opening opportunities to women. To strip her of these titles is wrong.

Disagree with Sec Clinton on issues, etc. is one thing. But to demean her personally is poor form.

[Maedhros]

78. That is ridiculous hair-splitting. [n/t]

[freshwest]

84. He's a supporter, he's not demeaning her. You're looking for another candidate, no?

Last edited Sun Mar 8, 2015, 03:54 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6322086

As a woman of a certain generation, being called Ms. is not demeaning to me or those of my time. In fact, we demanded it as not being categorized according to our marital status or lack of one, as men are not labeled by their marital status by calling them Mister.

Yes, she has earned the titles of Senator and Secretary of State. There have been some on DU who have dissed her, with one saying she was nothing more than a woman who was married to a President who had a BJ in office and not qualified.

That is not the opinion of Steve or most people who have paid attention to her advocacy. And I'm not saying that is you, either. You may be reacting to that and not to Steve's posts. JMHO.

I still want a good primary to learn more about all of the candidates' positions on things that are essential in my world. One of the major factors will be funding to fight off the Koch dollars. Scott Walker, has nothing to recommend in terms of any meaningful accomplishments for the people of his state, but he is golden to them as he is working their platform perfectly. He is likely to be the most advertised and talked about person the GOP will put forward in 2016. The media will crown him because they are bought and paid for billionaire owned organizations and will follow their owner's wishes. 2016 is going to be an inconcievably ugly year.

[JustAnotherGen]

93. I want a good primary too!

Where I'm going for Clinton info right now is that group at DU. They focus on her skill set and how that can translate to the Executive office. And - they don't seem to be focused on the little things. Like - semantics. She's in my mom's age group - Ms. is deferential and respectful in a work environment to that demo.

[freshwest]

94. Thanks. You posted about a thread on Webb and Malloy, said it was good discussion, about issues.

Could you please post a link to that thread so I can read it?

The negativity here is out of control, along with disinfo and misinformation. Add to that vitriol and violating safe haven group rules.

I couldn't believe the hatred posted in the HRC group last night, and attempting to police the group. And even threads about other things...

Some are going out of their way to cherry pick things to smear her. I wasn't at DU in 2008, I was at board that was all Democrats, but the HRC vs. BHO divide tore the group apart.

So I want all of this hashed out, but an undeclared candidate who the GOP Is scared into wetting their pants over and already calling just like Obama is interesting. And the anti's instead of pro's remind me of ODS.

I keep a running perception of groups, not deliberately, just that my mind works that way, to synthesize order from events and positions, unconciously and I find a lot of consistency in the negative people. They are for nothing I am for, have no passion other than Libertarian ones, but they dress it up with traditional rhetoric to lure Dems in.

So I'd really like to see that thread, where a group of DUers who were really talking about ISSUES and not having an elementary schoolyard fight, is taking place so I can get to know those posters as worthy of attention to learn their ideas.

TIA.

[DonCoquixote]

60. Do I think the Clintons are racist, no

I think they have a problem where Bill has done so much buying and selling of his own soul that they think they can do anything, problem is, in an age where the Billionaires are beginning to shuck off the idea of government like an old shell, sooner or later, the bills will come due, and the clever trickster becomes a Faust that gets dragged off to hell, us with him.

[Tarheel_Dem]

63. Inartful perhaps. Racist? No. No more than Joe Biden who's as inartful as they come.

"Ye shall know them by their works." I'm over it, and Ready For Hillary.

[JustAnotherGen]

67. This is good to read

I may be hostile to Warren and looking sideways at Sanders but in the one in a million chance either one got the nomination I would vote for them.

[Tarheel_Dem]

74. "either one got the nomination I would vote for them." As would I! I'm not dumb enuf to sit out an

election when there's so much at stake.

[freshwest]

85. Why not favor Warren or Sanders? I have not problem with them, but I do with those who claim...

they support them, but don't post as much 'pro' for them as 'anti' Clinton.

That doesn't pass the smell test for me. They need to define their candidate in positive terms instead of berating HRC. A lot of what is flung daily at Obama and HRC are identical slurs coming from rightwing misinformation sources.

They are tailored to bring in the 'left' and people who don't research more than slogans, don't get the end result of supporting their sources' intentions.

Such as Infowars, which is Libertarian, and others that are clearly against democratic government, favoring instead tribalism or theocracy, but since it's 'alternative' thus 'new' they swallow the entire line, hook and sinker and never think about how they are not Democrats.

