Damning Hillary Clinton with Faint Praise

[MineralMan]

Is that going to be a thing during this campaign and after she is elected? I sure hope not. We saw a lot of that on DU before and during the Obama administration. Lots of the "Well, I support him, but..." and "Obama's OK on this, but..." posts during the 2008 campaign and steadily after he was elected.

Such stuff was characterized often as "Holding his feet to the fire," but that always smacked to me of a medieval torture technique that was actually in common use during the Inquisition for forcing confessions of some sort or another.

Such posts were always pretty common whenever President Obama had some sort of success with a progressive proposal. It was all in the "That's all well and good, but what about..." mode that attempted to diminish his accomplishments.

I'm beginning to see some of that as Hillary Clinton appears to be locking up her election in November. The better she does, the more we may hear about areas where some think she isn't promoting the "right things" strongly enough. I find it more than a little alarming in the midst of a campaign this close to the general election.

I think we all recognize this technique of minimization, but it's subtle enough to get past our filters sometimes and such posts tend to stand. It's not clearly seen as an attack, because it is prefaced with some positive statement, followed shortly by something seen as a negative. I've always found the strategy to be negative overall.

"Good but not good enough" is not how we get people elected and support them during a campaign, in my opinion. I wish there were less of this, frankly. I'm all for encouraging candidates to do better in meeting expectations, but I dislike the reference to a torture technique as a means of doing so. I prefer lobbying to burnt feet, frankly.

[NurseJackie]

1. I feel the same way ... only, you explained it much better than I could have.

[MineralMan]

4. It's been on my mind the past couple of days.

I don't want that pattern to become the norm here as it became for President Obama, culminating in some posts that were downright insulting in their vehemence and rancor. My goal is to move this country in a progressive direction. For me, anything that makes that more difficult or harms the chances of someone who can win an election and do good things is not of benefit to that goal.

[NurseJackie]

8. Another difficult thing is: If you say nothing, it becomes "the norm". But if someone calls it out…

... then they risk getting a jury-hide for "attacking" the poster. I suspect there are still some hard feelings and strongly held grudges. I fear that a lot of people who claim to support Hillary really don't. Adding the words "but I'm gonna vote for her" at the end of a post should not be allowed to shield and protect obvious smears.

[MineralMan]

12. Well, I try to say something when I see that strategy being used.

I always attempt to put it in terms that can't be interpreted as a direct attack, but that point out my reservations about what has been said.

You're right, too about the "I'm going to vote for her, but..." statements, which are all so common. They always seem to be attempts to skirt the line. Generally, the "I'm going to vote..." part is the only positive thing said. I find that more than a little specious when I encounter it.

The other thing I dislike is statements to the effect that "Hillary says that she'll do something, but I don't believe she will actually follow through..." What do we have with candidates other than what they say they intend to do? If a candidate lays out a plan and promotes it, I take that candidate at his or her word and expect that to happen. Why would I second guess the candidate and assume that that candidate is not telling the truth?

In reality, proposals often do not come to fruition, due to opposition by the other party. We've seen plenty of that in the past eight years. That doesn't mean that the proposal wasn't put forward and supported. It just means that the attempt failed for some reason. I don't think any elected official has ever managed to get everything done that was on that candidate's agenda.

Anyhow, I'm supporting Hillary Clinton and her plans. I'll continue to support her plans, even if they have difficulty getting accomplished. What else would I do?

[Demsrule86]

17. You are a treasure MM Thanks. nt

[Cary]

60. I second this nomination

[Demsrule86]

93. I like your posts as well.

You take on the concern folks...love that.

[Cary]

98. Thanks

I want Democrats to win. I believe in us.

[Demsrule86]

105. Me too.

I saw the price we paid in 10 for not having Obama's back...what is the point of that?

[Cary]

112. I have asked and I never get a coherent answer

They just get mad at me.

[Demsrule86]

122. The feet to the fire/concerned squad

are helpful only to Republicans. I saw how Obama was shredded even here and in the media...and why...did they not see the level of hatred and obstruction of the GOP? Obama has been a wonderful president...I sometimes think better than we deserved. He deserved the support that was withheld by those who have no clue about what is really possible...and believe in a magic presidency where the president snaps his fingers and it is done. You want a liberal president than give him Congress people.

[Cary]

127. Indeed

Focus. Keep our eye on the prize. It's so simple yet beyond the grasp of the concerned.

[Cary]

58. Ah, well ... you know ....

We have to play the cards we're dealt.

Fortunately we're holding a royal flush, so we just need to move forward without the nabobs and the flakes.

[sheshe2]

2. Agreed.

[AgadorSparticus]

3. I love your posts, Mineralman! So glad you are here.

You say what I see and think and you say it so well. Thank you!

