Page 1 of 24 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 591
  1. #1
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Hillary Clinton Losing Ground Against Bernie Sanders Because She ‘Shouts’ Too Much, Pundits Say

    Journalist Bob Woodward of Watergate fame argued Wednesday that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is struggling to overcome opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) because Clinton “shouts” too much.
    The comment sparked a redux of the sexist media coverage of Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, as MSNBC’s Morning Joe commentators launched into a lengthy discussion that touched on many of the common tropes about Clinton “screaming,” acting “unnatural,” and being “feisty.”
    “There is something unrelaxed about the way she is communicating,”

    “She could make a case for herself if she would just kind of lower the temperature and…get off this screaming stuff,” Woodward argued.

    Clinton has previously discussed her struggle with the sexism she faced from the media during her 2008 campaign, when she was accused of being “shrill” and “nagging.”

    Commentators openly argued that her menstrual cycle would impact her decision making. Morning Joe was a leader in those discussions; Scarborough often referenced the “Clinton cackle” and another panelist cracked a joke that Clinton reminded everyone of their “first wife in probate court.”

    The “screaming stuff” trope has followed Clinton throughout her political career. As Rebecca Traister notes, Clinton’s criticism of Sanders’ single-payer health care plan has been meme-ified as“Hillary’s Mean Scream,” echoing a common perception that women who sound assertive are angry. In a less subtle attack, the New York Post ran a cover during the Benghazi hearings of Clinton looking angry with the headline “No Wonder Bill’s Afraid: Hillary explodes with rage at Benghazi hearing.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...ry-discussion/

  2. #2
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    u'll be sucking her hairy balls after she gets the nomination

  3. #3
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Hillary Clinton’s Hawkish Record

    Surviving Iowa in a dead heat with Sen. Bernie Sanders, ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton now hopes her establishment-backed campaign will grind down her opposition and pave the way for her presidential nomination. But many Democrats remain leery of her hawkish foreign policy, writes Marjorie Cohn.

    By Marjorie Cohn


    Hillary Clinton likes to extol her foreign policy credentials, particularly her experience as Secretary of State. She attaches herself to Barack Obama’s coattails, pledging to continue his policies. But she is even more hawkish than the President.


    Like Obama, Clinton touts American exceptionalism, the notion that the United States is better than any other country. In his State of the Union addresses, Obama has proclaimed America “exceptional” and said the U.S. must “lead the world.” Clinton wrote in her book Hard Choices that “America remains the ‘indispensable nation.’”

    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

    It is this view that animates U.S. invasions, interventions, bombings and occupations of other countries. Under the pretense of protecting our national interest, the United States maintains some 800 military bases in other countries, costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars annually. Often referred to as “enduring bases,” they enable us to mount attacks whenever and wherever our leaders see fit, whether with drones or manned aircraft.


    Obama, who continues to prosecute the war in Afghanistan 15 years after it began, is poised to send ground troops back to Iraq and begin bombing Libya. His aggressive pursuit of regime change in Syria was met with pushback by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to Seymour Hersh.


    The President has bombed some seven countries with drones. But besides moving toward normalization of relations with Cuba, his signature foreign policy achievement is brokering the agreement to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.


    Although Clinton supports the nuclear deal, she talks tough about Iran. In September 2015, she provocatively declared, “I don’t believe Iran is our partner in this agreement. Iran is the subject of the agreement,” adding, “I will confront them across the board.” She said, “I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon.”


    During the 2008 presidential campaign, Clinton promised to “totally obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel. Clinton was, in effect, pledging to commit genocide against the Iranian people.


    In an August 2014 Atlantic interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, Clinton maintained, “There is no such thing as a right to enrich.” Apparently, she has not read the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which gives countries like Iran the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Article IV of the treaty says, “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.”


    One country that does possess nuclear weapons is Israel, which refuses to ratify the NPT. Clinton has consistently and uncritically supported the policies of the Israeli government. In the Atlantic interview, she placed the blame for Israel’s 2014 massacre in Gaza squarely with the Palestinians.


    From July 8 to Aug. 27, 2014, Israel killed over 2,100 Palestinians, 80 percent of them civilians including more than 400 children. Sixty-six Israeli soldiers and seven Israeli civilians were killed.


    When Goldberg asked Clinton whom she held responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian children, she demurred, saying, “[I]t’s impossible to know what happens in the fog of war.” She blamed only the Palestinians, saying, “There’s no doubt in my mind that Hamas initiated this conflict.” Claiming “Israel has a right to defend itself,” she said, “I think Israel did what it had to do to respond to the rockets.”


    But Israel did not act in self-defense. In the first 10 days of June 2014, Israeli forces abducted17 Palestinian teenage boys in the occupied West Bank. On June 12, three Israeli teenagers were abducted in the southern West Bank; Israel accused Hamas. After those three were found dead, a group of Israelis tortured and killed a Palestinian teenager in Jerusalem.


    On July 7, Israel launched a large military operation in the Gaza Strip, dubbed Operation Protective Edge. The Israeli Defense Forces devastated Gaza. For 51 days, Israel bombarded Gaza with more than 6,000 airstrikes.


