2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMy Endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton for President
From my blog at: http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2015/10/my-endorsement-of-hillary-rodham.html
With the first Democratic Presidential Debates a few days away, I realized I had yet to make a formal endorsement for President even though for those who know me my preference has been clear for some time now.
I endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton for President not just in the Democratic Primary, but in the General election once she gets that far as I am confident she will.
Compared with the various other candidates running for President on both sides of the aisle, there is no one who can match Secretary Clintons knowledge, experience and character.
Speaking of her knowledge and experience, even Republican Senator Marco Rubio said:
"If this election is a resume competition then Hillary Clinton is going to be the next President."
- From the first GOP Presidential debate August 6, 2015
While I rarely agree with Senator Rubio, other than his attempt at immigration reform which he subsequently repudiated, he was right in this one instance about Secretary Clinton. Having been a Senator and four years as Secretary of State, historically the second most important position in the US Government, there is no one currently running for President who can compare with her experience.
The other point I would make about that is that her experience as Secretary of State was a successful one. If we were going to make a job description about the position of Secretary of State, leading the diplomatic and foreign policy of the US, it would include something about cultivating a positive image of the US overseas, particularly among our western European allies. To be sure, Hillary had a challenge here. The administration of George W. Bush had decimated our relationship with our European allies and wrecked the opinion of the US with the populations of those countries. Ive had numerous on screen and private discussions with Republican pundits and politicians who try to pooh-pooh this point but the data is clear. The administration of President Bill Clinton left the US with an excellent reputation overseas and that of George W. Bush threw that all away with the invasion of Iraq that most of the world viewed as unjustified.
That negative opinion was reversed under Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Barack Obama as President. While both deserve credit, the Secretary of State under such a performance deserves a lot of credit since, as I noted earlier it is part of what we all would agree to be her job description to lead the US diplomatic and foreign policy to cultivate a positive image of the US overseas and the numbers are dramatic. As we can see from the Pew Institutes report on the subject at http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2014/07/2014-07-14-Balance-of-Power.pdf,
opinions of the populaces of some of our most important allies in Western Europe, including the UK, France, Germany, Italy and many other countries like Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Mexico, Argentina, cratered during the Bush administration and rebounded during Hillarys tenure as Secretary of State.
Republican politicians and pundits who try to claim there are no major accomplishments during Clintons tenure at State willfully attempt to ignore this (as it is a triple headed problem for them, pointing out how awful the foreign policy of last Republican administration was and how successful not only the current Democratic administration is, but the leading Democratic candidate in 2016), but this is a better measurement of the success of US foreign policy and those who lead it than a treaty or other singular event.
This is all a long winded way of saying that Hillary Clinton not only has a great resume, but in the most important position she has had, one much closer to the duties and responsibilities of President than any other job held by any other current Presidential candidate, she excelled.
Its almost laughable to compare her experience to that of anyone running against her.
The other interesting thing that her successful tenure as Secretary of State points to is Presidential demeanor. Its impossible for a diplomat or foreign policy leader to be successful without having a level-headed personality and presence in your public persona and during important private negotiations. A President needs to be patient, strong but humble, positive and steadfast.
This is a clear advantage that Hillary has over rivals like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, neither of whom have demonstrated anything approaching Presidential demeanor and in fact seem to have the opposite qualities in several cases (arrogance, irritability and impatience, just to name a few).
In analyzing this endorsement, some will no doubt point to eight year old articles of mine during the 2008 Presidential campaign where I endorsed Barack Obama. My criticisms of Hillary Clinton at the time were many and pointed.
The fact is, from the moment of Hillarys concession to President Obama in 2008 at the end of their contest; I began to suspect my evaluation of her was incorrect. This is not a new revelation, I have said so many times to friends and in public appearances beginning in 2008, i.e. long before I thought of her as a Presidential contender in 2016. The grace with which she conceded the race to Barack Obama and endorsed him to include announcing the delegate votes from New York to be his at the Democratic convention made me realize my prior opinions of her, which had included attacks on her character, needed to be re-evaluated.
Im sure critics of mine and of Secretary Clinton will minimize this, but I dont think that I or many people would find it so easy to behave gracefully in a similar situation. Having poured your heart and soul in an effort for the better part of two years, working 14-18 hour days seven days a week in the effort only to fail by the slimmest of margins at the last minute I believe would make the vast majority of folks bitter at least in the short term and perhaps longer than that. It is under adversity that I think all people show their true character. This was a true moment of adversity for Hillary Clinton. She had lost in this effort and her character came through and we learned a lot about who she was.
During her tenure as Secretary of State, I and all of the country had additional opportunities to learn more about her. By the end of her first year as Secretary of State, I was convinced my previous opinions of her were wrong.
Regarding Hillarys positions on the issues, much has been made of the idea that she and former President Bill Clinton were co-Presidents during his term. That is probably overstating the issue, but what is not overstating the issue is that they discussed issues during his administration and that he utilized her as a trusted advisor. That administration where she was a trusted advisor was one of the most successful in the last 75 years on all fronts, economic, foreign policy, etc. Sanders supporters can claim she is not progressive enough, and various Republican contenders and their surrogates can try to claim she is too progressive, but nothing makes a statement like actually being successful and few (as in none) of her antagonists can claim to have been part of (or support candidates who have been part of) a successful Presidential administration. In other words, their criticisms on her positions on the issues dont mean a whole heck of a lot.
In terms of the knowledge and experience necessary for the job, in terms of the character needed to be President and in terms of being right on the issues I personally cant see how anyone could come to any other conclusion. Hillary Clinton should be the next President of the United States and I heartily endorse her.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251658816
Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)It's an indication of growth.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)I was just reading in another thread how Bernie Sanders is not the angry, intemperate hothead that some people say he was 20 years ago.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It's either an epiphany or expedient bullshit.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...we call it fiction.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)No, but lying certainly is. How is someone who was considered a self-promoting liar 8 years ago magically considered trustworthy?
Cool-breeze doesn't do much for me, and it certainly hasn't done much to sway half the nation. I want a president with a full range of emotions, including some hothead (Teddy, FDR, and Johnson come to mind). What's peculiar is that the vocal minority who attacked DUers for commenting on Obama's unemotional style, were the first to praise his flashes of anger over Newtown, and subsequent mass shootings. Suddenly, anger was a good thing.
Response to WorseBeforeBetter (Reply #102)
Sheepshank This message was self-deleted by its author.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I don't see how Clinton has led the Democratic Party. She was first lady, a senator from a state where any Democratic candidate is a shoe-in, and she was given a deal for Secretary of State in exchange for her endorsement.
Perhaps I am ignorant, but the last thing that I see she did was change from the Republican party when she worked for Goldwater, then helped the Dems, by becoming one.
Her nearest opponent was working for civil rights for all, as he continues to do, and has been doing. I think there is more of a need for this in our leader, than someone who placates the Party Leaders.
navarth
(5,927 posts)they come back for more
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Bernie has never put himself out for the Dem's until he decided at 73
to run for office.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)What war has Clinton served on, and put her life on the line? I was unaware of that.
And if you don't think that Bernie has been working for the Dems, you are surely buying into the Third Way propaganda and/or are a troll.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Bernie, has never been in political fight: he has let Hillary carry his
water. The GOP has never come after him like the Dem's and Hillary:
his votes never mattered because he lived in small state with one
party rule.
Hillary win or lose will be fine, but she believes in taking the fight
to the GOP. Bennie is just now, thinking he wants to get in the fight:
its just too little to late.
NealK
(1,850 posts)Rofl! Pure nonsense.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Tell me another mythological story.
Bernie has had opposition, he just doesn't believe in campaigning negatively. The GOP in Vermont, has, in reality, come after Bernie. There is not just one party in Vermont, no matter what you believe.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Bernie is in a one party state, and has never been under attack
like the Dem's: Sanders is to small fish in a very small pond
The GOP spent millions wasting taxes payer dollars to go after the Clintons:
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...in the most liberal part of the state?
