The Arrogance of Entitlement: Hillary versus Republicans

[IdaBriggs]

I have spent too much time on DU today, and now I can't sleep. I watched the "Bernie Sanders and Bill Maher Interview" on YouTube earlier, and was struck by the pure class Bernie Sanders was displaying when it came to Hillary's Email Scandal. Bill invited him to comment, and Bernie deflected with "voters aren't interested in seeing us attack each other - they want us to talk about the things that matter to their lives: healthcare, education, housing, income inequality - and the ideas we have for fixing these problems." I'm paraphrasing, but it was just totally on target. And he talked about the dangers of Trump, and how he isn't sure how to discuss issues with a man who changes his mind four times in two days, and the host pointed out the media isn't holding him accountable...and it was just a lovely interview, that made me proud this man was running for President, and that I support him.

Then I came back to DU, and there were some threads asking why Bernie was willing to be interviewed by far right people, and I smiled, because Bernie went to Liberty University, and told them what he thought, and listened to their questions, and answered them. And when Black Lives Matter activists wanted to be heard, he listened to them, too, and he engaged in dialogue, and I think he learned some things from them, too. And that made me remember how, in the interview, Bernie talked about having friends and colleagues in the Senate who are Republicans who AREN'T CRAZY (like Trump is), and he spoke of them respectfully.

And all of these things were bubbling around, and I realize that Bernie is really interested in bringing people together; that he's done that his entire Congressional career by liking people on both sides of the aisle, finding out where they could work together for the greater good, and listening to them. People in Burlington (where he was Mayor) mention this about him: he listened to them about problems ranging from potholes to street lights, and then worked to solve the problems.

That is a rare skill.

Which brings me to his opposition, and a small epiphany about arrogance.

I think it can safely be said that the majority of average Republicans ACTIVELY DISLIKE Hillary Clinton. "Hating Hillary" is an actual industry that is profitable, and has been for (according to her supporters) over twenty-five years. Any critiscm of her in media has to be vetted because there are so many "banned" outlets who are deemed to therefore be untrustworthy due to the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" (tm), and even legitimate concerns are casually dismissed by her supporters as "simply the product of years of smears".

Ignoring the fact this creates a danger of ignoring actual issues, why would the Democratic Party pick someone who half the country hates? Yes, they "hate" President Obama, but the level of vitriol aimed at either Clinton is probably ten times higher.

So why subject half the country to a possible President who is so despised even before the first vote is cast, with the added bonus of "vote for her or the crazy guy destroys the world"?

There is an ARROGANCE to the idea that making half the country "bow to Hated Hillary" is acceptable, or will lesson the divisive nature of our politics or promote tolerance or mutual respect for "loyal opposition".

So, why was she picked? She is viewed more negatively than favorably, has zero policy stands to inspire, and unbelievable amounts of baggage, including an FBI investigation.

There were 193 Democratic members of the House, 47 sitting Senators and 21 Governors to pick from who don't make the Republicans want to grab their pitchforks. Why Hillary?

Why would the Democratic Party establishment run one of the most divisive figures in politics as the "best choice" for the Nation?

When Obama ran against McCain and Romney, I voted for him because I thought the way he wanted to solve problems was better for the country than his opponents. I believed Obama was going to look out for the voters, not the uber-rich, and I trusted him. I think he has done a fantastic job, and I want his successor to take things to the next level.

I don't trust Hillary on pretty much anything she says, and consider her to be a corrosive influence. Those are my opinions, but I keep getting back to why pick someone the other side hates?

Maybe the Democrats really want to keep losing power? What better way to destroy down ticket Dems than by inspiring turnout against a hated opponent?

Maybe the money folk think they can do more fundraising if they are a minority party?

I'm not sure, but I do not think it is respectful to any of us.

[grasswire]

1. some of us have been asking that for months now...

...and the polls support our contentions. Her honest and trustworthy number reported today is only 18 percent, nationally. Trump's is double that. She is simply sinking and the numbers will be devastating next week.

[senz]

6. Wow. 18%?

We need Bernie.

[Tavarious Jackson]

3. She was picked by the people not the party

it's called votes. Why do you dismiss the will of the people?

[IdaBriggs]

7. Because Math says differently: 261 to 2

As I said in my post:

"There were 193 Democratic members of the House, 47 sitting Senators and 21 Governors to pick from who don't make the Republicans want to grab their pitchforks. Why Hillary?"

With literally HUNDREDS of Democrats in leadership positions in Congress and a nice solid chunk with state wide Executive experience, only TWO - a former Governor from Maryland and an Indepent turned Democratic Senator from Vermont - even stepped forward to be considered, while Hillary (former 8 year Senator, former Secretary of State, and "inspirational speaker" by trade) opened the race with over 500 super delegate votes before the first debate.

That is NOT "the people" picking - that is rigging the process. We know this by pure evidence, because without the back room deals, a dozen Republicans threw their hats into the ring and battled it out. Their nominees might have been whackadoodles, but they actually represented the people of the Republican Party from the uber rich to the bad businessmen to the Ayn Rand fans to the religious lunatics.

Their field actually started with both men, women and multiple minorities. Meanwhile, the Democrats - the party that actually supports minorities and is currently led by an African American man - fielded three white people, with one of them being Jewish. No African Americans, no Latinos, no LGBT - apparently, in those areas we have not cultivated leadership?

And then the money: in AUGUST of 2015, still months before the first Democratic Primary debate on CNN on October 13, and the first Primaries in February, THIRTY-THREE state party chairs entered into a "Hillary for Victory" fundraising scheme that is no less than a money laundering scheme designed to circumvent election fundraising laws. You can read more about it here: http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/460762853/how-hillary-clinton-could-ask-a-single-donor-for-over-700-000 That is NOT the people deciding - that type of soft money game was responsible for corruption cases until it was made illegal, but the Supreme Court gutted those voter protections in 2014 and Hillary AND the DNC promptly took advantage of it, to the point where all of the reforms Obama put in place were reversed.

As for the debates: SIX were scheduled during this Primary, as opposed to FIFTEEN in 2004 and TWENTY-FIVE in 2008. Debates and the discussion analysis that follow provide an introduction for unknown candidates to introduce themselves to the American public. Hillary already had uber levels of name recognition to the non-political junkies as "former First Lady" while the other candidates were still struggling with only regional VIP status.

The people did NOT pick Hillary Clinton; she was PICKED for us. She is at best a default candidate, with polls consistently saying that given other Not-Crazy options, they want someone else.

So I go back to my original question: who arrogantly thought that putting one of the most divisive and disliked politicians up for President, and then saying "ha! ha!" to the Republican base, was going to be good for the country?

[bluethruandthru]

8. [phone] n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Because she thinks she is better than the people who picked her.

Isn't it obvious?

[jillan]

4. AND instead of discussing issues, Hillary handed Trump a silver platter with more ways to attack her

in the GE.

It is so infuriating that we have to deal with this.
It is so infuriating that we have such a flawed candidate that is now the front runner in the GE.

[senz]

5. Last night over in the Bernie group, someone said they thought

there might be a concerted effort to back a weak candidate, and I couldn't believe it. But your OP makes me wonder. If it's true, it's like TPTB are playing with the American people, essentially punking us.

The thought of that makes me so incredibly angry I could get behind an old-fashioned revolution to take the country back for the people.

[EndElectoral]

10. The email scandal's going to impact the polls, and this is an issue Bernie gave her a pass on.

It's all on her.

[loyalsister]

11. Romance?

I think it's possible that some Democrats have fallen in love with the idea of electing firsts.
A subtext of Obama's "hope and change" appeal was to renew "hope" by showing how far we have come, and to be a part of a historical "change."

I think the 2008 primary was largely about choosing which first we should elect. Obama captured the energy and imagination best. Now I see a lot of "first" chasers along with extreme loyalists. Part of the loyalty is built around the RW hate of the Clinton's. Sort of like, "if someone is hated by the RW as much as I hate the RW, then they deserve loyalty." That is also why claiming victim status is so effective in neutralizing questioning of ethics, or honesty.