    The United Nations Human Rights Council subsequently convened an independent, international commission of inquiry, which concluded that Israel, and to a lesser extent Palestinian armed groups, had likely committed violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, some cons uting war crimes. “The scale of the devastation was unprecedented” in Gaza, according to the commission.


    Yet Clinton was puzzled by what she calls “this enormous international reaction against Israel,” adding, “This reaction is uncalled for and unfair.” She attributed the “enormous international reaction” to “a number of factors” but only mentioned anti-Semitism, never citing Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian lands or its periodic massacres in Gaza.

    Indeed, in January 2016, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the Security Council it was an “indisputable truth” that “Palestinian frustration is growing under the weight of a half century of occupation and the paralysis of the peace process.” He noted that it was “human nature to react to occupation, which serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism.”

    Clinton didn’t ponder why so many people around the world are participating in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against the Israeli occupation. Representatives of Palestinian civil society launched BDS in 2005, calling upon “international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel.”


    In her November 2015 article led “How I Would Reaffirm Unbreakable Bond With Israel — and Benjamin Netanyahu,” published in the Jewish newspaper Forward, Clinton vowed to continue to oppose BDS. “As secretary of state, I requested more assistance for Israel every year,” she boasted, adding that she opposed “the biased Goldstone report,” explained below.


    After Israel’s 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead, in which nearly 1,400 Palestinians (82 percent of whom were civilians) and 13 Israelis were killed, a U.N. Human Rights Council report by a commission headed by Justice Richard Goldstone concluded that “Disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy [by Israel].”


    Israel responded to the report with threats and harassment against Goldstone, leading him to backtrack on one of the findings in the report that bears his name, namely, that Israel deliberately targeted civilians. But the other members of the commission stood fast on all of the report’s conclusions.


    Clinton’s vote in favor of President George W. Bush’s illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq cost her the 2008 election.

    It also cost more than 4,500 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis their lives. Yet Clinton cynically told corporate executives at a 2011 State Department roundtable on investment opportunities in Iraq, “It’s time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity.”


    The same year, Clinton led the campaign for forcible regime change in Libya, despite opposition by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    Responding to the gruesome sodomizing of President Muammar Gaddafi with a bayonet, Clinton laughed and said, “We came, we saw, he died.”


    Both the Iraq War and regime change in Libya paved the way for the rise of Islamic State and dangerous conflict in the Middle East.

    Obama is about to escalate his military involvement in Libya. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “The president has made clear that we have the authority to use military force.” The New York Times reports that the expanded campaign is “expected to include airstrikes and raids by elite American troops.”


    The Obama administration is reportedly changing the rules of engagement to allow more civilian casualties in the “war” against Islamic State. A senior military official told The Daily Beast, “Now I think you’ll see a little more willingness to tolerate civilian casualties in the interest of making progress.” But the Geneva Conventions prohibit the disproportionate killing of civilians.


    Clinton has promised to escalate the wars in Syria and Iraq, including a no-fly zone in Syria. Since Islamic State doesn’t have an air force, her no-fly zone is likely to capture Russian planes flying over Syria.


    Talking tough on ABC’s “This Week,” Clinton declared, “We have to fight in the air, fight on the ground and fight them on the Internet.” She said nothing about diplomacy or an arms embargo to stop sending weapons that end up in the hands of Islamic State.


    Although the corporate media fans the flames of fear about Islamic State, only 38 people in the United States have died in terror-related incidents since 9/11, according to Politifact.com. The “war on terror” has cost us more than $1.5 trillion, in addition to U.S. lives and those of untold numbers in other countries.


    Nevertheless, there is little doubt that a President Hillary Clinton would continue our “perpetual war.” She would do everything in her power to ensure the robust survival of the American empire.


    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/0...awkish-record/

    Apart from personal unlikeability (but running for Pres isn't a likeability contest, for serious people), it's her love of war and killing that turns off many.



  4. #4
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,598
    People think that Hillary still menstruates?

  5. #5
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ TheSanityAnnex's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    21,376
    People think that Hillary still menstruates?
    lol

  6. #6
    Veteran
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Post Count
    2,176
    That first article is kinda right. She's extremely shrill and it hurts my ears.

  7. #7
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    People think that Hillary still menstruates?
    Repugs aren't real strong on female science, only on female regulations.

    eg, The Repug Rape Caucus thinks a "legitimately" raped women can just wishfully "shut down" the semen from fertilizing her.

  8. #8
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,598
    That first article is kinda right. She's extremely shrill and it hurts my ears.
    Palin is shrill. Clinton is condescending.

  9. #9
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    Repugs aren't real strong on female science, only on female regulations.

    eg, The Repug Rape Caucus thinks a "legitimately" raped women can just wishfully "shut down" the semen from fertilizing her.
    wasn't that just Todd Akin

  10. #10
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    u'll be sucking her hairy balls after she gets the nomination
    What?

    Hillary doesn't shave her balls?

  11. #11
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    wasn't that just Todd Akin
    he's the spokesman for the Repug Rape Caucus

  12. #12
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    he's the spokesman for the Repug Rape Caucus
    They have a rape caucus?

