Ramona's picture

    So it's Clinton vs. Sanders. Can't We Just Be Frenemies?

    Yesterday Joe Biden stood in the Rose Garden with his wife Jill and President Obama and announced he wouldn't be running for president. (Thank you, Joe, you did the right thing. I love you.) It's still early in the election season (WAY early.  Did you know Canadians can only campaign for 78 days? Must seem like a damned eternity, right?) but unless a dark horse comes up from behind, it looks like it'll be a run between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

    Way back in 2007-08, Hillary Clinton was one of the two front-runners as she battled it out with Barack Obama for the top Party position. The fact that neither of them were white men made the whole contest especially interesting, but the unofficial skirmishes between the Clinton supporters and the Obama supporters were, let's just say, spectacular!  (I learned bad words I didn't even know existed.)  The miff factor was so strong, so relentless, you can still hear echos today.  Some have never forgotten, never forgiven.  And they're b-a-a-a-c-k. . .

    I have to admit, they scare me.  Now they're Hillary and Bernie supporters--fervent, passionate, TYPING-IN-ALL-CAPS supporters--and if that's not bad enough, (Not that either Bernie or Hillary are bad. . . No, I will NEVER say that. I've seen bad and they're not it.) they're on Twitter and Facebook.  And so am I.

    Facebook and Twitter, I don't have to tell you, are like vast out-of-this-world megalopoli full of creatures who may or may not be what they seem.  On Facebook we "like" people we don't even know.  We do the same on Twitter except we don't "like" them, we "follow" them.  Sometimes we actually grow to like the people we "like".  Ditto the people we follow.  It works magnificently as long as we don't talk about religion or politics or the Kardashians.  (I'm kidding.  We don't talk about the Kardashians.  We don't even know who they are.)

    I, a known political junkie, have chosen to "like" a whole lot of people whose topic of choice is politics.  We do the happy stuff, sharing cute pet memes, taking those tests to show how smart we are, but that's because it's hard work trying to save an entire country. Sometimes we need a break.

    Most of the time, when we're on the topic of politics, we agree on almost everything, including the right to disagree.  We're liberals and progressives, Democrats and Independents, religious and not, with a few conservatives, Republicans, and agnostics mixed in, just for flavor.

    Until now, it's been good.  But now we're getting into presidential politics.  The big time. The elections aren't until November, 2016, but we've already begun to get testy.  I see trouble ahead.

    I've been defending Hillary as if she's an underdog and needs my kind of help.  I've been looking for any little thing to prove that Bernie isn't a saint.  I hate myself already and it's not even Christmas. (By the way, I'll be taking a short break from politics around Christmas to fight for our right to say "Happy Holidays". I'll be back some time after December 25.)

    It's early yet.  So far the barbs are polite:  "I'm disappointed to hear you say that."  "I know you're smarter than that."  "You can't really mean that!"  "Sad. . ."   

    But we're reaching the point where we're setting up camps and gearing up for battle--against each other. Whichever candidate we're behind is the absolute best.  The obvious choice.  Anyone who can't see that is. . .(fill in the blank, the rougher the better.)

    I wish I could just sit one this out.  (I can't, of course.  I couldn't.)  I like the people I "like".  I want us to stay friends, but I can see already that as the months go by our affection for each other, our respect, will dwindle. I don't know if we'll ever get back what we had before. 

    When the primaries are finally over, one of two people, either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, will be the Democratic candidate.  If the candidate we wanted doesn't win we won't pick up our toys and go home.  We'll stifle our fury and do what we have to do--we'll work to make sure our next president is a Democrat.

    It's not enough to win the argument.  We have to win this election.  I hope we can remember that.


    (Also published at Ramona's Voices and  Crooks and Liars)



    Short of an unlikely Hillary meltdown, the Democratic race is over, and it's more about pushing better policy positions. Factors? the Benghazi committee meltdown, the Bernie bump over emails, Hillary's debate performance, and her using such to effectively block Biden out.

    Hillary is ahead in some of the latest New Hampshire polls, Bernie ahead by a slight bit more in most, but basically that's the only place he's a contender, maybe Wisconsin. Hillary's way ahead nationally at +20 and in much larger states (Mass +34, FLA +39, CT +12 before Biden, VA +17, SC +24, PA +18...)

    Aside from that I don't think either Hillary or Bernie's perceived as saying anything controversial or over-the-line, so there's not too much to get in a huff about. Bernie represents the more ideal side of the coin, and it mostly comes down to opinions whether that can practically happen, as well as perhaps some impressions of who's the better boss. While on the internetz Hillary's more objectionable, in the field it's likely that Bernie's self-declared socialism is a non-starter for more - especially in a country that's not terribly liberal and has 100 years of knee-jerk reaction and disinformation over "socialism" vs. "communism".

    Anyway, we shall see - expect next week's polls and Nov 14's debate to show us whether there's any suspense left in this contest.

    Tell it to the Sanders supporters. They seem pretty intent on dragging her name through the mud.

    Habit. It's all pretty rote by now, like a mule pulling a mill wheel, going through the paces, stuck in a rut. Oops, getting close to one of my endless chains of euphemisms, back to the hooch.

    It's fine.  As soon as Sanders repudiates Stalin, that is.

    That's a good first step. Next he should disavow socialism and attack the socialist leaders of France. Beating up on France and their food imports, french fries and french toast, always plays well with the masses

    Well said, Ramona.

    I'll just lob in , if I may, that so far Hillary's performance at the hearings going well. Hope she can keep it up. Watching on MSNBC, website....they're taking a break  supposedly for a vote....but really I think the Repub's trying to regroup.

    Thanks, Oxy.  I'm watching it on MSNBC, too.  Almost turned it off when Chuck Todd came on but his appearance was mercifully short.  Were you watching it during the last break when Rachel Maddow took on Niccole Wallace?  Brilliant!  And funny!

    Didn't see Maddow, hope to see a replay. They're saying this could go on for 3 or 4 more hours.

