2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRing of Fire Video about Hillary Clinton's Legacy As Secretary of State
Many do not wish to see it, I believe they mistakenly think "Ring of Fire" is a Right wing source, but it is not, it is a well known Progressive source. It references David Sirota, not a right winger.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Including in these times, z magazine, rolling stone, the nation, and Chomsky.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)R B Garr
(16,975 posts)corrected bullshit from Bernie's campaign. So much for your version of "facts". LOL.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)The Primary/purge season.
I only posted this because it was hidden as a right wing source when it was not by a bias jury.
I felt it deserved to be heard as Sirota is a solid liberal that generally backs up his work. And also because if there is a weakness here to be exploited during the GE by the GOP, I thought it best to be aired so that the combined efforts of the community could build a proper defense against any misinformation (if such misinformation exists) rather than waiting for the information to be aired by a Koch Bros. ad during the general election and being caught with our pants down.
Also, if there is no refuting this then it is a weakness to be considered when voting in the primary, after all, we want the eventual nominee to be elected, not defeated by scandal do we not?
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)And why would any so called "ally" waste their time trashing our side when the current Republican frontrunner is a racist xenophobic neo-nazi reality tv host with a dead squirell on his head?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Hillary's back like water off of a ducks back. They run this over and over because of the lack of good material on Sanders.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)We're gonna praise "progressives" for giving the rightwing free campaign fodder?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)One merely has to refute such things with facts and truth.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Propaganda.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)It would be better to "get it together now" and have it ready than it would be to try to throw it together last minute after a Koch ad during the GE.
So have at it, it is what is needed if you are sincere.
Speak the truth and get it out there!
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Her Presumptuousness does NOT get a free pass. Sorry, but not sorry.
Broward
(1,976 posts)If it's Hillary v. Cruz, he'll pound her on her support for the Iraq War and it's connection to ISIS. Just another reason to seriously question her electability. She may end up losing two elections because of that craven vote.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)He's totally winning Iowa, if polls are to be believed:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141288003
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Iowa does not have a history of picking the nominee.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)We must know the good about our Democratic contenders of course, but we also must know about the bad, because they are a weakness for our side in the GE.
Sunlight does not harm that which has nothing to hide in the shadows, the eventual candidate will have a spotlight on him/her in the general. We should be prepared with foreknowledge to defend our eventual nominee when the time comes. If there is no "there" there, it is time to do the research to prove it, not hide things that the right will use against us while our pants are caught down around our ankles due to our not knowing about things until they spring them on us.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)It gives the fringe a warm feeling but no one else cares.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)And what about this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251896408
Urinals shaped and painted as women's mouths, really?
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)self-centered [self-sen-terd]
adjective
1.concerned solely or chiefly with one's own interests, welfare, etc.; engrossed in self; selfish; egotistical.
2.independent, self-sufficient.
3.centered in oneself or itself.
4.Archaic. fixed; unchanging.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)work for the Clinton Campaign? Of course there are.
Note: that would be paid Clinton workers is what I was referring to.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)I think it was about 15 years ago that Sirota worked for Sanders as press secretary, but that may not be entirely accurate.
Symone Sanders is Sen. Sanders current press secretary.
To my knowledge, David Sirota is not now employed by Sen. Sanders in any capacity.
If you have a source which proves me wrong please post a link and I will gladly self delete this post.
Thank you.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You posted a link to Stormfront which is a neo-Nazi hate group just to smear Bernie so honestly your hypocrisy is just staggering.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)But, even so, he's not known as some sort of muckraker. He's a consistent liberal journalist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sirota
99Forever
(14,524 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Another creation of the fringe.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)and joining them to create youtube video.
It is too bad that Bernie can't get traction on his own so his fringe has to try to cut down Hillary to have any chance at all.
I feel pity for the fringe -- but not too much.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Prepare yourself and your candidate for the GE.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)All the detractors will be long forgotten after super tuesday.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Hillary will have two major weapons ..... Bill Clinton (who can persuade an eskimo to buy a freezer) and money. Republicans won't be able to bury Hillary with attack ads and they'll have to be careful to not piss off republican women.
