How Ardent Hillary Supporters Came To Be

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 11:50:23 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Susie Madrak, how Rebecca Traister became a Hillary-bot:

The thing that had a radicalizing impact on me began after [Hillary lost in] Iowa. Because there was this pile-on, and to me it was mind-bending. It was coming often from people on the left. It was like something they had been keeping inside as they bit their tongues and covered this woman who had the gall to be the front-runner and the “inevitable” candidate, which was the word that they threw out there. And finally she had shown weakness, and they were just going nuts.

[. . .] I was one of those few, proud, now deeply embarrassed John Edwards supporters. So when it came to super Tuesday I had to choose between her and Obama, about whom I felt roughly equivalent. I wound up almost flipping a coin and voting for Hillary, but I was still completely ambivalent about her. Eventually I became a lot more aware of the ways in which not only Hillary but also her supporters were being talked about. I became increasingly sensitive to the scorn directed at her, and it built and built as she continued to fight, and it drove me nuts. Because I thought her continuing to fight was awesome and hilarious. I thought it was completely redefining how we view women and our expectations for them in public and political life. She would not comply. She would not give in. She would not do what the pundits wanted her to do, what her opponents wanted her to do, what reporters were insisting that she do, what everyone was telling her was the smart thing to do or, in one case, the classy thing to do. She just kept going. [MORE . . .]

But the more she did that, the more anger — biting anger — I began to see, both in the media and amongst the people I knew, and amongst Obama supporters, and that was what began to radicalize me in my support for Clinton, so that by the end I was an ardent Hillary supporter. That does not mean that I did not still find fault with her. I did, and I do. And there were a lot of terrible missteps she made during that campaign. But I was a devoted Hillary supporter by the end, so much so that I, with much humiliation, actually wound up crying after she conceded. I was in the [National Building Museum covering the story for Salon], and I had to run out of the press area, and I was trying to find a place behind a column, and I’m, like, choking out sobs, and I realize I’m standing next to Matt Drudge.

The strange thing is that even though Hillary Clinton lost the nomination, her public persona has gained in ways unthinkable without that loss. To be sure, Hillary has the 2016 Demo nomination should she want it. But more than that, even if she doesn't, her determination has recast her.

She did it her way at the end (not Mark Penn's way), and her standing with the public was never higher. Funny how vicious opponents can do that for you. In a way, Hillary gets the last laugh.

Speaking for me only

< He's With Us On Everything But Middle Class Tax Cuts | How Dems Can Win The Fight For Middle Class Tax Cuts >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

How Ardent Hillary Supporters Came To Be | 84 comments (84 topical)

oddly (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 11:58:10 AM EST

I also think that if and when she wins she may be appreciated in ways she might not have been before that whole experience.

some people may learn that having some DC experience is not always a bad thing.

Her DC experience (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:00:00 PM EST

was her biggest problem. When she broke away from it and trusted her political instincts, she becme a master politician.

I agree that she will likely be more successful if she becomes President because of that experience in the 2008 campaign.


or even the experience (none / 0) (#4)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:01:43 PM EST

of being in the White House in the 90s?
I think so.


The 90s? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:04:49 PM EST

I think nothing can replace being the focus of it all.

The 2008 campaign made Hillary politically.


: Only after February 2008 (5.00 / 8) (#25)
by lambert on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:00:17 PM EST

The detail that I always found telling, after she cleaned house and axed Penn and the rest of 'em, was that the GOTV tool of choice became not "the website" but the (disposable) cell phone -- because that was the best way to reach her base (who were either on the job with access monitored, or doing the kind of work that doesn't make Internet access available, or working such long hours that Internet access at home wasn't an option. If she had won the nomination (instead of the popular vote and all the big states except IL), this would be hailed as genius...
This to me is the best article on Hillary's appeal down the 2008 home stretch. I've linked to it before and I'll link to it again:

Here filling the gym risers at the Bristol Borough Junior-Senior High School, listening to John Mellencamp's "Small Town" and chanting Hillary-Hillary-Hillary! were the working class folk who would stick with her until the end in South Dakota because she, more than any other candidate in decades, was finding a way to speak to the many and varied losses in these Americans' lives.

