General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHILLARY CLINTON: "I'm done with being a candidate"
Alana Abramson
11:29 AM ET
Hillary Clinton says she's ruled out another run for office, but you don't expect her to leave the political stage entirely.
"As an active politician, it's over," Clinton told Jane Pauley in a Sunday interview on CBS Sunday Morning. "I am done with being a candidate. But I am not done with politics because I literally believe that our country's future is at stake."
Clinton told Pauley she was so certain of victory over the eventual winner, President Donald Trump, that she had only drafted a victory speech, not a concession speech. She added that she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had purchased the home next door to their Chappaqua, New Yrok property as a location for White House staff and security.
"I just felt this enormous letdown, just kind of loss of feeling and direction and sadness," she told Pauley about her emotions in the election's immediate aftermath. "It was a very hard transition. I really struggled. I couldn't feel, I couldn't think, I was just gob-smacked, wiped out."
Clinton did not offer further clarity on her future career plans, according to a transcript of the interview. But she has launched "Onward Together," a Political Action Committee that supports progressive candidates and organizations.
http://time.com/4935148/hillary-clinton-what-happened-politics/?utm_campaign=time&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&xid=time_socialflow_twitter
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)Trying to help this fucking country and we allowed crosscheck, russians, liars and thieves to steal her rightful place in history.
I dont blame her.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)Clinton said President Donald Trumps inauguration speech was a cry from the white nationalist gut, and said he successfully referenced a nostalgia that would give hope, comfort, settle grievances, for millions of people who were upset about gains that were made by others.
What youre saying is millions of white people, CBS Jane Pauley said.
Millions of white people, Clinton said, nodding. Yeah.
She called the election a reality show that led to the election of Trump, who Clinton said turned out to be a very effective reality TV star.
He ends up in the Oval Office. He says, Boy, its so much harder than I thought it would be, this is really tough, I had no idea. Well, yeah, because its not a show, she said. Its real. Its reality for sure.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-says-she-is-done-with-being-a-candidate?utm_content=buffer75c0d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
samnsara
(17,622 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I was open to supporting her once again if she chose to run, but she's still a powerful woman who has worked for the public good all her life and that will continue. Okay.
It might help if all those here learned more about the Clinton Foundation -- until all the lies are vanquished and completely replaced with the respect and support it deserves. If she did nothing else but do good works through their foundation for the rest of the life, she would leave behind a great legacy in many nations. Including this one.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)Alice11111
(5,730 posts)Kick um in the balls and call out their lies...the Repubs (& Puty Boy too). They, the Repubs, are used to weaseling out of what they do & say, never being held accountable. Now, why do they hate her? I think it's called, "scared shitless."
Skittles
(153,169 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)have been able to overcome all of that because it was said she could handle "anything". Never mind that there is an active and unprecedented FBI investigation into election interference at the highest levels of government by a hostile foreign power. What the FBI and the entire investigative apparatus of the State of New York is investigating, Hillary should just have overcome it. No context required -- just blame her.
Never mind that she faced personal attacks and lies about her character and integrity by groups of people who never provided proof of their assertions. Never mind that the common wisdom is not to damage the GE candidate like was done to her nonstop. She is the only one in history who is expected to prevail just because it was said she was strong.
CousinIT
(9,247 posts)any of the non-male population. Speaking for anyone but them (they are the center of the Universe in their minds) is political suicide - esp if the speaker is a woman.
She stepped out of her pre-determined (by men) "place" in our society and our political system. Any time a woman speaks up - whether a gamer, a politician, a business manager, human rights activist - anything - they get the same treatment. Unrelenting VICIOUSNESS, blame and expectations which are never packed on the backs of men in our society.
Women - to Republican/MRA men (and they're all that) - are guilty. Right from the get-go. They are guilty. Because their bible tells them so. They are guilty - of everything. If they're gang-raped (politically or literally) - it's HER fault. She shouldn't have been acting like a human being. Women are not human beings. They should keep their burkas on and their mouths shut and do their only job as a male service unit and if they don't, they deserve all the abuse our society and political system can possibly hurl at them -- and by God they get it too.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Maven
(10,533 posts)Why would she want to go through that again?
still_one
(92,217 posts)healthcare plan in the 90's, and the disgraceful way President Obama was treated during his 8 years as president is a disgrace.
