Why are people still losing their minds over Hillary?

[kpete]

.....................

What is different about Hillary Clinton is the rampant misogyny still being directed at her, even now; the palpable disgust at her re-emergence; the demand that she get out of the way; the call for her to accept total responsibility for her loss without even acknowledging outside factors like the Russian disinformation campaign, the Comey letter, or GOP voter ID laws that cost her Wisconsin.

Gore, who managed to lose (okay, sort of lose) an election despite being the sitting vice president in an administration with 65 percent approval, blamed a hostile media, the Supreme Court’s absurd one-off decision to halt the proceedings in Florida, and the butterfly ballots. In 2007, Evgenia Peretz of Vanity Fair described him thusly: “He is the Bono of the environment, the Cassandra of Iraq, the star of an Oscar-winning film, and a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize. To the amusement of his kids, some people now actually consider him cool.” Gore reportedly got paid at least $175,000 per speech after he won the Nobel Peace Prize. He got divorced. And yet, in 2009, he had a 58-37 approval spread. This is the man whose campaign mistakes inflicted eight years of calamitous misrule on the country. If he ever apologized, I must have missed it.

Kerry never accepted one iota of responsibility for becoming the second consecutive Democrat to lose an election to George W. Bush. Years later, as detailed in this New Yorker profile, he clung to a ludicrous conspiracy theory and nurtured “the suspicion that in certain states, particularly Ohio, where the Electoral College count hinged, proxies for Bush had rigged many voting machines.” He blamed his campaign manager, Bob Shrum. He blamed the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, that pack of lying opportunists who slimed Kerry’s war record. (Side note: Swift Boater Jerome Corsi now works for InfoWars and just got White House press credentials. Yay!). What he did not do was cop to any of his own mistakes. He went back to the Senate, where no one demanded that he give up his seat for a younger politician. The final poll taken about John Kerry while he was Obama’s secretary of state gave him a 10-point positive spread in his approval rating. Gandhi he is not, but it is safe to say that America has forgiven John Kerry for his sins.

In October 2009, just one year after his crushing loss to Obama, McCain was regarded favorably by 54 percent of respondents, remained a press darling, and never disavowed his choice to make the wilderness wastrel Sarah Palin his running mate, a decision that by one estimate cost him 2 million votes. Had the Great Recession not struck during the campaign, Palin may well have been remembered as the key to his election loss. McCain was within striking distance of Obama before an embarrassing series of interviews revealed Palin’s political ignorance and the September 2008 economic meltdown then put the race decisively out of reach. In an interview days after the election, McCain blamed the national political climate and stood by Palin. He failed to list a single mistake his campaign had made. He said he “slept like a baby.” Today he remains a curmudgeonly favorite despite not lifting a finger to hold President Trump accountable.

..........

the rest:
http://theweek.com/articles/702218/why-are-people-still-losing-minds-over-hillary?utm_source=links&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=twitter

[justiceischeap]

1. Good article with many salient points. nt

[yallerdawg]

2. Let's fix everything she is identifying as a problem.

We - America - Rosenstein - took care of one problem (hopefully).

That partisan jackass Comey won't be in an official capacity to disrupt our elections anymore!

When 10,000,000 more voters picked someone else, no one can tell me Trump was the "better candidate." He is a disgusting pig of a something, and remains so.

This 2016 election warned us that our democracy is in jeopardy, and requiring Hillary to say she was a bad candidate ignores everything that is wrong!

[Demit]

3. That is such a good article. Especially the last two lines.

[DURHAM D]

4. Agree.

"And that really only leaves one thing that is just so very different about Hillary Clinton. Let's see if you can guess what it is."

[maddiemom]

39. And secondly, she's a Clinton.

Bill Clinton haters may be in the minority, but there is still a "vast right wing" hatred for all things Clinton, and Hillary drew all of that as if she were a magnet.

[Hekate]

5. KnR

[SunSeeker]

6. K & R

[athena]

7. It's because they can't stand intelligent women.

A great number of men and women are deeply disturbed by the idea of a smart and competent woman. It threatens their view of the world.

The self-image of many men is based on the idea that they are intrinsically superior to half the population. Such men feel extremely uncomfortable when they meet a woman who is obviously smarter and more competent than they are. All high-achieving women over 35 have had to deal with this type of man at work: he will do everything within his power to destroy the career of the woman who threatens his sense of intrinsic superiority.

Many women, too, are disturbed by the idea of a woman being more intelligent and competent than a man. Such women are low-achievers, and they justify their own low achievement by their belief that women are intrinsically inferior to men. Such women are much happier with a male boss than with a female boss. When they are forced to work with a woman who is smart, competent, and strong, they will at best try to subtly undermine her and at worst gang up with the men who are trying to destroy her.

In short, people who can't stop criticizing Hillary reveal a lot more about themselves than about anything else. Fortunately, their hatred can no longer reach Hillary. She knows she's a brilliant woman. She knows that almost everyone in the U.S. knows, deep down, that she would have made an excellent president. And she's surrounded by a loving family and loyal, high-quality friends. She has done what she could for her country and will continue to do what she can while she is still alive. In the meantime, those who can't stop hating her have much bigger problems to deal with, a mentally unstable president being only one of them.

[smirkymonkey]

29. +1000

Hit the nail on the head.

I think a lot of women who are anti-Hillary, and really, anti-feminism, are just women who are low-achievers (or lazy, stupid, talentless, etc.) and who fear that they can't compete with other women in any other area except for the traditionally prescribed roles that women have occupied: sex object, wife, mother, care-taker. Maybe they just don't have any confidence in themselves, but either way, they don't want to have to push themselves to operate outside of those boundaries. Therefore, they resent women who challenge their narrow world-view.

[stevenleser]

8. Yep, I am bookmarking this.

The next time someone here says she should go away, they are getting a link to this.

[wildeyed]

12. Gore retreated after the defeat and grew a beard, if I recall.

But that was fine.

Hillary is right back in the game, ready to work hard in a time of great peril. She is shining a spotlight on the voter suppression problems in Wisconsin and Russian interference in the election and she gets DRAGGED for that? WTF? I can see GOP taking shots, but these issues are all Democrats talk about. But somehow Hillary Clinton, the person who was most impacted, should shut up and sit down?

They criticize her personality and delivery instead of listening to her message. Which is IDENTICAL to their own concerns. Weird.

[Me.]

32. Apparently John Schindler Thinks She Should Just Shut Up

Because she is a distraction.

[wildeyed]

9. Gore and Kerry both ran worse campaigns than Clinton.

Gore's was really flawed. Kerry just couldn't get on message. There was plenty of negative postmortem about the actual campaigns, but I do not recall the scathing personal attacks that I see for Clinton now. Because she is a woman, journalists are attacking her demeanor instead of analyzing the content of her statements. They learned absolutely NOTHING from their flawed coverage of the campaign. It's one of the mistakes the media made that delivered the presidency to DT in the first place.

