Skip to main content

View Diary: Hillary and the netroots (203 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My opponents 'hate me' (0+ / 0-)

    is a tactic that must be suppressed - vigorously.

    •  Yeds and no. The truth is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      curtadams

      that we all know the winger opponents of Hillary and others is hateful...hate full...full of hate.  The religious nuts who demonize her and other women who stand up, speak up, run for office, achieve status (which belongs to men only in their view) regularly engage in hate speech about both Clintons but save a special brand of venom for Hillary.

      Democrats and progressives who prefer another candidate for president should be careful not to adopt the wingers talking points and damning to Hell anyone who has supported a piece of legislation or voted differently than we would like them to...differently than we would have in their place.

      Yes...support and speak up for those you admire.  No need to trash perfectly decent human beings who may be wrong when they make choices we don't agree with...no need to assume you know exactly why they made such a choice...no need to ignore their many accomplishments...

      No need for any progressive or Democrat to attack another.  That is the Republicans' job...not ours.

      Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

      by oldpro on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 09:47:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't gloss it over nearly as much. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GayHillbilly

        I don't have too much trouble with hillary, but I can tell you why people do. It's not a gender thing, don't cast it that way, it just makes people think less of you. So, in no particular order, here we go...

        1. Flag burning, WTF? That's the sort of thing a republican would do. Too much triangulation.
        1. She's from New York, she could do with a little more progressivism. If she wanted to fence sit, she should have tried for a seat in Virgina or Colorado.
        1. She has all the ingredients to be a leader, but she doesn't do it. Why make her pres. when she's probably the second most powerful politician (behind cheney) in the country today, and does almost nothing.
        1. She is good at mending fences with republicans. A lot of fire breathing upstate new york republicans are going to vote for her in 2006. That being said, there is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. She could do with a little more Kennedy, and a little less Kerry.

        Basically, it's all one problem. She just fence sits a lot more than she should, and doesn't really push hard to support the policies we want. She certainly wouldn't vote against Iraq withdrawl, but nor will she push for it, and it's like that on so many issues. That's the problem people have with her.

        However, those that call her a war monger are certainly going off the deep end.

        •  Thanks for the thoughtful response. (0+ / 0-)

          Question:  What do you mean by "Don't gloss it over nearly as much?"  Don't gloss what over?  And nearly as much as what?  I am mystified by this ...

          Re 'the gender thing:'  actually it is an issue, most particularly in Clinton's case.  The polls show it....mentioned upthread somewhere I do believe...or is it downthread?  Oh well...whatever people think of me they can think.  I think it's a fair question to ask and a fair warning to make, having been thru the civil rights movement, the feminist years, the farmworker movement, the gay rights movement, what I have learned is that all are still minorities fighting descrimination from ... swallow hard ... predominately (though not exclusively) white men.  I know.  But after 69 years of that crap I call a spade a spade.  So in the case of Mrs. Clinton, the question for some folks is...is it her politics exclusively or is the "NO, NEVER!" anti-Hilary faction salted with undeclared, unacknowledged misogyny as well?  There is a gender gap and it is real.

          As for the issues you've named...

          1.  I think it was TheresainPA who put that to rest (flag burning) but the purists won't forgive that one.
          1.  She's from New York.  You think that should make her more liberal?  They have a Republican governor and a Republican mayor of NYC, you know...and Senator is a statewide race.  It's not THAT liberal a state!  I don't call her positions 'fencesitting,' though many do.
          1.  "All the ingredients to be a leader but she doesn't do it."  Do what?  She's representing her state, not the whole country...not until she says she's running for President.  I'm unsure what you mean by "probably the second most powerful politician in the country."  What power does she hold?  For all practical purposes, Cheney IS the president!  As for your comment that she "does almost nothing,"  I'm hearing disappointment, but about what exactly?  She is a first-term senator, for crissake, and had more notches on that belt than John Edwards when he up and ran for president out of the blue...with NO legislative record to speak of and no political record either...just charisma, a great wife, a working-class-kid-makes-good story (not unlike but not quite as good as Bill Clinton's), a good speech and a whizbang history as a trial lawyer (which I don't underrate for even one minute!)  Still...he ran for president and all we have re Hillary are a lot of assumptions by some Dems that because she does well in Democratic polls that she's definitely running...and the Repugs pushing the fundraising based on "Lookout!  Hillary is coming!!  Another Clinton'll be their candidate!"
          1.  She's not a bombastic trailblazer..."with a little more Kennedy and a lot less Kerry!"  Well, she got her head handed to her over being a leader on national healthcare...the number one issue at the time...so maybe she learned caution and more than one way to skin a cat.

          Her votes, in the main, are progressive enough for me...high rankings with labor and liberal environmental and civil rights groups.  You know, if she were out front on the biggest issues, she'd personally draw all the fire as a "pushy broad determined be the first feminist president."  My sense of her performance these past 5 years is that she's modestly kept her head down, not sought the limelight, kept her quick tongue in check, tended to senatorial business (her job) and watched the show.  Either way, it seems clear to me...damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.  She's one tough cookie to put up with it.  So much nastiness and venom from both sides ... both from the right-wing conspiracy and the intolerant left.  You can't triangulate that.

          Thanks again for the dialogue.

          Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

          by oldpro on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 05:07:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  With regards.. (0+ / 0-)

            to my first statement. I thought you were glossing over the complexity by just claiming that people don't like her because she's a woman. There's more to it than that.

            1. The flag burning. Sure, it's not the worst piece of legislation in the world, but why stop at flags? Isn't it more reasonable to just say that burning anything in an unsafe manner or in an attempt to intimidate should be illegal? I imagine it already is, I'm not impressed with the flag burning bill.
            1. We have a republican governor for the same reason Mass. does. No statewide republicans are very conservative at all. Hillary would be liked more if she proposed big plans and actually tried to push for them. Even just proposing them would help. I give her kudos for the privacy bill of rights, and she's not a bad senator, but you don't get the presidential nomination by being a decent senator, only by being a great one.
            1. She's doing a good job as senator, but if she wants the nomination she should do more. She should bring her healthcare thing back, or take Krugman's idea instead. If she wants the presidency she really should start to build a platform by proposing good progressive legislation, even though it won't go anywhere. At least then people will know what we're getting if we elect her. She's second most powerful because she was for 8 years VP stature, which puts her above Kerry and equal to Gore, who is not a sitting senator. More than any other democrat, she can get in front of a camera at will and reach out to the country. She should do it more often. With every new outrage from the whitehouse she should be on TV explaining why you don't run the country that way, and why she and Bill didn't make those aweful choices.

            I understand that she's triangulating, and I have no problem voting for her. At least you can trust her to run a decent campaign and not beat herself, which is more than many other democrats out there. However, the triangulation thing is perhaps going a bit too far, I'm not sure it's going to work this time. The only way she gets elected is if she sells the country on her healthcare plan and leaves them no choice but to elect her. Get up there, explain that medicare coverage costs the gov. X dollars a month, so they'll make it available to everyone for X dollars a month, saving your average citizen Y. Dollars and cents, explain how she'll save people money. That the republicans would never pass such a thing is obvious, so that will be the game.

            Squeaking in under the wire by peeling off a few percent of republicans just isn't a good plan this time.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site