They can 'pull my other finger.' Gratuitous pic. Yes, it's Darth Cheney:

[JustAnotherGen]

92. Something here which is a good point

This past week I got involved in a Malloy discussion at DU and brought up Webb. I found someone (the OP) that was similar to me . . . Someone else who wants a primary.

And the folks on that thread? We had a positive discussion.

Not one where we knocked people down.

If someone has something positive to say about Warren or Sanders - just say it. Don't bring up Clinton to me. Unless you bring up the entire field. Just anti Clinton? It's not sitting well with me.

The end result of that DU discussion? I gave money to Malloy's PAC. When someone brings "this is what so and so has accomplished and here's how that can translate to helping the rest of the country" to the table - they can have that impact.

So here's where I sit -
Webb first.
Malloy second.

In 2004 those spots were held by Clark and Edwards.
In 2008 Edwards and Biden.

If history repeats itself - Webb or Malloy might be the VP pick.

[Number23]

95. Great post, JAG. I was curious why you were saying you were hostile to Warren

but I think you've explained that perfectly.

If someone has something positive to say about Warren or Sanders - just say it. Don't bring up Clinton to me. Unless you bring up the entire field. Just anti Clinton? It's not sitting well with me.

I feel exactly the same way. Bravenak was telling me in another thread that at this point, she's not feeling ANYBODY and I'm kind of feeling the same way. To me, Warren's worst traits are her Republicanism well into middle age and her revolting supporters here on DU who first her used as a cudgel to slam Obama and have already pivoted to do the same with Clinton.

[steve2470]

72. Thanks for your input!

I will gladly vote for her for President!

[JI7]

75. elections can get ugly

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

103. Yes, they can. But the "Southern Strategy"? We expect ReThugs to do that to John McCain

in South Carolina. We expect KKKarl Rove to do that shit in Tennessee against Harold Ford, Jr. We expect Lee Atwater.

We should NOT expect that shit from Hillary and Bill Clinton against the potential first black American president!

Why are we making excuses for the fucking Clintons? That is unacceptable!!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

76. During the 2008 primary run

there were many such 'troubling' racially-tinged comments put forth by her campaign, some pretty much dog-whistles, and Ms Clinton made no effort to distance herself from the surrogates making them. No doubt they simply thought of it as ... 'politics'.

[Maedhros]

79. To me, this sounds like Hillary was just reciting poll results.

"White Americans" would certainly be a category in the analysis. I chalk it up to unintended gaffe.

[merrily]

126. How does she know how hard white people work?

And how does that distinguish them from minorities with jobs? Are they slackers at work?

As if the divisions between race and gender in the Democratic Party hadn’t been further exposed through Tuesday night’s exit polls — and by a very heated exchange on CNN between Donna Brazile and Paul Begala — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s interview with USA Today on Wednesday is further mining those tense depths.

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in the interview, citing an article by The Associated Press.

It “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/clinton-touts-white-support/

Sorry, but I thought this close to "welfare queens" and other Atwater-ish dog whistles.

And please recall, this comment came after quite a few "racially tinged" comments and tactics from her campaign and her surrogates, including her husband. They were all criticized and publicized, but they never stopped. It started with things like the photo of a young Obama in African garb, the suggestions that he dealt drugs, made in Hillary's presence, the attack on Wright's black liberation theology, and went on and on, until they culminated with the above statement from Hillary's own mouth. (By then, she was getting desperate, IMO.)

Until her campaign, I'd never heard the term "racially-tinged." Until then, something was either racist or not.

[Maedhros]

147. So you're thinking this was a calculated play for white votes?

I would be surprised if that were so, because Hillary and Bill are so good at political calculating and it seems like she would realize the risks outweigh the rewards with such a play.

But I suppose it's possible.

[merrily]

148. There was one "racially tinged" move after another from her campaign

and her surrogates.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Hillary%27s+racially+tinged+primary+campaign+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 (page 2 of the hits is better than page 1)

One day, I might put all the racially tinged comments and moves in one place. So far, I have been operating from memory alone. There were too many not to have been part of her primary campaign strategy.

And, we learned from the book Game Change, Bubba told Ted Kennedy that the only reason Ted was backing Obama and not Hillary was that Obama was "black." As far as I know, Bubba never denied this. (When politico contacted his camp, they got no comment.)

As far as I know, Bubba never denied this.

That echoes what Geraldine Ferrara said in 2008 about the only reason Obama had gotten as far as he had in the primary was that he was black. And Cuomo's comment about Obama's alleged "shuckin' and jivin' was not exactly New York vernacular.

