The Lynching of Hillary Clinton

Today in the supposedly Democratic-leaning media, the Clintons can do no good, and the Obamas no evil. A canonical example for this would be Ed Schulz, who said that "everything the Clintons do is calculated. Everybody does it, but more so the Clintons than anybody else." Like most things on his show these days, this is nonsensical. One that would do Limba proud.

But it isn't limited to Schulz. Stephanie Miller is now an un-listenable fart- and giggle-fest about Obama. And Randi's dispensed with rational argument a long time ago, because if you had to talk about say, a politician's record on women's rights, or actually delivering for one's constituents, well then, the entire show would be about Hillary.

But it isn't limited to radio either. On Daily Kos and this site, they are building a "movement" on pure gas-baggery. Obama said three times he was against the war! Well, that's it then. How does his legislative record (no different than Hilllary's) or complete lack of proactive action on the war matter - in the sweep of the movement?

I mean, hey, the speech at the convention was great. And getting the IL Senate seat back was great too. But you've got to do something. But for his giddy acolytes, everything he touches is gold! Who needs a record?

The Clinton's are supposed to be the ones who are deploying racist tactics, even though Michelle Obama is the one who said that the Blacks will come to their senses and vote for Obama. Even though Oprah, at an Obama rally, invoked MLK's dream line, never mind that the dream wasn't about a black man being president; or that deploying the dream line against Hillary makes no sense.

Obama gets a free pass comparing Clinton unfavorably to Reagan in terms of transformative vision, when Clinton was the one who conducted a military operation to stop genocide, transformed welfare, and signed NAFTA. Like it you may not, but that is vision and grand action.

This adulation of Obama comes of course, from the same loose coalition that would probably vote for Nader or Gore, because they would represent change, or some other vague goodness, even though they may have repeatedly ignored progressive causes; and simply because they are not aligned with the party machine. Well, machines win elections. Winning elections gives you the right to do transformative, whether destructive or not, things. For example, Bush 2. Perhaps Obama will win the general election, with or without a machine. But I don't know what kind of transformations he can be expected to wrought, when he goes to church and proclaims that he has been saved, and such other nonsense.

republican to protect the party against Billary.

Thanks!

This is the same thing they did to Howard Dean.
And they crapped on Gore and John Kerry as well.
We need a watchdog group to keep news independent
of corporate interference.

dem congress worked out so well for us this far...lets try it again

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If Hillary gets the nomination, that may change. I would think that the Clintons would push for his replacement by a Democrat more to their liking.

As for the Rethug pres., I might concur except for the untold suffering that would continue (and possibly grow) and the fact that the Supreme Court would become unbelievably Right Wing.

of a Supreme Court full of Thomases and Scalias.

And when our civil rights are further eroded, when DU deteriorates to a shadow of itself, when every post is monitored with threats of being jailed for anti-American activity, you will still be able to claim that you "stood for principles."

and his Supreme Court appointments.

Woo - freakin' - Hoo !!!

/end sarcasm/

My favorite Dems are out of the race. I'll pull the "Dem" lever anyway. Maybe not happily, but it beats any alternative.

It isn't just one schnook up top whose veto gets overridden by a thousand progressives. To put it more plainly, we don't have the progressive sea change anywhere this year but only in beginnings. A GOP president would be a tremendous unearned advantage against a still weak Dem Congress already on warning for its flaccid calculating caution this past year. it would a race against time with the martyred GOP holding onto the corporate bully pulpit.

When JFK was elected to a thwarted and less than productive term the incumbency of liberalism was raising a whole new generation of pols that JFK did not live to see elected. They swept in with LBJ which was another time when the bill came due for progressive advances. There is no easy victory on the horizon and the prices are high.

This Repug is likely going down like Dole. Better to show the progressives as a positive force and if the line is to be drawn it should be inside Congress against a Dem president behind the times. No easy answers, so for God's sake remember this is not an election this is war for EVERYTHING that lives and breathes free. Maybe next time we will have a more honest democracy and an honest competition.

You are out of your fucking mind.

fold of the republicans. I am sure they could use your support.

:yourock:

:woohoo:

:loveya:

I suspect the Obama faction has a high power media machine.
They slime HRC 5 times a day in Daily Kurse, and kick
off the HRC supporters so they have no voice.

Just one person's opinion.

Obamas camp cries racism and everyone backs down.

Great way to become President.

