Do you feel that Hillary is being bashed by Democrats??

[kentuck]

Is it "bashing" to say that it takes more than "just being a woman" to run for President?

Also, can we not learn a lot from the way she chooses to fight back?

I think Hillary would agree with Harry Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".

I think people should ask themselves: What do I want in a President? Is it enough just to be a Democrat? We should have faith that if they have the right Party label, then they will do the right thing for the people?

Without vision, we are lost...

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. That's a strange question.

Hillary can stand the heat. Bank on that much.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

86. Bank on that much... HA

[hrmjustin]

2. Hillary can stand questions and debate.

I think some of her detractors have made a few ridiculous arguments.

[bvar22]

61. Yes. She did great here:

...a very revealing video that firmly establishes WHO Hillary believes the "Middle Class" is,
and if you made less than $97K last year, you don't count.

[hrmjustin]

62. Oh please!

[bvar22]

66. Oh Please WHAT?

It is video, which is FOREVER.
It is REAL.


Do you have a valid counter argument or honest rebuttal of ANY kind?

[hrmjustin]

67. When given a valid argument to argue with I will.

[bvar22]

69. OK. IN that video, HIllary said she would NOT "Raise the Cap" on FICA deductions

because that would put too much burden on the "Middle Class" like "firefighters".

Truth is, (at that time) Raising-the CAP effected only about 5% of the wealthiest Americans.
THAT is who she STOOD UP for.

I haven't heard her retract that statement, or in any way modify her stance of Raising-the CAP
to help the Working Class.


Your Rebuttal:
.
.
.
.
I'll wait.

[hrmjustin]

70. Where was the cap at? What level of income?

[bvar22]

73. Watch the video.

ALL the questions you asked are answered completely.
That is WHY I posted it.

[hrmjustin]

76. I think a good number is 250,000 dollars. Raise taxes on them and above.

[Smithryee]

81. Oh please what?

Is that the argument diehard Clinton supporters have?

Sorry, not a valid defense for the video. Please try again.

[hrmjustin]

85. Read below.

[JaneyVee]

3. Hillary is over-attacked.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Some here seem to think that scrutinizing candidates is "disloyal" or "divisive".

I don't vote for labels, gender, or polling numbers. And, "Not as Bad", rings up a no sale.

[arcane1]

10. +1

[MissDeeds]

13. Agree completely n/t

[cui bono]

80. +1

[Scuba]

107. + another

[Eyerish]

118. +1

[JEB]

122. +1

Pretty simple. I make my voting choices by the candidates positions and thinking on the ISSUES. Not smooth talking or fluffy videos.

[RiverLover]

126. +1 /nt

[Autumn]

5. No. Her supporters just seem to be a bit hyper sensitive.

[emulatorloo]

26. I don't support HRC, but claiming her platform is "I have a vagina" is silly

as well as disingenous.

[Autumn]

44. Did someone say that??

[tazkcmo]

46. No

But don't let that confuse you.

[emulatorloo]

50. Yes, but you knew that already.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6489437

[Autumn]

52. Robert Reich said no such thing.

The fact that you said he did says much more about you than it does about him.

[world wide wally]

6. Even if she is not your dream candidate, it still hurts to shoot yourself in the foot

[pnwmom]

7. Hillary herself has NEVER suggested that just being a woman qualifies her to run for President.

But some of her supporters are excited about the possibility of breaking that glass ceiling. Deal with it.

I think it's insulting for Reich to pretend that a former Secretary of State and popular Senator from a major State is leaning on her gender because she isn't otherwise qualified enough. I respect him in general, but he's wrong about this.

[MineralMan]

12. Exactly. It's obvious that she will be the first woman President

if elected. She won't be pushing that point in her campaign, which has not yet begun. Obviously, she'll be campaigning on issues, as all presidential candidates do.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

71. Exactly

Anymore than Obama pushed "I'll be the first black president."

[Smithryee]

83. She isn't going to be the first women President..

It'll be someone else....

Sorry, Frank, but I think you missed it....

[MineralMan]

112. My name's not Frank,

but I tend to be frank. If she wins, she'll be the first woman President. Winning is the pivotal thing.

[OKNancy]

113. ha! Skinner banned that poster so

there won't be an answer...

[MineralMan]

114. Thanks for letting me know.

I didn't bother to click on the profile.

[OKNancy]

8. bashing and criticism are two different things

Criticism: I have a problem with her Iraq war vote
Bashing: She is the same as a Republican

Clinton supporters don't have a problem with real critique. I personally have a problem with hyperbole and mis-information.
I also have a problem with bashing of DUers who support her.

[pnwmom]

14. And I have a problem with DUers who think progressive women only support her because of her gender.

She's a former Secretary of State and former Senator, as well qualified as any of the men who might be running.

If the first woman President gets elected, that will be a wonderful bonus -- just as it was when President Obama was elected.

[OKNancy]

15. agreed!

[MoonRiver]

18. Yes, it is very, very insulting.

I expect Republicans to take their talking points from this sort of smear.

[justiceischeap]

129. I'd say, in some respects she's more qualified than most of the (R) men running at this point

Not only is she a former SoS (and did a damn fine job repairing our nations credibility internationally) and a former Senator but she was also a First Lady. That gives some very unique perspective to the job of President--because she's seen firsthand what it's like to be President from within the Presidency.

Plus, she does not like Republicans. I like that most about her. There are plenty of reasons to support HRC for President as a female progressive, none of which has anything to do with her gender.

[bvar22]

133. She does not like Republicans?

Where did THAT come from?
Can you document that?

The Clinton's "retire" with the Bush Family.
Bill is referred to as their other son.

The last I heard, she was regularly attending the "C Street" "Prayer Breakfasts",
which are some of the hardest core Republican fundamentalists in Washington.


Rachel Maddow did a fair expose' of this C-STreet Handmaiden's Tale Club.

"Don't forget, Dems play there too! (18+ / 0-)

Even more scary.

