Dems want Hillary Clinton to leave spotlight

[Omaha Steve]

BY AMIE PARNES - 06/04/17 10:30 AM EDT

Democrats say they’d like Hillary Clinton to take a cue from former President Obama and step out of the spotlight.

They say her string of remarks explaining her stunning loss in November coupled with the public remarks blaming the Democratic National Committee for the defeat — which many took as also critical of Obama — are hurting the party and making the 2016 candidate look bitter.

The Hill interviewed more a dozen Democrats about Clinton’s remarks, including many staunch Clinton supporters and former aides.

They said they understood the need for Clinton to explain what happened in the election, and many also empathized with Clinton’s anger over former FBI Director James Comey’s handling of a probe into her private email server.

FULL story: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/336172-dems-want-hillary-clinton-to-leave-spotlight

[DURHAM D]

1. drivel

[Wounded Bear]

2. Which Dems?

Bullshit! If nothing else, she'll be a terrific fundraiser.

Didn't read the whole article, but I refuse to take advice from Repubs, especially when it doesn't make any sense.

[trueblue2007]

60. I refuse to take advice from Repubs. ME TOO. That article has to be put out by the GOP.

[sheshe2]

73. It was trashing Dems...

[brer cat]

68. The ones on JPR no doubt.

[That Guy 888]

83. The ones from the DNC that she just threw under the bus. n/t

[Volaris]

159. I concur.

[Botany]

3. Hillary has handled having the election stolen from her w/class and grace.

And yes she was right when she said that the information that the Russian stole from
her, the DNC, and county BOEs/Dem Parties would not have been able to be weaponized
without Republican help.

[trueblue2007]

63. remember: "NEVER THE LESS .... SHE PERSISTED"

[democratisphere]

4. SAYS WHO?

[dalton99a]

5. Bullshit. We need as many megaphones as we can get

[Demsrule86]

6. Drivel...sounds fake.

[SaschaHM]

7. Everyone get's to throw stones at the DNC... except HRC.

I'd like for these Dems to come into the spotlight so the 66 million that voted for HRC will know who not to support.

[hrmjustin]

11. Don't you just love who is now coming to the defence of the DNC now?

Anything to trash Hillary.

[JHan]

12. Those who are not HRC get to go on tours with the DNC

Even after dragging the DNC

[sheshe2]

74. this

[bettyellen]

77. It's not standard unless it's a double standard, LOL

[hrmjustin]

8. Oh the Hill again!

[a kennedy]

25. that's right, the hill.....I always just look for the reference to determine

if I even read the topic suggested. the Hill, ugh.

[hrmjustin]

26. The Hill always likes to trash Democrats.

[a kennedy]

27. That's why I love DU.....ya find out real quick what "sources" to put some

faith in.

[kimbutgar]

9. I like Hillary speaking out and showing a contrast of what a great states person sounds like

I'd like her to speak out more and criticize chump more. Whoever this Dem is, they're probably a rethug saying they are a Democrat.

[global1]

19. I'd Like Her To Speak Out More And Criticize The Repugs More....

yes Trump is out there being a very visible target - but our real target for the 2018 Midterms is not Trump. He will have two more years of his term after 2018.

It is the Repugs that are running - all over the country for seats in the House and the Senate. Those are the people that we and she should be targeting and criticizing. The Dems in general have to run a campaign in 2018 against those Repugs. It is only after we defeat those Repugs and take back the House and Senate - that we can effectively deal with Trump and cut him off at the knees.

It is imperative that we take back the House and Senate in 2018.

We can't make the same mistake and run the 2018 campaign against Trump like we did in 2016. That is what got the Repugs the triple win of the presidency, House and Senate and put us in this ineffectual position we're in today.

[Beartracks]

72. "It is imperative that we take back the House and Senate in 2018."

True. So true.

Dems everywhere need to tie every local and state Republican candidate with Trump and his regime's policies -- and the RESULTS of those policies. Explain it all and tie it like a noose around their necks.

==================

[Hortensis]

10. Huh? She's marching right up front with us.

Of course.

Only those who didn't vote for her, or even voted against her, know who they are. But they owe it to their planet, their nation, their people, their families, and their descendants who will inherit what they leave them to immediately become far wiser than they were last November. Slow learners should pick up their pace, please.

[Princess Turandot]

13. More than a dozen of them! OMG!

OMG!

[Lucinda]

23. +1

[bresue]

14. Which Dems...need sources

And since she has come back on the stage and been more vocal...I see a new self-power in Dems rise.

She has in no way hurt the party for advocating for a better economy, equal pay, lgbt rights, and ect.

She truly empowers me with her speeches...and after I have listened to her...I think yes, I can make a change even if it is little or small, in a way, I can make a difference. And I will never be disloyal, for she was fighting for me back in 90s for health insurance for all children!

[trueblue2007]

62. They can't use "no name sources"

They have to document. for every 12 Dems ..... I could find 150 who love Hillary.

