General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: All you fools supporting Sanders were probably supporting Nader in 2000 [View all]Carolina
(6,960 posts)already... name calling! So anyone who doesn't toe the line for HRC... is a fool. Really?
Well, let's see. Since you bring up the history of 2000, let's take a walk down memory lane of how Gore who actually won, blew it... because the vote should never have been close enough for Nader to be a spoiler. I voted for Gore, but cringed at the following blunders:
1. Choosing Liebermann for VP (some of us recognized him as a smarmy, self-serving POS even then)
2. Wanting to distance himself so much from Clinton that he didn't use the Big Dog on the campaign trail
3. Corollary to #2, not winning his home state or that of Bill's... TN and AR could have made Florida moot
4. Not insisting at the outset on a recount of the entire state of Florida rather than selective counties
5. Not allowing Democratic protesters to descend on Florida to counter the droves of Sore-Loserman repukes
6. Not supporting, or encouraging, former Senate colleagues (at least one) to stand with the Congressional Black caucus in its objection to certification of the electoral vote count, thereby allowing the fix to stand
Now, let's take another walk down memory lane regarding HRC:
She was inevitable in 2008, too. She was in it to win it. She was assured that her famous name and vast money war chest were sufficient, until Super Tuesday (March 5, 2008) proved that thinking wrong. Her campaign was in disarray and she resorted to kitchen sink tactics against Obama, even going so far as to praise McCain. Then, still not knowing when to quit despite running low on cash, she proceeded on to California because you never know, remember Bobby Kennedy. That was the straw for many, including the Democratic leadership which asked her to bow out in summer 2008. She gracelessly did so, on condition that Obama and the party pay off her campaign debt. Wow, what great leadership skills, what sound management! Screw up, squander a formidable campaign war chest on a 1992 style campaign, then demand that someone else bail her out... kinda like Wall Street which is quite appropriate.
In 2008, HRC also touted her 20 years of experience -- 12 as first lady of Arkansas and 8 as first lady of the US. But if she was, and is, to claim the Clinton legacy, then she has to assume the blame for that job sucking travesty NAFTA, for the Gramm-Bliley-Leech Act which overturned Glass-Steagall, for the Telecommunications Act which has produced the consolidated infotainment media of today, and for Welfare Deform which has deepened the abyss of poverty. BTW: imagine the ridicule HRC supporters would heap on Babs Bush if she ever made a similar 'experience' claim based on 4 years as 2nd lady of the US, 4 years as 1st lady of the US and 8 years as 1st mom!
Then theres 2002, the start of HRC's first term in the Senate. How can anyone forget that IWR vote, that callous, finger-in-the-political-wind vote cast because of her POTUS aspirations. That vote makes her ultimately culpable for the death, debt, destruction and destabilization that war of choice has caused. Sure Bush would have gone to war anyway, but without the votes of such would be presidents as Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Biden and Dodd, it would truly have been BUSHS war. Instead, HRC and the others were profiles in political cowardice displaying politically ambitious calculation, awful judgment, and a stunning lack of morality while providing the liars and thieves in the Bush White House bipartisan cover. Here at DU, we knew better than to believe the Bush cabal. Democrats like Edward Kennedy (a genuine liberal), Bob Graham (of FL who even now points correctly to the Saudis), Robert Byrd, and others not only cautioned their peers about such haste (casting votes just before the 2002 midterm elections) but warned, like canaries in the mine, about the long term consequences. Never forget Byrds poignant speech about the rush to war, the cost of war, the waste of war... It didn't take a classified report to see the facts. And those who think that vote is outdated, past history, something to be forgotten because HRC apologized for it, called it a mistake
should remember that there are no do-overs for votes that cost so much in terms of death and destruction.
Then, HRC is no friend of the common man. She pays handlers and marketing personnel to package her as the peoples champion, but its all smoke and mirrors because Wall Streeters (like Robert Reuben, Larry Summers, Lloyd Blankfein/Mr. Goldmann Sachs, et.al.) own her. She is the mistress of triangulation who helped create the DLC and who remains 3rd way to her very core. She is tone deaf and thin skinned (see that 2008 primary campaign, again) and lacks the natural political skills and charisma of Bill. On that note, I would even go so far as to say, she is no pave-the-way feminist. She is where she is today because of Bill.
After law school, she may have worked (ever so briefly) on the Nixon impeachment committee, but she was no heavy hitter, she didnt pass the DC Bar, and she didnt last long there. So what did she do? She ran off to Arkansas (to Arkansas
who goes there, who goes from Yale to DC to Hope Arkansas, if they are such a gifted and talented attorney
sorry Arkansans). She followed Bill because she recognized his innate talent and his rising star quality, and she latched on to him. She made it because of being Mrs. Clinton not because of being Hillary Rodham. Her only real lawyering was shilling for Walmart (a corporate lawyer for WALMART
so much for walking the talk of being the peoples champion) and at the Rose Law Firm, she relied heavily on Vince Foster!
So, spare me. Who's the FOOL?!