Stupak lived(s) there. Hillary praised Doug Coe, and frequented C Street prayer breakfasts.

The nefarious reach, and questionable intentions of C Street could explain why NO ONE HAS WATCHED OUR BACKS in Congress for 80 years!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/08/18/768678/-Rachel-Maddow-Runs-New-C-Street-House-Family-Expose#

[Andy823]

21. Yes

When someone says that she would be the same as a republican, usually the same posters who say president Obama is working for the 1% or is doing the same thing a republican would do, it's not criticism it's just bashing, especially when they do it day after day, week after week and never once find anything positive to say. Those same people have been "bashing" here on DU for years. If they really want change why don't they post on "their" choice for the primaries instead of doing nothing but attacking Hillary?

[arcane1]

9. There's bashing, and there's honest disagreement irrationaly mislabeled as bashing.

I won't be at all surprised if you get called a sexist for making a kitchen reference

[OKNancy]

33. there is bashing irrationally labelled as honest disagreement

[arcane1]

36. Indeed! :)

[bvar22]

145. ....and there is Honest Disagreement irrationally labeled as "bashing".

[MoonRiver]

11. There's a lot of bashing on DU.

The rest of the Democratic Party, not so much.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. +1 ...

But one would have to be a active part of the Democratic Party to recognize the difference.

[uponit7771]

74. +1

[we can do it]

168. +

[Rex]

16. I feel that a certain element here uses the term 'bash' to divide up DU and they do it on purpose.

They also are the ones that complain about DU, yet they can never find the time to leave this place.

[arcane1]

22. Perfectly said!

[Rex]

24. It is as if we are just supposed to ignore the obvious for the sake of their agenda.

No thanks, didn't do that on DU1 or DU2...won't be doing it here either.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. LOL ...

We really need to talk ... because we agree for opposing reasons.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

17. Maybe, yes, yes,

First, to q1, maybe, because I assume there are some registered Dems who are bashing her, although I can't name any specifically off the top of my head. Yes to q2, 'It takes more than 'just being a woman' to run for President' is a flippant and dismissive statement to be making about any woman running for office. I wouldn't even say that about Carly Fiorina, for instance. After all, as bad as she is on certain issues, HRC is still more qualified to be President than any of the likely bozos on the right, no matter how many tallywhackers they have among them. For q3, yes, obviously you can learn a lot about any person by how they respond to criticism or 'attacks', depending upon your viewpoint.

I certainly want 'more than just being a Democrat'. Hell, Lincoln Chafee is supposedly planning to run as a Democrat. I want someone I believe will address every social issue EVERY Democrat should care about, AND climate change AND economic injustice/inequality. Why should I just look for a candidate who will be decent on generic Democratic ideals, if I can instead get all of those from most Dems out there? Why not look for one who will be 'Hillary+' - Hillary good on social issues, AND good on climate change and economic issues? One who supports a sustainable, liveable environment for all over profits for corporations and shareholders? One who knows that lower levels of economic inequality improve the economy for everyone, while large differences between 'rich and poor' result in economic crashes and slow growth?

[H2O Man]

19. That's a great question.

I think that within the Democratic Party -- exactly like on DU -- there is some "bashing," and some valid, very important questioning. Objective people are fully capable of telling the difference between the two.

Those who are subjective view the two as identical.

[H2O Man]

35. The responses to

your OP include several that demonstrate exactly what I noted, which while not surprising, show the weakness inherent in subjective thinking.

[antigop]

54. "Objective people are fully capable of telling the difference between the two."

Oh, you're bad. So bad....

[H2O Man]

151. Well, thank you!

It's important to be "bad" sometimes. And fun to be "so bad" at other times! (grin)

[bigwillq]

20. No (nt)

[tritsofme]

23. No, the only Democrats doing any "bashing" are a very tiny minority.

Hillary is a very popular figure among Democrats, and the vast majority are ready for her to face off against the GOP in 2016.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. Yet, a relatively small faction ...

Claiming "true Democratic" cred, disagree.

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. Nnnnnnope.

[ScreamingMeemie]

27. I don't think she is. I think supporters of candidates (myself included) have super thin

skins when it comes to our choice. In short, some of Ms. Clinton's supporters make Ms. Clinton look worse than she is.

[SidDithers]

28. She's been a target, on the national level, for more than 20 years...

I think she's shown that she can "take it".



Sid

[emulatorloo]

29. I feel that you stepped in horseshit when you suggested Clinton's genitals are her platform

It was a silly thing to promote.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. "Democrats" aren't bashing HRC ...

"Progressives " (that have no real political home) are the folks doing the "bashing".-

[delrem]

42. You say "progressives" (your quotes) have no home in the Democratic party?

And you complain that these homeless "progressives" are doing some bashing?

What an odd inversion.

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. Not being a sailor, I'm not certain what you ...

Are saying. But the 3rd way scum comment leads me to think I disagree.

[1StrongBlackMan]

75. Not odd at all ...

"progressives " are not necessarily Democrats ... and Democrats are not necessarily "progressives", especially as represented on the internutz.

[delrem]

94. Sigh. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

99. Yes ... sighhhh ...

I have yet to see a DU styled "progressive" at my Democratic council meetings ... You know, where the work is done.

[delrem]

100. look. I get it. You don't like progressives. I get it as hard as you push it.

And you're pushing it as a representative Hillary Clinton supporter, at DU.

I get it.

I wonder if Hillary gets it, the same way?

Does Hillary dislike progressives? Is that what it's come to, in the Hillary camp?

I don't think so.

I think you should dial it back.

[1StrongBlackMan]

110. No. I've just never seen a DU Styled progressive in the wild ...

Does Hillary dislike progressives? Is that what it's come to, in the Hillary camp?

I wouldn't know. I am not a Hillary supporter; but, I am not a Hillary hater, either ... DU progressives seem to have trouble with that concept ... one must post daily "I hate {insert flavor of the month to be hated}" threads, or "Yup" on such threads, lest one be deemed a supporter.