    As a passionate Bernie Sanders supporter I can tell you this.  We Bernie supporters tend to see this election as The People Vs Rule by Corporations & Billionaires.  Much of the establishment right and left fits into the corp & billionaire camp.  Once you start seeing the realities of corporate media, pundits, etc also connected its pretty hard to put the ketchup back in the bottle.  

    Watching Hillary try to be everything to everyone, being for or against, being a 'take a backseat to no one progressive' then 'guilty of being a moderate' . I have serious issues with Hillary.  Real issues.  I don't care about her hair or bs.  I don't care much about her emails except to say that I think she handles things badly because in my view, she does.  That's not meanness, that's not just wanting Bernie to win.  That's real, substantive issues with her leadership and her taking a variety of positions on most issues.  

    Bottom line, I have a choice between a people run campaign with Bernie and a status quo corporate leader like Hillary and yes I am going to fight hard for Bernie.  No.  I won't vote for Hillary if she wins.  I have had it with 'one more status quo'...  that's been going on all my life.  Done.  So yeah that probably makes me and others push for Bernie even harder.  

    Also Bernie attracts people across party & ideological lines.  So for many of them Hillary is not under consideration as an alternative.

    And Bernie supporters are NOT just online.  I and many of the Bernie supporters around me are doing more real work in the world than every before to get his name out, canvassing, caucus trainings, etc. 

    For me the idea that I should vote for Hillary because she is a woman, disgusts me.  Every time she alludes that it makes me dislike her.  I hope that one day we have a woman candidate for president that I 'want' to vote for.

    Bernie Sanders is leading a political revolution to change the course of our country.  Hillary is doing something else, and that's why the rhetoric gets passionate on BOTH sides.

    So far the polling suggests that Bernie captures a small segment of the US voting public.

    Well up until yesterday I would simply say that Bernie is doing better than Obama was at this point in 2007 not worried about polls.  I am still not worried about polls right now for a variety of reasons, one being that it's getting harder due to changes in public behavior to get accurate polls.  Hillary will get a bump from Biden getting out but I am not way dismayed that Bernie can't win this.  I feel very confident about my state because of how much work is already going on here with no Sanders staff on the ground.  We have been working since July 29th.  The level of activity has been amazing.  

    You are right about him doing better then Obama in the same time period.  I have gone back and looked up old news articles from 2007.  He also has the independent vote.  She was a head in Nov. 2007 also.  The pundits did not think Obama had a chance either.   

    Thank you for your hard work.  This is one of the best ground game. I have ever seen in my life time. I started out in the 1960's phone banking at a union hall.  People have simply gotten together and organized following the campaign guide lines. They are even digging into their own pockets to pay for materials  Latino's in this area are very involved. 

    Hillary Clinton proved that she could remain calm under stress. the inept GOP handed her a chance to shine. the Republicans, as mean and spiteful as they are, also get to cast a vote on important issues. What I saw today told me that Hillary is capable of handling the GOP. Sanders will have to deal with the Republicans in Congress to get his legislation passed.


    I've done a complete turn about. Really never cared for her, supported Obama. But this woman has paid her dues. The Republicans on this committee are conveying a textbook male supremacy attitude that is, as a man, plain to see. They are condescending jerks. Frankly, my admiration for her is growing.

    You have every right to be passionate about your support for Bernie.  You have every right to dislike Hillary to the point where she makes you want to vomit.  My point here is that we have to be careful about personal attacks against the people we're otherwise friendly with.

    If I say I agree with everything Bernie wants for us, I don't want to have to feel disloyal to the Hillary followers.  If I say I'm proud of Hillary as she sits through yet another grilling about Benghazi, I don't want to have to feel disloyal to the Bernie followers.  I don't ever want to feel that I'm not among friends here or on FB or Twitter--friends of my own choosing because I wouldn't be in these places among those people if I didn't want to be--because of something I've said in support of one of the two people running for president.

    I can see it coming already.  It's one thing to try to convince friends to support our own candidates but being disrespectful to one another over political disagreements can't be good for anybody.

    I think I understand what you are saying.  I have been attacked from the beginning though for the slightest discussion of substantive concerns with Hillary.  It has probably made me a bit more aggressive over time because some of it has been ugly and I refuse to back down from having substantive discussion.  Just today it happened and I had to say, I don't care if you don't like me bringing this up.  This is substance.  I am not calling names or talking about meaningless stuff.  I have never experienced so much suppressive energy in an election as I have over 'protecting' HIllary.

    You can make your case for your candidate. If it turns out in the end that most people disagree with you and vote for the other candidate you can take your ball and go home. That's the kind of thinking that got us Bush as president instead of Al Gore. With the Supreme Court likely in the balance this election is far too important for me to sit out. A democrat must win.

    I have always liked Hillary. I've always liked her more than Bill. I liked her better than Obama. There's not a chance I'll change my vote in the primary. But I will vote for who ever wins the democratic primary.

    I applaud the sentiment, Mona, but it goes both ways. There has already been plenty of condescension toward Sanders supporters from the pro-Hillary camp, and I'm sure it will only get worse. Ahem, "we won't pick up our toys and go home."

    Was I picking on one side and not the other?  Didn't mean to at all.  I've seen plenty of attacks from both sides and I admit it's making me crazy.  I understand how things can get out of control when we're arguing but when it spills over to attacking the person and not the issue we've got problems.  Especially when we're trying to get the Republicans out by getting the Democrats in.

    Exactly. Some of these Bernie supporters here couldn't find their rear ends with both hands but I wouldn't attack them.

    (can't help it.... watching the hearing). 

    I hope you've been sufficiently medicated and are wearing proper protective gear.

    These asswipes are getting to me, that's for sure. Hillary should get the nomination and the Presidency just for enduring this crap fest.