Media needs to take a looooong, hard look at themselves in the mirror right about now. They are understandably exercised about Trump's attacks on the media. I am too. But they need to think about how they enabled a mentally incapacitated demagogue because they were too icked-out by the idea of a women wielding real power to cover her campaign fairly. They should also ask themselves why nearly ALL political reporters are white men.


Note to Media: If you are constantly attacking the 'demeanor' of a candidate instead of reporting the content of their message, you might be part of the problem. Politicians are not entertainers. Stop covering them like they are.

[karynnj]

17. Kerry exceeded model results

He DID have messages, but the media gave him less coverage than they gave any other candidate. To hear his message, you had to pretty much watch CSPAN!

Clinton had far more party and media support than Kerry did. She also had far more self inflicted wounds - especially calling some voters "deplorables". She completely mismanaged dealing with questions on her email. The email sent her honesty and trustworthy down BEFORE any of the Russian stuff happened. Without that she might not have been vulnerable.

I remember in 2005, Clinton people arguing that Kerry did a bad job fighting the SBVT and that they uniquely could. That ignored that Kerry's NAVY record completely supported him as courageous and a very good leader AND that it would have helped if his VP would have made that case rather than promising to and then not doing it.

[frazzled]

24. If I recall correctly

His message more often than not was to identify a problem and then say "I've got a plan for that." Full stop. Honestly, I remember being so aggravated by that, as if the people were too ignorant to actually hear what the plan was. I recall yelling at the television: "tell them what the plan IS!"

Look, I really like John Kerry, especially in his role as a Secretary of State. But he was a terrible candidate. And no, he had FULL support of the Democratic establishment. After clinching Iowa and NH he virtually swept the rest of the states (save NC for Edwards and Vermont for Dean, favorite-son wins). I always felt the problem was that he had too much backing, and there was never a real primary for him to cut his campaign teeth on. His performance in the general was kinda "meh," and I didn't think he really had a chance to beat Bush, given the still rah-rah 9/11 sentiment that hadn't yet congealed enough in the general population into disappointment and skepticism.

[Me.]

34. He Was A Terrible Candidate

His speechifying was pure 19th century

[karynnj]

59. To each his own - I think he is a powerful figure, who when he chooses to speak

truth to power is hard to beat - when he is at his beat. President Obama is the ONLY politician who is better on that account.

I far prefer his commencement speech at the Kennedy Center to Hillary's. I dare you to listen to it - or even just the last 4 or so minutes and tell me that he is pure 19th century. https://www.democraticunderground.com/11095375

[Me.]

65. Yes...To Each His Own

I wanted him to win and thought he'd be a good prez, phone banked and all that, but after a while, I simply couldn't listen to him anymore. So I think I'll pass at your dare.

[karynnj]

40. I watched the full speeches on CSPAN - he did lay out plans

In debates, he could not summarize detailed ideas and the media seriously cut off his speeches. His speech on climate change being something that led to good jobs, clean air, clean water, and reduced our dependence on the unstable Middle East was one of the best campaign speeches I ever heard. He had a great health care plan as well.

He won the primaries easily because he was far better than anyone against him - not because of pre Iowa party support or media support. I think that you are right that it was still too close to 911 for anyone to beat Bush. The media added to that by not giving Kerry the kind of puff piece biographies you have before every major convention - though his life would have made that easy. In addition, they seriously hurt him by NOT condemning the purple heart bandaids -- which normalized them and suggested that he deserved his war record being attacked.

As to the Democratic party, I think many thought as you did - that this was not our year. I suspect that is why Mcauliffe did not use the money that he raised (and he did greatly help the DNC financial state) to get the state parties in shape for 2004. He also picked an early date for the convention, maybe not understanding that McCain/Feingold meant that Kerry would have to stretch his general election money over 13 weeks as compared to Bush's 8.

As to the party, I think the Clinton wing was noticeably unenthused. Begala and Carville were the most prominent Democrats on TV and they promoted the idea that he was anybody but Bush. The ABC (Anybody but Clinton and Anybody but Carter) idea made sense only in the primaries - where sometimes the sum of several more similar to each other candidates might be greater than the frontrunner and IF they could agree on one, then they could beat the frontrunner. Note that on both the R and D sides, that never happens. In the general election, it is obvious that a large percent of people are almost certainly going to be for their party's nominee. Imagine these two intelligent men would have actually LOOKED at Kerry's record and spoke of whatever they found positive. (Four years later both were pushing SCHIP as the best thing since sliced bread crediting Clinton for what was really Ted Kennedy's baby. Ted Kennedy in Iowa spoke of how Kerry wrote the precursor bill him, remaining a cosponsor when he and Hatch changed the bill to gain Republican support.) Imagine how it might have looked to people on the fence that these men, channeling Michael Moore on Bush, could only say "He's not Bush".

Not to mention, Bill Clinton on his June/July book tour (that seriously should NOT have been scheduled then) was not helpful. He criticized the "left" for criticizing the war and how it was being fought. This contrasted with Kerry and Dean both had called for Rumsfeld to resign after Abu Ghraib came out and Kerry criticizing Bush. Not to mention, it completely ate up all the oxygen as every news show covered Clinton's answer of "because I could" to why Lewinsky instead of the campaign - hurting Kerry by bringing up Democratic dirty laundry AND making it harder for him to get coverage. (Bush, as incumbent did not need it). For years, I felt Bill Clinton might have done this hoping for HRC 2008, but given how he managed to hurt HRC in 2008 and 2016, I think it may be he sometimes is less politically adept than given credit for.

[wildeyed]

82. I remember trying to persuade a friend who was on the bubble to vote Kerry.

I emailed her a NTY article where he laid out his Iraq policy. She was like, "That sounds GREAT! Why didn't he say that before?" I couldn't tell her. And he never really laid it out clearly again that I heard.

A great candidate might have beaten Bush. Kerry was not great. Bush was a really solid campaigner, whatever his faults as an actual politician were and he had the power of incumbency. It was an uphill battle to start.

[wildeyed]

79. Kerry was very bad at messaging.

GWB was like a talking points machine. He stayed on message, always. Kerry was right about many things, but never figured out how to TELL people about it. If you were bright, liberal and read a bunch of news sources, you got it. But he didn't figure out how to communicate to average people. He was bad, waaaay worse than Clinton. Clinton won her debates. And yeah, the media totally let SBVJ do a number. Just like they fell for the 'what about her emails' scandal. The sad thing the media's complicity with the email spin is that Trump had a dozen scandals that were way juicier, but they pretty much ignored those.

Obama made the damaging comment about RWers clinging to their guns and religion, but somehow that was forgiven. All candidates make gaffes at some point. Clinton's were no worse than any male candidate in the race.