At this point, all I can say is "I will support the Democratic nominee in the General Election for the Office of President." And, at this point, I have no idea whom I will support in the primaries.

[bvar22]

134. Apparently, there are a lot of things you haven't seen.

You should get out more often.

BTW: Can you explain what you mean by "DU styled Progressive"?
If THAT plays here, may I call you a "DU-styled conservative"?

[1StrongBlackMan]

135. See my post #131 ...

Regarding what you call me ... you already do.

[bvar22]

138. I have NEVER called you a "DU Styled Conservative".

Please supply the quote or link to support your claim,
or admit you just make stuff up to post to DU.

[1StrongBlackMan]

139. 3rd-way, and all the lovely variations thereof.

[bvar22]

146. AFter reading your posts in this thread,

especially the ones about how "progressives" really don't belong in the Democratic Party,
I STRONGLY advise that if you volunteer for the Hillary campaign,
you strictly avoid phone banking and canvassing.
Stick to stuffing envelopes,
because when you talk to people, you do more harm to Hillary than good.

[1StrongBlackMan]

150. Okay. Thanks for the advice ...

But what happened to the, "I never ..." demand?

[bvar22]

162. Did you get confused?

Please post a link to your reference.

[1StrongBlackMan]

165. look 4 posts up. n/t

[bvar22]

169. So the answer is NO.

I have NEVER called you a "DU Styled Conservative".

You seem a little confused.

[1StrongBlackMan]

170. But you have referred to me as ...

a 3rd-wayer and all the lovely variations; but, funny ... that you think that I called you a DU self-styled progressive.

So I guess you recognize this:

If you find yourself advocating income equality AND championing sacrificing the poor and working classes (i.e., "Let's go over the fiscal cliff!&quot ; then, you are the "progressives" that have no real political home ... at least, not in the Democratic Party.

If you find yourself advocating income equality AND championing sacrificing PoC, women, and the LGBT community (i.e., "Income Equality IS the most important issue of our time&quot ; then, you are the "progressives" that have no real political home ... at least, not in the Democratic Party.

If you find yourself advocating a set of policy goals that begins with "IF" (and that "IF" involves a series of unlikely occurrences) AND criticize Democratic policies (established in the current political environment), as inadequate; but, in their imperfection, do benefit the majority of the poor and working classes (i.e., the ACA, Executive Orders, etc.); then, you are the "progressives" that have no real political home ... at least, not in the Democratic Party.

If you find yourself spending the vast majority of your posts (especially during election season), criticizing Democrats, Democratic candidates, and "other" Democrats for supporting Democrats and/or Democratic candidates; then, you are the "progressives" that have no real political home ... at least, not in the Democratic Party.

in yourself.

[bvar22]

172. I don't believe I have ever refered to you as anything at all.

Again,
provide the links to your claims,
or admit you just make stuff up
and post it to DU.

YOUR screed above and open attacks on "Progressives"
certainly indicates that you believe yourself to be something other than "Progressive",
and, in fact, seem to hold more than a little animosity at Progressives in the Democratic Party.

Do you label yourself as "Anti-Progressive"?....or "Conservative"?

[1StrongBlackMan]

173. And I have never referred to YOU as anything, either ...

unless you consider that my "screed" applies to you.

{Edited for accuracy}

YOUR screed above and open attacks on DU"Progressives" that this:

"If you find yourself advocating income equality AND championing sacrificing the poor and working classes (i.e., "Let's go over the fiscal cliff!&quot ; then, you are the "progressives" that have no real political home ... at least, not in the Democratic Party.

If you find yourself advocating income equality AND championing sacrificing PoC, women, and the LGBT community (i.e., "Income Equality IS the most important issue of our time&quot ; then, you are the "progressives" that have no real political home ... at least, not in the Democratic Party.

If you find yourself advocating a set of policy goals that begins with "IF" (and that "IF" involves a series of unlikely occurrences) AND criticize Democratic policies (established in the current political environment), as inadequate; but, in their imperfection, do benefit the majority of the poor and working classes (i.e., the ACA, Executive Orders, etc.); then, you are the "progressives" that have no real political home ... at least, not in the Democratic Party.

If you find yourself spending the vast majority of your posts (especially during election season), criticizing Democrats, Democratic candidates, and "other" Democrats for supporting Democrats and/or Democratic candidates; then, you are the "progressives" that have no real political home ... at least, not in the Democratic Party.

Applies to.
certainly indicates that you believe yourself to be something other than a DU "Progressive",
and, in fact, seem to hold more than a little animosity at DU Progressives in the Democratic Party DemocraticUnderground ... the two are nowhere near, synonymous.

And to answer your question ... I label myself "a Democrat", and a "Liberal", and so do a bunch of other folks at the monthly (soon to be weekly, as we enter election season) Democratic Party meetings that I attend in real life.

[Rex]

56. Did you mean to put Democrats in quotes?

[1StrongBlackMan]

78. Nope ...

"Democrats", i.e., those involved in the Democratic Party, are not the ones bashing HRC ... that distinction is left to the "progressives, that occasionally vote for Democrats.

[Rex]

101. K the OP did not so I was confuseded.

Not anymore.

[cui bono]

82. So by your definition, progressives are not welcome in the Dem Party?

So is it official now that the Dem Party is definitely not progressive? So we agree that we are left with a Right Wing party and a Center party and the left is unrepresented in this country? The people be damned since when polled on policies they prefer left leaning social and economic policies, not center or right wing.

I do not agree with the "bashing" part of your sentiment though. I haven't seen any bashing, just criticism of her policy stances and alliances/allegiances.

[1StrongBlackMan]

91. No, everyone from the left is welcome ...

But welcome doesn't mean has control. I am not the Democratic gate keeper; but, if I were, I was, I we would be talking about majority rule.

