Republican Dirt Machine - Trolling Hillary From The Left?

[kpete]

Despite--and perhaps, because of-- the unquestioning, lockstep support and complete lack of criticism of Hillary from Democratic sites such as this, the GOP is taking no chances. A Republican SuperPac, "America Rising" has been formed for the purpose of, among other things, inciting the left's progressive base against the Hillary juggernaut:

The group seems to be going out of its way to stir up trouble for Hillary within the Democrats' lefty base. America Rising has highlighted Clinton's past support for the Iraq War and called her out for continuing contracts with Blackwater when she was at the State Department. The weekend of Netroots Nation, the PAC made a video that spliced together a clip of Elizabeth Warren denouncing lobbyists with an old video of Clinton defending her decision to accept donations from lobbyists, a clear appeal to the liberals who might be wary of Clinton's campaign finance record.

America Rising, formed by a former Romney Staffer with the aid of the RNC, has already had some measured success at negative Hillary-framing for a gullible U.S. corporate media eager to stoke the meme of "Democrats in disarray:"

The group's greatest concern trolling coup came in June, after Clinton was interviewed by NPR's Terry Gross. Before the interview had aired on most stations, America Rising had already clipped a seven-and-a-half minute segment during which Clinton grew defensive when Gross questioned her over her shifting views on same-sex marriage. Media outlets immediately picked up on America Rising's framing of the interview, including liberal media outlets that would traditionally defend Clinton against conservative attacks.

MORE:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/america-rising-hillary-clinton-trolling
https://www.americarisingpac.org/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/04/1318968/-The-New-Republican-Pastime-Trolling-Hillary-From-The-Left

[djean111]

1. So - we MUST support Hillary or else we are just tools of the rightwing?

Edited to add - IMO one of her weaknesses is the absolute hatred the Right has for her, and their willingness to spend vast amounts of money to defeat her. Plus I do not see anyone jumping from the GOP for her, really.

[riqster]

2. Nope. But we do need to watch out for Rovian trickery.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

130. It's not hard to troll some "Democratic" pols.

I daresay there are anti-crony capitalism, anti-corporate TPers who are genuinely "Left" of some Democrats.

[nolabear]

3. No. But know thine enemy, and when they're using you.

Be discriminating, in the good way.

[winter is coming]

12. If the GOP bullshit machine latches on to something that Dems aren't happy about -- and haven't

been happy about for years -- they're not "using" us. They didn't create our opinions; they merely echoed them. Hillary doesn't get a pass on her Iraq War vote just because the GOP's squawking about it.

[nolabear]

20. Oh, I don't think they just echo them. They distort and spin and edit them. And it has an effect.

[winter is coming]

21. Could you please provide a specific example? n/t

[KittyWampus]

22. the bullshit about Hillary getting speaking fees.

[tularetom]

35. So, she didn't get any speaking fees?

It was all bullshit?

That's good to know.

[KittyWampus]

47. Oh, she did. But it was the idiotic notion that she shouldn't get any speaking fees...

[VanillaRhapsody]

53. and ignoring the fact that she gives most if not all of it away too...

[nolabear]

23. Benghazi, phantom health problems, age speculation...

All have been twisted from legitimate questions to paranoid speculation to fabrication. It's bought and sold on a regular basis.

[winter is coming]

24. I haven't seen *any* Dems saying bad things about Benghazi. There have been a handful

of threads about potential health problems or age concerns, but those have been squashed pretty quickly.

The GOP doesn't need to look to us for bullshit, and it's absurd to expect people to remain silent for fear of giving them ideas.

[nolabear]

26. I'm not advocating silence by any means. Just awareness.

[Sheepshank]

138. Are you attempting to portray the RW as NOT trying to frame the conversation?

sure looks like it.

[winter is coming]

139. Then you should look again.

I'm rejecting the implication that the left is being manipulated by the RW. There are Dems who have legitimate concerns about Hillary. That doesn't make them Republicans, or tools of the Republicans.

[Sheepshank]

140. if you fail to acknowledge this manpulative, propoganda type tactic by the RW

then you are doomed to be a victim.

NO ONE...has said that a personal and political dislike for Clinton is playing into the hands of RW message machine. BUT one needs to acknowledge that the RW are successfully interjecting and framing and manipulating the conversation espeically for those that have a limited source of accurate input. Think of a child raised by parents who tell them they are useless and worthless. Absent other more positive input, it's the one that influences the child.

Look at any documentary re: Rove and he admits to media and messageing manipulation,.

[winter is coming]

148. The RW will try to attack Dems from any angle they can find.

As for "NO ONE... has said that a personal and political dislike for Clinton is playing into the hands of RW message machine"? It's not uncommon on DU to see legitimate criticism of the President's policies dismissed as RW talking points, sometimes by folks who imply that DUers making the criticisms are deliberate shills. That's somehow going to change just because we're talking about Hillary instead of Obama? I don't think so.

[sabrina 1]

92. Thank you, well said. I'm beginning to wonder about this. Could it be a dirty

trick from Corporate interests who WANT Hillary? My opinion of Hillary needs no input from anyone, it is based on her record and will not change regardless of dirty tricks from the 'left' or the 'right'.

[winter is coming]

98. There will be many dirty tricks associated with 2016. Whether this is one of them... who knows? nt

[sabrina 1]

101. The Third Way is very good at this kind of thing. Regardless, I won't be supporting

Hillary and if they think they can manipulate Liberals with this kind of trick, they don't understand Liberals.

[Sheepshank]

142. Great....45,000 more posts

of exciting disappointment. I suspect it wouldn't matter who was the DEM nominee.

[sabrina 1]

152. Excuse me? Could you restate whatever it is you are trying to say so that

I can see what point you are trying to make?

What, eg, does this mean 'it wouldn't matter who was the Dem nominee'.

I COULD interpret that to mean: 'you are a right winger so you don't care who the Dem nominee is as you would oppose ANY dem nominee'.

But I don't like to try to read people's minds, so, is THAT what you are trying to say without actually saying it, or were you trying to make some other point? Because if THAT is your point, I would like to address it directly.

[Sheepshank]

154. I think it was clear enough n/t

[SidDithers]

155. It was...

Sid

[Laelth]

144. Well said.

The Democratic Party is divided, and the Republicans didn't create that division--we did.

Personally, I want to see the democratic wing of the Democratic Party regain the leadership. We've been out in the wilderness since we nominated McGovern in 1972, and it's time for that to change.

I invoke Harry Truman:

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

-Laelth

[BainsBane]

11. Unlike every other Democrat

pull the other one. We hear that in the 2008 primary. They just love Obama don't they? That's got to be the lamest excuse ever.

[dsc]

38. that has got to be the most idiotic idea in a long time

You give the GOP a de facto veto over who our nominee is by taking that position. If that isn't idiotic, I don't know what is.

[sabrina 1]

90. All we have to do is base decisions on FACTS. And keep telling the truth.

This of course, COULD be another 'trick' to try to silence legitimate criticism from the Left. I won't be supporting based on her right leaning policies, and especially based on her Corporate support and on Foreign Policy. I really don't need any input from dirty tricksters I just look at the facts.

[pnwmom]

94. You don't get it. The RW hates ANY powerful, potentially winning Democrat.

And any Democrat they didn't hate -- all the progressives would loathe.

[Laelth]

145. Demographic trends say that the Democratic candidate will win in 2016 ...

... no matter whom we nominate.

If that is so, and I think it is, why wouldn't we nominate a real liberal?



-Laelth

[pnwmom]

167. Democratic trends don't prevent stolen elections. We prevent it by avoiding a close election.

If we nominated a "real liberal" we'd be fighting it out in every swing state.

[Laelth]

188. Perhaps.

I agree that winning is important, but, win or lose, I'd rather be consistent and liberal.



-Laelth

[pnwmom]

191. Winning is KEY. I'd rather win with a Democrat that wasn't progressive enough to suit DU

but was far more progressive than any Rethugs would be.

Being consistent, liberal, and a loser isn't the way to go. Maybe you weren't around the two times when Democrats lost a Presidential election by 49 states. Never again.

[Laelth]

143. That does appear to be the argument.

I find it distasteful and disturbingly anti-democratic.



-Laelth

[djean111]

149. Yep. Exactly.

[SidDithers]

5. DU rec...

ratfuckers gonna ratfuck.

Sid

[Agschmid]

6. Yup.

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. +1

[kpete]

10. double YEP

and the REASON i post this shit....

peace,
kp

[msanthrope]

28. Yep....nt

[Evergreen Emerald]

131. haha

I had to clean the coffee off my monitor...thanks for the laugh.

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. And these groups have been "Trolling Obama From The Left" since day one. You Better Believe It!

[flamingdem]

73. I do, I do!

[winter is coming]

9. Because Dems are weak-willed creatures who loved Hillary until the RW told them not to.

[Laelth]

146. Well said. n/t

-Laelth

[The Magistrate]

13. Hell, Ma'am, You Can See The Left Auxiliary Of The Republican Right In Action Here Every Day....

[Logical]

16. LOL, I predicted almost word to word this post would be made! I love how....

complaining about this administration has become being right wing!

