My claim was not ‘her Katrina remark impugned her statements.’ It was:
In other words: I wasn’t saying that everything out of her mouth in that interview gave the lie to her book’s claims. I was saying, instead, that the interview didn’t enhance her image (as, presumably, someone whose book is worth buying).
That’ll never happen because the Dems refuse to acknowledge how many people actively dislike Hillary. Look some politicians are teflon. Bill Clinton is. He committed perjury* and instead of that being the issue instead it is “can’t blame him for getting a blowjob”. He goes onto a plane with the AG and talks about the investigation about his wife and it’s “He’s a scamp”.
But Hillary, everything sticks to her:
Travelgate
Failed Health Care reform
Carpetbagging to NY to be a Senator
Being a condescending elitist
Pay for influence i.e. running the Clinton Foundation as SoS
Dems counter that the voters are wrong that she is the most qualified candidate ever but they refuse to acknowledge that politics is perception and the perception is that she is not a nice person and kind of scummy.
*Think how you would feel if a cop or a neighbor took you to court then lied about it.
Yes, after two decades of lies spread by Rove and the Russians, she does have people disliking her.
Well, yeah, sorta kinda. I blame both Bill and Hillary for the Republican Lite shift in the Democrats. They explain that they were doing a strategic retreat in the face of an overwhelming onslaught, and I take their point. Still disagree, but more of a sixty-forty than slam dunk.
But I like him, and I don’t like her. Well, OK, so what? But I recall gritting my teeth and getting ready to vote for her when I feared that America wasn’t ready for Obama, an objection to his complexion. I was pleasantly surprised to be wrong. Plumb tickled!
But a lot of the Hillary people swallowed their preferences and got on board, and I can’t really fault them for feeling like they were owed something. All too human.
“…(D)ishonest and kind of scummy”…? Under present circumstances, its kind of like comparing Frankenstein with the girl he threw down the well!
I admit, I do* lik*e Bill and altho I kinda admire Hillary (perservere in the face of all that) I cant say I “like” her.
I was almost fliiping a coin between her and Bernie, but I thught she had a much better chance of beating Trump…sigh.
It’s ironic that you would ciriticize Fox, but then mischaracterize what the issue is. I linked to the actual agreement earlier, and if you read it and come back to say you still think your characterization was accurate, I’ll go into this deeper. But please read the agreement first. Also read this article which directly relates to the idea that HRC was “fundraising for the party”:
Emphasis added. This is the kind of stuff Brazile is talking about.
How much stayed with the National parties coffers? See, this is bogus. It presents a small part of the story, out of context.
In any case, that happened last year and what the DNC does with their funds is the parties business.
The issue is that Fox is ignoring cyrrent critical news about* indictments* in the Trump campign.
The context is in the agreement itself. Did you read it???
Missed the edit window, but answer that question first, before I go into more detail.
This, but even in the primaries, it’s not like people didn’t know that Bernie Sanders was running. They knew he was a challenger - the fact that he didn’t get attention early in the race isn’t Clinton’s fault. Bernie Sanders could have spent more time laying the groundwork for a campaign by running for president earlier in his career or by appearing and playing a more prominent role in the Democratic conventions in prior years. He didn’t. He has been an independent for much of his political life. I have no fucking clue why people expect someone who makes a career out of running as an independent and NOT using the Democratic party’s political machinery suddenly expect him to be treated like a lifelong member of the Democratic party. That defies all logic.
And so yeah, as I said, the voters are the problem. Voters who stay at home or vote for candidates with no chance in hell of winning aren’t sending a message, they’re just making it more likely that an incompetent shit gibbon authoritarian wanna be gets elected. And the longer that someone like that remains in power, the more power they have to destroy the institutions that support democracy - so much so that even if they do eventually find their super candidate, he won’t be able to accomplish a thing because he’ll spend his entire 4-8 years in office picking through the remains of a shattered state.
I dont see what you are getting at. What part of that memo is the smoking gun, etc?
Would you call favoring the military-industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex, the war on some drugs, warrantless spying on Americans, support for trade deals that help corporations but hurt individual Americans, and generla contempt for due process right wing? Because I certainly do. To hit the first example, two of those three were in favor of the Iraq War and voted to allow it, none of them actually call for a reduction in American foreign ventures (Hillary loves military interventions). The President is the one who presides over foreign policy, the military, and domestic law enforcement, so their position in these areas is highly important, and I don’t see any Democratic candidates who are anything but significantly right-wing in these areas.
It’s the long-term greater good. You might want to consider that voting for awful candidates has real consequences and not do so, therefore pushing the party to put forward decent candidates. As the last election showed, trying to guilt trip people with an argument of ‘vote for my awful candidate, because the other guy is worse and you’ll be responsible for him winning if you don’t vote for mine’ doesn’t actually work to get votes.
Yes, it is about me because it’s my vote. No political party is entitled to my vote, and the sooner the Democrats realize that they can’t just say ‘Republicans are bad, therefore you have to vote for us’ and try to actually run decent candidates, the sooner we’ll all be better off. It’s about the country and the nation, and who’s leadership puts us in the best position for the beyond. And you know that every four years Republicans and Democrats both try to pretend that it’s all about just this election, and please ignore the long-term.
If by “real campaign” you mean selling out and accepting corporate and PAC money… yeah, he could have done that. But then he wouldn’t have been Bernie Sanders.
The whole point of his campaign was to cast a big ol’ spotlight on the everyday corruption that is the DNC and RNC, who take billions in money from big donors, and are then beholden to those donors, to the detriment of the American people. In that respect, his campaign was a success. Frankly, I don’t think Bernie expected to win early on. The outpouring of support he got in such a short amount of time makes it very clear that his message resonated, though, and given a fair shake by the DNC and the media, it’s more than possible he could have won the primary, and then the general election.
The best we can hope for now is that the #resistance group don’t completely derail the national dialogue and convince most people that the problem is just Trump.
It’s not a smoking gun. It shows the hollowness of the idea that “well, all the money taken from the state parties went back to the national party, so what’s wrong with that”? It’s a PDF, so I’m going to refer you to the paragraphs. What’s wrong with that is that Hillary had:
Control of who was hired in key positions (Communications senior staff and Director, Technology, and research). The DNC could make the final choice, but only from candidates pre-approved by Hillary for America. This is Items #1 and #2.
The HRC campaign was given the authority to determine the “scope, strategy, staffing, budget and manner of execution” of the DNC’s “data, technology, analytics, research, and communications operations”. Item #4, paragraph #4.
Now, if this agreement were executed after Hillary had wrapped up the nomination, I don’t think anyone would care all that much. But the agreement was executed in September of 2015, months before the first primary was held. Those of us who know how parties work are not so concerned that the party leaders have their thumbs on the scales during the candidate selection process. But having the candidate herself pushing down on the scales in her favor is a whole 'nuther matter.
So, yeah the state money went back to the DNC, but they had sold out to Hillary before the primaries even began, and she had veto power over significant parts of their operation. It’s almost like the DNC was an operating wing of the HRC campaign, from before the selection process even began.
N.B.: There is nothing illegal about this. But if you have a reputation of being a money grubbing, power hunger, “the rules don’t apply to me” pol, it’s best not do things that a money grubbing, power hungry, the rules don’t apply to me pol would do. Not if you want to inspire the voters and instill confidence in them, that is.
Double N.B.: Yes, Trump is that kind of pol 1,000 times over. And we’ve got dozens of threads to discuss that in, and I’ve weighed in on many of them. This thread is about Hillary.
Very good analysis. The narrative of “rigging” becomes a bit hyperbolic and unnecessary, but she definitely had her thumb on the scales within the DNC because she controlled the purse-strings.
And how successful was Bernie Sanders at doing that? Not very.
But even so, perhaps he could have simply participated in Democratic Conventions? I looked at the list of speakers in 2012 and 2008. Bernie wasn’t on either of those lists. Why does someone expect to get name recognition as a Democrat and expect to be treated as the leader of the Democratic party when he never runs as a Democrat? Bernie used the Democratic party in 2016 as a vehicle to get his name out. I get that. Smart strategy in a lot of ways. Would have been smarter if he would have done that earlier.
The inescapable fact that you and others seem to be avoiding is that Bernie Sanders didn’t really want to run as a Democrat; he wanted to run as an independent but realized that he wasn’t going to succeed, so he used his next best option. But why is the Democratic party supposed to welcome or treat an outsider the same as a longtime member of the party. If John Kasich were to leave the Republican party then become an independent and then decide at the last minute that he’d actually have a better chance running as a barely centrist Democrat, should the party treat him the same as other Democrats? In any case, however, Bernie Sanders was able to get on the ballot in all 50 states if I recall correctly. Just like Hillary Clinton in November of last year, Bernie tried a strategy, and that strategy wasn’t successful. Not particularly different than any other campaign. Bernie Sanders had a lot of enthusiastic supporters, but by no means was that a diverse group and the sooner that progressives understand that the better, because if they end up wrecking the Democratic party to get a real progressive, then 2020 is going to be Nixon vs. McGovern all over again.
That’s his right and his choice, but it didn’t work. The voters ended up with the most corrupt administration in American history and they’re tearing all of the other past accomplishments from past administrations to shreds as we speak. Worse, they’re loading the judiciary with right wing ideologues who could very well overrule progressive legislation not just years ahead, but decades into the future. How’s that idealism working out? A better strategy would be for voters to understand that while they’re imperfect, Democrats are a better party. They would vote for things like campaign finance reform, healthcare reform, progressive taxation, and gun control if they could count on progressives to show up in the mid-term and down-ballot elections. Unfortunately, they can’t. But just like the “real conservatives” on the right, instead of rectifying that problem, radical progressives make it infinitely worse by voting out of frustration and not supporting candidates who can win and, at minimum, stave off the Republican politics of destruction.
And why not? Because he realized he wasn’t running as a Democrat; he was running as a dressed up protestor. That’s fine, but don’t expect to win a party nomination and to be taken seriously as a possible Commander in Chief that way.
People voted for Bernie because they were frustrated with the system - I get that. But are they less frustrated with the system now? Do they like what’s happening in their government and in their country now that Hillary Clinton’s out of the way?
I don’t necessarily disagree with the above and it’s fair criticism. I still think that Joe Biden could have upended Hillary’s campaign if he had decided to run. In fact a three-way race between Bernie, Joe, and Hillary would have been devastating because the idea of Hillary’s inevitability would have been torpedoed. It almost was anyway as it was. The Democratic party’s real value is in getting out voters who might decide to come home early and couch surf on the afternoon of election day. The money’s a big deal - won’t argue otherwise. But it doesn’t guarantee victory for a candidate like HRC. It never will. Bernie quite possibly could have defeated HRC or at least made more of a dent in her chances if he had been a more visible Democrat earlier. He chose not to go that route. I do see a lot of ugliness in the sausage making that went on inside HRC’s DNC, but I don’t think it cheapens her victory at all. Bernie had a lot of opportunities to achieve a different outcome.
Or pushing the party in power to disenfranchise millions of voters, thereby ensuring that the opposition party’s chances of regaining power diminish even further.
What I’m willing to bet is that most of those who enthusiastically jumped on the Bernie Sanders train are long on passion and short on endurance. What happens when these magic candidates get into office, get confronted with the reality that the legislative process is slow, arduous, and ends up involving a lot of deal-making and, gasp, compromising in order to get even one law passed? They’ll probably pick apart that person’s record, conclude that they compromised on their values, and then sit out the next election or vote for someone who has no chance of winning. The cycle repeats itself. The system you dream of doesn’t exist. Sorry about that, but it would take either a massive national crisis such as the kind that swept FDR into power - a once in a century event - or a Constitutional Convention, a once in a 400 or 500 year even, to effect the kind of change you want. We’ll be dead by then. I’d rather vote for someone who can make a positive change now, but I’ll just take someone who won’t fuck things up worse. Am I being reasonable or unreasonable?
You don’t really get this civic duty thing, do you? It’s like paying taxes. If one person decides not to pay, maybe nobody notices. But if tens of millions decide not to, then we have a problem. There’s a reason why the law doesn’t allow you to pick and choose the taxes you want to pay. There’s no law that requires you to vote, but it’s an assumed duty shared by all. Your vote impacts others. In every race and at every level of voting, you have a responsibility to be informed and to either do the most help or do the least harm.
After immediate disaster, that is. Is getting your beloved Bernie the 2020 nomination worth 4 years of Trump to you?
Oh, it got plenty, as it should. If you’re feeling guilted anyway, it’s because you’re guilty.
Please remember that Trump’s victory is the fault of anyone who did not vote for Clinton, and to a lesser degree those who did but did not work for it. That includes you, does it not?
It’s about *all *of us, not just you. Get over yourself. You helped give us President Trump. Now please accept responsibility for it instead of blaming the only alternative capable of winning for not being pure enough to deserve you. :rolleyes: