I agree that lots of Democrats supported the war, but that doesn’t change that part of her record is that she supported it. One Democrat who voted for the war, John Kerry, also ran for president, attempted to paint himself as being anti-Iraq War, and also failed miserably at winning his election. While I was talking about Hillary specifically, this particular criticism does apply to another prominent Democrat. Lots of people doing a bad thing doesn’t mean that you’re immune to criticism for doing it yourself.
…bipartisan vote in congress, indicating broad appeal across both parties. Democrats, including Hillary, supported it at the time, and only came out against it later. Democrats have lost two elections in part by running candidates who supported the disaster, then flip-flopped on it later. That’s something Democrats need to be realistic about, I don’t think the ‘I voted to allow the war but I was opposed to the war’ line actually fools anyone who has a chance of not voting for a Democrat.
Trump made a single off-hand comment that wasn’t entirely opposed to the war on a TV show, Hillary voted in favor of allowing the war to happen. Aside from the fact that we’re talking about Democratic candidates and not Trump (one thing to be realistic about is that the Democratic candidate in 2016 was bad, regardless of her opponent), the two levels of ‘support’ aren’t remotely similar.
This is a perfect example of Democrats putting their heads in the sand and ignoring reality. Her CYA and backpedaling are a prime example of dishonesty and general weakness as a candidate, but you want to stick your fingers in your ears and insist that voting to allow the war, but giving flowery speeches with excuses somehow means she was meaningfully opposed to the war.
In what world is ‘graduated at the top of her med school class’ a remotely accurate analogy? As I pointed out, Hillary’s ‘GPA’ includes a number of "F"s like voting for things she now staunchly opposes (Iraq War, racist crime laws), support for things only when it’s popular (like gay marriage), and positions that no one expects her to stick to (like the TPP). It includes a number of "A"s in subjects that a lot of voters wishes she didn’t take, like “cozying up to Wall Street bankers”, or in subjects that voters consider a liability like ‘being a Washington insider with lots of party connections’.
If you go by ‘are they qualified’ in the literal sense, both meet the relevant qualifications. If you go by ‘are they qualified’ in the sense of ‘do I think this person will make a good president’, I find very little to recommend Hillary - and the fact that people in this thread about Democratic candidates keep responding by saying ‘well she’s better than Trump’ highlights that problem.
I feel like you have no understanding of the political climate after 9-11. You are judging everyone in retrospect based on what we know now. We were all lied to by Bush, Cheney, Colin Powell, the NY Times, and bullied as being unpatriotic for not supporting the president. One party purposely lied to start a war, and the other party was bullied into not stopping them, yet you blame the bullied party more than the bullies that actually plotted to start the war? That mindset is the muddled mess in this scenario IMO.
Put yourself in these shoes for a minute. You don’t have a good job. You are barely making it, the bills a piling up. The good job you had went away due to a combination of factors (cost of manufacturing in the U.S., recession, etc).
One person says "I will get your good job back!"and other things. You don’t really agree with the other things.
The other person says "Transgender people should be able to use whichever bathroom they want. And I will give away free college to all the kids. And we will reform immigration! We will overturn Citizens United! Oh, if you like ,my opponent you are deplorable! " and other things, some of which sorta mention jobs. You agree with some of what this person says.
Which one do you think wins?
You may or may not care about the transgender bathroom issue, immigration reform or the price of college but you will care about the job. Not because you are some irredeemable redneck racist but because you have to work to support your self and your family.
The Ds used to be all about the blue collar folks. Union jobs, etc. Clinton gave it lip service while Trump made a big deal out of the issue. A bunch of the people who voted for Trump felt that Clinton and the standard politicians on both sides ignored them. So they voted for the person they felt wasn’t ignoring them.
Liberals have been talking a lot for years about people voting against their own interests. Yet when people vote for their own interest and choose Trump*, it means they are stoopid and racist.
Do you think that message will work?
Slee
*Note, whether or not Trump can do what he promised is trivial. He paid attention to their problems. Clinton did not, or at least, did not do so loudly and long enough to overcome the fact that the Ds haven’t given a shit about the working class for a long time.
But you sure as hell knew about them, and you knew that they were going to be applied if he won. So self-interest won out over ethics, and you helped put an unrestrained bigot into the White House, possibly with the fictional rationalization that he’d do a complete 180 when he was hit by the importance of the office.
No, it means that those people tacitly approved of racism, and rightfully get the blame for doing exactly that. They don’t have to wear swastika tattoos and preach white supremacy to abet it. And they make excuses for it because they don’t want to be painted as ‘stoopid and racist.’
Just exactly like those good people who put Hitler into power.
That’s not really accurate; they just think that he speaks like them and understand their language, and how they think and feel, and in a world that’s experience rapid change, that’s apparently enough.
Democrats don’t understand what they’re fighting against, which is compounded by the fact that they’ve been blind to the republican state-level strategy for years. A simple majority of people like democratic ideas more than republican ideas but the republicans care about one thing: winning.
Democrats and liberals have awakened every morning for the past 30 to 40 years and asked “How can we make the world a better place?” Republicans have awakened every morning for the last 30-40 years and asked “How can we win? How can we crush liberalism?”
The fact that three months after the election, you’re still harping on this means you don’t get it. You may see it that way, but it probably didn’t even enter their minds. It’s been pointed out over and over (with even links to columnists of major publications who agree) that some people voted for Trump because they thought (wrongly as it may turn out to be) he’d do something to address the issues that are important to them. If you want to still scream and stamp your feet about how that means they “tacitly approved of racism,” then neither I nor anyone else can help you.
Enjoy your recreational outrage. it ain’t going to do a damn thing to help the Democratic Party. Not one damn thing.
God damn. You just can’t wrap your head around the idea that Clinton did talk in detail about jobs and the economy and didn’t call all Trump supporters “deplorables”, and that the perception that she didn’t talk about jobs and thought all her opponents were bigots was entirely down to lies told by the right-wing. And that people concerned with having a job in the next few years probably shouldn’t have voted for the guy who makes shutting down small businesses a point of pride and who has his own brand products manufactured in China.
It’s not Clinton’s fault that the blatant lies of Trump were so enticing. Nor is it her fault that when other people pointed out that the lies were in fact lies Trump supporters all became butthurt snowflakes complaining that the mean liberals were being so mean to them.
From a strategic standpoint, it is sort of her fault. The problem she had in this regard is that while she may have spoken a lot about jobs, most of that was boring conventional stuff. The main headline-grabbing things Democrats were saying were attacks on Trump. So that drowned out whatever else they might have been saying, to an extent.
In Trump’s case, it was more complicated. What he said about immigration and terrorism etc. was inflammatory but it was things relating to jobs and security etc., which many people see as primary concerns.
This is something that you see again and again in political campaigns. A politician can speak on and on about a variety of topics, but if he says one headline-grabbing line in the speech it’s as if he hasn’t said anything else. So it’s important to make sure that your headline-grabbing lines are ones that people relate to and think are important.
I’ve generally found that it’s more often the Republicans who fall victim to this, and get focused on attacking the Democratic candidate on relatively unimportant matters, which drowns out their message on more substantive matters. (For example, Hillary Clinton might never have won election to the Senate had her opponent not focused so much on her being a carpetbagger.) In the case, it may be the Democrat who miscalculated in this manner.
Not that I can blame her. Trump’s enormous baggage was far too tempting. Virtually no one thought anyone could get elected with that amount of baggage, and focusing on it was very much in line with conventional wisdom from all the Smart People.
Yes, relying on the ability of the electorate to detect blatant bullshit is always a poor bet. It’s always better to just produce a better quality of bullshit oneself.
her campaign didn’t remember e.g. Michigan existed until it was too late (after ignoring their own people, and where did they go? They held a fundraiser in Grosse Pointe. The “old moniest” of old money areas of the state. Her campaign focused on delivering a weak message to the wrong people.
Hey, look at those goalposts move. You complained her campaign wasn’t about jobs. Meanwhile, guess which wordappeared most frequently in Clinton’s campaign speeches.
She didn’t deliver a weak message. It just got buried by the right-wing lies.
One can think of voting for Trump as being akin to Congressmen voting for pork-barrel spending. A bill may contain 90% of things the Congressman disagrees with, but if there’s a rider attached that involves federal funding for some local constituency, the Congressmen may vote for the bill just because of that.
So a coal miner in Pennsylvania may vote Trump because he lost his job, or may soon lose his job, and consider Trump’s boorishness to be an unpleasant, but unavoidable, side effect of that.
Another way to state it is that they viewed their own needs as more important than keeping racism/sexism/homophobia out of government. Which is tacitly approving of it.
You don’t vote for 10% of a candidate, you vote for the whole thing. You can’t excuse it by claiming that you didn’t vote for most of what they were advocating. It’s an all or nothing deal. You bought it, you own it. You can’t escape responsibility this way, which I would think is obvious for the “party of personal responsibility”.
yes, and…? People do that all of the time. Why is it- just now- somehow the most burning issue which needs to be screamed about relentlessly?
Look, I’m not saying it’s not an issue. but it’s not the issue which got Microwaved Circus Peanut elected. Banging on about it isn’t going to get him out of office, nor is it going to get more Democrats elected.
We are supposed to be moving past racism/sexism/homophobia as a society. Yes it very much is a burning issue, but calling attention to it is not screaming about it. The fact that you hear legitimate complaints about these things as screaming says a lot actually. We all should be concerned about it if we care at all about our fellow Americans.
Electing this to the White House combined with same party control of both houses of congress and soon the supreme court is a terrible thing for our country and I feel for everyone that will be affected by the hateful polices soon to come.
No we should never stop calling out racism/sexism/homophobia when we see it. If that makes conservatives uncomfortable, then good, stop electing these people. Ceasing discussing it will only result in normalizing it, which many people on that side really want.