"If Youre Liberal and You Think Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt and Untrustworthy..."

Started by PickelledEggs, June 09, 2016, 02:28:18 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

PickelledEggs

QuoteObviously, Clinton carries with her more than 25 years in the white-hot public spotlight that Sanders doesn't -- despite his career in the Senate -- and over that length of time people have been able to form opinions of her and they're ones not likely to change at this point. What you know about Hillary is what you know about Hillary. There aren't a lot of surprises. Maybe you figure this is bad for her, but in truth it can be argued that this is a positive rather than a negative because there's nothing the Republicans can throw at her that we haven't already been fed to death. And when you take a step back and look at Clinton objectively -- which is admittedly difficult for many, even, or maybe particularly, on the left -- that's exactly the point. Hillary Clinton's reputation is largely the result of a quarter century of visceral GOP hatred.


Bernie Sanders will never be president. Let's just get that out of the way right now. He stands very little chance of pulling down the Democratic nomination and no chance at all of winning a general election. His rabid acolytes can argue with this all they want but they'll be wrong for several inarguable reasons: because the "political revolution" Bernie Sanders needs to advance his campaign and agenda is pie-in-the-sky thinking that simply doesn't occur in representative democracies like ours, where change always comes incrementally and our entire system is designed so it can't be remade in one fell swoop; because he's a one-note candidate who concerns himself with nothing other than his admittedly noble lifelong obsession with wealth inequality; because America isn't evolved enough to elect an avowed socialist, democratic or otherwise, and it unfortunately won't get near someone who openly eschews religion; and maybe most importantly because once the GOP considered Bernie a sworn enemy rather than the perfect foil it can use to destroy Hillary Clinton, it would eat him alive. Eat. Him. Alive.

There's one more reason Bernie won't succeed -- a very big one -- and it has to do with something I just mentioned. The fact is, he's up against a very formidable candidate for the nomination in Hillary Clinton. Now maybe you doubt this is an insurmountable obstacle because you've seen a flurry of reports over the past couple of weeks of Clinton struggling while Bernie is surging. And you almost certainly have friends clogging up your Facebook feed with impassioned screeds about how Clinton just can't be trusted, how she's an establishment shill with too little integrity and too much scandal and baggage attached to her, how she might even be the embodiment of pure political evil. Obviously, Clinton carries with her more than 25 years in the white-hot public spotlight that Sanders doesn't -- despite his career in the Senate -- and over that length of time people have been able to form opinions of her and they're ones not likely to change at this point. What you know about Hillary is what you know about Hillary. There aren't a lot of surprises. Maybe you figure this is bad for her, but in truth it can be argued that this is a positive rather than a negative because there's nothing the Republicans can throw at her that we haven't already been fed to death.

And when you take a step back and look at Clinton objectively -- which is admittedly difficult for many, even, or maybe particularly, on the left -- that's exactly the point. Hillary Clinton's reputation is largely the result of a quarter century of visceral GOP hatred.

With the exception of maybe Barack Obama, whom they've irrationally loathed with the fire of a thousands suns, it's tough to name anyone conservatives have more vigorously derided throughout the years than Hillary Clinton. Even her husband, as much as they tried to take him down at every turn, earned a begrudging respect from many in the Republican party. Beating him up for, say, his sexual proclivities was the height of Beltway hypocrisy and they knew it, but politics demanded they grab onto any potential scandal they could with both hands and ride it as far as it would take them. While it's true many were bitterly jealous of Clinton's seemingly depthless charisma and sorcerer's way with voters, for the GOP leadership at the time it wasn't personal -- just really dirty business. Hillary on the other hand has always been cast as an arrogant bitch, a soulless bête noire, an irredeemably corrupt and fundamentally dishonest political hustler. From the very beginning of her time in the national political limelight, she was vilified for refusing to simply sit back and be an ornament on the White House Christmas tree, as she was apparently supposed to. And when she ventured out into her own separate political career, what was considered calculating but somehow forgivable from her husband became merely calculating -- and nefariously so -- from her. Bill was allowed to be Slick Willy. Hillary was just a rotten to the core.

The Clintons' political enemies were never shy about manufacturing every kind of conspiratorial scandal under the sun to attempt to hang around the couple's necks. As The Atlantic wrote just a few days ago, no other political figures in American history have spawned "the creation of a permanent multimillion-dollar cottage industry devoted to attacking them." (And this is noteworthy in and of itself when we consider the viciousness with which the right despises any Clinton.) But Hillary always got the worst of it, because, again, she lacked the boyish, "aw-shucks"  charm of her husband and because she was seen as the nakedly ambitious one in the Clintons' rocket ride to political stardom, someone who engineered her own political climb through her merely practical marriage to Bill. Whereas we normally think of presidential political scandals as involving the person in office and no one else, Clinton-haters made sure that Hillary was not only lumped in with the president but that she was part of whatever "scheme" they had seized upon and inflated -- so Whitewater and Bill's wandering eye during those early years weren't simply a crisis of character within Bill himself but were also Hillary's problem. They made sure to highlight her involvement in the land deal the GOP attempted to turn into a high crime within the White House and it was her fault her husband was a serial philanderer, as she either caused her husband's infidelity or was corrupt enough to stick by her man amidst the allegations (always cynically and only for the sake of her own political gain).

The list goes on and on: Vince Foster was Hillary Clinton's personal friend, so of course the truth about his suicide in 1993 has given way to myth and conspiracy theory from those who believe Hillary was somehow involved in the death. The more unscrupulous on the right have always peddled that nonsense as proof Hillary has a "body count" attached to her (of which Foster was only one). There was the haranguing over Hillary's "missing law firm records," which was a lot of nothing piled on top of even more nothing. There was "Travelgate," in which routine staff changes in the White House were transformed into accusations of cronyism and in which Hillary was lambasted by Republicans for allegedly using the FBI and IRS to harass the former head of the White House travel office. (Comparable to the modern right's obsession with a phony story about "Obama's IRS" auditing conservative groups.)  There was "Filegate," which saw Republicans pillory the Clintons, Hillary in particular, over a minor bureaucratic mix-up in which a Hillary hire at the Office of White House Counsel accessed files he didn't have the authority to. And of course, at the tail end of their time in the White House, Hillary was accused of helping to "loot" the White House on her way out, supposedly shipping materials to the Clintons' new home in Upstate New York.

All of this was investigated and all of it was found to be crap. But Hillary Clinton's ongoing political career only gave her GOP adversaries more alleged controversies to gin-up. She engaged in dirty dealings and then covered them up. She sold secrets to China. Her long-time adviser Huma Abedin was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and her parents had ties to al-Qaeda. She was involved in the Watergate scandal, for Christ's sake, and had ties to right-wing boogeyman Saul Alinsky. And of course, she personally got four Americans killed in Benghazi and endangered the safety and security of the United States by way of her personal server and e-mail account. She's a lying liar and a cheating cheat. She's a political Cthulu who drives men to madness by sheer force of her inhuman will and absolute malevolence. This is the caricature version of Hillary Clinton the right has carefully cultivated and hammered into the national consciousness for decades now. And if you're a liberal who believes these things about Clinton -- if you see her as anything other than a liberal Democrat who's guilty of nothing more than being a politician with faults and with a plethora of enemies like every other on this planet, including Bernie Sanders -- you've proven that the protracted smear campaign against this woman has worked. You prove that the GOP won a long time ago.

There are reasons you may choose not to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, but one would hope they're policy issues rather than problems with her personality -- because the "personality" that's been sold to the American electorate is largely manufactured, and not by Clinton herself (another facet of the smear: that she's a phony). The reality is that Clinton was one of the most liberal members of the Senate during her time there, ranking within ten points of progressive messiah Bernie Sanders and her history as a crusader for progressive causes is precisely what so motivated the GOP to destroy her in the first place. As far as the right was concerned, Clinton stepped far over the line when she pushed for healthcare reform way back in 1993 and her activist past informed a future as a "difficult woman." By the way, it hardly needs to be said but many of the conservative attacks on Clinton throughout the decades have been the product of rank sexism. Men rarely get labeled difficult or abrasive and their general likability isn't often called into question. Those are all buzzwords employed specifically to knock empowered women down a peg. And Hillary Clinton has been subjected to them -- and so much worse -- her entire political career.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders share a lot of the same basic policy prescriptions. The difference is one of method. Sanders makes sweeping pronouncements and talks of a revolution that will be so undeniable that it will upend the American political system as it's been for decades and silence all who oppose. Clinton, on the other hand, promises that she'll continue to fight tirelessly for liberal causes and concedes that at times that fight won't yield perfection but it will yield results that benefit people's lives. She promises to build on the legacy of one of the most effective liberal presidents this country has ever seen. Sanders says it all needs to be torn down and started from scratch because too many compromises have already been made. Sanders wants to fundamentally change American hearts and minds. Clinton wants to formulate a plan of action that gets things done. Sanders sells idealism. Clinton sells pragmatism. And the problem is that pragmatism isn't a sexy sell, even though it's an essential quality in an effective leader.

