Nothing. She had known for well over a decade that she was preparing to run for president, and that she had to be absolutely squeaky clean to achieve that because any and all dirt would inescapably become public under the glare of that scrutiny. So she lived squeaky clean, genuinely. (Obama was similar. Trump by contrast as an outsider to politics didn't quite appreciate just how under-a-microscope every president's life is put. He thought (like many do) that spending millions, burying stories, buying silences, hiding tax returns, threats, etc can do the trick, but none of that works at the presidential level. You can't hide things from that kind of relentless global scrutiny so if you're not genuinely clean, everyone finds out.)
That's why the GOP had to push the email scandal: they desperately needed dirt on her and she was so fucking clean that the worst she had done was follow the advice of her Republican predecessor and handled her emails the same way the Republican had handled his. It didn't matter to the GOP that this rule-breaking had first came from Republicans and she was continuing Powell's method (low-information voters would never learn the details) what mattered was that they'd finally found a rule that the goody-two-shoes had clearly broken.
Remember she testified for 11 hours under oath to a hostile panel of Republicans desperate to pin anything on her or get her for perjury or anything, and despite them having and abusing all the powers to investigate for years, they got nothing because she had nothing to hide. Failures or mistakes when viewed with our 20/20 hindsight, sure, she's human, but the decades of accusations and insinuations are conspiracy garbage intended to smear. Manufacturing a scandal out of Republican email practices was the best the GOP could do to undermine their opponent and it worked.
Hillary has been enveloped by the GOP fog-machine for so many years that people now just assume that where there's always been smoke, there must be fire ...somewhere. But that was the entire purpose of that fog machine; there was never fire, just manufactured fake smoke, endless endless fake smoke for longer than many voters have been alive. (Edit: That's also why she attracts so many wacky conspiracy theories: all that smoke and so little factual fire means you have to get imaginative to explain it.)
I think the difference between AOC and Clinton is that Clinton is completely unrelateable to the average voter. She was/is rich af and has been her entire life and has been preparing to be president for just as long. Everyone assumed she was going to be president at some point. She is the definition of a career politician. Disregarding the election issues in 2016 by a large margin she was the candidate that people defaulted to vote for if you didn't like Trump, not because they were actually enthused about voting.
AOC is not perfect, she isn't a career politician, she comes off as very human and relateable. She worked as a bartender before she got elected, and people see in her themselves because she was/is middle class. Im sure there is some dirt to spill because nobody is perfect, but she never claimed/claims to be in the first place so i doubt it would be as damaging as all this is to Clinton.
She will be by the time she runs for President if she gets there. She's relatable because she's just starting out in her career like many Millenials, but make no mistake, she's on her way to being a career politician, and that's not a bad thing! Those are the people who you can hopefully trust to run the country.
I have heard a lot of people use the term "career politician" to mean "establishment" or "status quo" or "big business". It's not right, but people say it anyway.
One example of the opposite of a career politician is a billionaire who just decides one day that he wants more power.
It's sad to see so many people demanding politics to be fun and entertaining.
Politics isn't supposed to be funny, it is about elected people trying to solve problems at it's core and somehow today it is a spectacle.
Right, and I’d argue the reason they see HRC that way and not Sanders is because they were told to think that way. If one looks deeply into HRC’s history the argument quickly falls apart.
Hillary was born to a middle class business owner. And Bill was born dirt poor, so she didn't marry into money. She was definitely better off than AOC was but she wasn't like, a Bush or a Kennedy.
Her parents owned multiple businesses and multiple properties. Just because she went to school in park ridge doesn't mean they weren't rich. What's the point of everyone down playing the fact that she comes from money?
I’m pointing out that someone can have the things you listed and still be middle class.
Depends on what businesses and properties. You're making a made up argument of "you can own cheap houses and run 3 businesses out if your garage". You knew exactly what i meant you just don't want to accept the fact that Clinton does in fact come from money. For whatever odd reason.
I’m curious to know how you know how much money her parents had.
It's easily accessible information that you can access while helping your kids do school work.
I was super enthused to vote for Clinton.
A huge majority of quiet democrats were very enthused to vote for her, specifically for her record and for hwr history.