For many of us, the past few years have been nothing but loss. With 10% nominal (20% real) disemployment, how could it be any other way? The politician who can speak to those losses, and perhaps even heal them, as opposed to playing on fear and hate (or indifference), will do the country a great service -- and perhaps save us from very bad outcomes.
NOTE 2012 is not 2010 is not 2008. The deteriation has been very swift, and there seems no stopping point, both legacy parties normalize permanently high disemployment. It's not clear to me that at this point we can take a Mulligan on normalizing Bush's power grab, normalizing the bailouts, normalizing the economic and political dominance of finance, normalizing massive accounting control fraud by the elites, continuing the wars, or any of that. Nor is it clear to me that Hillary, as "neo-liberalism with a human face" would wish to. BUt 'tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.

As much as I hate to admit (none / 0) (#13)
by BackFromOhio on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:23:30 PM EST

this, I also think that current high public opinion of Hillary owes a lot to the fact that the Pres. nominated her for Secretary of State. As a result of that, the media came around, everyone saw her as a "team" player like the boys, and criticizing her ceased to be in vogue.

And, of course, then came Hillary's roll up her sleeves, learn the job better and work harder than anyone else that sealed the deal.

Before I decided which candidate to back in the primaries, I read Carl Bernstein's biography of Hillary. As much as he bad-mouthed her on the PR junket to sell his book, the actual content had very little negative to say about her and lots that was positive.


: If she hadn't been SOS (5.00 / 9) (#55)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:16:30 PM EST

she would have found some other way to contribute. Count on that. She would not have melted meekly into the haze, as so many insisted she should.
And whatever she had done, she would have displayed that same character that's melted most of her media critics now.
The bottom line is that she is not and never has been the cold, unprincipled dragon lady they all imagined her to be and built their animus to her on.

I saw this title and thought, should I (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by oculus on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:08:56 PM EST

subject myself to reading the post?

LOL - I thought the same thing... (5.00 / 9) (#14)
by Anne on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:28:31 PM EST

but reading it, I realized that so many of us came to be Hillary supporters reluctantly. Shoot, I can remember just feeling fatigued at the idea of a Clinton presidency and all the nonsense that would go on for at least four years - there would be little chance of ever getting anything done, because the Clinton-haters would just suck all the oxygen out of everything.

But, like a lot of others, when Edwards was marginalized out of the race, and the vicious piling-on started on Clinton, and I started doing more research on Clinton to counter the ridiculous accusations being made against, her, I realized she was, hands-down, the most qualified person in the entire field.

Not that I marched in lock-step with her on everything - I didn't then and I don't now - but her resume, her track record, all pointed to someone who could handle the job, and handle it well.

I think she made women stronger, for showing how to stand up against the forces that want to keep us down, and to do it with grace and conviction. And, maybe more important, that losing doesn't mean we have to scurry away and stop speaking out.

It remains to be seen, for me, what either 2012 or 2016 hold for her; that may have more to do with how dispirited I feel thinking about the next 2 years, much less the next 6 years, than it does with my confidence that she could be an excellent president.

We'll see, I guess.

Not just about that, but about what direction this thread takes, lol.


The "lol"er hasn't checked in yet. (5.00 / 6) (#16)
by oculus on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:33:21 PM EST

Waiting.


: Masochist.... :-) (5.00 / 7) (#19)
by vml68 on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 01:07:10 PM EST

n/t

: Heh, heh ... for some reason, .... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Yman on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:24:25 PM EST

... whenever he finishes with "LOL", I can't help but think about Vizzini from Princess Bride.

Read the whole interview (5.00 / 2) (#60)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:23:36 PM EST

which was originally in Salon. Traister has lots of interesting things to say on the subject of not just Hillary but Palin, too.


: I read part of her article in Salon at lunch (5.00 / 3) (#70)
by ruffian on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:44:04 PM EST

You're right, it was very interesting regarding the Palin campaign also. Apparently Traister has written a book about the campaign. I might have to get that one.

And? (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:16:14 PM EST

So, I read it, and started thinking (5.00 / 5) (#15)
by oculus on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:31:52 PM EST

of the brouhaha when it was discovered Hillary Clinton had tears in her eyes. Then I got mad.

