2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Sadly, over the Hill [View all]sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)rabid anti-Sanders Hillary supporters here. I am a Democrat who is for THIS COUNTRY FIRST. Like a whole lot of other Democrats.
Now if I believed what I see some of those in that old thread so emphatically said they believe about Hillary, or any candidate at that time, I would never be able to support the person THEY describe there, for such a high office in this country.
I would choose the one who has a history of being right on major issues, such as the Iraq War. It's not as if those who were so opposed to Hillary back then don't have a choice since they made it clear she was a 'liar' in their view.
So the puzzle for me is, were they sincere back then at all? Are they now?
What is the reason for supporting someone you were so fiercely, and I didn't support Hillary then but would never have attacked her they way she was attacked by the same people who are now attacking Bernie, against??
Not that I ever gave any credibility to the few here whose MO is to attack anyone who doesn't agree with them. But seeing the flip flop in writing, well, let's say it confirms my opinion.
I see Parry was popular with some of them then too, now I see the same people slam that great journalist.
to lie to make herself more presentable, especially using the Fake Courage Under Fire Bosnia Fire by Sniper story when there are so many real Soldiers under fire that she totally disprespects by going there.
<snips>
Why Is Hillary Clinton Lying?
by Robert Parry
March 26, 2008Two weeks ago, I wrote a story that observed a disturbing trend in Hillary Clintons campaign her growing tendency to stretch the truth, twist what her chief rival was saying and then rely on her supporters to go on the offensive against you if you spoke up.
These tendencies were troubling, in part, because they mirrored what had become so common during George W. Bushs years: to declare that a fantasy is the truth and then to attack the patriotism or sanity of anyone who thinks otherwise. I wrote
A week later, I cited a report in the Boston Globe about Clinton exaggerating her behind-the-scenes support for the State Childrens Health Insurance Program which was fashioned and passed by a bipartisan congressional effort led by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. I noted that Clinton had transformed her peripheral role into a central theme of her campaign.
<snip>
Not surprisingly, these articles questioning Clinton's truthfulness drew furious reactions from Clintons supporters who seem on perpetual alert to any criticism of their candidate, so it can be repudiated as an example of sexism, Hillary bashing or membership in some Barack Obama cult.
<more>
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/032608Parry.shtml
hilary is my senator too and I stopped believing in her when I realized that when she voted for the IWR without reading the 90 NIE report that she was planning on using that on her resume to run for president in 2008.
Too bad for our Soldiers it wasn't like bush, cheney, rummy, et al promised it would turn out. hilary put her faith in bush? What judgement she has.
Now how do you go from THAT to the exact opposite? Glad I read that thread, I will ask the authors of those comments themselves the question if I run into them again.