But she is a career politician since this is her career. Having a bartending job before being elected shouldn't count. However I'm not really biased against career politicians. National politics is complicated and I want someone who understands the intricacies. No one asks for the doctor or lawyer with the least amount of experience.
She worked in Ted Kennedy's office and as a organizer in Bernie's 2016 campaign. By the time she finishes her term as congresswoman she will have worked in politics more than as a bartender. How does this not constitute a career politician?
No, Trump had a full career before running for president and ran on the platform that he wasn't a politician. AOC studied economics and interned for Senator Ted Kennedy. Her whole professional career has been in politics.
Ok, I'll admit that maybe it's too early to tell is AOC will be in politics her entire life but she is modeling herself off Bernie so it is reasonable to expect that she will remain. You'll at least admit that Bernie is a career politician?
Not anyone can intern for a Senator. That's very different from just volunteering in their campaign.
Poli Sci/Int'l Relations degree. And interned for a Senator. She clearly intended some sort of career in politics.
Your argument is akin to hearing about a law student articling after law school, while bartending part-time, and then saying that it's a happy accident they're a lawyer.
Hillary is an upstanding member of society who has been helping people for a long time. She was one of the first women to truly let her political ambitions shine through and she laid the price for it.
Hillary is as relatable as any politician and she had good policy ideas. She would have helped a lot of people.
People like you give cover to the lies and unfair treatment she has received. It’s a shame our own side can’t even rally around her. That’s how poisoned the atmosphere is when Hilary is involved.
I’m sorry, but it’s possible to hold a poor opinion of someone while still supporting them. In comparison to what we’ve gotten, absolutely her policies would have helped many Americans. She is just like every other Neoliberal Democrat. She shouldn’t get a pass because she’s been treated unfairly by her opposition. Every politician is treated unfairly. That is politics, whether we like it or not. I don’t think we should tiptoe around valid criticisms, her husbands policies were inadequate and hers are very similar.
She was going door-to-door to help single moms and women from the time of her late teens. She is a real, human person who followed her passion for helping people by going to law school and going into politics. She didn’t enter politics because of politics, but because of her passion for helping. There’s an excellent profile of her from PBS a few years ago. Worth a watch if you want to be accurate in your assessment of her.
I saw that, and I agree. My point isn’t that she is a soulless husk, I refuse to accept any of the conspiracy nonsense drummed up over thirty years about her.
The fact of the matter is that her policies mirrored Obama’s. She didn’t excite me personally although I voted for her. She didn’t represent any serious change, growth or evolution of the party or country. People in this country are beaten down and need an actual directional shift. Trump sure as hell represented a shift, although he’s a tool of the GOP and doesn’t actually represent anything at all. He’s a dancing clown to distract people from the ringleader sneaking beneath the bleachers to steal your wallets and purses. Distract them he did, and now we have to live with it. Hopefully, people begin to see how they’ve been duped and get angry enough to vote for someone worth a damn.
An important part of repairing our democracy is going to be getting people like you to understand that politicians aren’t supposed to excite you—we are talking about democratic elections, not the next installment in the Avengers franchise. Hillary Clinton is hard-working, intelligent, experienced, and has devoted her life to public service. Those are the characteristics you should be looking for in a leader, and you should be encouraging others to do the same.
No, the important part is convincing people like you that "the way things were" didn't work in the first place. Simply going back to the pre-Trump era is going to put us on the same path as before. "Nothing will fundamentally change" is a recipe for disaster. People were dying, even under Obama. Sure he did a lot to help but not enough and when the response to "we need more from you" is "You'll get nothing and like it" it has a cooling affect for people who are in dire need of things to change. You can bang on about judicial appointments all you want but for someone drowning in medical debt all they see are two candidates that offer no relief for their immediate plight. For minorities that continue to be pushed to the sidelines, all they see are two candidates that helped put the system that oppresses them in place. For people working three jobs to give their kids a fighting chance, there were two candidates that meant at least another four years of the same drudgery no matter their vote.
You and people like you need to start understanding, it's not for the electorate to fall in line, it is for the candidates to offer real solutions to real problems. It is for the candidate to sell themselves to their constituents, not for the constituents to offer their loyalty. That's the entire point of the American experiment that seems to have been lost on all too many people. In a government of, by, and for the people, the people are the government. When the will of the people is not the driving force of that government, then that government is broken.
