Without much to add I just wanted to share this article I came across, which is one of the more succinct attempts I have seen to knock down myths perpetrated about our nominee (a few of which, unfortunately, even appearing on BMG either explicitly or implicitly from time to time).
Please share widely!
Here’s a quick summary of the cited piece:
1. Hillary Clinton shared state secrets through her private email server: Nope. Didn’t happen.
2. Hillary Clinton uses the Clinton Foundation to launder money for herself: Nope. Didn’t happen
3. People could “buy” appointments with Secretary Clinton by donating to the Clinton Foundation: Nope. Some contributors were appointed — they almost certainly would have been appointed anyway.
4. Hillary Clinton approved a Russian uranium deal because of Clinton Foundation donations: Nope. Just another lie.
5. Hillary Clinton is responsible for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi: Nope. Even though the GOP squandered millions of dollars in public funds trying to insinuate this, it is simply false.
6. Hillary Clinton is a conservative: Nope
7. Hillary Clinton is owned by Wall Street: Nope. Bernie Sanders tried hard to find evidence of this and failed. There is no evidence that any of the contributions she received from constituents influenced her vote at all. Her platform “is one of the most aggressive and progressive plans to curb Wall Street corruption by any candidate, ever.”
8. Hillary Clinton is not a feminist: Nope, not even close
9. Hillary Clinton is dishonest: Nope, not even close
10. Hillary Clinton defended a rapist and laughed about it: Nope, just another lie
Appointments in this context means scheduled meetings with her as opposed to being named to a position. At least, I have never heard the word “appoint” as a verb to mean “arranged a meeting with”.
before the truth gets its pants on.” MARK TWAIN
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I do think that things like security in the context of email servers is not something that finds easy understanding among those born before a certain time (1960?) no matter how smart they are. It is still just the electric message machine to them.
by Wall Street. Come on. When Goldman Sachs gives her hundreds of thousands of dollars on multiple occasions, only a fool would think that they did not expect to get a return on that investment.
PROVE IT!
That’s rather naive. You want me to believe in a world where ultra wealthy corporations, controlled by a minority of wealthy citizens, give hundreds of thousand of dollars to politicians just out out of civic duty and expect nothing in return? Really? I’ll believe that as much as I believed the CEO of Wells Fargo when he said their con game was all about “deepening relationships with their customers”. Well, we can’t PROVE that he’s wrong….but only a fool would think that he’s telling the truth.
I need you to give specific examples of quid pro quos where Clinton changed a vote or stance based on a contribution. She was Senator from NY, the home of Wall Street, so you can’t exactly expect there to be no connections or relationships. You call me naive – I call you cynical.
“Huh. Pro-Hillary post, rather innocuous title. Twelve comments. I bet johntmay is trolling in the comments, and people fell for it.”
Yep.
is it?
The thread-starter is a legitimate reference to a relevant link. My comment, to which JTM responded, is a simple summary of the headlines from the thread-starter. So it seems he characterizes any attempt to challenge his unrestrained hostility towards Ms. Clinton as “trolling”.
As I have the distinct impression that my comment is feeding a troll, I’m going to attempt to ignore JTM’s remaining comments here.
I will say that these are, in fact, myths, and that some alleged Democrats seem dedicated to perpetuating them. One can only wonder why.
A post listing all the things that are “not bad” about our candidate.
Yup, that’s what we’ve come to, sadly.
That’s the news we can offer. Hey, vote for our candidate, she’s not nearly as bad as theirs!
Imagine driving down a highway and seeing a billboard promoting a local restaurant with the following message:
Despite rumors to the contrary, we have never been shut down by the health department, our chef does not pick his nose, and no matter what you have read elsewhere…..we do not just microwave frozen food.
Yeah, mouth watering, isn’t it? Makes you want to pull in and grab a table.
No wonder voter turnout is low, and getting lower.
…if I were the owner of that restaurant which has been subject to 25 years of rumor and innuendo about the health and safety of my establishment, despite passing official health inspections consistently and with flying colors, I’d put a lot of time and effort into pushing back on the lies and making people aware of the facts too.
I don’t think it’s as bad as all that yet, but we’re certainly not that far from it. But more to the point, do we have to downrate everything negative? This isn’t Up with People.
Your billboard analogy stands reality on its ear.
A better analogy is driving down a highway and seeing billboard after billboard with various (ten cited here) attacks on a local restaurant.
You pull into town, and discover that the people who’ve actually eaten there say they like it a LOT, that it’s the best restaurant in town, and that in fact the billboards are being purchased by an out-of-town syndicate that has tried and failed to open their restaurants in town for twenty years.