[StevieM]

15. Hillary did not blame the DNC for her defeat. She was not including that as a reason for her loss.

She was simply discussing her experience during the race. But she did not say, or even imply, that they cost her the race. If anything, she was bragging about how good a job she did at building it up.

Her point was actually the exact opposite. She was saying that none of these factors were decisive. What turned the race upside down was Hurricane Comey.

[onecaliberal]

16. Reicht wing source.

[AngryAmish]

17. Fake News

[aikoaiko]

18. It is true that media was focused on Russia, Comey, Trump and his lackeys

HRC, the individual, was hardly ever mentioned which was helpful to gathering support to go after Trump and his people.

The Code Conference interview put the focus on HRC and how she is handling the loss of the election which I think hinders gathering support for going after Trump.

Also, I too am genuinely puzzled and disheartened by her statement that she inherited nothing from the Democratic Party and that none of her decisions cost her the election.

Of course HRC has a right to say what she wants, but there could be unintended and unfortunate consequences as I described above.

[delisen]

24. Just the opposite. You must have listened to a fake news version of the

"Code Conference."

[aikoaiko]

35. Are transcripts provided by the conference considered to be fake news by you?

Notice the link:
https://events.recode.net/events/code-conference-2017/

Here is a transcript:
https://www.recode.net/2017/5/31/15722218/hillary-clinton-code-conference-transcript-donald-trump-2016-russia-walt-mossberg-kara-swisher

About inheriting nothing from the Democratic Party:

Mossberg: How do you do it? How do we do it going forward?

Let me just do a comparison for you. I set up my campaign and we have our own data operation. I get the nomination. So I’m now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party.

Mossberg: What do you mean nothing?

I mean it was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency, its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it ...

Mossberg: This is the DNC you’re talking about.

About her decisions not costing her the election:

Swisher: Right, okay. [WM laughs]. What is it like now? How do you look at it now? Because it is used. Because you’re someone that’s got to know that a target’s on your back almost every ... You know, right now every bot in Russia is working their way with the last 20 seconds of things you said.

Yes, right. Well I hope we get into this because look, I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that’s not why I lost. So I think it’s important that we learn the real lessons from this last campaign because the forces that we are up against are not just interested in influencing our elections and our politics, they’re going after our economy and they’re going after our unity as a nation. So yes, back in ’98 — look, I have been watching this and have been, obviously, the target for a number of years. And what is hard for people to really — although now after the election there’s greater understanding — is that there are forces in our country — put the Russians to one side — who have been fighting rear-guard actions for as long as I’ve been alive, because my life coincided with the Civil Rights movement, with the Women’s Rights movement, with anti-war protesting, with the impeachment ... you know, the driving out of office because he was about to be impeached president ...

Are transcripts provided by the conference considered to be fake news by you?

[bigtree]

20. only one asked to stand down, shut up - a woman

...the woman who won more votes than anyone in history, except BO in 2008.

This is shameful and embarrassing for these neanderthals.

[dmr]

21. Bullshit! We don't just discard, or throw away each other

Nor do we throw one another under the bus.

Whatever, or whomever is spouting this idea needs to have their motives examined.

Last week I enjoyed watching and listening to Hillary speak. Last night I DVR'd C-span of her speaking about her upcoming books. I'm looking forward to watching it.

I tell you what, there are people/factions who negatively pounce on that woman no matter what she says or does. So when I see a headline that the Dems want her to go away, I see it for what it is: one of those negative pounces.

[delisen]

22. The same Dems who let McConnell keep the Russian interference secret?

I haven't heard any bitterness from Clinton. I heard analysis. I heard honesty. I heard resolve.

Clinton stayed out of the spotlight almost too long. We need leaders willing to tell the truth and not hide information from citizens so that only a small group with narrow analyses and self-interest determine the future of the party and the country.

The attempts to silence Clinton are a testimony to her power and the fear she continues to engender among the small thinkers in the US and the would be world dictator abroad.

Too many professional democrats maybe want to stand in the shadows and take potshots at the giants so they don't have to face facts about massive changes coming up.

We don't need trump-lite and we don't need to be singing the blues for the Democratic Party of yore or a mythic "working class" idealized by men in suits who are ready to make money off people they don't even mingle with on a daily basis.

People who who haven't been able to stop Scott Walker from taking over Wisconsin want to silence a strong national and international voice for justice?

Let the whisperers come out of the shadows and make their case. Clinton can take it and so can we.

In the meantime those of us who understand the enormity of what we are facing will be forging ahead.

[YCHDT]

28. NO ... we don't

[Pathwalker]

29. There are millions more of us than there are of them

who don't want her to go away. So, that dozen can just suck on that!

[Thinkingabout]

95. I agree, I voted for Hillary, I would vote for her again. She holds Democratic values,

this is more than I can say for lots of others who are trying to tell us who to support. Sounds like Russian propaganda.