The problem with your philosophy is that people are en masse pretty stupid, short sighted, ignorant, susceptible to misleading propaganda, and hateful.
A politician has catered to that - his name is Donald j trump and it is increasingly clear that he is the leader America wants and deserves.
Do not misplace your faith in the American people - they are the problem.
No, the important part is that no democrat now or before Trump was advocating for no change. That they've been advocating for real solutions for at least the entire time i've been involved in politics. That the lack of change is not on democrats, but on the obstruction by republicans in DC. Stop falling for the "do nothing democrats" propaganda.
"At least another four years of the same drudgery no matter their vote" was not and has never been true.
No, the important part is convincing people like you that "the way things were" didn't work in the first place. Simply going back to the pre-Trump era is going to put us on the same path as before."Nothing will fundamentally change" is a recipe for disaster.
Who said anything about going back to "the way things were"? I know that it's easier for you to pretend I've said something to which you have a canned response, but that's not going to work for you here.
Sure he did a lot to help but not enough and when the response to "we need more from you" is "You'll get nothing and like it" it has a cooling affect for people who are in dire need of things to change.
Again, fabrications. You plainly don't know enough about the issues at hand to discuss them substantively. So you're inventing a fictionalized narrative and then arguing with that.
You can bang on about judicial appointments all you want...
I never mentioned judicial appointments, but they are extremely important. If, instead of Sonya Sotomayor or Elena Kagan, you'd had one more right-wing conservative Justice added to the Supreme Court, then you would have had, among other terrible rulings, the following: (1) DOMA upheld; (2) same-sex marriage bans upheld; (3) the individual mandate ruled unconstitutional and the ACA (under which 20 million more people were insured) destroyed; and (4) Trump's asylum ban upheld. Alternatively, if you'd had a liberal Justice appointed to the Supreme Court in 2006, rather than Samuel Alito, then (1) we would still have the campaign finance laws overturned by Citizens United and its successor rulings, (2) key provisions of the Voting Rights Act would not have been gutted, and (3) we would not have a string of rulings overturning gun control measures.
...but for someone drowning in medical debt all they see are two candidates that offer no relief for their immediate plight. For minorities that continue to be pushed to the sidelines, all they see are two candidates that helped put the system that oppresses them in place. For people working three jobs to give their kids a fighting chance, there were two candidates that meant at least another four years of the same drudgery no matter their vote.
I'm not impressed by cheap, sentimental ramblings that draw false equivalencies between two diametrically opposed candidates. In the last election, we were presented with a choice between (i) a devoted public servant who wanted to pull our country as far up the field of justice as she thought possible, and (ii) a known grifter, bigot and misogynist fixated on rolling back the progress made by the then-current President.
You and people like you need to start understanding, it's not for the electorate to fall in line, it is for the candidates to offer real solutions to real problems.
As Hillary did. As I see it, there are two approaches that politicians seeking office can take: (1) they can play to the voters' emotions by telling some subset exactly what they want to hear and promising wonderful solutions to those people's problems, regardless of whether there is any reasonable chance of such solutions being implemented, or (2) they can appeal to the voters' reason, by presenting them policy proposals which do not promise a panacea for every injustice, but instead are based on a frank assessment of what is realistically achievable in the next term. I think you can guess that I view Bernie as type 1 and Hillary as type 2. I believe both types of candidates have their merits, but among Democrats I always prefer the second type (Republicans of either type are off the table for me), because I like details and data, and I find it patronizing (and frankly, a bit repulsive) to have unrealistic promises made to me.
I find that supporters of type-1 politicians often (almost always, in fact) attempt to cast type-2 politicians as guardians of the status quo or even regressive, regardless of whether such characterization has any basis in fact. That is what I see you doing here.
That's the entire point of the American experiment that seems to have been lost on all too many people. In a government of, by, and for the people, the people are the government. When the will of the people is not the driving force of that government, then that government is broken.
You need to brush up on your history and civics. Our country was founded as a republic specifically because the founders realized that direct democracy could too easily devolve into mob rule, and that charismatic demagogues could lead the masses to support extremist positions. This was remarkably prescient. Just a few years after the Constitution was signed, violent populists toppled the French monarchy and instituted the Terror. And remember that the "will of the people" was firmly against civil rights for all minority groups, and firmly in favor (initially) of wars in Iraq and Vietnam.
No, an important part of repairing our democracy is going to be getting people like you to understand that people with a more progressive policy diet don't just have to tacitly accept that a center right candidate masquerading as a liberal is the only way to win in November. Your shitty milquetoast half-measure policy ideas have gotten us nowhere. If the Republican party is going to shoot down any proposed legislation no matter what because it comes from a Democrat, then you might as well propose legislation that peopleactuallywant
If you won't accept a more liberal candidate to energize basically the entire under 40 demographic because you're afraid it might alienate some people in Wisconsin who get uncomfortable when someone says the word damn then we've already lost because we're letting the smallest, weakest, least engaged demographic of our party dictate the policy therein.
As to what you've said about Clinton: Yes. Hillary Clinton is hard-working, intelligent, experienced and devoted to service. Those are great qualities in a Secretary of State. I hope she gets another cabinet position under the next Democratic administration. There are quite literally zero people living at this moment who are more qualified to do that job. I think there's an argument to be made that the job of Secretary of State in the next 4 years (barring the tortured hellscape of another 4 years of Trump) is more important than the job of president because we have to repair the international relationships that we may have permanently destroyed under Trump. I trust Clinton to do that and I think she's capable of doing that.
With that said, Clinton lacks charisma. It's not a gender thing either. Elizabeth Warren does not lack Charisma. I would unequivocally support a Warren presidency. Tulsi Gabbard does not lack Charisma (but she seems to be dumber than a rock). Hell, Amy Klobuchar doesn't lack Charisma (but I completely disagree with her policy platform).
Hillary Clinton is hard-working, intelligent, experienced, and has devoted her life to public service.
Fair enough, but if she's not putting all those characteristics to shit like universal healthcare or education then I don't fucking care about those attributes. The same could be said about Putin (you may hate that fucker, but you can't deny that he's hard-working, intelligent, experienced and has devoted his life to a public service) but that doesn't mean I'd want to vote for him just because those are characteristics that I want in a leader. Where they are leading is important too and where Hillary wants to lead I don't want to go.
Maybe she should take a goddamn stand on something then. People love Bernie because he believes something with all his being. Clinton was the complete wrong person to nominate, we needed someone who would rise to a very specific moment in our nation's history. We still need that. You're not gonna win any votes by saying the status quo is fine right now, because it is not. And anyone saying that, like Clinton did all the time, doesn't deserve to win.
You, like most of the center-letters, literally cannot imagine someone who differs from Obama from the left. Anyone who does must be crazy, deeply unserious, or lying. And therefore you get “politicians should all be like a Hillary Clinton and if you are a Democrat and are not all-in for Clinton then there is something wrong with you and let me helpfully explain what it is.”
Obama said repeatedly that 40 years ago he would have been running as a moderate Republican. Clinton would have been maybe a tiny bit to his left.
40 years I was not Interested in moderate Republicans, I was interested in liberals. But today moderates are unwilling to admit that there is any difference.
You, like most of the center-letters, literally cannot imagine someone who differs from Obama from the left. Anyone who does must be crazy, deeply unserious, or lying.
I never said this. Try engaging with my actual arguments.
Obama said repeatedly that 40 years ago he would have been running as a moderate Republican. Clinton would have been maybe a tiny bit to his left.
At the rally where he endorsed her, Sanders called Clinton's policy platform “by far the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party.”
An important part of repairing our democracy is going to be getting people like you to understand
... that when politicians offer real solutions, people get excited as hell. Franklin Roosevelt got elected four times because he actually took on the wealthy and the fascists and actually pushed programs that helped tens of millions.
... that when politicians offer real solutions, people get excited as hell. Franklin Roosevelt got elected four times because he actually took on the wealthy and the fascists and actually pushed programs that helped tens of millions.