It is a BIG deal to have a woman president and about 10% of republican women will vote for Hillary. Women have been the workhorse of America since inception, getting very little credit, constantly relegated to second class citizenship, not getting equal pay and have their bodies controlled by fundies.
If you don't get how big of a deal it is, ask. I am all in for Hillary for my daughter and future grand-daughters. They shouldn't have to live like women of the past whose struggles were harsh with little credit.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Without character however, the victory will be more hollow than you might think right now. Scandals that can not be disproved can often derail a candidate in an election, you should at least be prepared with a defense against any and all scandals if you truly wish to support a remarkable woman that happens to also be flawed in some respects.
thesquanderer
(11,991 posts)...based on on whether we have a woman elected president next year. As long as we don't elect a Republican!
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)had to cancel some of them.
And the Clinton Foundation did not exist, or the SOS debacle and a few other things. Times change. There are more answers than "meh" and she's a woman, thus...
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)She lost to the Republican in the general election by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, after he had campaigned for her.
Omaha Steve
(99,710 posts)Who won New Hampshire in 08? Current NH numbers below. Do I smell something Berning?
New Hampshire remains a Sanders stronghold: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/politics/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-poll/index.html
By Jennifer Agiesta, CNN Polling Director
Updated 12:38 PM ET, Thu December 10, 2015 | Video Source: CNN
Washington (CNN)Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders continues to hold a lead over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, the state set to host the nation's first primary next February.
The latest CNN/WMUR poll of New Hampshire's likely Democratic primary voters tells a different story than that of national and Iowa polling, where Clinton holds double-digit leads.
The poll finds 50% of likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire back Sanders, 40% Clinton, 1% former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley.
This New Hampshire poll does show a narrower margin for Sanders, however, with the Democratic field trimmed to just three candidates. Clinton has gained 10 points since September, when Vice President Joe Biden took 14% of the vote in the last CNN/WMUR Poll. Over that same time, Sanders has gained 4 points.
FULL story at link.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)There are many Bernie supporters and they want their candidate to win with a positive message.
It is the 3-5% extreme left, realizing that Bernie cannot win with just positive message of his one issue (which I have no quarrel with and is a very cogent and valid issue), are going on a warpath trying to destroy Hillary Clinton with smears, rumors, speculations and right-wing talking points.
You'd agree that Bernie probably has some 3,000 supporters on DU who post regularly. If you counted the purposeful "attack Hillary" posts, they come from no more than 15 people who sometimes post as many as 50 OPs a day trying to cut down and destroy Hillary by vilifying and demonizing her.
This fringe is very divisive and unlike a vast majority of respectable democrats who support Bernie, they don't really care if democrats lose the GE because of their antics.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... I don't see what the attraction is.
Ino
(3,366 posts)RandySF
(59,224 posts)Has its share of batshit conspiracy theorists.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Or maybe you'd care to point out exactly what part of Mr. Sirota's article or the
ROF report is untrue.
Accusing ROF of 'batshit conspiracy" theories is a pretty empty gesture unless you
can be a bit more specific, and tell us what exactly you think is so untrue about it.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)and sometimes it's hard to tell them apart.
Sid
daleanime
(17,796 posts)don't you want to know why?
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)I doubt it.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)we could all use hatred like that.
