Skip to main content

View Diary: Hillary Clinton comes out for marriage equality (143 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I can't forget (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbell, aggieric

    ...how the vast majority of the people in 2008 commenting on threads on this site trashed and slandered this woman. Thanks in part on the main writers and their articles, and more importantly--in order to solidify Democrats around Barack Obama.

    Now? Night and day. Authoritarianism is no respecter of intelligence, culture or privileged information. You pick up your 'heroes' and dispose of them and then pick them right back up again whenever convenient.

    Shame on you folks. But the guilty ones probably don't even know who they are.

    "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

    by DaddyO on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:09:39 AM PDT

    •  "lobbyists are people, too." (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      astronautagogo, RichM, chuckvw, apimomfan2

      Just remember that.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:11:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wasn't here then but I've been consistent (6+ / 0-)

      I didn't vote for her because of Iraq and that pales in comparison to how strongly I feel about entitlements.  

      She will not have my vote if she can't stop funding wars with my Social Security benefits.

      •  I decided at the polling place. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PSzymeczek

        I was a precinct chair Feb. 2008, but I reserved judgement until I was at the voting machine. I voted for Obama because:
        1) He did not have a vote for the Iraq War on his record.
        2) He was inspiring people.
        3) I liked the idea of having a President who was a generation younger than yours truly.
        I was delighted that the President mended fences by appointing Hillary Clinton Secretery of State.
        I am not ready to make a choice on the 2016 race, but Hillary Clinton is certainly a possibility for me.

        Censorship is rogue government.

        by scott5js on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:09:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Eh, it's politics. She knows that more than anyone (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RichM, LSophia

      To me, one of the more ironic complaints from 2007/8 about the Clintons was that they didn't take political animosity seriously enough.  That Bill Clinton spotted Rush Limbaugh in a restaurant and came over to greet him was seen as a sign of moral/political weakness.  What do we think about that now?

      You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

      by Rich in PA on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:12:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it was a true weakness of Clinton's. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nadd2, PSzymeczek

        He should not have greeted Rush Limbaugh.  He should have told his joint chiefs of staff that he was going to overturn the ban on gays in the military and if they didn't like it they should put their resignations on his desk by morning.  He should not have answered the question "briefs or boxers?"  He should not, in other words, have allowed himself to be disrespected by others and come back asking for more.  

        I think that was a tremendous weakness on his part.  

        I'm not sure what part Hillary played in any of that, however, and I think she is much less likely to let this sort of thing happen.

        It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

        by Radiowalla on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:52:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If it makes you feel any better... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CajunBoyLgb, askew, nadd2, scott5js, PSzymeczek

      I'll bad mouth her now too.

      Well, not really.  I like her.  I do.  And I will most likely vote for her in 2016.  But I do hope she gets a primary from the left that is credible, and knocks her off in a few places so that she has to earn the nomination.

      I have 3 big reservations about her:
      1. She ran a terrible campaign in 2008.  Yes, Obama's campaign was perfect but he doesn't knock her off unless she runs and outdated incompetent campaign.  And I don't want that to happen again in 2016.

      2.  Her husband.  He gives a great speech but he thinks he owns the Democratic party.  (Do not be surprised if Hillary goes with all the DLC retreads to run her next campaign instead of doing the obvious thing of going with Axelrod and Plouffe.)

      3. She's too establishment on some really important issues.  Our next nominee should be one who declares that the drug war is a giant mistake that we can't afford anymore.  And who recognizes that our Israel policy is hurting us more than it helps.

      So I'm glad she beat all but one of the Republican Senators in coming around on marriage equality.  But let's not treat her like a nominee in waiting.  

      "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

      by Spider Stumbled on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:25:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If it helps you out, I don't think this news is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CajunBoyLgb, askew, apimomfan2

      particularly noteworthy, and it's literally decades past being even remotely brave.

      And "vast majority" is bullshit. I was here, as you were. Hillary was on the wrong side of history about Iraq, and that sunk her as a Democratic nominee. That you equate that political argument---and that's exactly what it was---as "authoritarianism" is absolute rubbish.

      •  Not so Much Iraq (5+ / 0-)

        For me, it came down to her continued involvement with the DLC.  Mark Penn, Lanny Davis, Terry McAuliffe.  And her husband.  The one thing Bill Clinton pulled out all the stops for was NAFTA and WTO.  HRC carried all that baggage.

        This clip is obviously a campaign speech cleverly made before the campaign so as to blunt accusations that she changed her position out of political expediency.  

        Which is great news.  She's running.  I'll support HRC with enthusiasm this time around.  

        Any Democrat who gets the nomination will be a corporate Democrat.  Obama has made that clear.  But to have HRC appoint the replacements for Scalia and Kennedy?  Priceless.

        This aggression will not stand, man.

        by kaleidescope on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:58:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Her Supreme Court appointments (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          scott5js, PSzymeczek

          will be outstanding!  I could see her naming Kathleen Sullivan or Pam Karlan or any number of strong, liberal jurists. God, I hope I live long enough to see the day.  

          (as an aside did anyone see this totally hilarious, now viral obituary?
          http://www.legacy.com/...

          One of his regrets was not seeing his girl, Hillary Clinton, elected President.

          It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

          by Radiowalla on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:20:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I voted for HRC in the primaries (4+ / 0-)

      and voted for Obama in the general, both in 2008 & 2012.

      But I can only speak for myself.

      A village can not reorganize village life to suit the village idiot.

      by METAL TREK on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:31:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Clinton supporters dished it out (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CajunBoyLgb, askew, ruscle, PSzymeczek

      as much as they took it.  Neither side here had their hands clean when it came to the 2008 Primary Wars.  And remember it was Bill Clinton who went to South Carolina and said what he said.  Clinton's surrogates did not represent her well at all, be they her husband, Andrew Cuomo, Lanny Davis...

      •  Then why did they leave in droves? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CajunBoyLgb, LSophia

        They were outnumbered and harassed by other posters whom they thought were friends.  I grant you that there were a few unhinged Hillary supporters, but they were banned.  Most of the others left the site voluntarily because they were persona non grata.  

        Some came back, but risked being called PUMAs up until about now when Hillary's stock is magically rising here.  Even Kos, one of her most ardent detractors, seems to be giving her a nod.  

        It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

        by Radiowalla on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:41:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The balance here went to Obama, sure (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew

          But that's talking about sheer numbers, not the level of vitriol from each side.  Had Clinton supporters outnumbered Obama's here, it would have just been the same thing in reverse.

          Trying to claim one side was morally better than the other is revisionist history and absolutely not factually correct.

          •  Do I think one side was morally better? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LSophia, JamieG from Md

            Hmmm.....

            Well, that's an interesting question.  As a 2008 Clinton supporter, it sure felt like being ganged up on and shouted down in what many felt was their online "home."  Suddenly "home" had become a hostile place.  Most of those who left felt that they were chased out and took great umbrage at that.  

            But morally superior? Not really.  I think the overriding feeling was hurt and anger at being marginalized.  

             

            It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

            by Radiowalla on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:13:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As an Edwards supporter in 2008 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PSzymeczek

              I can say I was perhaps as non-biased on the Obama v. Clinton fighting as one could be here, and I did not see any qualitative difference between the vitriol dished out by each side.  Big-name posters here on DK were on each side dishing the hits out.  It was just as much a self-perpetuating cycle of implacable attacks as we see in the Israel/Palestine fights here.

              Pretending your you-know-what didn't stink is simply not accurate.

    •  Did you support her in '08? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CajunBoyLgb

      I don't understand your comment "authoritarianism is no respecter of intelligence, etc...."   Who are you tarring with that brush?

      It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

      by Radiowalla on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:35:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
      how the vast majority of the people in 2008 commenting on threads on this site trashed and slandered this woman
      Absolute bollocks
    •  Yes -- and the remaining Hillary-impared (0+ / 0-)

      will come along when Obama campaigns for her in 2016.

    •  Hey don't blame me! I supported Edwards. ;) eom (0+ / 0-)

      Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

      by Ian S on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:36:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site