General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy we should not support Hillary
Hope and Change defeated her in 2008.
Nothing has changed that fact.
People on the streets in 2008 told me Hillary
would be the Democratic Party nominee.
But from my reading of DU and all the serious
activists there was painted a different picture.
A story that came true due to Hope and Change.
Hillary is not bringing Hope and Change. She brings more of the same, and that is why we must work hard to find a new and better candidate or we shall suffer under another republican president.
DURHAM D
(32,617 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)please take me off your mailing list too.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)HRC (or any Democratic nominee) brought more of President Obama's, same!
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)But she seems too set in her ways and she just isn't doing what it will take to energize the real serious activists who came out of the woodwork to support Hope and Change.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Then don't support her at your and our peril.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Do you understand what that means?
I don't need lectures from anyone on how I should vote.
Thank you and have a nice day.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)nominee and is not elected, or for that matter the peril we are in if any republican is elected
and my eyesight is bad so I can barely make out what your avie is
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You have this idea that I don't know how bad a republican is? Is this really the level of your understanding and respect for fellow long time DUers?
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)now if you had added "in the primaries" i would have had nothing to add
I myself may not if Bernie is running - in the primaries, that is
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)no lecture needed. Yellow dog democrats get it.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)In fact, the "real serious activists" were the ones that formed PUMA.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The PUMA were the single issue, to hell with any equality but their own, narrow-minded blowhards.
The serious activists got out the vote for Obama against all odds and carried the victory for Hope and Change. The Clintons were just more of the same and they lost.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)I remember a very liberal woman administrator on a board I was active on, all of a sudden when it was Obama vs Clinton, you would not believe the racist crap that came out of her keyboard.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)If HIllary accomplished half of what he has, we would be fine.
She still has a long ways to go putting Wall Street in their place, but to be fair so does Obama.
But Obama literally saved America.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Shhh ... the wasn't much policy day light between 2008 Candidate Obama and 2008 Candidate HRC. So ... I'd be fine with a HRC Presidency (should she be the Democratic nominee).
I just hope she retains some of President Obama's planning team ... and keeps President Obama's telephone number.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)can be relatively comfortable with her.
She owes them, and you
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Clinton voted for war. Big Dif in policy.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I knew it was wrong then; half the democrats voting knew it was wrong then and the other half were just scared that their precious political lives would be damaged if they voted TO NOT GO TO WAR IN IRAQ.
Please, make no more excuses to me about voting for that war.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)mean, she and Candidate Obama agree?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I seriously doubt Obama would have voted for the bush invasion of Iraq.
I think Hillary knows her war mongering cost her that election.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)I'm not saying that's what you intended.
I'm saying that's what it means for me.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)How refreshing.
I'm supporting Secretary Clinton. Frankly I think we would have been better off if she had been President for the last eight years.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)I believe they would have governed essentially the same.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Just history and real life politics.
Hillary would probably have been elected if she hadn't voted for bushes war. The Hope of no more war, and a Change from war mongering is what inspired the serious activists to get out the vote in 2008 and get Obama elected.
The Clintons are just more of the same old politics that the young and the old-wisers reject, and will not work for.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)If Secretary Clinton decides to run, I will work harder for her than I ever have for a candidate in hopes that she can at least win our primary votes. Unfortunately, I know she's not going to get Oklahoma's electoral votes in the general election, but a change will come sooner or later I hope.
Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #26)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I'm looking forward to another Clinton presidency!
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)This is what I've kept telling everyone here over and over. And, this is the REAL pity of it
Had she come out when she had the chance to really speak of what a disaster Bush was getting us ing (which a person of her intellect was SO capable of understanding), she would have had the ENTIRE BASE in her court.
I would have walked into hell for her, but she BLEW it. She FUCKING BLEW it,and THAT is the truth, Ruth.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Did she blow it, or was she really for the war?
Her stances on Syria and Libya make one wonder if she is a closeted war monger.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Hillary Clinton historically has shown some kind of passion for the women in her own circles and for women of nations without women's rights.
As a woman and an activist of human rights, I believe you cannot have two mind-sets of war and women's rights. Therefore, how can one develop cognitive dissidence of women's rights to change the world by any means necessary, including poisoning those environments through perpetual war?
Of course, I could be kidding myself.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)How can a person who is strong on women's issues be the same person who is in favor of the worst thing for innocent women and children? I don't like waffles. Or waffling like that. It's just more of the same old bs that got us invading Iraq .
How can all these Hillary supporters ignore that? How can they continue to make excuses for voting for war? Maybe they are not truly for women's rights to a safe environment free from war?
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)That's why
The mind works in mysterious ways!
dissentient
(861 posts)reccomended
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)It comes from over 40 years of active political involvement and wisdom.
I fear that if Hillary is the D party nominee we will lose because she just can't bring what the country needs.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Do you really believe that? I plan to take any odds on that one.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Which candidate can get the most people to work to get out the vote.
I don't think Hillary can inspire the serious liberal left to work hard to get out the vote. She didn't do it in 2008, she shows no sign of being able do it now.
She does have tons of negative inspiration across the political spectrum and that is not good. Obama had even more negatives but he had what it takes to get the liberal left activists to work hard to get out the vote. He won.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)But I would bet money on HRC against him. Against Scott Walker I am willing to bet a kidney on Hillary. The loser puts his or her name on a kidney donor list.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)but I'm with you in spirit here. If Walker can beat Secretary Clinton, I'll co-sign an open marker for a casino or something.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)We're way past the "our candidate would at least have a better chance than yours".
What it is going to take to turn this whole mess around is real leadership. And, NO. She doesn't portray it.
An Elizabeth Warren might, or Bernie Sanders might, and some unnamed person out there who we see coming out of nowhere might. But, she won't
and WE need one.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)History and reality. Sorry if it goes against your emotions. But you are here to become educated, right?
Hillary brings no Hope and Change. She presents just more of the same tired thinking that got us into this mess. If you disagree with those facts, tell us why you think Hillary brings Hope and Change.
Or just keep bashing.....
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)by inspiring millions of women to work even harder than they did, if that is possible, for President Obama. No Democratic President in my study of history is/was a perfect progressive candidate.
FDR is held up as the epitome of a progressive candidate who accomplished much, but some historians feel that his Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins, was the real driving force behind FDR. Perkins was the inspiration and driving force behind much if the New Deals' accomplishments, including the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act, to name just two minor things she accomplished.
I feel that HRC has the intelligence and willingness to lead the country in a better direction.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Obama had none and he was able to circle himself with new thinkers.
I see nothing new coming from candidate Hillary. And I don't cotton to this quote:
"... inspiring millions of women ..." as being a positive for Hillary.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)President Obama had no baggage but the GOP convinced a significant portion of the electorate that he did. Convinced them that he was a foreign born Muslim.
I would also not discount the power of inspiration.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)I suggested polling of every Democrat in any field and narrowing down to who gets the most support...they don't have to be in politics . . .
we can do it
(12,217 posts)Response to RobertEarl (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)I would hope you will also support the Democratic Nominee For President, Whomever that may be...