2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWorst Line From The Debate Tonight
There is no doubt this did some damage:
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Stardust
(3,894 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)It is called special pleading. A low for both Hillary and Democrats. What in the fuck was she thinking?
Sad. Very sad.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)W had years of success bypassing the rational mind of voters and pummeling the lizard brain with fear and greed. Of course, that didn't ultimately end so well for most of us.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)OnlinePoker
(5,725 posts)It doesn't matter which side of the fence the candidate is on.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I thought that was the worst thing I heard. Now I know it was actually much worse than horrible, even calling it an epic fail is not enough.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I think that they practiced that line a lot but as she was saying it it became a canard and she knew it.
They had to have some rebuttal to the Wall Street comments and it was a really weak showing. Her debate advisers need to take a step back and reassess.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)so any line she used would have been disingenuous.
The truth is, she is more likely to care what is good for Goldman-Sachs than what is good for any of us.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Reminds me of my doberman mix who played with a fly once. He even picked it up ever so gently and spit it back out and kept playing with it.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)
..but she couldn't pull it off and realized midstream what a pathetic ploy it was.
It's really distressing that the Dem Power elite is insisting on her. It's beyond her ties to Wall Street for meI really believe she doesn't have what it takes to be a good president. She's way too empty.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)I could not believe it when people applauded at the 60% line. It might be 60% of her small donors but a drop in the bucket compared to what Wall Street, the for-profit prison corporations, Monsanto, etc. have given her.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)to make cheap points that don't even apply. How low does it get? She's somewhere around the center of the earth. Low, cheap, phony.
Hulk
(6,699 posts)Yes. Progressives and your viewers will recognize that pathetic comment for what it was, but did you hear the applause? Those are the sheeple that will be impressed by that bull shit response.
She just lost a few notches in my vote of support. This is what we are dealing with when it comes to Corporate-Hillary.
left on green only
(1,484 posts)It is just her way of saying that she has "evolved" from being a rational thinker, to serving up word salads when she speaks. But that's OK because surely by now, all of the truly critical thinkers on this board realize that the only thing more important than having a president is for us to have a woman president.
(just in case)
quarbis
(314 posts)The LBJ ad with the little girl picking
petals off the daisy with the countdown
as a soundtrack?
moobu2
(4,822 posts)It's nothing.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)little bit nervous didn't it?
I bet you said "Damn I wish she hadn't said that".
The same as I thought when John Kerry said "I was for it before I was against it" knowing the Republicans would make hay with that comment and they did.
Now come on you would have to agree that she had a Rudy Giuliani monument and certainly sounded more in line with something a real Republican would say Correct?
moobu2
(4,822 posts)I liked her response and I think most reasonable people will too when they put it into context. It's really less than nothing.It's just Bernie Sanders supporters grasping at straws that aren't even there. You know what I mean.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)The crazy thing is that she (or whoever is controlling her) planned the response. This error in judgement is another example of why she should not be the President.
Clinton makes bad decisions.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Yeah, I agree. That ridiculous argument made her look very, very foolish. She was obviously covering up het Wall St. Connections.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)When Wall Street money flows to Secretary Clinton it's an act of solidarity with all Americans, and an act of defiance against our enemies who hate us for our robust investment sector.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)...and it should. I thought it was bad when I heard it the first time live, but it even worse when I listened to it more carefully on the posted clip.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)CrispyQ
(36,509 posts)CrispyQ
(36,509 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)She will need a lot of republican votes to win the ge, since she's turning off bernistas in droves. I wonder how this will play in moderate republican land.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)While reeking of hypocrisy, there is a variable undercurrent of populism from a few of their candidates. They suspect that Secretary Clinton is likely to be their opponent so their Wall Street/Banking bashing is opportunistic. And it does play well with those Republicans and Independents without healthy stock portfolios. They'll let the Republican PACs take the Wall Street and Banking money while bashing us as being cozy with the bankers and Wall Street.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)it sure as hell should have.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)disaster? She helped them "rebuild"? Her first priority was to help Wall Street? Heaven help us if she becomes president.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)if this 1%er becomes POTUS...All those bad things Repukkkians might do, would be accomplished by the 1%er...
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)And the ones trying to spin this into something positive and rational are pathetic.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Watch the poverty rate climb as Goldman-Sachs and the billionaires reap more profits.
How can Democrats support big money politics? Because they ain't Democrats.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)She gets to invoke "9/11", just like every other NY Republican did for the last decade!!!!!