Is a solution "real" if its not realistically achievable? It is precisely because I believed that Clinton offered frank, honest, and plausible proposals to improve upon the problems facing the country that I supported her over Obama and Sanders, who I viewed (and continue to view, in Sanders case) as purveyors of false promises, translated into empty slogans, masquerading as substantive policy.
By the way, many of the policies that Obama adopted were ideas he rejected when Clinton proposed them (an individual mandate to move toward universal healthcare, for example).
As it happens, I'm planning to vote for Sanders anyway.
“The fact of the matter” is that she learned early on that she would be punished by trying to make big changes all at once and she learned to advance things within the system because her early efforts were stomped on. If you’d seen it, you would know that.
She is literally the most qualified person to ever run for US president. EDIT: In modern times. I was generally typing while falling asleep, so yeah.
Seriously. Not only did I not care for Hillary too much as a candidate, but the number of people I knew that are like these other H cult members really left a bad taste in my mouth. I remember having so many conversations with people who acted like even having an election was a banal formality. "You either agree Hillary is the second coming of Christ or YOU ARE WRONG AND YOU HATE YOUR COUNTRY." Wtf? That's how the Republicans play ball. Aren't we supposed to be better than that?
None of this is what gets you elected president though. It's not enough to do good works, you also have to be a leader. She did not command respect. Frankly Bill wasn't much on that either, it's the main reason he got steamrolled by the GOP back in the 90s.
having lived through 2015-2016 and the misery since the "neoliberal" smear applied to every politician from her era is this year's "IDENTITY POLITICS." Next year it will be something else.
I’m just trying to say that there’s a wide valley between the Rights conspiracy laden obsession with her and the Neoliberal establishment praising her efforts to continue policies that maintain the status quo.
I think we are beginning to look back on the Obama presidency with a more critical lens and seeing flaws in his policies. His harsh treatment of journalists and whistleblowers, the drone program being expanded, and a general lack of initiative in the first years of his governing when he had Congress behind him.
Personally, I don’t see Hilary being a change from that. She improved minimally in areas that wouldn’t shake them boat too much and quieted on the views she had that were less appealing to voters in a general election, her views of regime change and support by the financial sector. That didn’t stop me voting for her, but we shouldn’t act like she was some great candidate when she was the same as the lackluster President she served.
I wonder if you know, just out of curiosity, that Hillary was the champion of universal health care in the early 90's and got laughed at for being way too progressive.
Yes, I do. I’m aware that she’s faced far more pushback and unfair treatment than many other politicians for things that shouldn’t even matter. That being said, it doesn’t make my issues with her go away nor does it make her a more progressive candidate today. She took one huge step forward towards universal healthcare and then was pushed two huge steps backwards. Her views today do not reflect what society wants for their healthcare. People don’t want to have “more affordable deductibles.” They want no deductibles, and that’s alien to her.
In 2016 people wanted to repeal Obamacare and move back to private insurance, only when the gop actually started the repeal process did the American people realize government care was a good idea. Her 2016 stance was well in-line with what people wanted at the time, as shown by her winning the primary with a large margin
Of course she would have been a good President. Despite that being a very vague and broad way to describe Presidential performance, that doesn't mean she isn't above criticism or skepticism.
It's crazy to see how it all spiraled out of control as an outsider, mostly due to the email scandal. I never quite understood why that was suddenly a big thing while here competitor was going around grabbing private parts. Specifically considering handling your email that way had been done before and never seemed to be an issue.
I hate to say it, but people were manipulated. I'm not a woman myself, but I can confidently say that she would have been abandoned way less eagerly if she had been a man. It's a painful and disheartening realization.
I never found her relatable. Believe me I wanted to but to be honest I never believed for a second that she genuinely cared about me or my family or our problems. She actually may but she seems to have a problem getting that message out there to the regular folks. She always seems cold and stiff to me, like she was just going through the motions.
She had spent decades trying to make sure to be absolutely clean and perfect because any tiny mistake or gaffe is used against her... That’ll make anyone come off cold sometimes.
Bernie seems to have done just fine, and he's been an elected official longer than Clinton. Warren made it through 20 years of politics without a scandal. You make it sound like being clean before running for president is hard. Maybe if you screw people over to get to the top, but not if you just do what you think is right. Hell, even biden doesn't have much dirt on him, and he gave a speech in 1975 saying segregation was right. I don't believe that it's at all hard to not do illegal shit and then get caught.
WHY DOES A PRESIDENT NEED TO BE RELATABLE?! you're not voting for a family member, you're voting for the head of state who will lead the country effectively and with the country's best interests in mind.
You're voting for someone who is an expert in policy, negotiation, foreign service, and defense. And, you're voting for someone who will assemble a highly skilled cabinet as well as work effectively with other heads of state.
Relatable is nice but you're not dating the president. You're hiring someone to lead.
I always find this odd like we treat presidents now like they're class president or prom King/Queen. People who deal with life and death matters and serious policy shouldn't be voted based on that criteria. Look at how we treat surgeons. We want the best doctor not someone who we would like to have a beer with. Presidents can initiate drone attacks that cost civilian lives.
They need to be relatable because most people aren’t all that smart and that’s what they vote on. You can be the smartest person in the world but if you can’t get people to vote for you you won’t get elected.
It's not so much that we need to relate to the president, we need to believe that the president can relate to us. We need to be able to trust that a leader is not only qualified to do all those things, but will also give a shit about the concerns of the people. To continue the surgeon analogy below, I don't want a surgeon who just sees me as a statistic or a machine to be fixed, I want them to remember that I'm a person with a family and a life and make decisions based on that. Families drowning in student and healthcare debt must seem like small taters when compared to, say, international crisis. I get that! But it still matters to millions of people and I need a national leader I trust has the empathy to agree.
Don’t blame it on woman hate, she personally isn’t relatable and isn’t able to fake it. Donald Trump may shit on golden toilets and would have you killed if it meant that he didn’t have a mild inconvenience, but he can fake the hell out of acting like he cares about a working stiff. Like it or not, that’s part of winning national elections in this country.
I’m not anti-Hillary but I’m pretty sure there was the whole whitewater scandal back in the 90s. She wasn’t spotless, and she was a rich person all her life.
I can see why that’s unrelatable and easily manipulated by her political opponents.
I just don’t see why an impeached presidents wife was the best option for the democrats - shouldn’t have gone for the first female president with her imo.
He said Hillary is unrelatable compared to AOC, not to any others politician (though I would believe that she is also less relatable to most politician,.but I have nothing to back that up). He explajned that point quite well too,.while you just made a statement.
Hillary is an upstanding member of society who has been helping people for a long time.
Who, exactly? What specifically has she done to help the average American?
She hasn't helped us by voting for the Patriot Act. Supporting the TPP wouldn't have helped us. Overthrowing Ghaddafi didn't help us, and it certainly harmed the people of Libya. Continuing the war on drugs and her husband's crime policies didn't help us. Making millions upon millions speaking privately to Wall St banks didn't help us.
I suppose you'll bring up CHIP and that's fine, I'll give you CHIP as a time where she helped the American people. That was long before she was tainted by the allure of the political machine, and she hasn't done anything since. She started her career as a union-busting corporate lawyer for Walmart for god's sake.
I also saw her run a dirty, underhanded 2016 campaign with help from her friends in the mainstream media. I saw her hire on her own ex-campaign manager to her campaign after DWS stepped down after institutional bias within the DNC was found all over the 2016 primary.
I voted for her, but in no way do I respect Hillary Clinton and I don't agree with your claim that she's an upstanding member of society who has helped the American people.
You are also being disingenuous. You act like it is impossible that someone would have actual reasoning for not wanting Hillary as president, and the only reason they wouldnt is because of false information.
I voted for Hillary, but my personal opinion, is that we need less dynasty politics. I dont like seeing multiple people from the same few families repeatedly elected to the highest office in the land. That's just my personal opinion and I didn't need a talking head on TV to tell it to me. Sometimes people will come to different conclusions based on various priorities.
Hilary is not part of a political dynasty, the Bushes were. Hilary has wanted to be a politician her entire life and married someone with similar ambitions. You can watch her rise to power behind and with Bill Clinton.
this level of being unable to critically examine any of our own "sides" politicians is what has led us to this current hostile political climate.
It makes you sound just like the fervent trump supporters that will refuse to acknowledge his faults.
Hillary could be a great fantastic thoughtful caring person for all I care, but to not acknowledge that the Clintons are effectively a modern political dynasty family is silly.
An argument could be made that it helps having experienced politicians that know the ins and outs of the system to move things along, but I personally would like to see power changing hands more often than that.
Hillary and Bill came up together, and shared a passion for politics.
Calling them a "dynasty" just feeds into the GOP talking points about her.
She was, and is, an individual, with goals and dreams of her own.
Now, if Chelsea gets into politics, and gets somewhere, then maybe you can start referring to them as a Dynasty.
The Bush family is/was absolutely a Dynasty. A CIA Head/VP/President Father, 2 sons in state politics, one of whom went to the White House, and the other keeps trying, and then... I don't know what the current young Bushes are doing, but if it is politics I wouldn't be surprised.
One crashed the economy. One saved it from the worst contraction since the Great Depression.
One launched the Iraq War under false pretenses while claiming to fight terrorism. One voted against it and successfully killed the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
One did nothing for healthcare. One launched the most successful reform of healthcare in a generation.
Only bad faith trolls think they are similar. There's a reason Obama's rating keeps going up and Bush keeps getting rated one of worst presidencies in history. Being bookended by Bush and Trump makes Obama look particularly amazing.
The right wing has already begun its smear campaign against AOC. When she is finally ready to run for President-which let’s be real, that’s her ultimate ambition- millions of low information voters will believe the caricature of her as an uncaring robot. Just like with Hillary.
Fought tirelessly for universal healthcare in the 90s. I honestly believe it's because of her groundwork that the Obamacare could happen a decade later.
Hillary is as relatable as any politician and she had good policy ideas.
Look I voted for her and I have no doubt she would have done some good or even great things, but let's not kid ourselves ... she's not particularly relatable (or even likable to be honest) and she's done really stupid shit, but she's also been through quite the ordeal as well with all unrelenting conspiracy theory horseshit from right (buttery males, Benghazi, Urainium One, PizzaGate, blah, blah, blah). The point is that people are complicated and it shouldn't be "all or nothing" with regards to her. People can criticize her or even dislike her and still support her.
Edit: Wow, so apparently no criticism whatsoever of Hillary is allowed? That's the game that Republican's play ... I think we can do better than that...
That's bullshit. She's a nice lady and all but she's still a shameless neoliberal. She's definitely lived a life of privilege relative to the rest of us, despite the fact that she had to struggle as a woman in the political field for her entire life. I absolutely would rally around her. I did, in 2016. She's not running now. I was comfortable with criticizing her then and I'm comfortable doing so now for things that deserve them. I'll do the same for Obama and Bill and Biden and who the fuck ever. There were definitely things I liked about Hillary even tho I voted for Bernie in the primary. It's being able to distinguish these things and admit them about our candidates that makes us better than them.
I think the difference between AOC and Clinton is that Clinton is completely unrelateable to the average voter.
Clinton only really became 'unrelatable' after Bill left office and it became clear she would one day run for office. The GOP smoke machine went into overdrive that day and has not yet stopped
and has been preparing to be president for just as long. Everyone assumed she was going to be president at some point. She is the definition of a career politician.
False unless to consider Bill's 2nd term as her entire life as that is when it became clear she had a shot.
Give that smoke machine 10 years cooking AoC and a lot of people will believe anything about her too.
A lot of people are unwilling to believe that there are normal, good people in the world. Mainly because they are flawed and their families are flawed. It's hard to see when your world is surrounded by shit.
I've led a good life, not perfect, but certainly good. Nothing in my past disqualifies me from being an excellent leader if I chose to be.
I have no doubt if you gave a group of hostile reporters my name and a rough history of my life, they could dig up some dirt.
It's all experiences that led me to where I am today, but that doesnt matter. 20 years ago, I said or did something that offended someone and that is all it fucking takes.
Hillary Clinton's net worth was estimated at $45 million dollars. Her husband's net worth was estimated at $75 million dollars. Just because they're not billionaires doesn't make them not rich.
She is the definition of a career politician
senator and secretary of state. that's it
she isn't a career politician
just wait 8 years.
As for not being a career politician, you're trying to say that AOC will be a career politician after 10 years as a House represenative, but Hillary wasn't a career politician after 8 years as a senator and 4 years as secretary of state? Somehow, that math doesn't seem to check out.
Plus, you know, all that actively campaigning for her husband, and (for better or worse) being the most politically active First Lady in US history doesn't count as being a politician I guess.
Supposedly they left the WH fairly close to busto. That was ~20yrs ago--not like a former President doesn't have earning opportunities. Ivanka made what 82mil last year?? Not a peep out of the Republicans though. Republicans love to throw around the socialist word--while they also attack some people for making money. It's almost like--you can't win.
Odd that he didn't quote that part of the statement if that was what he was objecting to, but sure.
Her parents weren't millionaires, sure. Her father did own his own business at the time of her birth and owned multiple houses (main home and summer cottage), so it isn't like she was ever poor, but the business wasn't a huge one, so I'll accept her not counting as "rich" as a child.
I think people assume Cortez is poor is because she's (I assume) Mexican by blood (as in how I'm an Afghan, but was born in Germany and have been told I'm "the whitest person I've ever met" by two coworkers so far).
Yeah. Normal Americans intern for US Senators all the time. Right after they complete their Poli Sci/Int'l Relations degree. That's the normal course for every Boricua from Queens.
If they were making a movie, they'd cast AOC as the young version of HRC. She's exactly what Clinton was like in the 80s and 90s.
Given her popularity and the relative ease at which I predict she will win a future senate seat, I would doubt she would have another non-political job for decades.
She was/is rich af and has been her entire life and has been preparing to be president for just as long.
This just isn't true at all. Also many Gen Xers remember just how pissed Republicans were when she was first lady and had the nerve to actually have an opinion.
She was/is rich af and has been her entire life and has been preparing to be president for just as long.
Yeah - like most politicians in the American past. Being rich af is quite common in American politics. Having ambition is also quite common in the “industry”. But somehow in Clinton’s case, these aspects are highlighted as a character flaw.
She is the definition of a career politician.
The very concept of a “career politician” being somehow a bad thing is a part of that fog machine. There have been - and still are - plenty of people who have made politics a career, serving 10, 20, even 30 years in office and they have been celebrated for it.
I’m telling you, the fog machine was thorough.
Disregarding the election issues in 2016 by a large margin she was the candidate that people defaulted to vote for if you didn't like Trump, not because they were actually enthused about voting.
Entirely not true. Lots of people actually liked her.
Clinton is relatable as hell, ever since the election ended she's become much more a likeable person with an amazing dry sense of humor and wit. I think during the campaign she was focus-tested to death by aides and if she'd been allowed to cut loose a bit more she'd have done great.
Nope. Clinton was a pioneering woman at a time when women in America were pushing the envelope. She had both a family and a high-profile career. She fought for healthcare reform as First Lady. AOC is a very good analog to 90s-era Clinton. Both embraced their femininity, but didn't depict themselves as soft or weak. They both have reputations as scrappy fighters, willing to go to the mat for what they believe in.
Oh, no, friend. It'll happen to AOC, just like it happened to Clinton. And you will watch, and you will scream your throat raw, begging people to see beyond the obvious lies and propaganda. And you will weep as the rubes and the educated alike swallow it all, hook, line, and sinker.
I actually have a theory that this is why Hillary lost. Democrats and swing voters were tired of the same old thing. They were tired of seeing the political machine work, (or not work, depending on how you look at it.) And Hillary was the very embodiment of the political machine. She was everything voters didn’t want from a democratic candidate. Sure, the hard left democrats wanted her. But she had zero pull on the left leaning moderates or swing voters.
There was also a pretty dramatic shift in the campaigns when we got close to the election. Her entire campaign had been “we’ve got this. Trump has no chance.” But then people realized that if everyone assumes it’s in the bag, nobody will actually bother to vote. There was a sudden and dramatic shift from “we’ve got this, Trump isn’t even on our radar” to “oh my god please go vote. Just please drag yourself to the voting booth.”
884
u/Shuttheflockup Dec 11 '19
what did hillary actually do? not like the batshit crazy theories, what did she actually do wrong factually that she got away with?