[Beaverhausen]

30. not this Dem

She had the election stolen from her and she has a right to speak about it.

[cwydro]

96. Thank you.

This OP is from a bitter Bernie supporter and JPR regular.

Pfft.

[Hekate]

116. Yes it is

[delisen]

31. Clinton Persists despite some "Dems" attempt to silence her

ala the Mitch McConnell attempt to shut Elizabeth Warren up.

Watching "some Dems" morph into McConnell would be discouraging if it were not so ridiculously laughable.

[Mike Nelson]

32. Well... Somebody better...

...alert the media. She's Hillary Clinton. Her appearances will be covered. She's going to be in the spotlight until she dies. Get on to other business if that's disturbing.

[NCTraveler]

33. .

"The Hill interviewed more than a dozen Democrats".



Thank you for bringing this here. Ignorance at this level requires some hidden form of brilliance.

[sheshe2]

76. I know, right?

[Scurrilous]

34. Pffft.

[samnsara]

36. WE DO?????

[BeyondGeography]

37. Good. Hope she listens to them sooner rather than later.

From the article: "Advisers to Obama have said he wants to give a new generation of leaders room to grow."

We can litigate the election without Hillary. And Obama is right; new stars need to shine.

[seaglass]

43. Would you agree that the media should also tell Bernie to sit down and shut up? n/t

[BeyondGeography]

44. When it comes to the campaign, absolutely

No matter what HRC or Bernie has to say about that, it's too easy to cast it off as sour grapes. That's why defeated candidates traditionally hold their tongues.

[seaglass]

49. It would be unfortunate if Bernie had nothing further to say about the Russia investigation. I don't

want anyone to shut up about it, it is not trivia. Anyone who holds their tongue about it because of the way they might be perceived is a coward.

[BeyondGeography]

51. Since that didn't touch him directly, of course

With HRC, otoh, you could argue she does more harm than good by weighing in.

[seaglass]

67. Hmm she is on point with her discussions of Russian interference and I appreciate her insight. It's

not like she is a no-nothing pundit with little knowledge and lots of opinion. I think it's fair that she has the opportunity to do a post-mortem on her campaign as everyone else seems to freely express their opinions, some making money off their "insights" or using it for their own political gain.

The people who never supported Hillary will continue to dismiss her and her right to speak out. They can kindly fuck off.

[BeyondGeography]

71. Her comments are interesting

That doesn't make them particularly useful at the moment.

[Hekate]

115. So all our people with experience should fade away? Kerry, Howard Dean? How about Obama?

Are they all obsolete and passé?

Or is it just Hillary, a woman and a Clinton, two groups for whom there has always been a robust double standard?

[BeyondGeography]

118. What would you like her to do?

Dean has been a mostly effective surrogate, Kerry kept his seat in the Senate and was Obama's other SoS, now that's over. And Obama will play a supporting role as ex-President. They're all elder or not-so-elder statespeople at this point, including Hillary.

[Hekate]

120. Persist. Whatever SHE wants to do. Continue telling the truth about what happened....

I just now finished watching her interview with Cheryl Strayed on Book TV. Like her previous interviews and speeches, it was intelligent, rational, analytical, warm, and completely without self-pity.

Hillary is far more worried about the future of American democracy with Trump-Bannon-Putin in charge than she is concerned with nursing her personal feelings. Because of that concern, she will continue to speak about the assault on our democracy and how it took place and is still happening.

But because this is Hillary Clinton we're talking about, there are people more interested in questioning her motives and telling her to stfu, than in heeding what she has to say. For some reason or other this gets on my last nerve.

[ehrnst]

189. Persist. She is experienced, smart, tough, and inspirational.

Her org is getting the dollars I earmarked for the DNC, until they brought Sanders on board.

[skylucy]

38. What a crock. This Dem wants to hear from Hillary!

[mhw]

39. Must be from the "FAKE LEFT NEWS" crowd.

#14-grid1

[sheshe2]

78. Lol!

[QC]

40. Et tu, Al Franken?

Sen. Al Franken told Yahoo Global News Anchor Katie Couric Thursday that Hillary Clinton should “move on” from her failed presidential bid.

The Minnesota senator’s remarks come a day after Clinton told a tech conference she was unfairly targeted during the 2016 campaign, arguing the media paid more attention to her own personal scandals than reports of Russian interference in the election.

“I love Hillary. I think she is very prepared to be president of the United States … and I think she has a right to analyze what happened, but we do have to move on,” Franken said. “We have to move on by proving we are the party that cares about a lot of the people who voted for Donald Trump.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/franken-clinton-move-election-loss-211441232.html

[seaglass]

41. Oh the co-author of Shattered, no agenda there. LOL. The majority of the resistance has her back

and appreciates her speaking out. Say it loud Hillary.