Response to SidDithers (Reply #35)
Broward This message was self-deleted by its author.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)This story needs to go viral. Dismiss it if you like, but it demonstrates just how rotten to the core the Clintons are.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)chknltl
(10,558 posts)Mike Papantonio(sp?) has stated on many occaisions that he is not a Democrat that he is instead an Independent. (sorry for not posting link, am on cell phone with dieing battery)
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)chknltl
(10,558 posts)...that is not what i have heard him call himself.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)and his POV is clearly progressive. Also, what of Sirota? I am all ears.
chknltl
(10,558 posts)I admire your work and recognize that in any debate I would be horribly outmatched anyway. I listen in often to Ring Of Fire. When Mike Papantonio(sp?-now I am being lazy because I am at home on my computer), described himself politically his definition distinctly caught my attention. He almost sounded angry when he made the claim that he was not a Democrat-that he was instead an Independent. Now barring definitions of the Political description 'Progressive', I would agree with you that Mike is every bit the Progressive you say he is but the problem I am having is the fact that most of us ARE 'barring definitions' when it comes to the word Progressive. I swear my intention is not to be a nit-picker but how would we describe Pap-is he a Bernie Sanders Progressive or a Teddy Roosevelt Progressive or would he not even describe himself as a Progressive at all? The fact that he describes himself as an Independent works for me, I'm more OK with calling him what he calls himself than calling him something I think he is.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)has been trying to co-opt the word for their rather regressive economic values based on some of their moderately progressive social values.
I should find a better word, I could use liberal, but the same problem is contained in that word as well, neo-liberalism favors the privatization of the commons and most of the good things that government had been doing post FDR. They also believe strongly in globalization to reach a level playing field, they would say it is to bring standards up globally, but by all evidence thus far it results instead in a race to the bottom where all workers lose for the betterment of the Oligarchs. The DLC types are neo-liberals but describe themselves as liberal.
I wish we had better words. If it helps I use a definition like this when I use Progressive:
(of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
"a relatively progressive governor"
An attempt to progress the society in a positive way, not just for the few, but for the majority, so when I use the word, that is the way I use it.
When i say Papantonio appears to me to be a progressive, it is using that definition, that being said, it is only my impression, you of course may have your own and you should follow your own instincts.
My thought was (an inexcusably defensive one) that you were , like many on this site, attempting to imply, or paint the source as libertarian, somehow right wing, or with an agenda unfavorable to the party and to the (excuse the word) progressives that listen to him. I no longer think that was or is your intention, I am glad you responded to me.
Edited to add: Many journalists like to maintain their independence from any political party, at least where it concerns their work. Nadin does so as well, it would seem a natural reaction to me for a journalist to be forceful in expressing such independence, if they did not, they would lose all credibility as an objective observer and reporter. That may account for his forceful tone, someone may have been trying to brand him as impartial because "Democrat", he would be a fool to allow that to happen.
chknltl
(10,558 posts)I have been calling myself one since shortly after the Republicans destroyed the word 'Liberal' but until I read through this thread I never truly stopped to ask myself what my definition was. I have my personal core values and I've simply assumed that they were Progressive but do those values actually match up? Furthermore, I strongly suspect if one were to canvas our fellow DUers for a definition, (without looking one up), I wonder how varied and diverse a response would we get? I haven't looked a definition up yet so here would be mine: Strong belief in the power of the citizenry exercised through democratic process or put simply: Democracy. Strong belief in equality coupled with fair and honest use of rules, regulations and laws.
Basically I believe in the power of the citizenry as being the final arbiter and furthermore I believe in the human collective as being a powerful force looking out for it's own good and arguably reaching for it's own betterment. I feel that even though we may stumble along the way, over time we will move forward. If that makes me a Progressive then I am proud to call myself one.
When I discuss politics with my Conservative friends I always first ask them: What group of humans would you have holding a higher power over our democracy than We The People? It has been my experience that they more than anyone else do not want to give up the power of the people as being the final arbiter. Basically many of these guys arrive at that conclusion from a selfish position which goes something like: 'I don't need anyone telling me how to run my life' but then they extend it further to: 'We don't need anyone telling us how to run our country'. In the end, for whatever reason, I believe that the majority of the people in our country believe in the power of the majority of the people or put simply, they believe in the concept of democracy. I do too.
It is my feeling that We The People have had a long running battle with our economic model, capitalism. Currently that economic model holds one hell of a lot of power over our democracy, everyone here at DU knows this. The trick that needs accomplishing is to get that bit out to the electorate, much of which is in the dark or propagandized into believing the problem to be elsewhere. Once the electorate figures out what the problem is, it is possible for us to fix it and move forward.