[karynnj]

92. Your memory is shaky

Kerry won his 3 debates hands down - the Republicans did not even try to spin the first debate - on foreign policy, they pretty much conceded to the point of saying that where Kerry might be a better debater, Bush was a great President. Kerry had no problem communicating with people WHEN THEY ACTUALLY HEARD HIM. That is how he won Iowa and NH, when he had little media or party support. He won talking one to one with people -- the same way he won his nomination to be LT Gov and Senator in Massachusetts - both times against the party/media favorite.

The email problem was one that did not have to happen. The emails were already requested when she left office without leaving them. Had she left the emails or returned the emails quickly in 2013 -- there never would have been an email story. Her handling of questions on it when it quite predictably blew up was painfully bad. Worse than anything Gore or Kerry did. Gore handled the Clinton caused Buddhist Temple scandal much better and Kerry really had no scandal of that sort after 22 years in public office.

I argued - almost alone - in 2008, that the guns and religion comment was wrong -- especially as the embedded concept is that you should vote for your economic good. Still, that was less bad than "deplorables"

[wildeyed]

104. If a candidate can only get his point across in NYT longform articles

or on CSPAN, he is doing a poor job at messaging. I ended up becoming very fond of Kerry. I worked GOTV really hard for him. But he was just not a great campaigner.

[karynnj]

112. He won the debates - which required short answers.

He also had even before he was the nominee been one of the best Democrats on the talk shows. The fact is that he was very good in the early primaries when he could speak to people. A person I know from Iowa, made the observation that in 2004, the reason he won was that once he spoke to someone and they committed to vote for him - a very high percent never changed to someone else. His observation was that he was unusually good at this.

In the general election, you basically need to communicate mostly by tv --- and the media really gave him very little time to speak on anything. He basically had just his convention and the three debates. Consider that after the media gave hours of coverage to men disputing the Navy account of his record - they refused to cover his short statement made before the firefighter's convention addressing this.

Consider how much time was given to Obama to address the questions on Reverend Wright. Imagine Obama's remarkable speech not getting coverage. That was what happened in 2004 - with that speech, with his speech on Iraq and his his speech on non state terrorism, his speech on dealing with climate change, and his healthcare speech. All designated the major policy speeches.

In 2000 Gore's were covered, in 2008 Obama's were and in 2012 Romney's were. In 2016, EVERY speech of Trump's appeared to be going on at times for nearly an hour. Clinton's main speeches were covered, but she got way less time than Trump. But in 2004, you often had Candy Crowley on CNN speaking about Kerry's speech from the parking lot - with maybe a two minute sound bite, usually chosen by her and usually the same sound bite against Bush.

[LisaM]

81. I saw Kerry on the stump and he was great (and his speech went unreported by local media)

I think the Swift Boaters hurt him immensely. I still can't believe the whole image of those nasty Republicans wearing fake Purple Heart band aids at the RNC.

Now Jerome Corsi has an office at the White House.

[lunamagica]

109. Clinton had media support? Seriously? She didn't get much coverage, much less suport

sometimes they would start to cover her, but as soon as trump would spent they'd cut her off to air his entire speech.

And the deplorables comment? Not worse than "I was for it before I was against it". GMAB!

[karynnj]

114. It was considerably worse as it was seen as attacking voters

With Kerry, you are actually quoting the Republicans who distorted a gaffe. Kerry was taking questions and he was asked why he voted against paying for the war. He gave a detailed explanation that he and Biden supported an amendment that paid for the war by rolling back the future tax cuts for the 1% and voted for that. This was a version that Bush said he would veto. He then cast a protest vote against the version that added it to the debt. Within a few minutes, he was asked the same question - and he answered that he had just answered that, but then unfortunately added that "he voted for it before he voted against it".

The media then pretended not to understand what Kerry meant - even though it describes normal Senate actions. However there was a good reason behind it. There was no salvageable explanation of HRC's comment.

[lunamagica]

118. I know well what Kerry meant, and that he was taken our of context. Same think happened

with Hillary's deplorable comment. And while Her comment was seen as attacking the voters, Kerry's comment was seen as him having no true convictions, no firm beliefs. Like he went where the wind went and would say anything if it was convenient.

Stuff like that happens to many, most candidates. They spend hours and hours talking, so chances are high that they will say something which would have been better left unsaid and will be twisted to use against them.

[BeyondGeography]

30. Nah

Gore showed more fire and authenticity in his final week of campaigning than Hillary has in her whole political life.

Kerry and Hillary did have one thing in common: they both mailed it in in August/post-convention and never really recovered.

All three were smart and good people. And each was a clear level below Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as a presidential candidate in terms of their ability to connect with people.

[athena]

48. She is a woman.

If she had shown what you call "fire and authenticity", she would have been called shrill, resentful, and angry, or worse yet, crazy and out of control.

Authenticity is not something a person screams from the rooftops. Authenticity is about what one feels on the inside. When anyone goes out of his way to advertise his "authenticity", what that tells me is that authentic is very far from what he is.

[BeyondGeography]

62. Who on earth cares?

Our candidates take abuse whatever their gender. There are plenty of female Democrats who don't let fear of criticism get in their way and are better at campaigning than Hillary. Too many over the years to number.

[athena]

71. Wow.

Are you suggesting that Hillary "let fear of criticism get in [her] way"? Seriously? A woman running for president figures out that expressing anger is going to make her less popular, and you call that "fear of criticism"?

I have nothing to say to you. Enjoy your president. Have some champagne to celebrate the fact that it's not Hillary. And when one of those other female Democrats runs for president and her popularity instantly takes a dive the way Hillary's did for daring to be an "ambitious woman", go ahead and attack her for not overcoming her country's sexism, while you make the sexist claim that you would happily vote for any other woman BUT that one. I won't be hearing any of it, since you will be on my ignore list.

[wildeyed]

87. You just did what I complained about the media doing.

You attacked her 'tone' instead of her message.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are two of the most gifted campaigners of our lifetime. Pretty much everyone will miss that bar. That is why I did not use them as comparisons. But because of the social limitation placed on powerful women in our culture, no woman could ever hit that bar. There is much more latitude in 'likability' for men than for women. There is oceans of research that proves this.

[BeyondGeography]

94. What message?

Want to play on that field, too? It's not kind.

She spent much too much time attacking Trump and not selling herself. All the great storytelling at the convention about the good she has done in her life, and there has been a lot of it, got tossed after the Khizr Khan moment. She spent the month of August fundraising and running too many negative ads about Trump instead of building on what was an enormously positive convention. There is nothing gender-specific about campaigns; they're either good or bad and she ran a bad one.

[wildeyed]

101. But you started with her character.

YOUR perception of her character, not something she actually did or said. Kerry and Gore both ran flawed campaigns, but neither are called out for inauthenticity. Kerry gets dinged for his poor messaging skills, but I don't hear people questioning his likability or telling him to sit down and shut up when he has the audacity to have an opinion in public.

What does 'authentic' actually mean? Give me an example of 'authentic' behavior. Were Kerry and Gore 'authentic'? Curious, since this criticisms is leveled at Hillary all the time, but I have no idea what it means.

[BeyondGeography]

106. "A very bright woman without the courage of her convictions."

That's what Jon Stewart had to say about Hillary, and he's right. If you want to know where inauthenticity starts, look no further.

[wildeyed]

108. Oh please, give me more quotes by privileged white men

that PROVE her character is suspect!

She's a POLITICIAN. All politicians compromise. Only Hillary Clinton is accused of 'inauthenticity'. I am still waiting for an actual definition of inauthenticity. I think you mean 'false' or 'lacking sincerity'. If so, can you give me some examples? Because I think Hillary Clinton is sincere in her desire to help ALL citizens of this country achieve the American Dream. Her execution and communication might have been flawed, but everything she ever did since college showed sincerity.

Hillary Clinton cannot get misty-eyed and say "I feel your pain". Women do that, they are weak and weepy. And she cannot be shouty and shake her fingers at people. Women do that, they are bitches who have an anger problem. But if they DON'T do that, they are 'false'. Ya'll set her up in a no-win situation, then blame her for the bind YOU put her in.

You are throwing out your opinions as facts and then ducking the question when I ask for a simple definition of the accusations you are making.

[BeyondGeography]

110. Oh, right, it's a guy saying it so, no-go

Hilarious.

[wildeyed]

115. Yep.

But also, it's an OPINION, not a fact. I am looking for the logic in your argument, but you keep deflecting.

[karynnj]

10. You win no points attacking Kerry to make the case that it was all misogyny in 2016

You ignore that after 911, Bush, who was at 60 percent approval even in December 2003, was bether positioned to win reelection than Obama was in 2012. Kerry actually came far closer to winning than pundits and people who model elections thought possible.

As to "absurd", Kerry narrowly lost Ohio, where there were both ballot problems and voter suppression in many large city where fewer voting machines were placed by the Republican SoS, who was also B/C campaign chair in Ohio. This resulted in lines more than 4 hours long. Cam Kerry wrote all this up soon after the election mostly to explain to Democrats why Kerry could NOT challenge it. I read the New Yorker and the point was he does think that may have cost him the election.

What he did not speak of was that the Mcaulife led DNC had not done a good job with state parties. In many, including Ohio, activist groups did the GOTV because the party couldn't. This meant they could not avocate for Kerry. Dean worked hard to fix this in 2005. Yesterday, Clinton complained that the DNC she inherited was a mess. This even though Clinton people including DWS led it.

Defending Clinton by attacking Gore and Kerry is insane. Blame Comey, blame the Russians, blame her staff for NOT understanding that not archiving work emails that contained NO smoking guns would cause a problem that did not need to happen. Blame the media for giving Trump hours of free time and legitimacy he did not deserve.

The fact is Kerry took a lot of flack here and elsewhere in 2005, even though he ran a high road campaign and his platform was with variations what every 2008 candidate ran on. I suspect that much of the anger was a reflection on the fact that people at the end began to believe and their hopes were dashed. In 2016, most took it for granted that Clinton would win both the nomination and the GE.

Not to mention, Kerry went back to the Senate where he worked hard to rebuild the party. He also was the best Secretary of State in my life time. There is no reason to trash him to continue rehashing 2016.

[wildeyed]

15. But he wasn't PERSONALLY attacked the way Hillary Clinton is attacked.

It's not attacking Kerry, per se, it's using his campaign as an example of how the coverage is unbalanced.

And this is not 'rehashing' 2016. It's discussing an article about the media's response to Hillary Clinton's re-emergence into public life.

[karynnj]

18. The SBVT attacked Kerry on a personal level

Those allegations went to the heart of who he is

[still_one]

26. absolutely true, and Sinclar Media helped propagate that BS. I think the point

Last edited Thu Jun 1, 2017, 12:03 PM - Edit history (1)

being made is after the election, they essentially didn't go after Kerry or Gore, but with Hillary it persists, and the media has been more than a willing accomplice all along the way.

Yes, sexism is alive and well

[karynnj]

51. I suspect that is because HRC has always been both more promoted by and more critiqued by the media

Neither Kerry or Gore had anywhere near the media cheerleaders that Clinton had. Note I am not saying that all or most of the people in the media were strong advocates of Clinton, just that were SOME very prominent fans. I can think of only one such person for Kerry - Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe, who had covered him even in 1971 when he spoke to the SFRC.

The other side of that coin is that neither Kerry or Gore were as consistently the focus of the spotlight that has been on Clinton. This has been both a boon and a burden for Clinton. On the one hand, she is the one that always gets attention for what she does. On the other hand, she will get criticized by the other side if there is any small thing they dislike. Not to mention, you can still easily find RW memes on twitter any time Gore or Kerry are in the news or say anything. Search Kerry, Obama, Biden or Gore on twitter at any point in time and you will see many many dishonest hurtful attacks - HRC is not alone. The big difference is Clinton is far more prominent at this point of time - and likely was for all but a few months in 2000 and 2004 respectively.

Note that Kerry, Biden and Clinton gave graduation speeches this year. Kerry's was very well reviewed by the small number of mainstream sources covered it, but the only thread was the one in DU JK. There were MANY right wing sources that criticized it. Biden's was not that prominent on DU, but again the right blasted it. There were many many threads on Clinton's speech, all praising it. You could argue that the difference in attention was because Clinton was the most recent nominee and people are still devastated by her loss. However, other than Obama, Biden and Kerry were the two most prominent people in the Obama administration in the second term.

In fact, looking at twitter on these three speeches, it might be that the there is NOT that big a difference in the RATIO of criticism to positive response for the three. Clinton gets both more praise and positive attention AND more criticism and negative attention than the other two.

[still_one]

52. Every since Hillary presented her healthcare plan in 1993, for whatever reason, it was

declared open season Hillary, and the media was only to happy to participate

[karynnj]

58. I suspect it started even earlier - in the 1992 campaign

However, it is two sided. She was even then seen as a potential first woman President. It might be that because she was seen as a potential star, she was BOTH given lots of praise and positive coverage ... and, on the other hand, constant attacks.

[still_one]

61. No point to split hairs on this, but I personally believe the negative coverage was

far dominant that the positive coverage.

Remember Indiana Congress person Dan Burton showing everyone how Hillary killed Vince Foster?