[MineralMan]

6. You're very kind to say that.

Thank you. I'll keep posting, I promise.

[NastyRiffraff]

132. Glad to hear you'll keep posting, MM

I like your posts as well. You lay out your thoughts carefully so there can be no (rational) misunderstanding. This OP resonates with me because I've been thinking about the same thing. Trouble is, whenever we call out the concern trolls (hiya, Cary!) some people immediately whine that we're uncritically "worshiping" Hillary Clinton.

[ailsagirl]

11. Me too, MineralMan!!

[Hekate]

5. Here's a thing: HRC is raking in the Repub endorsements without giving an inch on her principles...

...or the Dem platform.

Take that, minimizers!

[MineralMan]

7. Yes. I see that as moving those moderate Republicans in

our direction. That, in my opinion, is a very worthy goal. Shifting opinions toward progressive goals should always be a priority for us, and electing Hillary Clinton is one good way to do that, I believe.

[yallerdawg]

9. After the last year and a half...

Last edited Mon Aug 15, 2016, 04:00 PM - Edit history (1)

it's very easy to be a little skeptical of intentions.

In our song of unity, discordant notes can be really jarring.

[Hortensis]

67. Discordant notes can be stimulating and enriching if

if the intent is positive.

The kind we're talking about, or at least I am, are actually meant to offend and undermine, a pretend concern or pretend suggestions for improvement that are really just vehicles for delivering a poison dart to the target. And it's no fun if the malicious intent is not fully understood.

[whatthehey]

10. It's inevitable. Would have happened to Sanders, Stein, Kucinich, Nader, Debs too

Nobody is pure enough for a purist. If we get universal health care with a strong public option, it will be terrible because it doesn't cover crystal therapy or homeopathy. If we get 3%+ GDP growth it will be terrible because the rich got richer. If we get 3% unemployment it will be terrible because not everybody has a perfect job with telecommuting and a flexible schedule. Since we probably won't get any of those things, it will be terrible because of something else, but we can guarantee many will think it terrible simply because it's not perfect in their eyes.

[MineralMan]

13. Yes. Perfection is always unattainable.

Progress isn't a one-step thing. It isn't a switch that can be turned on or off. It is a transitional thing. We make progress, but will never achieve a final goal, because more progress from any position is always possible. Progress is a process, not a fixed position.

[ananda]

14. If a leader deserves criticism or faint praise ...

... so be it.

Obama deserves severe criticism for the TPP.

He deserves praise for healthcare.

Hillary deserves criticism for her handling of emails
and the too close ties between state and the foundation...
and for her vote on the Iraq war.

[Demsrule86]

16. No She does not

She both deserves and needs support to be elected... you only help Trump otherwise. Emails are old news and are unimportant...unless you are rightwing and have nothing else....exactly how did she hurt you or anyone else by keeping her emails private? Did she not fill out her TPS report? Oh dear how...really unimportant. And I might add she was the only one not hacked.

[intersectionality]

38. This is an odd dismissal

Honestly this whole thread is about purity testing purity testers, and as such seems like a really bizarro world thread. People deserve criticism, and politicians deserve it especially. While the goal is to get Hillary elected, it shouldn't be to get Hillary elected at the expense of the electoral process. While you find nothing about the emails disturbing, it isn't just the right wing that finds them disturbing. Anyone who works in tech knows that these type of ignorant decisions are at the base ignorance that is the slow march to killing everything from government transparency (respond to the damn FOIA requests and stop delaying, please) to net neutrality (a hypothetical Senator saying 'I don't understand technology and thus the way these lobbyists are talking to me about it really makes more sense than the phrase "net neutrality" - besides, the bill they want me to push is called "internet freedom act" so what could go wrong?').

The crazy thing is, all these pieces that you don't want talked about are really the only pieces that Donald "literally Hitler" Trump can hold on to. When you dismiss them out of hand rather than making comparative statements about them (i.e. politicians, especially those who have never worked as tech developers or really in business for the past decade or so, are just generally ignorant about security in tech), you make it sound like there is something to hide. And that's where this thread really leads to - another purity test. She's not Jesus Christ, and failure to willingly address her decision-making without claiming it somehow nullifies my Democratic voting record for the past decade will make the discussions on this board less valuable.

[Demsrule86]

94. It is not odd at all

I saw Obama ripped to shreds on this very website actually, in the news and all sorts of left leaning organizations as well...and what happened, we lost Congress...I wonder had we had the presidents back instead of piling on with the right wing hate machine...what might have happened.I think we might have a public option and maybe some infrastructure spending...who knows? The sequester would not have happened either had we not lost Congress. Did losing Congress pull the president left...no, it never does...then a deal must be made with the devil (Republicans). We were very lucky that the GOP refused to work with Obama or we could have ended up with a bunch of rightie 'compromise's from hell. The idea of piling on your guy ...the old hold his feet to the fire meme....if he doesn't do everything you like...well then no more support for you...allows the GOP to advance their agenda and hurts progressives. It demoralizes voters and depresses the vote...especially in midterms.