[PowerToThePeople]

96. "but, if I were, I was, I we would be talking about majority rule."

Being a minority, this statement is very odd.

Majority rule is not always "just" rule.

[1StrongBlackMan]

97. Okay ...

you are not a "minority" ... you wouldn't understand that "just" has very little to do with anything ... except a fantasy. "Minorities" know that you work within whatever established system that exists AND you work among yourself.

[PowerToThePeople]

103. "just" has everything to do with many things

The fact that the current state of society here at this time does not consider justice of primary concern is very disconcerting and does not foretell a very decent future for anyone on this planet.

[1StrongBlackMan]

111. Rails ... Off.

[cui bono]

115. So then I'm gathering from your posts here that you don't think the Dem Party is or is supposed

to be progressive. So you think the Dem Party is supposed to be center?

Once upon a time the Dem Party was progressive. It brought in the New Deal and a lot of good social programs. Then the Reagan era happened and since then the Republican Party moved right and the Dem Party did as well. Then the wackadoodles took over the Rep Party and it moved to the extreme right and the Dem Party took up the center.

The Dem Party was/is not supposed to be center. It's supposed to stand up for the working people and for social and economic justice. A center party that is beholden to big business does not do that.

I understand more the positions you take though, now that you have stated that progressives are "welcome" in but should not "control" the Dem Party. So basically you want the progressive vote, but don't care what they think about policy? If that's not what you really believe, you might want to know that's how you are coming across.

One day progressives simply aren't going to continue to support the lesser of two evils and then the Centrist Dem Party will either have to contend with a third party or will have to remember where it started and the people who made it what it is today. But with our current president being a self-described moderate Republican and centrists telling progressives they are not needed, our country is in big trouble and there is no party left that represents the people any more. Hillary sure ain't going to do it.

[Art_from_Ark]

125. Well said

I heartily agree.

[Pooka Fey]

144. I remember when the Democratic Party was progressive too

These days, not so much. Great rant, cui bono

One day progressives simply aren't going to continue to support the lesser of two evils and then the Centrist Dem Party will either have to contend with a third party or will have to remember where it started and the people who made it what it is today. But with our current president being a self-described moderate Republican and centrists telling progressives they are not needed, our country is in big trouble and there is no party left that represents the people any more. Hillary sure ain't going to do it.

[PrefersaPension]

120. Progressives have no real political home?

What the hell does that mean? Are you new to politics?

[1StrongBlackMan]

131. It has occurred to me, perhaps, I should clarify my statement ...

You will note that whenever I reference "progressive", I consistently place the word in quotations, or preface/modify the word "DU" ... there is a reason why I do this. Specifically, I do it to segment out/separate out, the political progressives from those that seem to have taken root in DU; but, consistently demonstrate a clear distain for the Democratic Party, and more, those that make up its base.

If you find yourself advocating income equality AND championing sacrificing the poor and working classes (i.e., "Let's go over the fiscal cliff!&quot ; then, you are the "progressives" that have no real political home ... at least, not in the Democratic Party.

If you find yourself advocating income equality AND championing sacrificing PoC, women, and the LGBT community (i.e., "Income Equality IS the most important issue of our time&quot ; then, you are the "progressives" that have no real political home ... at least, not in the Democratic Party.

If you find yourself advocating a set of policy goals that begins with "IF" (and that "IF" involves a series of unlikely occurrences) AND criticize Democratic policies (established in the current political environment), as inadequate; but, in their imperfection, do benefit the majority of the poor and working classes (i.e., the ACA, Executive Orders, etc.); then, you are the "progressives" that have no real political home ... at least, not in the Democratic Party.

If you find yourself spending the vast majority of your posts (especially during election season), criticizing Democrats, Democratic candidates, and "other" Democrats for supporting Democrats and/or Democratic candidates; then, you are the "progressives" that have no real political home ... at least, not in the Democratic Party.

If you look into your soul; but more, your actions, and can say the above does not apply to you ... then, you are not the "progressives" that have no real political home ... and are welcome members of the Democratic Party (even when you claim "Democrat", as your 3rd or 4th political descriptor).

[bvar22]

136. This "DU Styled Progressive" (to use your words) lives HERE:

...and I've lived here for 48 years, LONG before DU.
I haven't changed.
I have fought for the following values for my entire Adult life.
DU hasn't changed that in the least.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]

Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

Those values are WHY I've been a Democrat for over 47 years.
Not too long ago, voting for the Democrats
was voting for the above FDR Values that made our Party GREAT.
Sadly, this is no longer true.


[font size=3]"In politics the middle way is none at all."[/font]
---President John Adams

[1StrongBlackMan]

141. No, not long ago, a vote for Democrats ...

was a vote for these Values ... if one happened to any number of groups, e.g., Non-white, female, LGBT.

Listen ... when someone negatively affected by your nostalgic fantasy tries to inform you that things weren't that great.

[bvar22]

142. I never suggested that things were GREAT.

Something else you just made up....you should be more careful with your Straw Men.
This was a blueptint...not pats on the back for accomplishments.
This was the DIRECTION for the Party of the Working Man.

Apparently, you carelessly missed this line from FDR's Economic Bill of Rights:

. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

This was a State of the Union Address.
It is also the first official reference I can find from the Democratic Party making Racial Equality a Value/Goal of the Democratic Party.

If YOU can find a statement such as the one above on Democratic Policy that pre-dates the one I have provided,
Please do so.

In fact, I CHALLENGE you to produce such a statement.

.
.
.

I'll wait.

[1StrongBlackMan]

152. Do any of the points in my #131 post ...

Apply to you ... in your estimation, of course?

If not, why are you arguing? We clearly are talking about a different set of people/behaviors, that for some reason you wish to claim ... while not claiming them.

[bvar22]

160. Respond the the CHALLENGE I posted above,

....and I will consider answering you question.

