Hillary Clinton is on wrong side of everything:

[Cosmic Kitten]

Hillary Clinton is on wrong side of everything: Stop telling me I have to vote for her because of the Supreme Court

First and foremost, the latest unscientific poll out of Western Illinois University has Bernie Sanders winning the presidency. Therefore, if polls are gospel, we’ll have a Democrat in the White House who plans on fixing the structural issues plaguing Wall Street and the U.S. economy. With Sanders, we’ll have an honest attempt at breaking up “Too Big to Fail” banks, reinstating Glass-Steagall, and tackling wealth inequality. Perhaps one reason WIU predicts Sanders winning the presidency is that Vermont’s senator has more than 1 million online donors who’ve funded his campaign. No need for prison lobbyists, like his challenger Hillary Clinton, and no need for a super PAC.

Also, one great thing about a Sanders presidency is that Americans will be able to trust a person who never had to evolve toward progressive stances on war, foreign policy, Wall Street and environmental issues like Keystone XL. While critics haven’t let me evolve from one article on Rand Paul (written from a purely progressive outlook on ending perpetual war, please read the actual article), supporters of the former secretary of state are very comfortable with her evolution on a number of topics. Naturally, Clinton supporters aren’t concerned with perpetual wars.

According to one conservative historian in the New York Times, Clinton’s foreign policy can easily be deemed “neocon”:

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

When a conservative historian known for neoconservative views says Clinton’s foreign policy is “something that might have been called neocon,” it’s safe to say her foreign policy will be hawkish. In addition, another New York Times article states that neocons are “aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.”
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/11/hillary_clinton_is_on_wrong_side_of_everything_stop_telling_me_i_have_to_vote_for_her_because_of_the_supreme_court/

[pinebox]

1. In before shoot the messenger comments

from the "Hillary Come Lately" crowd.

[Cosmic Kitten]

3. it inevitable ;~)

[pinebox]

4. True story!

XD

[Buzz Clik]

29. Do you strongly opposed the message of the article?

[lewebley3]

13. There no way Hillary is on the wrong side: Most Dem's are supporting her

[whatchamacallit]

16. Then most dems are woefully uninformed. n/t

Last edited Thu Nov 12, 2015, 03:25 PM - Edit history (1)

[lewebley3]

17. Why because they don't agree with you

[whatchamacallit]

21. Yes

Ever see Leno's Jaywalking segments?

[classof56]

65. I've had many a hearty chuckle watching Leno's Jaywalking segments.

Real headshakers, to say the least. Just want to say, though, I'm a Democrat (this is Democratic Underground, right?), I support Hillary and I rather resent being pegged as "woefully uninformed", 'cause I'm not. The first presidential election in which I could exercise my right to vote (had to be 21) was 1960 and I voted for Richard Nixon. Clearly, I was woefully uninformed, to my regret, but to my credit, I have wised up in the intervening years. I will certainly vote for Sanders if he wins the nomination. The alternative appears to be a very bleak and sad future for me, my children and grandchildren, and perhaps I'll end up wishing I weren't so well informed. Meanwhile, might be good to put away your broad brush.

Thanks!

[lewebley3]

76. That is what I thought you are empty of thoughts; except for what you want

[Fairgo]

137. Case in point

This conversation right here

[leveymg]

39. You could say the same about Hubert H. Humphrey in '68. He got the nomination, too.

But, at least he was a genuine liberal on domestic policy. Hillary isn't even that. She's to the Right of Nixon.

[Eric J in MN]

46. Clinton suported by half of likely Dem voters; Sanders a third.

Half is less than "most."

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination CBS News/NYT: Clinton 52, Sanders 33, O'Malley 5

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[AgingAmerican]

62. But 20% of Republicans might break off to vote for him

And almost all independents would vote for him

[merrily]

64. Most Democrats supporting her has to do with things other than her position on issues.

[Maineman]

73. This certainly seems true.

[merrily]

77. Bank on it. They did not want her to face any serious challenger. Wtf?

[Buzz Clik]

28. If you post an article like this without comment...

... it is assumed you endorse it. Therefore, "shooting the messenger" is appropriate on a discussion board.

