Hillary is a rape victim

Email Print posted by blueheartinaredstate 01/28/2008 05:17:01 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Sadly, the reason why Hillary is not a good candidate is because she has been too badly abused by the right wing.

 I respect Hillary's experience but I think it has given her the WRONG experience.  She fought hard for healthcare and wouldn't listen to corporate points of view.  People shit on her for this.  But she shut out a lot of the points of view of business and refused to compromise.

This is the kind of stuff that people WANT now.  No mor lobbiests!  This is like saying no more lawyers.  An easy "fuck you" that no one will disagree with. 

Hillary got totally fucked for doing this in the 90's.  The conservatives and Republicans fucked her and said that she was a secretive bitch.  This was the source of her negative image.

Nowadays this is what progressives want.  Screw the establishment.  We want healthcare!  But now Hillary has been burnt (escuse me "learned from her experience") by the conservative shit and will NOT be willing to take a risk and go for what is necessary.  She will comprimise up the wazoo.

This is why I won't support Hillary.  She's been contaminated by the right wing and thinks she has to compromise to get anything done. 

She's a rape victim that has been too hurt to be effective.

< How I Plan to Listen to The State of The Union | SOTU word count >
 Display:
Hillary is a rape victim | 25 comments (25 topical, 0 hidden)
It wasn't only Republicans who complained... (none / 0)
... that she was secretive.  She shut out Democratic leadership, too, when developing her health care plan.  Congressional Democrats were the ones who made her pay for that.

She absolutely should "compromise" (I prefer the word "listen") mo re -- but not necessarily with/to Republicans.  She has some Democratic fences to mend.

by Juarez Traveller on 01/28/2008 06:02:06 PM EST

Oh, and I forgot something... (none / 0)
She asked for it.

(Please, before you flame me, it's not swollen from a visit to the dentist.  That's a tongue in my cheek.)

by Juarez Traveller on 01/28/2008 07:07:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Damaged Goods (none / 0)
Hillary Clinton is beyond repair.  It doesn't matter who's fault it is at this point.  We need new blood.  Period.  I do not want to live through more of the same partisan crap that happened in the 90's, whoever's fault it was ( and it was pretty much the Republicans)  Obama is a fresh face with no baggage, let him move in and the Republicans wont know what to do.  It would be funny to watch the republicans find new ways to attack him for being a black guy- but slick like.  You know someone will slip up on camera and blurt out the N word.

by Iyouwe on 01/28/2008 07:39:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
When I seen that title I thought: (none / 0)

"What the fudge?!?!"

That's a bit much.

by babaganoosh13 on 01/28/2008 07:21:55 PM EST

Manipulator--not a rape victim (none / 0)

She set herself up as a target. She hid behind closed doors making corporate deals for health care. Then she's outraged that people didn't like what she did.

Well, we don't know what she did except hiding out with a bunch of suits planning who knows what? She says it had something to do with health care, but it sure looked a lot like new ways to transfer our money to big pharma and insurance companies instead of creating a health care system for everyone.

She hid her papers. She lied about her work at the law firm. When something went well for Bill, she'd say it was because of her input, but when things went wrong, she was just a helpless wifie. 

When you hide your machinations, then paint a bull's eye on your back/front, don't be surprised when people shoot. 

Hillary's no victim. Now she's a victimizer. 

by zenie on 01/28/2008 09:10:14 PM EST

uh....bullshit (none / 0)
Hillary's healthcare plan was not very substantively different than Romney's in Mass.  But back in the day it wasn't progressives that brought down her effort, it was conservatives that axed her.  Said it would limit choice and such bullshit.

Yeah, choice is great when you can afford it.  Only the rich can really afford choice.

The rich raped her for being too "communist" and now the progressives rape her for being too "capitalist".&nbs p; For what is essentially the same plan.

I won't vote for Hillary but it annoys the shit out of me how unfair both sides are to her.

by blueheartinaredstate on 01/28/2008 10:04:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I remember that debate (none / 0)

Congressional Democrats were openly pissed at Hillary because she never consulted with them.  She thought that she could design a program and then shove it down their throats.  It was the Democrats who killed her proposal.  Then, right after that, the voters killed the prospect of getting national health care when they voted in the Republicans.

I don't blame her for being "capitalist".&nbs p; Hell, I'm a self-employed capitalist.  But I do blame her for her corporatist policies (I think her union-promoting proposal is hot air and that she won't follow through), and for the ethical lapses that she has demonstrated for all to see.

by EveningStarNM on 03/13/2008 03:06:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
H-Beast (none / 0)
The video Hillary doesn't want you to see.

by acroso on 01/28/2008 11:17:41 PM EST

Why not? (none / 0)
Sure, simpletons will run in fear from the idea that effective international legal structures are necessary to replace the anarchy that we have now, just as children want to flee the consequences of their bad behavior.  But get used to it, acroso, because Bush and the Republicans have weakened the United States to the point where we have no hope of going it alone or of remaining the most powerful country on Earth.  We're going to have to learn to get along with the rest of the world, and that means we'll need an effective and glo bally federalist legal system simply for our own security.

But don't worry, you'll still be able to maintain the inferiority of your local schools (well, until you get really crazy).  But you will be forced to clean up the messes you create and stopped from creating others -- as any child should be -- because the messes you create affect so many other people.

It's time to grow up.

by Juarez Traveller on 01/29/2008 05:53:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
WTF?? It's called national sovereignty... (none / 0)
You have got to be kidding me with this - "We're going to have to learn to get along with the rest of the world, and that means we'll need an effective and glo bally federalist legal system simply for our own security" you can't possibly be equating the necessity of a world legal body with our national security...we are already seeing the US legal system usurped by NAFTA, CFTA, WTO, and the UN which actually means something if you care about our future of the republic...the absolute LAST thing we need is intervention from external bodies as all the problems you listed regarding the Bushco crowd CAN and SHOULD be sorted here at home...the problem is that the citizens of this country are apathetic about the oligarchy that runs this country against their better interests...

by keith on 01/29/2008 09:12:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why? (none / 0)
You didn't say.

Our trade groups, for instance, will become less important as other members join other groups. China has organized an Asian group that countries are flocking to in lieu of our lame Pacific Rim effort.

External bodies will be formed, and other countries will join them in order to counter American recklessness (or the recklessness of other countries), and they will intervene against us whether we want them to or not.  You can kiss American hegemony goodbye.

Our only option, since we can't beat them, is to join them.  But the peacemeal approach to establishing international order won't (and can't) last forever.  Sooner or later a world governing body will be formed, and a country will thwart its will at its peril.

Hopefully, we'll have grown up by then.

by Juarez Traveller on 01/29/2008 10:47:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
sovereignty (none / 0)

Sovereignty...not Hegemony.

 

Maybe you're talking about something totally different you dreamed up? 

by acroso on 01/29/2008 12:35:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If you missed my point... (none / 0)
...here it is again - I questioned the logic behind equating joining international legal structures to our national security as one does not lead to the other...your vague references to "the anarchy we have now" and the need for a world governing body have nothing to do with that article you linked to...I do not believe that our trade policy should be based on undermining our national sovereignty and neither does China, Russia, or India for that matter...

by keith on 01/29/2008 12:51:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You shouldn't contradict yourself. (none / 0)
If you enter into any -- and I mean any -- international agreement, you give up some of your sovereignty.  And unless you think that we can absolutely shut down our borders, imprisoning all of our people behind them and keeping everyone else out, never again involving ourselves in international affairs, and survive, the U.S. will -- and must -- surrender pieces of its sovereignty.  After all, if we want other countries to surrender parts of theirs, then we must be willing to do the same.  Every treaty in which we have ever entered, every agreement of any kind that we have established with another country, has had that requirement and effect.

The only question now is how much soveriegnty we are willing to surrender and for what price.