Apparently, you carelessly missed this line from FDR's Economic Bill of Rights:

" We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be [font size=3]established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed."[/font]


This was a State of the Union Address.
It is also the first official reference I can find from the Democratic Party making Racial Equality a Value/Goal of the Democratic Party.

If YOU can find a statement such as the one above on Democratic Policy that pre-dates the one I have provided,
Please do so.

In fact, I CHALLENGE you to produce such a statement.

I would think that the "1StrongBlackMan" would know when the Democratic Party established Racial Equality as a goal and a value.

Please proceed.

[JustAnotherGen]

155. Well said

There is something that I consistently vote against my own interests on - and that's why I'm a Democratic Party member. You wrote it twice in your post. And until such a time that occurs with a special tip of the hat of fairness towards women - "I'll cover you.". It's about having each others backs.

[1StrongBlackMan]

156. Look at the responses to my post ...

All I can say is ... is #NotAllProgressives taken?

I have(I think) clearly spelled out what/who I am speaking about and every chooses to ignore what I have written, in order to claim some victim status. So maybe, I should add:

"If you find yourself ignoring what is written in order to claim some victim status AND feel compelled to write a "Yup" post, critical of a logo (pretending to be some biased observer of events); then, you are the "progressives" that have no real political home ... at least, not in the Democratic Party.

[JustAnotherGen]

159. I noticed that

But you know what? I'll continue to 'cover them'.

If it makes you feel better - if you want to reach people who really are in need - and just need a break today . . .

Jennifer Meyer - Jewelry Designer - I follow her on Instagram as I collect her 'ear art'. Giving her a link at DU: http://jennifermeyer.com/

25Parks post on instagram and elsewhere (she's a store owner - high end who does these random acts of kindness drives): @25park on Instagram -



https://www.payitsquare.com/collect-page/53967

9 year old cancer patient in NYC, her mother and her 8 month old sister are on the verge of being homeless. 25 park is looking for a clean safe place for them to live.

Not being trite - but the reality is - you will feel a lot better if you give $10 to this woman than argue with people who only are out for themselves.

[madokie]

31. Many are

Even here many are

[Adrahil]

38. No, but some of the attacks are ridiculous...

Some of the attacks may as well come from Free Republic. Same BS talking points.

But ultimately, she has to be able to face that kind of pressure, and more importantly, she needs to not take the nomination for granted, so I say BRIG. IT. ON!

[Starry Messenger]

39. Criticism is fine.

It's the Vince Foster levels of batshit that some are indulging in that gets tedious.

[napi21]

40. Some here on DU do bash her.

Not saying that "just being a woman" is enough, but always dragging up things from 20 years ago, and calling her nothing but a corporate Dem!

It takes a WHOLE LOT MORE than being female to be a good President, but I honestly think she HAS a lot more than that.

Of course experience makes a big difference, and just as living with a Doctor doesn't make you a Dr, but you DO learn a lot more than the average person about the practice of medicine, she learned a lot from the 8 years when Bill was President.

Honestly, I've not only looked at all the candidates who have said they want to run, but others who've made an impression on me with their abilities. Is there someone else I would rather have as the lead Dem. on the ballot in nov. 2016. The only other person I can think of that would be on an equal footing with Hillary is Liz Warren. NOT because she's another woman, but because she's not afraid to speak up to the opposition and tell them they're FOS! But Liz repeatedly says she's NOT RUNNING! I believe her, and I must say, we need her in the Senate too!

I have ONE SINGLE ISSUE that will determine who I vote for in 2016. THEY MUST BE A DEMOCRAT! How many years have we heard "The SCOTUS' are getting OLD." Well, they ARE, and getting older with every year. I believe the President elected ibn 2016 will have the opportunity to nominate THREE and maybe FOUR Justices. I detest the Court now! Having another 3-4 Pubs put on the court would destroy the USA for the rest of my lifetime, and probably YOURS too! Please keep that im mind when you insist on a particular candidate for the Dems. It MUST be a candidate who can get not only Dem votes, but Indys & even some Pubbies.

[cui bono]

116. But she is a corporate Dem. It's not "bashing" to say so. That is about her policy stances

and political ties.

Anyone who votes for someone just because they belong to a certain party is part of the problem with this country. We've resigned ourselves to only vote for one of two people. One of two people that TPTB have chosen for us to choose between. That's just not good enough. The last 7 years have proven that. At a time when the country was ready for a real turn around, that momentum was squandered away, and I believe it was on purpose. If the Dems had really wanted to change things back to more of how they were before BushCo they would have tried to do so, but they didn't. Same old, same old, and in some cases worse than BushCo.

I don't know how we do it, but as long as voters are held hostage by the prospect/fear mongering of who gets to appoint people to SCOTUS - or until that time when the Dem Party has lost its way in Corporateland so far that it makes no difference any more - this country is just going to get worse and worse no matter what party is elected to office.

Even here in California, with Brown as Governor we have a huge fracking problem. WTF. If there's anywhere there should not be any fracking it's California.

I, for one, am sick of it and I'm not sure I will vote for president if Hillary is the nominee. Stating that one will vote for whoever the nominee is is more of a danger than not voting for the Dem nominee imo. It only gives TPTB no reason to provide us with anyone who is actually progressive on economic issues. Why should they? They know we will vote for one of their candidates anyway.

[napi21]

121. Not voting is the cowards way out.

So the Pubbie gets elected by a few votes because some Dems wanted to prove a point? Somehow that doesn't make any sense to me. If there is someone you really want to be our next President, then get a movement going to get that person to run! If enough others agree with you, they'll win the primary. And don't say you just want Liz Warren. She has repeatedly said NO! Pick someone else. But don't just abstain from voting just because you're not thrilled with the Dem candidate. At least, look at whoever the two candidates are, and pick one. Voting for the better of two bad is much better than not voting for anyhone.

[cui bono]

124. No, pretty much the opposite really.

It's not "proving a point" it's actually exercising true democracy. If a political party wants their candidate to get elected then they should run someone who speaks to the people.

I agree with what you say about get out and get someone to run, but in our system money trumps the people's will. We see that over and over again. Look at the legislation that gets put up for votes, look at the secret trade deals that go on behind the scenes (TPP). That wouldn't happen if the people were allowed to have a good candidate and they won't be allowed that until money is out of politics. But how does that happen when the people that need to vote it out are beholden to big money?

There's a survey that Thom Hartmann has been referencing lately and I wish I knew who conducted it since I haven't found it by searching... it shows that Americans are actually progressive based on what they say they want when it doesn't have a party label attached to it. Too bad we can't get candidates who will actually implement these things. Instead they continually chip away at them.

At some point it makes no sense to continue to vote for the lesser of two evils. Not sure I will do that this time around. I certainly will not state that I will vote for whoever the Dem candidate is because then where is the incentive for the Dem Party to put up someone who actually will fight for the people. It would be nonexistent since they know we will just take what we are given.

[bvar22]

132. I have a poll from 2005 that will support you.

Where is "The Center"?
Here is what the MAJORITY of Americans (Democrats AND Republicans) want from OUR government!

In recent polls by the Pew Research Group (2005!!!), the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives&quot .

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

8. Over 63% oppose the War on the Iraqi People.

9. 92% of ALL Americans support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445

I live in a Dark Red part of the South, and when entering political conversations with them, I immediately move away from Parties, and start talking about the issues of poeple Working for a Living, ,and The Poor. Nealy always ,the most hard hearted Republican will agree with me "on the issues".


Today's Democratic Party is TERRIBLE about Framing the Issues, Selling Democratic policy (The New Deal) its like they are embarrassed to say that the Working Poor and just plain poor deserve decent housing.
They are SO BAD at this, I 'm not convinced they believe it anymore.



[font color=firebrick][center]The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR. [/font][/center]

[cui bono]

143. Thanks for that info, it represents what Thom has been talking about lately.

And I agree. The Dem Party is so 'bad' at framing issues I no longer believe they aren't doing it on purpose. Good cop, bad cop. Sort of.

Time for a new party. Especially when people on DU say things like: "the left is all high and mighty holier than thou" and "progressives are 'welcome' in the party, but not to 'control' it". Seriously, that disdain for liberals is too much to bear anymore.

READY FOR A NEW PARTY!!!

[workinclasszero]

41. She can take the heat

Unlike that lightweight Rand Paul lol

I know the Republicans are running scared of her already.

Sean Handjob was just about hysterical on the radio the other day over Hillary. It was hilarious!

[leftofcool]

88. You bet they are scared, right out of their tightie whities!

[rock]

43. If you're referring to the some DUers

How do I know they're Democrats? I'm pretty sure a good portion of them are trolls.

[bvar22]

64. Are you trying to say that if a DU member doesn't support 1%Hillary,

....that there is a good chance they are a troll?
I would laugh, but that isn't funny.

How do we know YOU are a Democrat,
and not a 1% Republican in disguise?

[rock]

68. It doesn't matter what I am as I am not making any unjustified claims

Those DUers I refer to attack Hillary by name-calling and without any supporting evidence such as referring to her as "1%Hillary". I'm sure if you look around you can find some posters like that.

[gwheezie]

45. I expect it

Hillary has had decades of bashing. She can handle herself.

[McCamy Taylor]

47. How do you mean that question? When polled, Dems like Hillary.

It's the ones who post a lot that seem to dislike her the most. However, being a woman and the victim of a nonstop witch hunt for the last two and half decades from both the left and the right will only solidify her base---i.e. women. They see every attack on Clinton as proof that the nation needs Clinton in order to get over its misogyny. And no, I am not accusing any one poster of being sexist. But the women who love her will interpret every attack on her as sexism. Unfair, you say? You should be able to bash any person you like without being accused of being sexist? Sorry, we live in a sexist country where women are treated like dirt every day of their lives, so yes, we do get a bit defensive.

[brooklynite]

49. Well, DU members "bashing" Clinton are not "Democrats"...

...they're a subset of a subset of the Democratic Party. And no members of the Democratic Party (iun the real world) particularly care. Let 'em vent all they want.

[Rex]

57. Did you mean to put Democrats in quotes?

[brooklynite]

58. Yes, as Democrats are apparently defined in the OP

[Rex]

59. I C did not get that part of your post.

Thanks.

[pangaia]

51. I don't have a clue.

All I know is that she is a very intelligent, strong woman whom I suspect cares about human beings.
I don't know anything else about Hillary Clinton any more, if I ever did.

I met her once. She was shorter than I thought, but then I met her along with Eliot Spitzer, who was taller than I thought.
When I shook hands with Spitzer he looked at me and saw me. When I shook hands with Clinton, she looked right through me and on to the next. And that is ALL I know. Not much to go on, is it.

This is NO reflection at all on your post. (Louisville has a couple of great sushi bars, which is more than I can say for Rochester, NY.)

But I read so many conflicting things about Hillary Clinton. Poor woman. Who would ever want to run for president?

That's more nerve wracking than facing a 95 mile per hour fastball, which I have also done. I will tell you, the only way I knew where the pitch was, was by the sound..the most frightening sound I have ever heard.

[shebolleth]

55. Pundits + message board liberals don't equal Democrats nt

[Jim Lane]

60. Was Hillary "bashing" Obama in 2008 with the 3:00 a.m. phone call ad?

George H. W. Bush "bashed" Ronald Reagan in 1980 by charging (correctly) that his tax position amounted to voodoo economics. Then he joined his ticket.

I think it was Tip O'Neill who said, "Politics ain't beanbag."

[tavernier]

63. Yes.

Some real democrats, some pretend.

I understand why not all Dems wish her to be the candidate. I also understand why many pretend democrats mosey into DU from freeperville to express their opinions. I believe the underlying motive of these two groups is worlds apart, and I hope the undecided Dem can distinguish the difference.