If you don't want to be associated with the articles you post, all you have to do is say so, and the messenger remains unshot.

[Armstead]

35. That is not what I believe was meant

In this case shooting the messenger means that the author of that column has said nice things about Rand Paul and some other things that do not fall into the "Democrats Good GOPs and Libertarians Bad" straight jacket.

Therefore because he has siaid some things that are debatable (the author is after all an opinion columnist) everything else they said has to be automatically wrong.

It's like Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald is all over the map politically, and he reported on Snowden's revelations about the NSA, that some saw as "attacking Obama." Therefore, because of Greenwalds opinions or reporting on otehr occasions, nothing in his coverage of Snowden could possibly be correct.

That is what shooting the messenger means.

[Buzz Clik]

54. Hm

Therefore because he has siaid some things that are debatable (the author is after all an opinion columnist) everything else they said has to be automatically wrong.

That's not my interpretation of the "shoot the messenger" concept, but I understand what you're saying.

I'm guessing that a lot of Democrats are looking at the Republican field and its predominance of lunatics and finding nice things to say about folks like Paul, Rubio, and Bush. It would be nice to have a sound debate next fall.

[Armstead]

57. There is a lot of room for philosphical discussion about Either/Or theory

As in, life does not always boil down to Red/Blue, Them/Us, Always Right/Always Wrong.

But this is DU, where it's always "with us or against us" all the time.

[pinebox]

55. You missed it :)

You're not quite going in the right direction.
Here is what I mean http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251798345#post24

[Buzz Clik]

71. Yes, I missed that.

But, under the circumstances, pnwmom makes a good point.

[merrily]

68. The OP has a right to control the content of his or her own posts, subject only to TOS and juries.

[Buzz Clik]

72. Yeah. And?

[NCTraveler]

51. This is a direct quote from the messenger.

"Rand Paul is my candidate in 2016" Goodman

[Fawke Em]

58. Direct quote from the article in the OP

While critics haven’t let me evolve from one article on Rand Paul (written from a purely progressive outlook on ending perpetual war, please read the actual article), supporters of the former secretary of state are very comfortable with her evolution on a number of topics.

So... there's that.

[NCTraveler]

59. Go read the Paul article. Some things become very clear.

Their attempt to change is all about the money. They know it is about the dollar and eyes reading their crap. Funny how Sander supporters will promote a complete corporate sell-out when it fits their narrative.

[merrily]

75. NO. Mindless, knee-jerk source shaming disposes of every issue in the article definitively!!111!!

[merrily]

101. BOOM! Thanks for that, Fawke Em.

[merrily]

70. Which statements within the article do you disagree with or agree with and why?

[NCTraveler]

87. I didn't come to du to depunk limbaugh and Paulites when discussing democratic primaries.

I have zero interest in doing that. What part of Pauls platform do you admire?

See how that works. It's one of the most ignorant arguments and it's made here daily.

[merrily]

90. No, your question to me is deflection and OT. My question to you was neither.

I do see how you try to pretend things work, though. See also Reply 58 which negates your claim, though you tried to pretend it didn't.

This is not about the author actually being a Paulist. This is about smearing anyone and everyone who criticizes Hillary on the issues. Just saying that from the jump would save everyone, including you, a lot of time.

[lewebley3]

92. The post of this thread is nothing but a Sander supporter

[merrily]

93. And? Your posts are "nothing but a Hillary supporter" Most DUers are one or the other.

[lewebley3]

95. Yes, that is why I post to defend Hillary not to pull Sanders down.

[merrily]

100. You try to pull down your fellow DUers by going ad hom, though. That's worse.

It's highly unlikely that Sanders or Hillary are reading my posts or yours and highly likely that at least some of our fellow DUers are.

[lewebley3]

142. Hillary is the right person to lead the Dem's: and Clintons made

the right choices when they were in office

[Faux pas]

2. K N R

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. She certainly is wrong on everything.

And that's why Bernie will be the nominee.