The thing is, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are good people, though -- and that's what some seem to be forgetting. Hillary is no more an establishment shill than any other American politician, if by establishment you mean that she works within the U.S. government and is therefore subject to its bottom line. Even Sanders, for all his beatified status on the left, has to adhere to political reality if he wants to get anything at all accomplished. He can't simply wave a magic wand and get what he wants, not even if he has the political capital provided by the support of a large part of the electorate. What Hillary Clinton isn't is this grotesque self-parody that a quarter-century of Republican "vetting" has reduced her to for far too many. An overwhelming number of the so-called controversies that have dogged Clinton's career are either whole-cloth creations or convenient manipulations by the GOP.

You can say you don't want to vote for Hillary Clinton because she's scandal-prone and who wants to go through another four or eight years of that. But remember two things: One, no matter what Democratic candidate gets elected, he or she will face a daily trial by fire from irrationally outraged conservatives. Seven years of Barack Obama-fueled insanity proves that. Two, the supposed scandals that Clinton's been enduring for the past 25 years are mostly nonsense. The GOP wouldn't have it any other way. And they couldn't be happier that right now so many liberals have turned against the woman they utterly despise in favor of someone they're fully aware they can beat. Because they understand she's the only thing standing in their way in 2016. They can't beat her. And they know it.
http://thedailybanter.com/2016/01/hillary-gop-smears/

Atheon

Yup. I've watched her for 25 years, and I know that pretty much all of the accusations being made against her are Republican-manufactured BS, just like almost every scandal leveled at her husband and at Obama during their presidencies. The Repubes have been whining about her ever since she made a statement about Tammy Wynette in 1991, and before.

Hillary is indeed liberal, as well as a strong, independent woman, which is why the Republicans detest her so much. Sadly, many of my fellow Bernie supporters are falling for the same Republican-manufactured rhetoric.

I voted for Bernie in the primaries, but he has lost and thus I am supporting Hillary because the only alternative is Trump.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca

marom1963

Quote from: Atheon on June 09, 2016, 04:17:31 AM
Yup. I've watched her for 25 years, and I know that pretty much all of the accusations being made against her are Republican-manufactured BS, just like almost every scandal leveled at her husband and at Obama during their presidencies. The Repubes have been whining about her ever since she made a statement about Tammy Wynette in 1991, and before.

Hillary is indeed liberal, as well as a strong, independent woman, which is why the Republicans detest her so much. Sadly, many of my fellow Bernie supporters are falling for the same Republican-manufactured rhetoric.

I voted for Bernie in the primaries, but he has lost and thus I am supporting Hillary because the only alternative is Trump.
As a pragmatist, I've supported Hillary all along - but I'm still afraid that Trump is likely to win. Hillary has not only her own so-called "scandals" to run against, she has the Obama legacy to run against. President Obama has done a good job - but he is not going out of office w/the kind of approval ratings that would get his party swept back into office. And now there's another scandal about his place of birth in the news. Apparently, someone has dug up old college IDs showing him registered at Columbia University as a foreign exchange student.Also, is his name Barak - or is it Bruce? It might all be nonsense, but the story will not die.
OMNIA DEPENDET ...

drunkenshoe

I think the mentioned group of American people have a problem with the basic part rather than Hillary Clinton's personality traits or her personal opinions:

QuoteHillary is no more an establishment shill than any other American politician, if by establishment you mean that she works within the U.S. government and is therefore subject to its bottom line.

It's really doesn't matter if you are an independent or a strong person if you are sitting on that chair, you are bounded by what was put before you and carry that away; enforce what takes hold. Presidents do not make independent decisions by themselves or pull something extraordinary just because they are a strong person. People have a problem with the general structure and the current working of the government, common players in the field.   

If there is really a so called group of 'liberals' that is going to decide about a democrat candidate according to Republican propaganda that is problematic in itself. Which probably is not as simple as that of course.


"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Baruch

I have seen liberals come and go ... and they are just like conservatives.  Bernie had a chance ... but he couldn't swallow enough live goldfish to keep the voters attention.  If he were elected, I expect he would be as rotten as the rest of them.  They don't represent or work for the common good and I am not interested in wasting my time on working against the common good, by supporting them.

Those who blindly hate or blindly adore some candidate (because you don't know these people personally) demonstrate animal passions I am wary toward in my own life.  The attempt to kiss babies and swallow live goldfish ... in order to get the public's attention ... by candidates, has long lost its entertainment value.  Looks like I will be tuning out and sitting this one out, since I don't think my state will support third party or write in candidates ... just as they did not in 2012.  If they did, I might write in Bernie, mostly for irony.

If Hillary gets elected, just as when Barak got elected ... there will be much wearing and gnashing of teeth, even by the people who voted for them, by the time they are thru trashing the US and the rest of the world.  Though this post is out of order, since I am not liberal.  Trump is a mystery to me, but I can't see myself voting for him ... he didn't have much chance of getting my vote in the first place.

Shoe ... I do appreciate your attempts to understand the US and get past all the BS.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

SGOS

I doubt that many liberals accept 25 years of manufactured Republican publicity.  At best they just recognize that the publicity exists and takes a toll.  The only reason to reject Hillary based on manufactured publicity is that strategically, the publicity creates a problem for her electability.  Strategically, this is a real problem, not a problem with the party loyalty of "turncoat liberals"  (that is a separate problem).  In fact, it could be argued that "party loyalty" itself is a problem, because it helps perpetuate the status quo.

This year candidates negative ratings have reached an all time high.  Repeat that, "An all time high!"  People hate the candidates.  They hate Trump and they hate Hillary.  And these negative ratings cross the lines of party loyalty too.  Of course, more Republicans hate Hillary and more Democrats hate Trump, but all the negatives that make up American perceptions, true or false, are in place.  The end result is that our choices must be taken from an assortment contained in our political shitbox.

The Democrats will vote for Hillary, except the ones that don't, and the Republicans will vote for Trump, except the ones that don't.  And the independents..., Ah those independents!  Those independents who decide the actual fate of the country, the only voters who claim to put any real thought into their choices will labor over the choices as they thoughtfully decide what shit in the shitbox makes the most rational sense in leading the country out of the depths of despair.  And they will defend their choices in such a way that you can't argue with them (after all they believe they are the only voters who actually have thought about anything).

But is the country actually in despair?  Yes, it is.  I know this because during every election, the country is in despair and facing a national crisis the likes of which call for party loyalty more than ever before.  Just listen to the rhetoric.  It must be true.  And it probably is true, although not for the reasons given by those vying for office.  Hell, the people vying for office are the representatives of the crisis.  They are competing with each other to ultimately control the shitbox, and thereby reap the personal rewards the shitbox provides to those who nurture it.

God, I want to scream.  This year, instead of going to the polls, I'm considering just taking 5 minutes to grab two hand's full of hair on my head, pull with all my strength, and let out a loud bellow that will surely frighten my neighbors as they patriotically tromp home from the polling place in a fog of national pride and personal satisfaction.

GrinningYMIR

I maintain what I said months ago

Everybody sucks 2016

The us is doomed
"Human history is a litany of blood shed over differing ideals of rulership and afterlife"<br /><br />Governor of the 32nd Province of the New Lunar Republic. Luna Nobis Custodit


gentle_dissident

Quote from: SGOS on June 09, 2016, 07:31:28 AM
God, I want to scream.
Don't fear. Hillary will win. Some good things will happen behind closed doors like with Obama. In the short time I knew of Obama, I've seen him say one thing and do another. During his first campaign, he let business owners know he was a stiff. At the end of his last term, he released 6000 prisoners. It looks like there should be more, but it's a start. Even though I'm progressive, I don't enjoy it when a progressive candidate plays both sides for positioning. Trump does that.

Bernie looks like he's hanging in just to make our voices louder

Hydra009

"Bernie Sanders is selling unworkable, pie-in-the-sky idealism" - no wonder the dems have been getting a reputation of late for being status quo.  The second you offer substantial reform, this is what you're saddled with.  Between that and a party that wants to take the nation back to the 50s, it's no wonder we have mounting unresolved problems.

And Clinton (currently under federal investigation) is apparently totally blameless in her scandals - they're all just baseless republican smears.  I wonder how many people actually believe that.  I feel bad for them.

"The reality is that Clinton was one of the most liberal members of the Senate during her time there, ranking within ten points of progressive messiah Bernie Sanders and her history as a crusader for progressive causes is precisely what so motivated the GOP to destroy her in the first place."  Even if we accept this as true, she's still a 6.8 compared to Bernie's 9.  Why vote for someone who more distantly shares your political stances?

The Clinton camp is going to have to put out much more convincing propaganda if they expect to win this election.


Hydra009

Quote from: gentle_dissident on June 09, 2016, 11:26:33 AMHere's one lie she can't deny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozQe72pJOdQ
That one was posted earlier.  As you can see, it went more or less unnoticed.  Apparently, Trump's not the only one with supporters deeply in denial about their candidate.


PickelledEggs

Even if Bernie is a 9 and Hillary is a 6.5, it still doesn't change the fact that he fought for the support of a political party that he simultaneously bashed the entire time. He is a very good presidential candidate, I still feel, but he is not a democrat.

Hillary, in contrast to Bernie seems like a steaming pile of shit because he chose to run for the Democratic nomination and fought so closely. So now, because of the "Bernie or bust" people, we might as well start ringing in the bells for Trump's inauguration ceremony now. #trump2016 here we come.

PickelledEggs

And also. I feel like continuing to bash Hillary makes our chances much higher for Trump to be elected. Remember 6.5 is still above average. And Hillary's 6.5 is much better than Donald's 3.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk