2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"...I like Hillary Clinton. And I’m convinced that saying so can be a subversive act."
More Than Likable Enough
I like Hillary Clinton. And Im convinced that saying so can be a subversive act.
By Sady Doyle
And so is the fact that I like her. Honestly, ask yourself: How long would you make it, if people treated you the way you treat Hillary Clinton? Would you not just be furious by now? Would you not have reached levels of blood-vessel-popping rage and despair? Shes been dealing with it for decades, and keeps voluntarily subjecting herself to it, and knows exactly how bad it will get and exactly what well do to her, and yet she is running for president again, andheres the part I love, the part that I find hard to wrap my head aroundshe might actually win. That is awe-inspiring.
Her story moves me as an example of a woman who got every misogynist trick in the world thrown at her and didnt let it slow her down. On that level, shes become a personal role model: If people dislike me, I will no longer think Oh, how horrible this is for me. I will think, Well, if Hillary can do it Seriously, if Hillary Clinton can be called an evil hag by major media outlets for much of her adult life and run for president, I can deal with blocking 10 or 20 guys on Twitter.
But she shouldnt have to deal with all these byproducts of a misogynist culture. So saying nice things about Hillary Clinton isnt just something I do because I feel good about her. Its not even something I do to annoy people. Its a way, however small, to start shifting the cultural dialogue, to allow for a world where women arent suffocated or crushed by our expectations of thema world where Hillary, and every future female president or presidential candidate, can focus on the tasks at hand, and not have to climb over a barbed-wire fence of hatred in order to change the world.
http://tinyurl.com/neddvkj
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Well, we are in repeat season...
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)It isn't rude extreme or disruptive, just full of it. Ya'll seem to think we swarm like ya'll do, no dice from this quarter, woolybutt.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Eom
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)They are a reflection of your inability to discuss and debate. Pretty typical of a certain faction of persons. You are a wonderful example.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)I'm just saying you're wrong on that, that's not so bad is it? If you're going to make accusations you could at least lighten up a wee teeny tiny tiiiny bit when someone disputes it without animosity.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)The following list demonstrates why many Sanders supporters have such a visceral reaction to hillary... many independents share similar views. The GOP has their own reasons for distrusting hillary, but each of these points presented by fellow dems reinforces in the mind of conservatives how untrustworthy she really is.
1. Sanders has served as an elected official for over 34 years. Clinton has not.
2. Sanders has supported gay rights since 40 years ago. Clinton has not.
3. Sanders wants to end the prohibition of marijuana. Clinton does not.
4. Sanders wants to end the death penalty. Clinton does not.
5. Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Clinton does not.
6. Sanders wants to break up the biggest banks. Clinton does not.
7. Sanders voted against the Wall Street bailout. Clinton did not.
8. Sanders introduced legislation to overturn Citizens United. Clinton did not.
9. Sanders refuses to accept money from super PACs. Clinton does not.
10. Sanders supports a single-payer healthcare system. Clinton does not.
11. Sanders refrains from waging personal attacks for political gains. Clinton does not.
12. Sanders considers climate change our nation's biggest threat. Clinton does not.
13. Sanders opposed the Keystone XL Pipeline since day one. Clinton did not.
14. Sanders voted against the Patriot Act. Clinton did not.
15. Sanders voted against the war in Iraq. Clinton did not.
This list doesn't cover all her flip-flops, or her outright lies, such as the claim of having been under sniper fire.
With that non-exhaustive list in mind, perhaps you could explain why hillary is actually worth our trust, and why these points don't actually reflect her trustworthiness.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I could reply to your entire list with "Bernie still sucks" for all the discussions and debate you think you are initiating with that list.
Not playing your pretend debate game.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)You're just the latest to refuse due to inability.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)I have no issues with being wrong. Being wrong is an opportunity to learn... and learning is an opportunity to grow.
But if you want to deflect, that fine. I have yet to see a hillary supporter who's been willing to actually engage these points... which tells me they're right.
In any case, have a happy holiday!
Just for starters, how does a Secretary of State "introduce legislation? " Citizens United was decided in 2010.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)I hope you are have an excellent holiday season!
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Dodging sniper fire at airport?
Claiming she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary?
Dead broke?
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)He stole electricity from his landlord which people seem to find adorable. So let's start with little things. Go.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)It's his personal life, just like Bill's philandering / womanizing / affairs are Hillary's personal life.
Hillary trying to burnish her credentials to be CiC by lying about dodging sniper fire at the airport, and joking that 'when places are too dangerous for the President, they send the First Lady' - that is not her personal life. That is lying to try to appear strong.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Love that game.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)But.....I'm in seattle....I work nights and get things for people that can be hard to find, have to muscle people sonetimes...it fit and stuck.
ismnotwasm
(41,998 posts)Ya'll made me curious
What's a chummer?
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Wooly butt = a sheep's shank.
Chummer = bad roll playing game slang used by some nerds (like me). A chum you could take or leave.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)So long as you don't make any deals with dragons.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)I'll stick to net running and fixing thanks
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)as for sheepshank, most already know that sheepshank is a sailors knot and nothing like the insult you are pretending is levity.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Though I guess you could say if it was the job or you, I'd pick the job. And I know well what a sheepshank is but I couldnt spin a knot into something that I found cute.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Your not so carefully veiled insults just keep going.
You are not even worth alerting on. the Bernie swarm likley thinks you are some sort of hero. And this is what DU has come to.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)We really need to have an emote for 'two steps back from the unreasonable person, then run.' Have a good one.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)your pattern of attempting poorly worded double entendres is obvious.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,998 posts)Cause-well you know it ain't forever. Just seems like it
ismnotwasm
(41,998 posts)Chummer--well that has a variety of interpretations to tell you the truth. I WAS curious how you interpreted it
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)But I went with cutesy misinterpretation which appears to have been mightily offensive.....and yeah, chummers just a left over from shadow run adopted by table top gamers.
ismnotwasm
(41,998 posts)Your intent wasn't to offend?
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Though I can't say I was being overly kind or accomodating.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Thanks for sharing.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)"On that level, shes become a personal role model: If people dislike me, I will no longer think Oh, how horrible this is for me. I will think, Well, if Hillary can do it."
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The things I have been called for supporting Clinton yet my goal is the same. That includes fighting for the rights of a group of people who have made it clear I am a part of a group they passionately hate. Their hate is directed at me and they have made it personal. I will continue to fight for their rights and for a just society. We have to be the adults in the room.
Good looking out for one and other DSB. One of the reasons I have such respect for you is that you do the same.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)If Hillary supports war in Syria , well I can do it
If Hillary votes to let banks get whatever they want, well, I can do it.
If Hillary supports, the TPP, giving corporations power to take whatever they want, then I can do it.
If Hillary supports Keystone, than I can do it.
If Hillary supports outsourcing jobs
As someone who would have loudly and proudly supported Liz Warren, or any number of others when they run (Kathleen Sibelius, Kristine Gillibrand) then I have to say that just because Hillary is a woman should not empower her to do things that HURT women. It is the women that will get hit by war and a bad economy, while Hillary and her friend Debbie can sip champagne.
We do not give Maggie Thatcher a pass on that.
earthside
(6,960 posts)Tedious.
Blue_Adept
(6,400 posts)earthside
(6,960 posts)If that becomes the whining wail of the Clinton campaign, then she is a loser for sure.
That's the point.
SunSeeker
(51,646 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I am sure I would be just fine if I had the friends she has.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Why-why-why couldn't we have Elizabeth Warren running?
oh.
right.
BlueMTexpat
(15,370 posts)right by you.
Happy Holidays in any event!
LuvLoogie
(7,021 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)We usually like who we feel represents our own view of the world or how we want the world (or country) to be, think similarly, have similar interests.
This person likes HRC. I agree that women aren't given the same advantages as men and face all sorts of misogyny but it doesn't make me a supporter of HRC because of it.
Perhaps in some future election with some other qualified female, certainly and beyond a doubt.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,370 posts)msrizzo
(796 posts)I feel the same way about Bernie Sanders.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Boo fucking hoo.
She's been treated sooooo horribly for her whole life.
Are we going to have to listen to this bullshit until she goes away?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)After her Presidency where we progress to a kinder and more just society. That and the fact she will be the first woman elected President of the U.S. I will work my ass off to make sure you never stop hearing about her.
bvf
(6,604 posts)shenmue
(38,506 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)Where have we seen that before? What people/group of people do we know of who love to play that card?
treestar
(82,383 posts)For every bit of bad news for Bernie.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251944220
Found within seconds
SunSeeker
(51,646 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,753 posts)Couldn't understand why people wouldn't just leave him alone, since he was so grandfatherly likable. I was even protective of him.
I have regretted it ever since that I didn't support the people that understood the long-term impact of Iran-Contra better than I did, or understood the impact of his failure to handle the AIDs crisis.
ismnotwasm
(41,998 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,753 posts)That was back when I relied on the mainstream media for my news. Online news sources changed my life.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)can forgive or forget I don't understand. A war that destroyed our middle and working classes and ruined tens of thousands of vets and their families. I don't like those that championed that war and think they should be held accountable.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,998 posts)They're everywhere
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)supporting the horrible war side by side with George Bush and the Republicons. She chose to side with Bush over the progressives in her own party. I don't believe for a minute that she regrets that vote. She is a smart lady and knew full well what she was doing and the consequences. But a number of her friends and supporters appreciated her vote. I never thought I'd see the day that Democrats supported war profiteering. Do you honestly believe that she won't do the same thing again given the chance?
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Or do your principles about Iraq only kick in with regard to Hillary?
I honestly believe neither John Kerry, nor Hillary Clinton, nor Barack Obama supports war profiteering.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)an aggressive foreign policy amounts to supporting the war profiteers. I bet none of them turn down the quid quo pro expected donations.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Lyndon Johnson lied the country into war in Vietnam with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. The "yea" votes included George McGovern and William Fulbright. McGovern was no more responsible for the Vietnam War than Hillary is for the mess in Iraq. Both were plausibly lied to, as were those who acquiesced to or supported the First Gulf War.
Johnson had a close and well-known relationship with military contractors Kellog Brown Root. Rather as Sanders does with Lockheed Martin and his votes to fund both the Iraq War and some amazingly expensive but useless aircraft.
A little less sanctimony, please. ...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)betrayed her Party, her country, our troops, and the Iraqi people by believing the lying sack of shit Bush. And not only did she vote with him she tried to convince others to do so also. You will agree it was a mistake, a terrible mistake that lead to horrible consequences. I am not at all convinced that she would not do it again. But maybe more important is that we desperately need to get the influence of big money out of our government. Look at the last 40 years and tell me you want that to continue. The tighter the grip of the oligarchy the less chance we will have of feeding those living in poverty, the less chance we have of saving SS and Medicare, and the less chance of keeping the social justice victories we've had. They want our resources. Wealth is a zero sum game and the larger the wealth gap, the more American children from poverty. We have the highest infant mortality rate of all modern nations. Do you think Goldman-Sachs cares?
Remember, the Oligarchy doesn't love us.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)So did Biden.
Why do you only criticize her and not the progressive men who voted for the IWR?
You've said she "promoted" the war because she gave a statement to the Senate explaining her vote. Kerry gave a much longer speech about why he voted for the IWR. This is just a small piece of it:
Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.
If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize ``imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.
Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.
In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize ``yet.'' Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.
The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/Z?r107:S09OC2-0013:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/13/john-kerry/secretary-state-john-kerry-says-senator-he-opposed/
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I was critical of Kerry for his betrayal. I remember the vote as if it was yesterday. The Democrats were supposed to keep Bush under some kind of control. To see the betrayal deeply disturbed me. The 500,000 Iraqis that were brutally killed, and the 5,000,000 that were made into refugees, the children that would find cluster bombs when the played, the uranium dust we left behind to cause cancer for generations. How can a Democrat justify that?
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)And it didn't stop you from voting for him.
It's only with the woman Senator that it's an unforgivable crime.
okasha
(11,573 posts)The oligarchy needs to be rooted out. Root out the patriarchy, and you will abolish one evil outright and strike at the core of the other. The two are inextricably intertwined.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)HoneychildMooseMoss
(251 posts)He even wrote a book about it a couple of years later called The Arrogance of Power, and he became one of the biggest "doves" in Congress.
okasha
(11,573 posts)And many congressional Democrats, including Hillary, have come to regret their IWR votes.
As far as I know, Sanders has never expressed regret for continuing to enable the war, and his fans continue to defend his position. He's due his own share of blame for the half milljon dead Iraqis.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Oh, wait.... You said that alread...
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)who horned in and trashed this thread. Happy holidays.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)it fits...
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Pretty Simple. Or so I thought. Reading DU this morning I realized that I am sexist not to support her!
ismnotwasm
(41,998 posts)SunSeeker
(51,646 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,370 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)has decided to become a surrogate whiner for HC?
stop the presses folks...
Ino
(3,366 posts)that I can make a choice NOT based on gender at all.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)That she would try to tell us she is one of us is what really makes her revolting.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)and we shouldn't have to deal with the byproducts of the ideology she endorses
So sick of the "she's a woman so she deserves to be president" meme.
How fucking shallow do you think we are?
If Hillary doesn't get the nomination are you going to vote for Carly?
jalan48
(13,879 posts)ish of the hammer
(444 posts)and she got where she is today by being the junior partner - ie. the loyal wife. not feminism.
riversedge
(70,273 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 24, 2015, 03:17 PM - Edit history (1)
but her foreign and domestic policies are a disaster, and that goes double for women and nonwhites (though neoliberalism works to grind people down to the same level--i.e. under whale poo)
Iraq, Libya, and Syria are raging hells for women: in Honduras the golpista police evidently have rape *units*; rape and rape-murder, especially of transwomen, is through the roof and approaching Jamaican levels; catracha human-rights activists--their husbands blown up or "disappeared" so thoroughly that not even bones are left to mourn--were usually not picked up themselves because they were women, but most did escape torture chambers or duck car bombings by the death squads--they say it's worse than it ever was, since now there's no hope with a right-wing military solidly in power as never before
by contrast Doyle's Tumblr is full of complaints about Bernie Bros, pure delirium, some sort of nameless centrist panic, some Gruniad piece I refuse to link to entitled "Before Lena Dunham, There Was Anaïs Nin," praise for Kanye and Jessica Valenti as major thinkers of our age, guilt over Paddy's Day, the right to walk down dark alleys, Tyrion Lannister complaints, how Hannibal stamps out sexism, "In Defense of Peeta Mallark," "Tech Bros," the real women behind the Manic Pixie Dream Girl fantasy, "the female literatis neglect of its working-class sisters," "Shulamith Firestone wrote at a time when feminists would risk the absurd for brilliant insights," why Assange must fry, and a lot of other things that are either inconsequential or inconsequentially posed
her wish list "How Star Wars Can Avoid Becoming Dude Wars" is a masterpiece of inconsequentiality
1) Please have girls in it
2) End the plague of White Man Feelings
3) No more danger-induced stripping
4) More Ewoks
5) Keep our expectations down
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)ejbr
(5,856 posts)40RatRod
(532 posts)It is sad how the same group immediately comes out like a nest of termites to trash anything someone says even remotely complimentary about Hillary.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)At first I thought it would be a funny, but I see it is serious.
How can supporting the establishment be a subversive act?...is this some kind of doublespeak?
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)I think she'll be a terrific president. I think she's a warm, witty person. I find her admirable.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)I like Hillary. I like that she keeps building coalitions. I like that she listens. I like that she keeps moving toward expanding the gains we've made under President Obama. I like her laugh. I shrug off the vitriol directed toward her.
Okay, I've now said something nice about all three democratic candidates here today. I feel good. I'm sticking with love. And I'm going for a nice walk around town!
Happy holidays to you DSB and to everyone reading here.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)Furthermore, I don't care one iota who doesn't agree with me. They can go ahead and rot as far as I'm concerned.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)in my area. Hillary supporters are afraid of mean ol' Bernie supporters and some conservatives. I would like to assure Hillary supporters no one is gonna hurt your bumper sticker or your car if you visibly support her. No one is going to call you names at least not IRL. I suppose I could be wrong on that some people are just all out rude and obnoxious. But, seriously most people aren't going to go apeshit just because you like a politician.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)I think she's likable enough too. I sure as hell don't want her anywhere near the White House.
Hekate
(90,769 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)To subvert means to undermine the power and authority of an established system or institution, a person seeking to cause that to happen is a subversive. Hillary is not seeking to undermine power but to be elected to assume power. In terms of offering the fact of her gender as subverting the patriarchal system there is some merit but that merit is greatly reduced by the fact that she sought to uphold that very system via her opposition to marriage equality, a view that seeks to control women and men under a tightly dictated quasi religious authority. She did that for 17 years.
In my view, anyone who thinks supporting Hillary is subversive is either anti gay or just not thinking or unaware of the meaning of the word. Or all three. Maybe just privilege drunk.
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Women have been elected to the top spots in nations all over the globe. In what way does she seek to overthrow an established order?
My main problems with her are 1) she is too eager to to act tough/go to war to please TPTB, 2) you never know if she means what she says or says what she means, and 3) she is lukewarm at best on labor issues.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)very weak sauce you serve here.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)-Hiraeth
Where is the love?