... looking to then decry the expected criticisms of racism. And I don't see what it has to do with Obama trying to become President. People on DU, a marginal discussion forum, criticizing the OPer's language (regardless of its context relative to the Presidential race) is somehow being extrapolated to Obama seeking the Presidency on a platform of black victimization? Please.

You have your opinion; I'll have mine.

"no different than Hilllary's"

Ooo, sorry. But there's a profound difference. Pretending it didn't happen won't make it go away.

Yeah, tell me.

What's he done in terms of concrete action, on the record, to stop the war. That she hasn't done too?

it's just unbelievable. I don't think even Gore's destruction by the media in 2000 was this bad.

The War on Gore in the end was much worse, but it's early yet, so this very surprising War on Hillary from the Democratic sites is deeply disturbing. If those people succeed in getting Obama elected, he will be a one term president, and after that, ready the handbasket as this country will be needing it for the trip to Hell. I intend to do all that I can to get her elected, and I truly believe that she is the ONLY person running who can lead this country back from the brink of total disaster. She will get us out of Iraq, she will create a health care system where anyone who cannot afford it will have health insurance and she will form the right kind of administration to solve the abysmal state of the economy. If anyone cannot see this, then you deserve the president you vote for, but I don't, and neither do those of us who know she is the one who can best do the job.

then you will feel much better. Don't worry, Clinton can't be counted out yet!

McCain over any democrat, especially Clinton, and please dont try to convince me otherwise, I'm not interested in being a republican, that ship sailed long ago!

Obama gets a free pass comparing Clinton unfavorably to Reagan in terms of transformative vision, when Clinton was the one who conducted a military operation to stop genocide, transformed welfare, and signed NAFTA. Like it you may not, but that is vision and grand action.

:shrug:

Obviously, dissing NAFTA is "in" with the "movement" crowd. But think through it.

NAFTA has problems, sure. Parity of work regulations, environment controls, etc. But the fundamental idea, free trade? The USA is supposed to have a capitalist economy. That means we should be pre-disposed to free trade. Done correctly, that has benefits. Even when not done correctly, it is supposed to be self-correcting, eventually. I don't like some things that NAFTA resulted in, but I don't see what else Clinton could've done that would get bipartisan support, which he needed to get something passed.

Now if you want to gimme nonsense, such as, "over workers' dead bodies," etc. that is your problem. But short of going non-capitalist, I don't see what could've been done. I mean, are we going to shut down the Walmarts overnight? Lets be realistic.

So we were non-capitalist before NAFTA?

Should children be working on assembly lines in this country? No? Then why should American workers be forced to compete with children working in other countries?

Should our companies be allowed to dump toxic waste into our rivers and lakes? No? Then why should American companies be forced to compete with companies that do so?

Should labor unions be outlawed in this country? No? Then why are our workers forced to compete against workers who do not have the legal right to form unions and collectively bargain?


The questions could go on. "Free market" globalization is marketing hype that far too many people have bought into, the purpose of which is to bypass all environmental, labor, health & safety regulations -- that our ancestors died providing for us -- in an effort to return the "capitalist" economic system to the state preferred by the wealthiest of the capitalists, that of the late 19th century.

When I read this cry-me-a-river apologia for the Clintons, arguably one of the most cut throat political couples in the history of the art.

Do they really have any competition?

Cutthroat self-centered power-mongering opportunists are not only common, they are close to the norm in the power elite, political and managerial clases. The Clintons are very good at something that is actually pedestrian and petty. The successful ones are celebrated as though they're so damn good at The Game, which they are. But hey, if Tony Soprano is a genius compared to Paulie Walnuts, then I guess we can say the same for the more successful politicians.

you visit a few sites dedicated to the ethnic cleansing of African-Americans.

You should be ashamed of yourself if you have any sense of shame at all.

Whatever point you hoped to make, it was not made.

You need to truly study the history of lynching in America before you use the word in such a way as to cheapen it, to diminish it.

Hillary Clinton has not been "lynched". Outrageous.

completely offensive and tasteless.

In the wild, wild west outlaws were "lynched." You don't think the OP was referring to any other kind of lynching, do you?

Obamabots, the MSM, the right-wing and all Clinton enemies are doing their best to lynch Hillary Clinton---just the way they tried to lynch Bill during his presidency.

I wouldn't bconsider the Reverend Jesse Jackson a racist, would you?

You can get your point across in other ways.

Is something I find extremely distasteful. And not because of who her opponent is either. It just is....

