Opinion of the pro-Clinton left

[TNF]

Impossible to get dumber than these people.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Total FFs, man.

[Maxwell]

Setting themselves up for an even more GOP senate and congress!

[Oakvale]

Deluded hashtag Democrats cheerily joining a disturbing coalition of gay men, beer-swilling crackers and dowdy soccer moms. At least the latter two groups know that Clinton is temperamentally and philosophically a Republican.

[The Dowager Mod]

Impossible to get dumber than these people.

Kiss my ass.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Pretty bad, though the point the OP is trying to make is ludicrous.

[Lief 🗽]

FF, as they understand how left-wing goals are actually accomplished in this country.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Deluded hashtag Democrats cheerily joining a disturbing coalition of gay men, beer-swilling crackers and dowdy soccer moms. At least the latter two groups know that Clinton is temperamentally and philosophically a Republican.

So...only ugly women support Clinton?

[bedstuy]

Deluded hashtag Democrats cheerily joining a disturbing coalition of gay men, beer-swilling crackers and dowdy soccer moms. At least the latter two groups know that Clinton is temperamentally and philosophically a Republican.

I assume you're being partially facetious. 

But, for one thing, I resent the implication that gay men don't even need a derisive epithet attached to their identity.  Do you have a problem with gay men?  Do you think gay men are going to support Hillary Clinton because they're like superficial club-kids who are going to watch the Presidential debates while drinking wine coolers and screaming "you go girl!!!" every time Hillary opens her mouth?  Is it like too feminine and "faggy" to support a female candidate and not a "serious" Paul Tsongas/John Huntsman type?

Personally, I don't know why you think Hillary Clinton is a Republican.  Hillary Clinton has essentially the same policy views as Barack Obama.  She's qualified to be President.  She seems like a hard-working, smart, caring person.  And, she has the political base to win and cut deals in office.  So, if you want the basic Democratic Party Agenda enacted, she seems like a good candidate.  That's what I care about personally, I don't want destructive, dumb Republican policies to ruin the United States.  So, forgive me if your mental image of Hillary Clinton is associated with too many ugly Americans and fags or whatever.  If you win the Presidency in 2016, you're going to need like 70 million votes.

[ingemann]

It's not like there are a better alternative among the American left. At least the pro-Clinton left are willing to act, rather than just deciding to have ideological circle jerks instead like TNF want to.

[Lief 🗽]

DOMA, deregulation of the financial sector, welfare reform, neglect of foreign policy, NAFTA, botching the politics of health care and ruining the prospects for meaningful reform for well over a decade while costs continued to inflate and access to health care decreased... these are odd ways of achieving left-wing goals.

Ummm... Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are different people just fyi

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

FF, as they understand how left-wing goals are actually accomplished in this country.

This.

[Beet]

DOMA, deregulation of the financial sector, welfare reform, neglect of foreign policy, NAFTA, botching the politics of health care and ruining the prospects for meaningful reform for well over a decade while costs continued to inflate and access to health care decreased... these are odd ways of achieving left-wing goals.

And yet somehow the poor and middle class did better than they did under the previous four presidents and the next two presidents. Fewer Americans died in wars than in any other time in the past 20 years. The budget had substantial surpluses for the only time in living memory. The last Democratic president to leave office with a solid majority saying things were headed on the right direction since god knows when.

[TDAS04]

FF, as they understand how left-wing goals are actually accomplished in this country.

This.

[Beet]

DOMA, deregulation of the financial sector, welfare reform, neglect of foreign policy, NAFTA, botching the politics of health care and ruining the prospects for meaningful reform for well over a decade while costs continued to inflate and access to health care decreased... these are odd ways of achieving left-wing goals.

And yet somehow the poor and middle class did better than they did under the previous four presidents and the next two presidents. Fewer Americans died in wars than in any other time in the past 20 years. The budget had substantial surpluses for the only time in living memory. The last Democratic president to leave office with a solid majority saying things were headed on the right direction since god knows when.

How do any of these trends relate to Clinton's policies? Would another decade of Clinton-esque governance have prevented 9/11, the financial crisis, or wage stagnation?

It's definitely a possibility. His CIA director was attuned to the threat, but Bush was more focused on missile defense. Clinton is not a set of fixed policies ... the only thing fixed about him is his eager, optimistic curiosity and proactive approach the world.

Would Kennedy's health care plan have passed if Clinton had not tried for Hillarycare? Would torpedoing NAFTA really have saved the textile jobs? Would gay marriage have been legalized if Clinton had opposed DOMA?

[Lief 🗽]

DOMA, deregulation of the financial sector, welfare reform, neglect of foreign policy, NAFTA, botching the politics of health care and ruining the prospects for meaningful reform for well over a decade while costs continued to inflate and access to health care decreased... these are odd ways of achieving left-wing goals.