No Democratic candidate is a shOO-in in New York.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)They are typical of what happens in NY when Dems do a poor job. They all stunk as leaders.
George II
(67,782 posts)....were each elected three times.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I live in NY. Ghouliani fixed the elections, as did Bloomberg, who used to be a Democrat. Pataki promised everyone tax breaks, and blamed Dems on them not getting it, but promised to, and drove the state more into debt than any governor in recent history.
The Dems didn't bother to run someone who could get out the vote, and many stayed home during the reigns of Bloomie, Ghouliani, and Patak as well.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)People change their minds. Ask former Republican Elizabeth Warren.
People change their minds. Ask former Republican Elizabeth Warren.
People change their minds. Ask former Republican Elizabeth Warren.
duhneece
(4,110 posts)when she knew better, she did better?"
I mostly pay attention now to my local politics (our county commission wants to 'take back the US Forest' to give to the state for the county to manage'...and is willing to have us, the county taxpayers, pay to take this to the Supreme Court.) ..and our state representative was name as the ALEC #1 Star Legislator. My efforts are going to trying to unseat these destructive locals.
I know I will happily support Bernie or Hillary or Joe or some combination, so I am not 'married' to one candidate or the other at this stage. I can trust y'all!
Gman
(24,780 posts)That is unchangeable.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... him decide Hillary is not an opportunistic liar?
Gman
(24,780 posts)Just doesn't like somebody so no matter the facts, they are a no good person.
His reasoning for his decision is very clear on who is the superior candidate.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Rather than drifting with the prevailing winds?
Gman
(24,780 posts)That is unchangeable for any reason.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Or getting rid of Citizens United? Or not wanting to take money from schools and give it away to the rich as tax cuts? Or not implementing austerity with the GOP? Or prosecuting the banksters? And a million other positions? Really?
Lemme guess, you are making excuses for Hillary's sudden adoption of Sanders positions?
Gman
(24,780 posts)a position, check the House Republicans.
Response to Gman (Reply #78)
AgingAmerican This message was self-deleted by its author.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And the difference is the GOP is wrong. Their positions are wrong, period.
AND they keep getting what they want. They have made bigger strides under Obama than under most GOP presidents because of his stupid deals with them.
Gman
(24,780 posts)The fact Cheney, Bush, et al have not been turned over to the ICC?. I agree with you there. However that likely woukd have sparked a fairly serious right wing armed insurrection. It's a tough choice. Most of the things they got were from the SCOTUS and not the president. They have received a few things as a matter of give and take which should happen in a Democracy. But the list of things they have not received far exceeds what they have.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Times he "caved", to keep the government functioning, and still managed to raise taxes on the wealthy, extend, U/C, etc., that DU, considered give-away, but could never explain how they would have gotten more.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)For having an unchangeable position where I believe that we should not have wars, and should dismantle the military.
Call me an idiot for having the unchangeable belief that our planet's environment is the most important issue that we face, if we, as a race are to exist in the future.
Yeah. These are unchangeable for any reason for me. So go ahead, call me an idiot!
frylock
(34,825 posts)By your standard, anyone who didn't support IWR and hasn't changed their mind about that because of their rigid ideology is an idiot.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I've seen you say this before. It doesn't validate someone that flip flops as much as Hillary. Sorry.
It's better to be solid and right than wrong, then right, then wrong, then right.
I'm going to vote for a leader, not a follower.
Gman
(24,780 posts)The death penalty, for one. War in Iran for another as things are right now. Notice "as things are right now". If Iran sneaks in a nuclear weapon and nukes someone (don't know how they'd deliver it effectively) there should be war.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Myself, I'm not against the death penalty. Hey, we're all different and I respect that much.
Regarding war, I really don't think Bernie would be entirely against pulling that trigger if it were absolutely necessary, Bernie has said that war should be the last option, he never said it's not an option at all. So he doesn't have an absolute unmoving stance on that. If it's necessary, then it'll have to happen.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/war-should-be-the-last-option-why-i-support-the-iran-nuclear-deal
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_War_+_Peace.htm
So yeah, regarding unmoving opinions, I know that Bernie is capable of changing his method if necessary, but in my own opinion, his end goals have always been right and I support that much.
lobodons
(1,290 posts)Thanks Bernie for helping Hillary Evolve to the Left.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)All her "progressive evolution" is words for show, said with her fingers crossed, complete with a wink & nod to the too big to fail banks and her 1% buddies.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)... Hillary changed her mind, but rather that her character has changed.
There's a vast chasm of difference between changing one's mind and changing one's character.
George II
(67,782 posts)...eight years ago, and it has very little, or nothing, to do with his "character". I don't know why you feel the need to assault one's character here just because that person has had a change of opinion.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)It's about Hillary's character which Steven found to be horrible in 2008.
But then you knew that.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)nt
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I think some folks fundamentally don't understand the kinds of things that help someone in my line of work. 90% of it is about whether people are talking about you or not.
I've noted several times on a couple of the DU stalker sites that folks said they were going to try to hurt me by calling some of the networks where I appear and complaining about me. I laughed because its obvious they don't understand that by doing so, they are noting that not only did they watch me, but that I affected them enough to call or write in about me. In my line of work, that is an endorsement.
I got several google alerts about OPs here, on DI and other places and I am certain that the networks where I appear, who have sophisticated applications that track the internet buzz of folks who appear there, noted the uptick. This will result in my phone ringing next week.
Not only that, it focused attention on what I think, who I support, and why and set the stage nicely for this endorsement article.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Exactly. Content is secondary.
NealK
(1,850 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Did your public animus toward her then get your phone ringing?
This begins to sound very self serving and money grubbing, sir.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)nt
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)I didn't see the name Obama or the word President more than once in your exegesis for Hillary. There's a mighty big hole in that argument. She hasn't even held office since 2013. Simply unbalanced.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)That's right, Fox News doesn't need fact-checkers. They're just "fair and balanced."
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Humbled to have you and so many others walk the walk, talk the talk and work along side HRC supporters. Together will stand strong. Thank you for a wonderful endorsement of a truly wonderful American.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Yet one more reason not to vote for Clinton.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Let's all three of us .
Armstead
(47,803 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Which is another issue with Hillary... genuineness.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)"We came, we saw, he died." Sounds like something Smirk would have said. And there's nothing empathetic about her hawkish tendencies.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)"...her hawkish tendencies."
During her time as SOS, what peace has she brokered? What successes have we seen in our wars? She has presided over the longest war in our history and it has not ended during her term.
Collateral damage (no one seems to care about the innocent lives lost) - we kill their Mom and they hate us for it. They become "terrorists" bent on revenge.
Our wars are solutions that perpetuate the problem (profits are at an all time high though).
In the third debate Hillary said that we can not afford Bernie's proposals for Americans but, in the same debate, said we can afford regime change in the Middle East.
Before we force Democracy on other countries, how about reinstating it here?
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)Will it have an impact? Probably not much of one, but then, neither does my endorsement of Clinton, nor yours of Sanders.
Steven Leser has a blog, and his opinion pieces have an audience. Is it a BFD? Well, it's not as major as having, say Al Franken, endorse Clinton, or any of the other Members of Congress or Senators. But it's a blogger endorsing Clinton.
I've endorsed her, too. That endorsement has reached some DUers, as has yours of Sanders. How big the deal is, I suppose, depends on how many people notice it and how influential each of us is. I'm not very influential. I know that.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)MineralMan
(146,248 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)eom
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MineralMan
(146,248 posts)I just take what comes. It's always a surprise, really. That's what makes DU fun. You just never know what might turn up.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)juajen
(8,515 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Gothmog
(144,890 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Here's the problem I have. I detest liars and phonies.
Trust lost is VERY difficult to ever regain, is it's even possible.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)I have a problem, too. When I see someone post something that appears to be sincere, I have a problem when people reply with nothing but a sarcastic emoji. The problem is that the reply doesn't really contain any information. It doesn't counter the other person's statement or make a statement on its own. It's just naked sarcasm.