[karynnj]

66. that was odious, but he was considered a nut job even in Indiana

What I meant were that there were long, extremely positive articles in everything from the NYT magazine section to Good Housekeeping and the Parade insert in many local newspapers. Her coverage, as with most first ladies, was very positive. I saw many of these as my husband and I helped clean out my mother-in-law's house when she moved from her home to a smaller place. I assume that these were seen by far more Americans, especially women than heard Dan Burton's idiocies.

[wildeyed]

76. That was opposition.

He never took friendly fire the way Hillary Clinton does.

[ehrnst]

19. Kerry was not vilified for some of the things that HRC was personally vilified for

Yes, they were treated differently for similar issues, and HRC got the worst of it.

Comparing them isn't "attacking" Kerry.

And pointing out that Kerry wasn't told to make way for a younger, newer "Fresh blood" in the Senate, isn't slamming Kerry. It's slamming the hatred of Hillary.

[karynnj]

23. Kerry was told not to run in 2008.

He returned to his Senate seat because it had not been up for reelection. No one told Clinton in 2008 after she lost the primary to Obama to leave the Senate ..

[Demit]

41. The point of the article is to compare reactions to the losing candidates AFTER the election.

Nobody demanded that Gore, Kerry, McCain or Romney apologize for their campaign mistakes. Nobody vilified them for the blame they put on other people, or on circumstances, for their loss. Nobody demanded that they go away and never come back.

[karynnj]

56. Gore left the country after the SC gave a race he had actually won to Bush

Who could he have blamed? He went away and created the information campaign on climate change an interest he had had from the point he was a Congressman. Kerry was blamed primarily by people close to Clinton, who tried to make the defeat because he failed to fight back against the SBVT. In truth, he did and the Navy record itself supported him and it was available to all.

I got an account on DU after the election looking for a place after that devastating loss. What I found was hundreds of threads that attacked him on everything - blaming him for Bush still being there. Luckily I found the DU JK group. There I was with others who really had come to believe that he was a unique American statesman - maybe the best of his generation. A few MA members helped us to learn more than we learned in the election, making the loss harder. However, Kerry threw himself into working for the party in 2005/2006 and his optimism and determination was inspiring.

I KNOW that a far larger group of people see HRC as that unique leader they had so much hope for. I suspect the reason you see more pushback is that her supporters even now are a far bigger group than we were for Kerry. The greater pushback to a greater movement seems almost like a law of physics! (which it isn't) In 2005/2006, Kerry never came close in polling to HRC as the 2008 nominee - had he ever seemed remotely likely to get the nomination again, the attacks on him would have increased at a geometric rate.

It is interesting that you and many others use the word "apologize" when what seems more the case is that she is being asked - just like the others - what she could have done differently to win. Kerry and Romney were definitely asked specifically that - after they spoke of various external reasons for their loss. As Gore was gone, reasons - especially that he did not use Bill Clinton enough - were assigned to his loss. In EVERY case, it was an awkward conversation. Clinton's, in some way, is MORE awkward as 2000 was predicted to be a toss up before it started and both Bush and Obama were seen as likely to be reelected - especially Bush who was at 60% approval in December 2003.

In contrast, 2016 was seen as a shoo in for Clinton. I suspect had there never been an issue over the emails (had she made sure the SD had them in early 2013), she would not have been vulnerable to anything from wikileaks. Her trustworthiness and honesty were damaged by how poorly that was handled. This happened as early as spring 2015 and the Comey nonsense resurfaced it and caused additional harm. I suspect what some people want is for Clinton to say that part of the problem was her own actions.

[Demit]

67. I don't know why you feel the need to give us extended readings of past campaigns

as if we weren't there. Again, the article—did you read it?—is about the opprobrium heaped on Clinton for talking about the reasons for her loss, and the lack of same for the other losing candidates when they did it. "Oh, she's blaming everyone but herself!" people wrote. That's just one thing.

I haven't read the whole thread. Maybe you've done a post mortem on the losing Republican campaigns as well. But at the moment it seems clear to me that your purpose is to justify why Clinton should be treated differently from the Democratic men who also ran for president and lost. Methinks you protest too much.

[karynnj]

68. The reason was to DISPUTE the article

The article attacks both Gore's and Kerry's campaigns, while NOT similarly acknowledging anything was wrong in Clinton's campaign. In my OPINION, her campaign was MORE FLAWED than either of theirs -- and she started with a greater likelihood of winning. In addition, Gore was trashed mercilessly when he returned from Europe having gained weight and grown a beard! Kerry was blamed at least as much as Clinton is blamed -- and far less was conceded about external factors that hurt him.

I think Romney was asked hundreds of times if he lost due to the 47% comment. He was bashed by the Republicans as a candidate they hadn't wanted in the first place. McCain was treated better by the MSM - and the collapse of the economy and Bush's approval rating was accepted as a large part of why he lost. He was trashed by the right though.

I think that Clinton will be given a role as ONE of the Democratic elder statespersons - along with Obama, her husband, Gore, Kerry and Biden. However, as 2020 comes near, all these people will be more in the background than the likely future leader. Biden is the only one of these signalling interest in running - and I seriously doubt any of them will be strong candidates. I suspect you hope HRC does.

[suffragette]

57. Yes. Also the CBC rightfully challenged the election fraud and Boxer stood with them in 2004.

Sexism is a clear factor in how Clinton is excoriated and that is unique to her, but I agree with you that "defending Clinton by attacking Gore and Kerry is insane."

It's extremely disturbing to me how this article minimizes the voter suppression and election fraud that took place in Florida and Ohio, especially since this suppression is still occurring and it needs to be recognized and fought, not depicted as faulty excuses for 2000 and 2004. Misrepresenting that history will only ensure it keeps happening.

People who weren't active then need to read up on issues like the Brooks Brothers riot in Florida (engineered by Roger Stone) and the many documented and videoed instances of repression in Ohio.



Here's a link for important video footage at archive.org that documented some of the repression that occurred in Ohio.

https://archive.org/details/ohio_vote_2004

Posts from the old Election Forum at DU also chronicle what happened in 2004.

That forum is what led me to DU in the first place.

[louis-t]

63. I was active at the time and distinctly remember #7, Roger Morse

trying to pick a fight with a guard at the door. I believe he wanted the guard to strike him so he could play victim.

[suffragette]

64. Yes, they falsely pretended to be angry voters, but it was an engineered 'riot' done to shut

Down the recount. And that was engineered by Roger Stone and the Republican Party.

Thank you for providing a piece of the important history of that theft of the election.

[TexasProgresive]

11. This has been the pattern ever since she was 1st lady of Arkansas.

Few are ambivalent when it comes to Sec Clinton. They either admire greatly or hate her guts. Why? I have no idea. It goes beyond misogyny. The same people who hate her love them some, Ann Coulter, Ayn Rand, Sarah Palin, Elizabeth Dole, Ivanka, Melania and on and on. Several of these they would've supported in a run for president.

Now since she so attractive to the lighting bolts of right wing hatred (for whatever unknown reason) her reemergence into public view gives the Reich wing media a squirrel to distract their mad dog viewers from the truth. (Mixed metaphors, I know)

[ehrnst]

20. Bingo. Her lack of apology for her qualifications made her "entitled" because she's a woman.(nt)

[mcar]

13. The hatred the media holds for this noble woman

makes me so angry. I will never understand it and never forget it.

[wildeyed]

90. I got to learn how much many 'liberal' men I know secretly disrespect women.

They way they treated me when I tried to correct their misconceptions about HRC..... Ouch. These are people I know, who know how closely I follow politics and for how long and yet they were willing to dismiss my points in the most condescending and stereotypically chauvinist ways imaginable. Not all of them, of course. But there is a solid majority I will never see in the same way.

We have a long way to go. Sigh.

[betsuni]

14. K&R

[seaglass]

16. Because none have the integrity to own up to the part they played in electing Trump. n/t

[Madam45for2923]

21. Bookmarking 10X

[Lil Missy]

22. Hillary haters are still chewing the bait/misinformation provided by Putin and our rabid right.

Would be fine with me if she ran again.

[Jakes Progress]

31. Yep. They are as guilty of gullibility

as those that buy the other russian propaganda. And incapable of self-reflection.

[PatSeg]

25. When Hillary was a candidate,

people complained because she didn't show us who she was. Now that she isn't running for anything and is open and forthcoming, the media jumps down her throat. Anyone who thinks misogyny didn't play a major part in the election was not paying attention. Hillary has been on the receiving end of it for 30 years, it is not an excuse, it is very real.

I heard some journalists on MSNBC yesterday trashing her for speaking her mind, but I'm quite a man would not be treated that way.

[still_one]

27. A year or so ago I believe Rachel Madow made the observation that if Hillary had

discovered the cure for cancer, they would criticize her for that

[PatSeg]

46. Yes

Everyone knows that is a man's job!

[still_one]

47. well said..........

[wildeyed]

97. "Sure, she cured cancer, but what about her emails?"

"She is just using her amazing discovery as a way to distract from her bitterness and lack of authenticity. Besides, curing cancer is so elitist! It makes it hard for her to connect with racist white people who are the only real Americans. Donald Trump actually causes cancer, but he is brash and entertaining. Terrific! Let's see what Kellyanne and JLord have to say about it!"

Positive that's what we would hear on the political chat shows

[PatSeg]

98. I just recall

the surprisingly, the one person who DID agree that misogyny was alive and well in politics was Michael Steele. I was really impressed with what he said, but I can't recall too much of it now. It was on yesterday's Meet the Press.

[Jakes Progress]

28. Excellent. And we know why.

A shame that those guilty won't be able to see it in themselves.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

33. So obvious, yet some will go to their graves denying the misogyny.

"Her boiling anger at the press and at various out-of-nowhere campaign developments doesn't make her worse than Gore, Kerry, Romney, and McCain — it makes her one of them.

And that really only leaves one thing that is just so very different about Hillary Clinton. Let's see if you can guess what it is."

[WhiskeyGrinder]

35. K&R

[Tiggeroshii]

36. Because those who live in convfefe houses shouldn't throw covfefe

[mhw]

37. Obama was gives 220 min of air time. Hillary, just 32 min

don't know what Kerry was given. He too is a good & fair man.

How much air time was Trump given again?

This simple comparison tells all we need to know as to the scope of everything else thrown at her to seat the RW agenda we see today.

It was about erasing "we the people" from the books as the USA moves forward.

The Kerry & Obama campaigns gave the RW organizing skills.
By the time it got to Hillary, the skills were perfected & the coup was in place.

Kerry, Obama & Hillary all offered a bright positive & secure future . They did nothing wrong.

[meow2u3]

43. The media also spent a lot of time talking about her

and not exactly in a positive light. It was all Trump, all the time, as if he needed all that free air time.

[mhw]

45. Yes. Hillary's 32 min of airtime was interrupted by commentary critiquing every word she said.

Followed by hours & days of more critiquing.

Msm owns this nightmare.
The fact that none will own up to their role shows what unbelieveably shitty people they all are.

[radical noodle]

38. They will continue this as long as she lives

and then when she passes away, they'll bring it all up again.

[Les Cowbell]

42. Great, more of the circular firing squad that costs Democrats election after election.

Got hammered across the board in 2016, Repubs have complete control in 23 states and the entire federal government, so let's rerun an election where the worst candidate in presidential history won over the Democrat, while bashing two previous candidates - to what end? Congratulations. Feel better? These sorts of discussions should help win in 2018 and beyond, right? Sheesh.

[ismnotwasm]

49. Unfortunately painful examination is something we need to do.

Having read many a deconstruction of Hillary's campaign, along with mind-blowing and consistent Hillary bashing, there is this side to look at. It's very difficult to battle the inherent "status quo" consisting of racism and sexism that exists because we don't want to think it is ever ourselves.

[Les Cowbell]

55. Painful examination?

I see a lot of blaming and finger-pointing, and not at "ourselves" but rather at others - meaning fellow democrats they see as causing those losses, instead of the real culprits. If you think this is the way to battle racism and sexism, by electing more right wingers, then we will have to disagree.

[ismnotwasm]

83. Attacks on Hillary are in part

What lost the election. It took a hell of a lot to take her down. This goes against the popular narrative that she ran a shitty campaign, or didn't reach out to the working class. Or was "unlikable" Or boring. Or didn't have plans or policies. The article isn't the best, but it's by far from being the worst.

The first rule in battling racism and sexism is to acknowledge where it exists, when it exists

[JHan]

102. what's always amusing to me:

is that for a politician often labeled "robotic" and "boring" she attracts a lot of passion. Very curious.

[ismnotwasm]

117. Yes--I've always found those comments interesting

Almost as interesting as the post-election comments about 'where was THIS Hillary during the election"

[Les Cowbell]

113. This is why Democrats lose

My point is that this thread and the points you are making do nothing to stop the oligarchs and right wing nuts and racists. You just return to defending Hillary, whom I did not attack. Just like the Trumpists you are only hearing what you want to hear and using phrases like "the first rule of ..." may make you feel better by reinforcing your views but it if it isn't productive then what's the point, just like the circular firing squad seen here that only serves to divide and make it easier for the oligarchs to win.

[ismnotwasm]

116. You knocked down a fairly mild article. I simply responded

Now you are comparing me to "The Trumpists" and are accusing me of hearing only what I want to hear. The "oligarchs" have already won. Every person who contributed to putting Trump in office made that happen. Comparing situations leading to how that happened isn't a "circular firing squad"

[forgotmylogin]

44. Everyone loves a witch hunt.

And when the alleged "witch" in question is female, they don't fear retribution.

Nothing makes fundies more satisfied than "putting a woman in her place".

[That Guy 888]

50. We have to believe that Obama is as fucked-up as Trump?

That's no comparison. McCain lost to Obama, a great politician and excellent campaigner. Hillary Clinton (and the rest of the Gop candidates) lost to Trump. They lost to a man who was caught on camera bragging about sexually assaulting women. They lost to someone who has little to no basic knowledge of America. Our party seems to specialize in (to paraphrase Lincoln)wringing spectacular defeats from the jaws of victory.

Gore had Nader to blame - despite the fact that the Democratic Party accepted massive election fraud in the form of voter suppression. People in the Democratic Party are still pushing the idea that Gore (and triangulation) isn't responsible for his loss. The Same people tried to make Jill Stein the Ralph Nader of 2016 . If Gore is still involved in inside Democratic Party politics, I must have missed it.

Kerry ran a bad campaign. He thought that the Gop wouldn't dishonor his service. If you don't know your opponent, you're doomed to failure. Conservatives have zero respect for Democrats, we need politicians that realize that instead of thinking that there are records of service or accomplishments that conservatives will respect. If John Kerry is running a pack to try and maintain his level of influence inside the party, I must have missed it.

"What he did not do was cop to any of his own mistakes. He went back to the Senate, where no one demanded that he give up his seat for a younger politician."

Hillary Clinton currently has a Senate seat???




If Gore and Kerry are visibly trying to influence party politics I would say NO!!!!! to that too. We don't need people who not only lose elections, but refuse to learn from their mistakes planning future election strategy. As per David Faris' article:"I will never say anything other than positive things about my campaign. Because I love the people that led it, worked in it."

[oasis]

53. Hillary "telling it like it is": bad.

Other Democrats, or part time Democrats, "telling it like it is": good.

That's about the size of it.

[Else You Are Mad]

54. The problem is that the media has always...

Hated Hillary from the time became first lady until now. Why? I have no idea, but even up until election day, the media RARELY gave her any positive coverage. The media even treated Palin in a much better light than the did Hillary. So, it goes beyond just mere misogyny.

[athena]

72. Palin did not challenge our society's sexism the way HRC does every day.

Palin was a sex object who knew she was a sex object and played exactly the role that was expected of her. Hillary is a woman who has refused to be a sex object, who has consistently insisted on seeing herself and presenting herself as the equal of any man. This has disturbed many people, male or female, as I have posted elsewhere. Many of those people are in the media. Hillary refused to be locked into the sexist box the media had prepared for her. She did not change her name; she did not bake cookies; she did not divorce her husband; she did not stay quiet and leave politics to the men; and she did not disappear into oblivion the way she was supposed to. That's why they hate her.

[Orsino]

60. All a cover.

Even uttering the truism that she is flawed comes off sounding just like all the sexist cries that she was a bad candidate.

Her compromises and artificiality seem mostly to be functions of her long and impressive experience running a country ferociously hostile to women in positions of power. There is a trade-off, I'll admit, but that's our fault, not hers.

She was about as good as we allowed her to be.

[Martin Eden]

69. "ferociously hostile to women in positions of power"

Hillary's original sin was being a politically ambitious First Lady. Misogynists and Republicans (is there any difference?) never forgave her for that.

She could have been a better Senator. When GW started beating the war drums for Iraq our country desperately needed strong Democrats to stand up and speak truth to power. Instead, Hillary voted to give GW authority to invade Iraq. It is for that same reason in Dem primaries I have also refused to support John Kerry, Joe Biden, John Edwards, or anyone who voted for the IWR in October 2002.

I sincerely believe she likely would have won the primary in 2008 or the 2016 general election if she had been a champion for calling BS on Bushco's campaign of lies to invade Iraq.

[Orsino]

70. Even on the AUMF, she was just going with the flow.

America trained her to do that, by endlessly picking at even the things she did right.

[athena]

73. I agree with you.

Your analysis is right on the mark. If Hillary had not supported the Iraq war, people would have found another reason to hate her. She would have been painted as someone who is not a team player, someone who is weak on terror, someone who can't be trusted to lead the country into war when it's necessary. Hillary can't win. Her intelligence, her self-confidence, and her refusal to accept the sexist role society wanted her to play still make certain insecure people, male or female, extremely uncomfortable. Her failure, as you say, is OUR failure.

[Martin Eden]

74. Slightly less than half the combined Dems in the House & Senate voted for the IWR

John Kerry, especially, broke my heart by not standing up against the rush to war. His political career was founded on leading Vietnam Vets Against the War.

I'm not saying that strong principled Democratic leadership would have stopped the invasion of Iraq, but the Democratic Party and its candidates would have been in a much better position after it proved to be a catastrophically costly fiasco based on lies.

[athena]

78. And what if it hadn't?

Remember, the vote was not even supposed to result in war. At the time, the idea was to give GWB the power to go to war, which he was supposed to use as a bargaining tactic. I remember from that time that no one thought GWB was actually going to declare war.

But suppose GWB had declared war, and it had not proved to be a catastrophic disaster. In the early days, at least, all we heard was news that American soldiers were welcomed with open arms and flowers. Even I, who had opposed the war from the start, had begun to think that I had perhaps been wrong. What if Saddam Hussein had been removed and Iraq had gone on to become a beacon of democracy in the Middle East? Democrats would have been painted for decades afterwards as soft on terror. Remember, this was not that long after 9/11. The country was still very scared. The anti-war position was not as popular or wide-spread as it became years later.

Politics is not as simple as some people like to pretend it is. It's not about purity but about the art of the possible. Even FDR was not a purist; he was a pragmatist who focused on what was possible and was criticized for being too centrist. Those who opposed Hillary because she wasn't pure enough gave us President Trump, just as those who opposed Gore because he wasn't liberal enough gave us President George W. Bush. The worst part is that the purists still haven't learned their lesson. I'm afraid they never will.

[Orsino]

80. Congress isn't supposed to give away its exclusive power to declare war.

And we're not supposed to fight wars without it.

Signing onto the AUMF was a cowardly ceding of Congress' supposed ability to make decisions.

[athena]

91. Thanks for twisting my argument.

As I said, and as you conveniently chose to ignore, I was against the war. What is disingenous here is people's focus on that particular vote as the only thing that has ever mattered. It was wrong to vote for the war. But it was a political decision made in a very different political environment. It was a very conservative and fearful era, thanks to Naderites who gave us GWB, who in turn took advantage of 9/11 to push his warlike agenda. Anyone who goes after Hillary for voting for that war is conveniently forgetting the political environment in which that vote took place. Hindsight is 20/20. And it's very easy, and yet intellectually dishonest, to focus on one decision a person made that turned out badly. I would challenge anyone who has criticized Hillary for that vote to argue that they would have voted against the war if they had actually been in Hillary's place. Even President Obama was not in the Senate when he argued against the war.

It's always easy to criticize someone else for making a mistake. Theodore Roosevelt said it best:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the [one] who points out how the strong [woman] stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the [woman] who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends [herself] in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if [she] fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that [her] place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

[Orsino]

96. Your being against the war doesn't matter.

This was a failure of our leaders in Congress, but fueled by the MSM march to war and Americans' own jingoism.

Clinton was just one of many who failed us, but it's especially odious when we try to run any of the AUMF supporters for the presidency.

[athena]

100. It was those who voted for Nader who failed us.

Hillary has worked harder than anyone who is currently in Congress to make this world a better place. No amount of attacking Hillary will change that.

It was the left who couldn't stop talking in 2000 about how Gore and GWB were indistinguishable that gave us the war in Iraq. And I see that they are intent upon repeating their mistakes. They don't seem to have learned that letting the Republicans win the presidency is not the way to way to prevent unnecessary wars, OR a way to move the country left.

[Orsino]

120. Nader voters were insignificant...

...next to the Bush voters and the non-voters.

The fact that our elections don't poll all theoretically-eligible voters is our downfall, ably assisted by apathy.

[Martin Eden]

84. I remember very well. I was here at DU.

We knew about PNAC and agenda for invading Iraq prior to 9/11. We knew about the lies and the false marketing campaign to sell the war. We knew the IWR would result in war no matter what.

And any politician who wasn't too dumb ignorant to be in the House or Senate knew it too.

Hillary was smart and ambitious. She stuck her finger in the post-9/11 winds and made a political calculation.

What if it hadn't become a catastrophically costly fiasco? With Bushco at the helm it couldn't have been otherwise, but in any event it was a goddamned war crime.

Political "purity" doesn't even enter into the picture with the slight majority of Dems who voted against the IWR.

There was no excuse. I voted for Kerry & HRC in the general elections, but their IWR vote will never be forgotten or forgiven. And I won't stay silent when others try to rewrite this hustory.

[athena]

95. Congratulations on being so perfect.

Why aren't you in the Senate if you are so good at making decisions? It's easy to criticize others. If you're so superior, let's see you be a Senator. Let's see you run for president. What's your excuse? If anything, your total lack of empathy should give you a step up, considering that's what the voters seem to want these days.

Your comment about Hillary being "smart and ambitious" tells me all I need to know. Oh, the horror of being "smart and ambitious" when you happen to be a woman! And don't let me get started on the crime of a politician making a political calculation! Enjoy your president. And welcome to ignore.

[Martin Eden]

105. Nice little tantrum

Nothing in your post addresses the substance of the issue at hand. It's all personal attack, whereas I did not go that route with you.

And BTW, "smart and ambitious" is entirely gender neutral. The latter applies to pretty much every politician but the former (which is a compliment) unfortunately does not apply to all.

I'm far from perfect, but I was here in 2002 and I know what I know.

[BeyondGeography]

89. Obama only ran in '08 because of that vote, IMO

She would have been unbeatable otherwise, and I'm pretty sure he realized that. There were a lot of primary voters who wanted to make pro-IWR candidates pay and he was the #1 alternative. He didn't have to cast a vote but his emphatic, "I'm opposed to dumb wars," speech before IWR was voted on did the trick for a lot of us.

[Martin Eden]

99. The enthusiam for Howard Dean was based on his opposition to the Iraq War

Millions of Dems who bothered to dig beneath what the corporate media was reporting knew the case for war was bogus and were desperate for Democratic leaders with the courage to stand up and say so.

And yes, I don't think Obama would have run in 2008 if Hillary had been that leader.

[wildeyed]

107. My enthusiasm for Dean was because he was the only Dem who didn't

roll over, show his belly and pee himself a little every time the GOP said Boo! My husband listens to NPR on weekend morning. I would be doing stuff, tuning it out and then all of a sudden, this voice would be saying all the things that were going through my head about Republicans that no other Dems were saying. I would get confused for a minute. Hey! Why is my brain on the radio? But it was Dean saying stuff that needed to be said. He was anti-Iraq War, but there was more to it than that.

Obama was an ambitious, brilliant speaker who understood that Clinton was vulnerable in the caucus states. He knew that if he ran up the totals early, he could win before they realized they lost. Again, I think her Iraq War position offended a portion of the coalition, but it was by no means THE deciding factor. Obama was always hawkish. He said he was against needless intervention, but he was always clear that he was fine with exercising military power in the right circumstances. Not a far-left position at all.

[lovemydogs]

75. I got so angry with a segment on Meet the Press yesterday

Todd had a round table where he played a clip of Hillary at a conference talking about her loss. Afterwards they all sat and trashed Hillary.
I was not a Hillary supporter during the primaries but, that really pissed me off.
I shot off an email to Ruth Marcus, one of the panelists, asking what the hell is the matter with you journalists. Its not that Hillary has a problem. Journalists have a problem with Hillary and they need to figure out why.
I also said that democrats do not throw their elder statesmen/women under the bus like republicans.

[c-rational]

77. Great post - Completely agree. Andrea Greenspan knows exactly what she is doing, attempting

to rewrite history which has her as a dupe of the Ruskies and a stooge of MSM.

[niyad]

85. and people, even progressives, are going to rant and scream and deny to their last breath that

the answer to the last line in the article has ANYTHING to do with their virulent antipathy.

[JHan]

86. This article is every damn thing. bookmarked.

[rock]

88. Many misogynists don't realize that they are misogynistic

Being a misogynist may be their only fault. That does not in any way lessen it's evil.

[hamsterjill]

93. I don't honestly give a shit, and I don't think Hillary does either.

I was desperately hoping that she would win, and I've certainly had strong emotions over the fact that she's not in the White House. Hillary has admitted to her own issues with dealing with that fact, too. Chelsea said Hillary needed "a lot of Charlotte and a little chardonnay".

But the aftermath - Hillary can say and do whatever she feels like. If she chooses to run again, I'll seriously consider her because she's the smartest, most knowledgeable political candidate that I know at the moment. If she chooses not to run again, I will still be willing to listen to her every word on just about any subject because of the same fact. She's knowledgeable!

She's a strong and independent woman. It's sad that we still live in a world where being that is such a threat to some in society. So, my attitude is "screw them". Their loss.

[athena]

103. Thank you for that post!

I, too, should stop being so bothered by this. This is not a problem with Hillary; it's a problem with people who cannot stand a strong and independent woman who is more intelligent and more competent than they are.

[lunamagica]

111. K&R. What a great article. Bookmarked The ending paragraph says it all TY, Kpete!

[Maraya1969]

119. IT IS RUSSIA AND FAKE NEWS. If Ted Kennedy were still alive

we'd be hearing about Chappaquiddick