The country is getting exactly what it deserves. The question is will they finally wake up?
Initech
(100,080 posts)I think about what we could have had. The republican party is why we can't have nice things.
nycbos
(6,034 posts)What she has put up with.
If amazing she isn't saying "See I tried to warn you. You are getting what you paid for, now F off"
BigmanPigman
(51,608 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)To say that Onward Together supports or will support progressive candidates begs the question of how we define progressive.
In my view:
If it includes an emphasis on corporate centered and corporate friendly trade agreements, it is not progressive.
If it does not include much higher taxes on the very highest earned and unearned incomes, it is not progressive.
If it does not include a single payer healthcare system, it is not progressive.
If it does not include large cuts to the US war budget to free up money for social spending, it is not progressive.
If it does not include massive spending on renewable energy sources and elimination of subsidies for oil and nuclear, it is not progressive.
If it does not include free college for students, it is not progressive.
More could be added, but to me this represents the minimum position.
The battle for the term 'progressive' is really warming up
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)it will be the triumph of meaningless slogan over substance.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Vermont doesn't have single payer.
Vermont doesn't have free college tuition.
Vermont doesn't have $15/hr minimum wage.
You have it backwards, then about meaningless slogans. Showing actual results means its no longer meaningless, otherwise they are all slogans.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)karynnj
(59,504 posts)The state actually has a governor and a state legislature -- just like other states.
PDittie
(8,322 posts)to turn the word into a pejorative, as with 'liberal'.
Glenn Beck is out front with this. Every time you see someone use the phrase "prog" it needs to be challenged. Sick of the RW redefining terms and reframing the debate.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)romana
(765 posts)As it should. People will define it as they see fit. Some go from the neoliberal angle. Myself, I go from the social angle, and in that respect Clinton is definitely a progressive in my book. She was the most progressive candidate in this last cycle because she took on womens issues and race issues head on.
I will forever admire her courage and appreciate her service to this country. We are the real losers here, to lose this woman as our president.
I believe she may end up at her most effective going forward, though. She will work hard to get women into office. And the first woman potus will get there by standing on her shoulders.
Shes free now.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)They are not even a reality in his very small state and they lost in 2016. Time to show proof of these accomplishments before demonizing other Democrats about them. Universal healthcare is certainly progressive. It was progressive in the 90's when Hillary Clinton proposed it, and it's progressive now.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)FDR had a lot of talking points that later became reality.
And surveys consistently show that these positions are more popular than the platforms of either major Party.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)before sliming Democrats.
LOL at surveys. Here's the obligatory comment about free things being popular. No kidding! That doesn't make it "progressive". No war and no military sounds great and wonderful, but it is never going to happen, so why waste time.
And those points all lost in 2016, so apparently your last comment is not really true...in reality. People voted for the more realism.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)held accountable for these "issues." So the only thing real about them is they are used as divisiveness.
Vermont does not have:
Single payer
Free college tuition
$15 minimum wage
Another obligatory comment about free things being popular, but apparently not popular enough to vote for them. These issues didn't advance in any elections.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)FDR not so welcome around these parts anymore..
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Falling for Amity Shlaes historic revision when it comes to FDR . . . that's the stuff of AnCaps, not Democratic voters.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)that FDR was/is the biggest anti-corporatist symbol that the Dems have had in it's history.. and it brings to light a philosophy that has been gutted of this belief, unfortunately..
I will continue to be an FDR Democrat..
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts). . . you know, that edict other countries took from and adopted as policy, but not OURS.
I think it's because the wealthy white male third-basers of this country want steadfastly to have things remain as they are - with them atop an immobile pyramid as an object of strict cult worship. They don't want to be blamed for anything past or present and they've managed to convince the lower rungs of the pyramid that blaming them foments resentment for this great system they created.
"And with lots of hard work and a liiiitle luck, you could join us at the top of this pyramid!"
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)it explains a lot of what I have heard..
I knew about Glenn Beck, and his kooky assertions by a righty tool here @ my job.. but man - they are so thouroughly propagandized @ this point.. it's sad
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts). . . and despite being widely discredited by historians, newspapers STILL print her bile.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Nor are actual liberal/progressive policies among some.
Me.
(35,454 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)dogma now, even thout "most of the rest of the developed world" actually uses multi-payer systems to get to universal health care coverage.
Just like "defunding Planned Parenthood is the only way to stop abortion!" on the right.
And it's become such dogma, that whether or not it's even feasible, or wise to put our energy behind for "single payer or bust" every politican on the left is thinking what every polician on the right thought about defunding Planned Parenthood - "It's going to be used against me if I don't support it."
samnsara
(17,622 posts)...either one achieves it or not. But its a place where no one is better than any one else and no one is perfect.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But to state that one will support progressive candidates begs the question of exactly what positions are called progressive. And the term perfect was not part of my rant.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)personally I am not a progressive, I am a liberal Democratic Socialist who places civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, religious rights, black people rights, way above any and all economic issues or any other issues, for that matter.
Simplifies things for me, liberal, period.
LakeArenal
(28,820 posts)MrsCoffee
(5,803 posts)Or his "revolution".
Not when he endorses the likes of Heath Mello while blowing off someone like Jon Ossoff.
LakeArenal
(28,820 posts)Thanks for bringing up he who shouldn't be mentioned every time Hillary Clinton's name comes up.
We are here to praise her not him.
Not that you were about to.
Thanks Hillary for coming out to speak again. I know you have a lot more to say and do.
Maven
(10,533 posts)And I wholeheartedly supported HRC and look forward to seeing what Onward Together can do to support progressive Democrats.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And ussies matter. It is not enough to not be Donald Trump.
Part of the problem for Clinton was that the media prefers to focus on personalities rather than issues.
Maven
(10,533 posts)However, I agree that the media completely distorted people's perception of what was at stake.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)there were GOP/Russia leaks that were timed to take the oxygen out of DT scandals as they came to light.
Many weren't fooled, but alas, many were. And still are.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Volaris
(10,272 posts)With legit economic provisions and protections for those on the other side.
Example: trade agreement says you can move that factory wherever you want. But the people who are going to work in it, will get paid American Federal minimum wage. No, NOT the living equivalent for their own country,
ACTUAL federal min wage, and in USDollars if they want it.
If these people are going to help American companies export American economic hegemony around the globe, then don't you think they should be among the top wage earners IN their country? Don't American corporations think that's worth it?
I damnsure do.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Another is to place a tariff on the product when it comes into the US equal to the lost wages.
melanctha
(24 posts)fringe purists. You do not predetermine the party's goals. You are allowed to present you points and they will be debated and determined. If democracy doesn't work for you join another party.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Welcome to DU, and the discussion.
Squinch
(50,955 posts)Which is under attack right now, and only the Democrats are holding the line. But, sorry, not a pure enough goal!
You are right. It is the fringe purist's tantrum list.
Squinch
(50,955 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)The one governor (Andrew Cuomo) who did bring free tuition to his state is not considered 'progressive' enough by this forum. I graduated way too early to take advantage of it.
I'm a fangirl of his for a few reasons (long before the free SUNY tuition, which passed this year). Mostly his ability to get shit done and the fact that he replaced a bridge built in 1945 to last 50 years (construction began in 2015, one way has since opened but since I don't live in NY anymore, I haven't driven on it yet). I used to commute over that bridge.
He's definitely considering running in 2020 but I'm leaving my options open.
lapucelle
(18,268 posts)Not everyone is thrilled with the details of the plan, and many students are ineligible, including all those whose parents make less than $50,000 a year.
[T]he law is regressive. It does nothing to help students from families earning less than $50,000 a year. Their tuition is already covered by other programs. But it does pay for tuition for New Yorkers who make double the states median income. The higher up the income scale you go, until the ceiling, the more you benefit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/opinion/the-cuomo-college-fiasco.html?mcubz=0
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Liberal to one can be center right to another. These are my particular items, but the list is not limited to what was listed.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Pushing health care specific to women into the background, or refer to those advocating for it as "getting hung up" on it.
Dismissing issues that do not directly affect white straight men as "identity politics," or "not universal."
Decry "identity politics" then talk frequently about "white working class voters."
Dismiss voters who don't walk lockstep with a particular economic manifesto, and lecture them about "not getting it."
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)Starting with Her book, her interviews--despite all that dysfunctional "go away" narrative out there spoken by idiots, assholes, the politically naive and the politically malignant. She's a powerful, magnificent woman. I look forward to seeing how she helps shape the future.
I believe that certain Hillary negative people are in for such a surprise.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)if Clinton's and Sanders' respective organizations can inspire enthusiasm among voters they will both have accomplished a good thing.
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)One way to heal the divide is for air out the laundry-- as much as ever gets done in politics. Hillary AND Bernie have both written books now, gone on tours, interviews etc. Hillary is emerging and contrary to what's often said or written she has done this carefully and effectively--and Bernie never left.
I will bet you an virtual/internet cup of coffee that both Hillary and Bernie find a way to address their various groups together. They may or may not "like" each other-- I suspect they do--but they are both savvy political people who will see the need to negate the absolute bigotry, the horrible destructive policies republican are putting forward.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You predict "that both Hillary and Bernie find a way to address their various groups together."
Bernie backed Keith Ellison for DNC Chair, but, when Tom Perez won, Bernie joined him on a multi-state "unity tour". The tour drew large crowds -- and it's no secret which of the two headliners had the star power.
Hillary has upset many of us with a book that, according to the excerpts released so far, attacks Bernie and his supporters. I have no problem with airing disagreements, but it appears that her book will include some dubious opinions and outright falsehoods. I hope that, now that she's gotten that out of her system, she'll live up to the name of her new organization.
Maven
(10,533 posts)He has some responsibility to take and some conciliatory gestures to make before I will ever start to see him again as the person I once admired.
He can start by following Hillary's lead and announcing he won't run again in 2020.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)To take one example, there's disagreement about single payer within the Democratic caucuses in Congress. Some say the Democrats should push for it. Others agree with Hillary that it will "never, ever happen." Neither side in that debate should be told to just be quiet in the name of unity or of not bashing others.
Maven
(10,533 posts)When Hillary wants to analyze what went wrong, and identifies several culprits in addition to her own campaign including--gasp!--Bernie's tactics, that amounts to "dubious opinions and outright falsehoods".
Many of us are relieved that HRC is getting to tell her story about the election, and it's an important one to understand if we wish to learn from the insanity of 2016. She is not "getting it out of her system", nor does she need to be condescended to by those who believe she requires their permission. She doesn't.
Meanwhile, Bernie may wish to put 100% of the responsibility on HRC's shoulders because it serves his personal agenda to do so. That is part and parcel of the self-centeredness that caused "many of us" to turn away from him and never look back. He can still show some leadership, as I said, by owning his part of the mess and ruling out a 2020 run, as Hillary has already done.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... that single-payer would "never, ever happen". She said that Bernie's plan as he outlined in his campaign would never happen.
Just another totally false talking point that a certain group keeps circulating ...
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)Let's see what happens, shall we?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I agree with you about seeing what happens. The unity tour was one step. It will take many steps to get anywhere.
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)My personal fix is lower the SocSec to 40yrs of age with a min of the poverty level.
Lotusflower70
(3,077 posts)She did what she could. She is a private citizen now and can do whatever she wants. It's sad how much residual anger and hate are still directed at her. She paved the way for those who will come after her. She served our country well. I look forward to seeing what she chooses to do next.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Intelligence, experience, DEMEANOR ... she had it all. Nobody else compared. Of all the contenders, she was the ONLY one who was a qualified. The rest were just pretentious liars, low-class cheats, cheap knock-offs, loud pretenders, angry wannabes and bitter spoilers. She was robbed seven ways from Sunday.
kpete
(71,996 posts)I still think she is quite wonderful
and will Always have the upmost respect for her
kp
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)Part of the the most sexist attacks against her involved how she handled emotion--too cold, she cries, too "fake", she smiled wrong, she laughed wrong, she didn't show "true" emotion--blah blah blah. Other attacks Involved "she stands for nothing/she is too detail oriented (one of the more ridiculous criticisms of her healthcare reform was that is was too "bulky" i.e. too much to read) The reality is spoken by her close friends--she cares and loves deeply, she is stalwart in friendship, she thinks in that comprehensive way the truly intelligent and the emotionally intelligent think.
She's also a reality-based pragmatic and very experienced politician who realizes the rights of women and people of various ethnicities and races shape our future and also, that the world is changing, and changing rapidly. Inclusiveness and intersectionality are the keys to a socially healthy future. It's time to share power.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Intelligence, experience, DEMEANOR ... she had it all. Nobody else compared. Of all the contenders, she was the ONLY one who was a qualified. The rest were just pretentious liars, low-class cheats, cheap knock-offs, loud pretenders, angry wannabes and bitter spoilers. She was robbed seven ways from Sunday.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... it's the price we all must pay for EGOS and irrational immature voters who believe that "sending a message" is better than actually SENDING THE MOST QUALIFIED PERSON to lead our nation. I know who they are. I know who their "leader" is. I know who they're still rallying around. Specifically, these "Stein-voters" and "non-voters" are the ones with a chip on their shoulder... they feel the world owes them... they're irresponsible, they're unreliable, they're disloyal to anyone except themselves, they think ONLY of themselves. They are the Sarandon types who still believe that the "burn-it-down" philosophy will bring around the "Second Coming" or some sort of revolution (or something). These "destroy-to-rebuild" people can afford the luxury of watching everything around them turn to shit. Others, the more vulnerable among us, won't be so lucky.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)women rights, equality rights, our democracy, our reputation, our freedoms, our rights, our past to erase, our present to grab, our future to bend.
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/537909/
50. You're correct. WE were robbed. That's the cost of VANITY and BITTERNESS...
View profile
... it's the price we all must pay for EGOS and irrational immature voters who believe that "sending a message" is better than actually SENDING THE MOST QUALIFIED PERSON to lead our nation. I know who they are. I know who their "leader" is. I know who they're still rallying around. Specifically, these "Stein-voters" and "non-voters" are the ones with a chip on their shoulder... they feel the world owes them... they're irresponsible, they're unreliable, they're disloyal to anyone except themselves, they think ONLY of themselves. They are the Sarandon types who still believe that the "burn-it-down" philosophy will bring around the "Second Coming" or some sort of revolution (or something). These "destroy-to-rebuild" people can afford the luxury of watching everything around them turn to shit. Others, the more vulnerable among us, won't be so lucky.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... but they seem quite proud of themselves. Like children with a box of matches and a stack of fatwood kindling. One side is shouting "lock her up" and these (so-called) progressives are chanting "let-it-burn". Still can't figure out what their fascination is with this website. They all need to go away and stop with their attacks and disruption and division.
For clarity, I'm referring to "Stein-voters" and "non-voters" (which I think is the acceptable term these days).
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)View profile
... but they seem quite proud of themselves. Like children with a box of matches and a stack of fatwood kindling. One side is shouting "lock her up" and these (so-called) progressives are chanting "let-it-burn". Still can't figure out what their fascination is with this website. They all need to go away and stop with their attacks and disruption and division.
For clarity, I'm referring to "Stein-voters" and "non-voters" (which I think is the acceptable term these days).
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)You've got Senators like Kamala Harris endorsing single payer, signalling a shift left in party policy and rhetoric
For the 'sincere' Stein and non voters, that will make a difference
For the percentage of those same voters who just didn't like Hillary as a candidate, well that's over
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)There's nothing redeeming about them at all. There are no adjectives, categories or qualifier words that make them any less contemptible. These are the vanity voters, and the "destroy-it-to-rebuild-it" cult. Selfish and vile. They can go fuck themselves!
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)It's the smart move
Centrism is dead
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)lapucelle
(18,268 posts)It was the Bush presidency that ushered in the age of Citizen's United. Bush appointee John Roberts even advised the plaintiffs of a better way to frame their argument for an affirmative Supreme Court decision.
Thanks Ralph! Thanks Susan!
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/05/21/money-unlimited
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/04/11/money-talks-jeffrey-toobin
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... fuck their supporters and defenders and protectors.
Some "Revolution" huh?
sheshe2
(83,788 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)EllieBC
(3,016 posts)And I think most qualified ever. We (I mean every US citizen) did not deserve her. IN a sad way we deserve the shit stew we have. There are still people here who throw sideways comments about HRC, being oh so careful to not be too obvious because they do not want a ban.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Wow, THAT doesn't slight the two best presidents we've had in the modern age or anything (FDR and Obama).
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts). . . and your "greatest candidate EVER" lost to the undisputed WORST candidate in history.
What we need to do is toss aside all of the outside factors, however legitimate. Russian Interference, Comey, voter suppression, complicit media, an undercurrent of toxic masculinity, racism and sexism, etc. etc.
Tossing out ALL of that, and running Hillary Clinton side to side with a fascist Cheeto based solely on their own merits as political figures and individuals . . . . this election should NOT HAVE BEEN CLOSE. AT ALL.
If our party doesn't need to be redefined and there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with our candidates . . . HOW and WHY did this happen?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)There's an LOT of "tossing" going on.
JHan
(10,173 posts)nini
(16,672 posts)LOLOL
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)As JFK said,
to a new generation.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)barbtries
(28,798 posts)this may turn out to be the worst thing that ever happened to the USA. and more and more it looks to me that she really did win.
mythology
(9,527 posts)She's a powerful voice and inspiration, particularly to women candidates. She's also incredibly smart and informed (which while sadly not a great asset in terms of getting elected, is something definitely needed for governing).
Losing, especially to an utter assclown like Trump, is hard. She put everything she had into the election and as Secretary of State.
sinkingfeeling
(51,457 posts)used against her. Some will say more awful things.
Caliman73
(11,738 posts)30 years of shit being talked and fabrications being made out of whole cloth have not been enough to take her down. Something being said about her confidence won't be the "last straw".
Almost everyone was confident that she was going to win. Trump's election was a shock, including to Trump.
Maven
(10,533 posts)seaglass
(8,173 posts)still_one
(92,217 posts)fast enough from the Democratic label, and that by itself has poisoned any attempt if he tried to run again using the Democratic party as a convenient vehicle for his political ambitions.
We need to move past 2016. Imo our party needs to heal without the 2016 players on the stage. Biden needs to stay out, too.
lapucelle
(18,268 posts)Hillary Clinton will never be president.
Like Anthony, Hillary will instead become part of the pantheon of feminist heroes. The purpose of her public life will transcend the office of the presidency.
Hillary Clinton took every punch aimed at second wave feminists in particular (and late 20th century women in general) and got up and kept fighting anew. We will be forever grateful.
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Squinch
(50,955 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Maven
(10,533 posts)Skittles
(153,169 posts)he is finished as a candidate
Nobody seems to be hell bent on denying Joe Biden a third bite at the apple.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)lapucelle
(18,268 posts)and the division will not abate with the absence of HRC from electoral politics. The division will continue as long as people who explicitly say that they are not Democrats, that the party is corrupt, and who insist that they owe no loyalty to any party continue to try to hijack ours.
I'm not referring to politicians who caucus with Democrats. I'm talking about outsider "activists" whose only loyalty is to their own ridiculous demands and their skewed and erroneous perception of the term "progressive" which is rapidly morphing into code for Tea Party 2.0.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)lapucelle
(18,268 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)We let her down, as a group. We failed to support our own choice of a nominee for President, and are now reaping the rewards of our failure.
I wouldn't run again, either, if I were her. I share her disappointment and loss.
Caliman73
(11,738 posts)I supported her, my family supported her, all my friends supported her, 90 percent of people who supported her primary opponent, supported her. I did not only support her because she is Hillary Clinton. I know that she is an intelligent and qualified leader, but I supported her because she was the leader of the Democratic Party and supported the policies I most align with. It wasn't just about Hillary Clinton, it was about ideals for what the nation should be.
People who did not vote, and people who succumbed to the lies (who wanted to believe them) let the country down. I would support her again if she did choose to run because she is a good, effective leader who promotes the policies of the Democratic party.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Yes, many still can't stand the thought of a Hillary presidency, but she's the ideal person for the job, and gets better with each campaign. And possibly the electorate will have enough buyer's remorse in 2020 to give her the tsunami it's going to take to get her in.
still_one
(92,217 posts)many things, and they threw it away.
The Supreme Court, Women's rights, Civil Rights, Workers rights, the environment, healthcare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other issues are now at risk
2018 will be a very uphill challenge because of what happened in 2016
Expecting Rain
(811 posts)to have such a fine progressive liberal Democrat with HRC's temperament, judgement, and experience in the Oval Office.
Raine
(30,540 posts)this is best for all concerned.
trueblue2007
(17,228 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)But rather one of hatred, self-entitlement, and narcissism. That is what Trump's election demonstrated. The election was a shock to me because I didn't realize we were a nation capable of electing someone like Trump. Too many chose to elevate sexual predation and racism to the Oval Office. Too many, perhaps the majority, have contempt for the democratic process and seek to vest near authoritarian powers in one man. The hostility to compromise--which is essential to democracy--reflects contempt for one's fellow citizens and a determination that government exists to serve them and not others.
I thought we were better, that the majority of the country cared about others, not just themselves.
The election showed me otherwise, and so much of what I have seen since makes clear to me just how Trump reflects the current American character. Holding men of power above the citizens and rule of law, self-centerness and narcissism, an opposition to equal rights and a certainty that they deserve more because of the mere accident of being born white, male, and middle class. Some are overt on their hatred for the majority, while others simply demand that the poor and marginalized serve their interests or face assaults on their rights, including the right to vote.
Trump will eventually leave office, but we remain a country that voted for him. A government can't be better than the people it represents, and I see few signs that people want to be better. Note that the policies advanced by Clinton that were most criticized are those that directed government resources toward the poor rather than the upper-middle class. That was unacceptable because the lives of the poor are seen as less. I hear lots of talk about messaging and spinning white middle- to upper-middle class demands in different ways, but no sign that the already privileged, earning O.3% of global incomes (which is what a $100k annual income is) are focused on anything but acquiring more for themselves at the expense of the poor and marginalized whose lives they dismiss or disparage.
.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)That doesn't add up to an entire country of people who lack intelligence and compassion
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)They voted for him through proxy votes for Stein and other third party candidates, or write-ins. And the values that led them and his direct voters to choose him continue undaunted.
FakeNoose
(32,645 posts)Those making $100K+ have been trained by the super-wealthy one-percenters of this country.
That means they all think alike - more-more-more for me-me-me. I got mine, now I want to take yours too.
I'm not saying they're all right-wingers or Republicans, but they play the game of greed and that's what drives our country and our political system anymore. The New Deal is long dead, and I don't believe we'll ever see it again here.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)It was not something FDR came to office wanting to do. Rather it was a response to widespread popular mobilization in reaction to starvation-level poverty.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)For some reason people have chosen not to listen, just like they never listened to her policy proposals.
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)Instead of planning for post-victory
WoonTars
(694 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)As Ezra Klein said ..
"Imagine a slightly alternate universe. Let's take Nate Silver's estimate that the Comey letter cost Clinton about 3 percentage points in the election. Imagine it never happened. Now Clinton wins the Electoral College, and lands a bigger popular vote victory than Barack Obama did against Mitt Romney.
In that world, are we talking about what an awful race President Clinton ran? We aren't."
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)oasis
(49,389 posts)enough to know how much was at stake.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)there was a massive GOTV effort by the Dems and the Obama campaign.
There was no such effort in 2016.
Did the Dems do much in the way of GOTV anywhere in 2016?
I'd really like to know.
ailsagirl
(22,897 posts)andym
(5,444 posts)Hillary Clinton is resourceful and talented and will continue to make a difference. The election cheated the country out of an outstanding President....