Skip to main content

View Diary: Republicans try to decide on the right moment to attack Hillary Clinton (161 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's today (6+ / 0-)

    Two years from now is an eternity in politics, so it's a little premature to guess at how she'll be perceived as a presidential candidate.

    •  Do we really need to go backwards instead of (7+ / 2-)

      forwards.  She is a blast from a horrible Conservadem past, no Progressive and with more problematical baggage than United Airlines.  She and her co-president husband manged to set back gay rights 20 years through the gay marriage ban and Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  She has done enough damage to this country.  Someone new, please.  BEcasue you will lose the younger generation with such a superannuated nominee.  SHe will be 77 by the end of any 2d term, or as it would be called, Bubba's 4th term.  ANyone who has taken care of even healthy parents in that age range knows it's no time of life for Presidential responsibilities.

      GOP Wars against: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Immigrants, Mexicans, Blacks, Gays, Women, Unions, Workers, Unemployed, Voters, Elderly, Kids, Poor, Sick, Disabled, Dying, Lovers, Kindness, Rationalism, Science, Sanity, Reality.

      by SGWM on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:26:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  She'll have to be more progressive. (14+ / 0-)

        I still think she can find a role as the Reagan of the Left, if she plays it right.

        She'll have to realize that, unlike the 90s when conservatism was ascending and the Dems were basically playing defense, progressivism is now ascending and she'll need to be the elder stateswoman of that movement, like Reagan was the elder statesman of ascending conservatism in the 80s.

        Or something....

        "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

        by Bush Bites on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:45:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I really like the way you put it, thanks. n/t (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          exterris, SGWM, Bush Bites

          It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

          by karmsy on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:01:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  We can hope this is the case (4+ / 0-)

          We'll see if she learns anything from "No Drama Obama", which I hope is the case.  

          HRC campaign in 2008 was too full of drama. Now that the nomination is virtually hers if she wants it in 2016, we can hope she moves more to the left and gets rid of Penn (I think that was pollster) and others who value political intrigue more then results.

        •  Reagan of the left? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DownstateDemocrat, snoopydawg

          That role's already filled, thanks.

          •  If you're talking about the current president... (0+ / 0-)

            ...who I admire greatly and supported in the 2008 primaries, I disagree.

            First of all, Reagan came into office when conservatism was at its zenith, while the country is just starting its swing to the progressive side now.

            The first president in such a cultural swing -- Nixon/Ford and Obama -- are bound to have less power to make change than later presidents who come in when the change is at its strongest -- Reagan and whichever Dem follows Obama.

            Second of all, Reagan had a lot of years as an elder statesman of conservatism before he came into office. Hillary will have to brand herself in a similar way, but as an elder stateswoman of progressivism.

            Obama was too new to come in as an elder statesman.

            "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

            by Bush Bites on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 01:36:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I partly agree with this comment, (6+ / 0-)

        and I'm tipping it. HRC is by no means perfect, and thoughtful progressives would occasionally have reason to question her core convictions. I've grown sick of hearing her spout RW talking points, during periods of candidacy. And I've never really forgiven her for her big flop on HCR during her husband's tenure. I also suspect you aren't merely sounding cautionary notes about her age BECAUSE she's a woman; this isn't sexist.

        But, say what you will, HRC has been an awfully shrewd, talented legislator and political appointee. She gets a lot done. She is, generally, somebody you want on your side.

        It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

        by karmsy on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:50:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wait a Minute... (9+ / 0-)

        Although there is a lot to agree with in your post, and your reasoning, I take issue with the "set back gay rights 20 years..." line.  

        DADT was extremely forward moving at the time, as a compromise that advanced Clinton's campaign objective of allowing LGBTs to serve.  It is shocking sometimes how fast the issue of gay marriage and gay rights have moved, but DADT moved from a position where the military could confront, harass, and force out people who were SUSPECTED of being gay.  DADT protected them until society could get caught up.

        •  I take exception. (5+ / 0-)

          Gay activists at the time did not consider DADT "extremely forward." They recognized it as the shit sandwich compromise that would--and did--lead to witch hunts. And there were civil disobedience arrests at the White House the day it was signed.

          These activists were told to pipe down and let Clinton sell his dumb compromise as a victory.

          Just like NAFTA protesters and welfare reform protesters were told to do. (and didn't that work out great?)

          Don't care about relitigating the past. But let's not rewrite it.

          DADT was a vicious policy that "protected" nobody and empowered homophobes. That it "protected" gay Servicemembers is an extremely offensive right wing talking point.

          "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."—Dan Savage

          by Scott Wooledge on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 12:22:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I agree DADT was that giant step needed to get (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rhauenstein, JamieG from Md, Lysis

          to the point that gays could serve openly.

          Lets not forget Hillary fought and took a pounding on the battle field of universal health care.

          Though her effort was a failure it was the first bold step toward the national acceptance of the some kind of universal health care.

          It also was a huge step for women in politics.  She could take a lickin' and keep on tickin' as well or better than any male politician.  And she was smarter than most and they hate her for that.

          The right and the LSM savaged her for her efforts.  She has more balls that Boehner, McConnell, and more smarts than Paul Ryan and the Newt all rolled into one.

          If anything she is over qualified for the job.

          •  It wasn't a neccessary step. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FogCityJohn, Scottie Thomaston

            They could have left the regulatory ban, which would have been easier to repeal or modify at a later date than undoing a legislative statute.

            Passing the law was just Clinton's way of throwing in the towel and maintaining the status quo and still pretend he had a victory.

            It was typical DC political kabuki not a worthwhile compromise.

            "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."—Dan Savage

            by Scott Wooledge on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 02:21:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Great, she's got more "balls" (0+ / 0-)

            Than Boner, McConnell, and Ryan?  The let the Republicans recruit her.  I admire Hillary for many reasons, and I applauded her for the real, foundational work she's done in creating space for women in American Politics.  She's been amazing.  But.  The Democratic Party needs to be moving Forward into the future.  We need to stp cranking our heads over our shoulders and looking to the past for our leadership.  It's time for us to move with the new progressive era, and begin electing real progressive leadership.  I love Hillary, but I don't think she's progressive enough to meet the needs and challenges of our future.  She is at heart, and always will be a 90's conservadem.

            •  I would fall in line behind a Hillary nomination. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FogCityJohn

              I think, from an identity politics standpoint, any female Dem nominee would be their best shot at a third term (giving Ds a good chance at replacing Scalia and Thomas in the SC). But HRC is not my first choice in female nominees.

              And I also don't fool myself that a Hillary Clinton administration would be as liberal, progressive goodness as we'd all hope it would be. She's always been way more cautious and centrist than anyone believes.

              I can't really think of a single progressive issue she pushed in eight years she served as my Senator. I remember her working to ban flag-burning and video game violence, two conservative populist and pointless issues.

              And she can surround herself with real tools like Mark Penn and listens to them.

              "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."—Dan Savage

              by Scott Wooledge on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 04:13:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  NO, DADT was a backward step and a severe blow. (4+ / 0-)

          Prior to DADT, the ban on gay service members was not statutory.  It was merely a Presidential Executive order, instituted by Ike, durng the McCarthy hysteria, in 1954, I believe.  As an executive order, it could have been rescinded by Ike or any President.  As a statute, however, it required CONGRESSIONAL action to change it which is why ist was so horrible and took so much time to do so.  During DADT ther was no change in the loevelm of harrassment.  Prior to that there was no anti-gay rule in the military, where lots of gay men served honorably and often openly in WWII and earlier..  In fact, before DADT, there were no federal anti-gay statutes.  DADT took it to a new level of backwardness.  Outness, if I may use that term was a local, unit matter.  I had been dating an air force enlisted man, on base, in his quarters, and we frequently used the (TV) lounge onn his floor and got to know a great many of his fellow airmen.  THere just was no big deal with the airmen.  The problem was the psychotic fundamentalist officers.  Becauswe of DADT, we lost 20 years in the struggle for gay rights, because this one issue is and was, as history has shown, pivitol to all other gay rights matters.  BTW, SGWM means Single Gay White Male, the descriptor we used in personal ads back then snd still do in some quarters.  I would urge a certain amount of caution on  your part, if you are not familiar with the history.

          GOP Wars against: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Immigrants, Mexicans, Blacks, Gays, Women, Unions, Workers, Unemployed, Voters, Elderly, Kids, Poor, Sick, Disabled, Dying, Lovers, Kindness, Rationalism, Science, Sanity, Reality.

          by SGWM on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 01:40:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I feel moved to add, (4+ / 0-)

          Saying DADT "protected" gays is exactly like saying Jim Crow protected blacks until the south was ready to desegregate.

          It soft-selling a discriminatory, oppressive and bigoted policy as a benevolence for the poor pitiful people who were victims of it.

          Tell yourself what you need to excuse Clinton's and the Democrats part in it, but do not fool yourself there was benevolence in DADT, there was none.

          DADT and the 200 year history of how gays in the military have been treated needs to be remembered as fondly as FDR's Japanese internment camps. It was a mistake and a shameful one made only out of political expediency, not benevolence or thoughtful policy.

          Gratefully we have moved on. But that was the result of 50 years of hard work by LGBT activists, not the benevolence of our dear leaders.

          "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."—Dan Savage

          by Scott Wooledge on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 02:17:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  DADT was a Congressional (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FogCityJohn, Scott Wooledge, SGWM

          enactment that for the first time codified deliberate anti-gay sentiment  against gay and lesbian servicemembers who chose to fight and die for their country (as someone already noted below, there was only an EO before this). The fact that Congress even got involved in the first place is enough to suggest that it set gay rights back 20 years. It was yet another Act of Congress that we needed to repeal to remove deliberate anti-gay discrimination from our laws.

          I'm sorry but in NO other context would a deliberately discriminatory law be called "extremely forward moving."

          I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
          @indiemcemopants on Twitter

          by Scottie Thomaston on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 02:53:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'd like to see who else steps up to the plate (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bnk, MikePhoenix

        I think Hillary would be a powerhouse in the general election. By now she has vast, peerless experience, and immense credibility. As long as she doesn't make any silly mistakes (e.g. landing in Bosnia under fire), it will be very difficult for any Republican to beat her. As offensive as it was, her vote on AUMF will not carry enough weight to matter all that much.

        I would be happy with her, were there no other credible choices. At the same time, I'd like to see who else steps up to the plate. Hopefully a left-handed batter: I'm not a fan of political dynasties, third-way centrism, and Clinton/Obama economics.

        “Americans are fighters. We're tough, resourceful and creative, and if we have the chance to fight on a level playing field, where everyone pays a fair share and everyone has a real shot, then no one - no one - can stop us. ”-- Elizabeth Warren

        by Positronicus on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 11:52:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't entirely agree with this comment (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SGWM, FogCityJohn

        and am actually open to Hillary running for a number of reasons. However there was nothing in this comment that deserved on HR, so I uprated it.

        If there is no accountability for those who authorized torture, we can no longer say that we are a nation of laws, not men.

        by MikePhoenix on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 01:14:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why was this comment HR'd? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SGWM

        I can see why people might disagree with it, but I don't see anything in it that makes it hide-worthy.  I hope the users who HR'd it will follow the rules and explain.  

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 05:35:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (132)
  • Community (65)
  • Media (32)
  • Elections (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Environment (28)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (25)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Labor (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site