It boggled the mind because no one had to remind voters that Obama was not white. If seeing him was not enough, all the news stories about his being the first African American to get so close to the Presidency would have done the trick.

[lovemydog]

81. At that time she was running a very tough campaign.

Now I'm most interested in the policy proposals put forth by her and others.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

96. Fuck her. I hate her. I hate the racism that she, her husband, and her surrogates ran on in 2007.

I won't be voting for her. I know that I'm in the minority, but I cannot forgive her. I cannot forgive Carville. Begala. Ferarro. Her husband running to Rush Limbaugh, to Bill O'Reilly to play the race card. His comments regarding Jesse Jackson.

This after black people have voted for white Democratic politicians, even over black Democratic politicians running for office. The examples are endless. Had we voted for Jesse or Al, they would have been the Democratic Party nominee, not Bill or Al Gore or any other white Democrat, including my current U.S. Senator Ben Cardin.

I've never really liked the Clintons, but they played the Southern Strategy in 2007 and 2008 and I hated them for it. Never forgave them for it.

I believe that Jeb Bush will be the president in 2016. I might be wrong about this, but if I'm not, I totally blame the Democratic Party and the racism that I believe is within its ranks for the result.

My opinion.

I can't stand Hillary Clinton. Fuck her. (And her philandering husband.)

...and fuck their racist-ass friends and supporters!

[JustAnotherGen]

113. And this is why I love you!

You just lay it out and let it go! DU needs a lot more of this! And glad to see you!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

114. I'll probably be banned again. :(

Thank you for not telling me to shut up, though.

[freshwest]

125. Don't hold it in. I don't think you'll get banned. Look at all the HRC haters. At least, you are

giving some good reasons from your personal perspective instead of hiding behind lies about her like some do. Fine by me... and I'm not Bill Clinton, I ain't gonna try that 'I feel your pain' schtick. The perception of POC in this election, IMO, will determine the outcome.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

138. I will continue to speak truth to power

...to the best of my ability.

I guess I should be surprised by the views from some white Democrats but I'm not. Ever since Obama was elected many true feelings came to the surface.

[freshwest]

139. AFAIK, these here at not Democrats IRL. Nobody acts as obnoxious, 'TBH.' n/t

[misterhighwasted]

155. And just this morning the Anti-Hillary group was on DU whining about being called Hillary Haters..

I'll bookmark this thread for the next time the whiners cry foul over a name their group has well earned.
Thanks for you Post.
Have a very nice day.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

157. I am a very proud Hillary Hater with a very good reason for it. It is the Hillary lovers

Who continue to excuse her racism who will lead this country towards destruction.

It was Hillary's stubbornness and unwillingness to listen to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan that gave us a botched health care program and led to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1995.

(Her husband's lying, philandering ways cost us the White House in 2000!)

It was her same stubbornness and arrogance, and mismanagement that caused her to lose in 2007-2008.

It will be that same arrogance and the mean-spiritedness, self-entitlement from her AND her supporters that will give us a Republican president in 2016!

So, yes! I wear that Hillary Hater badge proudly with honor and distinction!

[misterhighwasted]

159. ok. BYE

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

160. Bye

[steve2470]

111. I officially regret making this OP now

I apologize to the group and to HRC supporters. I should have IM'ed a group member for more feedback.

[JustAnotherGen]

112. I don't regret you making this thread

I think it's been interesting. . .


The AA Group tends to have pretty consistent opinions on issues - but I find who we are all open to as candidates is quite varied. :goruphug:

I'm loving Liberal Stalwart's candor too! She's awesome!

I'm gonna go tell her that!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

118. Why? You shouldn't. There are a lot of things that should be said about HRC

and her supporters who make excuses for her but are quick to condemn others for much less.

I'm glad you did because you know I have a lot to say.

I lurked for better part of the Democratic Party primaries. I didn't support Obama or Clinton in the beginning.

Clinton has a lot to do to heal the rift between herself and members of the black community. Yes, unfortunately there are some of us who have forgotten her behavior in 2007-8 but many of us have not. While we appreciate how the Clintons backed Obama--we do notice that every now and again, they make snide remarks against this administration; they criticize and issue "inartful statements" regarding the SITTING PRESIDENT. Even after Bill Clinton admitted that he had lied under oath, the overwhelming majority of the black community stood by him and his wife. Even after the humiliation of that entire episode, Whitewater, and the other embarrassments, blacks and most Democrats stood behind the Clintons. But get the Negro in the White House and people can't stand it; they absolutely hate this black man, and I see it coming from so-called white liberals and many blacks, too! That we are forced to have a separate forum dedicated solely to President Obama, that celebrates his accomplishments, is a testament to that. The double standard is not lost on me.