I still don't think she could win in 2016. Ageism as limited to the female gender.


: That was indeed a low point (5.00 / 6) (#17)
by Dr Molly on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:37:37 PM EST

during a period of pretty low lows.

Hillary was not (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by the capstan on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 01:32:09 PM EST

only a woman (historic choice!); she was a liberal. The two factors put together aimed me in her direction over J.E. (I never did classify Obama as a liberal, therefore I ended by sitting out the election.) Despite taunts about not 'getting over' the primaries, I still would love to see Hillary run and win THE office in 2012. (Yes, I do fear agism if she waited until 2016, but as a sitting president, I think she'd have a good chance.

So was I correct in my assessment of Obama, no doubt about it! Anger over the primaries--not a factor.

Amazing (2.00 / 1) (#23)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 01:39:39 PM EST

Identification with a Politician is directly proportional to delusion level.

Hilary, regarding policy, is exactly the same as Obama, and the rest of the centrist democrats.

Call her any cuddly name you want, she represents the current mainstream Democrat position.

She, along with the other Democrats is tough on crime, a warmonger, and a conservative christian.

It is true that her style is much more appealing than Obama, at least to me, but then again I am not a black muslim... lol


What happened to the distinction between (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by oculus on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 01:58:47 PM EST

Obama and Clinton re her voting for the AUMF, which he sd. he would not have done?


the fact is (5.00 / 4) (#62)
by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:28:34 PM EST

that he said he and bush were not far apart on the war in Iraq and had he been in the senate he might very well have voted for the AUMF.
Go see Hillary's address to the senate on her reason's for voting the way she did. I would say that the real anti war candidate was her. But to see it that way you have to think in nuance..something people love to defend in politicians but rarely practice themselves.


Huh? (1.00 / 4) (#26)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:05:56 PM EST

Just because Obama had the good sense to speak against the Iraq war, does not mean that he has ever strayed from being a mainstream Dem warmonger like the rest of them.

Not sure what you are getting at here, but I am sure that it is dishonest...


Yes, but the timeline is a little iffy... (5.00 / 3) (#32)
by lambert on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:29:40 PM EST

Obama in the Times during a debate:

[OBAMA] My objections to the war in Iraq were simply -- not simply a speech. I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war, and I was very specific as to why.

But, at the very best, that's a revision of history. See the Boston Globe for when Obama actually gave "the speech":

Days later, on Oct. 2, 2002, Obama made one of the most important speeches of his political life. Invited to address a hastily organized protest of President Bush's war plans for Iraq, Obama told hundreds of people in Federal Plaza in downtown Chicago that invading would be a big mistake.
That fall, Obama had not yet announced his Senate campaign but began lining up friends, supporters, and donors. He signed up David Axelrod, a well-respected Chicago political strategist and ad-maker, to help plot the race he would run.

So, the stakes weren't nearly as high as Obama would have had his supporters believe.


I am still wondering exactly what he (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by oculus on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:31:41 PM EST

sd. when he spoke to that rally.


IIRC, it wasn't recorded at the time... (5.00 / 3) (#39)
by lambert on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:37:41 PM EST

... which would show you how important it seemed to everybody, including Obama, then. Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun-Times, October 13, 2007:

The Obama campaign readily admits that White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) recently recorded a portion of the Oct. 2, 2002, anti-Iraq war speech he originally delivered at an outdoor rally in Chicago for a new ad that went online Thursday.
There is no good audio tape of the speech, which is playing a pivotal role in the Obama campaign. But the campaign used a sound effect to create the impression one was listening to the original speech.

Alrighty, then.
NOTE Vast Left has a timeline compilation here. TROLL PROPHYLACTIC: Not a mention of a birth certificate or religious choice there. Just a detailed comparison of claims made against evidence available.


: Hence, my comment. (none / 0) (#45)
by oculus on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:44:38 PM EST

Irrelevant (none / 0) (#38)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:35:49 PM EST

They are both the same when it comes to war. Hillary was wrong to give Bush an inch (AUMF) as he was a known liar and surrounded by right wing radicals. Obama was lucky he was not in the Senate at the time, although it would not have mattered much regarding winning the nomination, imo.

Obama would more than likely voted for the AUMF were he in congress too. Most mainstream Democratic Senators voted the same on every measure, which includes Hillary and Obama.


And, BTW, most would characterize (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by oculus on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:33:07 PM EST

your last sentence is a violation of TL rules.


Why is That? (5.00 / 0) (#41)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:39:43 PM EST

Have you something against black muslims?

If I were a black muslim, I would have identified with Obama.

Most white women over 40 identified with Hillary, which seems to be the point of this post, no?

Otherwise how could a bunch of progressives have become so enamored with a conservative democrat?

It is hilarious that many of those same folks swear that they will not vote for democrats any more, even if they are to the left of Hillary.


Click "parent." (none / 0) (#46)
by oculus on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:46:24 PM EST

Not sure what you are getting at here, but I am sure that it is dishonest...

OK (1.00 / 1) (#50)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:51:58 PM EST

I am sure that your motives are dishonest here, considering you have been a cheerleader for Hillary for as long as you have been here, and have made believe that Obama and Hillary were miles apart regarding policy.

That is, and has been dishonest.

To suggest that the AUMF vote was what won it for Obama is silly, imo.

He voted to fund the war. He won because of demographics and the fact that Mark Penn f'ed up Hillary's campaign big time.


The revision continues... (5.00 / 5) (#53)
by lambert on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:14:24 PM EST

Depends on what you mean by "won", I suppose. You might look into the El Paso incident reports of caucus fraud, the shenanigains at the Rules and Bylaws Committee, and then ask yourself why the candidate who won all the big states and a majority (albeit very slender) of the vote if all votes are counted didn't get the nomination. I'm guessing your answer will have nothing to do with Mark Penn or demographics.


: Don't forget what those (none / 0) (#66)
by jondee on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:35:38 PM EST

"New Black Panthers" did, Lambert..
Personally, I think that until we have publicly financed elections, mostly what we're going to get for the forseeable future is something like a HRC who has to fill up on insurance lobby money in order to have an adequate war chest; who then has to battle it out with blue dogs, filibusters and mini Arkansas Projects and the probable bogging down in yet another unwinnable foreign entanglement (in which we do our damndest to "obliterate" people"), until the GOP juggernaut launches another assault on the Whitehouse.

Not OK, actually... (5.00 / 14) (#59)
by Anne on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:23:17 PM EST

You don't accept that others saw the differences between Clinton and Obama as larger and more meaningful than you did, but that doesn't make you right, and doesn't reduce the conclusions others reached to the level of "making believe," for heaven's sake - it just means that they don't share your opinion.

Reducing others to being delusional or dishonest is the equivalent of calling them "crazy" or a "liar," and that's why it is against TL rules.

Oh - almost forgot...LOL.


he "won" (5.00 / 5) (#65)
by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:34:05 PM EST

becausethe DNC played fast and lose with their own rules. More people voted for Hillary including in states like TX where he got more delegates (caucus ballot box stuffing by Obots). So it seems like Penn did NOT F up her campaign at all. But then you might also think Bush "won" because more people wanted to have a beer with him.


I don't think Obama won the GE (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by oculus on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:59:59 PM EST

because he did not have the opportunity to vote for or against the AUMF. I think it was a significant factor in his winning the nomination.


: Disagree (5.00 / 0) (#80)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 04:06:31 PM EST

I was talking about the primary not the GE. Anyone who was the least bit anti-war would have listened to his warmongering regarding Afghanistan and his hedging about Iraq.
I am fairly sure that had Hillary ditched Mark Penn before she ran, and led the type of campaign she did in the last couple of months (too late) she would have won.
But it is irrelevant to me, as I do not think we would be in any different place, save for TL comment section being a pro government apologist trampoline.

It takes a hell of an effort, (1.00 / 2) (#57)
by jondee on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:18:41 PM EST

for me at least, to not say anything evocative of "the race card" when commenters continue to insist on waxing faux-populist, hyperbolic and yes, somewhat dreamy and utopian, about HRC's mythic appeal for "working people" or "blue collar working people", when what is really meant is white working people..Because what? Everyone knows black people don't like to work..? I was born in a small town..:)

And of course, everyone knows that anyone below "the middle class" is there because they don't want work, are stupid, immoral.. If who our mainstream pols are targeting with their rhetoric and photo ops is any indication, they may as well not exist. Of course, an ex Wal-Mart board member would probably tell them to all head over to Wally World -- and stay away from those trouble makers carrying the signs out front.


this is not true (5.00 / 5) (#63)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:29:01 PM EST

I would dare to say that Bill and Hillary have done more to improve the lot of non whites in this country than Obama has.


: Which still isn't saying much.. (none / 0) (#72)
by jondee on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:46:33 PM EST

The number of young black men in prison in this country tells me that to the present day no pols have come anywhere near adequately addressing the problem..
And selling out the people by trading manufacturing jobs for Wally World and Bugger King jobs - despite all the spin about how the benefits of "free trade" trickle down to all of us - isn't anything like an answer either.

I also think (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:32:15 PM EST

its a little misleading to link her derisively to WalMart since that was the largest retailer in arkansas long before they were the largest in the world so its no surprise she might be involved.


wow (5.00 / 12) (#67)
by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:38:34 PM EST

this kind of race baiting is why I could not bring myself to vote for Obama. It was the first time in my life I did not work for or vote for the Democratic candidate. I don't support people who call me and other people racist just because they didn't support the black candidate. Shame on you.
BTW..Hillary spent her time on the walmart board trying to improve their labor practices. But don't let the facs get in the way of getting your He-man Hillary haters club high on.


B.S (none / 0) (#78)
by jondee on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 04:05:53 PM EST

on HRC "improving their labor practices"..

Please, I'd like to see a link for that.


: And holding them ALL (none / 0) (#81)
by jondee on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 04:07:39 PM EST

up to the harsh light of day isn't "hating" anyone..

Speaking of Wal-Mart... (5.00 / 3) (#73)
by Anne on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:47:32 PM EST

From Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun-Times, May, 2007:

Michelle Obama resigned Tuesday from the board of TreeHouse Foods Inc., a Wal-Mart vendor, eight days after husband and White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said he would not shop at the anti-union store.
Obama has been a director of the suburban Westchester food maker since June 27, 2005. Board chairman Sam Reed received a resignation letter from Obama Tuesday. The company said she quit because of "increased demands" on her time. Obama was re-elected to the board April 19 for a term ending in 2010 -- during a period she was preparing to take on a larger role in the campaign.
In a statement issued by the campaign, Obama said, "As my campaign commitments continue to ramp up, it is becoming more difficult for me to provide the type of focus I would like on my professional responsibilities." She said it was in "the best interests of my family and the company" she quit.
Wal-Mart is a target of organized labor in the U.S., a Democratic constituency playing a key role in determining the 2008 Democratic nominee. Obama's link to Wal-Mart through TreeHouse was a potential liability for Sen. Obama. On May 14, during an AFL-CIO forum in Trenton, N.J., Sen. Obama was asked about Wal-Mart. "I won't shop there," he said. Chief rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) served on the Wal-Mart board between 1986 and 1992.
In a SEC filing, TreeHouse stated Obama's resignation "is not due to any disagreement with the company on any matter.''
According to the Obamas' income tax returns, Michelle Obama collected $51,200 from TreeHouse in 2006. She leaves the board with an option to buy 2,266 TreeHouse shares at a strike price of $29.65. Shares closed at $28.10 Tuesday.
Obama's resignation from the lucrative part-time position comes as she cutback her hours as a University of Chicago Hospitals vice president by 80 percent.
To showcase Obama's role as chief surrogate for her husband, the campaign has orchestrated a high-profile media blitz in recent weeks.

Small world, eh?


: Small world? (none / 0) (#75)
by jondee on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:59:23 PM EST

You're telling me, Anne. What a shock..
But then, I never idealized any of these people. And the "Unreasonable Man" is STILL the one who hits the nail on the head more than any of the others..

This was probably the key distinction (none / 0) (#28)
by oculus on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:12:10 PM EST

between these two candidates before the GE.