    Many of the diehard Sanders supporters are not trying to get "the Democrats" in. They are trying to get a genuine progressive in, and they don't see Hillary as a genuine progressive. You can and should argue against that position, but ultimately, friends respect their friends voting choices--including the choice not to vote. If you dismiss this choice as a petulant expression of childlike rage, then you haven't really accorded your friends the mutual respect that you're advocating here.

    Since both Bernie and Hillary are running as Democrats it is a matter of getting the Democrats in.  But again. . .huh?  I think you're putting words in my post.  I don't understand at all your last two sentences so I can't respond to them.

    I was responding to a line in your final paragraph: "If the candidate we wanted doesn't win we won't pick up our toys and go home.  We'll stifle our fury and do what we have to do--we'll work to make sure our next president is a Democrat.."

    Hillary Clinton will almost certainly win the primary, so the line "we won't pick up our toys and go home," seems to be a message to the Sanders supporters: We can argue now, but you'd better toe the line and vote for the Democrat (Hillary) in the general election. If you don't, it's because you're being petulant and childish (an accusation that has often been thrown against Nader supporters).

    At least that's how I read it.

    Yes, you did read it wrong.  It was a statement of fact, not a challenge.  At the end of the day we will do what we have to do.  That's what I meant and that's what I said.

    But I might as well announce my decision here:  I've watched the Benghazi hearings all day.  I mean, ALL DAY.  And I am putting my whole heart and support behind Hillary Clinton.  She has shown without a doubt that she has the intelligence and grace to do us proud as President of the United States.  I believe Bernie Sanders would do well, too, but Hillary is tough, she has done her homework, and she is making fools of the Republicans on that committee.  She's been up there for nearly 10 hours and she's still going strong.  I'm exhausted and she's still going.  That's not, of course, the only reason I'm going with Hillary, but that kind of courage and strength cannot be ignored.

    Now if she'll choose Elijah Cummings as her Veep my joy will be complete.


    Gowdy just caved. This was a fiasco for Republicans. Women are tougher than men---remember the Donner Pass story---more women survived. This was great. Hillary will become President.

    He did cave, didn't he?  He talked about the next segment and then he just closed it down.  He was either exhausted or the circus atmosphere was getting to him, too.  Either way, Hillary was grilled for nearly 11 hours.  That's unprecedented.  And outrageous.  And stupid.

    She was proving herself to be unshakeable, the more so the longer it continued. And most of the Republicans were former prosecutors.

    She's tough. Period. Anyone going up against her from this point on has good reason to be ... um ... concerned.

    The Republican racket is to not only say government is the problem, to actively make it a problem by not doing their job, while also resorting to endless, groundless, personal attacks and partisan investigations, and behaving in such a repugnant fashion that doing 'business' with them, as with Hillary today, can be so loathsome that no competent person in their right mind would seek to have anything to do with them, and would never want to serve in a government where the GOP had any power.

    They are a political version of organized crime, no criminality or immoral act, no lies, no phony denials, no disgraceful personal attacks, no numbers of Americans sent to their deaths on their watch, no economic fiasco/collapse: bothers them, humbles them, shames them or shuts them up.

    That's where Hillary stands out, and Obama, who have been targets of the GOP for years or even decades for Hillary. We should be thankful people like her and Obama serve this nation.

    I frankly don't see the Republican Party and the big money/war profiteer swiftboaters behind the GOP being worried about a Bernie presidency, and there is a reason for that.

    Could you please explain to me more about why you feel Hillary is the best candidate?  I don't ask because I think it will change my mind.  I ask because I really don't get it.  The Benghazi hearings and handling that well do not make me feel better or worse about her as a candidate.  I see Hillary very differently than her supporters do and I would like to have a better understanding about what you are seeing in her.  

    I think what many see in Hillary is the strength to stand up to the GOP. Hilary's voting has been Liberal. Obama is a Liberal President. Both have dealt with a wingnut Congress. Both remain calm under duress. Sanders seems to get flustered when challenged. I just don't see him being effective in getting what he wants passed by Congress.

    Okay. I think people know much less about Bernie then if they don't understand that he gets things done and has seriously guts and tenacity.  It's interesting but Bernie is definitely not ego driven at all in his political work.  He has always been a fighter for the people.  

    If you go back and look at some of the footage re audit of the fed, his predictions about the war in Iraq.  

    For me the best thing about him is that he is genuine.  I actually trust him and believe in him.

    I've been leaning toward Hillary for a while, but it wasn't until yesterday, when I saw her strength and grace under fire, that I decided I could happily support her.  No one in public life has been more scrutinized than Hillary--except maybe her husband.  That relentless scrutiny is bound to turn up discrepancies--even lies.  She has spent her entire public life having to explain herself, and still she rises.  She's been a First Lady, a Senator, a Secretary of State.  She did all that while being under constant fire from haters on the Right and on the Left.  

    Is she devious?  Is she ruthless?  Is she a bitch?  I'll bet she's been all three. It happens when someone has been under attack in every aspect of her life.

    Is she too cozy with Wall Street?  It looks like it, but she was, after all, the Senator from New York.  This may a be a big problem for her and I want to see how she handles it.

    Her vote on the Iraq War is ancient history.  It was wrong and she admits it.  She should have known better but it happened.  I would be more concerned if she insisted she did the right thing. She's not saying that.

    Am I leaning toward her because she's a woman?  That's part of it.  Sure.  But I honestly have never seen such strength in any other person in public life--except maybe Barack Obama, but his years of public life don't come close to the number of years Hillary has had to deal with the slings and arrows.  

    Her reputation is as a cold and heartless woman.  I don't see it.  I never have, even when I wasn't particularly interested in her as a politician.  I look at her as a woman under siege and I marvel at her courage as she deals with it while still building a remarkable life.

    She's a pragmatist. She has a history of wanting desperately to win at anything she tries and she's not above pandering to do that.  I want her to be as liberal as I am, of course.  I want her to be as liberal as Bernie Sanders.  I believe she'll be more liberal than Barack Obama but her presidency will not be FDR's Second Coming.  (Neither would Bernie Sanders', no matter how much he might wish it.)  