Sadly it isn't so easy. So let me add to my own definition of what it means to be a Progressive today: A strong need to educate those within the electorate who don't see how they give up their and our power of the people to our economic model capitalism.
I have at least one further core value that I would add when it comes to educating the electorate and that would be to show them that we are all in the same foxhole together, that if we are to survive we MUST stop shooting at each other. Our economic model capitalism finds it quite profitable to keep us at each other's throats! I don't see how the citizenry can gain control over it while so distracted.
Sorry for the rant but I wanted to let you see what madness I have whirling around my head. I am not sure if our economic model will win out or if we can regain control over it. I trust in Bernie Sanders to give it his best shot for the citizenry and by extension for the planet. I do not trust those mired in our economic model to do much more than it's bidding. Maybe I am a Progressive, I dunno, I laid out my core values and the way I see things, you can call me what you like. I just want our democracy running things again, that's what I'm for.
btw, thank you for figuring out for me why Pap called himself an Independent. What you say makes good sense....(which is why I pay attention to your OPs)
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)tea and oranges
(396 posts)When I first came across this information about 5 months ago I wondered why GOP wasn't all over it.
Is it that they don't know (yet) or are they saving it for the GE. In case of the latter, Benghazi was perhaps to prime the pump?
How does a couple who self-described as broke when they left the WH become so wealthy in such a short time? OK, books, they sold a shit load of books. That's part of it.
But someone needs to explain to me real slow so I can understand how anything one human has to say to a group of humans in an hour or less that has nothing to do w/ results of research or breakthroughs in a relevant field that hasn't yet been released, can be worth such exorbitant speaking fees. Even if that person is an ex-president.
To think that Ring of Fire is right wing would make one so far to the left that they'd be right wing. Or something.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)You can be damn sure the GOP is going to have binder full of this stuff. Do you Really think Fox News is going to bury this corruption should she be the nominee (highly unlikely she will be), like her Corporate Owners, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC, do for her now?
Fox news will have this stuff on a loop, 24/7. Welcome The Insane Donald to the WH, if HRH is the nominee. Guaraneffingtee it.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Fox is well aware of this and will let it ride till if and when the fools of the Democratic Party have locked Clinton into the nomination. They WANT her to run against, it's the only way they stand a chance.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Another Hillary hit piece, they'll say.
Oh, this is just coincidental, they'll say.
It's not what it seems, there's a perfectly legitimate explanation, they'll say.
Looks more like pure cronyism to me.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)candidate, than in the GE.
A lot of it unfair, but this one is out there. They are already things the Rs already know and will use. Whitewater pales in comparison. The FBI is back on the Email issue. Even Benghazi. Primaries should be rousting out the flaws of all candidates. There is no sacred protection unless we will it to be outed in the GE.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)to have their defenses ready now, hopefully damn good ones before it is too late and this and God knows what else comes out during the GE. If they wait until it comes out in a Koch brothers ad with evil music and national play, any defense will come off as defensive and inadequate as well as hastily thrown together.
I am personally in favor of Sanders in the primary for two reasons, the first being that I believe he is incorruptible and will damn sure fight for my interests and my lower class peers interests (I am working class, poor, and disabled without a net - I have many peers in all three categories), he may not win all battles, but no battles are won by appeasement and collusion. Both of which appear to be the status quo tools of the establishment Democrats most notably among the DLC variety which Hillary has strong ties to as one of the founding members of this hybrid third way philosophy of Reagan economics and Democratic social values. The second reason is important from a pragmatic point of view, Hillary is buried in scandal and distrust and exhibits several exploitable character flaws when it comes to money in politics, add to that the extreme lack of enthusiasm (which would provide little to no coattails even if she were to avoid a loss due to her substantial aforementioned flaws as a candidate) leads me to believe that she would be one of the worst candidates we could offer in the GE.