[mcar]

19. He got loads of criticism on healthcare here

[MineralMan]

22. Healthcare? He managed to get something, but

was roundly damned for not getting single payer. Never mind that millions had new access to health insurance. Never mind that preexisting conditions could no longer prevent someone from getting insurance. Never mind any of that. Many called ACA a total failure and blamed President Obama, despite the impossibility of getting anything like single payer during his administration.

As for the TPP, it is not one of my major issues. Obama's for it. Others oppose it. It's not an area where I have that much expertise, really and, despite my intentions, I have not read the entire thing. Hillary opposes it. She's been clear about that on many occasions. As for her emails and foundation, I see nothing to condemn there. Her emails were not hacked and the foundation does tremendous good on a global basis.

I disagree with her vote on the Iraq War and she has been apologizing for that long-ago decision for a long time. She made that vote in a very difficult time, and was joined in it by many Democrats. She says it was a mistake. I've made mistakes, myself, and don't know anyone who hasn't. She wouldn't vote that way again in those circumstances. She has said that, too.

Look at what she is proposing on the Issues page of hillaryclinton.com. Look at that and tell me what you find wrong in it. That's the future. I look forward, not backward, frankly.

[Demsrule86]

100. And we lost the House as a result of not backing the president...pretty foolish

really...all we ever do with this constructive criticism is help republicans.

[MineralMan]

110. Yup...

Cut off our noses to spite our faces. I'll never understand why we keep doing that and giving Republicans a break.

[Demsrule86]

124. Exactly and some are just panting to attack our nominee...I don't get it. nt

[Florencenj2point0]

66. What is wrong

with the way she handled her email?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

86. and a clear absence of praise on her work at the childrens defense fund

or her role in creation of CHIP, or her making womens rights and LGBT rights a major focus as secretary of state, or her fight for ground zero worker etc.

Some of you are so patently transparent.

[bettyellen]

88. Same people are relentlessly bashing the idea of "safe spaces" in another thread

And it's transparent as FUCK it's because they are not allowed to bash HRC here. So college kids get the hate by proxy. It's just awesome.

[Demsrule86]

101. And what outocme does this righteous criticism or faint praise ensure? Perhaps I should say loss...

The answer is the House, the Senate and the presidency...because no president can ever be pure enough.

[CajunBlazer]

104. Do you expect a candidate to agree with you on every issue?

And what in the hell makes you think you are right on every issue? For instance, are you an expert on international trade so that you know that TTP is bad for the country, or are your beliefs based on what you have been told by others who are similarly ignorant of international trade agreement.

[uponit7771]

15. +1, "...I think we all recognize this technique of minimization..." while Bush can blow up worlds

... economies and the M$M act as if any other GOP candidate that has ideals like him are credible

[mcar]

18. "Attempts to diminish his accomplishments"

Exactly right! And all the OMG, Obamas going to cut SS or won't repeal DADT!!11 frenzies.

It also helped to depress midterm turnout, since PBO hadn't "done enough" or was "a disappointment." Makes my blood boil just thinking of it.

I certainly hope our Democrats get more support this time around, now and after inauguration.

[MineralMan]

23. Yes, and SS is still intact. I know, because I get a monthly deposit from it.

Not only is DADT gone, LGBT folks can marry who they want to marry nationwide, now. Those complaints about Obama were false, but were made constantly. It was depressing to mid-term turnout, as you say. That made matters worse and made progress even more difficult. Those things were untrue, and did harm.

I hope we learned from that.

[mcar]

26. I hope we learned, too

I don't know that I'll accept it as well if it does start again.

[MineralMan]

27. Well, I'm looking for ways I can object to posts that do that,

without crossing the line and getting posts hidden. I think that is always possible, and I will continue to work toward that goal.

[TheKentuckian]

72. False is a fucking lie, he made the damn proposal it is a open fact.

Cut the Orwellian bullshit trying to make the truth into a lie.

What depressed turnout was the proposal, the party took a huge hit on trust on Social Security.

I hope we learned something too, don't go snipe hunting for imaginary "middle" votes using Social Security as the bait.

Tell the good King Friday I said hello while you are in the Land of Make Believe.

[Saviolo]

20. It's important to not let "perfect" be the enemy of "good."

Because, let's be honest, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate.

Hillary is a good candidate, to be sure. Eminently capable and qualified for the job, and will certainly continue the progress made by Obama's 8 years after 8 years of Bush's disaster.