Ummm... Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are different people just fyi

Who said this thread was specifically about Hillary?

I thought it was pretty clear from context, but maybe you're right.

[ingemann]

DOMA, deregulation of the financial sector, welfare reform, neglect of foreign policy, NAFTA, botching the politics of health care and ruining the prospects for meaningful reform for well over a decade while costs continued to inflate and access to health care decreased... these are odd ways of achieving left-wing goals.

And yet somehow the poor and middle class did better than they did under the previous four presidents and the next two presidents. Fewer Americans died in wars than in any other time in the past 20 years. The budget had substantial surpluses for the only time in living memory. The last Democratic president to leave office with a solid majority saying things were headed on the right direction since god knows when.

How do any of these trends relate to Clinton's policies? Would another decade of Clinton-esque governance have prevented 9/11, the financial crisis, or wage stagnation?

Likely in the first two casess: 9/11 would likely have been avoided if not for Bush administration inexperiences, in facts it's incredible that they succeed even with that. Clinton-esque economic policy would likely have resulted in the bubble bursting earlier, resulting in a earlier and smaller economic crisis.

Wage stagnation no; that would have happened anyway.

[Oakvale]

Deluded hashtag Democrats cheerily joining a disturbing coalition of gay men, beer-swilling crackers and dowdy soccer moms. At least the latter two groups know that Clinton is temperamentally and philosophically a Republican.

I assume you're being partially facetious. 

But, for one thing, I resent the implication that gay men don't even need a derisive epithet attached to their identity.  Do you have a problem with gay men?  Do you think gay men are going to support Hillary Clinton because they're like superficial club-kids who are going to watch the Presidential debates while drinking wine coolers and screaming "you go girl!!!" every time Hillary opens her mouth?  Is it like too feminine and "faggy" to support a female candidate and not a "serious" Paul Tsongas/John Huntsman type?

Personally, I don't know why you think Hillary Clinton is a Republican.  Hillary Clinton has essentially the same policy views as Barack Obama.  She's qualified to be President.  She seems like a hard-working, smart, caring person.  And, she has the political base to win and cut deals in office.  So, if you want the basic Democratic Party Agenda enacted, she seems like a good candidate.  That's what I care about personally, I don't want destructive, dumb Republican policies to ruin the United States.  So, forgive me if your mental image of Hillary Clinton is associated with too many ugly Americans and fags or whatever.  If you win the Presidency in 2016, you're going to need like 70 million votes.

You read a little too much into that. My only point was to highlight the strange nature of the PUMA/#ReadyForHillary coalition, who are the only people who seem to be enthusiastic about the prospect of President Hillary Clinton as opposed to a grudging acceptance of the (supposed) inevitability thereof.

[bedstuy]

Deluded hashtag Democrats cheerily joining a disturbing coalition of gay men, beer-swilling crackers and dowdy soccer moms. At least the latter two groups know that Clinton is temperamentally and philosophically a Republican.

I assume you're being partially facetious. 

But, for one thing, I resent the implication that gay men don't even need a derisive epithet attached to their identity.  Do you have a problem with gay men?  Do you think gay men are going to support Hillary Clinton because they're like superficial club-kids who are going to watch the Presidential debates while drinking wine coolers and screaming "you go girl!!!" every time Hillary opens her mouth?  Is it like too feminine and "faggy" to support a female candidate and not a "serious" Paul Tsongas/John Huntsman type?

Personally, I don't know why you think Hillary Clinton is a Republican.  Hillary Clinton has essentially the same policy views as Barack Obama.  She's qualified to be President.  She seems like a hard-working, smart, caring person.  And, she has the political base to win and cut deals in office.  So, if you want the basic Democratic Party Agenda enacted, she seems like a good candidate.  That's what I care about personally, I don't want destructive, dumb Republican policies to ruin the United States.  So, forgive me if your mental image of Hillary Clinton is associated with too many ugly Americans and fags or whatever.  If you win the Presidency in 2016, you're going to need like 70 million votes.

You read a little too much into that. My only point was to highlight the strange nature of the PUMA/#ReadyForHillary coalition, who are the only people who seem to be enthusiastic about the prospect of President Hillary Clinton as opposed to a grudging acceptance of the (supposed) inevitability thereof.

"PUMA" has nothing to do with people who support Hillary Clinton in 2016.

I think there are a lot of people who support Hillary Clinton in 2016, but supported Barack Obama in  the 2008 primaries.  I actually really disliked Hillary Clinton after the 2008 primary race.  I thought she ran a presumptuous, classless campaign in 2008 and I don't regret supporting Obama.  I don't think I'm alone in that regard. 

And, sure, if Clinton 2016 runs on the same themes as Clinton 2008 April-June campaign, that would be monumentally stupid on her part.  This is sort of the folly of lining up behind a candidate or criticizing them before the campaign has even started.  Hillary Clinton has to earn people's votes.

[IceSpear]

FFs (normal).

And this is a really, really bad knockoff of the Putin thread. Supporting a centrist is the same thing as supporting the leader of a right wing oligarchy! lol

[IceSpear]

Deluded hashtag Democrats cheerily joining a disturbing coalition of gay men, beer-swilling crackers and dowdy soccer moms. At least the latter two groups know that Clinton is temperamentally and philosophically a Republican.

Someone who supports Jim Webb for president and likes Andrew Cuomo probably shouldn't be trying to play the purity card against Hillary supporters. Just sayin.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

FF, as they understand how left-wing goals are actually accomplished in this country.

By voting for a party whose mainstream has not been remotely leftist in 40 years?

[Lief 🗽]

FF, as they understand how left-wing goals are actually accomplished in this country.

By voting for a party whose mainstream has not been remotely leftist in 40 years?

The Democratic party has done a heck of a lot more for the causes of economic and social equality and justice in the past 40 years than Kshama Sawant and co. could ever hope to achieve.

[IceSpear]

Deluded hashtag Democrats cheerily joining a disturbing coalition of gay men, beer-swilling crackers and dowdy soccer moms. At least the latter two groups know that Clinton is temperamentally and philosophically a Republican.

I assume you're being partially facetious. 

But, for one thing, I resent the implication that gay men don't even need a derisive epithet attached to their identity.  Do you have a problem with gay men?  Do you think gay men are going to support Hillary Clinton because they're like superficial club-kids who are going to watch the Presidential debates while drinking wine coolers and screaming "you go girl!!!" every time Hillary opens her mouth?  Is it like too feminine and "faggy" to support a female candidate and not a "serious" Paul Tsongas/John Huntsman type?

Personally, I don't know why you think Hillary Clinton is a Republican.  Hillary Clinton has essentially the same policy views as Barack Obama.  She's qualified to be President.  She seems like a hard-working, smart, caring person.  And, she has the political base to win and cut deals in office.  So, if you want the basic Democratic Party Agenda enacted, she seems like a good candidate.  That's what I care about personally, I don't want destructive, dumb Republican policies to ruin the United States.  So, forgive me if your mental image of Hillary Clinton is associated with too many ugly Americans and fags or whatever.  If you win the Presidency in 2016, you're going to need like 70 million votes.

You read a little too much into that. My only point was to highlight the strange nature of the PUMA/#ReadyForHillary coalition, who are the only people who seem to be enthusiastic about the prospect of President Hillary Clinton as opposed to a grudging acceptance of the (supposed) inevitability thereof.

"PUMA" has nothing to do with people who support Hillary Clinton in 2016.

I think there are a lot of people who support Hillary Clinton in 2016, but supported Barack Obama in  the 2008 primaries.  I actually really disliked Hillary Clinton after the 2008 primary race.  I thought she ran a presumptuous, classless campaign in 2008 and I don't regret supporting Obama.  I don't think I'm alone in that regard. 

And, sure, if Clinton 2016 runs on the same themes as Clinton 2008 April-June campaign, that would be monumentally stupid on her part.  This is sort of the folly of lining up behind a candidate or criticizing them before the campaign has even started.  Hillary Clinton has to earn people's votes.

It's a strawman. If PUMAs were a significant factor outside of Appalachia, we'd have gotten President McCain. People seem to forget that Hillary got the support of nearly half the party in 2008.

Some people are still stuck in 2008. They think everyone who voted against her in 2008 still hates her (which wasn't even true at the time, but certainly isn't true now). This is where the whole "#shesnotinevitable/#2008redux!!!!" stuff comes from. Now, hundreds of polls have begged to differ on that, but that doesn't stop the bitterness. What reason is there to be bitter anyway? You guys won 6 years ago, it's time to get over your irrational hatred.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

FF, as they understand how left-wing goals are actually accomplished in this country.

By voting for a party whose mainstream has not been remotely leftist in 40 years?

The Democratic party has done a heck of a lot more for the causes of economic and social equality and justice in the past 40 years than Kshama Sawant and co. could ever hope to achieve.

Such as gutting welfare, removing the few restrictions on the parasitic financial industry, signing destructive trade agreements, killing both Americans and foreign civilians in imperialist interventions from Libya to Serbia to Iraq to Sudan, smashing union health care plans, fostering the growth of media conglomerates, forcing people into a parasitic private insurance system, and backing neoliberal education privatization schemes? Or is that all just a long con for the magical left-liberal utopia that Hillary will bring after the 2016 elections?