Yeah (2.00 / 1) (#29)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:14:51 PM EST

Not much else different between them, politically speaking.


: Repetition... (5.00 / 8) (#54)
by lambert on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:15:19 PM EST

.... does not make it so.
Marginal differences are not insignificant. They can lead to material concrete benefits in real people's lives.

The policy differences were marginal... (5.00 / 9) (#30)
by lambert on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:21:33 PM EST

... since both politicians fall well within the spectrum of the neo-liberal Washington Consensus, but marginal does not mean insignficant. Here are three examples of how Clinton differed from Obama on policy, being to Obama's left in each case.

Housing. Hillary supported HOLC, Homeowner's Loan Corporation, an FDR-style program that would have been far superior to HAMP. Obama wanted to study it.
Health Care. Hillary supported a universal health care solution with a mandate. Obama did not support the mandate, and -- appallingly -- ran Harry & Louise-style ads against Clinton in OH based on that. (As a single payer advocate, I hate the mandate, since it reinforces the private insurance companies, but at least we would have had a more favorable field position with Clinton, since the principle of universality was established from the start.
Executive Power. Obama flip-flopped on FISA (after promising to filibuster it, too), and supported retroactive immunity of the telcos. Hillary voted against retroactive immunity.

Therefore, we see that squeaky's claim that Obama is "exactly the same" as Clinton, quite simply, false.

As I said, both candidates are in the neo-liberal consensus, which I don't accept. That said, there is every reason to think that Hillary Clinton would have delivered concrete material benefits to what used to be the base of the D party that Obama did not.


As I recall, Obama vowed to "support" (4.00 / 3) (#33)
by oculus on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:29:47 PM EST

a filibuster against the FISA revise. But he was in NH when the actual vote occurred. (Sd. he didn't get the message.)


: Think that was the Kyl-Liberman amendment (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Yman on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:41:12 PM EST

He voted for the FISA compromise.

Dreams of Utopia (1.00 / 1) (#34)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:31:21 PM EST

Hilarious.

What could have been.... if only...

I think that is how religion started: the combination of loss and imagination. Strong stuff..


I mostly agree (5.00 / 3) (#40)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:38:37 PM EST

with one exception. health care.
I think we would be in a different place in the health care debate if she had been in charge.


: Could Have Been Worse (none / 0) (#43)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:42:54 PM EST

The backlash ($$$ lobby and their enablers) may have been stronger, imo. She was not a fresh face and had a ton of baggage....
Nice to dream though.

Brighten the corner where you are.. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by lambert on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:07:34 PM EST

... is ever my motto.

So I'm glad to be able to add to your hilarity.


Great Motto! (none / 0) (#52)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:10:46 PM EST

: Not that it makes any difference (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by lambert on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:17:32 PM EST

But at least I can keep my own side of the street clean.

Pot calling kettle black here (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by DFLer on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:22:21 PM EST

you say find it so hilarious? What could have been.... if only...

Yet earlier on this thread you said:

Obama would more than likely voted for the AUMF were he in congress too. could shoulda woulda back at ya

View from the street here is clearer than from the high horse.


: High Horse (none / 0) (#71)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:45:21 PM EST

Why because I believe that Obama is just as much a political coward as Hilary was?

I had to sign on (5.00 / 20) (#61)
by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:24:25 PM EST

just to answer your comment. Christian conservative? Really? You have got to be kidding. She is a liberal Christian with a voting record to the left of Obama's in his breif time in legislative office. And while she is centrist on some economic issues (unless you are one of the american left's dillitante socialist set) her solutions to our current crisis were both to the left and more populist that Obama's. She is also unfailingly pro-choice, unlike Obama who almost always voted present when it came to "choice legislation". In addition, one of the first things she did as SOS was give domestic partners the same rights as heterosexual married folks in the only sphere she had the power to do so.... Obama's administration is getting ready to defend DADT once aganin while the do impact studies to see if the military should be integrated with godless gay people.

I am a liberal, unfortunately I find other liberals as incapable of independent thought as I do Rush's ditto heads. Think for yourself, go watch Hillary's address to the senate on why she voted the way she did on the Iraq war. You may find that there are still some things you don't know.