I never find that particularly useful or enlightening. I guess it's just me, though, since it's such a common way to reply on the Internet. Too bad.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... or "find particularly useful or enlightening" isn't my concern.
Honest disagreements are one thing. Scheming, lying, manipulating, and pretending to be something one isn't, is quite another.
Good day, sir.
marym625
(17,997 posts)"Very eloquent comeback"?
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)I do that, sometimes. Read the post above the one I replied to. I do that, too.
marym625
(17,997 posts)MineralMan
(146,248 posts)We all go somewhere.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Those whose income is tied to the corporate raiding of the US will definitely endorse like thinkers...
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You detested Hillary Clinton before you decided to endorse her...and no, there's no public record of your slow realization that she was not a liar but was instead the best candidate for President. You seem to have changed your mind a huge amount with respect to how you feel about the African American community and the policing of that community. So when I see you making your official endorsement of Hillary Clinton's candidacy, I'm left wondering how long that will last and which dime it will turn on next.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)From my read he thinks she deserves to be President just because she didn't have a complete public meltdown after losing the election in 2008. So I think he is enforcing her despite his acknowledgement that she 'lies' (or as most of call it flip flops) constantly.
Of course, it would be quite hypocritical of him to hold her flip flops against her in lieu of his own.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Every person leaping to this journalist's defense is advocating what a Fox News and right wing radio brought us: the notion that there are no hard truths, that all facts are negotiable, and that rhetoric can somehow overcome truth and replace it with some new version of "truth". I'm not buying that pile of garbage, not now or ever.
MANY things that this journalist has written have opposite counterparts that he has also written. He's an ally of women, until he bemoans that women get all the child support money and claims they're the actual deadbeats in child support situations, and men have to pay too much money that their Exes use to buy alcohol. He's an ally of African Americans, until he decides they're asking to be 'robbed, raped, and murdered' for not turning members of their community in to the police. He's called Obama a liar, and he's attacked others who have called Obama a liar.
If this journalist tells me the sky is blue, I'm going outside to check. I value truth.
nxylas
(6,440 posts)...if it comes from an actual Fox News contributor?
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)That would make for some *interesting* reading.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)i assume it's ok to post a public figure's public words, and since Steve has an IMDB page, he's a public figure.
Here's where most of it is aggregated:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=661975
And for this one, you have to click on Expand Comments (or something along those lines), which will open up the full, non-abbreviated list of comments, including the one pasted below.http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_teri_sto_070225_can_t_find_a_husband.htm?show=votes#allcomments
"However bad women think they have it, men have it worse: particularly those of us who dont fit the unfortunate stereotype some of you like to present. Consider the following research: Divorced or separated men commit suicide 400% more than women. This may be due to a combination of legal and cultural tendencies that favor women in these situations. For example, 85% of protection orders are awarded to females, and only 7% of these petitions are denied. Since 1994, only 15% of American men are granted custody of their children in divorce settlements. Furthermore, when the father lives outside the home, 40% of children have no contact with them; the other 60% average just 69 days a year. These factors may help explain why divorce situations are higher risk. Men who become depressed after losing custody of their children is a huge mental health issue. click here
Submitted on Tuesday, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:49:13 AM"
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Thanks for the links.
NealK
(1,850 posts)OMG, that sounds exactly like MRA crap!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)NealK
(1,850 posts)From the part about Lieberman at your first link: "I thought my first wife was bad."
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)problem, not mine.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)One of them is simple hypocrisy, and the other is your refusal to attach yourself to any system of logic that is based on universally accepted baseline rules. In other words, you argue a point precisely the way your friends at Fox News do. There's NOTHING, NOTHING that can't be restated, redefined, explained in other contexts, or otherwise shuffled around until you get to the outcome you're looking for. This is the domain of AM radio and Fox News. And for the people who use this sort of trickery and deceit, there are no bottom-line truths. Everything is negotiable. Nothing you've ever said can possibly be used against you, because you can simply redefine it.
The people who permit themselves to be persuaded by linguistic sleight-of-hand like this are sheep, and I want nothing to do with them, because I have no respect for anyone who willingly agrees to be lied to in order to get to the reverse-engineered place that makes them feel comfortable. And the Republican media that perfected this style of nonsense are filth to me. We are Democrats. We are liberals. We have no business swimming in that lying filth, and we DO have some bottom line truths, and some baselines on which we must agree. This is the basis of rhetoric and of civilized society. What you're pushing is a version of insanity, and I'll have nothing charitable to say about that ever.
Your two articles on Joe Lieberman are completely opposed to one another, with no explanation of how you completely flipped from one position to another. That's not nuance.
Your completely changed stance on Hillary Clinton shows no arc of progression from one stance to another (as opposed to, say, Will Pitt's well-documented souring on Obama's Presidency). That's not nuance--that's how Fox rolls. I want nothing to do with what you're calling journalism. I know journalism as something else, and you in no way display the hallmarks associated with actual journalism. Journalism requires truth and accountability; it does not require a reframing of everything you've ever said on a particular subject so that you can now make an opposite claim. You're free to do all of this, of course, but don't expect self-respecting people to accept what they know to be wrong.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)But again, that's your problem, not mine.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I may converse or argue with you in the future, but I know everything about your character that I'll ever need to know.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I wrote post #35, and some others here.
I agree with you that some people have a very flexible understanding of history and truth. Arguing both sides of an issue is not nuance, it is sophistry. And some people are very good at that.
My argument with the OP is the completely ridiculous idea that the Clinton Presidency represented any sort of progress for working people. William Clinton, in my view, represents wasted potential at best, and anyone claiming to be a journalist should be historically aware enough to realize what William Clinton actually accomplished.
Again, well argued, as opposed to the condescension and dismissal of your opponent.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)If there's not some bedrock layer we can all agree is the basis for discussion and argument, we can never have a meaningful discussion; we can only bleat. I think this might be a functional definition of insanity. Your post 35 was right on the mark too. Thank you for the response.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I can defend anything that I have written.
It has not escaped my attention that films at both extremes of the political spectrum seem the most nuance-challenged.
frylock
(34,825 posts)You go straight from black to white. Moreover, if you were so wrong then, why would we have any reason to believe that you're right now?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)the subject of another OP, and explain how you have evolved from total opposition to an HRC candidacy to endorsing the HRC candidacy. Perhaps you can also explain why you seem to feel that the William Clinton Presidency represented such a golden period in US politics. Many of us living in the US cannot recall any golden years during that time, but people at different socioeconomic levels can see different things. To a rich man, every day is a great day.
And there is a difference between nuance challenged, to use your dismissive phrase, and being a weather vane that, recognizing wind direction, turns to reflect the strength of the wind.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Only a Fox News contributor would claim arguing vehemently for, and then against, diametrically opposed sides is "nuance".
You have less than zero credibility. But, like your Fox News friends, you don't give a crap about credibility; credibility doesn't get you clicks.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)It's galling enough that right wing media have perfected these tactics over the last 30 years. But it's completely unacceptable for this to seep into liberal (or ostensibly liberal) journalism. I won't have it.
It's also not a happy situation that there are several people who have decided to accept this. Winning at the cost of truth is paradoxical, because in the end, it's not really a win if you willingly swallow lies to get there.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I am sure you are going to repudiate him now, right?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)If you have a question, ask it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)being on Fox.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)....and candidate for president.... other than self-promotion what's your excuse?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Martin Eden
(12,843 posts)Hillary Clinton helped to enable that invasion with her vote for the IWR. If she honestly believed the administration of GW Bush would act in good faith with UN inspectors in a shared goal to determine whether Iraq had WMD, then she is not neraly as intelligent as you apparently think she is and is unqualified to hold the position of POTUS, or SecState, or US Senator for that matter. It was obvious by October 2002 the White House Iraq group was engaged in a systematic campaign of propaganda to sell the war pursuant to the stated objectives of PNAC and its signatories in the Bush administration.
But I think we both know Hillary Clinton isn't that stupid.
She was either on board with the neocon agenda or made a political calculation (as she so often does and continues to do) that puts her personal political ambitions ahead of principles and ahead of the good of our country.
All of the above are disqualifiers, as far as I'm concerned. The IWR vote is inexcusable, unforgivable, and led to devastating consequences that continue to plague us today. For this same reason I refused to support John Kerry and Joe Biden in their quests to win the Democratic primary for president.
I distrust HRC most among those three. Her neoliberalsim/DLC background and friendly ties to big Wall Street donors also make her unacceptable, but the IWR vote alone is enough for me. I believe she is a Hawk on foreign policy, and has no intention to change the disastrous course we've been on.
The fact that you don't bother to mention these huge strikes against Hillary Clinton renders your endorsement of little value in terms of an honest, objective, and thorough evaluation of her qualifications for the highest office in the land. Several member of the Bush administration also had impressive resume's, but that is hardly reason for endorsement.
If you object to the comparison, I call your attention to your putting Bernie Sanders in the same boat with Donald Trump:
neither of whom have demonstrated anything approaching Presidential demeanor and in fact seem to have the opposite qualities in several cases (arrogance, irritability and impatience, just to name a few).
Our country needs real change, not status quo neoliberalism. We need a candidate who inspires and motivates voters to go the polls and vote not just for president but for House & Senate races as well. GOTV will be the key, and HRC does not hold it.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)I agree.
marym625
(17,997 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 10, 2015, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)
Great post!
Broward
(1,976 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 10, 2015, 01:43 PM - Edit history (1)
as long as conservatives, including Hillary, control both parties. My hope is that we move the party far left enough so that the policies espoused by the corporatists are no longer deemed acceptable on this side of the aisle.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)p.s. don't go changin' stevenleser!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Is that so... http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251658816
navarth
(5,927 posts)I was wondering what happened to that post.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)by using a whole bunch of little lies, no less! I salute your wordsmithing, and cannot decide if you are being satirical or serious.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Nothing really changed about Hillary. She stands by the same things she stood by in 2008. So it is only fair to assume this is satire
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I will admit, even though I may have said the same thing to some on here, I voted to hide since as a juror I must remain impartial and objective in my ruling. I did add a lengthy explanation though.
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Sat Oct 10, 2015, 02:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
As subtle an application of the Big Lie as I've ever seen
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=662261
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Accusing a poster of lying for a difference of opinion is completely uncivil.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Oct 10, 2015, 02:53 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Though I tend to agree with the sentiment - even not having read the entire OP - I think it better to refute the points than call them lies. When you do that you might also point out the hypocrisy of the OP due to the fact that the OP despised Hillary the last time she ran for president, even going so far as to basically, and possibly actually, calling her a liar, speaking out of both sides of her mouth.
Hide.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: WTF kind of alert is this?
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)and thanks to the jury for seeing the point, which the alerter obviously didn't.
And as for the juror who couldn't be bothered to do the reading...write on the chalk board 100 times....I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
I WILL DO MY HOMEWORK!
Now you must write: I WILL NOT FORCE ANOTHER HUMAN BEING TO SUCH A FRUSTRATING AND LABORIOUS TASK AS TO READ SUCH DRIVEL! 100 times as well!
livetohike
(22,118 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Where to find an active list of h supporters, this is the thread.
About the rest, who cares!?!
Just another pundit shilling for whomever.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)It's still hilarious though
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)When you wrote:
I, and many more, would take exception to your characterization of the Clinton Presidency as "one of the most successful on all fronts...".
William Clinton happily signed so-called welfare reform legislation that gutted the safety net, happily signed the Gramm Leach Blily Act that eliminated Glass-Steagall protections that had successfully regulated banking behavior since the Great Depression, and happily continued sanctions against Iraq that directly resulted in the deaths of an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children.
He also signed NAFTA, which accelerated the offshoring of jobs and helped ruin the Midwest, formerly the industrial center of the US, now called the rustbelt.
So except for those "minor" little points, what exactly did William Clinton accomplish again?
marym625
(17,997 posts)GitRDun
(1,846 posts)How about these things:
More than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration. And that's despite NAFTA impacts. And they weren't all internet bubble jobs either.
Nearly doubled financial aid for students by increasing Pell Grants to the largest award ever, expanding Federal Work-Study to allow 1 million students to work their way through college, and by creating new tax credits and scholarships such as Lifetime Learning tax credits and the HOPE scholarship.
Increased the percentage of schools connected to the Internet from 35 percent in 1994 to 95 percent in 1999.
Signed the Brady bill in 1993.
Family and Medical Leave Act.
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union.
5 new national parks, designated 11 new national monuments and expanded two others and proposed protections for 60 million acres of roadless areas in America's national forests.
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt.
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus.
It's fine to not like Hillary. It's also fine to criticize Bill Clinton's mistakes. What's simply hilarious, however is you revising history yourself to create a narrative that Bill Clinton was not a good President. Even funnier you have people cheering your narrative.
No Presidency is a perfect one. Painting Bill Clinton's Presidency with your broad brush of negativity doesn't help Bernie's case....just makes you look tribal.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)of illumination.
To your points:
Wages have been stagnating since the Reagan years. This stagnation is not the fault of Clinton, but the trade agreement that he signed and promoted exacerbated this trend. (You did not comment on this point) If more than 22 million LIVING WAGE jobs had been created I would have cheered. Instead, because of NAFTA, manufacturing jobs left the country and were replaced by WalMart jobs and various other types of McJobs that do not pay a living wage.
As to your point about Pell Grants and Internet access, students are graduating to a future as WalMart workers, Uber and Lyft drivers, and various other part time, non-career forms of slave labor. Again, because NAFTA allows ( as will the TPP) for manufacturers to abandon the US for slave wage countries and bring these slave produced products back into the US.
I will acknowledge the Brady Bill and the FMLA, as well as your other points, but I did not say that the Clinton Presidency was devoid of accomplishments. I took exception to Leser's attempt to paint it as some sort of golden age of accomplishment. Clinton, like Obama, is basically a moderate Republican in an age of lunatic Republicans. Both have some liberal tendencies, but both subscribe to and follow a corporate agenda that subordinates the needs of the many for the profits of the few.
I missed your comments about Clinton's welfare "reform" as well as Clinton's promotion of the Gramm Leach Blily Act that allowed for the various Bush era bubbles, including the last one that nearly wrecked the economy.
I hope that this airbrush attack was clearer, and I await YOUR response as to my other points.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)I do not think you can lay an exacerbation of wage stagnation at the feet of NAFTA (see China / India and dozens of other countries). I believe you are wrong to blame NAFTA for the job losses...those jobs were going anyway. I've actually posted on TPP at length, you can see it in my journal. The trade agreements do not cover enough job losses to make a difference...not enough trade deficit comes from NAFTA / TPP countries.
To say it another way, I agree with you that the job losses are a huge problem. I also agree that current job opportunities are not high enough from a pay / opportunity perspective. You are correct on Lesser's portrayal of a golden age, welfare reform and the other criticisms as well.
Where I part company with you is to lay that at Clinton's feet and saying a couple trade deals are the main problem or exacerbation of the problem.
Enforcing trade deals we have is not done.
Establishing trade policy / tariffs / tax laws that allow companies to shift jobs and profits overseas is a huge problem. The trade deals are window dressing.
Lastly, I just can't get there on the Clinton / Obama aren't liberal enough meme. The problem isn't them, it's us. We as a people do not vote in enough right minded Congress people to effect real change. States like CA and MN are current examples of what can be accomplished when voters elect representatives who put the people first. 60 Senate votes not only stops legislation, it materially waters down what could be really good legislation. It's not their fault, it's ours.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Let me be a little more clear:
NAFTA, and GATT, and the TPP (that of course will pass), are, as you said, window dressing in the sense that manufacturing has been leaving this country since the 1960s. But the deals, and the tariff policies that accompany them, are symptomatic of the mindset of the rulers of this country. Jobs can cross borders, money can cross borders, but workers are chained to their country of birth.