    We need a president who can stand up to the Tea Party Republicans, who understands foreign policy, and knows intimately the workings of Washington.  I don't believe for a minute that she'll be a corporate pawn.  She also won't be her husband's keeper of the flame.  There's a reason she's so feared by the other side.  It's because she's her own person and no matter what they do to her she doesn't break.


    "Is she devious?  Is she ruthless?  Is she a bitch?  I'll bet she's been all three."

    She's kind of an Alanis Morisette song, isn't she?

    Heard the song this morning, not Alanis. "Nothing in-between" Its Meredith Brooks - sounds a bit like Alanis.

    No.  She's not.

    Her vote on the Iraq War is ancient history.  

    No, that vote is recent history and her even more recent history makes it continue to be relevant as a clue to how she will lead going forward.  

    It was wrong and she admits it. 

    That would be a much more affective excuse for her vote if there was reason to believe that she had learned from it. 

      She should have known better but it happened.

    That too would be a much more affective excuse for her vote if there was reason to believe that she had learned from it. If that was a mistake that she learned from she should have become less of a hawk going forward from that time. There is a clear record of her doing the opposite including not just the obvious overt votes and policy positions as SofS but in the less visible but extremely important area of her appointments to key diplomatic positions and a lack of correction when they made [what I consider to be] diplomatic blunders but ones that are completely consistent with neocon political philosophy. She headed the State Department as if it was the Department of War which is euphemistically called the Department of Defense. 

     I am ready to bet that she will most likely be our next POTUS and will be a better one overall than any Republican who has a chance. But, as Commander in Chief of our military I can see no significant difference from any recent POTUS in her policies and inclinations and that, again IMHO, is a giant failing. 

     If there were a choice that could be believed to be significantly different on this issue, I don't believe Sanders would be, it would completely disqualify her in my opinion but we have to choose from the choices offered why we hope for a sea-change in public opinion which will allow better ones in the future to be viable in our elections.   

    OK, my apologies

    No problem. :)

    People who decide not to vote when their "true progressive" doesn't win because they think it doesn't matter if a republican or democrat occupies the oval office don't have an opinion worth respecting.

    I think your comments are misdirected at Ramona. They're more appropriate if directed at me.

    Don't be coy. We all know that you're Ramona's sock-puppet pseud.

    Voting is the opiate of the masses

    Opiate of the minority, like 35% the last election.

    Where do you see so much condescension? It looks like majority mutual admirers but horses of different color. Maybe it's me, but I don't feel much of the conflict that raged around 2008.

    Great post, Mona. Yes we can get along, but ... the internet.

    I know.  Always something.

    Did you see Maddow's interview with Hillary? The entire hour (recorded earlier, and promo'd all day on MSNBC) was great. If you saw the body language between the two, it was clear that it was comfortable - but the questions weren't softball in the slightest. After yesterday, though, it was nice to see two Democrats talk to each other seriously and sincerely.

    I saw it.  I thought both of them handled it well, and Rachel asked some excellent questions, but I was sorry she didn't ask Hillary about her connections to Wall Street.   That's the big question, to me, and she needs to talk at length about why so many think she's been in bed with them.

     The fact that she has changed her mind about the war, about Wall Street, about TPP, etc., seems to be a thorn in some sides, but I see it as a healthy sign.  Some will see it as pandering, or as following Bernie's lead, but this is a far different Hillary than the person we've seen in years before.  

    She is less stiff, less guarded, more open to listening.  That could well be Bernie's (And Elizabeth Warren's) influence, or it could be that she understands where the Democratic Party needs to go.  Whatever it is, she'll have to spend a lot of time either defending or disavowing her past actions.  She has a long public history; Bernie does not.

    I had to laugh when Rachel asked what she did after the hearings, suggesting that she must have been wiped out after such a grueling day.   Hillary said she went home with friends and they drank a few beers, had a little wine, and had what sounded like a good old time.

    Another stick in the eye to the Republicans.   She'll be a formidable candidate and they know it.



    Thanks Ramona.  In the interests of getting along, I acknowledge the new Hillary really does suck less than the old one.  Latest evidence - cutting ties to the private prison industry is a very good thing.

    Thank you, Hal.  I do want to hear Hillary's answers to why her opposition feels she's in Wall Street's lap. ( I also want to ask that same question of too many other Democrats.)  I've thrown my support toward Hillary, but I won't stop defending Bernie whenever I see unfair attacks thrown at him.  

    I may be naive, but I want to believe we can get through this by being fair to both of them.  Hillary obviously carries more baggage than Bernie does, and will have more to answer for, but Bernie will get his share of attacks before this is over.  If we want the Democrats to win we'll need to make sure we're not giving the Republicans any more ammunition than they already have. 

    Ramona, If you really want to know why Hillary is perceived as she is by so many as being in Wall Street's lap [among other faults] wouldn't it be more productive to hear and analyze what those who perceive her that way have to say rather than how she explains away their perceptions? I could post links to sites which have compiled many pieces of evidence that the owners and many readers believe show Hillary and her policies in a bad light and we know how that would be received even in cases where the evidence is a direct quote or a video. Should we really be the uncritical cheerleaders never uttering a harsh word that your last sentence seems to call for? I think we could probably risk mentioning Hillary's imperfections without swinging the election in favor of any of her opponents. 

    "I do want to hear Hillary's answers to why her opposition feels she's in Wall Street's lap."  - does that mean Ramona just wants to explain it all away, to be an "uncritical cheerleader"?

    Rather inaptly put. Want a mulligan on that one?

    No, don't want no stinkin' mulligan. I think that if someone wants to know why I believe that Hillary is in the lap of Wall Street for instance that they should ask me for my evidence.  Obviously Hillary would say she is nobody's lap dog. If Ramona is afraid that criticism is harmful even when valid and so doesn't want us to give Republicans ammunition by criticizing then what conclusion should I reach? Actually, I think Ramona expressed herself somewhat inaptly and probably wouldn't ask anyone to hold back valid points. 

    You know Lulu, you've thrown out so much bullshit related to Donbas and all the evil jackboot Kiev types and the overhyped size & influence of some Nazi-sympathizing militia and imminent collapse and 3rd world war that I'd be real careful about what you consider "evidence" - hour-long programs that I'm supposed to watch to parse out all the blatant propaganda and bias to find some nugget of truth, including how supposedly Ukraine shot down Malaysian MH-17 and whatever and those endless bullshit repetitions of how Nuland/the US spent $5 billion on the overthrow of Ukraine....

    Sometimes it's better to go a bit more low-key. Ramona said nothing wrong. She's pretty well-read, so has likely come across some of the accusations re: Hillary's Wall Street malfeasance, so if you think you have a nugget she hasn't come across, just out with it rather than assuming she's playing see-no-evil/hear-no-evil unlike the crusaders for justice working to unveil the dastardly Clinton doings.

    Note that I didn't take objection to your summary with her on Hillary's support for Iraq War & later support for Libya & Syrian operations, as I'd written something similar a few days ago - if we're supposed to believe Iraq was a mistake or something she evolved from or even a necessary strategy to make the best of a bad situation, it would help if her later military forays weren't as catastrophic in actual result even if somehow good-intentioned.

    I'll leave the mulligan on the table anyway - who knows, maybe it'll grow on you and you can knit it into a sweater.

    Lulu, I've heard what her opposition has to say. I've heard about her "imperfections".  I've heard it so much you would think that was all there is to Hillary Clinton.  I said very clearly I want to hear HILLARY'S answers.  Who wouldn't?  Wouldn't you?  Maybe you could learn something from it, unless, of course you've already made up your mind that she would only lie about it, so why bother?

    But tell me. . .have you ever had a good word to say about Hillary?  Do you have any idea of the good she's done for the children of the world, including ours right here in the U.S?  For women, including the poor, the abused, the working women who still make less than men while doing the same work?  Have you bothered to look up any of her speeches?  Do you know anything about the charitable work she does, including with the Clinton Foundation?

    This one-sided attack on the woman who is far more than the one-dimensional bitch you want to make her out to be really has to stop.  The other side does this very well..  Before you come back here to tell me what I need to know about Hillary Clinton, you might want to do a little homework yourself.


    Ramona, what I said was just a critique of the way you formed your comment plus my assertion about bringing any hard criticisms of her here to dag where I said that “We know how that would be received“. I honestly wasn’t trying to incite verification of that statement. Then I added the observation that being asked to not give the Republicans any ammunition, as you did, seemed to be a way of saying don’t criticize anything about Hillary. If that is correct in what you want and if you get what you want then only cheerleading is left as accepted commentary.

    But tell me. . .have you ever had a good word to say about Hillary?

    Well, not here at dag since yesterday evening in a comment to Oxy.  But please read again  my comment to you and notice that there I made no criticism of her at all. None. I just suggested that you redirect your question to where I thought you might get it answered.

    I have been paying attention to Hillary since Bill first ran for the Presidency. I spoke up for her many times when she was First Lady and the bs was continually being thrown her way. I do know of the plus points in her resume and I don’t think I ever had a critical thing to say about her until she became a senator.

    This one-sided attack on the woman who is far more than the one-dimensional bitch you want to make her out to be really has to stop.

    What have I said that you think justifies that bullshit remark. The only things I think I have said about Hillary here at dag, the only criticisms, have been in regard to her foreign policy and I have never said or implied that her gender had anything to do with anything. I really doubt there have been any exceptions.  

    Before you come back here to tell me what I need to know about Hillary Clinton, you might want to do a little homework yourself.


     Once again, I did not tell you anything about Hillary or what you need to know, I did imply that asking her why so many think she is in the lap of Wall Street would only get a politician’s practiced denial and that is pointless to bother listening to and so she is not the source for information to settle that charge. Maybe you will tell me a couple things. Have you ever accused any politician of being in the lap of Wall Street? Would you simply accept their answer when they denied it or would you evaluate information you got in other places?

    Lulu, I don't think I misunderstood your comment.  You apparently can't see the value in asking Hillary about her connections with Wall Street when there are so many sources out there that would give me their own interpretation.  But if asking Hillary is pointless, how is she supposed to answer the accusations?  As I predicted, you've already decided she won't tell the truth so your only solution is to point to links proving she isn't who she says she is.  The problem with your plan is that there is no assurance the links are any more truthful.  

    I didn't mean to suggest that there should be no criticism of Hillary here at Dag. I can see how you might read it that way, but I'm looking forward to the discussions about both candidates.  There will be and should be plenty of ammunition on both sides.  But the Hillary haters make no points by painting her as an incorrigible warmonger and corporate whore.  That's frankly all I see and it's so close to the GOP attacks they might as well be one and the same.  

    There has to be some balance.  There are legitimate reasons to dislike Hillary, but the constant character assassinations actually water down the arguments instead of solidify them.  The truth is out there somewhere.  We should be working to find it.

    Can we start with my comment, below yours on the "Latest" list, Ramona?


    Oh, Lis, yes!  You do your candidate proud.

    But I'm not sure using Justin Trudeau as an example of an unwanted dynasty is going to work.  The Canadians I know are thrilled that he won.  Things were getting pretty dreadful there, too.

    Ok.  I'll take that. 

    Agreed :)


    Speaking about Hillary’s connection to Wall Street is to me, at this time, only an example so as to respond. Ideally, a person should start out agnostic as to whether Hillary would lie about being in Wall Street’s lap. Then they should pay attention to evidence and try to honestly evaluate it. Since we can be confident that she wouldn’t answer that yes, she just loved her some big money donors and would naturally scratch their every itch [just like we believe so many politicians do] we can assume that she would say that she votes her studied conscience and isn’t influenced by Wall Street’s wishes one way or the other.  That might be the truth or it might be  more truthy than it is when most politicians say it but to believe it just because she said it is just as unwise, IMO, as automatically  believing Walker if he says that he never toadies to the Koch brothers.  We know about him based on evidence but I am quite sure he would testify to exemplary ethics regarding undue influence. We cannot expect Hillary or any politician to give evidence against themselves.   I would likewise not take E. Warren’s word on the same subject simply because I heard her say it even though I would not assume she was telling a lie, I would believe it only because the available evidence indicates it and backs up her statement.