[StevieM]

42. Oh Jeez. I didn't even realize that the writer of Shattered wrote that.

That book is a total disgrace. Completely dishonest journalism.

[spanone]

45. the writer of that article also wrote this piece of shit:

[MineralMan]

46. Which Dems? How was the sample selected, I wonder?

Some Democrats might feel that way, of course, but it's unlikely that most do. She did, after all, win the popular vote for President by about 3 million votes. I doubt those voters have changed their minds since the election.

[sheshe2]

47. Lol

Nope...

[bresue]

48. When Clinton starts bringing in the large fundrisers...

The DNC will all love her again.

[peggysue2]

50. Sick and tired

Of reading this meme--how Hillary Clinton should sit down and shut up. As her history would suggest, she's no quitter or shrinking violet. HRC has a voice and a platform after decades of public service, policy implementation and international experience. She recognizes the clear and present danger before us and the rippling effect of last year's election interference. Who better to speak to that but Clinton herself?

Kudos to HRC and her willingness to speak out. And persist, despite the criticism and howls. From Democrats, no less. Shame on them.

[sheshe2]

80. Brava, peggysue!

[peggysue2]

91. Thanks!

:0)

[vlyons]

52. Nonsense, not so!

I appreciate her remarks. Her critique of the loss is helpful, not hurtful. We should and can do better, but we need to learn from past mistakes.

[JHan]

58. It's the focus on personalities and the fact dems buy into it that is depressing as well

In that interview she gave she raised systemic and strategic issues dems should be obsessed with:

1) getting our data operations in order to counter the propaganda of Cambridge analytica - weaponizing our own AI. Where's the talk about that?

2) specifically targeting and talking about voter suppression till we're blue in the face

3) making gerrymandering a national crisis issue - it is killing democracy

4) grassroots activism to bring more of the Dem base into the fold of political power .

5) talking about citizens United and how it has facilitated the flow of dark money into conservative activism

It doesn't matter if we have the best message in the world if we can't counter the above effectively,

Yet, What is the hot take by numpties ? That Clinton should "go away".

[still_one]

54. For those unaware, Amie Parnes, who wrote this piece, is also the co-author of "Shattered", the tell

-all book which journalists have been using to justify their inept coverage of Hillary during the campaign.

Just another attempt by Parnes to sell her bullshit.


As for the article itself. Which "Dems" are those Amie? The article says more than 12. Maybe it is 12.5 Dems. They didn't ask me. If it was more than 100, I am sure they would have said "more than 100", and I am damn sure it wasn't even 50, and maybe not even 20, because there is no doubt in my mind the Hill or Amie Parnes would NOT have been shy about that. In fact are very precise when they say more than a dozen. It isn't DOZENS, but DOZEN. I think this is just another feeble attempt by our illustrious media to take another swipe at Hillary. They didn't get enough of it during her campaign, or for that matter during the nineties and before. Only thing that surprises me about this is the Hill and Ms. Parnes didn't add something about Vince Foster.

After all the abuse Hillary has had to put up with from the right, the left, and the media throughout the years, they want the "little woman to be quiet, and know her place".

They use the example of President Obama, "to step out of the spotlight", except obviously they have a selective attention span, because President Obama is NOT stepping out of the limelight.

[George II]

55. If you read the article, you'll see that they asked "more than a dozen" Democrats. Last I saw...

...there were about 30 million Democrats in the Country. Plus, the article only named two of that "more than a dozen".

Remember, the author of that article is also the author of the Clinton hit-book "Shattered".

It's not your headline, but that headline is patently false. "Dems" do NOT want Hillary Clinton to leave the spotlight, and she should dow whatever she wants.

[sheshe2]

84. Well...she shattered something

...and won the GE. She did.

[lunamagica]

56. No way! I want to see MORE of her!

[musette_sf]

57. wrong

[trueblue2007]

59. THIS IS A LIE. I want ALL OF OUR DEMOCRATS TO SPEAK UP. Hillary included.

[JTFrog]

61. No they don't.

I bet this bullshit narrative goes over better at JPR type sites.

Just sayin....

[sheshe2]

86. This

[Cha]

64. BS

[TheFrenchRazor]

65. IOW, dems prepare for another loss, by blaming hillary instead of doing something about election

rigging.

[mhw]

79. Dems aren't the ones telling her to shut up & go away.

The OP link is from a Hillary hater who just made a bundle of cash writing a RW approved hit piece on HRC.

And Here It Is posted on DU.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

66. At this very moment, I don't really care if she wants to walk it off

I'm not personally interested in anything she has to say, but I don't think she is harming anyone at the moment.

But if she is still at it as the midterms and primary season are upon us, I won't be impressed. Her ability to suck all the air out of the room prevented a better candidate from emerging in 2016. I would be similarly unamused if Bernie is still at it then.

[brer cat]

69. Why bring this RW garbage here

unless you just want to sow dissent?

[Omaha Steve]

81. Sow dissent?

Many people read The Hill.

