Opinion of Hillary Clinton

[IceSpear]

It's going to be funny when all the True Leftists here jump on the Hillary bandwagon toward the end of election season, just like they did with Obama in 2012.

[IceSpear]

I don't understand the hate.  She's a brilliant, thoughtful, engaging person.  I can't think of someone better qualified to be President.

I guess what I don't understand is how Hillary as President would result in quantitatively inferior results to if another plausible candidate became President.  Maybe if you want radical conservative policies, sure.  But, if you're moderate to leftist, Hillary could deliver results as well as anyone could.

It's because she has a vagina.

As Beet pointed out in the other thread, the "tr00 progressives" had/have no problem with Biden, Kerry, Edwards (before his scandals) despite their votes for the Iraq War, but for Hillary it is apparently an unforgivable sin.

[IceSpear]

Biden, Kerry, and Edwards votes for the Iraq War should disqualify them. from ever holding office, just like Hillary's

Yet I heard no liberal angst when Obama picked Biden as VP. And many of the people who despise Hillary now for her Iraq War vote (supposedly) were Edwards supporters in 2008.

[IceSpear]

I am surprised the HP option is currently winning. She is an HP, though.

Why are you surprised? I think I've seen this poll multiple times and never with FF winning. The Republican + True Leftist coalition usually gives most mainstream Democrats a HP result.

[IceSpear]

The Martha Coakley of the presidential sweepstakes. Will she lose in the primary or the general?

It's cute that you think she could lose the primary.

[IceSpear]

She voted the wrong way on the most infamous vote of the 21st century so far when the facts were there to justify voting the correct way, so definitely count me as not ready for Hillary.

I assume you were also not ready for Kerry and not ready for Biden 08 and not ready for Biden 12?

And now we wait for the crickets.

[IceSpear]

She voted the wrong way on the most infamous vote of the 21st century so far when the facts were there to justify voting the correct way, so definitely count me as not ready for Hillary.

I assume you were also not ready for Kerry and not ready for Biden 08 and not ready for Biden 12?

And now we wait for the crickets.

Sorry, when the railroad calls, it's hard to just tell the phone, "Sorry, I have to wait for a response from somebody on an internet forum." Get a life.

Anyways to Beet, no actually, that entire generation of Dems really ought to be retired from public life. I certainly didn't back Biden for President, wouldn't have chosen him for Obama's VP either, and I wasn't old enough to get to choose Kerry in 2004, so I suppose I can dodge that particular question. : P

You seem a tad angry. I wasn't even referring specifically to you (obviously, since I don't know who you are), just in general that critics of Hillary's Iraq War vote tend to flee once it is pointed out that other Democrats they have no problem with (or in some cases, even supported!) voted for it as well.

And even if you didn't support Biden for Obama's VP, I heard no angst whatsoever from the left when Obama chose him in 2008. But he made the unforgivable sin of voting for it! And he would be a heartbeat away from the presidency? Surely this shouldn't have been taken lying down from the same people who regard it as a dealbreaker for Hillary 11 years later.

[IceSpear]

It astounds me that anyone could defend Clinton and speak of the President's "sacred duty to be truthful" in the same breath without being overwhelmed by irony.

What a disgusting sexist comment.

[IceSpear]

I know that you're a sensitive one, but is that Pavlovian garbage really the best response that you've got?

I know this may be hard for you to believe, but women are their own people. Mind = blown! Implying Hillary would be a dishonest president because her husband lied about an affair is one of the more disgustingly sexist criticisms I've ever seen from a "Democrat". Perhaps a blue avatar would suit you better? Though to be fair, not even many Republicans would sink that low to find justification for their deranged hatred of the soon to be first female president.

[IceSpear]

I know that you're a sensitive one, but is that Pavlovian garbage really the best response that you've got?