    I want to say a couple things for the record.  I am not a Hillary “hater”. I have never called her anything like a “corporate whore”. I don’t think I have ever gone as far as calling her a ‘warmonger, though there are plenty out there and she has appointed a few of them to influential positions, but I have agreed with the overwhelming evidence that she has made  numerous very bad calls regarding the use of our military and/or the support and encouragement of other country’s military. That is not a small thing that we should overlook and never mention until after the election  just because she is a Democrat.

    I wasn't accusing you personally of the things I said in my last comment.  Hillary has a lot to answer for and there is a lot of misinformation out there about her reasons for doing what she has done.  She deserves a chance to defend her actions.

    I'm listening to her right now at the J&J fundraiser.  She's saying all the right things but she is a politician.  I like what I'm hearing but taking everything with a grain of salt.  All three of them--Sanders, O'Malley, and Clinton--all did well tonight.  They all sound far better than any Republican, but can they deliver?  Probably not.  Not everything.  But they all sound like people who care about other people.  All they need are millions of people who believe them, too, and want to help them get to their/our goals.

    The point is, they're not out there embarrassing us.  That makes me happy.

    If it were all about the money, I'm sure there are easier ways to fortune than getting plastered in the public eye for 25 years and having your husband's indiscretions mar your every appearance and have C*** t-shirts made in your honor. I imagine cattle futures could have done her quite fine. $250K/year as president with her making near 0 was hardly a bonanza for them, and then they got to pay out-of-pocket lawyer expenses for 8 years of Whitewater & Monicagate investigations.

    So given that background, why do you think she would have Wall Street backers, aside from the obvious of having been a New York Senator? And how big is the problem? Here at OpenSecrets I count about $2-3 million from the financial industry out of $500 million raised in 2008 - is that excessive? Okay, probably more - call it $25million for 5% - still outrageous?

    Here's an article describing HIllary's proposals for say taxing hedge fund managers, other anti-Wall Street legislation while still fundraising from them - apparently trying to be reasonable and not demonize them but still paying fair share - could it be real?


    During her speech last night she went on the attack against the hedge funders and Wall Street again.  The cynics will say of course she did.  She wants to win.  And the fact is, when it comes to Wall Street she's not going to be either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.  She'll go it slow.  But I'd be surprised if she does what Obama did and place any of them in her cabinet.  She'll be far tougher on them and they have to know it, but some of them must also know that the kind of economic chaos we've had to endure for so long is not good for anyone, including them.  If they wanted to have free reign to do anything they wanted, why aren't they putting their money behind the Republicans?


    This has been rolling around in the back of my mind about the Clinton Foundation. 

    The Republicans will hold on to the House because of the extreme gerrymandering in some states.  The same foolish people will hold hearings after hearings on the Clinton Foundation looking for treason.  They will dig through everything they can looking for ties to countries they consider enemies.  These Reps. are real screwballs and are bankrolled by rich screwballs. They can't help themselves because of being true believers. Only this time they will be trying to come up with an impeachable offense.

    Sadly this is not that big of a stretch of imagination.  

    Any good vibes emanating from Clinton's campaign are gone.  After Sanders defended her at the debate, she pulls a dirty trick right out of "hitman" David Brock's playbook when she claims Sanders is sexist.   Clintonistas who sincerely want to mend fences with us Berniebots need to condemn this latest outrage.  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/hillary...

    For the record, I do not believe that Sanders is sexist, and I do not believe that he has said anything to lead anyone else to that conclusion. And Hillary hasn't claimed that, either.

    The media, on the other hand, is trying mightily to fuel a smokeless fire - and in some circles, it's working.

    Clinton supporter and professional gender card player Amanda Marcotte certainly seems to think that Clinton was accusing Bernie of sexism.

    During her speech . . .  Clinton largely ignored Bernie Sanders, but she did make room for one dig insinuating he is sexist. "Sometimes when a woman speaks out,” she said, “some people think it’s shouting."

    Marcotte explains: "She didn’t call Sanders by name, but it was a clear reference to Sanders suggesting that Clinton was shouting too much on the issue of gun control."  Of course, Marcotte is wrong Bernie did not suggest anything of the kind.

    Saletan and Slate, who both have the reputation of being moderate politically, aren't known for trying to start fires between candidates.  Moreover, Saletan lays out a very strong argument that Clinton is falsely implying that Sanders misogynistically told her to stop shouting. 

    You of course are welcome to see it differently.  Given Clinton's history of divisive campaigning, the burden is on her and her supporters to come up with a persuasive alternative explanation.

    Is Marcotte a supporter or an authorized Clinton surrogate? There's a ever widening difference between editorial journalism and objective reporting.

    There are also articles decrying his remarks at the JJ dinner as "offensive", and reversing his history of a "non-combative" campaign. Nonsense. My only argument is that he didn't directly use her name. He needs to go for it if he wants to punch up - which he needs to do.

    So, Hal, my suggestion is to relax about singular columns (or bunched ones), because they will get worse for both candidates. And both candidates will fight, which is never pretty, because they both believe the job is genuinely worth fighting for.

    I have never liked Marcotte and I'm not alone. She spins and distorts to further her agenda. I was surprised to see her get regular articles over at TPM starting several months ago. It lowered my respect for the site.

    This article is no different. For example she writes, "The dig clearly stung, as Bernie Sanders immediately went out on Sunday talk shows to deny Clinton’s insinuation that gender played a role in his remarks about “shouting” during the debate."  That's simply not true. Sanders didn't go on the Sunday news programs to discuss the issue. He was confronted with an extremely biased and inflammatory question with imo flawed analysis by the CNN interviewer Jake Tapper. Sanders tried to divert it to a discussion of policy but Tapper wouldn't let it go. He was looking for some fireworks and some fight.

    I agree with you. It was an attempt to gin up a controversy where there is none. I've little doubt that cable news organizations like CNN want more sparks and fury than they're getting from the democratic primary. To much discussion of policy not enough insults and sensationalism to get the big ratings.

    I'm looking forward to the Democratic candidate "forum" next month in SC, on MSNBC and moderated by Maddow. After tonight's interview with Sanders I'm even more convinced that she's a supporter of his, but I don't expect that to influence her. To your point about CNN and other major networks, maybe the fact that it's a MSNBC non-debate will actually - accidentally? - lead to substance.

    It should be good. I like Maddow most of the time. She's smart and well informed so it should be a relevant conversation.

    I think Clinton is smart to campaign on gun control.  From where I sit, it's the one issue where she clearly is superior to Sanders.  Moreover, he did not distinguish himself during the debate when trying to explain his wrong-headed votes on the Brady Bill and gun maker/seller liability. 

    If Clinton said:

    Bernie Sanders thinks we shouldn't shout about gun carnage.  We shouldn't raise our voices about our children and moms and dads being gunned down so gunmakers and the NRA can make huge profits.  Well Mr. Sanders, you are wrong, this is exactly what we need to shout about.

    I and other Sanders supporters would have no legitimate beef.  Admittedly, I'd be upset because it would be a powerful argument to which Bernie has no good answer and it would help her.  But it would be absolutely fair and accurate. 

    But in fact Clinton did play the gender card unfairly.  Her actual words:

    I’ve been told to stop shouting about ending gun violence. Well, I haven’t been shouting. But sometimes, when a woman speaks out, some people think it’s shouting. But I won’t be silenced, and I hope you won’t be either.

    Clinton is not only mischaracterizing the exchange by saying Sanders specifically told her to stop shouting, she is also implying that he did so for sexist reasons.  This is not acceptable.

    Maybe you should try reverse-sensitivity training.
    All the nasty crap you've said about Hillary and you think this little tempest breaks the deal? She's just playing up a common meme for women - how many times has she been called "shrillery"? And it plays well for guns, because after every massacre we're supposed to be silent as respect for the victims, can't politicize an absurd politicized blood-letting situation.
    and Clinton has no history of divisive campaigning - she has a history of being accused of divisive campaigning, just as she's been accused of murdering aides and other absurdities.
    as for Saletan's comment that Bernie's record onnfeminism is as good as Hillary's, that's just breath-takingly dumb - he lists few votes in Congress over 10 years? Too weird. Obama was supposed to represent women as well as Hillary, we were assured. Anyone still believe that?

    1) "Clinton has no history of divisive campaigning - she has a history of being accused of divisive campaigning."  There is no doubt she and her surrogates repeatedly played the race card against Obama in 2008. 

    In this cycle: 1) Clinton surrogate Claire McCaskill laughably stated that Sanders's surge would ebb as soon as the mainstream media started telling people Bernie was a socialist.  2) Hitman David Brock played the guilt-by-association smear against Bernie claiming he is anti-Israel and pro-Chavez Regime in Venezuela.  Is it your contention that these are not examples of "divisive campaigning".

    2) Please set forth one unfair or "nasty" statement that I (or much more importantly) Bernie Sanders have made about Clinton.

    3) Regarding their records, as I showed here, Sanders' record hues closer to the positions that woman repeatedly say they hold on the issues that are most important to them.

    So you think a "feminist" comparison should be based on their voting records as senators?  Do you have any idea of the length and breadth of Hillary's unstinting advocacy of women's issues throughout her entire career? I'm guessing you don't or you never would have compared Bernie's feminism to hers.

    WTF, you call that evidence and "no doubt"? Bill Clinton compared Obama's performance in South Carolina  to the 1st serious black presidential candidate and that's a slur or out-of-bounds?  Hillary created the Rev Wright scandal or the Obama-in-Africa-garb picture?

    She stoked the Muslim thing? read the whole statement

    “You don’t believe that Senator Obama’s a Muslim?” Kroft asked.

    Of course not. I mean, that’s, you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that,” she answered.

    “You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s a Muslim?” Kroft said.

    “No. No, there is nothing to base that on,” Clinton said, adding, “As far as I know.”

    Jesus fucking Christ, she answered "of course not", "there is no basis for that", "I take on the basis of what he said", "there isn't any reason to doubt that", and then the motherfucker asks one more time to get his weasel soundbite and she says "no, no there is nothing to base that on" and then he gets his ringer - "as far as I know"

    Of course it's as far as she knows - she isn't a mind reader or a personal biographer. She denied it 5 times strongly before they got what could be their "weasel words". This is the slimy bullshit she's dealt with always, and you're still regurgitating this stupid shit 8 years later. Screw you. Shame you couldn't have been on the Benghazi committee scolding her for not paying attention or answering slightly different the 11th time.

    "1) Clinton surrogate Claire McCaskill laughably stated that Sanders's surge would ebb as soon as the mainstream media started telling people Bernie was a socialist."

    Like duh. Anyone who hasn't crawled out from under a rock the last 15 minutes knows this. Though should state "Bernie calls himself a socialist". Hard to be a slur when that's what he self-identifies as. Considering even the sitting Democratic President is a deficit scold, and one of the biggest Bill Clinton achievements was cutting government and balancing the budget, while the GOP's goal is to shrink government to drown it in the bathtub, it's hard to imagine that anyone would think "socialism" is an easy sell in America. Here, have some Freedom Fries with that.

    The 2008 race proved the Democratic Party could have a knock down drag out fight about race and still come together. Hillary Clinton comes to the table as Obama's Secretary of State. She clobbers Sanders when it comes to the black vote.