There are those that admire, respect and even believe in Ms. Clinton and for reasons which elude me believe she will actually champion them and their interests, now this makes sense for the affluent Democrats which prosper from a less progressive tax policy and many loopholes they would still be able to exploit as well as increase their war machine and insurance sides of their financial portfolios, the rest I can only attribute to identity politics or exceptional branding and advertisement minds at work.
My hope is that those that admire and support her (I am sure sincerely regardless of my views which likely confound them as much as their's do mine) will at least address the baggage and prepare to do battle properly and early before it is too late because if we are stuck with her as the nominee and they continue to ignore or deny the existence of the baggage as they have each time in this thread I have asked them to work on a defense, I fear we will all suffer the hardships of a Republican triple crown win that would make matters worse in the house and Senate (as she will draw out many reluctant Republican voters that have been trained for thirty years to hate her with a passion) while deflating Democratic turnout as all the young and apathetic poor voters (that I have canvassed and convinced to engage again only because the see the integrity, willingness too fight, and consistency of a candidate they DO NOT BELIEVE will sell them out like all the rest have).
Simply put, there is a reason the poor don't vote, there is a reason the young seldom vote and much of it has to do with seeing thirty years of being sold out by both sides to the highest bidder, Sanders re-inspires such people to turn out again, something Ms. Clinton does not do and I hope there will be enough of them reached by the primary vote, in many states the window is closing fast or is already closed before one may switch registration or register to vote Democratic in the primary. If we fail to win the primary it is my belief there are two possible outcomes-
Hillary wins in a squeaker because somehow the Hillary people wake up in time to counter as much as possible all the baggage ammunition the Republicans are holding on to for the General Election, but the D voters will be unenthusiastic and the R voters will enthusiastically turn out to prove their (Pavlovian at this point) hatred of Clinton and worst case scenarios will be seen in the Senate and House elections. This is the best case scenario in my projections unfortunately, but preferable to the worst case scenario that Clinton will lose even with the electoral map advantage that is believed to exist still at this point and we will have the worst case scenario Senate and House outcomes along with a Republican President (hopefully a neutered corporate one that they are currently trying to find to replace Bush). Any of them would be as bad or most probably worse than Clinton for the lower classes and the continuation of the Corporate coup, but far worse for Women, LGBT, and ethnic people of every variety especially those of faiths other than Christian.
It is because of all this that you are correct, Bernie may lose and if we are stuck with an ethically challenged candidate caught with hands in countless cookie jars, defenses must be prepared early and it would appear on many fronts, we can not afford for her to lose in the GE if she is chosen, it would be foolish to chose her from even a simply pragmatic standpoint, but the US is full of fools and many love the taste of Kool-aid. We need to get them to take their fingers out of their ears now, not later because even if they can not be convinced to vote for the candidate most likely to beat the Republicans and one that may provide significant and needed coattails, they must be convinced to confront this baggage and start finding defenses so that we don't end up losing the WH to the Republicans even if we will still be stuck losing whats left of the nation to the Oligarchs.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)some legs......from more and more credible sources. If true as reported...it is a Big Fkg Deal!
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)mother earth
(6,002 posts)Faux pas
(14,690 posts)treason? Or just bad form? Whatever it is, it's DISGUSTING.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)For the purposes of this post, it is a weakness that could be exploited in the General Election by the Republican party.
During primary season we must asses the weaknesses of our contending candidates. It is because of this weakness, born of what I believe may be a character flaw that may result in the unearthing of many other such weaknesses that I felt it needed to be aired and addressed.
It could be addressed by any undecideds (along with a strong showing by Bernie Sanders against all Republicans in the race) by switching to a candidate with far less baggage weakness to be exploited.
It Should be addressed by firm Hillary supporters by doing as much research as possible to defend against and defuse this weakness as well as any others (hiding from the truth of it's existence would be unwise)
It is being addressed by Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley supporters by reinforcing their belief that not only is their candidate better on the issues in their eyes, but also better pragmatically as targets with far less for the GOP to aim at.
Faux pas
(14,690 posts)thanks!