It's a sad day when neo-cons align themselves with someone running in the "Democratic" primary!

We are the most fortunate country on the planet to have someone like Bernie who is willing to take on TPTB and is willing to cure what ails us! Every TRUE Progressive should be kissing his feet for putting himself out there for US.

Thanks for posting this!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[Cosmic Kitten]

7. She's all about *evolving* while embracing Henry Kissinger, and neo-con policies

Yes, Clinton will have something close to a neoconservative foreign policy, and if you don’t believe me, trust the neocons who approve of her views on war and international relations. Or, you can just read Hillary Clinton’s book review of Henry Kissinger’s “World Order.”

In addition to being a Republican pertaining to war and foreign policy, conservative stances have plagued Clinton throughout the years. With Clinton, poor judgment is referred to as a regrettable mistake. Owning a personal server was a “mistake,” voting for the Iraq War was a “mistake,” she “wasn’t raised” to envision gay marriage, and now opposes the TPP based upon “What I know about it, as of today.”

<snip>

Hillary Clinton has evolved on war, gay marriage, Keystone XL, the TPP, in addition to marijuana legislation, and her supporters believe this is a good thing. All human beings evolve, therefore politicians who do the same must be doing so for altruistic reasons. For the rest of America, 57 percent of voters nationwide find Clinton to be “not honest and trustworthy.”

[lewebley3]

18. Hillary is right on women's rights:Just to name one of thousands

of issues that Hillary is right about.

[Ikonoklast]

52. Tell that to the thousands of dead women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan.

i'm sure they are all glad about Hillary's stance on their rights, or would be if they weren't all killed in the wars Hillary voted for.

[lewebley3]

74. Hillary is not responsible for Iraq or Afghanistan: Bush and the GOP are

[merrily]

102. Au contraire. Hillary not only voted for both wars and the Afghanistan surge, but she also

helped Bushco sell the war to the American people by making a speech supporting it that was on national TV. Much like Colin Powell did with his speech at the UN.

A Democratic First Lady and US Senator put a Democratic imprimatur on those things.

[lewebley3]

126. There was vote on the use of force: Not war:

The GOP and Bush were the ones that made
the decision to go war; Bush said so!

[merrily]

131. Good God! A Congressional authorization to a Commander in Chief to use military force IS a war vote.

It gives the CIC authority from Congress required by the Constitution to wage war.

Jesus Christ on a humvee. I finally see why you support Hillary!

[lewebley3]

132. I support Hillary for President because she is qualified

and a loyal Dem, she will be a team player,
she will sign anything the Dem's can get
the votes for, with Obama's help she will
have coat tails to bring the US house into
Dem's hands.

[merrily]

133. No, I got your reason clearly from your last post. BTW, zero coattails.

If the nominee, she'll be lucky to win the general herself, let alone bring anyone with her. FDR had coattails. New Democrats, not so much. Look at the composition of the House and Senate.

[lewebley3]

139. All politician need a little luck: Hillary is no different: but she also will work hard

[lewebley3]

140. The Clinton's were authorized to use force in Iraqi: they made a different choice

than Bush and the GOP.

[merrily]

141. The Clintons (plural) were authorized to use force in Iraq, but THEY made a different choice? LINK?

BTW, as to Iraq, Bill did attack and Hillary chose not only to vote to authorize Bush to invade, but to help sell the war to Americans. Get a clue.

Address to the Nation on the Invasion of Iraq (January 16, 1991)



George H. W. Bush


Just 2 hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. These attacks continue as I speak. Ground forces are not engaged.

This conflict started August 2d when the dictator of Iraq invaded a small and helpless neighbor. Kuwait—a member of the Arab League and a member of the United Nations—was crushed; its people, brutalized. Five months ago, Saddam Hussein started this cruel war against Kuwait. Tonight, the battle has been joined.

much more at:

http://www.millercenter.org/president/speeches/speech-3428

transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

much more at:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

more at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026211673



Senate vote on 2002 AUMF at:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237



House vote on 2002 AUMF at:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hjres114

10:16 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.


On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.

more at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

[Ikonoklast]

109. Name one war Hillary hasn't voted for.

[lewebley3]

125. Hillar didn't vote for war: No congress has in years

[Ikonoklast]

136. You are really parsing what she voted for.

Voted "Yes" for the Authorized For Use of Military Force.

"WAR"

[lewebley3]

138. When the Clintons had a choice with Iraqi, they didn't chose war

[merrily]

78. To name one of two or three.

[lewebley3]

81. You need to do you own home work: Go to a lib: right now you are a blind

Sanders supporter, all you can do is attack Hillary, because
you have nothing good to day about Sanders

[merrily]

94. I've done my homework. I've made many substantive posts filled with facts backed by links. You? nt

[lewebley3]

97. No, you have posted with your view of some facts based on your support of Sanders

[merrily]

99. No, I've done both. You? Link me to some of your posts with analysis and supporting links.

[PDittie]

6. Goodman is really getting their goat lately.

Devastates the SCOTUS argument.

[Cosmic Kitten]

10. Her nominees will need to be approved by a republican Congress

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is fine and the New York Times writes that she has “no interest in retiring.” Justice Scalia isn’t stepping down from the U.S. Supreme Court soon and will only contemplate retirement when he “can’t do the job well.” Anthony Kennedy is in “no rush” to leave the Supreme Court. Justice Breyer has no plans to step down but will “eventually” retire one day.

The paranoid legions, frightful of voting their conscience and actually upholding our democracy, can rest assured that all four Supreme Court justices mentioned are still capable of lasting four more years.

[merrily]

80. Tis the season. Merry "Say hello to President Cruz" and Happy Supreme Court Nominee.

Please Live Forever, Justice Ginsburg!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. " O K "

EOM

[BooScout]

9. Was Bernie first in being on the wrong side of everything?

Seeing how he is first in everything else.

[NV Whino]

12. That's the best you can do?

[BlueJazz]

14. It make persect sence to me

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Me too

EOM

[NCTraveler]

37. No shit. lol

These are the trials and tribulations of a Paul supporter being thrown about.

[Fawke Em]

60. He addressed that in the VERY article.

While critics haven’t let me evolve from one article on Rand Paul (written from a purely progressive outlook on ending perpetual war, please read the actual article), supporters of the former secretary of state are very comfortable with her evolution on a number of topics.

Tired old meme.

[NCTraveler]

63. That does nothing to address their admiration for Paul. Nothing.

Why do some here keep trying to carry the water for Paulites. Paulites simply suck.

[Fawke Em]

104. Point is that y'all let Hillary "evolve." Why can't he? eom

[rbrnmw]

96. The poster likes to post from RW sources

Thank goodness this is DU, so this poster must just like RW sources. Last week it was all about Dr. Carson beating HRC.

[merrily]

103. Salon is not a rw source and every source that criticizes Hillary gets shamed here.

So much easier and so much more "no brainer" that addressing actual issues.

[rbrnmw]

106. The author is a Rand Paul supporter

Unless Rand Paul became a member of the Democratic Party Member he is a RW source.

[merrily]

108. The author is a Democrat. Please see Replies 58 and 84. Aside from that, ad homs

do not make his statements or analysis faulty. Neither does knee jerk source shaming.

[merrily]

82. Sanders was on right side of civil rights when Hillary was a Goldwater Girl and head of

a college Republican organization; Sanders was on the right side LGBT rights 30 years ago, Hillary 2013; Sanders was on the right side of the Iraq War vote and predicting the invasion would de-stabilize the entire Middle East while Hillary was helping Bushco sell that war to the American public, etc. etc.

.

[Cosmic Kitten]

11. Wrong on social justice as well

The Huffington Post explains the conundrum faced by the Clinton campaign in an article titled “Hillary Clinton Says She’ll End Private Prisons, Stop Accepting Their Money”:

Lobbying firms that work for two major private prison giants, GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America, gave $133,246 to the Ready for Hillary PAC, according to Vice…

Immigrant and civil rights groups have urged Clinton to stop accepting contributions from donors with ties to GEO and CCA. Earlier Thursday, in announcing its co-founder Cesar Vargas was moving to the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the advocacy group Dream Action Coalition singled out Clinton for accepting those contributions.