    When Clinton testified before the Benghazi committee last week, there were at least three black women who were members of Congress sitting behind her(and perhaps five). Elijah Cummings image is of him defending Clinton against the GOP witch hunt at the hearings. Sanders has Keith Ellison and Cornel West as his supporters. Neither Ellison or West can trump the Congresswomen and Elijah Cummings.

    I'm not sure how Sanders gains the black vote. Hillary's job as SOS negates most of the bad feelings about 2008 in the black community.

    I'd guess that Obama winning negated most of the bad feeling, but playing for the team probably helped, & yes, the Democratic side of the bench is a helluva lot more diverse than the inquisitors at the witch hunt. I'm not going to play quality of black supporters - I'm sure that Bernie's message would resonate with a lot more blacks than currently if he had as much serious time in the national spotlight as Hillary + Bill have had (and I think the 90's were largely good times for the black community in terms of employment, home ownership, upward mobility & professional acceptance despite the 3 strikes & incarceration downside). But he doesn't have a lot of time to make that case now, so if we split the story between the message itself & the campaign, the campaign looks pretty unlikely.


    Endorsements do matter. Mike Tyson endorsed Donald Trump.

    Yes, I think Bernie's are above Tyson but he doesn't have much time. Maybe Tyson could be Trump's VP, similar respect for women.

    Men should definitely tell women who is a better feminist. It definitely works, cause we women don't know anything without a man telling us. Mansplainin' is my favorite!

    Another issue that is extremely important to us, to women, all things being equal Hal, and Clinton and Sanders are equals, EQUALS!

     (thinks to self.. When do people quit believing in the "great man" theory? WTF??)

    Let's get serious, election time is often better spent working hard to get Democratic candidates elected in off year local and national elections. We all know the importance of this, which is in direct opposition to "Great Man theory". Don't get me wrong, holding the Presidency is all we have between us, a nation of chaotic-goods and our national legislature which heavily bends towards a majority of lawful evils. Amazingly some change has come about anyway, everything has improved since W's last days. Mostly because people just keep trying to make the system work.  

    I am going to bring it back to this Hal, Clinton and Sanders are equals. I gotta tell you, if Sanders were to win, FYI: the polls are completely against him, but if it did happen, I have no problem voting for him, he is awesome. He is smart, fiery, gallant, and hilarious, but she can take Republicans on for 11 hours. She is his equal in every single way.  And the day she is sworn in, OMG I can't wait to see the Republican meltdown, I wonder if Hannity's or Limbaugh's head will explode first?  Anyway, they are equals Hal, EQUALS.

    So I guess I'm now a "Clintonista".  Funny, I don't feel the need to mend fences with you or anyone else who supports Bernie.  This is your idea of Hillary's latest "outrage"?  This is Hillary "smearing" Sanders and calling him sexist?  This???

     "Sometimes when a woman speaks out,” she said, “some people think it’s shouting."

    Really, Hal, if you want to be taken seriously when you go after Hillary you're going to have to come up with something of real substance.  You're falling into the entertainment trap, where it's much more satisfying to get a catfight going than to look at things logically, with some effort at finding the truth.  

    BTW, I don't know who Richard Saletan is, but claiming Bernie Sanders' record as a feminist is as good as Hillary's. . .now THAT'S ridiculous.

    I think Will Saletan still writes for Slate. He is just an opinion writer. 

    On a side note I think Hal's example is deliciously ironic!

    Clinton and Obama weren't all that different. Clinton and Sanders are actually different.

    The Democratic Party strategy of ignoring, and even purging, progressives in order to pursue the agendas of the Big Money donors is finally getting strong resistance.  The Democratic Party establishment has long figured that they can move to the center (which is to say: move to the right) with impunity because progressives have nowhere else to go.  Progressives are afraid of Republicans winning, so they will meekly accept it when they are deprived of influence and told they must accept the Democratic Party moving to the right.

    Not any more.

    Many Bernie Sanders supporters see things differently.  We see the important struggle as NOT Democrat vs Republican, but rather as the top 0.1 % and other Big Money interests vs the rest of us. As Bernie Sanders put it:  Congress doesn't regulate Wall Street, Wall Street regulates Congress.  And guess what?  Hillary Clinton is on the wrong side of the battle against that sort of thing.  Her top donors are Wall Street firms.  She is the bought and paid for agent for the Big Money interests, and their oligarchical control of this country. Unless you understand this difference between Clinton vs. Sanders, and Clinton vs. Obama, you don't understand the situation that the Democratic Party is in.

    The Democratic Party is being put under pressure.  Make Clinton the nominee, and she will lose the general election, and a Republican will win (and choose the next Supreme Court justices).  Hillary is NOT acceptable. We will not support her. And so she will lose.  A right-wing Democrat is NOT acceptable. We will not support such a leader. So the pressure is this: the Democratic Party must act in line with its liberal base, or they will lose until they do. We won't be denied influence any more. If you want to win the general election, then you better not nominate Clinton. Seriously.  Bernie Sanders is your only chance to win. Believe it.

    What we progressives are coming to understand is this:  A right-wing Democrat president can actually be worse for progressives than a Republican president. The Democratic Party will at least resist a Republican president, and news media will get more progressive voices, and more progressive candidates will get elected to office. But a right-wing Democrat president can lead the Democratic Party unresisting to the right.  Under Obama, blue-dog Democrats got DNC support while progressives disappeared from office, Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was openly extremely hostile to progressives, Do you think that was against Obama's wishes?  Of course not!  Obama offered to give away progressive gains in deals with Republicans, and the most liberal and critical hosts of MSNBC lost their jobs (some say due to White House pressure).  The progressives are learning to negotiate for what they want, and negotiate from power rather than from weakness.  You won't get our votes automatically any more.  We reject the "lesser of two evils" scam that held us in thrall previously. 

    So whose side are you really on.  Progressives? Or the Big Money elite?

    Latest Comments