UPDATED: Hillary Jabs At NPR Host: 'You Are Playing With My Words' On Gay Marriage
Last edited Thu Jun 12, 2014, 10:18 PM - Edit history (2)
Source: TPM
DYLAN SCOTT JUNE 12, 2014, 3:00 PM EDT
Hillary Clinton got into a heated exchange on Thursday with NPR host Terry Gross over when exactly the former secretary of state started to support same-sex marriage.
In audio from the radio interview posted online by anti-Hillary group America Rising, Gross tried to pin Clinton down on whether she supported gay marriage during her husband's administration but couldn't say so for political reasons or whether her personal view on the issue had evolved since then.
So, just to clarify, just one more question on this, would you say your view evolved since the '90s or that the American public evolved allowing you to state your real view?" Gross asked.
I think Im an American. I think that we have all evolved, and its been one of the fastest, most sweeping transformations that Im aware of," Clinton replied.
-snip-
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-gay-marriage-npr-terry-gross
The headline has been "updated" at TPM from "Hillary Snaps At NPR Host: 'You Are Playing With My Words' On Gay Marriage" to what it is, above.
---------------------
An OP by William769
Hillary Clinton Had 'Shouting Matches' With Russian Pols on LGBT Rights
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1107719
peacebird
(14,195 posts)ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)From personal experience. Completely unpleasant.
I really do not think she will run. She's just enjoying the possibility and the attention.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)'likeable'...
Sienna86
(2,149 posts)I will vote for the democratic candidate, but I sense that she feels entitled to the nomination. Same issue as in 2008. Just my opinion.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)may she win in a landslide whatever comes after that will be dealt with by duly entitled progressives and liberals.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)which is true of all potential candidates . . . for the time being.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Don't see how those two thoughts are necessarily mutually exclusive. I once was competing for a job promotion with someone and, when pressed what I thought about that person's fitness for the position, I had to admit that person was highly qualified. In that sense, I supported their hiring, but felt I was better qualified and had superior job skills for the position that would allow me to do a better job. Had our supervisor disagreed, and I had not been given the promotion, I would have felt very comfortable working for that person. BTW, that person felt the exact same way about me, and gave almost the same supportive answer, when our supervisor posed the same question. Anyway, that's what I was getting at.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you can twist and turn all you want. I have been listening to her read her own book....NOTHING about it tells me that she doesn't know EXACTLY what she is doing.....
I find it very disconcerting and a bit misogynistic that everyone seems to think she just doesn't.
NO means NO!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Thankfully, Obama did decide to answer the call of the grassroots demanding that he run and give favor to those of us on Main Street, not Wall Street. I see Elizabeth brilliantly playing down her interest in running - for the time being - before she too is persuaded that the country desperately needs her vast talents and she decides President Warren has much to contribute to improving its prosperity even more.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)she said and I quote "I am not running for President...I am NOT running for President ...I AM NOT RUNNING for President"
Not to mention she has already thrown her support behind someone else....
What part of that sounds like she is unsure?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)That's my only point. Obama said and did precisely the same thing, as have many savvy politicians in considering, and leaving the door open for, a run for POTUS, who don't want to foreclose a possible run for the office. Smart move on her part.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)she wont run against Hillary Clinton...whom she ALREADY put her support behind. IF you read her book you will see....she is a very sure footed woman.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Ironically, it is YOU (not me) who's putting THOSE words in her mouth. Elizabeth Warren knows exactly what she's doing. Of course, ultimately, she may decide not to run, as may Hillary. Guess we'll just hafta wait and see.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)she wants to talk about OTHER things more important to her right now...but instead because of people like YOU ....when ever she is interviewed...most of it is spent answering THAT question. THAT is why she was so annoyed....
Do you really want to "annoy her into running"?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)She's just sooo unlikable.
This place is worse than a RW site.
BlueMTexpat
(15,370 posts)juajen
(8,515 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)But they all know what she thinks and how she feels about a host of issues. Some should write fiction, they are talented.
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)Were I ever to be interviewed by Terry Gross (which will never ever happen as I am not interview material in any way) I would likely bite her head off. She is obnoxious.
azureblue
(2,149 posts)I love that word - puts the little woman in her place, eh? I got an idea for you, maybe this may a new concept for you, I dunno, but here goes -- instead of resorting to near sexist personal attacks how about, you know, maybe, reviewing her record as a senator and show how that, not her clothes, not her looks, not her "snippish" responses, not half truths, not outright lies, not her time in the White house as first wife, trying to project what6 she thought about Bill's BJ, how about addressing the issue of her qualifications for President , based upon her performance, and experience?
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Women aren't allowed to be strong without being attacked.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Not everything is based on gender or race.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)I doubt it . Perhaps you did not hear the audio ...or perhaps your opinion is tainted by pre conceived disdain. And anything and everything is twisted to the worst possible interpretation. And strong women in China bound their own feet. Strong women hold down their daughters for mutilation. Strong women in America jump on the sexist bandwagon.
24601
(3,962 posts)You mean to tell me, Mr. Vice President," George W. Bush said incredulously to Al Gore on election night, "you're retracting your concession?"
"You don't have to be snippy about it," Gore responded.
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20001126mag-onlanguage.html
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)brush
(53,815 posts)in the interview. She kept harping on the gay marriage issue with several different questions and Hillary finally answered her, quite frankly, in a that way that most Americans would have to answer if they were being honest.
Call the answer snippy if you like but most of us have evolved and moved favorably towards that issue. Hillary is only different in that she's a politician so she gets accused of all her positions being political and not sincere.
Hell, even the president has admittedly evolved on that issue, and I worked for the his campaign in 2012 against Hillary. I'm saying that to say I'm not an unabashed Hillary fan, but fair is fair.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)but no matter. The wonderful language police have deemed you a grave sinner for using a very word for describing a tone she used while communicating.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)If a man stood up for himself he would be labeled strong and powerful. Load of crap and still surprising that "democrats" spew the rw nonsense
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Except that she's a white woman, hence "snippy".
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)And in this case, you would have a difficult time finding any description of a man as snippy. That description is used to minimize what they have to say and to reinforce the notion that there is something wrong with a strong woman.
It is surprising to me that "liberals" would stoop to such tactics. I am saddened that you have so dehumanized Clinton that it is ok with even liberals to use sexist language in an attempt to bring her down.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)I don't see her being "snappy". I see someone pushing back when an interviewer is trying to play "gotcha" games; which is what Gross was doing.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)But only because this little gem is the most prominent use of the word snippy in the last 20 years.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)And it was an inaccurate description of what occurred during that interview.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 15, 2014, 06:54 PM - Edit history (1)
Do you acknowledge that you said "And in this case, you would have a difficult time finding any description of a man as snippy." And that in turn I provided the most prominent use of the word in presidential politics and it was from one man to another.
Given that those two fact are true...
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Delphinus
(11,840 posts)word I used when I heard Terry interview Sandra Day O'Connor - the former justice was just a tad bit rude in my mind.
Response to peacebird (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
question everything
(47,518 posts)Yes, we've all evolved. Including Obama.
And, maybe one day we will all be where she was in 1993 - healthcare for all and a single payer.
(I did not know that when she was in Seattle people booed her and spat on her because of her plan.)
24601
(3,962 posts)deal. But if she always held a view and misstated it for political reasons, it reflects on character and moral courage.
We deserve the leadership we collectively choose via elections. We need leadership that really is transparent about positions & decision making. It's up to the electorate to close the delta.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)he has never offered any insight. Did he really decide to be against civil rights? Or was he making politics? No one knows, he doesn't say and it does not seem to matter much.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I doubt he would've changed his mind, then changed it again. Just seems like politics, and yes, it sucks.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Because when it comes to politicians, the only way you can tell what they are going to do is what they have done in the past and who is giving them money.
Everything else is worthless, especially their words.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)about Bill signing DOMA. Not that she would have (or should have) any influence over that as an unelected First Lady. But I'd still like her to articulate her thoughts during that time...
question everything
(47,518 posts)It was the Senate of the 90s that passed DOMA - that the Supreme Court invalidated. And then it was, still is, up to each state.
groundloop
(11,521 posts)To me it just doesn't sound like that big of a deal, though I haven't been able to listen to the interview yet. Plus this was posted online by an anti-Hillary group, so I'd expect them to spin it in the worst possible light.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Hillary has too much baggage from the past.
We need to move on and take care of the issues that confront us today.
In case you did not listen to the audio in the OP:
President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -- HR 3396 or Public Law No. 104-199 -- on 21 September 2000. It defines marriage as an act between heterosexuals and frees one state from being required to honor the same-sex marriage conducted in another state. As of this writing, 39 states have laws based on DOMA; 18 of those are amendments to the state constitution.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/DOMA.htm
Marriage has traditionally been a state issue, but gay marriage is a national issue because it involves national laws (income taxes, Social Security, etc.) and because marriages that are legal in one state need to be recognized in other states.
If she runs, Hillary is going to have to answer question after question about her past, about Bill Clinton's presidency. Her candidacy is likely to be mired in that old baggage.
I support Elizabeth Warren. I do not think that Hillary should be our Democratic candidate. I think that Republicans will have a field day with her.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)LittleGirl
(8,287 posts)spot on.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)As Rip Torn/aka Patches O'Houlihan said: If you're going to become true dodgeballers, then you've got to learn the five d's of dodgeball: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge!
juajen
(8,515 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)And we know the disaster that led to. Hillary's cosying up to Wall Street should be a concern to just about everybody on this site. OTOH, Elizabeth's sterling record in dealing with those fat-cats is impeccable and one of the main reasons she has my vote.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)When it was politically acceptable to do so. Just like she "evolved" on the Iraq war after it fell out of favor with the American public.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)no surprises there
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He did not have to do that. He could have vetoed it and sent it back to Congress
That is a problem because Hillary said in this interview that she thought of gay marriage as a state issue. The DOMA was based on the concept that gay marriage could be thwarted at the national level by insuring that gay marriages entered into in one state did not have to be recognized in other states. In signing the DOMA, Bill Clinton acquiesced to the anti-gay-marriage crowd. DOMA was an anti-gay-marriage bill.
Hillary is going to run into this problem over and over.
Trade agreements are very unpopular. NAFTA meant job losses, losses of good jobs, to many Americans. Guess who signed NAFTA? Bill Clinton that is who.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall was one of the factors that encouraged banks to go wild on investments in derivatives. Guess who signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Again Bill Clinton.
Hillary favors more H1-B visas at a time when American students are virtually have to sell their lives to get an education. Instead of hiring H1-B visa holders, we should be educating American students. Another problem for Hillary.
The question is whether Hillary is the best we can do for 2016.
I say no. We should back Elizabeth Warren. She is the champion for the middle class and working people. We should support her.
It's OK for a candidate to have to explain why she was on or can be viewed as being on an unpopular side on some issues. But a Hillary campaign would have to spend far too much time explaining why she has had to change her views on issues.
Hillary should not run for 2016.
TrollBuster9090
(5,955 posts)A) She was definitely NOT running in 2016, and
B) That SHE was going to support Hilary Clinton.
Unless she's changed her position.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Especially the bold parts you emphasize.
good luck.
TrollBuster9090
(5,955 posts)she never literally used the word 'endorse,' or how you have to read between the lines, and that she's just being coy, or that she really means 'yes' when she's saying 'no.' So, I'm not sure why I'm bothering to do this.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/democratic-female-senators-sign-letter-encouraging-hillary-clinton-to-run
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/in-secret-letter-senate-democratic-women-rally-behind-hillary-clinton/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/04/warren-im-not-running-for-president/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/elizabeth-warren-book-senate-cfpb
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/04/elizabeth-warren-hopes-hillary-clinton-makes-2016-run-but-declines-to-endorse-her/
reddread
(6,896 posts)sometimes its helpful to use past experiences to assess reality.
honest.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She will have the support and she can win, so she will run.
Read her book, A Fighting Chance. Elizabeth Warren will run, and she will win. Her candidacy will focus on the issues that Americans are most worried about today. She will be extremely popular, offer an alternative to the Tea Party nonsense and bigotry. And she will win.
When the previous pope resigned, I predicted that the next pope would be from South America. He is. I don't score 100%, but i don't do badly at recognizing political trends. Life-long hobby.
Hillary has too much baggage. If she subdues her ego and mends her hurt, she will be a tremendous help to Elizabeth Warren's campaign, may be reappointed either as Secretary of State or any position she wants in a Warren cabinet as long as it has nothing to do with economic issues. The Clintons are too close to Wall Street to be trusted with any economic posts.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)You are dead on about the whole corporate friendly aspect.
Look at how a Tea Party guy used populist ideas against Cantor and painted him as being controlled by the big banks.
Bills pandering to Wall Street and Hillary being the Senator for Wall Street would allow the right GOP candidate to run a populist campaign against her.
In the long run the reason for the crash may have been bing banks controlling it all. However the decline of the middle class has a lot to do with gov't hands off and a populist republican is not going to help.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Brilliantly stated.
24601
(3,962 posts)have been enough states calling for a Constitutional Convention. DOMA instead adopted as an amendment to the Constitution would not have been thrown out by any court.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Bill was just being 3rd way moderate Bill, like with NAFTA.
24601
(3,962 posts)Massachusetts, didn't permit same sex marriage until 8 years after DOMA.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Even as she has spoken out against them? Because at some point in the past she supported her husband she must always be for what he did?
That sounds rather patriarchal to me.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)Hillary shouldn't be president just because her husband happened to have been.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Hillary may have and may have had very different opinions from Bill. We know that she did on the Monica Lewinsky matter. That's for certain.
But her campaign will have to spend enormous amounts of time fielding questions about the minutiae of differences between Bill's actions then, her opinions now, etc. The fact is that a lot of what Bill Clinton did was good, but an awful lot of it had bad repercussions after 2000. Fair or not, Hillary will be called to answer for what happened during the first Clnton administration.
We Democrats do not need the distraction of that kind of a vulnerable candidate.
Elizabeth Warren has spent her life studying the economic issues that push people into bankruptcy. She has a lot of experience in government THAT IS RELEVANT to the current state of our country. Hillary has experience in other areas, but we need Elizabeth Warren in the White House so that she can make appointments to the Treasury Dept. (not based on the political debts
that Hillary owes), the regulatory commissions like the SEC, etc. and the Fed.
We need Elizabeth Warren in a position in which she can enforce the laws that those too cuddly with Wall Street dare not enforce.
Hillary polls high now, but she is extremely vulnerable to attacks on her lack of populist credentials. And Hillary is not really a populist. At least her public image is not that of a populist. Bill came across because of his personality as more of a populist than Hillary although Bill's policies and appointments were not very populist.
The victory of Brat over Cantor reflects the rising populism of the electorate in this country. Ordinary Americans feel that their interests have been subordinated to those of the banks, Wall Street and the 1% to a point that is intolerable. Americans do not want socialism. Americans want fairness, openness and opportunity. And they will look for a candidate in 2016 who will stand up for those values. Hillary is not the person to do that even if she does share those values.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)That only makes me want to support her campaign more, because of the BS that's going to get thrown at her, if she can weather it, great. If not, then it will be an indictment on our society. We get the politicians we deserve.
Warren can run if she wants, and you can draft her if you want, but I think this is a weak sticking point. Just because the media is misogynistic and it will make it "difficult" for Clinton to face a lot of the BS doesn't mean she shouldn't give it a go.
The "populist right" is fascism. It does not indicate any thing more than fascism.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Rand, is that you?
Hitting a little below the belt, aren't you? What's the matter, bud, so enamored with Warren that you can't handle the fact that she polls in the single digits and that she has repeatedly said that she's not running?
You just hijacked an OP that had zero to do with Elizabeth Warren.
Unbelievable.........
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I'm saying that the Republicans will somehow work in some way to bring in Monica Lewinsky. They hit below the belt.
We shall see whether Warren runs. The polls won't bother her. Those polls are too early. Elizabeth Warren has not been heard by enough Amercans yet.
Think what she had to deal with in Massachusetts.
The OP had to do with Hillary. And I am discussing why she shouldn't run.
In short: We have a better candidate.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Wishing for something is not going to make it so. She barely won in MA and that's a blue state.
As for who is a better candidate, that's your opinion. Opinions are not facts.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That's not my opinion. Look at the results in the Cantor/Brat race. That's a fact.
Hillary Clinton cannot pretend to be a populist and get by with it.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)You can be before same sex marriage and at a time when defending opposite sex marriage is the norm.
Yes you can be in politics that long.
It is not disqualifying for Hillary for President.
But her whole record is, alas,disqualifying.
IMO! IMO!
In my opinion I must caution.
marshall
(6,665 posts)Evolution is easy when you are just following the crowd. Standing out and letting your voice be heard when your opinion is unpopular but right is the brave thing to do.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)The Road Runner
(109 posts)The interviewer was persistent in asking Hillary about how her views on gay marriage have evolved. Hillary responded directly to the questions she was being asked. I don't see any problem with it; I just think she's being direct and assertive which are qualities one would want in a leader.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Javaman
(62,532 posts)Warren before Hillary.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)The question was accusatory and she deftly deflected.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)hoping that people will just buy the headline and not listen to the tape.
If this were a guy, the headline would have been "X holds firm against irritating reporter"
Go Hillary!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Demit
(11,238 posts)what Bill did, not sure she agreed. Not much of a point to me anyways. I didn't vote for him, and worked for the only anti-Nafta person running. and I never was successful in voting in a President until Obama btw. 2x.. Started voting in 72
The Road Runner
(109 posts)If it was a male politician being interviewed (eg. Bill Clinton; Barack Obama) I don't think he would be viewed as "snippy" if he answered the questions in the same way that Hillary did.
FreeState
(10,575 posts)Leme
(1,092 posts)an example for me might be breast feeding.
-
1. it went from unknown position,
2. to probably best,
3. to it should be allowed anywhere
4. to perhaps promoted to occur anywhere now.
----
perhaps promoted to occur anywhere now... was never denied, just not particularly endorsed
edit: added a space
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Hillary is going to have to answer too many questions about too many issues on which she will have to explain why her opinions (and she will be held to answer for Bill Clinton's decisions, like it or not) have changed.
It is going to drain her campaign and make her ineffective as a candidate.
We need someone who can, with a relatively clean slate, speak to the issues of today.
TrollBuster9090
(5,955 posts)Yes, and the more she IS held to answer for her husband's actions and/or decisions, the more women (in particular) and people who sympethize with women will sympathize with her.
If anybody thinks they can score cheap political points against her that way, I say "please proceed."
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It is a matter of whether she will be able to tell her story to voters for all the dissension over her controversial past and Bill's controversial past.
Let's leave the past behind.
We are entering a populist era. If Cantor's defeat does not prove it, then just wait.
Hillary may feel that she is a populist, but the fact is that her past and Bill's past, lived at a time very different from this time, will defeat or at least muddy any claim she makes to be a populist.
Hillary is the bankers' candidate. That's how she will be seen by the most active members of the Democratic base -- me for one.
I recall in 2008 in a debate with Obama about healthcare, Hillary said something to the effect that couples earning $250,000 are middle class. How many couples earn $250,000? They are the upper middle class, maybe even rich in the eyes of most Americans.
In California and New York, the view may be different, but when it comes to economic reality, Hillary is way out of touch with most Americans.
The average Social Security recipient receives about maybe $1300 per month. That is the middle class for the many, many Americans who rely on Social Security for all or most of their income.
Hillary and most of D.C. are way out of touch.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Or someone who will actually take stances on critical issues?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,237 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)But it's Hillary, so the pillorying never ends. If this same interview had been between Gross and Warren, or any other Leftist darling, they would be running to defend that person and not Gross. Since it's Hillary, then the rocks start flying.
This place may be a lot of things, but it sure is not a welcome refuge for all Democrats.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)I love in the below interview her story how President Obama and Hilary Clinton crashed a secret party (at a spur of the moment decision) when they were in China together. The Chinese secret police didn't want to let them in! Mrs Clinton was a great SOS! If she runs, President Obama will back her 100%. I can understand why republicans are terrified.
A wonderful interview with Diane Sawyer, 6/9/2014 here's a link to the entire interview.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-interview-21-revealing-quotes/story?id=24064953
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Mrs. Warren is an awesome Senator and she said she wasn't going to run.
Mrs Clinton just said (in the 6/9/14 interview) "after this year is over" before she even declares if she will run or not.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I thought we needed Kerry in the Senate.
We need Elizabeth Warren in the White House so that she can appoint as Secretary of Treasury, a Fed chair and to the regulatory commissions as well as the Supreme and lower courts people who are on the side of working Americans rather than the 1%.
Hillary is too close to the 1%, Wall Street, hedge funds, the bankers. She will never be free to serve the American people. See my post # 15. She will have a terrible time running because she will have to answer for everything that happened in the past that was wrong whether she was responsible for it or not.
Elizabeth Warren said about campaigning in Kentucky for the Senate seat in 2014, right now candidates are and will increasingly be judged by whether they are on the side of ordinary people or on the side of the 1%ers.
Hillary cannot honestly answer that question to the satisfaction of the American people.
Elizabeth Warren can. She spent much of her career studying bankruptcy issues and discovering why ordinary Americans have fallen so far behind financially. She understands the problem. Everyone else is ignoring it.
Hillary has been on the wrong side of too many economic issues.
The Brat victory over Cantor was yet another indication that populist ideas are becoming more and more popular in the US. Hillary is not believable when she tries to espouse populist ideas. After all, Clinton reappointed Greenspan to head the Fed.
See my post # 15.
Hillary has far too much conservative political baggage. She could, of course, argue that she has found Jesus and repudiates her past sins, but that will take a lot of thunder out of her campaign.
Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)The problem that Clinton defenders don't seem to understand: how much do we progressives all hate . . . I mean truly deeply hate the Bushes? That's how much the other side already hates the Clintons. And when you factor in that neither of the Clintons support the economic interests of the 99 percent, electing a smart progressive like Elizabeth Warren makes more and more sense.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)how she remained a Republican during the Reagan era anti gay frenzy and the ensuing, ignorant refusal to admit to the AIDS crisis, she voted for those people and those policies. I have never heard her admit to being wrong nor speak of her own opinions about what her fellow Republicans were doing in her name at that time. It is conservative political baggage she carries as well. Sorry but she was part of the Republican Party during their most deadly bigotry and she has never spoken of that as yet. To get my vote, I need to know she is not still harboring that mentality and seeking that set of horrific policies. Her Reagan caused undue suffering and death across the world with his hate. Clinton was so much better back then than the Party Warren was part of then that it is impossible to overstate. Reagan was a merchant of death, racist, homophobic and merciless. She supported him.
24601
(3,962 posts)Clinton's wealth is massive. She probably has even more than Warren Buffet's Secretary.
And Warren is no pauper:
"Warren was making a point that members of Congress either shouldn't own stocks, or should put them in a blind trust so that they are not drafting laws that benefit their own investments. But the financial disclosure report Warren filed last month shows that by most people's standards, she's pretty well off."
"Warren earned more than $700,000 from Harvard, book royalties and consulting fees, and lives in a $5 million house, the report shows. She has multiple mutual funds and stock in IBM, the sole individual stock she owns. The total portfolio is worth nearly $8 million."
"It turns out that the brainchild behind the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, who has spoken out against corporate excess and in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement, is actually part of the 1 percent."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/elizabeth-warren-wealth-income_n_1237607.html
TrollBuster9090
(5,955 posts)I heard no snap.
I was actually cringing, expecting her to do another "What difference does it make" scene for Fox News to play over and over again on a continuous loop; but I thought she actually handled it pretty well.
Here's the deal: for the last six years, Obama has done a magnificent (and underappreciated) job of NOT losing his temper, no matter how petty and childish his critics become. He did this knowing that the talking point meme for the opposition was going to be that he was either A) a militant, angry Black Panther, or B) a spineless wimp. He's done a pretty good job of not allowing them to shove him into either of those frames.
Hilary is facing the same problem: She'll be framed as either A) A woman who (literally) doesn't have the 'balls' to defend America, or B) a menopausal 'broad' who shouldn't be in charge of nukes because she can't control her temper for hormonal reasons. She's done a pretty good job of avoiding frame A; but she's had a history of having a short fuse, and facilitating stereotype B for her entire political career. That's something she needs to work on. It's her biggest achilles heel, and I hope she knows it.
But I think she handled that pretty well.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If we nominate Hillary, she will have to defend every mistake Bill Clinton made.
Not only will she be mired in questions about why she did or did not change her mind about this and that issue, but Bill Clinton's legacy will be put in jeopardy.
She should not run.
riversedge
(70,273 posts)TrollBuster9090
(5,955 posts)I'm sure it won't take too long, and will precede the footnote blaming the original headline on a rogue intern at TPM by about ten minutes.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We laugh at this at our peril.
Who would ever have thought that Romney would have to explain so much about his buy-out deals and all the jobs he caused to be sent to China and other countries?
The past casts its shadow on the candidacies of all wanna be presidents. In Hillary's case, it could harm her candidacy and Bill's legacy.
The Clintons should enjoy what they have in terms of their place in history.
Let the future belong to some other candidate. Hillary could serve as Secretary of State in a Warren White House. Who knows?
groundloop
(11,521 posts)groundloop
(11,521 posts)groundloop
(11,521 posts)groundloop
(11,521 posts)groundloop
(11,521 posts)If Warren runs I'll enthusiastically support her. If she doesn't then I'll enthusiastically support whomever I feel best represents my views. If that candidate doesn't win the primary and Hillary does then I'll enthusiastically support Hillary in the general election. We simply CAN'T let a GOPer take the White House.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)Behind the Aegis
(53,975 posts)I bet she was shrill too, they just forgot to mention it.
Not too long ago, I posted a response to a thread by sheshe2 about how women (and minorities) are held to different standards when they speak, this article is a perfect fucking example of how the speaker (female) is relegated to being "unhinged" in a way. This type of covert sexism is going to be as prolific as some of the covert racism we have seen over the years in regards to our President.
(Not to you Nancy, but no, I don't need to read post #15. I have read it!)
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)about post 15 too, but didn't.
Behind the Aegis
(53,975 posts)Here is the post by sheshe2 (in case you didn't see it before): This Is How We Talk About Female Leaders (Hint: It's Not Pretty).
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)holding up Hillary's book. LOL
I'll go read the post.
Cha
(297,503 posts)TrollBuster9090
(5,955 posts)stereotype dichotomy that he's either A) A militant, angry, resentful Black Panther, or B) a spineless wimp. If the opposition makes childish attacks on him and he loses his temper, he's proven A. If he doesn't, he must be B.
Hilary is facing the same stereotype dichotomy from the opposition. She's either A) A woman who won't defend the Country when needed because she (literally) doesn't have the 'balls,' or B) she can't be trusted to run an organization because she's menopausal, over emotional, hormonal, snappy and shrill. There's one big difference, however, that works in Hillary's favor. When the opposition attacks Obama as being an angry, resentful black man, it increases sympathy and support from other African Americans; a voting block that would support him anyway. So, the attack has no cost for the opposition. On the other hand...when you start going after women, who comprise well over half the voting block, and start trying to play dog whistle politics with the issue of women as leaders you're playing with dynamite.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)I'm sure she could laugh and say, honey that was many years ago. ( average age is 50 )
TrollBuster9090
(5,955 posts)"legitimate rape," I'm sure that won't even register.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)That this time around she was done with that. So, she's going to be who she is and those who don't like it can go f*ck themselves. Good for her!!!
Just read the crap that she gets around here no matter the issue. She can't win with some people. So, if she does run, this time around she's going to say what she wants to say and let the chips fall where they may.
Behind the Aegis
(53,975 posts)She deserves to be held to the fire, but it should be done honestly and not any of this underhanded bullshit, especially from the left.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)She's being burned at the stake by a salivating mob in the media, the Right and the Left. They all make me sick. Every little utterance is overblown. This ridiculous "snappy" incident is all over the web: CNN, ABC, CBS, etc.
If it had been someone else, no one would have cared one iota.
Behind the Aegis
(53,975 posts)They sank like a stone. Of course, the stories didn't have the accusations made by TPM. Take a spin in GD and search "Clinton and NPR" for the last day, and you will see at least three posts (there may be more) about her appearance. Clinton does deserve to be held to the fire like any politician, but she will also have to deal with the additional sexist crap as evidenced above. Take a look in GD and read the other posts on this event and you will see the difference in the story.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)What I'm sick of is the eternal hysteria over every word she or Bill utter. What pisses me even more, that in this supposed Democratic site, they are both treated with the same disdain and disrespect as they are on a RW site.
sheshe2
(83,846 posts)Yes they portray us as hysterical to shut us down. We are so very shrill to them and it hurts their sensitive ears, poor poor babies we hurt their fee fees.
We are suppose to sit down and shut up. Like children we are suppose to be seen not heard. Well, I will tell you this, they have no fricking clue of how strong we are. I do believe they are in for the shock of their lives!
Thanks Behind the Aegis~
murielm99
(30,754 posts)I did not hear any snapping. Dogs snap. Is TPM implying that Hillary Clinton is a bitch? Do they ever write that male politicians snap?
Again, I did NOT hear any snapping.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Because that would mean that they are prevaricating on issues and not taking stances.
I'm glad she was asked that question but how many male politicians are going to have to answer a question like that? Clinton is asked that question because women are seen by mass media, even by other women, as liars or untruthful or devious.
Honestly, I think Clinton should have said it, it would've been a sea change. But it's an extremely risky move. To say that she believed something on an issue but didn't take a stance is very dangerous, but she could have noted, as a woman, if she took that stance she would've been marginalized, so she had to take whatever stance the public agrees with.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)known by several names, including "THE FAMILY" and "THE FELLOWSHIP."
"THE FAMILY" owns "Frathouse for Jesus," a Church/boarding house for Senators near the White House.
"THE FAMILY" hosts the annual President's Prayer Breakfast in February in Washington DC; the Cult "seeks to work with Power where we can find it, and BUILD Power where we cannot."
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Not sure where this angle is coming from.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)"THE FAMILY: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power," Jeff Sharlet, 2008 Harper Collins
http://www.amazon.com/Family-Fundamentalism-American-Sharlet-Hardcover/dp/B00DWWAZBW/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1402609339&sr=8-8&keywords=jeff+sharlet
and
"C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy"
http://www.amazon.com/Jeff-SharletsC-Street-Fundamentalist-Democracy/dp/B004RGIROO/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1402609339&sr=8-10&keywords=jeff+sharlet
uhnope
(6,419 posts)...Do we want her angry finger on the "bomb Iran" button? Hmmm
PSPS
(13,608 posts)1. There is no "snapping."
2. There is a diminishing difference between an "anti-Hillary group" and DU itself.
3. TPM is almost on a par with Huffington Post in crafting ridiculously inflammatory headlines.
4. This doesn't belong in LBN.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)We attack politicians for being wrong on this or that issue, and then attack them when they come around.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Since she's seen as a liar she can't be believed on any issue, etc.
johnfunk
(6,113 posts)Owned and controlled by the oligarchs not "listeners like you."
reddread
(6,896 posts)a fully owned subsidiary of VOA.
johnfunk
(6,113 posts)That is all!
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)No matter how unelectable someone is, some on DU support them on ideology, weakening an electable candidate and end up getting a republican.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)But Warren, if she intends to run, needs a ground game at least 2 years out. Clinton will be able to raise $2 billion easily. And it will be necessary because the Republicans will probably run a woman or a Latin American.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)A woman or Latino has no chance in the republican party. For president, they desire and elect a lilly white ass(hole) male and use minorities as stage decorations.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)If they hope to win they would nominate someone other than a white male. That's unlikely to happen.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Just as crazy. Over there they think they have winners with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. Some are even pining for Sarah Palin. Over here they think that Sanders and Warren are sure bets. One is not on the radar and the other polls in the single digits, but heck they will easily win the WH.
elleng
(131,061 posts)She didn't 'snap,' and suggesting she did is misleading AND negative.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)is loaded with criticism over the original "snap" headline. They deserve the criticism IMO.
Thanks
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Therefore she's fair game for the Right and the Left. Read the comments here, no need to go to a RW site. It's an embarrassment of negativity.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)elleng
(131,061 posts)they are 2 DIFFERENT people.
Will be agony for me (and many) to spend the next ### years 'fighting' that one.
reddread
(6,896 posts)you cannot delink or distance them, especially her from his major claims to fame.
Telecom deregulation?
chew on that one real hard.
between that and Clarence Thomas,
here we are.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)he evolved to support marriage equality, and said so bluntly before his re-election.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)'evolved' or 're-evolved' and did clearly support in advance of his second election.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Born gay, and worthy of the same rights that everyone else shares .. case closed. No evolution on that issue for me.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Terry: ''Do the words: "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." ? -- ring any bells???''
- So were you for or against same-sex marriage -- you know, before you evolved or not Hils?
K&R
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)So she evolved like most politicians, so what!
Raphael Campos
(46 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)Where the bullshit never ceases.
BTW, is this an article about Hillary or Liz Warren? It seems to have been hijacked.
Let me guess, that paragon of virtues that some have concocted in their heads, would have never been snippy with a reporter. No, siree. She's like Mary Poppins, perfect in every which way.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)but no, gay marriage was really not a big issue with support in the 90s: it is what has made the stupendous strides made in equality so remarkable today.
I was there in the 90s. The 90s was very much still about the AIDS crisis; it was about outing as a tactic (which was rough at the time but I now believe has led to the recognition and acceptance of gay Americans); it was ActUp; it was about Pride; it was about housing and job discrimination; it was later about talk of civil unions. But even in the early 2000s, marriage was not a fully accepted position, even within some segments of the gay community itself: there was a contingency that felt this was an upper-middle-class, bourgeois thing, and there was discussion about whether it was desirable.
It's not that there wasn't always discussion of marriage among certain sets, but in the mid-90s, this was not in the least a political reality.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)I thought Terry Gross was typical...the interviewers try to trap people into some preconceived problem. Hillary didn't fall for it.
For those who hijack the thread to promote Warren, I thought Warren was just as "snippy" (I think that's a sexist word) in her last few interviews; Warren certainly is animated and defensive. Both are intelligent women and would make good candidates.
I'll vote for the democratic candidate.
Skittles
(153,174 posts)I have ALWAYS supported equal rights for gay folk
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Bill knew which insults to attack, and when he did it, he would do it with a calm charm that said "did you realy think that was going to stick to me?, really? Come on, I'll buy you a beer afterword."
Hillary, however, is was, and always will be hyperdefensive, the mark of nsomeone who is noit, nor ever will be secure. No, I do not want to see Putin pick at that keyboard.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Are you a therapist now?
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Just that she has a demeanor that plays right into the hands of her enemies, while Bill knows how to counter them.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)It is 2014. I don't think we are asking for much here.
I have always supported gay marriage.
It was really not that hard.
Justice
(7,188 posts)the entire flavor of the exchange and the respective responsibility of each participant. I wonder if headlines use "snap" to describe say McCain's interviews? I think they do say "testy" about McCain.
I saw one this morning that said they spar instead of snap. That seemed much more appropriate and frankly tactical on both sides.
William769
(55,147 posts)Noted.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)I will vote for her for because of this one single reason:
Because I believe that she will support and promote LGBT rights, everybody's civil rights, to the best of her ability.
Hekate
(90,769 posts)I wouldn't be taking this all that seriously.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Weasel words.
Fear.
Politician.