[LWolf]

65. No.

HRC is facing opposition from those in the party whose vision she does not support. Just like every other primary candidate.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

72. +1

[L0oniX]

79. How can real Democrats stand with a money candidate? It's disgusting. The rich are destroying us.

Tell ya what ...I am done with this party if all we can come up with is a 1%'r.

[leftofcool]

89. I am going to break this to you gently

Warren is classified as a 1%er, so is Bernie Sanders. O'Malley has several million tucked away so he isn't poor and Jim Webb has quite a bit himself. There aren't many poor politicians.

[L0oniX]

90. Pffft what ever.

[Hekate]

84. Only at DU, where fear and loathing masquerade as trenchant analysis...

I like trenchant analysis myself, make no mistake about that, and am looking forward to a robust primary season.

[bvar22]

87. One member's criticism,

is another member's "bashing".

Those without an honest rebuttal always resort to the "bashing" defense.

[L0oniX]

92. I think they are shamed by having to bow to the rich to win elections. It's a sell out.

It might as well be souls that are being sold. I stand with the poor and the common person. I'd join any party that wants to fight against the rich and what the rich are doing to this country.

[bvar22]

140. I'm with you.

Do you remember back in the 80s when the League of Women Voters hosted REAL Presidential Debates?
Well, they pulled out, and this is why:

Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984. In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release:

"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

According to the LWV, they pulled out because "the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated 'behind closed doors' ... [with] 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation. Most objectionable to the League...were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings.... [including] control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates

"It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."---- League of Women Voters



Nuff Said.

[L0oniX]

149. Good info ...thanks.

[DonCoquixote]

93. some may bash, but many others

simply want Hillary to lean towards the left that she will need in order to win. Alison Grimes should have taught her that runnign from the base does not work.

[Chan790]

95. Yes, but not undeservedly so.

She's just not someone we should be supporting for President. I'd feel the same way if she wasn't a woman; my disdain for Hillary has nothing to do with her gender or biological sex and everything to do with her being a Wall St. lapdog who has never met a Democratic value she won't triangulate towards her conservative roots.

Her Democratic credentials and bona fides are suspect at best.

[Scuba]

108. +1

[Lil Missy]

98. 99% of the bashing I see is on DU. In the real world not so much. n/t

[Cheese Sandwich]

102. She should be bashed a lot more, for her record and her agenda of war against the working class.

I doubt any of the other Democratic candidates will have the guts to truly bash her like she deserves on these issues.

[cali]

104. I think it's sexist dog shit of the worst kind to hint or claim that Hillary is running "just as a

woman".

Fuck all the sexist dog shit that's being posted here about Hillary running only as a woman. And yeah, ken, that includes your op.

And you know I'm not a hillary supporter, but I'll be damned if I'm silent about this crap.

[Chan790]

109. No, it's not. It's really, factually not.

She is, at this point, solely running on being a female candidate. No positions, no agendas and intentionally obfuscating what she stands for at this point in her career or how she will govern. (and I'd have those same critiques of other potential candidates if they went as far to not be running on anything or avoiding laying out their vision. Before you say otherwise...they're not. Not Sanders or O'Malley or even Warren who isn't even running; only Hillary has been this committed to not even starting to lay out her vision, ideals and qualification of qualifications. (that is, "This is what I've done and this is why it would make me a great candidate and President.&quot )

Her "official" partisans, the one connected to the nascent campaign, when asked "why should we support her? She's a terrible candidate and her discernible values/positions are anti-progressive." answer to the singular (meaning there is no answer other than) about the "history-making of electing the first woman president." The wittier ones have adopted a jokey talking-point slogan of "A woman's place is in the House or the Senate or the White House." They have no better answer. That is running "just as a woman." That is, at this point, what she is doing. (If we want to be cuttingly precise...that is actually sexist and a lot more than Reich accusing her of running "just as a woman." Zenger Defense applies: the truth is an absolute shield against claims of slander.)

Hillary's partisans have such a problem with legitimate criticisms of Hillary (such as this one) because you realize those criticisms aren't actually sexist but conceding the truth of them cuts too close to the truth for her electability...the problem isn't that she's running "just as a woman" but that it's a poor cover for the reality that just like last time, she's endeavoring to run as a tabula rasa candidate because if Democrats and the general public actually knew what she supports and how she'd govern...they wouldn't vote for her.

[bvar22]

161. YAY....HIllary is a woman!!!!!

So is Kay Bailey Hutchison

.....so is Michele Bachmann

.....so is Sarah Palin

...so is mean Jean Schmidt



Being a "woman" is NOT criteria for deciding one's vote.

[krawhitham]

105. No more so than Obama has been bashed by Democrats the last 6-7 years

[davidpdx]

106. I think we should be criticizing her as much as Obama has been criticized the last 7 years

by people in his own party. The notion that anyone who disagrees with her is a Hillary Hater is bullshit. It is time for all DUers to call out those who say such bullshit and tell them to stop, even those who support Hillary Clinton. I won't hold my breath on that happening though.

[libodem]

117. I felt a shift today

I worked on my denial. I've had an uncomfortable impression that Hillary was inevitable somehow and we wouldn't have a choice. That it would be a coronation.

But maybe she is inevitable because she IS the best person to run, man or woman?

I'm certainly not hearing of many challengers.


Could be she is the best we have got?

And she is ours. And we'd all vote for her in the general. And I really respect her ability.

If it comes down to it I'll support Hillary all the way. And I seriously hope it is a glamorous coronation.

I think seeing Laura Bush on the Sunday talk shows taking credit for making the lives of Afghan women so much better because of the occupation quagmire and how we shouldn't leave made me sure which Dynasty I'm going with.

Not kidding. .

[PrefersaPension]

119. No, not bashing, just keeping the conversation real.

We have to keep our leader's feet to the fire and ask all the tough questions. We have to be curious enough to become policy wonks and not just buy into rhetoric.

This isn't the time to be cheerleaders; we need to be saavy citizens who elect real leaders for the people, not for the corporations.

[davsand]

123. Of COURSE Hilary is getting bashed. It's primary season.

I'd be seriously worried if the Dems were all so apathetic they nodded yes in a robotic fashion. The primary is where the issues get debated and the party platform is formulated. The Clintons have been down this path a few times over the years. I doubt there's much being said they are terribly surprised to hear.

Me, myself, I am with PDA in hoping to see Bernie run as a Dem. I think the party needs to hear what he has to say, and it all needs to be discussed. I will back whoever the ultimate nominee ends up being, but it'd sure be nice not to be nauseated by a corporate designed platform...


Laura

[orpupilofnature57]

127. Bashed, or called on her s-it ? Do you think the other side scrutinizes themselves ?

[chillfactor]

128. we Democrats due a very good of bashing our own...

keep it up and the GOP will be sitting in the White House.......

[gollygee]

130. I think it's bashing to say she's "just a woman"

When I hear that it takes more than just being a woman, I think it negates the experience she brings, and I do think that's bashing.

However, she does deserve criticism and I don't mind most. I haven't made up my mind about her. I'm waiting to see who else runs. I'd like a more progressive candidate. I'll see who runs, who seems to fit best with what I want, and who seems to have a good chance winning, and decide at that time.

[bvar22]

174. Gender has absolutely NO bearing on the ability to lead.

Remember:
*Kay Bailey Hutchison is a Woman

*Michele Bachmann is a Woman

*Sarah Palin is a Woman

*Mean Jean Schmidt is a woman.

*for the matter, warmonger Diane Feinstein is a Democratic Woman

I would prefer if gender is not an issue in the upcoming campaigns since it means absolutely nothing.

[Yo_Mama]

137. No - I think it's actually helpful to have differing points of view in the primary season.

People whose first choice isn't HRC should say so, and talk about why, and what they want in a candidate.

A vibrant primary season is the prerequisite for a winning campaign.

[DeSwiss]

147. Not nearly enough.

- But then I also realize most people in this country are asleep (denial).

Harsh maybe, but true.

[Maedhros]

154. The general population is kept in a state of political ignorance by design.

Makes them much more susceptible to talking-point politics and polemic advertising.

Meanwhile the minority that is politically aware is kept in a continual state of hyper-partisan outrage at The Other, so that they won't notice or care when their ostensible "champions" sell them out.

[bettyellen]

148. Mostly by Libertarians and a few young idealists who actually expect

Someone like Bernie to win. It would be awesome if he could, and I'd support him in the primary, but I guess I'm too pragmatic to have the unreal expectations some here have.

[JDPriestly]

153. In addition to vision, I want leadership.

Think about this.

In this video, Hillary Clinton stated that Bush was ruining the economy by fighting the War in Iraq while lowering taxes.

She was a freshman senator from the influential state of New York at the time. Of course, we all know that she backed the war. That's bad enough. She did not bother to do her own research or listen to the research of the Code Pink group before voting.

But there is another problem. Acknowledging as she did in the video that Bush was endangering our economy with his policies, did Hillary organize other Democratic senators to try to bargain with Bush and tell him that if he wanted the war, he had to raise the taxes to pay for it? Hillary demonstrated no leadership ability in that situation.

No. She did not.

Now think about Elizabeth Warren. A first-term senator. She came to Congress with a mission -- to help improve our economy by getting at least a slightly better order and better regulation of our financial sector, especially the "too big to fail" banks. She immediately began to organize other people in Congress behind her ideas. She was a fighter but flexible enough to get the votes. We got a consumer bureau among other changes. She didn't do it alone. She worked well with others. Elizabeth Warren proved herself to be a leader.

Of course, as Hillary predicted, George Bush's policies did serious harm to our economy. Hillary cannot help the fact that she did not lead in that situation and probably is not a good leader. It does not make her a bad person. I'm not a leader either. Most of us aren't.

But Elizabeth Warren is a natural born leader. In addition she is on the right side on many issues, on the side of the American people. The contest is not about one possible candidate being bad and the other good. It is about which of them is the strong leader. Elizabeth Warren, in my view, has proved that she is the strong leader. She is likable, strong, kind, and all said, just a leader. That's why I support her for president. And that is why I ignore all the statements that she won't run, that she doesn't want to run, etc. I don't think she should be allowed to make that choice. The nation needs her because she is a leader, is smart and has her heart in the right place. She represents American values. She is the candidate we should be supporting. She is the leader.

[Takket]

157. yeah Hillary is really being bashed by her party...

That's why she has a gigantic lead amongst potential 2016 democratic candidates...

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

[SidDithers]

158. After the last 2 days, I'm changing my vote to Yes, Fuck Yes....nt

Sid

[bvar22]

163. I don't believe you get a vote , Sid.

Aren't you a resident of Canada (with cradle to grave Universal Healthcare)?

How are you going to vote for Hillary with a "Fuck Yes" if you don't even live in the USA?
Have you EVER voted in a US election?

If not, why should anyone care WHO you are (not) going to vote for?

[SidDithers]

166. The vote was on the question "Is Hillary being bashed by Democrats?"...

And there's been lots of bashing here, by people who call themselves Democrats.

Sid

[bvar22]

167. I have very little concern for comments from the PeaNut Gallery...

....from people who don't have any skin in the game.

You can't vote,
and you don't have to live with the consequences.

Have a happy Summer.

[LanternWaste]

164. Some legitimate criticisms based on analysis,

There is some legitimate criticisms based on analysis, and there is some irrational bashing based on bumper stickers and meaningless platitudes.


"Is it "bashing" to say that it takes more than "just being a woman" to run for President?"
If no one has said, "it only a women to run for President" then yes... as it's assigning a premise to the opposition not actually made.

[fadedrose]

171. No

It's more the other way around.