So yes, since the Democratic Party insists on throwing Hillary Clinton down our collective throats, there needs to be a fuller discussion on what needs to be done to heal lingering wounds that she and her supporters inflicted.

[DonCoquixote]

133. to those that argue whether

she is merely "inarticulate" which is a nice way of saying clueless, or had malice, I offer this.

Suppose that she is genuinely sincere and "inarticulate." Well, for a woman whose main selling point is that she has YEARS of experience, is that really accpetable? Forget the days of Bill, forget her days in the Senate, but a remark like this shows that she did not learn from the 2008 campaign, one where, at the very least, she allowed the men in her campaign (Bill and Mark Penn) to say things that, at the most charitable, were STUPID. Four years and a few hundred million dollars later, and you STILL cannot think of a way to avoid big pitfalls? I can get that she is not the of the cuff orator Bill is, who is?, but someone with thius much experience should know that when you try to pander to those "hard-working americans, white americans" you lose, because they will want a real conservative, or as Truman put it "they will vote for a a Real Republican every time." What is even worse is that, after Alison "I won't even admit I voted for Obama" Grimes got her ass kicked, after Bill put pressure not to allow Ashley Judd to run, Hillary still has not learned. At the very least, she genuinely needs to do a Stalin level purge of all the incompetent fools that have given her terrible advice for years, and yes, that may very well include slapping her husband and telling him to stop acting like he is going to be the Mayor of the palace while she sits on the Throne.

Now, if she is genuinely color blind, as in blind to suffering of those with color, then we have swum into the really dangerous waters. If Black people realize that the democrats are no longer even willing to slice them the sliver that was barely an alternative to outright starvation, then we might be in real trouble. Fortunately, the Libertarians/aka Tea party/aka Wolves in sheep's clothing are gettign behind Rand Paul. Sadly, some white liberals like Ralph Nader are getting behind him, because they think they can sick Paul on the war machine and the anti dugs machine, but keep him tame enough not to destory social security. The Minorities are looking at this and going "yeah right, like Rand Paul is NOT a racist." But, fast forward, to where the GOP polishes up a Nikki Haley or Susannah Martinez, and the black and brown people might look at the Democrats and go "Gee, if we have to choose between you stabbing us in the back and the GOP punching us in the face, we might take our chances, because you all made it clear that you are willing to sell us down the river."

To quote an old 60's rock song I am sure Hillary is familiar with "who cares what games we choose, there's little to win, but nothing to lose." If you want to keep the Black and Brown people on your side Democrats, you need to make sure we never reach the point where we have nothign to lose, and we are closer to that than we should be.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

158. Thank you so much. I appreciate this.

[kwassa]

161. Just to present a different point of view ... my wife likes HRC a lot.

the black woman I am married to has always been a strong supporter of Hillary.

My wife has worked at fairly high levels in the federal government. She says that she always related more, as a professional woman, to Hillary, than she has ever related to Obama. The reason is that she has felt much more discrimination against herself at various job stages because she was a woman, rather than because she was black.

In 2008, we maxed out our personal contributions to Hillary's primary campaign. We also have a picture at a fundraiser of Hillary holding our infant daughter.

I have never felt for one second that Hillary or Bill were remotely racist; I think the opposite is true.

That said, I am not excited by the idea of Hillary as President, though I think we could do a lot worse. I would love to see an entirely new and exciting Democratic political leader.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

162. It has been my experience that some black people who intermarry tend to believe that racism is

no longer a big issue.

[kwassa]

163. This would not be true of my wife.

Neither she, nor I, believe that racism is no longer a big issue.

Speaking for myself, I probably write more on the issue of racism than anything else on DU. And I'm white.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

165. That's great. If she's a black woman like me, she knows all too well how much the intersection race

and gender matters. It's not just about gender for us. I wish it were that simple. It's just not. And non-black women simply don't share the same experiences as we do.

[kwassa]

168. I totally agree with you.

and forgot to mention in my last post that both JustAnotherGen and Number 23 are black women who are married to white men, and the depth of their concern is all around in this forum.

[JustAnotherGen]

164. Not for me!

Not around our house.