HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » HassleCat » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:56 PM
Number of posts: 6,409

About Me

I am a disgruntled former DU member. Most people here are fine, but the site is ruined by zealous Hillary supporters. DU took my money and put my account on everlasting review. Cowards. Dishonest cowards.

Journal Archives

Progressive candidates abound in Oregon primaries.

Watching TV ads for the primaries in Oregon means being bombarded by the term "progressive" over and over again. They are not afraid of the P word here. One Portland mayoral candidate is openly gay, and his TV ad shows he and his partner walking their dogs around the neighborhood. Oregon is very different than other places, and the primaries here are just as different from the primaries in other states. Not all other states, but most.

The White House correspondents dinner

I saw something on TV today that gave me pause and made me think about how our country has "evolved"over the years. It seems the dinner is such a hot event that wealthy people and celebrities gobble up all the tickets, so actual journalists who cover the administration cannot get in. So it's mostly bullshit, lots of rubbing elbows among the rich and famous, photo ops with celebs, etc.

The general election is going to be so easy!

Two reasons.

First, Hillary Clinton is so qualified, has been around so long, knows so many people, has served in so many capacities, etc. She has so much more relevant experience.

Second, Hillary Clinton is a wonderful person, warm and friendly, kind and caring, compassionate, etc. She opposes all the horrible, mean things the Republicans have done to us, and plan to do in the future.

This is all so obvious. Trump will be lucky to get a hundred votes. I don't see how we can lose. Happy days are here again!

Stunning attack on Sanders

Some people are parsing the Sanders tax returns and trying to make an issue of anything and everything they find. Basically, Bernie's tax returns illustrate that he lives like most middle class Americans, but he's being cast as a "millionaire" and whacked about the head and shoulders for taking a mortgage deduction, and so on, and so on. This is from people who claim to be Democrats people who should recognize what it means to live on a middle class income, people who should know the difference between how rich people live and how the rest of us live. The most significant thing is the way they use these attacks to deflect attention from the fact that one of our candidates is a real, actual multimillionaire, lives the life of a rich person, hobnobs with the rich and famous, has a big foundation as a sideline, does business favors for wealthy friends, all the typical stuff. This is so much like the attacks on John Kerry, where a genuine war hero was portrayed as a phony.

Here comes the latest anti-Bernie meme.

I can see it coming. There have been multiple posts predicting that Sanders supporters who are not registered as Democrats will flood the polling places, stand around, object when not allowed to vote, complain, cause confusion, slow things down, etc. Their purpose in doing these things will be to allow for complaints about cheating and disenfranchisement when Bernie loses. Of course there will be some people who think they get to vote in the Democratic primary even though they are not registered as Democrats, and some of them will make noise and cause trouble. All it will require is a few hundred such incidents and we will see charges of Sanders Anarchists trying to foul the process. So get ready because it's coming, whether or not it causes any real problems. Kind of like the Vatican trip.

Sanders is pandering!

Not to Catholics, as his detractors insist. "Oh, look! He's sucking up to the Pope!" Sorry, but way off the mark, not even on the target. Sanders is "pandering" to people who think Pope Francis may represent an opportunity to use organized religion as an agent for social change. Don't worry. Nobody thinks the church is suddenly all progressive on all issues, ready to ordain women priests, etc. But the Vatican seems willing to facilitate discussion concerning climate change and possible solutions. So a bunch of people from around the world show up to discuss climate change and related issues, and Sanders jumps at the chance to participate, to speak with like-minded people, to promote possible solutions to a significant problem. So, yes, that is pandering, but not pandering for Catholic votes. He might be pandering for environmental votes, but that should not upset the Clinton campaign, since they probably have the majority of all 28 environmental votes, anyway.

What interests me is the way so many Clinton supporters cannot wrap their heads around the idea that Sanders would go to the Vatican meeting without a promised photo op with the Pope. Sanders was even called "irresponsible" for leaving NY to go off on a junket. Now the Clinton camp is criticizing him for using campaign funds to travel when he should be in New York, eating spaghetti in an Italian neighborhood or something like that. I guess he's incompetent because he doesn't even know how to pander correctly. Now they're accusing Sanders of faking a papal endorsement, and then saying, "We never said that!" They go to remarkable lengths to discredit this old, irrelevant, socialist who is not even a real Democrat, who poses no threat to the mighty Hillary Clinton juggernaut, etc. Hunting mosquitoes with a 12 gauge, I would say.

