I’m voting for her, but that doesn’t mean I will like it.
So… Why aren’t liberals more pissed off? Is it that there’s no way for us to hold her accountable?
I’m genuinely asking, not being snarky. I don’t really care if this thread hit’s the bottom of the page at a rapid pace. I guess I figure, this being the ‘straight dope’, news that paints her in a bad light, (if true), shouldn’t be met with; “News flash, this is Hillary. What did you expect?” but rather; “Jesus, I can’t believe she’ll be our next president!” Or maybe it should? Maybe getting pissed about it is futile.
My take is that the attacks on Hillary are largely horseshit or consist of holding her to a far higher standard than that applied to other politicians or her critics themselves. I think she is a somewhat earnest wonk and an instinctive deal-cutter, strong on the inside game, lousy at public relations.
Still have no real clue what these problems actually are, other than the fact that she apparently doesn’t care about the appearance of corruption. The two scandals they picked didn’t mean anything–why wouldn’t they go after something she actually did that was bad if there was anything?
I mean, there’s a reason Cecil wrote that column. It really is a kinda weird thing. What are these horrible things about her? It just seems that people think she’s horrible for no real reason.
Sure, just elect her President. Then she’ll be followed around by the media all the time and every single thing she does will be scrutinized to the most minute detail.
What are we holding her accountable for again? Email? Benghazi? Syria? That seems to be the stuff conservatives are outraged about. As for liberals, I know Bernie Sanders had some plans that sounded great and were also simultaneously doomed to fail because there’s still an opposition that has to be worked with and they do not want universal health care or free tuition or et cetera. Bernie tugged the Overton Window to the left and Hillary had to acknowledge his concerns and pretend she cares about those issues just as deeply. But at the end of the day she’d rather get stuff done.
A good President today beats a perfect one tomorrow.
Maybe if the Republicans hadn’t spent the last twenty years panting desperately after any hint of a breath of a whiff of a glimpse of a hair of a hint of some terrible scandal, I could manage to work up some casual curiosity about the latest Republican attempt to catch a Clinton on some overlooked trivia, which they’re just so sure proves that Hillary is an Evil, Evil Woman who should certainly be torn apart by the mob.
I guess I’ve got to stop reading what’s trending on Facebook and getting my news online?
There’s negative things about her and Bill all the time. I just read about an article in some feminist news publication that said Bill was probably a rapist, but is redeemable, or something to that nature.
Just one of the thins trending on FB. I know it’s NOT Hillary… but, that’s the last negative thing I happen to read.
That’s just the point. Bill isn’t running for president, and what he did 20 or 30 years ago is hardly relevant. As for Hillary, they are coming up with the same thing over and over and over again, while Trump’s scandals are newer and easier to understand.
Plus, no one can show that anyone got anything but contacts by donating (and that happens with every Congresscritter there is) and the money was going for the needy throughout the world, not the Clintons’ pockets.
What you are reading are the results of a very large disinformation campaign on social media, funded by the Party of Trump.
Trump’s campaign has recently doubled spending, but still has no TV ads and a very sparse ground campaign. Where’s the money going?
To Giles-Parscale, a web design and marketing firm new to national politics. In other words, to social media trolls who are filling facebook and news sites and any other commenting site they can find with crap about how terrible Clinton is.
Here’s the thing: I dislike Hillary, but my dislike stems from a specific, on-the-record issue. She sponsored a bill that struck me (and, judging by the fate of a very similar bill, the Supreme Court) as anti-free speech. Her sponsorship of the bill suggested that she was either acting from genuine ignorance or pandering to yet another “moral panic”, neither of which spoke well of her.
By contrast, I’ve been seeing and hearing vitriolic smears aimed at her any time she’s ventured into the public eye for the last 20 years. Despite the enormous amounts of time and money thrown into this cottage industry, it almost never produces anything that is both specific and evidence-based. (Frankly, most of the actually bad things she’s done have been along the lines of “cooperated with a Republican policy/agenda”, IMHO.) Moreover, the sheer hateful frenzy of it is simply irrational; it’s out of proportion to anything she could plausibly have done. It doesn’t even make sense as naked partisanship–her policy positions are quite centrist. It’s weirdly personal, and suggests some very ugly motives.
What it boils down to is that the people attacking her have been crying “wolf” too long. The real mystery is why the villagers have kept believing the lying shepherd boy, concluding that there are thousands of wolves lurking just out of sight.
When people are STILL accusing the Clintons of multiple murders and being drug kingpins, it’s a little hard to take any accusation all that seriously.
Hell, if I were Clinton, I might bring it up myself at the debates or something, just to emphasize that. “Yes, but those are the same people who think I killed Vince Foster and Ron Brown, dear friends and colleagues of mine.”
As a non-American I would quite like to know what all these bad things are that Clinton is supposed to have done? Apparently she is the devil and even rational people believe she is a bad choice for president, but actual details on why seem rather thin on the ground?
I suspect the reason why is that any concrete list of Hilary negatives would not stand up to very much scrutiny and so opponents would rather keep their opposition vague and unspecified. But is there a list?
None of the “scandals” she is charged with rise to the level of disqualification for president. 2. All of them are over-blown. 3. I’d rather have a president who gets things done, than one whose only talent is avoiding controversy.
There has been a permanent inquisition - run by the US right - into the Clintons for the last couple of decades.
The smart money is on the idea that if someone has been under investigation for decades without anything concrete being found, they are probably pretty clean.
The dumbass money is on the idea that if someone has been under investigation for decades they must have done something seriously wrong because otherwise why would they be under investigation all the time?
There was plenty of pissed off liberals who didn’t want Clinton. They mostly supported Bernie in the primaries. However most of those have now moved on and will reluctantly vote for Clinton except for a small minority of Bernie or Busters.
And if the GOP put up someone who wasn’t as fascist and batshit crazy as Trump then maybe some of them would vote Republican. But seriously I’d take a little low level corruption and mishandling of classified info any day over what Trump would do in office.
Most people live in the real world and accept the fact that people aren’t perfect. Anybody who’s running for President is going to have something shady in their past. The negative things Clinton has done are nothing worse than what the average politician has done. And the fact that conservatives have spend twenty-five years exaggerating their accusations hasn’t helped their case; they’ve cried wolf so many times their accusations get ignored.
I wish people would honestly stop giving a shit about how much money raises from Wall Street speeches or how she’s rewarding campaign donors with cabinet posts – these are time-honored traditions in politics. People who make these front-and-center issues are probably first-time voters. If people are outraged about it, help Hillary overturn Citizens United and implement meaningful campaign finance reform legislation, which will only really happen if Hillary wins and Democrats retake a decisive majority of congress.
From Hilary’s first appearance on the national scene, the attacks from the right, have been mostly focused on, some variation of, “we are threatened by a woman with strong opinions/political power”!
None were substantive, they were thinly veiled, misinformation campaigns. And they didn’t hit the mark then.
The right has been crying ‘wolf’ so long, and so lamely, that no one can be bothered with them any more. They spent any credibility they had years ago.
What’s that you say? This time it’s different? She really is complicit this time? Yeah, it’s hard to take anything y’all say seriously when the entire nation has watched you line up behind the likes of the Donald!
Because if we talk about her scandals at all, some people might not vote for her. That can’t be allowed. Therefore, we aren’t going to talk about it. Whether or not Trump is in the race has nothing to do with it - it’s always like this.