But by the same token, I have always felt that it's important for progressives to always strive for more. Progressive policy doesn't have an end-point. There's no time when we'll be able to say, "Yay! We did it! We're all done progressing!" So, there should always be a call for more progress, regardless of the candidate. There are young progressives right now who will trickle up through the system and eventually become strong progressive candidates that will drag the Overton Window further to the left, but they're not the end result, either. They're another step.

I've never felt that, because we like a candidate or their policies, that they should be immune from criticism, so long as those criticisms are valid. Some of the criticism aimed at Hillary is entirely spurious, obviously. Benghazi, Vince Foster, her email server, blah blah blah, old tired GOP "gotchya" false memes.

But criticism isn't treasonous. That, too, is a good old GOP meme, if you remember people saying that if you don't support Bush during 9/11's aftermath and the Iraq invasion that you were a traitor. The advent of "free speech zones," etc... If there's a valid criticism, then let's deal with it, not push it aside.

[MineralMan]

25. Yes. Progress is always a goal.

Progress is not a single point that can be reached. It is a process that leads to betterment. We cannot suddenly attain the final goal, because there is no final goal. There is always progress to be made. In any election, we can choose to continue to make progress to that goal, or we can choose not to.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton is the candidate who will continue progress. Once she is elected, we can continue to lobby for additional progress. If she is not elected, there's not much hope for that, is there?

[Saviolo]

29. Certainly,

But please allow for some people to support her without loving her. There's no question that Trump would be a complete disaster for women, POC, immigrants, the poor, LGBTQ, and the environment, and Hillary is the only choice for progress on all of those fronts. However, there are still going to be people who like her, agree with her clear qualifications, but don't love her.

And that's still okay, so long as they're supporting her.

[Florencenj2point0]

70. Understand that Hillary is not Obama

she is more progressive and always has been.

[Saviolo]

85. Which is why I said

I believe that with Hillary at the helm we will see continued progress.

Though that will also largely depend on Democrats getting out to vote on downticket races, and retaking congress. I don't know that Hillary will be able to get much more through a hostile Congress and Senate than Obama was able to. GOTV and turn that red to blue!

[LS_Editor]

21. Really? How can we move forward without people fighting?

This op is absurd, and encourages people to settle for things. Such bullshit.

[MineralMan]

24. I see. You make negative statements about my OP, but

show no evidence of your claims. "Absurd" and "bullshit" are not arguments. They are simply unsupported negative statements. You have the right to make those here, but if they are unsupported, I'm not going to assign any value to them.

What part of my OP is "absurd?" Be specific, so I can defend the OP.

Cooperation always produces more progress than fighting, and does it sooner.

I'm not encouraging "settling," in any way. I'm encouraging making the better choice. Either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be elected as President. We need to elect Hillary Clinton in November, along with a bunch of Senators and House members. That will take enthusiasm and a large turnout. I am encouraging that. I fail to see how that amounts to "bullshit," frankly.

[LS_Editor]

28. You equate criticism with a nefarious tactic meant to undermine Obama and Hillary

It reeks of the same blind adoration Republican supporters of Trump demand.

[MineralMan]

32. No, I do not. Again, your brief reply is devoid of

any content that identifies what part of my post you are addressing. Words are free on DU. You can use as many as you wish. I'm not going to respond to any more insulting, content-limited replies of that nature from you. Sorry.

[LS_Editor]

59. Yes. You certainly are sorry.

[Florencenj2point0]

71. there is a rule at dkos

DBAD don't be a dick. We should really have that one here so you'd stop or get banned.

[LS_Editor]

82. Swell idea.

[stupidicus]

36. yep, and his critique of that figure of speech is an indictment of BHO"s use of it, contradicting

the rest of the bs that accompanied it

[Demsrule86]

96. That is the point

It is not effective to undermine the president no matter if it is nefarious or not... and it does undermine Democrats...this allows the GOP advance their ideas, and we get screwed.You want to be allowed to do it here where we support Democrats...no I don't think it should be allowed.

[LS_Editor]

111. The thing I like most about you is that you're not the one who makes that decision.

Please make sure never to change that.

[Demsrule86]

123. Hey I just want to elect Democrats and advance the progressive agenda

I think attacking your guy is self-defeating and in the end only helps Republicans...it is why we have some of the worst of GOP policy today including United...all those attacks on Gore by the Greens and others...really helped Republicans...progressive policy...no so much. Had we supported Obama, things would be different also...what do you gain exactly?

[stupidicus]

33. well, he obviously supports everything she's done or will do

bookmark this post for future reference

[MineralMan]

35. The only thing I'm enamored of is the concept

of electing Democrats, rather than Republicans to legislative and executive offices. During campaign season, I find attacks on our Democratic general election candidates to be counter-productive of the goal of getting them elected and preventing the election of the Republicans running against them.