Your role is that you get to vote for the people who will make those decisions.

by Juarez Traveller on 01/29/2008 01:56:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
zero (none / 0)
We should surrender none at all.

by acroso on 01/29/2008 02:35:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
How do you propose to do that... (none / 0)
...and still import the flu vaccines that we need every year without invading another country?

You should start thinking through to the logical conclusions of your proposals.  Your idea of giving up none of our sovereignty is null and void.  We already have.  In exchange, we've gotten other countries to give up some of theirs so that our money is worth more than the paper on which it is printed.

Of course, if you never want to be able to buy anything from another country ever again and are willing to not send any polluted air or water across their borders, then maybe you've got a slim chance at realizing a small part of your dream.

by Juarez Traveller on 01/29/2008 02:55:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
trade (none / 0)
Trade is fine...just not super governments regulating us.

by acroso on 01/29/2008 04:27:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What about dispute resolution? (none / 0)

Courts adjudicate the law.  Their rulings are law.

The situation: we enter into a trade agreement with lots of other countries.  That agreement becomes law in each of the countries involved.

One of those countries, Olfistan, restricts their imports of mibgets, which we manufacture and have been selling to them, because they want to boost their own production of mibgets.  In effect, they are subsidizing their mibget industry.

We file a claim in the body (effectively, a court) which we negotiated for in establishing the trade agreement to enforce the terms of the agreement.  We say that Olfistan is violating the the agreement.  The court rules in our favor and issues sanctions against Olfistan, forcing them to abide by the terms to which everyone agreed. 

If Olfistan wants to maintain the agreement, they will change their practices.  If not, they will lose the benefits of trade with the other countries involved.  Either way, Olfistan has lost some of its sovereignty.  They either must comply with the demands of the international community or their ability to move freely within that community will be restricted.

Now, what if the court ruled against us?

by Juarez Traveller on 01/29/2008 04:48:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Simple ,,, (none / 0)
"Now, what if the court ruled against us?"

That's an easy one: we invade and set things right.

(you know, that whole tongue-in-cheek thing?)

"If you're not pumped up, then get the hell out, 'cause you don't belong here." -- Cenk Uygur

by Spinny on 01/29/2008 04:59:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Liberal Inaction (none / 0)
“The only question now is how much sovereignty we are willing to surrender and for what price.”

I think what acroso is trying to tell you is that the cost of sealing the southern border represents (literally) the bargain of the century. I’m pretty knowledgeable on the cost of border security versus the cumulative cost of 12 million uninvited lawn maintenance specialists.

I’m not one of these “round ‘em all up” guys, but I do think we’ve achieved a certain level of saturation beyond which we should fear to tread.

If every human on earth wants to move across our borders illegally and take up residence within the United States, should we allow it?

All I ever hear from liberals on the subject of solving problems is how “It can’t be done. It will never work.”

Star Wars SDI will never work.

Welfare Reform will never work.

Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan will never work.

Defeating the Soviet Union will never work.

Sealing the southern border will never work.

by KenTX on 01/29/2008 05:25:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 0)
Are you in the correct thread?  acroso didn't say anything about border security, which has little or nothing to do with the discussion at hand.  Of course, it will take time for the rest of the world, including us, to learn what the E.U. already has learned about the benefits of open borders.  We've forgotten the lesson from our early days.  And the way the E.U. dealt with the problem of the unequal strengths of the economies of the countries which formed their union -- and which could have resulted in mass movements of people from poor areas to more prosperous ones -- was to invest in the poor areas, thereby boosting the local economies and making it unnecessary for people to pull up stakes and move.

But now they freely can move across the old borders.  Freedom of movement has proven to be a boon not only to the people of the E.U. but to its economy as well.  And all this at a time when the U.S. is becoming economically weaker yet distancing itself from its closest neighbors.  The so-called "investments" that nearly countryless corporations make in Mexico are little more than exploitative of the Mexican people and do nothing to alleviate the desperate poverty that exists right next door to us.  If we were to open our borders, it would be economically catastrophic for us and we would not be able to help ourselves, much less them.  But if we followed the E.U. model and made truly constructive investments there, we could quit worrying about the border and once again create the most powerful and largest industrial society on the planet, rather than the fading import-consuming and increasingly unexportable service-based economy that we have now.

As far as your other claims: SDI didn't work, and maintaining peaceful relations with others is much cheaper.  Hunger -- er, excuse me, "low food security" -- is a growing problem.  There is not even a hint of democracy in Iraq -- just ask the 20% or so of their legislature  ;who are women (oh, right, they don't talk and can't participate) -- and our children are unlikely to witness it, and Afghanistan is on the verge of losing what little they gained (although I do thing we should be there and not in Iraq).  And it's not that sealing our southern border "won't work", it's that it is a stupidly self-destructive idea.   But I never heard a single liberal say that "defeating the Soviet Union will never work".  It was clear long before Reagan that it would collapse from its own weight -- which is exactly what happened (although Reagan may have sped up the process by a day or two.)

Sheesh!  All I ever hear from conservatives is "it won't work and if it looks like it will work then we'll stop it."

by Juarez Traveller on 01/29/2008 07:06:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And I didn't miss your point. (none / 0)
Our national security also is served by not pissing off everyone else.  But you should define the term "national security".  For me, one part of it is preventing invasion by foreign military forces who wish to destroy every last vestige of our ability to govern ourselves.  Another part is preventing the destruction of our vital infrastructure or the murder of our citizens by militants, whether domestic or foreign.

However, our ability to make decisions which may involve some aspects of our national security can be curtailed by other countries without the need to cross our borders.  All they have to do is decide to shut us out of -- or simply limit our participation in -- international  activities from which we benefit.  Other countries could discriminate against us in many ways.  The country that is the only source in the world of flibberite, which we need to produce gabbiflastim, could decide not to sell it to us, or to sell it to us at a price above what they charge others.

What options do we have then?  Invading them and killing lots of people certainly is one option.  Paying is another.  Or avoiding the behavior which pissed them off enough to do that is another.  Which option preserves as much of our national security as possible and what are we willing to sacrifice for what level of sovereignty?

Another nail in the coffin: if we don't have anything that other countries want -- and the imbalance between our imports and exports certainly shows that we have less and less -- with what do we bargain?

We are now the largest importer of finished goods and a large exporter of raw materials.  Sort of like Third World countries, and not like any other world power such as the European Union or China.  That leaves us in a pretty weak bargaining position, with the amount of our consumption and the threat of military force being our predominant chips.  But consumption is growing in the rest of the world, and our portion of total consumption is becoming smaller.

And nobody like bullies.

Your first decision should be for war or peace.  Then you should alter your behavior to meet your goal.

What best serves our national security, however you define it?  Peace or war?  Global federalism, in which we are but one world citizen, can be the basis for both peace and prosperity.


by Juarez Traveller on 01/29/2008 02:46:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Kennedy (none / 0)

Kennedy mistimed his endorsement...if he had wanted it to mean something, he would have done it before NH...now it means nothing.

H-Beast is running away with this thing. 

by acroso on 01/29/2008 01:05:56 AM EST

I agree she has been abused by the right (none / 0)

But I also think she is the one candidate that will increase the vote for the republicans. There are too many hardcore Clinton haters and if one thing can increase the number of repukes that turn out it will be her. More than gay marriage, more than pro-choice, more than anything, they will rally around hating her and turn out in droves to vote against her.

Most of these repukes are demoralized and will not turn out for the general election as we have seen in the primaries. They are starting to realize that their party shits on them and always has. They will sit home and let a Democrat win and then they can enjoy the benefits without having to admit to themselves they were wrong to support those corpratist crooks.

That is why I think someone else needs to be our candidate. It is really unfortunate, but she is a handicap in the general election. She might still win, but it will be a lot harder if she is the candidate.

 

by Taco Chuck on 01/29/2008 09:47:58 AM EST

I bet you are right (none / 0)
Obama got more votes than the top two Repubs combined, so I think you are on to something.

by Chinese Democracy on 01/29/2008 07:10:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hillary is a rape victim | 25 comments (25 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: