Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Long after the polls say it's safe (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbell, apimomfan2, astronautagogo

    Hillary can always be counted on to take a bold stand. Those who claim she was unpopular only due to her Iraq war vote are engaging in tactical amnesia.

    •  She supported NY gay marriage law in 2011 (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea, Lying eyes, JamieG from Md
      •  After it passed. lol (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        apimomfan2, astronautagogo

        She opposed it when she was in the Senate, where should could have actually done something. Once again, she showed up late to the party after it was safe.
        http://www.politico.com/...

        •  You don't like her, you really don't like her (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PSzymeczek, JamieG from Md, Armando

          Did she take a poll  in 1995 when she went to China and said
           “Human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.”

          It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

          by Radiowalla on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:31:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Radiowalla, cpresley

            the hate is strong in that one.

            If Hillary runs, a lot of folks are going to have to figure out what they are going to do, cuz she'll get the nomination.

            I imagine they will go Cynthia McKinney or some such thing.

            •  The Hillary cult is strong. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greenbell, askew, apimomfan2

              The cognitive dissonance and uniformity of talking points in Hillary discussions just amazes me. I'm sure I'll be called a hater when I point out facts that don't fit the standard narrative. Claiming Hillary is somehow bold for supporting a bill after it passed is a weak argument and it was misleading of you to leave out that fact.

              •  I'm not aware that anyone called anything bold (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Bill W, Boris Godunov

                I pointed out some facts to you is all.

                To you it is significant that she said it after passage. It is not significant to me.

                And as I noted to you before, her support, which arguably was out of line given she was Secretary of State, came before President Obama and Vice President Biden announced their support for gay marriage in 2012.

                On issues like these, pols follow, they do not lead.

                I do not give it any significance in terms of judging the pol.

                It seems clear that you are in the political fandom mold. That's not for me.

            •  I know it is quaint (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              apimomfan2, astronautagogo, Willinois

              But some of us still like to think that a person running for President will have to answer questions on a broad range of issues and earn our votes.

              She isn't heir to the throne and even Prince Charles has to wait to be crowned.

            •  nonsense (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Willinois, Meteor Blades

              I distinctly supported President Obama over Hillary during the primaries for many specific reasons. This idea that if we're not already HRC foot soldiers, then we're Green Party trolls is rubbish. I'm not overly idealistic and I don't hate HRC. I'm just not too keen on forgone conclusions and plutocracy, from the left or right.
              My former senator Russ Feingold once stated that by Bill's second term that the Democratic Convention more closely resembled a corporate trade show. We have no reason to believe this wouldn't happen again. The one thing the GOP is getting right right now is this faux populist libertarian streak. Disingenuous or not, it's working. Even Jon Huntsman has been stating the party will need to shift socially progressive with a strong libertarian message to succeed. They're doing it, Rand Paul took CPAC by storm.
              We get too comfortable, cocky, not challenging the establishment and the Clinton dynasty, we could very well get our clocks cleaned come 2016.
              Question, challenge, be skeptical, make whomever is going to be the nominee work hard for it, make them promise to do the right things, get it in writing. A government run PUBLIC OPTION, better climate change initiatives, massive infrastructure overhauls & green job building, GMO LABELING etc...
              These matters are for to important to play prom king/queen politics.

              •  I wasn't talking about you (1+ / 1-)
                Recommended by:
                Dr Swig Mcjigger
                Hidden by:
                Willinois

                Willinois is a Hillary Hater.

                You may not know that.

                I do.

                •  Nice (0+ / 0-)

                  Nice attempt to dismiss everything I write. I've made factual points without the hate I see directed at other figures on this site.

                  •  Actually I addressed your substantive points (1+ / 1-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Dr Swig Mcjigger
                    Hidden by:
                    Willinois

                    such as they were.

                    I also note you are a Hillary Hater.

                    •  It's really innapropriate (0+ / 0-)

                      and insulting to call someone a hater simply because they don't accept the same spin as you.

                      •  What's actually inappropriate (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Dr Swig Mcjigger

                        is hide rating in a comment exchange you are involved in.

                        You need to read the site rules.

                        Having your false statements refuted is not fun I understand, but control yourself.

                        •  You can counter my points (0+ / 0-)

                          without the insult intended to dismiss everything I write about Clinton. Please, don't pretend the hide was because you refuted anything. It was the personal attack you resorted to rather than admitting you got busted on your misleading spin.

                          •  Look (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm sorry that your hatred has been exposed.

                            Just follow the rules of the site.

                            Write all the nonsense you want, but follow the rules.

                          •  The rules. (0+ / 0-)

                            The rules encourage you to resort to insults when someone disagrees?

                            It's interesting that you capitalize the H in "Hater." As if "Hillary Hater" is a group you've already categorized and stand ready to insult if they challenge your spin. Do you use it often? Is labeling and attempting to stigmatize anyone who doesn't agree with the latest Hillary talking points the direction you see this site taking? If DK is going to become hostile to open debate about her candidacy then I'd like to know it sooner than later.

                            I've made rational points with factual arguments. And I've done it without the animosity and personal insults I see directed at Obama here on a daily basis. The only hate on this thread is your personal attacks.

                          •  You broke the rules (0+ / 0-)

                            I told you what it was.

                            You hatred so blinds you that you are incapable of correcting your rule breaking.

                            You are not rational.

                            You are out of control.

                            Get a grip. And fix your rulebreaking.

                          •  Adding more insults. wow. (0+ / 0-)

                            You really think heaping on more insults is the right response? Your disruptive personal insults are exactly why the hide was completely appropriate.

                          •  No (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dr Swig Mcjigger

                            The Hide rates are you breaking the site rules.

                            For some reason you think that is appropriate.

                            Not only is it not appropriate, it is grounds for suspending your rating privileges.

                            This is my point about your irrationality. I am not pointing this out because I disagree with you, many in this thread do.

                            I point it out because it is evident in your behavior, most obviously on your insistence that you get to break the site rules because ...

                            I repeat to you, get a grip.

                            And follow the site rules.

                            Your hide ratings are a violation of the rules because you are not permitted to hide rate in your own comment exchanges.

                            What part of that do you not understand?

                          •  You're being disruptive to the DK community (0+ / 0-)

                            Your ugly attempt at othering me by labeling me a "Hater," your insult directed at me in response to another user, your repeated escalating personal insults are all "disruptive and damaging to the Daily Kos community." Your behavior is exactly why the hide features exists. I don't know if being a featured writer makes you feel that you're a representative of the DK community, but right now your harassing behavior is reflecting very poorly on this website.

                            Rather than lecturing me about rules, I suggest you calm down and reflect on your own behavior. If you can't discuss Hillary without personally attacking someone then maybe you should take a break from commenting in those threads.

                          •  Excuse me (0+ / 0-)

                            The person breaking the site rules in this thread is you, not me.

                            That is a fact.

                            Your opinions, frankly on anything, do not interest me.

                            But I will insist you follow the site rules.

                            Your inability to do so demonstrates your problem.

                      •  updated (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Armando

                        for hr abuse. Can't hr someone you are in discussion with.

          •  Do you dislike my pointing out facts? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            apimomfan2, astronautagogo

            Even attempts like this one to make her look courageous end up revealing her career-long pattern of putting her finger to the wind before making a move. Electing a President like that would be a wasted opportunity at a time when much progress can be made.

            I don't get your point about China. By 1995 Bill Clinton had already been criticized for going easy on China and women's rights was nothing new. So, from a domestic political perspective it was a safe comment that provided cover/distraction for Bill's trade deals with China.

        •  Sure (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Radiowalla

          But it was not today. It was 2 years ago.

          In any event, I'm not sure she did the right thing then, being Secretary of State.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site