[winter is coming]

17. Remember, you're either for us or against us.

[Logical]

18. I know, complain and be labeled right wing! nt

[Laelth]

147. You nailed it.

And it's sad. I don't like feeling unwelcome in my own Party. The party faithful have me by the short hairs, and they know it. What's worse is that they rub it in. After all, what am I going to do? Vote for a Republican?

Frankly, I am ready for a resurgence of the democratic wing of the Democratic Party. It's tragic when being a liberal and speaking from a liberal point of view is perceived as a threat to the allegedly liberal party in the United States--i.e. the Democratic Party.



-Laelth

[Logical]

158. Great points! Something needs to change! nt

[KoKo]

65. That is unkind and unfair...

Anybody like that is taken out by MIRT.

When you see long time posters that you can search to find their posts and none of them are Trolls for the RW...you know that there are honest people here who are Democrats pushed to the Left because our party went to the Right.

And, as each day passes and the revelations of Wikileaks/Assange and Snowden reveal more and more it becomes much harder to marginalize them and trash them along with the international revlations coming to the forefront with the latest info of FBI entrapping kids for $5. a day to try to recruit kids who "might be radicals" to get involved with activities to be called terrorism working for USAID!

And....you know there are people here who care so much about Democracy and it applying to we who supposedly live under it and support it and how it's being undermined from within that to suggest that there are "moles, trolls" in hiding under pseudonyms that have not yet been found by aggressive MIRT who've (many, most been doing this since I joined DU...) would lead me to believe that you either mis-spoke or I misinterpreted that you were talking about those of low post count, returning sock puppets or others slipping through the DU System who have greater computer skills than the rest of us who can game the system for their own needs.

I'd worry more about Frank Luntz's crowd here on DU spewing their talking points or the other Paid Ops to put disinfo out that long time DU Posters who have a history which can be searched of their views.

I hope the latter is what you were talking about and not the rest of us here whom you know are not of that trolling ilk.

[The Magistrate]

69. As A Thoroughgoing Leninist Might Say, Ma'am

There are some on the left who, when the effect of their actions is viewed objectively, actually serve the right rather than the left, despite their belief they are not only leftists but the vanguard of leftism. In this category it is not unreasonable to include people who circulate right-wing smears against, and who engage in incessant vitriol and disparagement against, political figures who will need some degree of left support, and who, while they not be fully of the left themselves, are yet in important respects much better for the people, and much better for the left, than their rightist electoral opponents. I am not speaking about a 'command control' relationship between 'the left auxiliary of the Republican party' and the paymasters and leadership of the right; I am speaking about people who, quite on their own, speak and act without concern for what the actual consequences of their actions might be, people who are willing, if it comes to cases, to see the triumph of extreme rightists at the polls in order to punish a Democratic candidate, and the Democratic Party, for being insufficiently left for their tastes. Such people provide real assistance to the extreme right, indeed, the right counts on this kind of factionalism and splintering on the left, viewing it as one of its most useful tools in maintaining power.

[msanthrope]

117. This. nt

[maddezmom]

129. Well said, Sir

👍

[KoKo]

133. What is the Center Right Dem Party Afraid of?

As I said in a reply below to those repeating tired attacks against Hamsher and Nader...Post #'s 105 and 107.
-------------------
What are you afraid of? If Hamsher and Nader are washed up

getting drunk off past glories....then what does that have to do with some here feeling threatened by them and going out of their way to almost spew hate towards them.

Nader didn't decide the 2000 Election. Jeb Bush and faulty or intentionally manipulated voting machines with "punch card ballots" needing a thorough recount (which was halted) and the election then decided by the US Supreme Court. Jane Hamsher worked for "more and better Democrats through "Act Blue" and has had Book Salons on her site which promote Democratic Leaning authors. She seemed to get "thrown under the bus" with her and others on the Left Netroots who wanted to target Joe Lieberman in CT. That effort seemed to throw our Dem Party into unhinged "Attack Jane" mode because one person could go against the "Mighty Joe" and force him to run as an Independent. And, Rahm Emmanuel is no credit to the Dem Party. I've met him...and he's nothing but a real ego tripper.

What is the fear? If two "washed up" Lefties like Ralph and Jane have no credibility...then why all the fuss about them. Best to ignore them....if there isn't something that Dem Leadership fears.

[Sheepshank]

156. nail...meet hammer

I was going to C&P and highlight the sentences that spoke to the heart of the matter....then I found the only two words I DIDN'T highlight were the first two words.

Well said!

[sabrina 1]

97. Oh, you are correct about that, we DO see it here every day. In fact I see some of it

right here in this thread.

[The Magistrate]

102. If I Did Not Know Better, Ma'am, I Would Suspect You Of Sarcasm....

[sabrina 1]

103. I was not being sarcastic at all, just completely honest.

I suppose honesty, being as rare as it is in politics, can be mistaken for sarcasm. I assure you I was stating a fact, no sarcasm needed.

[The Magistrate]

104. You Might Make A Decent Card-Player, Ma'am....

[MannyGoldstein]

116. Are there any issues that are *particularly* the domain

of "The Left Auxiliary Of The Republican Right" that you can share with is? Or is it as simple as protecting the Crown from unflattering truths? Or something else?

[BainsBane]

14. I see no difference between the right and anti-Democratic "left"

They share the same tactics and goals. They both work to bring about the election of the GOP. There is no difference.

A Democrat can support any Democratic candidate during an actual primary, but when they devote themselves to making sure Democrats don't win the election, they become the same as the GOP. Many are also people with open contempt for the majority of Americans. They describe concerns about civil rights, sexism, and homophobia as "Third Way." If you care about women's equality under the law, you are "centrist," If you care about racism and equality, you are "Third way." How is that "leftist"?

[winter is coming]

15. Wow, guess they were out of narrow brushes at the hardware store. n/t

[Skidmore]

27. She is spot on though.

Sometimes something is what it is regardless of the protestations. What colors are you painting with?

[winter is coming]

31. Demonizing the left isn't "spot on". It's divisive bullshit.

The so-called "anti-Democratic left" doesn't share the tactics and goals of the right. It doesn't want to see conservative Republicans elected. Hell, it doesn't even want to see conservative Democrats elected.

The "left" doesn't describe concerns about civil rights, sexism, and homophobia as "Third Way", either. The "left" thinks those issues are important. IMO, the difference between the "left" and the "Third Way" is that the "left" doesn't think those are the only things we're allowed to expect of a Democrat: we should also look for someone who supports strengthening the safety net and addressing economic inequality. The "left" thinks that every time we shift to the right, sacrificing those things, we weaken our Party and our country.

IMO, the "left" has had its fill of Third Way candidates: Hillary will have a hard time getting their votes for free. Given that the things the "left" appears to want are things Dems used to support, and things that poll well with Americans, it's not clear to me why the left's expectations seem so anathema and excessive to the centrists.

Calling the left "anti-Democratic" and saying it's exactly like the right? That's a stellar way to decrease the chances of the left reluctantly supporting a centrist nominee it doesn't want.

Those are the colors I'm painting with.

[Skidmore]

32. When criticism ceases to be constructive with

no content to build upon, then it becomes destructive and destroys opportunities for consensus and resolution of problems in society. I'm not looking at "candidates" alone. Too many focus on the candidates and on slapping down every little jot that doesn't perfectly align while losing sight of the fact that ultimately it is unity of cause that will provide the numbers to defeat the big money. Too often people get caught up in the labels and name calling. I don't even know what some of those labels mean anymore. I just know that there are times when it sure as hell seems like blowing things up for the sake of doing it is the preferred mode.

[BainsBane]

113. +1

[Rex]

164. Saying the left is exactly like the right, is like saying there is no difference in the parties.

It is divisive bullshit meant to make sure we stay at each other and to take our eye off the prize.

[stevenleser]

86. When the end product of the 'left' in question is to elect Republicans, its not much of a 'left' nt

[BainsBane]

112. Exactly my point

Particularly when many of their views on issues are similar (and here, to be very clear, I am not talking either explicitly or implicitly about winter is coming). I've said it before: If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, even if it thinks it's a swan.

[BainsBane]

109. I would agree the left doesn't do that

Not what I consider the left, but people who think themselves leftier than thou do.

Wait, wait. You just provided evidence for my point.

The "left" doesn't describe concerns about civil rights, sexism, and homophobia as "Third Way", either. The "left" thinks those issues are important. IMO, the difference between the "left" and the "Third Way" is that the "left" doesn't think those are the only things we're allowed to expect of a Democrat

Then you go on to talk about the safety net, as though women and people of color don't care about that, when in fact we are the people most affected by poverty, not the upper-middle class who thinks themselves so superior to the rest of Americans you just denounced as "Third Way."

You have just describe the concerns of the majority of Americans, of those who are not white and male, as "Third Way." Your entire conception of politics revolves around the politically elite and those privileged by maleness, whiteness and wealth. How can a conception of politics that defines out all but about 10-20 percent of Americans be leftist? How is a conception of politics that centers on the life experiences of ordinary Americans of all races, genders, and sexualities be "Third Way"? You have an odd typology going that, sadly, is fairly common.