I made a comment here citing four readily accessible positive messages (billboards supporting the restaurant, in your analogy), and you complained about those:
It is indeed sad that we’ve come to this. You dismiss positive messages about Ms. Clinton, you argue against every attempt to defend her from the multiple of lies and myths spread about her, and you jump on every thread attacking Donald Trump to complain about those attacks.
You really leave no room for the campaign of Hillary Clinton to do anything that meets your approval.
Is she a progressive, a liberal? What is she at her core? Just curious.
Every measure I have seen puts her firmly on that side of the spectrum. Her core values are fighting to make sure everyone has a shot and is treated with dignity and respect. She has a 40-year record to prove it.
de-regulating the banks and putting more restrictions on the safety net for the poor part of that spectrum? Did I miss something?
I’m just going by the research others have done, but those examples I generally associate more with her husband. If those votes actually came up during her Senate tenure maybe voting differently would make her 5th most liberal Senator rather than 11th, but I’m more than happy to take 11th. You have to judge he entire record, not cherry pick votes you disagree with to find excuses to bash her.
I see. What her husband did is not at issue, even though she has said recently that she might put him in charge of the economy….and the fact that her husband was the president matters only to the point that she was “first lady”. She had no involvement with any of his actions that a progressive might find upsetting. She was only involved in his actions that a progressive would admire.
Not that I expect you to read it, but I’d recommend “Winner Take All Politics” by Pierson and Hacker (and endorsed by Senator Warren) that illustrates how seemingly “progressive/liberal” legislators can do much damage to the labor class with a few scattered votes in strategic areas (or what you would dismiss as cherry picking)
…I probably would by definition dismiss as cherry picking. Let me try again about her husband. He had the most economically successful presidency probably since the Vietnam War. If he were given an economic role I would welcome that very much. It accrues to the benefit of Hillary that she played such an active policy role in her eight years as FLOTUS. (Note that this is very different from simply being FLOTUS.) HOWEVER, one should not assume that her presidency will be a carbon copy of his or that even Bill himself would propose the exact same solutions a generation later. Both Clintons are smarter and more capable than that. (I really get tired of repeating myself; you raise the same points ad nauseum and then wonder why you get called a troll.)
….you do know that was in large part, a bubble caused by the deregulation of Wall Street and the commodities markets? Maybe you don’t.
…but if that is what did it, well, I’m loathe to argue with success. Millions of jobs created and increasing incomes at all levels sounds pretty good to me. Not to mention the rising stock market and holding inflation down.
Slavery creates millions of jobs. World War II created millions of jobs. As long as progressive get excited with “created millions of jobs” and have the attitude that “the money HAS to come from somewhere”, we will remain in the mess that we are in.
…the loss of large amounts of life and property. Don’t be obtuse.
… because it wasn’t.
Clinton did exactly what you say you want: he raised taxes on the rich. He created whole new brackets for both individual and corporate incomes, changed the caps on medicare; and upped the transportation fuels tax. In 1993 he did exactly what you wanted, without a single Republican vote in the congress, and the effect was exactly as you predicted.
The deregulation of Wall Street and the commodities market was a much more piecemeal erosion of regulation and reached its apotheosis in the Second Bush administration. Bill Clinton’s hands are not clean with respect to de-regulation, but it wasn’t the centerpiece of his wildly successful economic agenda.
Bill Clinton’s hands are not clean with respect to de-regulation, but ….
Always the “but”…..to too many supposed “progressives” here, the Clintons are Teflon.
Bill Clinton was also politically successful, being the first Dem since FDR to win two terms. The only question I have is why more Dems don’t appreciate what he managed to accomplish It was Dittoheads such as yourself that they had to contend with so please don’t try to have it both ways.
A “Ditto head” comment. Look, if you can’t come up with a substantive reply, a personal attack is not the way to go here.
I just think it takes an awful lot of chutzpuh to attack for from the right in the 90s, attack her from the left in the 10s, most of said attacks being unfounded from both sides, then be horrified that she and her allies put so much effort into defending her.
and personal attacks. Please, this is boring
Substantive replies were offered here by both petr and christopher, and you’ve dismissed each of them.
Not just dismissed them, but dismissed them with precisely the kind of rhetoric that Rush Limbaugh used to build his career. You dismiss the substantive reply as “excuses”, and seize on the single word “but” (the easiest way to address that criticism is to replace “but” with “and” — the original argument is still sound).
When you use the rhetorical style of Rush Limbaugh, you invite accurate observations that you are doing so.
Straw man attacks against the person you need me to be and not who I really am. Give it up, please. It’s boring.
I don’t want to tell you to shut up, but let’s recap where we are. What do you want us to do? We admit HRC is flawed. Trump is worse. One of them is going to be President.
So really, I don’t know what the goal is. The problems you bring up are real, and importantly, they are BIGGER, much bigger, than HRC. I think you do better when you discuss broad issues. I don’t know where you saying “Yeah, but this!” and six people saying ‘There you go again” and you replying “It’s not about me” gets us.
There is an election going, and election day is in less than a month. Many unprecedented things have been happening, for quite some time, which makes it a far more interesting, and nerve-racking, election than we have had in awhile. One would hope that the various discussions here would be likewise interesting, but one would hope in vain. Instead, every single thread on national politics here– for almost the entirety of 2016–has been exactly the same as the conversation above. Exactly. The. Same.
At this point, it is just dull. What has been disappointing is that the dull has, for many months now, crowded out the interesting. It’s a shame.
… yet, however, nevertheless, notwithstanding and nonetheless…
… you were wrong. You wrote a thing that was incorrect. Bill Clinton’s economic policy was not centered upon de-regulation but rather was based, first and foremost, upon doing exactly as you have prescribed in other places on this very blog: raising taxes upon the rich. It was the most complete and comprehensive refutation of conservative economic policies in our lifetime … and you’re going to double down on Clinton’s perfidy with respect to de-regulation? because… why? Do you have any idea how transparently childish that appears…?
You would rather ignore your own mistakes (the incorrect thing you said) AS WELL AS ignoring the correct things you’ve said (raise taxes upon the rich) in order to … do what? Blow a razzberry at the Clintons?
Or, put another way, what’s your point? Do you wish an honest debate? Or are you just seeking ways to play the dozens against the Clintons?
And governed as one. Okay? Deregulate the rich, increased regulations on the poor and labor. Do you want an honest debate or do you want to ignore the truth?
Since those are the commitments and promises that Hillary Clinton has pledged to enact, and that is the metric by which her candidacy will be judged.
Are any of the policies she is running on neoliberal? This piece is well worth reading. I will fight on your side to criticize the center-right lurch Bill Clinton took the Democratic Party, it is the main reason I became a Dean volunteer in 2004 and why sites like this one exist.
I have forgiven, but will never forget, her foolhardy votes for the Patriot Act and Iraq War. But we are talking about a Senator who had the fourth or fifth most liberal voting record while she was in the Senate. Someone who on domestic economic issues campaign to the left of Barack Obama in 2008, and had more labor endorsements than either Obama or Sanders in their respective primary runs. She’s been endorsed by Bernie Sanders who calls her a progressive who will fight for his values. She’s been endorsed by Elizabeth Warren.
Assuming your worst criticism of her is correct, that she is a politician who follows the polls and will do anything to gain and keep power-in 2016 that forces her to be a progressive. The threat of a primary run by Sanders or Warren in 2020, the need to retake Congress with grassroots momentum and millennial voters in 2018, and the need to maintain the Obama coalition of people of color and young professionals will force her to keep these promises. Social democracy is supported by majorities of voters under 30, gay marriage, black lives matter, and fighting income inequality are supported by even larger majorities of that cohort. The DLC is literally dead.
We can debate endlessly about whether the Clinton’s moved the party to the right, center, or left in the 1990s. Or we can recognize that in 2016, the party is clearly to the left, and if Hillary wants the White House, that is the direction she has to go. If she wants to keep the White House, that is the direction she must stay.
No, of course not. Why have you joined the ranks of those putting words in my mouth? Sure, she’s pledged to enact that platform. She’s also promised to put Bill in charge of the economy. So which one will it be? Why should we give her a pass to say she will do two opposing things?
And please, even a “fifth most liberal” can place a critical vote where is does significant harm to labor. You know that as well as I.
On the other hand, I do agree with you. If she wants a second term, she might want to turn left. That said, her selection of VP is a sign that turning left is not in the plans yet.
She will owe her election to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren getting youth turnout to come out. She will owe her election to Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter who changed the tone and questions asked at the debate. She will owe her election to Latinos and white working class women.
She will owe her election to becoming a progressive champion. A centrist Hillary beholden to Wall Street doesn’t win this nomination and doesn’t get elected President. A Hillary that governs as a centrist after campaigning as a progressive doesn’t get re-elected. It’s as simple as they.