But as to deficits and sources, China is a huge trading partner, as are Canada and Mexico. China enjoys most favored nation status, Mexico and Canada of course are covered by GATT and NAFTA. Many of the jobs lost in the steel industry went to China and S. Korea in the 1960-1970s. So yes, the problem pre-dates Clinton and of course Obama.
As to the "not liberal enough" meme, I agree. My politics are to the left of Bernie Sanders so I appreciate that my politics are farther left than the vast majority of US voters. But my vote will always go to the best candidate, not the perfect candidate. Whoever the Democratic nominee is, while no ones "perfect candidate", will get my vote. For appointments to the SCOTUS, if nothing else.
I agree completely with your last paragraph. Very well said.
ismnotwasm
(41,956 posts)And what I love to see.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The Clinton era was no golden time for the bottom 99%, and any attempt to describe it as such reflects a shallow understanding of the era or deceptive advertising, so to speak.
If I understand the "nuance" of the OP, HRC has evolved on positions, and it is this evolution that motivates the endorsement. All fine and good, but it IS appropriate to wonder if the evolution is sincere, or window dressing. This applies for any candidate, of course.
And when a candidate has evolved so significantly on so many issues, is this truly evolution or a response to the prevailing winds?
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)It's refreshing to be able to just share, listen and learn...it's what we are supposed to be doing here.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)and being out of the position during the dotcom bust.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)on a very flawed man and President. William Clinton came to the White House as a poor man and is now a rich man. Contrast his behavior, especially in Haiti, with that of Jimmy Carter.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)That may have been one thing that hurt Gore in the election.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)eom
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)What amazing foresight he had to envision a fine a gentleman as our Mr. Leser.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)I paraphrased Sir Issac Newton who had the perspicacity and foresight to envision a man as fine as our own Steve Leser. I am humbled and grateful just to share an epoch with him and Ms. Clinton.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)but thanks for the Saturday afternoon laugh.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)That was for my brother, 1StrongBlackMan, whom I would lay down my life for, who was being targeted on this board.
If you find that humorous there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion. Any sentient person could see I was being facetious about Steve Leser.
Oh, and Jesus was black!!!
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #125)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)so it is amusing.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Irony speaketh thou name. I find you amusing too, go figure...
Response to WorseBeforeBetter (Reply #145)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)But I'd make sure and have my thesaurus nearby so that I could punctuate my screams with words like perspicacity and discombobulation so that people would know I was a well-read martyr.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)But nothing carbonated, caffeinated or alcoholic, since you'll be living without that vital organ. Gland. Whatever.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)That I should have checked first is axiomatic. But I'm nothing if not pertinacious, so I'll soldier on and do what I must. For now, I'm off to pen some more chrysostomatic posts.
(Anyone know exactly where the pancreas is, by the way?)
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Or at least it feels that way a lot of times.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)who knew?!
frylock
(34,825 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)And I guess no other humans can see very far into the future then, because Leser couldn't see 8 years ahead when he said all the nasty stuff about Hillary last election cycle.
Geebus dude. You really like to fawn over internet personas. Weird.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)I do think Steve writes well and makes persuasive arguments on television. The elevation of him to demigod status is meant to be tongue in cheek unless you really believe I believe I am humbled to share an epoch with him.
riversedge
(70,047 posts)speaks to her qualifications. Thank you for the post.
mcar
(42,278 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)You are still better off than have millions families and thousands of communities working 14-18 hour days seven days a week devastated by US jobs shipped to Mexico, China and India... and soon to be Vietnam thanks to Hillary's love of outsourcing and trade deals.
On the other hand, tax evading rich people, CEOs and other scumbags are doing very well under the economic policies of Bill and Hillary Clinton. And evading criminal charges to boot.
The Hillary Class citizen - an expert at outsourcing jobs and violence yet they can't even manage email or have sex with an intern or trade political consideration for donations to their foundation without causing a major goddamn scandal?
Clintons are nothing but walking scandal. Everywhere they go, the middle class and below pay for their indiscretions and abuses.
Hillary as President? That's some seriously twisted shit right there.
It IS her experience as corrupt insider that makes her supremely unqualified for the office.
We need less of Hillary's experiences, not more.
There is a class war between those who latch themselves to the rich and elite like Hillary and those who have been fucked over for decades by the likes of Hillary.
We know which side you are on. It's a shitty job. One day they'll figure out they can buy the same thing from India for pennies on the dollar. What will you do then?
marym625
(17,997 posts)Bot pieces in major publications.
By the way, +10000
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)was more perceptive and honest.
Gman
(24,780 posts)Excellent reasoning.
marym625
(17,997 posts)How does any of this change the fact, a fact you wrote about with great conviction and proof, she lies and lied? How gracious is that? How does that fact fall into your endorsement?
Additionally, on so very many subjects, she has done a 180 on her support or opposition. Now, I agree that growth is good and important, but how does such change, on issues that have not, figure into your endorsement?
Finally, while she has stated she was wrong about her vote on the Iraq war, she still, very emphatically, with a conviction very seldom seen, voted for and pushed for, an illegal, first strike war on innocent people. Please remember that so very many of us knew bush was lying. You admit in your post here, that the Iraq war is a large part of the reason we are hated, still, around the world. Yet you neglect to mention that then Senator Clinton was a huge part of that decision. How does that fit into your endorsement?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)After a certain number of 180 degree flips, what is the difference between a politician and a weathervane?
marym625
(17,997 posts)Got me. Pretty much the same thing imho
artislife
(9,497 posts)A pundit is a pundit. They shift allegiance according to which way the wind blows. His livelihood depends on representing the mainstream "left" on a the mainstream "right" news shows. There may be some heavy self interest here.
Not to say, we the voters don't base our allegiances on self interest, either. But I like to think that Sander supporters self interest involves a lot more community self interest, locally and globally.
marym625
(17,997 posts)But I don't expect one. Not a straightforward one anyway.
I truly do not understand how anyone can endorse her. I don't care who she is, this constant, obvious, change in almost everything is, in the absolute very least, suspect.
I very much appreciate growth. People who can see how they were wrong on certain issues is always a good thing. But to be wrong and change your mind on fucking everything, tells me that there is a great deficit in judgment.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)Her support and efforts for women and children has never changed. There is and has been a war on women and I can't think of anyone more qualified and experienced to lead the fight against that war. It may not be important to you but it certainly is to many women - some of whom don't even realize it yet.
If women are ever going to obtain true equality they need need to break that glass ceiling - Hillary can do that.
marym625
(17,997 posts)She voted for the No Child Left Behind atrocity. One of the worst things to happen to kids and education in modern law.
She supported the welfare reform that put more women and children into poverty.
Besides the fact I'm not a one issue voter, I don't believe Hillary is anywhere near the advocate for equality that Bernie Sanders is.
We need a woman president. Hillary Clinton is not that woman
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)issue. Women's rights include birth control, abortion rights, equal pay, domestic violence, mandatory minimum sentencing, etc.
We need a woman president NOW, perfection not required.
Bernie would be better for women? LOL
marym625
(17,997 posts)I've been fighting for women's rights my entire life.
Yes, Bernie Sanders is better on women's rights and on protections for children and education
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)it was one issue - it's not and if you've been fighting for women's rights your entire life I would think you'd know that.
I'm so sure a man is better on women's issues than a woman whose made it her life long issue.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 11, 2015, 12:07 AM - Edit history (1)
Where did I ever say anything remotely like women's rights consist of one issue? There's a big difference between saying I'm not a one issue voter and that I believe that women's rights consist of one issue. Women's rights (catch the "s" on the end of the word "rights." It makes "right" plural.)
I'll go you toe to toe in my activism for women's equality or on anything for that matter. Quit the shit.
Yes, Bernie Sanders is better on women's rights and protections for children and education than Hillary Clinton. Being a woman doesn't automatically mean she's better than a man on women's issues. The welfare reform support and the No Child Left behind act proves that. Or is Carly your second choice?
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)a republican, so YOU quit your shit.
You'd go toe to toe? How are you going to do that? Makes you feel tough, does it?
I don't have the time or inclination to educate you on everything Hillary has done for women and children.
Obviously you've got your talking points down. How original - a white man as president.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Back away from a discussion with an obvious bullshit response.
You're wasting my time. Goodbye and good luck
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)not a woman (or man) make. It's how one identifies and lived life. One would think a progressive would know that.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)"We need a woman president NOW, perfection not required."
So in other words, genitalia.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)in other words. Your word, not mine.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)You stated that we need to elect a president with female genitalia.
"We need a woman president NOW"
Response to stevenleser (Original post)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You have made a factually compelling case for your endorsement.
Thinkin writers are far more informing than ranters. Thanks.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)I am writing this with all sincerity.
Your overall reasons are well thought out and explained. I don't agree with it, but that's what makes horseracing,
But you undercut yourself by taking it to extremes and including condescending and insulting stuff like: "Its almost laughable to compare her experience to that of anyone running against her."
Or "few (as in none) of her antagonists can claim to have been part of (or support candidates who have been part of) a successful Presidential administration. In other words, their criticisms on her positions on the issues dont mean a whole heck of a lot."
Vigorous debate is fine and is basically the fuel that runs a place like DU. And we all get carried away at times. But that sort of consistently condescending "only if you agree totally with an expert like me" snarkiness and rigidity too frequently undercuts the willingness to consider whatever points you try to make.
It is possible for people to have varying opinions that are not just binary "either/or" and "totally right/totally wrong."
Just my two cents.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I personally don't support Clinton, but I see it as a subject about which reasonable people can differ. You highlighted the absolutist sentence that jumped out at me: "Its almost laughable to compare her experience to that of anyone running against her." If you compare her to Lawrence Lessig, you could make a case, but each of her four major rivals has a credible CV, each with different strengths and weaknesses.
It's true that none of them served as de facto staffers to a Democratic President. Does that mean that "their criticisms on her positions on the issues dont mean a whole heck of a lot"? Wow, I guess we should also have dismissed McGovern's criticisms of Nixon, Kerry's criticisms of Bush, and, for that matter, Obama's criticisms of Clinton in 2008. None of these people had spent enough time in the White House for us to even listen to them.
Methinks Mr. Leser is exhibiting the convert's zeal. C. S. Lewis observed that converts to Christianity tend to go "further in" than longtime adherents, in terms of embracing doctrines, changing their lives, etc. Leser's endorsement of Clinton, representing as it does a complete conversion, reflects the same tendency.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)NealK
(1,850 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Hey, no wonder he is now a Hillary fan.
modestybl
(458 posts)...which means, whatever progressive positions she is taking right now, she'll tack back in the general... and WON'T win. She hasn't the charm or charisma of Bill or Obama, and she has none of the authenticity of Sanders.
aikoaiko
(34,161 posts)See sig line
Plus, if you say you were very wrong in assessing her true character in 2008, then why should anyone trust your judge of character now?
kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)Unfit is different than un or underqualified. Qualifications can be polished (and I will concede the point for this discussion that one could find HRC's time at the State Department as polish). Unfitness is a more permanent condition and speaks more to character, honesty, trustworthiness, morals ect .....
I am truly interested in your answer and not just playing gotcha .....
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)BooScout
(10,406 posts)You are spot on with your assessment of how she has restored America's reputation abroad, particularly with European allies. I can't stress enough how well thought of she is here in the UK.
Time_Lord
(60 posts)and more reason why we do not need Clinton.
Good day, madame.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)Aside from the fact that I travel to the US frequently, I also have a telephone, tv, computer and various other electronic communication gadgets ( the UK is civilized after all) plus the fact I lived in the States for decades.....I would say you know NOTHING about what I do or don't know.
Welcome to DU sir.
Response to stevenleser (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
ismnotwasm
(41,956 posts)And a beautifully written endorsement
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Gothmog
(144,890 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)eom
SylviaD
(721 posts)secondwind
(16,903 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)I agree. And I also believe she is showing her true colors now.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)She was for the TPP, then said she wasn't going to let us know what she really believes until she's President, now she's against it.
But here's my real problem with Hillary: The idea that the election should come down to a battle of resumes. As well as the idea that her resume is all that fabulous. It's the MBA approach to everything: If you run one kind of business you can run every other kind of business, because aside from the exact way they make money, none of them are very different from each other. Wrong.
Example: Among the reasons airlines are so badly managed these days is that for the first thirty or so years they were all run by the men who'd founded them or their immediate successors who had started somewhere other than in the executive suite. Then, starting in the early 1980's, the MBAs started being hired, and they honest to god had no clue that there was some kind of a learning curve for any of the jobs that actually got the planes in the air. Recently United Airlines decided they'd save money by hiring contract workers at the Denver airport to load bags on the planes, and pay them minimum wage with almost no benefits. Brilliant idea! Save lots of money! Except that bags were misloaded, it took vastly longer to load and unload airplanes, and so on. Yep. Any business can be run without understanding its fundamentals.
Okay, so Hillary is an attorney, not an MBA. But what bothers me enormously about attorneys is that in law school they don't seem to teach that the actual underlying right or wrong matters at all, just winning the case. It's a game, and it's as if the lawyers haven't a clue that there are real world consequences to what they do.
Personally, I'm not all that impressed with Hillary Clinton's resume. She voted for the Iraq War. She's won all of two elections, and both against astonishingly weak opponents. She flamed out in 2008, and the best argument for her becoming Presidents mostly seems to be that it's her time now. Bullshit. I want a President I can trust not to constantly changed supposedly principled positions when faced with some opposition, or simply thinking the new one is what people now want to hear. She has spent the past thirty years in the halls of power, getting tighter and tighter with Wall Street and people like Henry Kissinger. She is totally, cluelessly out of touch with the 99%. Flat broke when they left the White House. Yeah. I didn't see her renting a two bedroom apartment in Westchester County when she was running for the Senate from NY. That's what someone who actually is flat broke would do.
Anyway, there's almost no one here on DU who is going to change their vote because of anyone's endorsement.
Oh, and for everyone who tries to slam Elizabeth Warren for having been a Republican, please keep in mind that Hillary was an actual Goldwater Girl.
asjr
(10,479 posts)can change his mind about a person and tell it on DU. You are brave to do it. I have had the same feelings about Hillary Clinton for a long time. However during Obama's years as president I have changed my mind considerably about her in her role as Sec of State. She is like fine wine. She got better after several years.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Excellent endorsement, Steven.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)It had nothing to do with Hillary.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)and simply point to what you wrote 8 yrs ago as though nothing has changed since then and as though you didn't address your change in views in the OP. The response is ridicule because they have nothing else. Sadly, that is what passes for political debate in the current environment where facts are irrelevant and differences of opinion, no matter how minor, are treated as an act of war. The responses say far more about the people making them than the OP itself.
And I suppose for people who do not consider qualifications for a position irrelevant but rather look for the presidency to mirror themselves, experience as Secretary of State--a crucial difference between Clinton's candidacy in 2008 and today, is irrelevant. We live in a world where far too many refuse under any circumstances to examine evidence in forming decisions. They know what they know, facts be damned. Such a mindset cannot imagine how a different context and added experience might alter one's opinion, since theirs is entirely unencumbered by any of that.
I believe what we are seeing is also symptomatic of the hatred of government that comes from the right and influenced the so-called left. When ones sees government as only a source of ill, there is no concern for experience and competence or the ability to enact policy since they don't want government to actually function. Government and politics, like everything else in our society, has been reduced to a form of entertainment--cable TV cage match in business attire. Too many look to elected leaders to vent and express their anger and hostility at the world around them rather than to work together to get things done for the improvement of society. That section on the "left" is of course far more affluent that the general population and not in need of government assistance, so their desire for an entertainer in chief who mirrors themselves trumps any concern that a president actually be equipped or disposed to enacting any actual policy affecting those who need government to get by.