I argue against actions and statements that interfere with that goal. Do I agree in all ways with Clinton or any candidate? Of course not. I never have and never will. However, during general election campaign season, I stress the positive when discussing candidates I support. I tend to do that after they are elected, as well, since I find that to work better than attacking them.

However, I make a practice of communicating my disagreements with elected officials directly to them. Since I have been a supporter during campaigns, my communications are generally more often read than discarded. I try very hard to make my points in the ways that have the most chance for accomplishing my goals.

I have never found public attacks of those who have been elected to be of any use, whatsoever. Maybe that's just me. But I often make arguments directly to them for positions I think are better.

You do what you want. I'll do the same.

[stupidicus]

44. it is largely just you and those like you

who insist that everyone stay silent despite the consent that implies, because apparently you think the people you support and you simply aren't up to the task of rebutting the objections and/or concerns, or in the less flattering alternative the poster above suggested, you wish to put on appearances of what is tantamount to blind subservience rivaling that of trumpheads in lieu of addressing those objections and concerns.

Gee, how did HC resond to BS's criticisms? Oh that's right, she tried to blunt them by changing her pov, making herself more palatable/acceptable to the doubters. Given that, it seems to me that your proposal and way of doing things is counterproductive, resulting in far less votes in the end than your censorship could ever hope to.

THis is the same bs peddled the last election, and it is little more than an effort that gives life to a self-fulfilling prophecy and as a means of blaming those with objections and concerns for whatever losses that arise, as opposed to giving your censorship and tactics of like kind the role they deserve as the offputting, "you're either COMPLETELY with us or against us" bs that they are.

[KMOD]

41. If by censorship, you mean

the new DU terms of service, it will not be ending. The new rules will be enforced even after the elections have ended.

[Demsrule86]

99. This is a good thing...Greens and others come here and beat up on Democrats otherwise. nt

[G_j]

31. Why discuss issues?

DU is getting closer by the day to the simple cheerleading forum so many have been working for.
I wouldn't worry..

[MineralMan]

34. Is it? Well, during election campaigns, I freely admit to

being a cheerleader for Democrats. When Democrats are in power, we do better than when Republicans are. So, I cheer for Democrats who are running for office and against the Republicans they face on the ballot.

I do not apologize for that. I never will.

[saidsimplesimon]

37. MM, never complain,

never apologize? What follows is imo, yours is just as valid.

Some people exhibit traits of both forms of uncivil behaviour. I am also a "cheerleader" for progressives. I try, often fail, to engage my brain before writing. Writing on blogs is a hobby for me, electing real Progressives is a priority.

You need not apologize, the folks that matter take no offense at opposing views. If I have nothing positive to say about a Democrat, my lips are zipped (unless and until there is an ad hominem attack against other Democrats, my friends or family).

[G_j]

52. Actually, in my mind, there is nothing wrong with cheerleading

I just think there is more to interesting and constructive "discussion" than just that.

[Highway61]

103. Agree

You nailed that on the head front and center with that statement.

[lillypaddle]

43. Yeah, same ol' shit, different day

but from people like you, G_j. I remember back when I would be positive about Obama and I would be called a cheerleader. Eventually I took a break from here. And I see that nothing has much changed. Sad really.

[cali]

39. lol. MM obvious.

[MineralMan]

78. I love Carly Simon. Don't you?

She wrote some great lyrics.

[sheshe2]

84. ...

[Rex]

126. Nobody Does It Better?

Anticipation?

[MineralMan]

131. Hotcakes.

There are so many, really.

[geek tragedy]

40. Old concerned talking points: Hillary is a horrible candidate, might lose.

New concerned talking points: Hillary is winning too easily, won't be accountable to voters.

[lillypaddle]

42. Preach Brother! nt

[Martin Eden]

45. And so it continues, your campaign to stifle all dissent

Even after the election is won there shall be no criticism of the president, regardless of performance in office.

March in lockstep, blind loyalty required.

Got it.


I suggest we eliminate UNDERGROUND from the name of this web site, since we are going to be unquestioning conformists.

[MineralMan]

74. You'd need to make that suggestion to the owners of the site.

I'm not one of them. I'm just a member here. What I write is my opinion. You might disagree with that opinion, and you can do that here quite freely. Not my site. Not my rules. I don't have a discussion forum site. I couldn't deal with that at all. So, I come here, and let others deal with rules and such.

The name of the site has nothing to do with me. Take that up with the admins. That's my suggestion.

[Martin Eden]

79. I would certainly do that

If your ideas ever become actual rules here.

[MineralMan]

80. I doubt that will ever happen. The rules, however, that do exist

here let me post as I choose. You too. I like that very much.

