Hillary did what most of us who respect her expected her to do.

[joshcryer]

That is, those of us who ignored the spin and the garbage and the libel and the innuendo and the lies that have inundated her character for almost two decades. She has always been attacked. Always. When she was in the White House with Bill Clinton she, and even her daughter, were mocked and ridiculed to no end. When she attempted to actually be someone who could get stuff done, she was mocked and derided and flamed and when she failed she was demeaned and sent to the kitchen to make dinner plans. Later on she ran for office, she was demeaned and derided and called entitled, and she won. Her victory was dismissed, insulted, and called purely on the basis of "name recognition." She got everything she set out to do done in her first term and got *reelected*, again insulted with, "name recognition."

The Hillary of tonight has always been the Hillary that has always existed. The delusion that she was anyone else (a shrew, manipulating, evil, liar, etc) is just that. It's the same delusion that made Al Gore lose* his election. The mass manipulation and tearing down of an individual that ... just isn't liked by those with loud enough mouths to make a difference (see: the right wing and the MSM).

[ProSense]

1. She gave a decent speech, but

please don't rewrite history.

Hillary had potential, she rose to it today because her political career was on the line.

[joshcryer]

4. So you are saying she wasn't attacked all these years?

It seems that you are the one attempting to rewrite history, but I am confused. :hi:

[Zhade]

7. She was - the difference is that not all the "attacks" were attacks.

Some were legitimate criticisms.

And some were crazy accusations of murder.

[ProSense]

9. "The delusion that she was anyone else"

It wasn't delusional. She ran a nasty campaign. Maybe it was the fault of the people running her campaign, but it was nasty.

The media has always attacked Democrats.

[Zhade]

10. No, she wasn't forced to do what she did.

I'm glad she made an apparently successful attempt to mend fences (couldn't watch the speech at work), but I agree with you that we should not pretend she didn't run a dirty campaign.

[StevieM]

47. She didn't "do" anything. I don't regard her campaign as negative (yes, other opinions are valid)

and it says a lot that you think that people who disagree with you are "pretending" something.

Steve

[Zhade]

52. Steve, you also deny video evidence that proved no snipers existed at Tuzla.

You can't honestly think you're unbiased, or even credible.

[StevieM]

54. And the Kennedys brought Barack's father to America in an airlift (eom)

[joshcryer]

13. Actually Penn was begging her to run a nasty campaign.

She ran a relatively clean one by anyones standards.

[ProSense]

18. No, he wanted it to be nastier.

I can't imagine what that would have been like. It was pretty nasty.

[joshcryer]

21. Anyway, leave the campaign shit out of this thread.

Because it's just a troll at this point. Respect for someone is not bought and sold over a period of a few months. It's a long term thing. And I respect Hillary Clinton. More than I respect Bill Clinton to be honest.

[ProSense]

25. See that's just it

you say ignore the facts that brought us to this divisive point, but you want to portray critics as delusional.

Want to move on? Move on, but don't try to rewrite history.

[joshcryer]

33. The MSM rewrites history enough for us.

I don't think we should pretend that the "split" was anything more than a delusional creation.

[ProSense]

39. The split was not a delusional creation

The bitterness had to be handle. There was a Democrat removed as a delegate, angry letters to the delegates, criticism of Dean, etc.

The RBC meeting was not a media creation.

The media is playing up the division, but all the claims that a nasty campaign was not going to create division was delusional.

[joshcryer]

40. The only thing that created a division was the closeness of the race.

Either side would have had the same ardent supporters in such a situation. Even Dean, who lost the primaries by huge margins, had supporters would just wouldn't give up. Such things are irrelevancies, however. And certainly Dean's ardent supporters didn't get as much screen time as PUMAs did. The difference being that maybe there were a few thousand more of them, but still completely and utterly irrelevant on the scheme of things.

A split implies a division right down the middle. No such thing exists.

[ProSense]

41. Again, it's not irrelevant

if the speech became necessary.

Divisive is divisive. It would have been 100% better if this kind of division wasn't swirling around the convention.

I don't buy that closeness of the race created the divisiness. The nastiness created deeper wounds that were destined to take a longer time to heal.

[joshcryer]

42. The media made Gore change his clothes. That doesn't make his clothes relevant.

A close race has done wonders for the party, allowing more people to vote than in any campaign before it. It's been a great race, to think otherwise is sad.

[ProSense]

44. You cannot compare that to the

need for Hillary to give a speech. Look at all the handwringing that when into the decision to do a roll call. Look at Howard Wolfson. No matter what you say, the reality of a nasty campaign and its divisive effects linger.

[joshcryer]

45. Has nothing to do with "nastiness."

But you seem to not be able to get it so what can I do? :(

[iconicgnom]

32. No, Penn was the ultimate insider. He only left when he got caught out on Columbian free-trade.

Too bad Bill Clinton couldn't be so easily rid of, on that.

[StevieM]

46. Nope. Historically, her campaign was no more negative then Gore vs. Bradley, Hart vs. Mondale,

or even Barack Obama's campaign against her. The narrative that her campaign was uniquely negative is not backed up by the history books--in fact, it is specifically contradicted by the history books. At least using any fair standard of analysis, which admittedly has been sorely lacking in this election year.

Steve

[joshcryer]

60. The narrative before she ran was that she was a shrew power monger.

I mean you look at her speech *against* the Iraq war, and the admonishment of the admin at the time, and yet the *vote* is the thing that is focused on. "She voted for the Iraq war thus she is a warmonger."

It's this sort of irrational hatred that has persisted eversince she was a first lady. And it only got worse when she won her senate seat. That's what this post is about, not about her campaign.

[QC]

16. Hmmmm.

[ProSense]

19. I take it you

can't handle the truth?

[joshcryer]

22. Like the "truth" many of you people brought from the MSM and posted on DU?

Like the fact that for the past *week* now many of you (including yourself) posted garbage about how Hillary was still attempting to fuck over Obamas campaign and such?

Honestly now. Let's not pretend.

[QC]

24. No, you can't let go of the hate. It's poisoning you, Let go. n/t

[Zhade]

31. Pointing out the truth is not hate.

NT!

[QC]

43. Your concern for the truth is an inspiration to us all!

:applause:

[Zhade]

49. It's not about me. Some of you could learn from that.

NT!

[indimuse]

63. snore...

still divisive, i see...

[Why Syzygy]

2. She did the right thing.

Very classy. Speech started off ho-hum usual, but she turned it around. That's not the woman we saw on the campaign trail. You say YOU did. I'm saying WE didn't.

[joshcryer]

5. I *explictly* left out "her campaign." I am talking about Hillary, the woman. The person.

The character. Not some delusion.

[Zhade]

8. I'm confused - are you saying her campaign persona was delusional?

That maybe she really did believe snipers had shot at her?

[Why Syzygy]

56. Fair enough. nt

[Skarbrowe]

3. Very well said. I wasn't always a big Hillary fan. I'm talking about during

the Clinton presidency. It's not that I disliked her, it was more mere ambivalence. Later, I let other people, including family members convince me she was too polarizing to run for president. Tonight I saw a woman that I wish more than anything could have been president. But, I also got the feeling that maybe things happened just the way they should. I feel that there are better things in store for this great woman.

Love Hillary Vote for Obama!

[Zhade]

6. The Hillary of tonight is far different from the clinton that lied about Tuzla...

...and endorsed mcLame over Obama.

Why the difference, I wonder? She never had to go dirty like that, so why did she? Terrible advice?

I'm not attacking her by asking this. It's a fact that she lied, and it's a fact she worked hard to mend fences she helped break tonight. I'm genuinely curious.

[redqueen]

11. Bull fucking shit you're not attacking her... you just tried to fart new life into those dead horses

Why the difference?

Cause it's time to FALL IN LINE.

Fucking hell.

[joshcryer]

14. Note how my OP leaves out the campaign because the campaign is just a small part of her life.

It is not some representation of her character as a whole, and certainly a few dozen soundbites from her campaign cannot be used to make her out to be this bad person. It's delusional to go to those lenghts.

[Zhade]

20. Already in line. Keep bleating if you want - I used to respect her.

Then she ran a dirty campaign. I didn't expect it. So why did she do it? She's clearly talented enough not to have to.

[redqueen]

29. I so believe you cause that's totally what I do to people I "respect"...

I pull out the stinkiest rankest foulest oldest dirty laundry I can wrangle up and fluff it out in people's faces for no good reason.

Uh huh. Totally.


And don't even pretend that you don't know that you could have stated your concerns in ways that didn't include spelling that bullshit out.

[Zhade]

34. What I stated was factual. It happened. You can't pretend it didn't.

I'm not going to lie and pretend it didn't.

Thank goodness the OP actually understood my questions.

[joshcryer]

12. I left out the campaign for a reason.

I think that she is bad in front of the spotlight with a lot of pressure, it doesn't fit her character. I considered her flops like that merely the result of this, not an indication that she was at all a bad person.

To think so from those flops is delusional when you consider her character as a whole, which tonights speech represented in whole.

[ProSense]

15. You can't leave out the campaign

That's the reason the Convention speech became necessary.

I think that she is bad in front of the spotlight with a lot of pressure, it doesn't fit her character.

That's not good, but I don't believe that explains her primary performance.

[joshcryer]

17. The convention speech became necessary because the media made it that way.

The media put PUMAs on the same TV spot as supporters and they had big discussions about complete irrelevancies. The media went on and on about brokered conventions (a political impossiblity) and people on these very forums (see: yourself, among others) ate it up like it was *reality* when it most certainly was not. We know what the media did. Those of us who ignore the slander done to good people over a long period of time.

[Zhade]

26. Good points on the PUMA thing. The media sure was pimping that tonight.

I for one am glad Clinton worked to discourage their attempt.

[joshcryer]

36. Like I said in the above posters BS thread:

Putting PUMAs on TV is like putting Intelligent Design people on TV, or anti-Global Warming people on TV. The reality is the exact opposite but you need to polarize the discussion otherwise how else are you going to sell ads?

[Zhade]

38. PUMAs as IDers? Perfect analogy!

NT!

[Zhade]

23. Thank you for trying to answer my question. I really do appreciate it.

I wondered if it was pressure, because it seemed so out of character. She was always more conservative than generally believed, but to outright lie like she did was... bizarre.

Thanks again for engaging the question instead of just going for the personal attacks like some.

[redqueen]

27. There was no personal attack.

You posted a bunch of tired bullshit for no good reason and you got a reaction. You should be happy. That's why people post bullshit like that to begin with, so congratulations.

Nice job getting the "to outright lie like she did" in even your last, pseudo-conciliatory post... in addition to the "pity me" bullshit.

:thumbsup:

[Zhade]

35. Pity me? HA! I'd have to feel bad to need pity.

I'm sorry you don't like the facts of what she did in her campaign.

[joshcryer]

30. Remember her "concession" and how she came out on stage and said stupid stuff?

Hey when she said it I knew it wasn't the best thing to have said. The end of that week she formally conceeded, though, and she did the right thing. And most people here on DU absolutely adored her for it. Yet a week later people were posting stuff about how she was going to take it to the DNC, brokered convention, etc, etc. I mean I got 1000 of my 8000 posts here by defending the whole nonsense about how she wanted to have a brokered convention and wanted to seat FL and MI, etc.

Anyway I really don't want this to be about the campaign. I'm talking about Hillary the person, not soundbites from a short period in her life.

[Zhade]

37. I remember. For the record, I wasn't one of those worrying about a brokered convention.

I knew it was over, and I knew she wasn't behind the PUMA garbage. I'm glad she's fully behind Obama.

[rebel with a cause]

50. I believe you are using the word delusiional in the wrong way.

If it was delusional, we would have just thought she did those things while she really didn't. It would make more sense if you said "it would be irrational to base her character on the whole on what happened during the primary, because her speech tonight showed there was more to her than that."

The problem with this arguement is that her speech covered one night and the primary lasted a lot longer. I loved Hillary's speech tonight and am ready to give her another chance, but it will take longer than the one night to prove to me that this is the real Hillary. And telling people that they are delusional to believe what happened happened is a bit pretentious on your part. Think about your words more carefully, because maybe you don't mean to say what you are saying. :shrug:

[Zhade]

53. Very reasonable post.

NT!

[joshcryer]

59. The delusional aspect of it all is that such flaps were construed as evil.

Indicating someone is an habitual liar, for instance. I remember the health care thing, when she claimed a girl was refused treatment at a hospital, she told that story and everyone took it for granted that she was simply outright lying. When the truth came out (that the story was absolutely true), people just managed to easily forget. And indeed, nasty stuff continued to be said about her for quite some time. This is not a "new" behavior. Making shit up about Hillary has been a common theme throughout her later life.

[rebel with a cause]

69. Many of us who were upset at Hillary during the campaign

were not delusional. We did not make things up or listen to the MSM for our information. Personally I did not even know about the story you just related. We were upset by Bill and Hillary's own words, and their actions. I have not made it a habit to post attacks on here about her and I am ready to put those things behind me and move on. But I do not want anyone to tell me that I was delusional about what I heard them say or saw them do. And I am sure others feel the same way. Perhaps it would be best to just let this subject die and both groups, or all groups, go beyond the primaries and the in-party fighting and just focus on the fight ahead of us. If we do not do this the problem, and the anger, will live on and we will all be the losers.

Thank you for your reply.

[joshcryer]

70. Both sides were to be honest.

When people were going on about Obama's Regan comments it was "unforgivable." When Hillary made essentially the same sort of non-commital comment about McCain it became blown out of proportion and is *to this day* considered "supporting John McCain."

That's delusional.

He'll someone is writing in this thread about the Obama/Kennedy flap. So the fuck what. Politicians say stupid shit. I'd be surprised if you could find *one* politician that didn't say something stupid over time.

Does that mean that their flaps are indicitive of their character and personality?

No.

[rebel with a cause]

71. I am putting it to rest.

Not going to comment or argue on the differences of the two candidates. I am moving on.

[iconicgnom]

28. A speech doesn't erase history. A speech is just a speech.

[StevieM]

48. There is nothing to erase. Her campaign was honorable, and I am proud to have been a supporter.

Your self-righteousness is astounding.

Steve

[rebel with a cause]

51. Self righteous =

confident of one's own righteousness, esp. when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others.

Steve, seems this fits you as much as it does any one.

[JTFrog]

65. Was Hillary being self-righteous when she said the same thing about Obama?

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

55. Whenever HRC speaks from her heart, she is terrific

Triangulation is the curse of the Clintons. They undercut their own greatest strengths when they nibble around the ideological strike zone and try to suck up to Repuke voters. This was an incredible speech and it was, I think, representative of the real Hillary Clinton. Had she given this speech in January or February, she would be speaking two nights from now.

I have had my differences with HRC in the past, but this Obama supporter is incredibly proud of her tonight. She was nothing less than great.

[Skittles]

57. correct

and it's disgusting how many DUers fell for it

[JohnnyLib2]

58. Thanks for this OP.

She's been a Democratic workhorse at every possible level for 3 decades.
She bounces back as needed. She'll continue to stand up and speak out as long as she's able.

And at least a few more people caught on tonight. :toast:

[sendero]

61. I was not rooting for HRC..

...for a variety of reasons (mostly policy), but I was very very pleased and impressed with her speech.

I don't think I've ever seen her deliver a more effective speech. It was well written and delivered flawlessly.

Bravo Hillary.

[JustAnotherGen]

62. response only to the OP

I want to let you know - I watched that speech last night . . . and I went back to 1992. Being a college student and being told what a miserable economy we had, I'd never get a 'good job' for all of my education, there were too many barriers for women of color . . . . that was 1992.


And having watched that speech - she reminded me of WHY even though I'm now:
Working
In a an excellent job
Making excellent money
With Health Care paid by my employer . . .
And plenty of opportunity, mentoring and support to continue to move up the ladder . . . Why I remain a Democrat. Because I had to "Leave my hometown to find that world class job" 2.5 years ago.


I did not support Clinton in the Primaries. I didn't support Barack until February. But between her, Kucinich, Warner, and Schweitzer last night - I'm so glad I'm hard wired as a liberal and progressive. I don't care what spin these stupid talking heads put on it - she came out for own last night. And she reminded us the Dems are going to do it again. If we stay true to our ideals, our REALITIES and our beliefs - we can do it again. Yes we can!

[LostinVA]

64. Exactly -- great OP

[No Elephants]

66. Her speech could have been a lot better, much like her "concession" speech.

It's just that everyone feared it would be worse.

[leftynyc]

68. Puke talking points

And a hidden profile. What are you afraid of?

[sentelle]

67. I have never been a fan of hers

I've had my misgivings about her. I've seen her close ties to the health-care lobby, and it made me suspicious.

I saw her interview on 60 minutes, and it made me think her run was about her, and not the country.

And I saw all the innuendos that came from the people that were loosely affiliated with her campaign, and it turned me off.

With all that in mind, I started listening to her speech, looking for things to pick apart, looking for her to be on the attack.

She did a great job. She thanked the people that supported her, which is gracious of her. She even gave us some insight as to why she kept going in the race (the harriet tubman part). She left no doubts last night, that the election is about ideas, not egos.

I think she did a great job with telling her followers that if you want something akin to what she was about, vote Obama.

I think she put to rest the issue of the PUMAs, and of whom she supports in the GE.

In the Future, I will have to reevaluate her, and put aside my misgivings.