Since you haven’t read Woodward I doubt you’ll read a long Zengerle article, but he had a good one in the New Yorker about how bad Clinton is as a candidate.
[quote=“adaher, post:179, topic:716184”]
The Republicans didn’t resolve to not cooperate with Obama. QUOTE]
This was on Inauguration Day, mind you. While the new president was celebrating his first day in office, Republicans met in secret to smother his presidency in the crib. I defy anyone to find any instance of Democrats meeting to sabotage a new Republican presidency on its first day.
Yes, we saw that in both of her disastrous Senate campaigns, didn’t we?
Things changed when they won Congress. When you’re a minority party with very little power, you use every bit you have to stymie the majority party. Especially since the majority party showed little interest in working with Republicans. Their idea of “compromise” was to insert items into bills that Republicans might want, then tell them to take it or leave it. THe idea that Democrats would tell Republicans what they wanted was insulting and resulted in pretty much zero Republican support for anything they did because they had no input.
But things changed when the Republicans won Congress. And if we want to judge an entire party’s outlook by a couple of statements from leaders, what did you make of Obama after both big midterm losses saying he didn’t intend to change?
Oh wow. She beat Rick Lazio and um, somebody else you can’t name without looking it up.
Yeah, never even made an effort to reach out to conservatives.
Oh, wait.
No, oppositionism for the sake of opposition is a recent development in US history, dating back to Gingrich but really no further.
Republican “input” being no more than “Go fuck yourselves”, that approach was the only one a party of adults could take, wasn’t it?
Yes, they now have responsibility for governance, and can no longer simply oppose. It hasn’t been pretty, has it?
That’s the consequence of being elected by We the People, isn’t it?
IOW the best the Republicans could come up with in one of the largest states.
In short, your claim is contrafactual.
No, I simply point out that she hasn’t beaten anyone. She lost her one competitive race. And she didn’t exactly cover herself in glory. But I’ll give her credit for being smart. A lot of activists on Kos and such said she was burning her bridges with the base with her campaign tactics against Obama, but liberals have short memories. Seems like most Dopers don’t even remember it, literally. I expected forgiveness. After all, who else do you have since you’re not willing to do research on candidates who aren’t nationally famous? But to actually forget that awful Clinton campaign? That’s just bizarre.
Gee, why weren’t the others competitive, hmm? 
You can stop digging any time.
The better question to ask is why she chose New York? Why not Arkansas? Scott Walker’s just a BIT more seasoned as a campaigner than her. He’s won against real competition in a somewhat unfriendly environment. She cherry-picked a race to get her into elected politics.
If she can make it there, she can make it anywhere …
Seriously.
Fault for many things, sure. But name a single time that Republicans were willing to compromise reasonably and Obama refused.
Ridiculous hyperbole.
Woodward is wrong if he says this. Extremely early on the Republicans resolved to oppose Obama on nearly everything – and Republican leaders did nothing to dissuade their less rational party members and candidates that Obama was not evil, anti-American, and a supporter of terrorists.
Bullshit.
God you’re deluded whenever you talk about liberals. Plenty of liberals are very, very anti-Hillary. Do you ever read Kos?
Where do you get nonsense like this? I’ll make this hint again – stop generalizing about liberals, or liberal Dopers. Just stop trying to tell us what we think, what we want, or how we want it. You’re always wrong about it.
That depends on what you mean as refusal. Sure, doing what Ted Cruz does is not very subtle. Making insulting statements during negotiations or changing the terms of a deal at the last second is a more sophisticated way to refuse compromise. In Woodward’s telling, but not just his, they had a deal and the President wanted more revenue at the last minute. Which caused the Republicans to walk out. When you have a deal and then you’re told you don’t have a deal, that’s a pretty reasonable time to just walk away. It’s a breach of trust.
There was a change after the GOP won the HOuse though. When you control a chamber of Congress, you have a chance to actually do things, and they wanted to do things. And the book also chronicles how even before that, they were open to working on some issues but were totally shut out. The Democrats made concessions, sure, but there was no negotiation over those concessions and Republicans weren’t allowed to say what concessions they actually wanted.
I’m right about some liberals, by definition. Yes, some liberals are anti-Hillary. And some disagree with a lot of what she stands for but see no other options even though other options are available. If only they would learn about those other options and get behind them.
Believe it or not, I get very few talking points from Hannity or Halperin. I get them from liberal writers. Such as this article about how progressives are focusing all their energies on someone who isn’t even running:
And this is why I keep saying that liberals get focused too much on celebrity candidates. Because enough of them do that a non-celebrity has trouble generating any enthusiasm. The 2008 race was when this got started. It had some of the most qualified Democrats to ever run for President and who did activists focus their love on? The three junior Senators in the race.
So yeah, I apologize to the dozens and dozens of O’Malley fans here.
Not to mention inviting Rick Fucking Warren to speak at his inauguration.
A Harvard law professor is a celebrity?
He’s famous now, so that makes him a celebrity then under the principle of post hoc ergo propter hoc ergo argumentam ex posteriori.
I write “jsgoddess Warren” ('cause gay marriage makes that possible!) on all my notebooks, with a big heart around it.
Saying Hillary can’t win is like saying a particular sports team can’t win the championship. It all depends: How good are their opponents?
Exactly. It isn’t going to be Hillary vs a theoretical un-Hillary, it’s going to be Hillary vs Jeb.