I typically deal with issues rather than using labels, but I am often confronted with people who call me "centrist" in response to economic and political analysis that is clearly Marxist in nature. They tell me my concerns aren't important. I shouldn't even talk about them because hearing about racism, gender violence, and human trafficking is "divisive." It is to them divisive because they define us outside the body politic that is exclusively white, upper-middle class and gendered male, if not in composition in terms of political issues. They thus declare the concerns of the majority don't matter, the concerns of women and people of color, of the poor. What matters is political rhetoric by politicians as broadcasted over the TV sets of the white upper-middle class. So yes, I stepped into some major class and race privilege by pretending the lives of someone besides the white and privileged count. I made the mistake of forgetting that nothing matters other than the great man or woman in the White House. The lives of ordinary Americans are of minor importance. To denounce those concerns as Third Way is pretty bizarre, but really, it just shows a provincial understanding of the political spectrum and a narrow understanding of politics itself. It is an understanding premised entirely around contests among political elites. (Because they are elites, no matter how "progressive" sounding when they campaign, they will primarily serve the interests of capital. That is one duty they never fail to meet. The nature of the capitalist state demands it. Pretending otherwise doesn't change that reality). The difference between the parties revolves around the extend to which there is room for the concerns of ordinary Americans after first meeting the interests of capital. The Democrats do that better than Republicans, and that difference is enough to make an impact in the lives of many.

Calling the left "anti-Democratic" and saying it's exactly like the right? That's a stellar way to decrease the chances of the left reluctantly supporting a centrist nominee it doesn't want.

Those are the colors I'm painting with.

Those are the very colors I just described. If you have to "reluctantly support a Democrat," you again prove my point. No one who cares about or depends on safety nets "reluctantly supports" Democrats. If what I write here makes the difference of whether you vote for a Democrat or someone like Rand Paul, you prove my very point. If you find if that hard to support someone like Clinton over the Tea Party, I have trouble understanding how you would consider yourself a Democrat.

People who vote for Third Party candidates or Republicans might consider themselves leftists, but frankly I don't care what they consider themselves. It's what they do and how they vote that matters. And when you insist the concerns of the majority of Americans are "Third Way" because they don't meet your rarified view of appropriate political rhetoric, that tells me your concerns are limited to the political elite.

If you don't want to have such ideas noticed, don't keep saying crap like you just did above. When you denounce the concerns of the majority of Americans (because women, people of color, and LGBT are the overwhelming majority) as "Third Way," you convey an attitude that suggests you see most Americans as beneath you, and as doing exactly what you claim I am, of defining people outside the left.

[winter is coming]

126. Wow... total pretzel logic.

No one has told you that your concerns are unimportant, nor have I denounced the concerns of the majority of Americans. The things I expect of Dem politicians poll well with the majority of Americans, and I have never been interested in voting for a Libertarian. And it's not clear to me where you got "Marxist", as the things I espouse are the things traditional liberal Democrats used to proudly support. Apparently to you, old style-liberal Dems = Marxists and neoliberals = Dems who deserve unquestioning support.

I've reluctantly supported Democrats in the past because they didn't care about social safety nets or the economic welfare of Americans. Far too often, they were socially liberally and economically conservative which to me is hypocrisy: how can you be "for" women, minorities, etc., if your economic policies harm them?

If you'd like to pretend that the Third Way mindset is pro-ordinary American instead of pro-corporation go right ahead, but that won't make it true.

[stevenleser]

176. Your position depends on a willful ignorance of American political history

if you willfully ignore the inability of Kucinich to get any traction, if you willfully ignore the complete destruction at the polls of the most liberal Presidential candidates over the past 50 years, you might, all other things being equal, be able to believe that the best thing to do is nominate someone from that wing of the Democratic Party.

If you want to convince people who are not willfully ignorant of those things that we should nominate someone from that wing of the party, you should explain to us why things are different that would allow them to win.

So far, someone from that wing of the party cannot even win the Democratic nomination. That does not bode well for them in a general election. Instead of acknowledging that and trying to figure out how to organize and educate the general populace as to why progressivism is the best set of policies, people who advocate for a progressive to be nominated tend fall back on the easy road out of conspiracy theory for why their candidates can't win the nomination. That allows them to not have to do any work, which is pretty convenient indeed.

You can rail against "third way" or whatever you choose to call the bogeymen of more centrist Democratic candidates all you want. If you can't get a progressive nominated or elected, it really doesn't mean much.

[winter is coming]

180. I haven't said anything about Kucinich or conspiracy theories.

Take your strawmen and your canned anti-progressive rant somewhere else.

[stevenleser]

181. I didn't say you did. Try reading what I actually wrote. Speaking of strawmen... nt

[BainsBane]

202. That poster seems to bothered

by any disagreement.

[BainsBane]

201. You really won't deal with any disagreement at all

That is an unfortunate trait.

[BainsBane]

190. No one has told me my concerns are unimportant?

How about every time I post an OP related to race or gender?

I didn't say you were Marxist, no where. I said my analysis was Marxist. You seem to have glanced at my post without reading it. Believe me, I know very well that people who use words like "corporatists" are not Marxists. Marxists understand that we live in a capitalist society and that the primary function of the capitalist state is to serve capital. They know that isn't something that just suddenly developed under Obama but is intrinsic to capitalism itself.

Apparently to you, old style-liberal Dems = Marxists and neoliberals = Dems who deserve unquestioning support.

This really is pointless. If you're not going to read what I write, naturally you won't see any logic.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

29. Whereas the centrists simply aim to bring us 'Democratic' candidates who advance RW legislation.

My goal on the left is to fight the continued movement of candidates of all parties to the right.

Who is 'they' that

describe concerns about civil rights, sexism, and homophobia as "Third Way."

?

I'm concerned about all of those things, and about as far away to the left as you're going to find in American politics.

I certainly don't have 'open contenpt' for the majority of Americans. The majority of Americans have shown in poll after poll that they favour more liberal policies than current elected Dems do. Ask about any 'liberal' policy by itself, and you routinely get 60-80% of Americans agreeing with it, as long as you don't actually CALL it a liberal policy.

[BainsBane]

33. A number of people describe concern for sexism, homophobia and racism as Third Way

Or centrist. I have been told it was the operating ethos of some of the hosts for a while, and why some refused to lock certain OPs or take seriously alerts from certain members. I cannot personally attest to most of that, since I have only seen repostings of some of the hosts discussions in question. I have been also been told directly that centrists are the ones who care about "social issues"--a phrase someone chose to use to refer to my point about the rights of women, people of color, and LGBT.

A number of people who consider themselves so leftist are openly hostile to women and people of color. They appear to me to be the most conservative members of the site, but they don't see themselves that way. The thing about "centrism" and "liberal" is that they are terms with no real meaning. People use them to describe those they disagree with.

I have at least twice been called centrist after posting Marxist analysis. Both times I was left struck with the clear impression that they were poorly read and exceedingly provincial in their understanding of political thought. It's hard for me to take seriously claims that people are leftier than thou when they that buy into American mythology and the ideological justifications for capitalism. Ultimately, the labels of centrist and liberal mean nothing. It's the positions that matter, and I have little patience for people who vest all hope in political messiahs, who except their will to be carried out by a President while refusing to take action to bring about political change. It is an ahistorical and counter-factual notion of how change comes about.


I have to say the poll about income crystallized some things in my mind. Not speaking of anyone in particular but the overall average of that poll, members of this site are far more prosperous than most Americans. It's easy to claim the political parties are the same or that it makes no difference if Jeb Bush or Clinton are in office when it's not your reproductive rights on the line, your basic sustenance, your right to marry, or you are not subject to racial discrimination on a daily basis. If the only difference is one's life is a few percentage points on their taxes and what they hear on TV (which seems to trump all else), I guess I shouldn't be surprised they see no distinction between the candidates. I started to wonder if these people have determined Obama to be so much worse than other presidents because the economy has finally deteriorated to the point where they too are starting to feel some of the pressure the rest of us have always lived with.

Then there is the fact right-wing trolls do take advantage of frustration among the left, and it can sometimes be difficult to tell who is who.

(I hope you know I do not include you in the above).

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

40. I would suggest that it was probably

people who don't like leftists who told you that only centrists care about social issues, since saying that is a slur against those farther to the left.

I'll agree that so many people play fast and loose with the meanings of the terms that they become essentially meaningless, though.

And, in passing, I'll note that I've been below the poverty line for the last 5 years or so, although I keep hoping that I'll finally find employment and break that streak, sigh. It's no fun going ever further into debt, even when those you're borrowing from are relatives who aren't likely to call in the marker any time soon.

[BainsBane]

42. the person claimed to consider himself a leftist

in comparison to me, whom he described as centrist. In reality, who knows.

I wish you luck on your job hunt. I know how frustrating that is. I was unemployed for three years myself.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

45. One thing I've noticed

is that a lot of folks consider themselves leftists while still clinging to things like capitalism and patriarchy

Thanks for the good vibes, it's been pretty draining, first to have my first career fade away, to retrain, and then simply be unable to even get interviews in the new career field. I obviously suck at writing cover letters and resumes.