The responses have done a great job of showing this was a hit piece. And those replies will come up in searches. Many uninformed individuals will get to hear the DU side of the story!!!!!

OS

[sheshe2]

87. Who are the dozen that said this?

And what is this suppose to mean??? Please explain your comment.

Quote...OS
>The responses have done a great job of showing this was a hit piece. And those replies will come up in searches. Many uninformed individuals will get to hear the DU side of the story!!!!! <

[Omaha Steve]

89. It was a hit piece on Hillary..I thought I made that obvious

Replies like the article author has had an agenda against Hillary for some time.

Like I said many people read The Hill. The Hill has a story that just left DU trending now: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029158174

Wouldn't you rather see people getting the DU info than at Free Republic a couple spots down in the search?

OS

Search results

[NastyRiffraff]

90. Thanks for the laugh, Steve

You posted a hit piece so...what? That it could be seen as a hit piece? Funny your OP didn't mention that.

Sheesh.

[Omaha Steve]

92. Did I need to?

And not get all the informative replies?

[NastyRiffraff]

93. Oh dear god

Stop it. Please for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, stop. Good grief.

[herding cats]

174. Just stop.

Yeah, you do.

For example; I posted an article by John Schindler once and made the point to qualify he writes for the Observer which is owned by Jared Kushner. It's just proper etiquette if you're trying to start a discussion and not trying to rile people who think differently than you do.

[Omaha Steve]

186. I voted for Hillary

You didn't?

[herding cats]

187. See? That's what I'm talking about, Steve.

I used to like you a lot, but you've changed.

[sheshe2]

94. Sorry Steve...

You posted with no comment and now say you did it to prove That the Hill OP was a hit piece and wanted for all the internet to see that it was ...because, DU comments or something?

It is 7pm my time you posted this at 11:45 AM and only now you come explain your post?

Sorry. Nope.

[Omaha Steve]

97. I answered a reply that asked me a direct question almost immediately

During dinner.

OS

[George II]

99. If that was your intent, why not say it in the OP?

[sheshe2]

108. Good Question...let me think for a moment...

Oh! Got it...but I ain't sayin'.

[Omaha Steve]

117. 3 & 1/2 years since I was diagnosed with dementia

I don't think on the same chessboard anymore. I'm bound to make mistakes at this point.

[Hekate]

121. You say that every time, which is why I resolutely avoid your posts. I broke my resolution...

...this time, but am glad to see how very many DUers are fighting back on behalf of Hillary. So it's all good, sorta.

[Bettie]

70. She was not my first choice, but she should not shut up or go away

We need her voice and the voices of each and every prominent Dem to keep hammering at what is happening.

Obama made a choice to be quiet, doesn't mean she has to make the same one.

[ismnotwasm]

75. .

[JHan]

82. I need to learn to laugh at this shit you know lol

I have a hunch Amie is doing her very best to defend the narrative of her book - any discussion of "other factors" unwelcome and uncomfortable.... Which is fine but I'm seeing it for what it is lol.

[mhw]

85. But but but..there was money to be made!!

Cha ching.. $$$$$$$$

[sheshe2]

88. The book is on sale at Amazon....

Blue light special....only $16.78 for a hardcover!

[ismnotwasm]

102. I'm a proud member of Pantsuit Nation

And the stories on there are the real deal. Real life, real progressives, and real change agents. We are about doing, and sharing stories and we are strong. Fuck the petty minded who have to squeeze the last buck out of Hillary disarragment syndrome.

I'm currently thinking about starting a 12 step program for it--step one "admitted we were wrong, period.

[JHan]

103. hahaha!

[sheshe2]

109. Sing it!

[NurseJackie]

98. LOL!

[Tatiana]

100. Sounds like Hillary's reappearance has some folks a little shaken.

I fully support her desire to speak out at this time regarding the political climate and the outrage we should all share regarding the traitorous actions of the current occupants of the WH. She had a birds' eye view regarding what happened. The information she shares is valuable to help us develop defenses (and offenses) for subsequent elections.

[LisaM]

101. Earlier, she was accused of hiding out.

This is utter bullshit, and by the way, Obama needs to be out rousing the troops, too. This is not about decorum or politics. The sane voices need to speak out.

[Blaukraut]

104. I welcome her voice, and every other good Democrat's voice.

What is it with the incessant need to create division between various Dem camps?

[sheshe2]

110. Excellent question, Blaukraut

Would love that answer myself.

[customerserviceguy]

105. No matter how you feel about her

she is sucking the oxygen out of the room for the future 2020 nominee. Right now, that's not crucial, but it could be after the midterms.

Also, a key to Trump's being able to cow the GOP House is his support among his voters. When he has Hillary as a live target, he wins with them, no matter what else is in the news. If she managed to make her speeches more about the future and less about him, she'd do us all a favor.