Lynching involves a hate crime ending in murder. No body has committed a crime against Mrs. Clinton.

and look up the word "lynch." Lynching was the way they executed outlaws during the wild west days.

Lynching is another way to say "hanging."

The word "lynch" does not mean a hate crime ending in murder.

While a handful of white "outlaws" may have been lynched, thousands and thousands and thousand of African Americans were lynched in this country for the purpose of intimidating and degrading an entire race of people. Your assumption that it was primarily used in the "wild west" for "outlaws" reveals such a gross ignorance about American history that I wonder if you'll ever manage to overcome it.

But you might want to start by reading a few history books.

Lord save us . . .

African Americans are often the victims most associated with the word, but the word's origins is very "Wild West." It's being accused, tried, and punished without benefit of facts, a trial, or a judge. It's MOB attacks.

I love this post. Obama is going to have to address Hillary and discuss the issues. Once they go head to head the country will see who our real candidate is - Hillary.

I just made a similar post about Talking Points Memo which has a decided Obama slant.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

The complete lack of text in your message. This isn't IM, there isn't a word limit. Go on, make a sensible argument.

You were given fair warning.

Welcome to DU.

I was commenting on your lack of sensible argument. As seen again in your second posting.

Perhaps this is how one gets to "1000+ posts."

I owe you nothing at all.

they started full of hubris and inevitability and was as patronizing as possible. When it turned into a race they got defensive and blustery. Then they got professional and won the NH primary by listening and connecting. They threw that away and sent out the triangulation strategy. Never has a candidate entered a campaign with so many built in advantages including living in the Whitehouse during a time that was generally well remembered.

Hillary and her supporters can sit there and blame everyone or they can fix the problem and campaign like hell. If they do the former they will have recoreded one of the most dazzling falls of political advantage in history.

Really? Ok, maybe a little. But, if I recall correctly, she really won by going after the feminine vote. The "listening and connecting", combined with the now famous welling-up, combined with charges of gender-bashing against the media.

Do you work for the NY Chapter of NOW, by chance?

Very well said, and accurate anaylsis. Thanks for posting!

Another political assassination

Hillary was not murdered because of the color of her skin.

Using the term this loosely and in reference to an extremely rich and powerful white woman is not hyperbole, it cheapens and diminishes the horror and evil that lynchings were.

Why do you wish to trivialize the holocaust of lynching that took place for years in the United States and was sanctioned by local and state governments in the South against African-Americans?

You as a Hillary Clinton supporter, with the actions of Bill and Hillary's campaign these past few weeks which clearly picked at at the scab of racism should not be introducing more of the same here at a liberal public forum. It is shameful.

should be read by everybody

and compared their positions on getting out of Iraq.

Go read them, if you have not yet, and decide which sounds realistic.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

What is the suspense? What am I going to learn from the sites? I have the attention span of an epileptic rat on speed (as Bartcop would say), so I can hardly be expected to read long winded statements in web sites.

My position is that the candidates' positions on the war are identical, as evidenced by their legislative record. Actually, Clinton's is the more realistic, when the CIA and other agencies leave open the possibility that we would be attacked, it is sensible to give the executive branch the authority to investigate that. That doesn't make it "voting for the war," as the imbecile crowd frames it. Of course, some people are quite comfortable missing votes, and then claiming that a certain thing is what they would've done. Useless, but convenient.

The truth is, regardless of what happens in this race, both candidates will be fine. They will go home to their beautiful families and they will live very comfortably. If you want to talk about a "lynching," google "Emmett Till."

To lynch means to kill w/o due process and the Media has been trying to kill her for years.

If one doesn't like her, fine, but to see that she isn't being treated fairly is to be blind.

She gets fucked daily on any given TV station and website.

As you have said, and as terms are used figuratively everyday in the media, my subject line was quite descriptive.

Hillary is being vilified for who she is, Bill's wife, DLC candidate. What she has done is being ignored. She is trashed for being shrill, which is the stereotype for a woman. And as you say, without due process.

As for the imbeciles who are pouting about "what lynching really is," yeah, like you know, I really don't know. Oh wait, I think I do. Lynching is when pro-life nut jobs kill health care providers. And who were really pissed off when Clinton said of the parital birth abortion ban, "I'm just not gonna do it."

:rofl: :spray: :rofl:

n/t

you can't pretend to be against something you worked so hard to be a part of.

Not only is Obama's claim to "outsider" status totally hollow, it's also just stupid.

...and by your logic very stupid also...

She's saying to be a Senator and campaign for the presidency while pretending NOT to be an insider is hypocrisy.

..I normally respect Maxine, but she is DEAD wrong on this one..

Why can "wife of a former gov and pres" represent change?

The election is about what people will do, what their record suggests they will do, and what they are known to be capable of doing. That is the thing that could be different that the status quo, this representing change.

For you, change is about what people are. So for you, the wife of a former president can't represent change. That is silly.

For example, Bernie Sanders is a politician, a long-time US Representative and now a US Senator, but he is anything BUT an insider.

I won't mention the name my cohort said, but I bet everybody knows it. So ever so often they make them re-register. They said that they think when he looses they will disappear. They don't mind posts from both sides that are supportive, but the hate and vile is terrible.

I stopped going to Puffington's and don't do kos either. :hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4304712

That is why I advocate a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq to begin no later than May first with the goal of removing all combat forces from Iraq by March 2008.

In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability.

My plan also allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for international terrorism and reduce the risk of all-out chaos.

------------


But what is a limited number ?
What kind of forces ?
What kind of situations should US forces engage ?
How long should they be there ?

The Clintons are outdoing themselves as the biggest whiners pretending to be victims

When you're done, check out Taylor "Liar" Marsh and Hillaryis44 as they spread their anti-Obama venom.

...and it is less and less attractive the longer it goes on..

:rofl:

Overwrought and preposterous.

Ed Schultz, Daily Kos, and Huffington are the worse offenders of this bullshit.
Rhodes is doing a poor job of hiding her pro-Obama bias.

but the repuke party lives within Ed Schultz. After reading so much about him I decided to listen in. It took all of five minutes to shut it off. What a wackjob! Did ya see our buddy from last night up there saying he'd vote repuke?

to express an opinion on their preference for a candidate? What's up with the 'bias' bullshit? They are 'opinions'! These rabid responses to are just so ugly.

All I can say is, I'm going to enjoy listening to all of those shows, all of Air America's line-up and Malloy and Taliaferro, the day it becomes apparent that Hillary has the nomination sewn up. Someone can reasonably prefer Obama to Hillary, but the over-the-top vilification of her is childish, and it's going to be sweet to listen to all those pundits whine about Hillary's nomination. However, I'm certainly not going to continue listening to them unless they fall in-line behind our nominee. And none of this "hold my nose" crap either. "Hold your nose and vote for Hillary" would be signaling to their listeners that she barely edges out McCain, so you might as well consider voting for him too. Unacceptable, I dare them to try to take a "hold your nose" stance after she gets the nod.

is no truth seeker. If he had principle he would have been with Edwards or Kucinich.
I too will enjoy listening to the losers at Air America the day Hillary gets the nod.

Malloy is on NovaM. Hasn't been on Air America for years.

He's really not endorsing either of the two remaining candidates, but I believe he does prefer Obama to Hillary. The endorsements of Ted & Caroline Kennedy helped, I think.

I don't know how long he can keep this up, but he is one bustin' badass!
I love listening to him.

Sure it is.

"to put to death, esp. by hanging, by mob action and without legal authority."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lynch

Supposed media bias (and web-site bias--horrors!) against your candidate hardly meets the standards of the word "lynching."

one that maybe shouldn't be used to whine about the media.

Reread the definition that I posted, and then tell me how dumbing down this word to mask its true horror is o.k. by you.

You probably don't mean it that way, but describing what you believe to be Hillary Clinton being picked on by journalists as a "lynching" grossly trivializes a very serious and reprehensible practice and is very offensive.

Lynching is a brutal, hateful, exceedingly violent act of terrorism in which a person - usually because of their race or ethnicity - is viciously, painfully and publicly murdered by a mob, which more often than not included local law enforcement (often to the cheers of an even larger mob of men, women and children) for such perceived "crimes" as looking at or touching a white woman. While no one knows the actual number of lynchings that have occurred in our history, more than 5,000 lynchings were documented in this country in the first half of the 20th century alone.

Unlike the thousands of people who have actually been lynched in America, Hillary Clinton is a very comfortable, extremely safe, quite powerful woman, very wealthy woman who is one of the 537 most politically powerful people in the country. Yes, she's being criticized. And certainly some of the criticism is unfair - as is always the case with any public figure. But she has chosen to be a politician, has chosen a very public life and made a conscious decision to run for president. She is surrounded constantly by aides and supporters who do her bidding and sing her praises and, on top of that, has a contingent of armed federal agents who would step in front of a bullet to protect her from harm.

As I said, I'm sure you did not mean to offend, but please do not invoke such ugly and painful metaphors to describe something that is really, in the scheme of things, a political annoyance.

... in order to bait people into criticizing its use. Which, in my opinion, makes its use worse.

Just speculation, but it seemed too overt to be accidental.

Should the OP have put on kid gloves and posted hanged instead.

Somehow I doubt it would be.
So why use such words for this post?

Be my guest. Do write something to support the headline though.

'Cause there are people who'd go, "The Rape of Obama n/t", like that is something profound.

I would find it tacky and uncalled for.
Just like I found your OP.

...it is an offensive metaphor...

that lame statement.

NEITHER of which has happened, or is an appropriate metaphor for Billary's "victimisation"...

But thanks for playing.

:eyes:

you see, criticism = rape
defeat = murder
and thrown into a dumpster = ignored ie. snubbed

So you see Clinton has been raped murdered and thrown into a dumpster by her own party!

IF YOU'RE A FUCKING MORON!!!

Just...wow.

... "Hillary Tightens the Noose on Obama."

Know what else helps win elections? Third party candidates who draw away a significant percentage of your opponents supporters.

Re: "transformative vision" and "Clinton transformed welfare and signed NAFTA".... That's kinda the point. Clinton continued Right Wing economic policies of stripping-down social programs and promoting free trade and free markets (over fair).

Re: records. What, exactly, is Hillary Clinton's record? I'll start you off... voted for Iraq war, and is now voting to support the fear mongering on Iran.

here is a phrase that you all may decide to allow:

CHARACTER ASSASINATION

That is what is taking place against one of our two remaining candidates.

Welcome to the site.

The Clintons and their supporters have no shame, none at all.

"Winning elections gives you the right to do transformative, whether destructive or not, things. For example, Bush 2." - Or, for example, the cover provided by B.Clinton for Bush 1, which allowed it to turn into Bush 2.

Or, for example, the vital enabling provided by H.Clinton as a leader among the Democrats for Bush 2, without which the destruction of the constitution and the launching of an unprovoked aggressive war would not have borne the same legitimacy. Clinton, who voted for NCLB, the original bankruptcy act, USA PATRIOT, "Homeland Security," the Iraq war resolution and every single funding bill for the war that has come since. Would this have been worse with Rick Lazio in that seat?

"...Clinton was the one who conducted a military operation to stop genocide" - oh, really, sponsoring a proxy army to turn a low-intensity insurrection into civil war, then bombing civilians was actually about stopping genocide? I guess if the occasional criticism of these minor gangsters in the media qualifies as lynching (see: people hanging from trees), then the Yugoslavian repression of the U.S.-backed KLA army's insurrection qualifies as genocide.

"transformed welfare," - i.e., eliminated it and added millions to the sub-minimum wage labor pool so as to suppress wages for everyone

"and signed NAFTA." - Nuff said.

"Like it you may not, but that is vision and grand action." Which can be said of Bush Jr. just as much.

PATHETIC!

so we can keep it on an appropriately moronic level?

:scared:

All polls taken of since 2001 have shown the vast majority of DU members to be 9/11 skeptics - they may not support an alternate narrative, but they do reject the idea that the government has truthfully presented the full story of what happened and why. On this board, your mindless dismissiveness is the minority position, so please don't act as if it's otherwise.

Does skepticism about the most propaganda-laden event of the 21st century really cause you chills? But Bush calling it the "trifecta" does not?

As the enabling event of the Bush regime and its agenda - which was maximally and shamelessly exploited - 9/11 cries out for a real, truly impartial investigation.

rabbit hole. This abc crowd does nothing but help elect a repig.

and unregulated corporate rule. What do you want more?

Last night on the 'Daily Show', he said he thought John Edwards had timed his withdrawal, "to help Barack."

Damn, that is so out of touch.

I'd protest to have this thread removed, but instead am content to let its stupidity be exposed to the light of day.

Damn...

It's a lynching!!!! Call the cops!!

The media was just fine when they were saying you had it in the bag. Now, not so much, eh?

"lynching" Hillary?

Maybe, but she provided the rope.

...he needs to stop saying his opinion is fact, like all the Kool-aid drinkers need to do.

And would have produced less vitriol among the party regulars than what we have now.


I wonder if he'll step up to the plate in 2011. It would be nice to see him as President within the remainder of my lifetime.