Sanders recently introduced a bill to ban government contracts for private prisons, including immigrant detention centers.

Even as Bill Clinton apologizes for making the issue of mass incarceration worse and 2008’s 3:00 a.m. ad (an attack ad against Obama labeled by Harvard’s Orlando Patterson as containing a “racist sub-message”) is relegated to the ash heap of liberal consciousness, some people refuse to acknowledge issues pertaining to race within the Clinton campaign.

[Jack Rabbit]

79. Dissenting (well, sorta)

While Mrs. Clinton's stands on social justice aren't as strong as many think, it would be wrong to say she hasn't taken them. As far as they go, supporting equal pay for women and opposing discrimination against blacks is still laudable. Her support for gay marriage may have been slow in coming, but it's still better than continued opposition.

However, her support for social justice is made somewhat hollow by her support for a corporate agenda that exacerbates economic injustice. She thinks criticism of the institutions on Wall Street that crashed the world economy are "foolish" and opposes reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act. She says she'll tighten oversight of Wall Street, but without reinstating Glass-Steagall, her proposals on Wall Street reform must be condemned as weak. That she takes large sums of money from Wall Street must be taken as further evidence that she has no intention of reining in their abuses, to the detriment of both America at large and Wall Street itself. Her "opposition" to the TPP is entirely unconvincing. She won't explain why she now opposes it, nor will she lobby for it's defeat. One would be justified in questioning whether she really opposes it at all.

So, how do her weak stands on economic justice weaken her stands on social justice? What good will it do to allow a gay couple to get married and adopt children if they can't afford a mortgage? What good does it do young people if they can't afford college? What good does it do young people who can't afford college if they have to work for starvation wages in the fast food industry? Mrs. Clinton's position on raising the minimum appears to be similar to that of Senator Sanders, but why does she emphasize starting with with $12/hr and Senator Sanders prefers to emphasize the goal getting up it up to $15/hr? I would suggest that Mrs. Clinton wants to sugarcoat her proposals for the oligarchs who foot the bill for her campaign while Senator Sanders doesn't wants to make the oligarchs know that he means business.

If you're running for president in 2016 and not making the oligarchs shake in their boots, you're not doing tour job.

[NurseJackie]

19. Everything? Really? Everything? (I think that's an exaggeration.)

[pengu]

48. Nah, just the important stuff like Iraq and the Patriot Act

[NurseJackie]

66. That's what I figured. The hyperbole shown here is "eyes-roll" worthy and tends to make

all other OP's easy to dismiss out-of-hand. After seeing a few of these hair-on-fire posts, people probably begin to automatically ignore them, just because the content and tone is predictable. If the purpose is to provoke, then mission accomplished. If the purpose is a bunch of "atta-boy" and "atta-girl" replies, then mission accomplished. Based on what I've seen, it's unlikely that an actual discussion is about to ensue.

Not that it would have made any difference anyway. I certainly know that I have my own flaws, so who am I to criticize. Oh well. Carry on. Have fun.

[pengu]

114. I could give you a (much) longer list, if you'd like

[NurseJackie]

129. I'd recommend saving it for OP where it will get more attention from people who actually care.

Even if it's yet another one of those ranting and raging, bug-eyed, hair-on-fire, hyperbole-filled, cut-and-paste jobs from a RW website (instead of a thoughtful original composition of your own) it will certainly help to improve your street-cred among your peeps.

Considering that Bernie is having such a hard time catching up, I wonder what it is that Bernie's followers could be doing differently. It's pretty clear that what they're doing now isn't working very well. (And, yes, I know you're not likely to care, but I just thought I'd throw it out there. It's something to think about.)

[EndElectoral]

20. Her hawkish views, banking alliances, IWR vote and faux progressivism are what trouble me the most.

[Still In Wisconsin]

50. Basically, policy-wise Hillary is a 1980's Republican.

I'll vote for her in the general election as the lesser of two evils but that's about it.

[Hortensis]

22. Well, in a black and white world, it does sound like one of you

would just HAVE to be wrong about just everything!

[cantbeserious]

23. The Zeal To Elect A Female President Has Overshadowed The Good Judgement Of Many

eom

[artislife]

27. ^^ this nt

[pnwmom]

24. So says the same writer who endorsed Sen. Paul just a year ago, saying

that his economic policies didn't matter because Congress has the power of the purse.

H.A. Goodman is contemptible and doesn't belong on a progressive website. I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot more of him though, since Salon and DU are giving him a platform


Sen. Paul, who considers himself a tea party member, opposes abortion, opposes Federal LGBT rights (because he didn’t “believe in rights based on your behavior”), voted against the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, opposes all gun control legislation, thinks vaccines should be voluntary, opposes the ACA, opposes campaign finance reform. Among other things.

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



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/im-a-liberal-democrat-im_b_6169542.html

Rand Paul is my candidate in 2016, even though the Tea Party would consider me Joseph Stalin's love child. I'm for immigration reform and believe that illegal immigrants benefit this country. I've written many articles criticizing Tea Party paranoia. I'm against demagoguery from people like Paul Ryan who unfairly target inner city citizens and I'm for the federal legalization of gay marriage and marijuana. I think Ted Cruz is a buffoon and that we should listen to Stephen Hawking over Senator "Green Eggs and Ham" on climate change. Finally, I've also written two novels about the evils of religious fundamentalism and political demagoguery.

On all these possible points of contention with Rand Paul, the reality is that he isn't Ted Cruz or Lou Dobbs on these matters. Sen. Paul is a self-described "moderate" on immigration, much to the dismay of Tea Party Republicans. Paul's recent Bill Maher interview shows he's open to cleaner energy alternatives. Most importantly, Paul doesn't abide by the right-wing rhetoric blaming poor people for their predicament, or claiming God wants people to do this or that. Congress at the end of the day has the power of the purse, so if President Rand Paul scares you on economic matters, simply remember that only Congress can repeal or alter government programs and decide on budgets.

[NCTraveler]

34. I just asked if he was a Paul supporter before even reading this.

Seems kind of obvious.

[pinebox]

56. So Goodman switched sides, your candidate flip flops daily and gets a pass though, right? XD

[pnwmom]

112. Hillary has always been on the left. This person has endorsed a libertarian and said

his economic policies didn't matter.

[pinebox]

113. Hillary also voted for the Iraq war

and on and on and on.
You know who's against wars? Libertarians.

So that's what I'm saying. What comes around goes around.

[pnwmom]

115. She voted for the IWR which only gave approval for Bush

to enforce the UN requirements. Bush ignored the conditional approval, since he never found weapons of mass destruction, and went ahead with the war.

[pinebox]

116. A vote is a vote though

but Obama and Bernie didn't.

Hillary of course later said her vote was a "mistake"

[pnwmom]

118. It was a mistake to trust Bush to follow the letter of the IWR.

But she did NOT vote for him to go into Iraq, even without finding WMD's. Neither did Biden or Kerry.

[navarth]

25. The Iraq War Vote was the deal breaker for me.

Say all you want about her other issues; this is the one that put me off for good.

She knew DAMN well it was bullshit and she voted for it anyway. Why? Because it was Politically Expedient.

A craven, callous, corrupt vote.

If she had voted like Bernie did on that one, my view of her would be entirely different. It's really too bad; she might have been a force for good. I don't know what happened there.

[Martin Eden]

47. Same here. It has been a deal breaker for me since 2002.

For that reason I didn't support Kerry, Biden, or Edwards in Democratic primaries.

[Maineman]

86. Although I did not like her vote to invade Iraq, I understand that there was a media frenzy for war.

But she went further than the vote. She made a very strong speech pushing for war. She was a major advocate for invading Iraq. Some reluctantly voted yes. She was a strong advocate. That is very different.

[Ned_Devine]

98. Same here

After voting for Kerry in '04, I said no more voting for anyone that voted for that war.

[DanTex]

26. LOL. Actually, HA Goodman is on the wrong side of everything.

[HassleCat]

30. Wait just a second

She is on the wrong side of certain things, but she is on the right side of a number of issues. She sits in the dugout with our team, but she keeps changing seats, never quite comfortable with the person next to her, never quite sure whether or not she might be better off moving to a different spot. Yes, her foreign policy is scary. Other than that, her stand on the issues might inspire nervousness, but we won't be killed in a war...

[Cali_Democrat]

31. I didn't know HA Goodman wrote for Salon as well.

LOL.

[SoapBox]

32. Trust!

She's been all over the Flip-Flop place...I don't trust a damned thing she says.

And no matter what, being the Third Wayer she is, she will ALWAYS align with Big Entrenched Money and Big Entrenched Power.

"Gold Standard" my butt!

[pnwmom]

42. Apparently you'd rather trust a writer who endorsed Sen. Paul a year ago. n/t

[pengu]

53. As opposed to the Senator that voted wrong on Iraq, the biggest no brainer NO in modern history

Who cares what this author endorsed in one article. I'm not voting for him. Address the points.

[NCTraveler]

33. Really starting to feel bad for Goodman. This isn't healthy.

I have seen this before with right wingers. Such anger and hostility. Always being against things is what leads to this. My heart goes out to him and I hope he can find her center. Who is Goodman supporting? Trump? Carson? Has he said? Often sounds more like a Paul kind of person.

[pnwmom]

41. S/he endorsed Sen. Paul a year ago. S/he said his economic policies don't matter

because Congress controls the purse.

[NCTraveler]

44. "S/he said his economic policies don't matter"

Is she endeared to his racist side if it isn't economics?

[MineralMan]

67. He is exactly a Paul person. Rand, Ron...whoever.

His opinion is not worth the paper it's printed on or even the pixels on my monitor, which can be cleared instantly of his crap.

[LonePirate]

36. People are still touting that unscientific and highly questionable WIU poll?

That poll has so many problems that should not be the basis for any opinion or article.

[Metric System]

38. Hack Attack Goodman.

[upaloopa]

40. What happened to Chris Cazzilla? We've been

treated to these HA Goodman right wing repub pieces for days now

If there was no repub running agsinst Hillary you wouldn't have anything to post except the usual made up bull crap posted here daily.
I find it intellectually lazy to use wing nut propaganda to try and harm a Democrat.
But the enemy of your enemy is your friend I guess.

[merrily]

105. Intellectually lazy is how I might describe source shaming without

addressing an iota of substance.

[azmom]

43. She's all kinds of wrong.

We can do do much better with Bernie.

[zappaman]

45. Goodman...

[Docbrc]

49. and Sanders is on the right side of everything

I think people forget that at this point in the 2007 run-up to the 2008 primaries, Hillary Clinton was pegged as the shoe-in front runner as the Democrat nominee and most of the country had barely noticed a senator named Barrack Obama on their radar screens. Fast forward to the present and, historically speaking, Bernie Sanders has already gained a populist following that hasn't been seen since 1968 with Bobby Kennedy. I think even more important than Clinton being on the wrong side of everything is that Sanders is gaining widespread attention for being on the right side of everything.

[MineralMan]

61. H. A. Goodman again?

Really? Do you really think he's working to get any Democrat elected? Why would you post his nastiness here?

[think]

84. H.A. Goodman voted for Al Gore, Kerry, & Obama twice. Perhaps you missed that post:

I've been a registered Democrat all my life (voting for Gore, Kerry, and Obama twice), but when President Obama was sending Americans back to Iraq in 2014, I searched desperately for an alternative to Clinton's "neocon" foreign policy. I'm not a Facebook Liberal and when I'm on Ring of Fire correlating Dick Cheney to the chaos in the Middle East, I also know that Hillary Clinton could have offered a powerful voice of protest.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/why-bernie-sanders-has-already-won-the-democratic-debates_b_8278834.html

[merrily]

107. Don't interfere with a good round of pretending source shaming = refutation.

[tularetom]

69. Actually, Hillary Clinton is on ALL sides of everything

She's opposed to income inequaity but won't support raising the minimum wage to $15.