[delisen]

127. Lets gag our lead Dem, be cowed,& hope Trump can't rouse his base?

Hunker down democrats who need to cut off oxygen from other democrats in order to become candidates are not worth anything to begin with.

Trump-lite candidates and hair shirt wearing Dems who need a safe space in order to run aren't going to get us anywhere. If they want to be useful they can do some party building behind the scenes

Clinton is doing us a favor by by speaking out.

[customerserviceguy]

188. Well, we disagree

She's not our "lead Dem", that person needs to emerge from those who have a possibility of winning the next nomination. Unless you want a rematch of the last election...

Every second of media attention focused on her is one less second that the 2020 nominee has to get to that position, and then win the general election. Jimmy Carter taught us over four decades ago that the race to be President is not a sprint, it's a marathon. And I see coverage of Hillary as a hurdle for the good people who will vie to be our standard bearer a mere three years from now.

[populistdriven]

106. She will have to work very hard to get her ratings back up

It is eye opening to look at her historical ratings from 1992 to 2015
http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/

and then compare them to 2015 to 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/upshot/signs-of-hillary-clintons-troubles-in-charts.html

the russian e-warfare campaign pushed them far below anything she has ever recovered from

it would take something phenomenal but its possible. the biggest problem is the trump-russia investigation doesn't help (or hurt) her but it sucks away so much media attention and anything she does will inevitably get painted in reference to that and distract from new, worthy & positive things she does

[Hekate]

122. What the ever loving hell do "her ratings" have to do with anything? She's not running for office...

She doesn't give a damn about her "ratings" but she IS concerned about the future of American democracy. If you listen to what she says instead of what the tv bobbleheada say about what she says, you would know that.

[populistdriven]

192. If she isn't working on her ratings to run for something then she definitely needs to

avoid media attention for the time being.

Because it would be a distraction and with little to gain for her or anyone else other than the GOP.

I'd love to see her run again but want to see her reinvent her message which won't happen unless there is a year or so of quiescent politically-related media coverage of her.

[Hekate]

193. Aw, you're concerned about her. The little lady needs to shut up and sit down, is that it?

Every. Other. Losing. Presidential. Candidate. Known. To. Man. Speaks. Out. Incessently.

What's different about this one? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh, I've got it! Hillary is a woman!!! Special rules apply!

[populistdriven]

194. Not at all, just politically-related ie stuff related to her campaign, but instead

actively working & speaking again on the progressive Clinton Foundation stuff.

If she veers back into politics too soon, well I already stated my opinion about that.

[murielm99]

107. Nonsense.

Hillary has class. She was the best candidate ever to run for President.

I don't know any Democrats who want her to stay out of the spotlight. This is a smear and should not be on this website!

[musette_sf]

141. + 1

[Hekate]

111. Balderdash. Peggy Noonan wants Hillary to leave the spotlight.

People who endorse the special Clinton Rules want Hillary to STFU. Think about that. She won the effing vote by historically large margins, but some people want her to siddown, shuddup, and go the hell away.

Well, I for one, have her back. She's worked her butt off for me and the rest of us her entire life, and the least I can do is have her back when she's been beaten bloody by GOP thugs.

[JHan]

112. can't tell you the last time I read a peggy noonan article .

[Hekate]

114. My husband reads her in the Wall Street Journal

He finds her thought-provoking. I just find her provoking.

[Jakes Progress]

113. Bullshit.

More RT work being done on DU.

[Lil Missy]

119. Those "dems" can go piss up a rope. I seriously doubt they are REAL Democrats

They are likely same Hillary haters that hated her before election. I call bullshit

[DFW]

123. Wow, they interviewed MORE THAN A DOZEN Democrats?

According to Republican sources, that is close to a majority..............

[betsuni]

124. Title should be: "Thirteen anonymous people I talked to want Hillary Clinton to leave spotlight"

[oasis]

125. Hillary is free to take names and kick ass to her heart's content.

ImWithHer.

[sharedvalues]

128. A crock. Article in the Atlantic about HRC was just what we need.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/hillary-clinton-information-wars/528765/


Without Hillary we don't get that article.

[JHan]

137. One of the big things we should be talking about..

cambridge analytica isn't going away.

[Lunabell]

129. Flame me all you want

But we need new blood. New energy and not the same old corporate drivel.

[Adrahil]

130. "Corporate drivel"

Please go back to JPR.

[JHan]

135. ++++

[Lunabell]

140. This was really rude.

I have been a Democrat for over 30 years. My voice matters.

[Adrahil]

142. Mine too.

My response was in proportion to your post. Referring to someone like Hillary Clinton as "corporate drivel" is extremely disrespectful, IMO.

[Lunabell]

154. Yes and

telling me to go to JPR is like telling someone to leave the country if they don't like it. You were rude and condescending. After the primary, I fully and totally supported HRC because of many reasons and never once said a word against her.

But she and the DNC do not represent a truly progressive platform. We are living in a corporate oligarchy and if you don't see it you and others like you in the Democratic party will lose time and time again if you don't recognize this and deal with it.

[JTFrog]

163. No, it's like suggesting someone hang out with like minded negative people.

Not sure why that offends you so much. Were you never a member there?

[Adrahil]

175. If you think I crossed the line, alert it. NT

[Lunabell]

185. No

I'm not a butt hurt alert troll.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

181. I hear ya... I think it's time for some politicians to pass the baton & leave the stage to others...

The Clintons had a nice run, I'll give em that... but it's now time to learn from past mistakes and shine the spotlight on up and coming progressives to continue the movement that others have started. That's not a negative reflection on Bill and Hillary... it's just practical reality.

[Omaha Steve]

145. Or William's playroom

Think we forgot about that?

[Adrahil]

147. Well I certainly have....

At least I do not recall what you are referring to?

[JHan]

136. Know what? The jokes on all of us...

Thanks for the "neoliberal" "corporatist" and the other stupid memes:

[betsuni]

144. I LOVE THIS I WANT IT!

[YCHDT]

151. THIS !!!

[YCHDT]

149. Are you saying Clinton is Corporate Drivel ? Come out and say it, don't hide behind artful smears

[Lunabell]

155. She and the DNC represent corporate America.

Last edited Mon Jun 5, 2017, 09:00 PM - Edit history (1)

She does of course represent people in a social sense, but in an economic sense, she does not. We had to push her for a $15 minimum wage and she opposes single payer. In my opinion that isn't very progressive on economic issues.

[JHan]

157. She and the DNC do NOT represent "Corporate America"

I cannot believe people calling themselves Democrats are spewing this nonsense.

Which party wants to lower the corporate tax rate? which party wants to get rid of regulations - not even regulatory reform, but DEregulation?

Ideally the minimum wage should be between $20-25 dollars, adjusted for inflation. By your sterling logic anyone arguing for less represents "corporate America" because $15 doesn't cut it.

No one seriously argues that wages should not* increase, the difference is the rate at which wages increase via legislative fiat.

She had details on how to tackle wall street as well.

You're parroting a lie.

[Lunabell]

158. No

No lies.

[JHan]

160. lol.

carry on smartly.

[Lunabell]

162. Seriously?

Do you not have Google?

[JHan]

164. Yes, do you?

[Lunabell]

166. Yes

But you obviously don't know how to use it. HRC opposed single payer and $15 minimum wage.

[JHan]

169. and you ignored the points I raised.

And your spin is antagonistic. She argued for $12. As I said before ( in case you missed it) both 12$ and 15$ are not enough - it should be at 20-25$, using a two dollar difference as a bludgeoning point to further the nonsensical "corporatist" meme is absurd and misses the point. Her policies also factored in tax increases on the rich, she did not want to lower the corporate rate, and provided solid policies to ease the financial burden on families. Your argument is disingenuous.

The reason why wages are so low isn't because of the "DNC" , or Hillary Clinton. The DNC does not represent the party that resisted raising the minimum wage - the DNC does not represent the party that filibustered Obama's bills aimed at raising wages. The DNC does not represent the party that voted to repeal Obamacare 50 times, the DNC does not represent a party which refuses to raise taxes on the wealthy, the DNC does not represent the party that solely represents the interests of extractive industries and wants massive deregulation across the financial sector. The DNC does not represent the party that wants to slash the social safety net, the DNC does not represent the party that refuses to give aid to students for education or even give students preferred rates on their loans or help young famillies by granting them guaranteed paid family/medical leave.

You cannot be serious.

[Lunabell]

172. You can spin it how you want

But, HRC is synonymous with DNC.

[JHan]

173. what I pointed out to you is not "spin". What you did is "spin".

[JTFrog]

165. Alternative facts, lies, whatever you want to call it.

It's what you're peddling here.

[YCHDT]

180. Said RT ... you sure you're on the correct side of history with this thinking?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

183. How dare you speak the truth Lunabell!!...

Indeed, the progressive message will put Democrats back into power in this country... the movement has just begun to take hold. I have to believe we will learn from past mistakes and make appropriate adjustments going forward.

[NCTraveler]

131. I found the twelve "Democrats" they interviewed.

https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/hillary-is-back/

[George II]

138. .

[Gothmog]

132. I disagree strongly

[Orsino]

133. Republicans attempt rebranding every six months.

I get why some Dems want to try it...but to dump our second-most successful candidate would be to accept the "loser" label applied by President Von Clownstick.

If we aren't going to run Clinton again, we'd damned sure better be learning from her.

[OKNancy]

134. Amie Parnes same person who wrote that hit job book about

Hillary's campaign. She has an agenda.

[LexVegas]

139. "Dudes want Hillary Clinton to leave spotlight"

There, fixed it for ya.

[NCTraveler]

143. Transparent. Keeps rearing its ugly head.

Glad to see duers aren't biting. HA Goodman worthy.

[cwydro]

150. Yes.

Op needs to take this tripe back to his home on JPR.

[JTFrog]

168. Indeed.

[Freethinker65]

152. Not this Democrat. Having Hillary as knowledgeable elder stateswoman is invaluable.

[Motley13]

153. She had an interview, she answered questions, like why do you think you lost?

Obama is following protocol, not criticize the new, (can't say it, you know 45)

[Foamfollower]

156. FUCK THAT NOISE!!! NOT THIS DEM!!!!!

[JTFrog]

167. BETTER BELIEVE IT!1!11! nt

[herding cats]

170. I'm so sick and tired of all of this divisive bullshit

I'm also sick and tired of people acting like this is some sort of sporting event where they have to cheer their side on and make scores in the name of "winning" the game. It's not and we're all equally fucked and fucked over now. The sooner we figure this out the better, but people seem to think the "Resistance" means resisting reality and being divisive jerks.

As far as I'm concerned anyone who can't pull their heads out of their collective asses and see that we're ALL in a serious world of shit, and then work together to get out of it, is as bad as the Republicans covering for Trump because of their own personal agendas.

Not so BREAKING NEWS: We're all going to have to comprise and unite before this is over. If we're lucky we make it out of this with a minimal amount of civil rights savaged and human life lost due to Trump and his GOP cheerleaders, and only one SCOTUS replaced by the GOP. <---- Which will only happen if we can focus on our true enemy here! 2018 is a vital year for us, and frankly if I used articles like this as a metric as to how it's going to turnout for us, I'd just give up and move out of this country right now. Luckily I see this crap as the attempt to keep us divided and bickering amongst ourselves that it is.

[mvd]

171. At least in Shattered, I felt she and the other author..

tried to look at things from all sides. This article seems selective, generalizing because of a few. I am a Sanders guy, but I do not want her voice silenced. She should be the President and was exactly right about Trump. Her voice is appreciated.

[herding cats]

176. Thank you for your reasoned opinion.

Personally, I wish everyone would put all this divisive crap to bed and move on to what we're currently up against.

I've never seen such blatant hate being legitimized as what we're seeing right now from the RW. It's dangerous and terrifying.

[sfwriter]

177. I want her raising money for every Dem and cause nationwide...

If she's doing that, she gets the spotlight by default. She doesn't get one for losing to Donald Trump.

Also, being an epic fundraiser buys her enough goodwill to silence those calling for her silence.

She is great at working hard for causes she believes in.

[Jakes Progress]

178. Demi want RT and RW trolls to leave spotlight.

[chillfactor]

179. Hillary's voice needs to be heard...

good god...leave the lady alone.

[mountain grammy]

182. Personally, I'm fine with her speaking out.

She gets coverage. Democrats need coverage, especially women Democrats. Women need coverage. We need to be hearing all voices speaking out and speaking up. We're in danger here.

[cstanleytech]

184. I totally disagree. Sure she lost but that doesnt mean she should cower rather

I believe she should be up in front helping whoever we pick to run against Trump in the next election and to be a reminder to everyone that was stupid enough to vote for Trump over what we could have had as president had they had any common sense and then maybe they wont make the same stupid decision and will show some common sense in voting for a change.

[NCTraveler]

190. Thanks for kicking this.

So transparent.

[Blue_Tires]

191. Can't win for losing...

From December to February the left was all: "WHY IS HILLARY HIDING? WHAT'S SHE RUNNING FROM? WHY ISN'T SHE OUT FRONT AND CENTER TRYING TO LEAD THE PARTY? WHY IS SHE ASHAMED TO BE SEEN AFTER LOSING? WHY ISN'T SHE AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE RESISTANCE MOVEMENT? WHY HASN'T SHE APOLOGIZED FOR BEING THE WORST NOMINEE EVER AND RUNNING THE WORST CAMPAIGN EVER? WHY IS SHE SO SILENT ON THE GROWING LIST OF TRUMP SCANDALS, etc???!"

And since April it's all been: WHY WON'T HILLARY GO AWAY? THE PARTY CAN'T MOVE ON WITH ESTABLISHMENT LOSERS LIKE HER HOGGING THE SPOTLIGHT! HILLARY ONLY CARES ABOUT GROOMING CHELSEA FOR 2020! I HATE CHELSEA CLINTON EVEN WORSE THAN CHELSEA THE SOCCER TEAM! AND SHE'S SO CORRUPT! DID YOU KNOW SHE WAS CORRUPT? WHY IS HILLARY MEDDLING WITH THE DNC? WHY DOES HILLARY REFUSE TO DENY CHELSEA IS RUNNING IN 2020? WHY CAN'T THE CLINTON FAMILY STEP ASIDE AND LET SOMEONE ELSE HAVE A GO?? WHY DOES HILLARY REFUSE TO DENOUNCE SLAVERY?