dagblog - Comments for ""[S]omething about Clinton . . . makes me uneasy.""

I agree with you. I wasn't

moat — Sat, 09 Jul 2016 11:39:26 +0000

In reply to To push back against negative

I agree with you. I wasn't condoning disengagement. It does seem to me, however, that the charge of hypocrisy is a kind of disengagement. I don't think it makes any challenge stronger. Just my two cents.

To push back against negative

ocean-kat — Sat, 09 Jul 2016 02:01:38 +0000

In reply to Well, for myself, I have

To push back against negative ideas or hurtful ideology when disengagement isn't an option. I've often made my money in light construction or on a factory floor among the less educated segment of the population. I never laughed along to get along. I often would confront the racism, homophobia, sexism etc. that's rampant in those environments. I don't believe disengagement is an option on a job site where dialog takes place around you. The only disengagement option is quitting the job. Disengagement by silence passively signals agreement. So also being here means disengagement is not an option. The only disengagement option I see is leaving dagblog. If we allow negative ideas and hurtful ideology to speak unchallenged we are passively signaling agreement. So long as I'm here I will speak up strongly for my beliefs and against those I detest.

Well, for myself, I have

moat — Sat, 09 Jul 2016 01:20:49 +0000

In reply to Of course I know wattree

Well, for myself, I have become leery of charges of hypocrisy. For instance, I have only been charging him for inconsistency.

Once you have concluded that somebody is insincere, why would you ever address them again or refer to them?

Game Over.

Of course I know wattree

ocean-kat — Sat, 09 Jul 2016 00:57:18 +0000

In reply to Obama not only endorsed

Of course I know wattree doesn't mean Obama when he says " ANY Black person." He regularly lets his emotions over ride his intellect and rationality. As a result he often posts these hyperbolic statements both for and against. I'm just trying to confront him with his hypocrisy.

Obama not only endorsed

moat — Sat, 09 Jul 2016 00:35:46 +0000

In reply to Surprising you would say that

Obama not only endorsed Hillary but made it clear during the primary he supported her over Sanders. Do you think Obama is ignorant or does he have an agenda? If it's an agenda, what do you think that agenda is?

I have asked that question several times myself. So far, only crickets have replied.
And I have asked the question without an interest in defending Clinton. I don't particularly like her.
But reading screed after screed over the years of how cool a guy Obama is to then have him thrown under the bus without explanation relocates all those words into the circular file cabinet.

It was just a dream.

Yeah, but I never hear Bill

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 17:12:24 +0000

In reply to People blame a lot of crap on

Yeah, but I never hear Bill say to leave it on autopilot after he's gone.

And he raised taxes to balance the budget - didn't just go in for austerity.

It is extremely condescending

rmrd0000 — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 15:53:00 +0000

In reply to Surprising you would say that

It is extremely condescending for Sanders supporters to say that Hillary is a warmonger and Obama was just a puppet.

People blame a lot of crap on

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 15:22:53 +0000

In reply to Michael, it's also an

People blame a lot of crap on Hillary, of course, but I do think the Clinton administration is largely responsible for the direction taken by the Democratic Party for the last 25 years. In the past, Bill has proudly claimed credit for rescuing Democrats from oblivion by pushing them toward the center. Obama economic and military policies were more or less inherited from the New Democrats.

That said, I don't know how much of a role Hillary played in that 1990s course correction or whether she still believes in it.

I agree with your assessment

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 15:16:31 +0000

In reply to I think there's a fairly

I agree with your assessment of Obama, but I think the concern about Hillary's hawkishness is more 2008 than 2016. In the 2008 primaries, Obama supporters constantly attacked her Iraq War vote, but Bernie supporters have been much more concerned about Wall Street, a concern that was also raised about Obama. This is the beginning, not the end of internal Democratic battles over economic policy, particularly trade. It will be interesting to see how Clinton negotiates these divisions.

Hal, the reason that we can't

rmrd0000 — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 13:09:11 +0000

In reply to Okay. I won't "attack" her

Hal, the reason that we can't work together is that like Sanders, you are unable to work with anyone who doesn't accept your world view. You present data which you claim presents the facts. We present data that contradicts your information. You reject our data and say that we are in error. If we don't accept your perception as the gospel, we are wrong. We cannot work together because you are inflexible.

You put forth Sanders proposals and ask which one of Sanders proposals can we agree on. Sanders is not the end of the discussion. There are other opinions. I point out the flaws in Sanders ideas. You cannot accept the flaws. Anything that doesn't agree with your ideas is dismissed.

We accept Hillary with all her flaws because she can adapt. She is capable of apologizing. Sanders is inflexible and unapologetic. He cannot recognize his flaws. He would be a target rich environment for the GOP. Hillary is battle tested, Sanders is not. We expect the GOP to continuously attack Hillary. The GOP would continuously attack any Democrat. Sanders is not ready for prime time as seen by his repeated one note monologues during interviews and speeches.