Good endorsement, and since I myself have changed how I see Clinton since 2008, I don't find it difficult to believe how others would. Also the fact is we choose whom we vote for from the available candidates. There is no Barack Obama running in 2016, and O'Malley just doesn't seem to be catching on. I couldn't support someone as conservative as Webb, and I can't trust someone who has been a Republican until very recently. That leaves Clinton. There simply is no one else, and she happens to be extremely well qualified. Different election, different field of candidates, different choice. That shouldn't be difficult to understand.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)noted, not even bothering to read where I explain why.
So they are doing something pretty dumb right off the bat, and going about it in a willfully ignorant way.
This has bothered some of them so much they are diving through all of my old articles and are trying to find objectionable content or supposed contradictions.
And it all boils down to, "You CHANGED what you believed 8 YEARS AGO! OMIGARSH! IMPOSSIBLE!!!!"
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)is a term you use while lumping Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump into a group of those who don't have it.
Is that the demeanor exhibited on Saturday Night Live in a comedy sketch? Or is it when adopting a phony Southern accent?
I suggest Ms. Clinton's demeanor might be more accurately compared not to an irascible old Senator, but to a TV reality-show host.
Number23
(24,544 posts)K&R
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Well done.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)superior in character to everyone else?
I don't think there are words in the English language to describe how ridiculous this endorsement and Mr. Leser are.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)and this is one of the most self serving disingenuous posts I've ever had the displeasure of reading.
You sir are the epitome of an hypocrite. Do you have no values ....what a silly question, I retract that question. Of course you don't....
Truly and really I forgive you, everyone needs to make a living and feed their family, some do it by whatever way they see as the fastest and easiest, you surely are one of those.
Name ste
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)Caretha
(2,737 posts)Truth is never weak. I make no apologies nor require any. You on the other hand possibly have no real convictions and will find it hard to deal with those that stand up for those truths and only apologize when they have erred.
You obviously do not understand those ethics.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Not only that, ignore my reasons and get all self righteous about it and throw in copious ad hominem logical fallacies while you are at it.
This is an excellent example of how DU Bernie Sanders supporters discourse.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)where I have declared for BS. you won't & you can't.so there you go making libelous statements like a true journalist....
don't make me laugh, - you are just one more dime store journalist who turns on a whim to make a buck, who will lie lie lie if it serves your purpose, without even having one iota of proof.
Unlike me....you have shown your true colors with that 2008 diatribe on what a piece of shit you thought Hillary was....and so so stupid, you said it to the world and expect everyone to be like limp lettuce and accept your NEW FOUND and better than ever rehabilitated view to be the ONE AND ONLY ....you sound like a Bible thumping tent preacher in a "come to Jesus" conversion. Pathetic to the utmost core.
Really Steve, you are not the brightest crayon in the box.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Someone who does that is definitely not the brightest crayon in the box.
sheshe2
(83,637 posts)Thanks Steve.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If we are going to argue about what other folks really believe, I think you secretly support everything I say and are too scared to admit it.
NealK
(1,850 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Again, keeping with the theme of not believing what other people say their opinion is.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)NealK
(1,850 posts)this "hot national political pundit" frantically digging to get out of that hole?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)NealK
(1,850 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)NealK
(1,850 posts)Come on, hot pundit, make me giggle again!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)NealK
(1,850 posts)Laughing at someone who fell in a mud-filled hole and who's grasping at straw trying to get out is not very nice. So good night and good luck, hot international pundit of mystery.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You should have told that other poster and all the folks who responded.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)are you someone important that I should care who you are for?
650 people do care? huh,I'll be damned.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Words really do have consequences, for good or for ill.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)relevant that you have been mining through old articles of mine to post them.
That's how irrelevant you find them.
LOL! And thank you for all of that by the way. I am getting stats back from OpedNews that show my buzzmeter keeps rising.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I make no secret of the fact that I've looked at your writing. But don't try to engage me in sophistry. Here, I'll make it plain in case it's not: hew means stick to, or abide by. If you believe I'm hewing to your opinions, things are further gone than even I had imagined. If, on the other hand, you're already familiar with the word hew, then you knew better and you're just doing what you call journalism and the rest of us call something else.
So again, when you set out next to insult my intelligence, bring a little more to the table.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You obviously find my writing relevant and important otherwise you wouldn't spend time mining it to try to discredit it.
There would be no point to doing so to someone whose writings didn't matter.
This makes you a hypocrite.
And it is particularly hilarious after spending all this time trying to go through my writings and you end up proving that you are the one trying to have things both ways.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)But your word is not to be trusted. And one more time, this is why I've been looking at OpEd news in order to see more of your writing. It helps me fill in details and solidify my position vis-a-vis your many positions. So yes, I find your writing extremely relevant, even crucial, in making my case that you're a engaging in hypocrisy of the worst sort.
Yes, Steve, your writing has some import to some people. No doubt some admire your writing, and you seem to be craving that reassurance, so I won't take that from you. But please understand that the reason your writing has become of temporary importance to me has nothing to do with me admiring what you've written.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I believe my logic in the last post was thorough and very defensible, but I'm always willing to let you take a shot at it. But you'll need to actually do that, rather than resorting to content-free name calling. As I reminded you a few days back, I'm not some dimwitted Fox News viewer. You obviously want to play in the political discussion arena, both here and at other outlets, but I'm seriously beginning to question whether you have what it takes to engage in seven a pedestrian political conversation. Upthread you resorted to playing an addled version of "you secretly like me" with another poster. And here, you've gone off the rails to screech that I'm a hypocrite, without bothering to actually reply to my post, a post that left no room for misinterpretation. Is wordsmithing really your thing? Let me know if you want to take another go at my last post. I'm in a mellow mood, and I'll accept a resubmission.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I am the one with duplicitous posts.
There was the requisite trite jab at me about Fox when Bernie has been on Fox plenty of times. I don't see you repudiating him for doing so, then you tried to imply that there is no reason for anyone to care what I have to say when you are spending a lot of time diving through all my old articles to try to find items that conflict.
You have nothing to say to me about being duplicitous or inconsistent. You have done that your self twice now just under this OP.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)After all, he did this TODAY. I mean, heck, I changed my mind eight years ago and you want to crucify me for that.
Where is your condemnation for Sanders?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/13/why-the-most-liberal-candidate-for-president-opposes-strict-gun-control/
http://news.yahoo.com/sanders-stresses-gun-control-calls-assault-weapon-ban-234357994--election.html
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You have several questions put to you by yours truly. If you manage to answer those, we can change the subject and talk about some other things. But I will not be swept along by Hannity-style conversation control. You'll need to find a hapless glue sniffer to fill that role for you.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)for changing my mind?
No, sorry, you don't have standing to do that.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)In the meantime, Fox tactic #437 (strawman mixed with a straight-up lie) gains you nothing. It's meant to deceive others who happen upon this portion of the thread and might be persuaded that I'm actually on 3 sides of 2 issues. The fatal flaw in your logic: the vast majority of people participating in this thread are intelligent.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You have no standing to question me.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You don't get to ask me questions.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You really can't stop yourself; it's the only way you know. You need to get away from the TV people you're hanging out with. They're under the mistaken impression they're something special. But most of us hate those people for the exact same characteristics you're displaying. If you feel strongly about your opinion, and if you think highly of your writing, get to writing. I've asked you questions, and I've even leveled accusations at you, and I meant them. You're not able to respond except with counter-accusations. The jig's up, the formula is known.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)But at least everyone can see it now.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)well thanks Alan, many thought your model/opinion was flawed for years. And now we are supposed to follow you down the yellow brick road?
Are you channeling Greenspan, Hillary or both???
"...The fact is, from the moment of Hillarys concession to President Obama in 2008 at the end of their contest; I began to suspect my evaluation of her was incorrect..."
Your statement below from 2008 ... what is she doing differently today in shifting several opinions right before the first debate? Just changing an opinion and what she thinks it will net her? You are a smart person and had Hillary figured out years ago, certainly you can understand why some people are not going down that road with you!
Hillary Clinton's Released White House Records show she Lied about Opposing NAFTA
By Steven Leser (about the author)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080320_hillary_clinton_s_re.htm
"...One of the things you would expect of someone who really has good experience and judgment is that they can articulate a basic set of principles and positions on issues that they can run on and defend and that stay relatively static. I'm not saying you have to stick to them in the face of overwhelming evidence that one of your positions has been proven to be wrong, like George W. Bush does, even someone who has good experience and judgment occasionally changes their mind. That is not what we have with Hillary. Hillary gives a different opinion on the same subjects every couple of weeks depending on her audience and what she thinks it will net her. As evidence of this is now coming out and is going to be presented to the American people in the starkest terms, how can one be expected to trust her to do anything that she says she is going to do? How can one really know what she believes or intends to do about anything? The only things Hillary's experience seems to be good for is perfecting how to talk out of both sides of her mouth, engaging in the politics of personal destruction and other aspects of her ruthless pursuit of power that remind one of what a Karl Rove might do. That kind of person ought not to be the Democratic nominee."
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)you can laugh all you want about a degree of shift in a policy.
You should also realize that some people do not find your current 180 degree change that credible and that of your "current candidate" with shifting principles.
It is not a laughing matter while people suffer and struggle.
Most politicians accept money from large corporations and they change their positions accordingly.
Sorry, not so funny.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)This must be really awkward for Sanders supporters. Here you all are trying to accuse me of being a flip flopper for changing my mind eight years ago about something and Sanders changed his mind today about gun control.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)essentially describing a character flaw on her part.
I'm not going to continue kicking your thread showing a 180 degree shift on Clinton while you bring up one issue that Sanders could have been stronger on, at least he saw the consequences of invading of Iraq and voted no, that was a significant vote that affected millions of people. We are all living with the consequences of that invasion today.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Because there are many things Sanders has changed his mind about.
He said horrific things about the Democratic party on multiple occasions, now he is running for the Democratic Party nomination.
Is that OK?
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)when they accuse other candidates of flip flopping.
Then Bernie sees which way the wind is blowing and changes his views, its all good in his case though.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)They don't see how hypocritical they look.
SunSeeker
(51,504 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)for it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)This is something Sanders hasn't any inclination to do.
SunSeeker
(51,504 posts)Gothmog
(144,890 posts)Thanks for posting
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And very telling.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)William769
(55,142 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Since my very pointed questions, as well as other questions on the thread, were completely ignored, might as well call this out for what it is.
Response to marym625 (Reply #286)
AtomicKitten This message was self-deleted by its author.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)totodeinhere
(13,056 posts)long time.
pinstikfartherin
(500 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)bumprstickr
(74 posts)she was the worst possible candidate in 2008, but is now the best.
did she change or did you?
and if you were so wrong in your 2008 assessment, how do you know you aren't just as wrong now?
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)after the 2008 Primary. Seeing her at the 2008 Democratic Convention melted a lot of hard feelings about how she acted towards the end of that most combative period. She was a superstar at the Convention. I didn't even vote in the 2008 Primary, mostly because of personal life distractions/priorities and I liked both candidates. I do remember being dismayed at some of the tactics, but she has redeemed herself by being a loyal public servant to her POTUS, and I respect the heck out of both of them for coming together like they did. They both showed strong character and mutual respect for one another and it made me proud of both of them. I will miss Obama when he leaves office and already feel nostalgic that his time in the WH is winding down.
But you are 100% correct, and there is simply no one like her in this race. She is head and shoulders above anyone.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)completely ( or at least severely) lacking in empathy.
Anyone putting themselves in her shoes at that moment in time would get what you and I are saying.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Zing Zing Zingbah
(6,496 posts)Thanks for sharing.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I know you have in impressive network of friends and colleagues. That's what makes you an endorser while I'm a supporter. Thanks Steve.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Cha
(296,779 posts)mind?
bernie never does.. oh wait.. it happens to a lot of people. they just can't handle that Hillary has a strong supporter like you, Steven.
Who gives a shite if you didn't then and now you do? Oh, except those who think they're helping BS by trying to embarrass you.
It says nothing about you and everything about them.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Cha
(296,779 posts)out because you changed your mind about Hillary from 2008 to the present day are the ones who look small and desperate.
Let them stew and wallowing in their pettiness because they fucking have nothing else.
Hillary changes Hearts and Minds~ That kills them.
I'm with President Obama who chose Hillary to be his SOS.. they came to work together for the greater good of the country. That's what happens when we're working for something bigger than ourselves.
Obama: Making Hillary Clinton secretary of State one of my best decisions
Asking Hillary Clinton to serve as secretary of State was "one of the best decisions I ever made as president," President Obama told philanthropists and donors gathered Tuesday at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York City.
The president showered the former first lady and front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination with praise, saying he "will always be grateful for her extraordinary leadership."
Obama went on to joke that he still had "a lot of debt to pay" because of the miles Clinton traveled when in his administration. But he also praised the former New York senator for her "post-administration glow."
"She looks much more rested," Obama said to laughter.
MOre~
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/218666-obama-making-hillary-clinton-secretary-of-state-one-of-my-best
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leaves behind enormous 20-year legacy with exit from office following start of President Obama's second term
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/obama-new-term-hillary-clinton-leaves-20-year-political-legacy-article-1.1244485
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110724779
I admire Hillary so much for her answer to President Obama's call to service. They started working together for the good of the country and our Planet. Not stuck in the past like so many people who only want to go on and on about it.
Evidently they've remained good friends.. and I couldn't be happier.
Awesome Birthday Tweet from Hillary to President Obama!
To a dear friend, a great boss, and my second favorite president: Happy birthday @POTUS! -H Retweets 1,768Favorites 4,147
3:31 PM - 4 Aug 2015
DM M~ http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=14524
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)You obviously doing some sort of parody here . Which side of the mouth are you speaking from ?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)ass about the girl in your id? Mrs. Clinton voted to invade Iraq and now you all on her side is dumbing it down to Iraq War!
Iraq never invaded the US. I hope Mrs. Clinton never visits the White House again. By the way, does a two timer ever wins?
riversedge
(70,047 posts)BlueStateLib
(937 posts)There were only 2 options on the table and doing nothing was not one of them
October 10, 2002
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.
Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Explain why your change of opinion is better than mine.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And then you didn't mention any.
shiriu
(63 posts)As we can see from the Pew Institutes report on the subject at http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2014/07/2014-07-14-Balance-of-Power.pdf,
opinions of the populaces of some of our most important allies in Western Europe, including the UK, France, Germany, Italy and many other countries like Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Mexico, Argentina, cratered during the Bush administration and rebounded during Hillarys tenure as Secretary of State.
The source you posted contradicts your argument. The opinions of foreign populaces about US largely decreased during Hillary clinton's tenure as Secretary of State (2009-2013):
Israel: +12
Japan: +10
Russia: +7
Turkey: +7
Spain: +4
Argentina: +3
Palestine: +1
Poland: 0
South Korea: 0
Indonesia: -2
Mexico: -3
Pakistan: -5
China: -7
Lebanon: -8
Kenya: -9
Egypt: -11
Jordan: -11
France -11
Germany -11
UK: -11
Not listing the countries which did not have opinions polled in 2009, since we can't assess the shift in favorability since the beginning Hillary's tenure.
In all, in these countries, during Hillary's tenure, there was +44 favorability improvement in some countries, but -89 favorability decline in several.
There was a jump in favorability from 2008 to 2009, but I'd argue it was due to the Obama election (which was seen as a positive for foreign nations), so Hillary did not have any hand for that improvement. She entered office in Februray, and the Pew pools are released in Spring. It wouldn't make sense to use 2008 figures to assess her work.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)by all means lets reward her mediocrity , and her many,moral and many ethical lapses....
ROFLMAO
baldguy
(36,649 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 3, 2016, 12:05 PM - Edit history (1)
This is truly and deeply amusing....