I agree with everything you say here.
The reality is that, in spite of that, Ms. Clinton faces significant hostility driven in large part by these ten myths. That hostility will not evaporate by wishing it away.
Ms. Clinton is running positive ads. At the same time, we saw what happened to John Kerry when he chose to ignore the Swift Boat lies. It seems to me that an independent piece like this, offering the truth about against the multitude of lies being spread against her, can only help.
It would be even better if the mainstream media, so complicit in spreading each of these, would perhaps work as hard to now report the truth about Ms. Clinton.
A centrist Hillary beholden to Wall Street doesn’t win this nomination and doesn’t get elected President. But people like me are afraid that is what she becomes after the election and we’re just getting a head start with fighting against it now.
What is the worst thing her critics say about her that is accurate? That she is ambitious and pragmatic to a fault. That is what her foes on both the right and left consistently say. With the right, it is laced with sexism that it’s not the proper place for a women to advance. I’ve defended you from that charge, but when we see folks like Trump, Rudy, or Gingrich offended at her ambition, it’s the height of misogynist hypocrisy.
From the left, the criticism is laced with the kind of purity before results ethos that always splits the movement and prevents the kind of fusionism that allowed the right to be successful for so many years. This fusionism is the ‘sweet spot’ of ideological flexibility and respect for progressive principles. It’s what separates successful presidents from unsuccessful presidents, and successful candidates from unsuccessful candidates.
Reagan reached out to the middle while energizing his base, and the modern electoral reality will force Hillary to do the same. If she does one without the other, her presidency is dead on arrival. That reality will likely force her to govern as a progressive to stay in power. So really, the ambitious and pragmatic thing to do is to govern as a liberal. We are already seeing this kind of ambition on health care.
It’s called her past. How many things do we have to list where she has taken this side and then that side? As a progressive, I have a reason to be worried about what side she will take once elected. Sure, just like all first term presidents, Hillary will be running her re-election campaign one second after being sworn in. Our goal, as progressives, is to see that she takes our side, a side that she has taken on occasion, but not as reliably as we would want.
I think there have been four theories running throughout this entire primary debate.
1) The Clinton’s Were Always Awesome and Will be Awesome Again
Tom and Christopher think Bill was a great President and think Hillary will be a greater President and genuinely like them both. I can respect this position while disagreeing with aspects of it.
2) The Clinton’s Were Always Liars Pursuing Power and Will Be Again
You veer close to this, it was very common on the right but it also common now on the left with folks like Greenwald, Nader, and sadly Thomas Frank who is usually more astute and level headed in studying power. We’ve seen it from some of the Bernie folks.
3) The ‘Real’ Hillary is Really Liberal
I think Bob Neer, Fred, and others have pushed this idea that Hillary was really a liberal but had to ‘play the game’ in order to be First Lady, get elected Senator, re-elected, and taken seriously as a candidate in 2008. Not to mention her role in the 1990’s as the liberal conscience of the centrist Clinton Administration. Krugman adopts this view, Robert Reich is close to this view and also to the view below.
4) Hillary as Pragmatic Progressive
This is my view. I think they are pragmatists that see themselves as agents of change and want to be in power to affect change for the right reasons, but also are political animals who will adapt to suit the needs of the moment. Hence, Bill Clinton was a lot more conservative a Democrat as President and as a candidate in the 1990s than we-the voting base of the progressive moment-would countenance today. But perhaps that was needed for those particular times. I wasn’t there, and frankly, I am not really interested in that discussion. Leave it to the historians.
What I am interested in is what she will do, and she has stated 100% agreement with the most progressive platform the Democratic Party has ever adopted. One it would not have adopted, in my judgment, were it not for the courageous primary campaign of Senator Sanders. An agenda that will have zero support in a Trump administration.
Not only is Hillary the lesser of two evils compared to Trump, but she is actually going to enact the Sanders agenda. She has adopted his platform on trade, college debt, and strongly endorsed a public option. She did so again in an Op-Ed this past weekend. Her debate was focused on a very liberal economic agenda, liberal social agenda, and a foreign policy agenda that largely builds on the diplomatic legacy of the Obama presidency.
Presidents keep the majority of their promises according to some studies, and the fact that the US ranks lower than the UK and Canada on that list is due to our penchant for divided government, which is impossible in a parliamentary system.
The voters ultimately hold the power, and it is up to us to hold Hillary accountable. I do not doubt all of us here will participate in that effort.