[Martin Eden]

81. We both like to exercise freedom of expression

Though it's ironic the gist of your thread advises people not to do it.

[Demsrule86]

97. Write the president a letter...why don't you?

I choose policy gains over dissent everytime.

[Martin Eden]

109. Didn't realize that letter writing and discussing issues in a political forum ...

... were mutually exclusive.

[Demsrule86]

125. Attacks have nothing to do with discussion...and it only helps the GOP.

We can discuss whether a public option is politically possible or even desirable. I think it is possible if we get the House, and it is a good idea...but Obama was attacked mercilessly in 09 and 10 for not getting a public option which was unfair...and the lack of support gave the GOP the House...how was that really helpful? And it ended any chance of a progressive agenda...cutting off your nose to spite your face really.

[Martin Eden]

128. Attacks?

Not sure why you're talking about attacks. I haven't suggested attacking anyone.

[Demsrule86]

133. Those who don't like the rules would prefer that DU

not be an 'echo chamber' or so they have said. They want to post articles critical to Democrats.

[Martin Eden]

134. If DU was nothing more than an echo chamber

I wouldn't have stayed here 14+ years.

I'd have to see a specific article to have an opinion on it, but I will say that uncritical concurrence with everything our Democratic representatives say and do is the surest way to let our Party slide further into the pockets of corporate interests.

[Demsrule86]

135. After watching Obama savaged,

I can't say I agree with you. We can discuss issues without trashing Democrats.

[Martin Eden]

136. We can discuss issues and justly criticise politicians

... without unfairly "trashing" and "savaging" them. In your world, is there nothing between that and blind loyalty?

[Demsrule86]

137. I consider the DU policy we have now

the middle ground...discussion without savagery and name calling.

[Martin Eden]

138. Well then,

It turns out we agree after all.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

46. Your unbridled enthusiasm has always held me in awe, not

only when you're defending good people from bad people, but when you're fighting bad people in the name of good people, or helping both good and bad people to be better people, even when they are not appreciative enough to appreciate it, whether in the tiniest small things or in the dirty game of world diplomacy and International intrigue.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Obama actually TOLD people to hold his feet to the fire.

Those were his own words, IIRC.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

48. He meant that literally.

He didn't mean he wanted criticism.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. It's funny until you find out what burnt feet smell like.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

51. Luckily I'm 95 and lost my scents of smell long ago.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. I dont know if there's a saying "that smells like burnt feet", but there should be.

You know it's gotta be pretty bad.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

56. It does call up a rather not pleasant imagining to the sniffer.

[Demsrule86]

102. Yeah but I guess he meant in a reasonable way

not by losing the house and the Senate.

[Warren DeMontague]

114. your post doesn't make a whole ton of sense.

You're conflating apples and elephants.

My only suggestion about off-year turnout is that maybe our party should look to states where we beat the trend in years like 2014. For some reason, Oregon Democrats did just fine that year. Wonder why that was? Boy howdy, I can come up with a few salient reasons.

Also, the election of 2010 came after we had spent the better part of a year and our veto-proof majority doing almost nothing except dicking around with "town halls" which were totally useless to the process of passing health care reform, but allowed every jackass with a tricorner hat a chance to yell on C-SPAN.

[Demsrule86]

115. What I meant was I don't suppose Obama expected the awful

press from our side and complete lack of support...the result was the GOP House. What about 2010? WE never had a veto proof majority...not with Kennedy ill and Scott Brown arriving and we had conservadems who would not vote for a public option...so right now you are misleading people.

[Demsrule86]

116. And what was the result

of all "this feet to the fire nonsense" and anger over our so-called veto-proof majority which we never had. I get so angry when people say stuff like that because it is not true...and Nancy Pelosi sacrificed her majority to bring us health care and it has saved thousands of lives. SHE is my hero. You will get nothing better until you take the House and end the filibuster in the Senate. And our only chance to save the ACA and make improvements is to win big and take the presidency for sure and really the House. All of those who whine and cry because they can't get everything they want from Democrats give me a pain because we get nothing in the end when they hand the keys to the government to the GOP as was done in 10 and 14.

[Warren DeMontague]

119. We could have done a lot more with the mandate of the '08 election.

And if we didn't, then shouldn't we blame those "conservadems" you mention, and not.. whoever the target of this screed is?

I still haven't heard an explanation as to what the value in that year of "town halls" was. If the GOP gets the White House, a majority, and a mandate, are they going to piss around with "town halls" pretending to get input on flat taxes or abortion restrictions or censoring nekkid boobies on the internet? No, they'll just go ahead and do it, or try to.

And to get people to turn out in off-year elections, you need to inspire them... insult them, not so much.

[Demsrule86]

121. We never had a veto proof majority...and the day

Obama was inaugurated, the GOP planned to take him down...t is easy to say oh conservadems...no big deal...but the reality is different...that is the problem with the concerned ones...the feet to the fire crowd...they don't understand reality and what is possible. If we get some justices on SCOTUS, I will be pleased...anything else will be icing on the cake...it is not a 'screed as you call it bu a dose or reality...and I think the most important part of your post is who should we blame...does it really matter? We got the best deal we could and we better be prepared to fight like hell to keep what we have...and we have no chance of anything better unless we take the House.

[Warren DeMontague]

129. There's no "crowd". "Hold my feet to the fire" came from Obama himself. It's a direct quote.

And no, blaming is pointless, but if we're gonna do post-mortems of 2010 and 2014, then let's look at where the party did well and turnout beat the national average. Again, Oregon springs to mind.

Taking the House is a longshot, and that has more to do with Republican gerrymandering of districts than divisions within our own party. Although Trump is the gift that keeps on giving, so at this point, who knows. I would be ecstatic if it happened, but it's a long shot.

[wncHillsupport]

49. my response (can't get the hang of doing a title every time)

I came to this forum after reading some positive posts about Hillary on it and noting that members are unashamed members of the Democratic Party.

I can read all about perceived "flaws" in Hillary on any online newspaper or other political forum. I do not have any reservations about her. I know she is a human, but, by golly, I will take her over any imagined better one any day.
I don't support blind loyalty but I do appreciate posters who have lived in the world, observed how it works, and recognize there is no such thing as a perfect person and certainly not a perfect politician and don't expect one.

However, have you ever in your lifetime heard as many Democrats and Republicans express that a candidate is "the most qualified" or "certainly qualified" or "the most qualified ever" candidate for our Presidency? I don't think so. That means that, given her supposed imperfections, she is still head and shoulders above any other Pres candidate, ever. So why continue pointing out Republican talking points as if they make sense? The email thing is made up by Repubs and is ongoing and will follow her to her end. I prefer not to ride that train, especially given its other passengers.

[bluedye33139]

53. As long as they vote Democratic, I don't follow kvetching/purism

[SunSeeker]

55. You nailed it, MineralMan!

[DemocraticWing]

57. We live in a represenative democracy, and that includes activism to hold elected leaders accountable

II often find that it's attitudes like this that are deployed to suppress the voices of minorities. The LGBTQ community prominently pressured Obama in his first term, and that caused him to change his mind and take actions in ways that helped the community. Ultimately I think it made him a better and more popular President, absolutely contrary to what you are implying here. Things like Black Lives Matter, continued LGBTQ activism, the work done by working people and organized labor to organize for economic justice...these can and should continue under a Clinton administration.

Honestly the attitude displayed in your post sounds like what many Democrats told Civil Rights protesters and anti-war demonstrators in the 1960s. Criticizing the Johnson administration for moving too slow or outright bad decisions was "disloyal" or whatever.

We all know better than this. We are not democratic centralists, unafraid to criticize our leaders.

[Lucky Luciano]

62. Spot on. Every word. nt

[Martin Eden]

68. Very well said

[MineralMan]

75. I was one of those civil rights protesters, and

an anti-war protester, too. I was a strong critic of the Johnson administration. However, I campaigned for him, like I have campaigned for every Democratic presidential candidate since 1960. General election campaigns are about getting the nominee elected. That's the goal, because the alternative is the Republican nominee. It's a simple equation, really.

During the primaries, it's another thing, but those are over now. Now, we have a presidential general election to win, along with its long coattails. That was my original point and it remains my point in this thread. If someone is working against a Democratic win in November, then I question their judgment, and will always do so at this stage of the campaign.

[Lucky Luciano]

61. I agreed with a lot of the Obama criticism from his early days.

Now, with much more experience, he is so much better. He has to know it too. He started out trying to be reasonable with psychopaths you can't reason with and he didn't get as much as he could have if he just started with the assumption that republicans are psychos.

[KMOD]

69. Good grief.

[DemonGoddess]

64. Thank you!

Glad you're bringing this up!

[bonemachine]

65. "Good but not good enough"

How about "not good enough" but "apparently the best we can get"?

[Bill USA]

73. tight wire walkers make it look like they are struggling to keep their balance to thrill the crowd..

People kindof hold it against those who are so competent that they accomplish things without - enough - manifest effort.

[Bettie]

76. So, no discussion of issues

unless we can walk in lock-step with whatever we're told that day.

Got it.

After the election, is disagreement allowed? Or must be simply be silent?

Never mind, I know the answer. We must be silent.

[MineralMan]

77. I'm never silent. During general election campaigns, I'm all in

for the Democratic candidate. I have been since 1960, and will always be. After the election I return to a person who spends a heck of a lot of time writing to legislators and even Presidents with suggestions about what I think they should do. So, no, we shouldn't be silent. We should, however, not work against a Democratic victory in presidential elections. Some people are actively doing that, in their own subtle-seeming way. I oppose that. Hence the opening post in this thread. If you're not doing that, then I have no beef with you at all. If you are doing that, then I oppose that. Simple.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

83. "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

[Demsrule86]

106. You never answered my question...just wondering

Are you voting for Hillary?

[aikoaiko]

87. FWIW, HRC is a better choice than Donald Trump.

we need a cheerleader smiley.

[betsuni]

89. Yes, and I don't care for accusations that DUers aren't thinking critically,

are cheerleaders, worshipers, blind loyalists -- that doesn't fit at all: that describes Republicans who vote for any Republican, even Trump. Is that the new way of calling us conservatives/secret Republicans? It's stupid.

I was thinking, watching the Olympics, what lousy coaches the faint praisers and constant "constructive" criticizers would be. Every time an athlete improves their performance, there's the coach reminding them of the time they fell down six years ago during a competition. Bummer.

[KMOD]

95. Meh, you did ok Michael.

but you could've had even more medals if you tried harder in London.

[Saviolo]

113. I dunno...

I've been coached in sports before (fencing and curling), and even when I've done well in practices or tournaments, I still got constructive notes on my performance and what I could have done better. After winning bouts, I've had coaches tell me things that I could have improved on, because no performance is ever perfect.

If Phelps or Bolt didn't have coaches telling them what they could improve on constantly, they wouldn't improve. As I noted above, progress isn't striving towards an end point. There's not a point where you can say "Yay! We're all done progressing! We've progressed!" Just like every athlete can always find room for improvement until they reach their physical limitations (usually due to age).

[AllyCat]

90. So we cannot have anything but complete acceptance of her plans?

If we can't criticize our elected leaders, we are not a democracy.

[MineralMan]

92. She hasn't been elected as President yet.

Consider the alternative. Wholeheartedly supporting her candidacy is not "complete acceptance of her plans." It is supporting her candidacy in opposition to Donald Trump.

There will be plenty of time to criticize her plans, if you have criticisms, after the election and when we see what she tries to do.

There are two viable candidates for President. Choose one and help get that one elected.

[Demsrule86]

107. And I saw Obama trashed on this forum and others including the liberal press ...what's left of it.

early in his term...well we showed him right? And we lost the House and the Senate. What do you suppose the outcome would have been had we supported him...instead of joining with the right and finding fault...then sitting on our hands during the mid-terms...it is always a lose-lose proposition to attack your guy. The right loves the company...they got a bunch of goodies for our efforts. What did we get? A big nothing. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result makes little sense.

[Orsino]

91. Guilty.

I may not get over my problems with a Bilderberg candidate who once voted for war a d has been something of a hawk otherwise, but I have to accept that Clinton has worked with people at all levels for decades, and that she is remembered fondly and respectfully by those whose lives she has improved. It suggests to me that she is as gifted in her own way as have been the last two Democratic presidents, and will arrive in office with many more qualifications than either did.

I think she's a different sort of politician ftom what we've been used to, probably in part because she's a woman. We kind of need a hero in the Oval Office, and maybe her different approach is appropriate.

[Demsrule86]

108. I hope so...we need to accomplish something...if we don't get the House

this year or at some point...the courts are still important but the rest won't happen. But the courts allow us to stop the GOP from taking away progressive accomplishments...so that is something and maybe some reasonable gun control laws and maybe get rid of United. That would be an accomplishment. Also restoring voter rights and having justices that will end the gerrymander...there is a case heading to the Supremes.

[Enrique]

117. we should not be spin doctors

the Democrats have professionals doing that work, we should leave that to them. We should be normal citizens saying what we think.

[MineralMan]

118. And that's just what this normal citizen is doing.

Saying what I think. Everything I post that is not a quote from someone else is my opinion or a fact I know first hand.

You might not agree with my opinion. That's fine.

[Enrique]

120. not if you do what your OP suggests

which is to make all opinions about Hillary unqualifiedly positive.

[Demsrule86]

130. You saw what happened to Obama...do you think that helped us?

Once we lost the House any chance of progressive agenda was lost and then there is the human suffering that it caused...I can tell you for a fact more kids go to bed hungry at night because we lost the House...all this lofty rhetoric...and holding so and so accountable may not cost you much but it sure did cost the poor a great deal...consider what the GOP have done. Consider what we might have accomplished had we had the President's back. I see a selfishness in this sort of behavior...and a lack of concern for how it affects others. If we want to move the progressive agenda forward, we must have the president's back. And keep in mind that all progress has come from Democrats.