Exactly. (5.00 / 16) (#68)
by Anne on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:42:37 PM EST

It just slays me to hear people repeat the talking point of "but they were the same, so it didn't matter who got the nomination." Anyone who has looked into Clinton's record - going back to her college days - knows quite well that these were not ever two peas in the same pod, interchangeable and indistinguishable.

Where the differences were not large, they were not, as lambert says, insignificant. Where the differences were bigger, they have proved to be quite significant. I cannot imagine Hillary selling women out to get "something" passed on health whatever. I cannot imagine her putting together the miserable, credit-killing, bank-friendly HAMP. I can't imagine her dithering for over a year and a half on DADT. Or failing to put together comprehensive jobs legislation. The list goes on.

I think the "but, they're the same" line is the last refuge of those who can't - or won't - admit that they backed the wrong horse, and so they content themselves with "nothing would be different" because that's all they have.


Yeah, Conservative Christian (2.00 / 1) (#74)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:51:28 PM EST

Anyone who can go to the Family weekly prayer meetings and not go into a fit of projectile vomiting is a religious conservative.

And like Obama, just because she is personally against abortion, and has a personal relationship with christ, doesn't mean that she wants to enforce it on others.


Who issued that executive order to (5.00 / 5) (#77)
by oculus on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 04:04:24 PM EST

satisfy Stupak/Pitts/Nelson?


: Waste Of Time (1.20 / 5) (#82)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 04:09:46 PM EST

Do you think that Obama's EO did anything other than allow the righties to save face?
If so you are either such a hater that your brain is shutdown, or you are ignorant about the EO and the laws it agreed to uphold.
Hillary would have done the same, if she even got that far with health care to start with.

It's not "Family weekly prayer meetings" (5.00 / 9) (#83)
by Yman on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 04:34:23 PM EST

You're obviously referring to Ehrenreich's hit piece, which attacked Clinton for her "association" with "a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the "Fellowship," aka The Family", among other things (changing the use of her surname, and (gasp!) her changing hairstyles, etc.).

Ehrenreich makes it all sound quite scary, unless, of course, one prefers reality to fantasy. In the real world, Hillary is just a mainstream Methodist, and has been her whole life. Even Jeff Sharlet, author of "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power" and co-author of the MJ article that started it all acknowledges that her "Family" connections are "no scandal" and "fairly shallow". The "Family weekly prayer meetings" meetings that Squeaky refers to are nothing more than the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, attended by many Senators from all sorts of religious backgrounds, but that doesn't sound scary enough. Better just call them "Family weekly prayer meetings". Then there's "the Family's" signature event, the National Prayer Breakfast, attended by virtually all politicans in DC (and many from all over the world), including Obama.

Heeeeeeeeyyyy, .... does that make Obama a "conservative Christian", too? What about Bono (of U2 fame), since he was a keynote speaker? Does Norm Coleman (co-chair) count as a "conservative Christian", or does he actually have to convert to Christianity first?

(snicker)


the dynasty thing always bothered me (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by pitachips on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 01:37:14 PM EST

more so than any differences in policy. at the end of the day whatever she (or any candidate for that matter) said during the election would be whittled down to a shell of itself when in office.

Traister speaks for me there (5.00 / 5) (#47)
by ruffian on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:48:08 PM EST

I never thought there were huge policy differences and did not have a favorite until after Iowa, when the abuse hurled at her disturbed me on an emotional level. Like Traister, it seemed to me like things people had been holding back for years and were using the opportunity to get vicious. Really eye-opening.

As time went by I additionally found that I liked her approach to fighting Republicans better than Obama's PPUS (which was evident even then, if you listened to him or read 'the Audacity of Hope'. That is not a policy difference per se, but makes all the difference in the world when it comes to getting things done.

Traister (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by Dr Molly on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 03:43:08 PM EST

wrote frequently, very intelligently and compellingly on this topic, and was a refuge from the vacuous 'discussions' of sexism from the usual boys club blogs. She is very worth reading all of the time, IMO, but she excelled on this topic. It was fun to watch her thinking and feelings evolve as the sh!t went down.