I know this may be hard for you to believe, but women are their own people. Mind = blown! Implying Hillary would be a dishonest president because her husband lied about an affair is one of the more disgustingly sexist criticisms I've ever seen from a "Democrat". Perhaps a blue avatar would suit you better? Though to be fair, not even many Republicans would sink that low to find justification for their deranged hatred of the soon to be first female president.

There's no need to resort to any of that to establish that Hillary Clinton is frequently and blatantly dishonest. Unless you believe - just for a start - that she was really named for Sir Edmund Hillary six years before he climbed Mount Everest, that she was actually ambushed by snipers at a tarmac in Bosnia, and that her incoherent retrospective justification for her vote to authorize force in Iraq makes any sense.

If that's what you truly believe, then why sink that low in the first place? And there's nothing incoherent about her justification, certainly not any moreso than the other Democrats who you're happy to forgive and let bygones by bygones.

[IceSpear]

I know that you're a sensitive one, but is that Pavlovian garbage really the best response that you've got?

I know this may be hard for you to believe, but women are their own people. Mind = blown! Implying Hillary would be a dishonest president because her husband lied about an affair is one of the more disgustingly sexist criticisms I've ever seen from a "Democrat". Perhaps a blue avatar would suit you better? Though to be fair, not even many Republicans would sink that low to find justification for their deranged hatred of the soon to be first female president.

There's no need to resort to any of that to establish that Hillary Clinton is frequently and blatantly dishonest. Unless you believe - just for a start - that she was really named for Sir Edmund Hillary six years before he climbed Mount Everest, that she was actually ambushed by snipers at a tarmac in Bosnia, and that her incoherent retrospective justification for her vote to authorize force in Iraq makes any sense.

If that's what you truly believe, then why sink that low in the first place? And there's nothing incoherent about her justification, certainly not any moreso than the other Democrats who you're happy to forgive and let bygones by bygones.

Please, tell me who I am "happy" to forgive and why they are comparable.

John Kerry. Point to your outrage when he ran for president in 2004. Point to your outrage when he ran for re-election in 2008. Point to your outrage when he was chosen to be Secretary of State in 2013.

John Edwards. Point to your outrage when Kerry selected him for VP in 2004. Point to your outrage when he ran for president in 2008.

Harry Reid. Point to your outrage when he ran for re-election in 2004. Point to your outrage when he was chosen as minority leader in 2005. Point to your outrage when he became majority leader in 2007. Point to your outrage when he was retained as majority leader in 2009. Point to your outrage when he ran for re-election in 2010 and was retained as majority leader in 2011. Point to your outrage when he was retained as majority leader in 2013. Point to your outrage when he was just returned as minority leader yesterday.

Joe Biden. Point to your outrage when he ran for president in 2008. Point to your outrage when Obama selected him for VP in 2008. Point to your outrage when Obama retained him as VP in 2012. Point to your outrage when articles are posted about how he may run for president in 2016.

[IceSpear]

So uh, is Nix supposed to bump a bunch of old threads from 2004 and go "No! " ?

I like how you completely ignored the rest of the post. And no, it doesn't necessarily need to be new (or old) posts on Atlas. Any evidence would suffice.

I'm not sure why it's incumbent on me to document my "outrage" every time someone who supported the Iraq War is up for a promotion, up to and including someone who ran for President when I was in middle school.

Nor do I know where you're getting the idea that I'm fond of any of the men whom you've named. The only one I've ever said anything nice about on this forum, if I recall, is Joe Biden, and I don't remember ever making an unqualified endorsement of his putative 2016 candidacy.

In any case, you're dragging this conversation in a strange, personal direction that only reinforces all of the worst narratives about the Ready4Hillary brigade and their extreme sensitivity to criticism. Hillary is very likely to be the next Democratic nominee for President. Don't tell me to ignore every blemish on her record.

Because the entire point is that it's selective outrage and that Hillary is held to a higher standard. Fine, ignore everything from before 2008 (or before you started posting, or paying attention to politics, or whatever). Even if you didn't praise Biden when he became VP, Kerry when he became SoS, etc., the fact remains that you did not vociferously oppose their candidacies despite the fact that they voted the exact same way as Hillary did on an issue that is supposedly an unforgivable sin.

[IceSpear]

The Martha Coakley of the presidential sweepstakes. Will she lose in the primary or the general?

It's cute that you think she could lose the primary.

who is Barack Obama

Because as we all know, polling in the 30s with a split party apparatus = polling in the 60s with a nearly unanimous party apparatus. People really need to do their homework before making the faulty "2008 redux!!1!1!!" comparison.

[IceSpear]

I know that you're a sensitive one, but is that Pavlovian garbage really the best response that you've got?

I know this may be hard for you to believe, but women are their own people. Mind = blown! Implying Hillary would be a dishonest president because her husband lied about an affair is one of the more disgustingly sexist criticisms I've ever seen from a "Democrat". Perhaps a blue avatar would suit you better? Though to be fair, not even many Republicans would sink that low to find justification for their deranged hatred of the soon to be first female president.

Alright, you know we're cool and all that, but you really shouldn't be throwing around DINO accusations when you've said that you're okay with Democrats embracing Wall Street. just saying.

When did I say that? If you're referring to what I think you are, I was very clear in that discussion we had that I wasn't glad certain Democrats were doing so, just that I understood why they were considering the current political climate. As a partisan, I would prefer Democrats be tougher on Wall Street. As a neutral observer, one can easily see why they aren't: dark money flooding into campaigns at unprecedented levels which is necessary to be competitive, a lack of public appetite to take on Wall Street, and an electorate that has already been divided mostly based on social issues where very few people are going to budge based on things like financial reform and Glass-Steagall.

Partisanship or ideology was irrelevant to that comment anyway, it was sexist and gross regardless. A wife isn't responsible for her husband's sins (and vice versa).

[IceSpear]

You can talk about how social issues have distracted Democrats from economic populism, but the same applies to the other side as well. Many people who would be natural allies of economic populism are now solid Republicans due to issues such as race, abortion, gay marriage, etc. and they won't be changing any time soon, and why a "New Deal coalition" is no longer possible. That's simply the reality of 21st century politics. And quite frankly, I'd prefer it that way. I'm not going to turn a blind eye to racism, sexism, homophobia, and other bigotry just for the sake of taxing Wall Street a bit more.

You clearly said you were okay with Democrats embracing Wall Street if it meant embracing social justice.

You're misinterpreting my comment. Yes, I'd certainly prefer it that way if the dichotomy was between economically liberal/socially conservative and economically conservative/socially liberal, since at least class can be changed (even though it's unfortunately getting much harder to do so). But that's not the dichotomy we have now. The Republican Party won't be budging from hard right economics and hard right social policy any time soon. So that leaves Democrats with a problem on how to combat them. If you go left on both, you gain no voters (since SoCons are not going to abandon the Republicans based on economic issues if you go against them socially, as we have seen many times) and get completely destroyed with endless Wall Street cashing flooding solely GOP coffers. So then you have the choice. You can either shift to the right on economics and get your own Wall Street cash to combat the GOP while losing no votes (granted, without gaining any either). Or you can shift to the right on social policy and try to compete with the SoCons, but that could involve some rather ugly tactics. Other posts on Atlas have written about the decline of the "New Deal coalition" and the reasons for its demise much better than I could, but my point was that in order for Democrats to have a prayer of re-establishing it, they'd need to throw minorities under the bus in order to do so, and that's not a price I'm willing to pay. Basically, in a nutshell:

This is why socialism is and has been dead in America for a long long time. Whatever support from poor blacks you'll get, poor whites will always vote against you if you don't promise to lynch black people and crucify gays.

[IceSpear]

Only way to make this thread readable imo:

And yet, in order to complain about it, you must have been hitting the "show" button. What's even the point of ignoring then? Get some self control.