The Clintons have qualities that I admire and aspects that trouble me. So, I will ignore #1 and #2 as “always” is not a perceptive typically employ.
#3 What the “real” Hillary is remains to be seen. I know from my own past experiences that people can change. So can she, so has she.
#4 I see here more as a pragmatic politician, not a pragmatic progressive. If she enacts an agenda more in line with Sanders, I will be one of her most strident supporters when she runs for re-election. If she, however, stays along the past suggested by her VP choice, well, good luck, have a nice day.
You say she will be elected by white working class women…and I would suggest you talk to a few. Even here in MA, I have been surprised, frankly, at how 35-something women who work in retail, gardening, hospitality, etc. despise her. It is an echo of the failed feminist ‘guiliting’ that she tried early in the campaign with Steinhem and other feminist ‘icons’ that these younger women never heard of.
People can despise her and hope she fails for reasons that have nothing to do with her gender.
If, as has been handily demonstrated time and again, and again in this very diary, the fact that people have to make shit up about THIS woman suggests their true reasons for despising her aren’t particularly palatable enough to be mentioned out loud.
All that notwithstanding, the worst allegations against Secretary Clinton are not only unproved, but wouldn’t rise to anything comparably noxious as the definitive acts and statements of Donald Trump. Anybody who would choose an absurdity as singular as Donald Trump over Secretary Clinton has very little other than deep-set aversion to estrogen to justify their choice.
but to her most ardent supporters, just about any criticism is called sexist, any faults mentioned are attributed to her spouse, and any decision she has reversed position on is rationalized as being the only choice she had.
Her rabid supporters are just the other side of the coin from her tin foil hat attackers.
…
Do you assert that others have not made shit up about Secretary Clinton?
Do you, further, assert that the bulk of the narrative about Secretary Clinton is NOT made up shit (the polite here have been calling these made up shit ‘myths’ but I prefer to call a spade a spade)
Do you, therefore, assert that you and you alone can sift through all of it, the made and the real, to see the true narrative behind the lies? If so, please advise the shortsighted remainder of us who’ve chosen to defenestrate the entire narrative and go by what we see in action… we could, after all, be wrong.
I really hope that is the case, since the alternative is for you to take a deep and searching timeout and recognize how much the false narratives have shaped your view of Secretary Clinton.
I think I’ve amply demonstrated, time and again, that I’m a rabid supporter of the truth, the whole truth and nuttin but… Trump supporters and those who attack Secretary Clinton have earned my white-hot enmity by their easy torturing of the truth and their casual misanthropy… not because they attack Secretary Clinton, but because they do so in vile and dishonorable ways. You may very well dismiss this enmity for it’s viciousness, and call yourself objective, but you are not: Sometimes people are utterly deserving of a righteous anger.
Do I, therefore, assert that I and I alone can sift through all of it? No, what ever gave the idea to strut that straw man out?
“Trump supporters and those who attack Secretary Clinton”
Please explain. Is any criticism of Secretary Clinton “an attack”? If not, what are the boundaries that you will accept? That would make life easier.
Or is even asking such a question vile and dishonorable in your mind?
… has the opposite affect.
How do you discern a legitimate criticism amongst the sheer weight of calumny, shaded-truths, half-truths and outright lies?? Please, tell me… I’m eager to hear.
If, as you allege, you have “not made anything up” but most of the criticism of her is invalid, what makes your criticism valid? And why should I trust it?
Frankly, Secretary Clinton gets a pass. She might indeed be the most vile and wicked despot ever. But I can’t tell for all the obvious chaff what’s real when I see that most of it is not: It’s not clear at all that any criticism I’ve heard has any merit whatsoever. So then I have to go by what I see Secretary Clinton do and what I hear her say.
At some point, yes. If 100 people tell me a hundred different and handily disprovable lies about someone, I’m not going to believe the 101st. You throw your lot in with liars, you’re going to be distrusted. Is that my problem? Nope. That’s yours.
The only sure fire way, it is said, not to wake up next to a whore is not to go to bed with a whore.
So you are admitting here that you cannot tell the difference between a legitimate criticism a shaded-truths, a half-truths and outright lies?? So how do you tell the difference between the data you have on her positive accomplishments? How can you tell which are legitimate, which are half truths and which are outright lies? Or is your point that ALL positive things you know about the Secretary are true, with metaphysical certainty, and ALL negative points are in question?
Really? You are willing to admit that here?
… a long train of repeated and repulsive lies about somebody, constantly shifting and even contradicting the internal logic of the separate tall-tales, tells me more about the liars than the object of their untruths.
That’s what this argument is about. You continually try to turn it back ti a referendum upon Clinton. I’m not playing that game: this has long since ceased to be about Secretary Clinton and is more about you.
People have lied, outrageously and egregiously, about Secretary Clinton. These people think they can get away with it because people like you join with them, fueling the animosity for the sake of your own passive-aggressive rage-gasm.
BMG: “Hey, did you hear the myth about Hillary Clinton is busted…?”
You: “Yabbut, there’s this other story…”
BMG: “Oh, that one was busted also…”
You ” Yabbut, what about this here other one..?”
BMG: “Busted.”
You: “But what about the time she- – ”
BMG: “Busted”
You: “But the time she —”
BMG: “Busted. It’s like a conspiracy or something.”
You: “but if they are all lies, how can you know anything about her positive accomplishments.”
BMG: “…wait, what?”
You: “And, besides, her supporters are just as bad as the liars, calling everybody sexist.”
BMG: “Are you ok? Do we need to call someone?”
Is that your answer?
People have lied, outrageously and egregiously, about Secretary Clinton. …yes, on both sides; her supporters and her attackers.
Not me.
Your comments form a pattern called a “Gish Gallop” that precludes any substantive exchange about the real issues.
The ten myths being spread about Ms. Clinton are real and substantive. Demolishing those myths helps address her high “negatives” in polling, especially among younger voters who too often do not know the truth about these matters.
It is unfortunate, therefore, that the comments on this thread have been derailed into yet another anti-Clinton dead end.
…painting a false picture of me to “win” an argument against. I had hoped you would end that practice. Maybe in time you will.
Have you made any comments on this thread that are not critical of Ms. Clinton?
Perhaps you dispute my characterization as a “Gish Gallop”. What I see in your commentary here on this thread is a large number of readily disproved assertions — so many that I”ll not further distract from the thread-starter by disproving each one. That, for me, is enough to merit “Gish Gallop”.
Secretary Clinton. Yes. Have I posted any criticism that are lies, falsehoods, etc? Nope.
What’s your point, apart from trying to discredit anyone who dares criticize “the most qualified human being in history” to seek the office of the presidency?
As I said earlier: if 100 people tell me a hundred different and handily disprovable lies about someone, I’m not going to believe the 101st. So, you’re the 101st and I don’t believe you. (This isn’t to say you don’t believe yourself and I believe that you have not deliberately proffered any falsehoods…) But the chum is in the water and the sharks are circling. If you add an actual fish I don’t know that you’re not just chumming the waters more. Sucks to be you. You want it to be different ? You want the absolute truth about Hillary Clinton to be told? You have to take sides against the liars, not against me.
Also, your repeated attempts to shift this debate (in particular) and other debates (in general) from mythbusting the liars back to ballbusting any Clinton isn’t doing very much for your argument. It smacks of a need to justify your animosity. I’m just saying.
spend so much time listening to 100 people telling you 100 lies? Me? I fact check, do research, read, read, read. Yes, I want the truth to be told, don’t you? Why censor the truth, as you are recommending?
See, that’s the problem when Democrats run a candidate as weak as Hillary. We’re on the defensive, as you and others are forced to go to great lengths. Even this thread is proof of that. Is there really no one better to run than someone we have to list “10 things that do not suck about our candidate”?
… So now it’s my fault. In the pantheon of rhetorical bait and switch you’ve used about all of them, even contradicting your own previous statements, just because you want to translate “10 myths busted” as “10 things that don’t suck…”
Ac-cent-u-ate the negative…. E-lim-in-ate the positive.
That’s the song ole Bing Crosby would sing today, too… if he were alive to see all these here women wearing pants and makin speeches and gettin up to all manner of mischief.
…it is because of people like you who attack her first from the right and then from the left who got her and us to where we are. Maybe if you spent more time building her up rather than tearing her down she wouldn’t look quite so “weak”!
more excuses and targeting of others for her faults.
If their criticism of Clinton is that she isn’t advancing their economic or social interests and they dislike her advocacy for positions they disagree with, that’s fine. I think attacking her for being ‘ruthless’, ‘ambitious’, and ‘cunning’ and other lines of attack similar to that, are double standards that don’t get employed against women.
I admire Nikki Haley as a center right figure qualified of leading her party to the White House who is capable of governing. We have philosophical disagreements about the role of government that would prevent me from voting for her, but I would never attack her as ambitious or cunning or view those qualities which are usually perceived as virtuous in men as flaws with women.