The differences (4.67 / 9) (#49)
by NYShooter on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:51:07 PM EST

on the major issues between almost any two Democrats are negligible, so that argument is specious.

The difference between Obama & Hillary is more subjective than objective. Hillary is a fighter who would stand her ground until compromise became the only solution. Obama pays lip service to his positions and moves to "take them off the table" at the first sign of opposition.

But the most important difference is that Hillary is "real," a living, breathing, feeling advocate. While Obama is a product, a manufactured, merchandised, and marketed product designed and produced by Madison & Wall St.

Upper middle class will have a champion (1.33 / 3) (#5)
by Yes2Truth on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:02:17 PM EST

The rest of us will just have to eat more cake
if Mrs. Clinton were to become president.

Heh (5.00 / 5) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:04:02 PM EST

Funny this comment in light of the fact that we can not even - at this point - get the Clinton tax rates back in place.


Soothsaying, ... (none / 0) (#12)
by Yman on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:19:53 PM EST

or just more indefatigable cynicism?


after 6 more years (none / 0) (#18)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:48:28 PM EST

you should be used to it by 2016 so it shouldnt even be a problem


It's been the same song... (none / 0) (#20)
by kdog on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 01:08:55 PM EST

my whole life...I still ain't used to it, it's still a problem Capt.

And since the "if only it were Hillary" delusion is still running strong, looks like 2024 is our first shot at some real change, at least via Brand D. How old will Kuchinich be in 2024?


The spectacle of Kucinich whipping... (5.00 / 5) (#36)
by lambert on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:31:45 PM EST

... for HCR after he got a ride in Air Force One with Obama, after opposing the bill on principle just the day before, should really have put an end to the idea that Kucinich is a credible alternative on th left.


: Good point... (none / 0) (#44)
by kdog on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:43:10 PM EST

maybe there is no one worthy of a shot on Team D or R....Kuch was the only name that popped in my head.
Can we clone Nader for a 2024 run?

I just wore her shirt here in lower BAMA (none / 0) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 11:59:24 AM EST

the other day too in public for the first time. It is the one that they sent to you for helping retire her campaign debt and has the sillouette of her on it. When it first came in the mail I put it on my stack of T-shirts thinking to myself that the only safe place to wear this shirt down here is to bed :) Things have changed though, I'm not even sure most people around here now recognize what the shirt means anymore either....short memory and her name isn't on it anywhere. If someone does recognize the sillouette, they probably feel sorry for me down here now :)

MT, this is from the word a day e mail. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by oculus on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:07:35 PM EST

Today's word is "Camelot."

NOTES:
Camelot has also become a nickname for the glamorous ambience of the time in the US when John F. Kennedy was the president (1961-1963). A musical titled Camelot, based on the Arthurian legend, was popular around the same time and the word came to be applied to the exciting time of change during Kennedy's administration.


: The word a day :) (none / 0) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:14:39 PM EST

Fort Carson used to do a word a day, they put it on a little sign centered between the lanes in the grass inside the main gate. A few days after the first big NO WMDs story broke, I drive through the main gate and the word of the day was "Perception". Made me want to ram into the MP shack with my car, but they didn't do it :) Whoever was trying to PsyOps me that day can officially KMA now :) Perception indeed

I've got that shirt! (5.00 / 5) (#27)
by lambert on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:08:03 PM EST

The lady in the pantsuit, right?

"For everyone who's ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out and for everyone who works hard and never gives up this one [lady in pantsuit] is for you."

I didn't wear mine in public for awhile either, since I'd been yelled at by an Obama supporter for not supporting him, forced to raise my glass in a Thanksgiving toast to the guy, and all that. But now I do. Certainly I should have been more courageous, but it's a small town.


: That's the one (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:50:18 PM EST

Never fails (none / 0) (#79)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 04:06:21 PM EST

I'll have to post on Hillary with closed comments.

In fact, closing comments now.

Support policies, not politicians (none / 0) (#84)
by BobTinKY on Tue Sep 14, 2010 at 10:17:39 AM EST

How Ardent Hillary Supporters Came To Be

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal