Salon: The case against Hillary Clinton: This is the disaster Democrats must avoid

[jg10003]

Excellent article today in Salon.

You like what Bernie’s calling for, but you just don’t think he’s likely to win the general election, perhaps because “this country would never elect a socialist.” And even if he did win, you don’t think he’d be able to accomplish his goals, given how entrenched the GOP opposition is. Maybe you even think it’s already settled—that Hillary’s got the nomination locked up.

Here’s why going with that assumption—and backing Hillary in general—would be, in the words of Donald Trump, a disaster.

Entire article here
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/28/the_case_against_hillary_clinton_this_is_the_disaster_democrats_must_avoid/

[JaneyVee]

1. WTF?

She's perhaps the most supremely qualified candidate in US history.

[PowerToThePeople]

3. .

[HDSam]

5. X2

[PonyUp]

48. X3

Supremely qualified...what the hell you been smoking?

[Raster]

78. X4

Supremely qualified? Only if you're looking for Attila the Hun in a pantsuit.

[Lizzie Poppet]

77. "She's perhaps the most supremely qualified candidate in US history."

[mindem]

4. LOL

What ridiculous hero worship.

[JaneyVee]

7. Isnt hero worship what goes on here 24/7?

This place hardly seems neutral or unbiased.

[merrily]

28. No, some posts are actually fact based, not fairy tale based like your post upthread.

[Dem2]

44. Brutal

This is the kind of post that makes this place unpleasant.

[merrily]

45. Guess you haven't read many posts then. That was damn mild in comparison to

thousands I've seen. It was also accurate and targeted at one post, not any person or group of people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280104497

But, if you find the place unpleasant, hillarysupporters. com might be more to your liking. You're welcome!

[Dem2]

47. Huh, what an insulting post

I have no preference to either candidate, but you made an assumption based on some silly stereotype.

How silly!

[merrily]

49. Dude, so far, you've done nothing but claim my posts are insulting.

This is boring and not how I wish to spend my posting time.

You don't want to see a post from me, very simple: Stop posting to me. Even better, put me on ignore.

[Dem2]

64. I see the back and forth of political discussion is very enjoyable to you

My way or the highway amright?

[merrily]

66. Do you have anything substantive to say? Anything at all besides personal attacks?

[pdsimdars]

68. You got it right

They seem to have no substance, just attack the messenger.

[merrily]

73. Since I'm the messange he or she was attacking, I picked up on that right away.

Seems to be a Bernie supporter, too.

[Dem2]

70. So at first I was too sensitive

Now it's a personal attack? Yikes, I'm out of here.

[merrily]

72. bye.

[Dem2]

75. A poster stating that Hillary is "most qualified" deserves to be called "fairy tale thinking"?

That's where this started. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to say to a supporter of either candidate. By all historical standards, it was a true statement.

Trying to then banish me to some off-site forum for stating my disagreement was dismissive and I consider insulting.

[Doctor_J]

8. And certainly one of the most corrupt

And the most conservative Dem in a hundred years

[jfern]

9. James Buchanan had more qualifications

Not such a good President, LOL

[jeff47]

10. HW Bush had a longer and more senior resume. How'd he do? (nt)

[nolabels]

61. Read my lips

[Lizzie Poppet]

79. ...no nude faxes.

Or something like that...

[hifiguy]

88. He left the nude faxes to Bill, I think.

[840high]

11. I love your jokes.

[rhett o rick]

12. Her only qualification is to serve the wealthy. Her history is loaded with

mistakes, huge mistakes.

[pdsimdars]

69. You got that wrong

Her past isn't loaded with huge mistakes it's loaded with Yuuuuuuuuge mistakes!

[rhett o rick]

81. I stand corrected. Yuuuuuuuuuge mistakes. But she is tough (tough on minorities anyway not

tough on Goldman-Sachs).

[senz]

13. Carpetbagged Senate seat and 1 term SOS appointee.

Nothing to show for either beyond some egregious mistakes.

Pathetic.

[VulgarPoet]

15. I can think of no less than three mistakes, and a coup. nt

[merrily]

29. I listed 5 in my Reply 28. There are many more, but I'm lazy tonight

[Pauldg47]

35. Didn't she enrage Puten re: Suggesting Icbm's in Poland a few years ago? ......

.....this may have triggered a new cold war in Europe. This women scares me....she is a BEAST!!!!
She is a failure as Secretary of State.....folks remember, she quit and Kerry took over. Does anyone remember? Why isn't this discussed openly?

[VulgarPoet]

39. And I put up that OP earlier, so it's still pretty fresh in my mind

[DrDan]

57. how many SoS's go beyond 1-term?

look it up

[Broward]

16. You forgot the sarcasm tag. Some of us didn't get it.

[whereisjustice]

17. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahah

HahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahah

[jalan48]

18. Check that Kool Aid.

[dchill]

21. Says who?

[merrily]

27. Not at all. Job titles do not = qualifications. She voted for the Iraq War. Her

foreign policy seems to consist of war and regime change and making speeches. Her Senate career lacked a single bill or amendment that she wrote that became law, apart from three or four that were purely ceremonial. She voted the wrong way on a number of crucial votes, including the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, the escalations in both those places and the Patriot Act. (Yes, Sanders voted the wrong way on Afghanistan, but not on Iraq or the two escalations.)

She was not a voice for workers or strikers on the Board of WalMart, a job she got because her husband was Governor of Arkansas. Same for her tenure at the Rose firm, which did a lot of work for the state of Arkansas.

[ybbor]

37. That is by far the most idiotic statement I've read, ever!

Qualified? Maybe. Most in US history GMAFB!

[Illegal Pete]

42. Are we electing a President or an Ayatollah?

The way you're praising Clinton, is as if we're electing her Ayatollah.

[merrily]

46. As my adorable mommie said about the (real) ayatollah:

Oooo, who's gonna get that Ayatollah?

That's about the strongest language she ever used.

[CBGLuthier]

51. A word you should learn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole


Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. In rhetoric, it is also sometimes known as auxesis (lit. "growth&quot . In poetry and oratory, it emphasizes, evokes strong feelings, and creates strong impressions. As a figure of speech, it is usually not meant to be taken literally.

Here's another

bullshit
ˈbʊlʃɪt/Submit
vulgar slang
noun
1.
stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense.
verb
1.
talk nonsense to (someone) in an attempt to deceive them.

[NowSam]

54. The repeated statement that

has no basis in truth or fact. Why is she so qualified? Is it her stellar reputation for honesty?

[Betty Karlson]

60. Qualified to prolong an untenable status quo.

Her platform is based on outdated assumptions. And she would imperil the entire GE too.

What the F*ck indeed?

[Warren DeMontague]

63. God DAMN.

I think we've moved beyond driinking the kool-aide, to freebasing the stuff.

[pdsimdars]

67. As if "qualified" is what mattered. . .

Dick Cheney is well qualified, but I'd NEVER vote for him.
Obama wasn't very qualified.
The IMPORTANT quality is JUDGEMENT! And hers is lousey.

[rhett o rick]

82. Just a min. When people say she "is qualified" it really depends on what "is" means. nm

[lumberjack_jeff]

83. *I've* been elected to public office more times than Hillary. n/t

[appal_jack]

84. x5

-app

[hifiguy]

86. Thomas Jefferson is laughing himself sick

in the great beyond. So is James Madison. With ample justification.

[Rilgin]

89. Umm. She has the same "qualifications" as any American Citizen resident over 35 years. Not the most

There have been a lot of people who are over 35, 14 year residents and Natural Born Citizens of the United States. Those are the only "qualifications" necessary for the President. Here is article 2 of the Constitution

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

There are no other qualifications. If you are saying she has held some other offices before she ran for president, those are not qualifications. However, to address it, almost all presidential candidates have done things in their lives.

Your hyperbole about "most" is amusing to a lot of people as witness most of the reactions to this thread.

[99th_Monkey]

2. "Contrary to conventional pundit wisdom, Hillary is not the stronger general-election candidate."

Good find. Good read.

"So far Clinton seems to have retained the status of favorite for the Democratic nomination. But there are strong signs that it’s Sanders who would fare better against the eventual GOP nominee.

Recent polling shows Sanders doing better than Clinton against each of the Republican contenders. One can question the relevance of early-stage matchups such as these, but as Princeton’s Matt Karp recently noted in his eye-opening piece on Sanders and Clinton’s comparative electability:

We may be skeptical about the predictive power of these findings, nine months before Election Day. But it’s wrong to call them “absolutely worthless” … In a comprehensive analysis of elections between 1952 and 2008, Robert Erikson and Christopher Wleizen found that matchup polls as early as April have generally produced results close to the outcome in November.

Even much earlier “trial heats” seem to be far from meaningless. As partisan polarization has increased over the last three decades, there’s some evidence that early polling has become more predictive than ever. In all five elections since 1996, February matchup polls yielded average results within two points of the final outcome".

[onehandle]

6. Dying blog site panders to their dwindling pool of readers. nt

[Logical]

19. LOL, ok. nt

[rynestonecowboy]

33. Thats funny,

Thats what exactly what MSM has been tell us for the past few months. You must have gotten your marching orders long ago.

[grasswire]

14. "the most disliked candidate in modern presidential history"

snap

[MissDeeds]

20. Pretty much nails it

[AtomicKitten]

24. Her favorable rating is -21 pts the worst of both parties; Bernie's +15, the highest of both parties

[Hoyt]

36. Yet, she's racking up votes and delegates.

[The Midway Rebel]

40. Delegates represent people that vote.

If she wins, she'd be very unpopular. In that respect, it would be more Obama.

[Hoyt]

41. Would you find a GOPer more to your liking? I think Clinton will be quite popular among

those who understand what the alternative would be like.

[The Midway Rebel]

50. And still massively unpopular.

Sort of like a titular head of government. A very unpopular monarch. Yeah, really looking forward to that regime.

[nolabels]

62. Let me make you an offer you can't refuse?

[dreamnightwind]

90. The alternative is Bernie - eom

[Hoyt]

91. Doesn't look like majority of voters agree with you.

[dreamnightwind]

92. We'll see, it's going to be a long campaign.

But is was sad to see you saying the alternative is a Republican, same ol' crap the corporatist Dems have been shoving at us for years, "you have nowhere else to go".

We do, his name is Bernie Sanders. And hopefully, from now on, we'll always have somewhere else to go, the DLC wing of this party is completely corrupt and serves the elites at the expense of the people.

[truedelphi]

52. but Midway Rebel - what we re up agaisnt right now is that although Bernie Sanders is

The preferred candidate among most Americans, we are tied into this absolutely horrid Two Party Primary situation.

There are some "indies" who will register as Democrats and vote for Bernie. But many don't realize how important it was to do that. (And given that the SUper Tuesday event is nigh upon us, for most "indies" it is now too late.

The Salon article correctly discusses how popular Bernie is, but fails to mention that through the Primary system that enslaves the nomination of a candidate to the pittance of ballot numbers from one or the other Party, a popular qualified candidate like Bernie might be out of luck.

[The Midway Rebel]

80. If Bernie is out of luck, we are all out of luck.

IMHO

[jeff47]

74. Among Democrats. Where her favorability is only bad instead of abysmal.

But Democrats are about 30% of the electorate. We're gonna need a lot of independents to win the general. Abysmal favorability numbers start with independents, and manage to get even worse with Republicans.

[NowSam]

55. can't argue with that

and many of use didn't like W very much. Imagine that. She is less likable than W.

[AzDar]

22. K & R

[highprincipleswork]

23. Despite what happens, as we slog towards the conventional but unsafe choice, this is correct.

[Thespian2]

25. After reading this...

and researching the facts, I cannot get my head around why people are voting for this disgusting disaster of a Democratic primary campaigner...I find no way I could possibly vote for her...

[redstateblues]

38. I guess you morally and intellectually superior Sanders supporters are just

so much smarter and ethical than all of us mindless brain dead zombies.
The relentless negativity and anger that come from Sanders's folks reflects poorly on the tone Bernie has set. The constant barrage of insults and vitriol that come from some of his supporters is astonishing to me. I like Bernie-he is a flawed candidate who has raised a lot of good issues. I just don't happen to think he would be a good President.

[LondonReign2]

71. There is no comparison between the two candidates' ethics

The candidate you support voted for the Iraq War, counts both Henry Kissenger and Lloyd Blankfein as her close personal friends, used racist dog whistles against her black opponent in 2008, employs rodent-feces level people like David Brock to spread lies, profits from the prisoner industry incarcerating African Americans, only decided to support gay marriage when it became politically advantageous to do so, wanted to escalate the war in Syria, has been endorsed by fucking PNAC for fuck's sake, and appears to be congenitally unable to tell the truth.

Am I morally superior to someone who supports such a candidate? Yes, yes I am.

[Buns_of_Fire]

26. Pretty well summarizes the last six month's worth of postings on DU. nt

[Uncle Joe]

30. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, jg.

[Politicalboi]

31. Oh no's, the GOP will see this

They may use it against her thanks to you.

[George II]

32. Hillary Clinton will still win the DEMOCRATIC nomination and be elected President.

[Pharaoh]

34. you mean selected

[EdwardBernays]

53. Lol

She's gonna hand Trump an easy victory.

[malcolmboeing]

43. Clinton

Hillary, a Goldwater Republican who voted for the war and failed the bar exam.

[Peace Patriot]

56. Excellent article! Thanks for posting it!

I will only point out one additional fact. Dem voter turnout in SC was 12.5%. 12.5%!!!

Although SC Dem voters couldn't be persuaded to vote for the better candidate, they did express an opinion about being told to vote for Clinton...by NOT VOTING.

It is ludicrous to treat SC as a coronation. It's a stretch to even call it a Clinton "win." She got a big majority of almost no voters. SC won't matter much in the GE. But THAT depression of voter turnout in a Clinton stronghold is a harbinger. Her favorability and trustworthy numbers are extremely low in February's national polls, which also show Sanders beating all Republicans, and Clinton losing. Clinton cannot muster the enthusiasm to beat Trump or the others. It just isn't there. That's what SC is telling us. And Sanders has a chance to (very high favorability and trustworthy numbers!) in higher population, more Democratic states. (SC is a very low population, rightwing state.)

[yourpaljoey]

76. the cheerleaders failed to mention that

[Betty Karlson]

59. K&R for truth!

[WillyT]

65. K & R !!!

[hifiguy]

85. She will be the kiss of death in the GE.

The institutional Democratic Party is now run and owned by the wealthy who couldn't stand the stink and sanctimony of the buybull bangers and the neo-Nazi element that have taken over the other party. So they bought the Dems from the Clintons and the DLC/Turd Way crowd, who were delighted to sell as long as all that beautiful, delicious corporate money went into THEIR pockets.

She has already completely dismissed and alienated the left/liberal base, she has zero appeal to independents, the disaffected and the millennials. However, the cave-orc Repig base will be motivated to do everything short of coming out of the grave to vote against her. They've been waiting for that chance for 25 years and they are not going to miss it. She's a win-win for the Repigs, depressing Dem turnout and maximizing theirs.

The Clintons are the worst thing that has ever happened to the Democratic Party, and the chance of a Goldwater/McGovern style blowout is immensely enhanced with Herself at the top of the ticket.

[Todays_Illusion]

87. I agree, there is a plan in place, and it doesn't include allowing Hillary Clinton to be President.

If she is allowed to be President it will be only because she already has a deal with them to govern according to the conservative plans.

She tried running along those lines and that wasn't working so she is doing the standard conservative Democratic maneuver, talk liberal, and will govern conservative.

We have to elect liberals, no more conservatives. Sadly all those like thinking establishment (third way, all of them) who have endorsed her are going to be reelected and will go right along just like the ones during the Bill Clinton years and that includes Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein from CA, two Democratic elected under that big propaganda push "you gotta be good for business and globalization," or you don't get on the ticket/elected.