[BainsBane]

46. If you're going through HR depts

You have to use the right words. Often computers screen for certain key words. It's hard, very frustrating. Who you know of course makes a difference, which is why networking can help.

I'll hold good thoughts for you.

[MannyGoldstein]

52. And, of course, you have links to demonstrate that

"A number of people describe concern for sexism, homophobia and racism as Third Way."

I don't recall ever seeing such a thing, but who knows?

[BainsBane]

54. Nice try

While I certainly have my share of weakness, stupidity is not one of them. Besides, you have your own kettle of gefilte fish to worry about right now. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5333717

[MannyGoldstein]

57. Refusing to provide evidence might make a person think

That there are no posts like the one you claim. That you're simply making stuff up out of whole cloth to attack others.

You wouldn't want people to think you're fibbing, would you?

[BainsBane]

58. What you think doesn't concern me, Manny.

I prefer to avoid the hide that would come from such a link, as you well know.

[AgingAmerican]

60. In such cases

I merely post the content of the post, minus the name of the poster. Problem solved!

[BainsBane]

67. Good idea

However, your post provides me with an opportunity. I do believe it is acceptable to link to someone's former posts while in conversation with that person:

AgingAmerican (3,719 posts)

5. The Third Way are socially liberal
...but fiscally conservative. They can best be described as Republicrats.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5225143

[AgingAmerican]

77. lol

So, in your mind, "The Third Way are socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. They can best be described as Republicrats", means all socially liberal people are Third Way® Republicrats?

Your desperation is palpable.

[BainsBane]

81. I didn't say a thing about all socially liberal people

I described the conversation I had with you; you came along and provided me an opportunity to link to it.

This was my original point in this thread:

A number of people describe concern for sexism, homophobia and racism as Third Way . . . I have been also been told directly that centrists are the ones who care about "social issues"--a phrase someone chose to use to refer to my point about the rights of women, people of color, and LGBT.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5336886

Now you claim that is dishonest? People can read the post and decide for themselves what it means. To clarify, it was in response to this:

BainsBane (27,982 posts)

3. That is all incidental to the issue of disrespect for PoC, women, and LGBT, among others
The idea that there is something Third Way, as we've been told, about such positions is absurd.

Politicians come and go, but human rights are always central. I don't get the fixation on personalities, particularly when we aren't yet voting for presidential candidates. Additionally, people clearly disagree greatly about what is left and right. If someone thinks the issues this OP talks about are unimportant or a sign of some insidious centrist creep, I don't see how they can be considered leftists at all. America does not exist for white men only, and the notion that the issues of everyone but them are unimportant is as reactionary as it gets.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5225074

Then you chose to enter the discussion by responding to my post above thusly:

AgingAmerican (3,721 posts)

5. The Third Way are socially liberal
...but fiscally conservative. They can best be described as Republicrats.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5225143

You don't like seeing your words quoted back to you. Fair enough, but there is no way doing so is dishonest. You spoke for yourself in the quote above and you now seek to move the goal posts pretending I made claims I did not. However you characterize my comments doesn't change what you said. You chose to respond that way. No one forced you to dismiss the concerns I raised about equality and human rights.

If I were to characterize those words myself, my interpretation would be far less generous than what you have claimed I have said.

[AgingAmerican]

85. lol

Would you like some logic with that pretzel?

[BainsBane]

88. The proof is in black and white

Hedge all you want. People can read it for themselves. I also note you didn't respond to my answer to you in that thread a while back, so you clearly didn't have any objections to how I characterized your remarks then, which is far less flattering than what you claim I have said here. Your error is in overestimating my opinion of your views, there and in virtually every discussion we have had. You have been nothing if not consistent.

[AgingAmerican]

89. You are using pretzel logic

I have never, ever described concern for sexism, homophobia and racism as Third Way, ever and you know it. Your implication that I somehow have is dishonest.

You have a good evening!

[Sheepshank]

151. while you complain about pretzel logic, you fail you realize

Last edited Tue Aug 5, 2014, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1)

that in the world of politics linear thinking is way too simplistic and too easy to manipulate. There will never be a time when Rep propoganda is exactly as it seems to be.

[winter is coming]

173. So we're going to abandon A implies B for A implies squid?

Because when we go with A implies squid and there are no internal steps showing how you got from A to squid (however convoluted a path it may be), you're just making shit up.

[pnwmom]

96. You're responding to a very logical, well reasoned post with a joke.

Because that's apparently the best you can do.

[AgingAmerican]

99. There is no 'well reasoning'

To pretzel logic.

[BainsBane]

114. I think what you mean is

There is no way to talk yourself out of what you clearly wrote in black and white and now remains for all to see. It makes sense you have nothing to say given the evidence.

[AgingAmerican]

118. I stand behind what I said

The Third Way ARE socially liberal and economically CONSERVATIVE. They are REPUBLICRATS. I 100% stand behind that statement.

How do you get from that, to this?

"A number of people describe concern for sexism, homophobia and racism as Third Way"

Thanks in advance!

[MannyGoldstein]

122. I hope I'm just still half-asleep

Before I weigh in on this, let's make sure that I understand your argument, which seems to be:

- A poster wrote that Third Wayers are economically to the right, socially to the left.
- Therefore, if that poster says that person X is socially to the left, they are accusing that person of being a Third Wayer

Do I understand your reasoning? If not, please correct me, thanks.

[winter is coming]

137. No, I think the misreading of "Third Wayers are economically to the right, socially to the left"

was "people who are economically to the left think social concerns are unimportant". Or maybe that's just the skeevy conclusion derived from the misreading.

[MannyGoldstein]

183. Good luck trying to figure it out

The are many ways to misinterpret!

[BainsBane]

199. Another example

of what you claim doesn't exist. This one from this very thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5338411

[BainsBane]

161. Look at the full conversation

posted in context downthread. Look at what he was responding to.
or click on the link and read it in the original thread, which is not long.

[MannyGoldstein]

182. I looked at that thread three times now

There's nothing there that hints at what you're saying as far as I can see. Either point out the specific sentences that demonstrate what you claim, or stop claiming it.

[BainsBane]

187. What do you think it says?

What is the point of responding to a post of mine talking about those who dismiss the concerns of people of color, women, etc... as "Third Way" as he did:

5. The Third Way are socially liberal
...but fiscally conservative. They can best be described as Republicrats.


If the post were stand alone, your point might be valid. It was not. It was in direct response to my point about the concerns of ordinary Americans, which despite what some may think--are not limited to white men who make 2-4 times the median income.

[winter is coming]

192. The thread you linked to?

This one? http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025224919

This is what I think it says. Anyone who feels I've mischaracterized their words is encouraged to pipe up and set things straight.

The OP talks about people who claim to be "left" but aren't socially liberal. I haven't seen a lot of that but I avoided the recent privilege flamewars, and can easily believe some DUers showed their butts there.

bigtree comes along and says that most Hillary supporters seem to be dyed-in-the-wool liberals and that HRC doesn't get enough credit with some DUers for being a strong advocate for women, immigrants, etc.

you respond to bigtree, saying, "That is all incidental to the issue of disrespect for PoC, women, and LGBT, among others. The idea that there is something Third Way, as we've been told, about such positions is absurd." <--- This, to me, is where things start to come off the rails. Your meaning here is confused. A strict reading of your words implies that you believe people have said that disrespect of minorities, etc. is somehow Third Way (not something I've seen), but it's clear from this post http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025335422#post33 that you believe the exact opposite: "A number of people describe concern for sexism, homophobia and racism as Third Way" (also not something I've seen).

AgingAmerican responds to you, saying, "The Third Way are socially liberal...but fiscally conservative. They can best be described as Republicrats." As near as I can tell, that's an accurate description and it's actually agreeing with the statement you made (but apparently didn't intend)... "...issue of disrespect for PoC, women, and LGBT, among others. The idea that there is something Third Way, as we've been told, about such positions is absurd."

So, you're all offended by something AgingAmerican said in response to you, but apparently don't realize that you didn't say what you meant to say.

In another post in this thread, you've just said to me, "If you're not going to read what I write, naturally you won't see any logic." I did read what you wrote, as did AgingAmerican and Manny and probably some others. The problem seems to be that you didn't read what you wrote.

[BainsBane]

193. You said I called you a Marxist

(note that Manny and Aging American may agree with you, but many others do not, as in clear from this subthread.)

This is what I in fact wrote:

I typically deal with issues rather than using labels, but I am often confronted with people who call me "centrist" in response to economic and political analysis that is clearly Marxist in nature.

I then went on to comment:

To denounce those concerns as Third Way is pretty bizarre, but really, it just shows a provincial understanding of the political spectrum and a narrow understanding of politics itself. It is an understanding premised entirely around contests among political elites. (Because they are elites, no matter how "progressive" sounding when they campaign, they will primarily serve the interests of capital. That is one duty they never fail to meet. The nature of the capitalist state demands it. Pretending otherwise doesn't change that reality). The difference between the parties revolves around the extend to which there is room for the concerns of ordinary Americans after first meeting the interests of capital. The Democrats do that better than Republicans, and that difference is enough to make an impact in the lives of many.

That is confirmed in my earlier post in this thread that you just linked to:

I have at least twice been called centrist after posting Marxist analysis.

(such as the above).

That you miss the point of something as basic as that I would think you are a Marxist, when my fundamental point is that I see those who consider themselves leftier than thou as actually terribly bourgeois in their political views, that exclude the concerns of the majority of Americans. This is an argument that began during the controversy over GD hosting, while one host insisted that some were ignoring the alerts by people THEY labeled "Third Way" because they didn't post in Snowden threads and instead posted about issues like gender violence and racism.

[winter is coming]

194. I didn't miss the so-called "point". I thought it was word salad, as is this:

"those who consider themselves leftier than thou as actually terribly bourgeois in their political views, that exclude the concerns of the majority of Americans."

I've seen no indication that the left exclude the concerns of the majority of Americans. That's an unsupported assertion on your part. As for this:

"This is an argument that began during the controversy over GD hosting, while one host insisted that some were ignoring the alerts by people THEY labeled "Third Way" because they didn't post in Snowden threads and instead posted about issues like gender violence and racism."

Don't bring crap in here from the hosts forum and assume people know what you're talking about, and kindly don't generalize from one host to the whole of the left.

You were right about one thing, though: this discussion is pointless.

[BainsBane]

195. When you don't understand

and don't try to understand, you will think it word salad. You don't get even the most basic point because you can't imagine that you and those who think like you aren't the embodiment of the left and everyone else beneath you. Your filter obscures your ability to understand the most basic points. I suspect that comes from a determination to only talk to people exactly like yourself, and therefore you can't imagine that the categories you use to dismiss others do not represent absolute truth.

I clearly showed that you didn't understand my reference to Marxism. Predictably, you now choose to ignore that and refuse to entertain a thought of anything that doesn't affirm your own views.

That shit from the hosts conflict was posted in GD. That is how I know about it. I see nothing leftist about such people, so I am not making claims about the left. I am talking about those who define the rest of us as outside the left because we care about different issues. Anyone who dismisses the majority of the population from political consideration is in my view right-wing. That they then refuse to vote for Democrats is not even slightly surprising.

If you doubt others share this view, inquire in the African American group. They are well-acquainted with such positions and the posters involved. They have been on the receiving end of their scorn many times. That you deliberately avoid discussions of racism (what you call "the privilege flamewars&quot hardly is a point in your favor on this.

[winter is coming]

196. When you write circular and self-contradictory arguments, I see word salad.

Here's an example from your last post. You claim: "I see nothing leftist about such people, so I am not making claims about the left." Yet in your very next sentence, you say "I am talking about those who define the rest of us as outside the left because we care about different issues," thus implying that the left doesn't care about those issues, which is

a) false and
b) a claim about the left.



I'm done with you.

[BainsBane]

197. That me make it clear

I am not besmirching the left. I am besmirching those who falsely consider themselves leftists while seeming to be concerned entirely with people like them (their race, class and gender) and contests among political elites, while dismissing the concerns of ordinary Americans (anyone who is not white, male, and upper-middle class) as "Third Way." Hopefully that should be clear enough for you.

The key point you miss is categories of left and Third Way are not absolute but rather contested. You and those who think like you are not the absolute arbiters of what those categories mean. The categories are at the very least contested. My meaning of left varies considerably from yours. That is among the points I am making that seems to be entirely foreign to you. I suspect that comes from a determination to only talk to people exactly like yourself, and therefore you can't imagine that the categories you use to dismiss others do not represent absolute truth.

[AgingAmerican]

178. Bingo

nt

[BainsBane]

185. While it's just a total coincidence

That any time the issue of women's rights or civil rights comes up, the person who made that point about "Third Way" scoffs at the idea that they matter in the slightest.

[winter is coming]

186. Link, please. n/t

[AgingAmerican]

200. 100% wrong

Nothing you say about me is true. You made the insinuation up. You've been called out on it multiple times and have failed miserably to back it up every time. Just give it up!

Lordy!!

Have a nice day!!

[BainsBane]

198. Another example

From this very thread. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5338411

[MannyGoldstein]

61. There's no rule against linking to examples.

Check the terms of service. Nothing. Take a look.

People link to examples of bad behavior all of the time, e.g., http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024620281#post301

Since there are no rules against linking to other posts, and since people do it regularly without any problems, your protest might sound to some like an excuse for not having any examples of the behavior that you're claiming, and thus it would be a total fabrication.

[BainsBane]

68. Another member graciously provided me with an opportunity

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5337846

[AgingAmerican]

78. Apparently in her world

Stating that fact that, "The Third Way® are socially liberal and fiscally GOP" means that all socially liberal people (myself included) are Third Way®.

lol

[BainsBane]

84. Provide a quote of my saying that

Go on. Your efforts to change the goalposts aren't convincing.

[AgingAmerican]

87. lol

You implied exactly that. This is the bed you make when you use pretzel logic to attack someone. I have never, ever described concern for sexism, homophobia and racism as Third Way and you know it. Any implications to the contrary are utterly dishonest.

[BainsBane]

91. So you entered this discussion talking about how one can provide quotes as evidence

and now you refuse to do so. Now your hedging rests on "you implied."

What you call dishonest is the actual discussion in full context. Your words, in full text for anyone to see who is interested. I suppose if I went around articulating such ideas I'd get defensive when I was caught as well, but then I don't say things like that for the simple reason I don't adhere to such ideas.

[AgingAmerican]

95. Pfffft

Your accusation against me is hyperbolic, irrational, nonsense. Your 'evidence' does not back your ridiculous accusations, and you know it.

[sabrina 1]

100. Well, THAT was not even weak try. Manny asked a simple question, you made a claim

it is on you to prove it. Can you post some links to back up that claim?

I will check back later to see them, if you do not have any, then your claim is false. DUers are way too smart to fall for 'deflection'. I did not check your link as I assume it has zero to do with YOUR attack on DUers.

[BainsBane]

106. You could have checked before you left your response

Last edited Tue Aug 5, 2014, 03:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Since I provided some links a good hour and twenty minutes before then. In fact, anyone who was even minimally curious would look at the other posts in the subthread. Could it be that you really aren't any more interested in the links that Manny is?

BTW, I am a DUer and AS A DUer I object to your claim that YOU speak for ALL DUers. You are not ALL DUers. And you in fact are attacking a DUer without as much as bothering to look for the links you demand to see, as though I owe you something, as though you have the right to order people around.

Precisely what are the qualifications for you to consider someone a DUer? Why am I not allowed to make points of observation about positions people take, while you, showing absolutely no interest in evidence or the content of the discussion, should be able to attack a DUer for no apparent reason other than you couldn't be bothered to look at links already provided?

[BainsBane]

110. I knew you didn't want to see the evidence

Among the more annoying aspects of people asking for links is that in too many cases they don't want to see them. They just want to try to convince themselves no evidence exists. I in fact did provide links below, and another person (not the one I linked to) came along and provided evidence for my points, all while claiming to refute them.

[hfojvt]

119. anybody who is paying attention

would describe concerns about sexism, civil rights and homophobia as third way.

That is the essence of the 3rd way - to be socially liberal and economically conservative.

Consider these accomplishments of Obama

social issues

Matthew Sheperd Act
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay act
ended DADT
appointed two women (and a hispanic) to SCOTUS

economic issues

made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent
scrapped making work pay credit in favor of accursed payroll tax cut
ACA through private insurance
working on TPP

It's the modern "liberal". On social issues he's practicall Harvey Milk, on economic issues he's practically George H.W. Bush. Or Hillary, on social issues, she's Gloria Steinem, on economic issues, she's Margaret Thatcher.

Of course, I am widely held to be a conservative because I put economic issues first and don't believe that low income white males are doubly privileged.

[cascadiance]

150. CORPORATE/ELITE power is what is behind the manipulation. Right vs. Left is the illusion...

... of where the dividing lines that they try to use to amplify where "the issues" are to us that "we should be concerned about" both by corporate controlled politicians of both parties as well as the corporate owned press which is their echo chamber.

No one on the left (myself included) is saying that the highly discussed social issues and our concerns from the left are "unimportant" or "third way". It is the EMPHASIS on them publicly as the only issues to be discussed that is CORPORATE serving (third way and Republican corporate segment BOTH being arms of that power faction) that is the problem here.

We don't discuss things much like:
1) the problems with TPP, TIPP, TISA, and other of these new very corrupt and "stealthy" trade deals.
2) corporate personhood as a part of court decisions like Citizens United, McCutcheon, and Hobby Lobby which enables the corruption.
3) electronic voting and other centralized ways of voting that aren't given enough scrutiny where the real election fraud happens.
4) voter suppression on things like voter id laws, maintaining marijuana prohibition as a felony (and vote suppression) offense, etc.
5) maintaining the outsourcing/insourcing infrastructure that takes away our jobs through programs like H-1B, H-2B, and removing tariffs, and allowing profits to be hidden off-shore.
6) continuing efforts to privatize and steal things like SS, Medicare (or other forms of single payer health coverage) and our pensions and demonize any kind of spending and jobs being created to help build up infrastructure.
7) shutting down any kinds of voting reform such as instant runoff voting that would empower other parties that the corporate sector don't control in elections, and remove blame of them being "spoilers" for the lesser of two evils winning elections (ie. how we all should "hate" Ralph Nader for trying to counteract this corporate influence).
8) problems with the NSA and the security state spying on all of us and that also being privatized as well.

I for one want to say that I DO care about these often discussed issues such as those affecting women, gay rights, and other social issues that are currently divided along "left vs. right" divisions. I suspect I will always be opposite Tea Partiers who aren't that manipulative in their stances opposite to mine. Those issues are used to being divide us, where we might exploit that the Tea Partiers are given more power within the Republicans to advance some more populist stances on some of the above issues that we can work together on them (even if the corporate interests are working to hide them from us and work against both of us in doing so). I suspect that the growing numbers of independents and even the Tea Partiers have the overlapping stances with us on issues like that of #1 and H-!B hiring, etc. that if we aren't too distracted on the issues we disagree on, that we can start taking down the corporate power structure by taking these on together. It will be tough when both the power structure of the two parties and the corporate media are aligned against us in these cases, but perhaps we can at least take down the pieces that is enabling the corporate corruption that IS the cancer that is destroying this country now. We can agree to disagree on many of these issues that we can decide on democratically later (if we can get the corporate corruption influence out of the system that would make such a resolution more fair and perhaps find a middle ground we can both accept later).

Ralph Nader's new book "Unstoppable" sounds interesting in this regard, as I think he's trying to work on these areas as well as a way to unite us on the issues that would serve to make us more a democracy again instead of a corporate oligarchy that we are now.

[AgingAmerican]

59. 'They describe concerns about civil rights, sexism, and homophobia as "Third Way."'

I have never seen this on DU ever.

[Tarheel_Dem]

79. Speak on it, Bains! Those damned elections won't suppress themselves.

[hootinholler]

136. OMG DUzy

[MADem]

125. You've hit the nail on the head, there. nt

[LWolf]

135. But are oh-so-offended

by those who see not enough difference between neoliberal "democrats" and republicans.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

174. These people are different than me, and so are those people. Therefore, they're exactly the same.

As the Bush administration ably proved, repeating bullshit over and over doesn't have the tendency to make it any more true. If you have ANY words to back up your assertion that polar opposites are functionally the same, I'll be interested in hearing them.

[BainsBane]

204. If someone votes for a Third Party candidate

and refuses to support the Democratic nominee, they are furthering Republican electoral prospects. You may think pure thoughts are what matters. In my view action counts. When one takes action that helps Republicans gain office, they are essentially the same, even if they believe themselves to be different, because their actions are the same.

I say this knowing full well I voted for Nader in 2000, in Florida. People tried to talk me out of it, but I stubbornly refused. There isn't much difference between the two parties, I insisted. Bush proved me wrong, very wrong. George Bush made me a solid Democrat.

[jeff47]

19. So, we allowed to have a 2016 primary, or should we just anoint her now? (nt)

[winter is coming]

25. We're having PrimaryLite... only two choices: patriot or traitor. n/t

[BainsBane]

43. What in the OP tells you we shoudn't have a primary?

It talks about right wingers using the left to sow discord and increase the GOP's electoral prospects.

[jeff47]

44. It's yet another in a long line of "Clinton is the nominee" posts.

And it says anyone not marching in lockstep with that is a right-wing plant.

[BainsBane]

111. I didn't read it that way

but even if it is, so what? She isn't the nominee. An election will begin in about a year's time. In about a year and a half or two years, we'll know who the nominee is, not before.

I myself would prefer to do away with all of the fantasy presidential politics and focus on 2014. That is far more important.

[Iggo]

63. Wit us or agin' us.

[randys1]

30. Rove and Co will do ANYTHING to get the WH, remember, they have gerrymandered

the house, the senate is at risk because so much of America is woefully ignorant or just downright stupid and if the rightwing get the WH

it is over

The stakes are so high it is almost god damn funny to think that ANY person calling them-self a liberal or progressive or Democrat would risk getting a complete, 100% rightwing govt including the SC...

It just is INSANE, and I am more liberal than almost ANY of you, remember I am the one who thinks it is INSANE that any human is allowed to own ANY real property (real property means land, not personal property)...

I am the one who thinks most basic needs have to be socialized, and basic needs include cell service, internet, food, fuel, electricity, etc.

So if I am willing to acknowledge that we cant risk having a rightwing govt, no matter how far to the right the Dems have gone, then ah hell...it just blows my mind.

[wyldwolf]

34. "complete lack of criticism of Hillary from Democratic sites such as this"

Did you forget the sarcasm tag?

[Iggo]

64. I thought that was funny, too.

[Nye Bevan]

36. I've certainly been surprised at the bitterness of some of the attacks on Hillary,

coming from people who are ostensibly Democrats.

[AgingAmerican]

83. I believe

Some of it is left over resentment from when Hillary ran against Obama in the primaries in 2008. If I remember criticism was very, very openly viscous against her. Several leftie talkies self destructed over it. Randy Rhodes is a prime example of that. Stephanie Miller is another prime example. I remember the last time I listened to Stephanie Miller, she was asking her co-hosts, "Why can't we use the Kenneth Starr accusations against her?" after they stopped her from going on and on about the Clinton's Christmas card list.

Hatred turns some people into animals.

[Cali_Democrat]

37. I think it's safe to say they've even got operatives on anonymous message boards...

doing their dirty work.

[Union Scribe]

159. Well thank God we have you

and your friends to sort the clean from the unclean.

[Cali_Democrat]

179. Right-wing media fanning the flames of paranoia over Ebola....

...and ignorant fucksticks swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025340361

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025335195

Ignorant fucksticks need to be banished from Earth.

[tularetom]

39. Remember "Party Unity My Ass" from 2008?

Was that a bunch of right wing trolls?

It wouldn't surprise me one bit to find some of the same posters who were so negative about party unity then are now screaming the loudest about right wing trolley today.

[betterdemsonly]

41. If I were a member of the GOP dirt machine, I'd troll Warren and Sanders,

since they would actually dismantle many of my policies. I would support Clinton, because it is always a good thing to control both parties. At least that was the Koch brothers rational for helping to found the Dlc and contributing to campaigns of New Democrats like Andrew Cuomo.

[wyldwolf]

48. Strongly disagree

Apologies in advance for raining on parades but Warren and Sanders are but blips on the electoral radar.

[betterdemsonly]

49. and according to you their supporters are "ants to be stomped on" n/t

[wyldwolf]

50. LOL. It's so cute when people intentionally misinterpret analogies

[Sheepshank]

153. so much drama lol

why would RE hacks troll Warren when she has already stated she's NOT RUNNING? isn't that a waste of resources?

[msanthrope]

127. And that strategy is classic ratfucking from CREEP....if I may bring a historical perspective to

the discussion, true ratfucking (Nixonian) takes the blip on the radar---the farthest Left, weakest candidate, and props them up in order to shave points over the viable Democratic candidate.

The GOP does not need the blip to win--they need the blip to spoil.

[SidDithers]

124. However, if one was a member of the Green Party, one might try to strip off dissatisfied democrats..

or even create more dissatisfied democrats.

And the way to do that would be to try to make leading Dems, like HRC, as unappealing as possible.

Sid

[msanthrope]

128. As I note in post 127, that's classic ratfucking....shaving off the edges in order to attack the

candidate with the best chance of winning.

[Sheepshank]

162. A process so painfully obvious

...yet so ignored.

I wonder why?

[bunnies]

51. Hillary needs help pissing off the left like water needs help freezing at 40 below zero.

Puhleeeeeze.

[wyldwolf]

55. most of that 'pissing off the left' is the equivalent of astroturfing

The left is told what to be outraged about and they accept their marching orders with little of no question.

[hughee99]

70. Exactly, progressives need to stop listening to what she actually said

and pay more attention to who is telling us to listen to her.

[wyldwolf]

71. Actually, progressives need to stop taking unsourced editoritials as real journalism

NOT sarcasm.

[hughee99]

76. 7 1/2 minutes of an NPR interview is hardly becomes an "unsourced editorial"

just because some clown from the Rmoney campaign made sure it got as much play as possible. Also not sarcasm.

[wyldwolf]

80. I'm referring to online sources that spread misinformation to the left - read the OP

KOS, Hamsher, Mother Jones, etc. The unsourced editorials that pop up in thread after thread and presented as gospel game changers and argument winners.

[hughee99]

82. I read the OP. I'm specifically referring to what is called the

"greatest concern trolling coup" in the OP, which is pushing a 7 1/2 minute clip from an NPR interview in the media.

Sometimes, politicians do or say things that are unpopular, and it doesn't make it "not count" just because one of your political enemies is making sure everyone sees it.

Hell, this happens to repukes as well. That's why the teabaggers have gained so much power. A teabagger would rather say the absolute dumbest thing possible rather than risk pissing of their base (the dumbest base possible), and some of the less-teabaggery candidates lost primaries because they didn't.

[cascadiance]

157. so, not being a part of the CORPORATE MEDIA hierarchy means "unsourced misinformation"? Yeah, RIGHT!

Typical way of trying to shut down any kind of citizen's input in to the news stream. Even corporate Democrats like Diane Feinstein are a part of this effort by trying to introduce "media shield laws" where ACTS of a free press, which can be basically anyone who sees a news event with a camera, etc. and a journalistic sense of reporting it are NOT protected, versus only protecting "licensed" journalists which begs the question on who "licenses" them (arguably making it so that only the corporate media state can be protected from spying, etc.).

http://benswann.com/us-senator-feinstein-seeks-to-further-limit-freedom-of-press/

You can echo what corporate mouthpieces say and call these sources "misinformation", but why don't you tell us how groups of average concerned citizens can get word out of the real corporate corruption in both our government and media that is in play in destroying most of this country's well being in the search of building the wealth and power divide to the point of another depression style collapse.

And this sort of manipulation and the control that third way Democrats have control over the party allows the power elite to manipulate making it sound like the Tea Partiers, which they give more voice to in the Republican Party as being the more "activist" voice of resistance on things like civil rights against government spying, etc., which really are things that fundamentally the progressives have always been against, whether a Democratic or Republican administration has been engaged in them. The corporate elite is trying to take away those activist issues from us and make us sound more like the "corporate" government oppressors that none of us "on the left" want, but is enabled more by the third wayers.

[bunnies]

72. Really?

So youre down with the TPP?

[wyldwolf]

75. Yes, really, Hamsher/Kos etc. say it's so and the left take it as gospel

Still down with that 'Hillary is part of 'The Family' bullshit? Or that she supported and voted for the 2005 bankruptcy bill bullshit?

Astroturfing at it's finest.

[cascadiance]

160. So wyldwolf which of these statements is not true?

1) Hillary Clinton was a board member of Wal-Mart
2) the DLC that the Clintons helped set up was funded at the beginning by the Koch Brothers.
3) Hillary Clinton supports the TPP
4) Hillary Clinton supports expanding H-1B visa program.
5) Hillary Clinton conveniently did not vote AGAINST the bankruptcy bill, which is what Joe Biden strongly supported and helped get through congress as the senator of the state (Delaware) where many of the credit card companies are based out of.

There are many other things. But the CORPORATE media doesn't want to remind us of them, because they want her as the corporate shill candidate of the Democrats while they line up their corporate shill to run against her in 2016 and make sure that we get nothing like instant runoff voting that would threaten the oligarchic power structure they've set up. And any challengers from populist elements of either party they need to "shut down" as being "anti-party" segments of the party they run in as a way of keeping the field the corporate field they want.

Last election the corporate PTB controlled the top two (both a woman and a minority which likely were part of their strategy to draw in some votes based upon identity), and they looked to get those that were concerned about the control of these two candidates by corporate interests to vote for Edwards instead, who they likely knew they could pull the plug on later, which they did right before Super Tuesday.

[wyldwolf]

177. 'true' isn't the issue. 'relevant' is (and some of these are factually inaccurate)

1) Hillary Clinton was a board member of Wal-Mart

Sure, from 1986 to 1992, where she used her role to push for more environmentally friendly policies and better treatment of women. Clinton used her position to urge the company to improve its gender and racial diversity. Other board members have said Clinton was 'a thorn in Sam Walton's side' on matters of gender and racial diversity and environmental issues.

But here is where your criticism is a sure loser. The electorate as a whole apparently doesn't care that she sat on the Walmart board 28 years ago. No matter how hard 'progressives' (and President Obama) tried to make it an issue in 2008, it didn't resonate and there is no indication it will in 2016. Last I checked, Walmart was still the #1 box store on the planet, shopped at by millions of Americans - yep, even Democrats. You're telling them they're doing something evil. That's going to set REAL well with them.

2) the DLC that the Clintons helped set up was funded at the beginning by the Koch Brothers.

Not true - and here's why.

A. The Clintons didn't 'help set up' the DLC. The DLC was founded by Al From in 1985 along with founders and Democratic Governors Chuck Robb (Virginia), Bruce Babbitt (Arizona) and Lawton Chiles (Florida), Senator Sam Nunn (Georgia) and Representative Dick Gephardt (Missouri). The Clinton's, least of all Hillary, was not involved in that mix. Bill Clinton wasn't involved until 1989 - four years later.

B. Apparently, from the source that originally made that claim, the funding started in 2001, 16 years after the organization was founded. Koch Industries was one of 28 corporations that donated. Not coincidentally, these same corporations were found on a DBC list (you are familiar with the DBC, right? 'Democratic Business Council,') under the umbrella of the DNC and still thriving last I checked. They originated the organized practice of contributions from corporations a half decade before the DLC ever had their first pow wow. If anyone 'progressive' in the Senate or House received campaign funding from the national party in the last 30 years, chances are it came from these evil corporations, including the Kochs.

3) Hillary Clinton supports the TPP

I don't know. I DO know while Secretary of State, she supported her boss, President Obama, who was pushing it. Cabinet members often support the President on decisions they may personally disagree with. I haven't seen or heard of her support for it since leaving that post and becoming a private citizen. What I DO know is she dropped all support of CAFTA (voting twice against it in 2005) and backtracked on NAFTA while a Senator and during the 2008 campaign.

When you find a verified recent quote (post SOS) from Hillary Clinton that supports TPP, let us know.

4) Hillary Clinton supports expanding H-1B visa program.

Awesome! So do I. Isn't it amazing that not only do I support a pathway to citizenship for immigrants, I also support hiring skilled foreigners legally.

5) Hillary Clinton conveniently did not vote AGAINST the bankruptcy bill, which is what Joe Biden strongly supported and helped get through congress as the senator of the state (Delaware) where many of the credit card companies are based out of.

Well, if you call leaving the Senate the day her husband had heart surgery "convenient," then yeah she conveniently didn't vote for the bankruptcy bill.

Interesting, though, Elizabeth Warren was on a PBS show back in 2007 and this very subject came up. Here is what she said:

I wanna be fair in this story. Mrs. Clinton, in a much more secure position—as Senator ... when the bill came up once again—Senator Clinton was not there—the day of the vote. It was the day that President Clinton, you may remember, had heart surgery. But she issued a very strong press release condemning the bill and I assume if she had been there that she would have voted against it.

Here is an excerpt from Clinton's statement on the bill:

This bankruptcy bill fundamentally fails to accord with the traditional purposes of bankruptcy, which recognize that we are all better off when hard-working people who have suffered financial catastrophe get a "fresh start" and a second chance to become productive and contributing members of society. With the passage of this legislation, which makes obtaining this fresh start more expensive and more difficult, we are ensuring that many responsible Americans will continue to be buried under mountains of debt, and unable to take back control and responsibility for their lives.

You can read it all here.

Senator Clinton voted for every single amendment to add consumer protections to the bill - each of which were rejected by both Republican majority and other Democrats. She voted against cloture in an attempt to keep the final bill from coming to a vote at all.

As President Obama has said when referencing the ACA and Republican attacks on it, "if it's really so bad, why do you have to be misleading about it?"

If Hillary Clinton is so bad, why do you have to be misleading about her?

[bunnies]

189. I like to decide myself what to be outraged about.

But thats just me.

[DonCoquixote]

56. Nader and Hamsher

will be excellent tools for these people. Outside of that, just because we want a primary does not mean we will not vote.

[KoKo]

66. That is truly an offbase remark...and you know it is offensive...

and yet you put this out? Nader and Hamsher RW plants meant to bring down the Democratic System from within?

What's next. Noam Chomsky & Chris Hedges are RW Paid Ops and have been for years but there are very Dumb or inexperienced people pretending to be Democrats who read them and are capable of expanding their mind rather than being corralled into a mindset that crowns the next Dem Candidate for President before there's even a Campaign and Primary where other candidates can be heard?

[MADem]

105. No, it's not. Are you not aware that Ralph Nader took MONEY from GOP donors?

There's nothing "offensive" or "offbase" about the truth.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/GOP-donors-funding-Nader-Bush-supporters-give-2708705.php

GOP donors funding Nader / Bush supporters give independent's bid a financial lift


Nearly one in 10 of Nader's major donors -- those writing checks of $1, 000 or more -- have given in recent months to the Bush-Cheney campaign, the latest documents show. GOP fund-raisers also have "bundled" contributions -- gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader, who has criticized the practice in the past.

That's pretty clear evidence of the poster's assertion.

Jane Hamsher teamed up with Grover Norquist to go after Rahm Emmanuel: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/24/odd-couple-demands-probe-rahm-emanuel-freddie-fannie-money-rolls/

She's been working AGAINST a Democratic majority for a long time--she's not so naive as to not understand that all politics is local, but she certainly affects a clueless stance with her outraged commentaries--and she's been doing this for years. She pretends that heartland Democrats don't have constituent constraints upon them and she bashes mercilessly. If you google her, you see stuff like this--she's hardly a Dem Darling:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/03/29/852037/-How-Jane-Hamsher-Spends-Her-PAC-Money

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/jane-hamsher-is-a-parasite-on-the-democratic-party-and-the-progressive-movement/

http://angryblackladychronicles.com/2011/07/14/jane-hamsher-calls-obama-supporters-dumb-motherfuckers/

Here she is, after stuffing Hillary Clinton under the bus, knocking down Elizabeth Warren and shoving her under it as well--and she uses a variation of the "Feminazi" argument (she calls it "Feminists, Inc."--how very kinder and gentler of her) to do that, too. Why people think this woman is a Democrat is beyond me...

...It doesn’t matter if you’ve spent your life fighting for women’s rights and women’s causes, because Feminism Inc. (or the various campaigns and their myriad “consultants”) will now get to decide whether you support women or not.

They’ll find a handful of feminists with good bona fides to lead the way. Then a swarm of professional pro trolls (and the media who love them) will be out in force using these “movement leaders” to castigate critics into mute submission regarding policies that were vociferously opposed when George Bush was in office.

And it won’t just be Hillary Clinton who will benefit from this new found wave of feminist demagoguery. That good “liberal” Elizabeth Warren is out there trying to facilitate a new round of Fannie/Freddie bailouts and give them the Good Progressive Seal of Approval even as she rails before cheering crowds against tax breaks for billionaire and the greedy 1%. The fact that her actions do not match up with her words will be beside the point. You’ll be a sexist pig if you criticize her, too.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2014/07/15/demagoguing-feminism-for-fun-and-profit/

This shit is right out of the GOP playbook---she, who with her crew trolls the BEST, accuses anyone who disagrees with her of being a troll, while kicking the shit out of the most charismatic woman in the Senate today. ALL she does is tear down. I've never seen her be "for" anything or anyone, at least not in the last eight or so years. She's a professional scold, and I would love to know who is PAYING her.

She's on the GOP Benghazi bandwagon, too: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/20/1315237/-I-guess-I-missed-this-FDL-joined-the-Benghazi-witch-hunt

I mean, come on. Sometimes ya just have to admit when something stinks. This individual went off the rails YEARS ago. What's "offensive" and "offbase" is not recognizing this.

[DonCoquixote]

107. now now

If you actually quote Facts, you will be ignored. Remember how "blue links" became an insult, even though one of the few redeeming features of the internet is the ability to reference facts? Jane and Ralph think that if things go to hell, then maybe they will be obeyed, and if not, then Ron Paul will.

I may despise the way the Clinton's have poured crap on what used to be the left wing, but that does not mean I cannot see what Jane and Raplh are doing, and call it what it is: an ego trip at best, malice at worst. They can get drunk off their fan base and glory days, but they will not be the ones cleaning the mess, as the GOP will have fattened them like a bunch of French food gras ducks.

[MADem]

108. Ain't that the sad truth!!!

Like I say, I still want to know where Jane is getting her bankroll.

[KoKo]

132. What are you afraid of? If Hamsher and Nader are washed up

getting drunk off past glories....then what does that have to do with some here feeling threatened by them and going out of their way to almost spew hate towards them.

Nader didn't decide the 2000 Election. Jeb Bush and faulty or intentionally manipulated voting machines with "punch card ballots" needing a thorough recount (which was halted) and the election then decided by the US Supreme Court. Jane Hamsher worked for "more and better Democrats through "Act Blue" and has had Book Salons on her site which promote Democratic Leaning authors. She seemed to get "thrown under the bus" with her and others on the Left Netroots who wanted to target Joe Lieberman in CT. That effort seemed to throw our Dem Party into unhinged "Attack Jane" mode because one person could go against the "Mighty Joe" and force him to run as an Independent. And, Rahm Emmanuel is no credit to the Dem Party. I've met him...and he's nothing but a real ego tripper.

What is the fear? If two "washed up" Lefties like Ralph and Jane have no credibility...then why all the fuss about them. Best to ignore them....if there isn't something that Dem Leaership fears.

[MADem]

166. If Nader hadn't been in that election, funded by the GOP, the Jeb regime would not

have had an easy opportunity to game the system.

Everyone knows you can only get away with cheating if you do it within the MOE.

Without Ralph, that result would have been outside it.

[betterdemsonly]

170. Gore definately would have won if we didn't have a democracy too

hmm, maybe that's life.

[MADem]

175. Not sure what you are saying, here. Could you clarify? nt

[DonCoquixote]

169. afraid of?

Frankly, those two are beneath contempt in my boook, however, people are STUPID, and if they lure people off the cliff, the rest of us will have to pay the tab, just as we did in 2000.

as for as Hamsher and act Blue, do not sweep THIS under the rug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1337889

The fact is, if Nader and Hamsher were as pure as they say, they would not accpet one penny from, nor offer one buit of help, to Republicans.

[betterdemsonly]

121. Which is not nearly as much as the dlc has taken from the Koch Brothers

not to mention Wall Street Banks and the Military Industrial Complex.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4465883

[MADem]

123. Excuse me--GOP donors don't give in large numbers to Democratic candidates.

Quit with the false equivalencies, they're not cutting it.

Corporations commonly spread their money around. It's called hedging one's bets and that's NOT what happened in this case.

What's UNUSUAL is when one major party's "large donors" give money to a fringe kook in order for that fringe kook to pull voters away from the OTHER major party.

That's the point; let's not pretend otherwise.

[betterdemsonly]

171. You act as if democrats can't be right wingers too.

If you don't think the Koch brothers are trying to pull democrats to the right, you are seriously living in a land of pretense.

[MADem]

172. Why are you trying to change the subject from GOP big-money donors specifically funding Ralph

Nader's campaign in order to undermine the Democratic candidate? Why are you trying to shift focus from that key--and undeniable--point?

That IS the point I raised--that one in ten BIG MONEY GOP donors gave some of their BIG MONEY to Ralph.

I proved it with a link, too.


Surely you support the election of more Democrats, and fewer Republicans, to public office, don't you? And if you don't, why not?

[cascadiance]

163. I wonder if the GOP would have donated to Nader if we had "instant runoff voting" in place

But we'll never know that unless we get corporate control out of both parties, which WANT to continue the two party system control that forces people to vote for the lesser of two evils, and doesn't serve to have candidates honest to their electorate, as it isn't about them supporting what the people want, but making sure that the voters vote for the right "team" (that the corporatists allow them to vote for).

Had we had instant runoff voting in place, it probably would have taken more than a Supreme Court decision to keep Al Gore from winning in 2000.

[MADem]

165. We will never have such a thing on the national level, I don't think.

We don't even get to vote, really--we vote for electors, and they can be "faithless" without any consequences (save having to change their name and go hide, perhaps)-- we're divorced from the process. That's an entrenched method and many are vested in keeping it that way, even if it occasionally gives us Presidents that aren't the choice of the majority.

[Jackpine Radical]

62. All lies of course.

[Electric Monk]

74. You think the HRC campaign could make shit like this up to deflect real criticism? Yeah, me too. nt

[DonCoquixote]

120. at this point, NOTHING is out of bounds

The very things that would be rejected by any decent fiction Publisher will suddenly come to be FACT.

[pnwmom]

93. "Lockstep support"? Complete lack of criticism" of Hillary from sites like DU?

How can you seriously say that?

[LWolf]

134. Sorry.

My opposition to HRC is long-standing and has no connection whatsoever to "America Rising."

Way to demonize the left again, though, making sure we're set up as scapegoats if and when she doesn't win.

[Laelth]

141. Interesting. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[JackRiddler]

168. Is the AP report on the covert operation in Cuba "trolling"?

State Dept under Clinton subverted public health in Cuba - for freedom!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025339381

Not to mention the military coup d'etat in Honduras.

Those unfair Republicans!

I do wonder, why is it so easy to "troll" Hillary Clinton from the left?

After all, she's such a progressive! (tm)

Maybe if she had not voted for the Bush war of aggression in 2002? Plus for most every other Bush era outrage? Maybe if she were not a supporter of harsh neo-liberal measures like those in the TPP? Maybe if she had ever met a "liberal humanitarian" war she didn't like?

.

[raouldukelives]

184. There is a lot of corporate money flowing into attacks against all liberals.

And all liberal ideals. All of it funded and supported by investors and mutual funds. It is a crazy thing. You'll see someone say they are very liberal and then find out they are partial owners of the very institutions destroying our attempts at fair elections, at saving the environment and leaving a better world for our children. Ratfukcers of the highest order.

[Kingofalldems]

203. Never trust a republican.

Of course they are doing this.

[L0oniX]

205. Church is going to get very intense soon.

[libodem]

206. Good to know

Pretty sure they will drive me straight into her arms. I'm an idealist and don't love the whole corporate-topracy theory of operations because I'm more of a Socialist than a Fascist but I could love Hillary if I smell that Ratfucker Rove anywhere trying to manipulate my vote.