Of course, if Hillary Clinton had gone to the Vatican, well... I don't even need to explain, do I?

Under President Clinton, we're going into Syria.


I'm sure we all know how Hillary Clinton threw President Obama under the bus, then turned the bus around and ran over him again. No big deal, as far as I'm concerned. If that's the nature of their relationship, it is what it is. But Clinton continues to insist she was right about Syria, that we should have intervened, and it sounds very much as if we're going into Syria when she becomes president. She is advocating so forcefully for "doing something" that it sounds almost like a promise. I will be very surprised if we don't establish a no-fly zone, and I will be equally surprised if our planes don't tangle with Russian planes. Well, won't that be fun?

Double talk on tax returns vs. speeches

I listened to Hillary Clinton talking about tax returns and speech transcripts. She released her tax returns, so that's the standard, what all candidates should do. She didn't make public her speeches, so that's the standard, the thing candidates don't do. The truth is, neither tax returns nor speech transcripts are required, so neither candidate should be "demanding" either of these things. They both poke and prod each other on this issue, but I don't know if it's legitimate.

Why the nastiness from some Hillary supporters?

Why are some (not all) Clinton supporters so aggressively nasty? Only they can tell you for sure, but I will venture a guess. They know their candidate can win just by hanging on, and it's unlikely Bernie can knock Hillary off track in closed primaries. But it's not going to be much fun. Bernie came very close, closer than anyone predicted when this whole thing began. This was supposed to be a cakewalk, nothing more than a succession of photo ops and fundraising appearances. Now itís an unpleasant slog, responding to accusation of taking corporate money, swatting at some old gadfly who came from nowhere to challenge the established order. His effort has become some kind of movement, an expression of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party. The implications for Clinton are fairly serious.

First, if she tries running too far to the right, she will lose the election. It's clear there are very large numbers, make that VERY large numbers, of independents and disaffected Democrats who are tired of the third way, tired of candidates who take money from the wrong people, tired of capturing the presidency and losing more and more elections down ballot. If these voters donít see some serious discussion of progressive issues, they will neglect to vote. That means Clinton could lose, and it certainly means Democrats would suffer more defeats at the state and local level. If Clinton doesn't have some coat tails, all that talk about being a real Democrat isn't going to mean much. Trying to unify the party isn't going to be easy, and many people are going to be very annoyed if there is even a hint that voters owe it to the party, have no alternative, etc.

Second, Clinton better deliver on all those promises. "I'm the pragmatic progressive, the one who gets things done." Well, things better get done, then. Many voters will not accept excuses about Republican obstructionists. "I get things done," means exactly that. It doesn't mean, "I get things done unless the Republicans make it difficult." Clinton is selling herself as a president who accomplishes things against the odds, although she hasn't said if she plans to neutralize the GOP, kiss up to them, kick their asses, or hire a hit man. If she can't get things done, voters aren't going to give her a pass. They're going to vote for the progressive Democrat who runs against her in the primary. I don't know who that might be, but there will be one if Clinton fails to deliver.

So Iím guessing Clinton supporters are grumpy because they realize weíre just beginning an unpleasant slog through the general election, and possibly the presidency. If Clinton wins the general the same way sheís winning the primaries, weíre in for major unhappiness. Can you imagine if Clinton achieves a weak victory against a weak Republican? Neither Trump nor Cruz could be considered a strong candidate. One is a joke, and the other is a bad joke. If it gets really disastrous, Republicans might gain seats in Congress, in which case the obstructionism we see now would look like a walk in the park. Yes, this makes me unhappy, but Iím not heavily invested in the candidate who might be looking at a bleak future. For Clintonís more enthusiastic supporters, the general election victory might be the only bright spot in the next five years. In fact, itís looking more and more likely. I guess I'd be grumpy, too, if that's all I had to look forward to.

Clinton is highly qualified.

So are many other people who have long records of public service and a history of accomplishments. Henry Kissinger comes to mind. I don't think I would want someone like Henry Kissinger as president. When someone has a ten page CV, it's a good idea to look at some of the items in detail, not just the thickness of the re'sume'.
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »