Quoting Markos Moulitsas:
But Markos Moulitsas at DailyKos isn't surprised: "She's already ignored and belittled every state and voter demographic that doesn't support her. So it only follows that since in her world, the only things that are important are things that support her, she'd ignore election results in favor of the one (outdated) poll that confirms her manufactured reality."
www.slate.com/...
She is a leader who fails to lead. She does not appear ‘electable’ . . . activists will be demanding the sort of change that can come only from outside the Beltway. Hillary Clinton leads her Democratic rivals in the polls and in fundraising. Unfortunately, however, the New York senator is part of a failed Democratic Party establishment . . . And therein lie Hillary Clinton’s biggest problems. She epitomizes the ‘insider’ label of the early crowd of 2008 Democratic contenders. She’s part of the Clinton machine that decimated the national Democratic Party. And she remains surrounded by many of the old consultants who counsel meekness and caution. […] Afraid to offend, she has limited her policy proposals to minor, symbolic issues—such as co-sponsoring legislation to ban flag burning. She doesn’t have a single memorable policy or legislative accomplishment to her name . . . The last thing we need is yet another Democrat afraid to stand on principle . . . her advisers have stripped what personality she has, hiding it from the public . . . what remains is a heartless, passionless machine, surrounded by the very people who ground down the activist base in the 1990s and have continued to hold the party’s grassroots in utter contempt. The operation is rudderless, without any sign of significant leadership. And to top it off, a sizable number of Democrats don’t think she could win a general election, anyway. Can Hillary Clinton overcome those impediments? . . . we have attractive alternatives to back (and fund) . . . Her obstacles are big, and from this vantage point, possibly insurmountable.
www.washingtonpost.com/...
And the analysis of those opinion front hen to now that’s hard not to agree with.
Clinton has not changed since 2008 when Moulitsas trashed her repeatedly; in fact, the negative things he said about her in 2008 are even more pronounced today. His reasons for protecting her now are of no interest to me. I can only assume he’s an establishment hack.
smokinghotpoliticaljunkies.com/…
But as has been said many times, many ways — it is his website. So true.
He can make whatever edicts and autocratic proclamations he wishes even as others are accused of being autocratic. The projection is laughably obvious.
He can play the racism card, the sexism card, whatever he wishes.
What was a problem a few years ago, is just fine now.
What others would desperately call the evolution of Hillary Clinton is actually the opposite.
Money in politics. Once abhorred, now to be celebrated and applauded. Obvious and sometimes blatant lying and deception. And now data security policies handling classified data poorly is somehow supposed to convince us that she is solid, dependable and trustworthy?
She lacks credibility, integrity, and even dignity given her complete disrespect of the electorate, blatantly lying and expecting no one to challenge her.
Apparently, some opinions have changed so much in eight years that based on autocratic edict, it is OK when a Clinton does it.
Go figure.