She's in favor of a move to clean energy but won't support a ban on fracking.

She's opposed to harsh sentences for marijuana users but won't support legalization.

On issue after issue she has claimed a strong stance on both sides.

She can't be trusted by either side.

[Maineman]

88. Yeah. She chooses her wording very carefully sometimes. Like what she has said about TPP.

Something to the effect that she has decided she is uncomfortable with certain parts of it. 10 to 1, she would vote for it.

[merrily]

110. What she said about TPP was that it was "the gold standard." After Sanders' numbers started

climbing, she decided she would fiddle with some of it (NOT GOOD ENOUGH, OBAMA), but she was not specific.

Keep a clean nose...You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. You can identify the direction by evolutions.

[pa28]

83. Hillary's review of Kissinger's book the article links to . . .

Wasn't aware it existed but it certainly confirms my doubts. If you want a president who will use US foreign policy as a strong arm tool for the benefit of corporations you'll want President Hillary.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-reviews-henry-kissingers-world-order/2014/09/04/b280c654-31ea-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html

[Beausoir]

85. Hmmm. Apparently not on the wrong side of the polls showing her beating Bernie.

[sabrina 1]

89. I would not say 'everything' but she definitely has been on the wrong side of some

major issues throughout her career.

[tzar paul]

91. HA Goodman

Check out this other Salon article, and notice how obsessed he is with letting us know that He's. An. Important. Person. As a Sanders supporter, I rebuke and reject this self-important fool.

[merrily]

111. And that negates which position or statement in the OP article?

Please see Reply 108.

I find writers who sell tend not to be humble. Neither do some DUers.

[pnwmom]

117. Yes,, it does. When you're reading an opinion piece, the background of the opinion-holder

is critical.

This person endorsed Sen. Paul just a year ago, saying that his economic policies were unimportant. His or her other opinions aren't worth listening to.

[merrily]

122. The author is a long time Dem. See Reply 108. Passing that, it was not a yes or no question,

it was not asked of you and who the author endorsed in the past has nothing to do with refuting or confirming what he states now.

[pnwmom]

124. Yeah, that's what the author claims. But he just endorsed Paul, who is against

progressive economic policies, against abortion, against LGBT Federal rights, against gun control,, etc.

So s/he is no progressive.

[merrily]

128. His word is all you have for both propositions. You'll accept his word when it fits your agenda but

reject his word when it doesn't. And, again, citing an endorsement from the past does not negate a single thing he said. Source shame is just an intellectually lazy, rigid way of pretending to deal with criticism of Hillary. It may with others suffering from the identical reflex--assuming they even believe themselves-- but neither convinces nor impresses anyone else.

[pnwmom]

130. His public endorsement of Paul in a public column is FACT. Who he may or may not

have voted for in a secret ballot is a SECRET -- which he could be lying about now, in order to dupe more people.

[merrily]

134. LOL! His word in both cases. And source shaming attempts disprove not a single thing.

Apparently, you're going to keep repeating your non-point endlessly and I'm sleepy enough as it is. Last word is yours.

[Catherina]

119. Based on your "Favorite Group" & recs, I don't think so. n/t

[tzar paul]

120. Mom?

I swear I didn't take the car for a joyride!

[Number23]

121. Awww... you made a friend!

You lucky thang.

[tzar paul]

123. so what did you think of the movie?

I thought Sutherland did a good acting job, but I'm still not certain whether I like the film as a whole, or not.

[Nonhlanhla]

127. Sure

Yes, she has been on the wrong side of some things. So has Bernie (guns in particular). This writer has been on the wrong side too - Rand Paul, really?!

Or is it a matter of Goodman can change from radical libertarian to socialist democrat, and Bernie can become a Democrat after years of saying he is not a Democrat, and that is OK, but when Hillary changes her mind about anything, it is not?

[FloridaBlues]

135. Yea she's so wrong on everything maybe that's why so tops the polls by 25 to 40% ahead of Bernie