  13. #13
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    They have a rape caucus?
    nothing formal, it's all those Repug/rightwing hate media who are solidly misogynist.

  14. #14
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    nothing formal, it's all those Repug/rightwing hate media who are solidly misogynist.
    OH. So akin says something re ed and therefore he's their spokesperson for rape

  15. #15
    4-25-20 Will Hunting's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    22,310
    OH. So akin says something re ed and therefore he's their spokesperson for rape
    Not just Akin, sn


  16. #16
    The Wemby Assembly z0sa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    14,730
    Damn

  17. #17
    ex Hornets78 Pelicans78's Avatar
    My Team
    New Orleans Pelicans
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    15,822
    I read the whole damn thing and it just got worse and worse.

    Allowing the Bible s to infiltrate their party was one of the worst things the Republicans ever did besides helping GW become president.

  18. #18
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,152
    Palin is shrill. Clinton is condescending.
    Women are not allowed the luxury of being stupid and if they are smart, they better not yell.

    Takehome lessons...

  19. #19
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Clinton stumbles on Wall Street question at CNN town hall
    Clinton found herself on the defensive when presented with one of Sanders’ key talking points: that she shouldn’t have taken high amounts of speaking fees from Goldman Sachs.

    “Well, I don't know. That’s what they offered,

    she said when asked whether she needed to be paid for three speeches amounting to $675,000, which Sanders often points to as evidence that she is beholden to Wall Street.

    "Every secretary of state that I know has done that." yep, Hillz is as conventional, establishment as they come. Move along, no revelation, no revolution here


    Clinton again reminded Cooper that she represented New York — the home of Wall Street — and insisted that she didn’t regret taking money from big banks,

    pointing to her plan to reform the financial services industry.

    she "wasn't committed" to running for president when she agreed to give the speeches in question.

    Bernie "I don’t know any progressive who has a super PAC that takes $15 million from Wall Street."

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...attacks-218721

    Hillz won't even propose to touch BigFinance, and we all know the Repugs will OBSTRUCT everything



  20. #20
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    the vested-interest establishment midgets expose their sexism

    Female senators urge Warren: Back Hillary Clinton


    Female Democratic senators are privately urging Sen. Elizabeth Warren to formally endorse Hillary Clinton for president.
    The lobbying campaign comes as the Democratic race between Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is heating up going into the New Hampshire primary next week.

    “I’m hopeful she’ll join us. I’m hopeful she’ll join the revolution that will allow us to come together to elect” the first female president, said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), one of Clinton’s staunchest supporters.

    Warren is the only female Democratic senator who has not endorsed Clinton.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...n-back-hillary

    I've read that "some women" think that the WH occupied by a black has broken the white male dominance, so that electing a woman just because she's woman (aka sexism), no matter what her policies are, is not so important anymore.



  21. #21
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    6,202
    Why should she endorse Hillary? Isn't she way out left like Sanders?

  22. #22
    Veteran Aztecfan03's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Post Count
    4,292
    Why should she endorse Hillary? Isn't she way out left like Sanders?
    Her integrity is a lot closer to Hillary's than Bernie's

  23. #23
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    As Clinton seeks to break the glass ceiling, many young feminists shrug

    It
    was not so long ago that Hillary Clinton was relishing her status as an icon among young feminists, who cheered her resilience to political attack, her use of her s om to advance the cause of women worldwide, even her trademark pantsuits.

    But now, when Clinton needs that support the most, much of her backing among women of the millennial generation has vanished.

    Locked in an increasingly tense battle for the Democratic nomination, Clinton has aggressively reached out to young women with the promise of breaking a glass ceiling that the women’s movement has worked for decades to shatter. The newest generation of feminists is responding with a shrug.


    The persona cultivated by Clinton’s campaign -- that of an exciting, trailblazing big sister with a “Girl Power” playlist of songs at the ready -- isn’t sticking. Young female voters seem more likely to see in Clinton an overcautious mother.

    In Iowa this week, women 29 and younger voted for Clinton’s challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders, by a stunning margin of roughly 6 to 1, much as young men did, according to the poll of voters arriving at precinct caucuses conducted for the television networks and the Associated Press.

    In advance of Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary, polls have shown Sanders holding the support of a majority of young women here, as well – a sharp contrast to Clinton’s dominance among women closer to her own age.


    The problem is not rejection of feminism – surveys suggest millennial women are the most staunchly feminist group of voters in America. They want to see a woman in the White House. Just not necessarily this woman.

    “I am excited for a future in which we will have a female president, but I don’t think Hillary is that person for this generation,” said Rachael Jennings, 28, a high school teacher in Dublin, N.H. The same sentiment was echoed over and over in interviews with younger female voters here and in Iowa.


    These progressive voters instead see as their champion a man – a 74-year-old democratic socialist, at that. Sanders is all the rage for now.


    “Young women cannot remember a time that Hillary was not a household name, and it confuses them what she stands for,” said Nichola Gutgold, a professor of communication arts and sciences at Penn State, who wrote a book, “Almost Madam President,” about Clinton’s 2008 quest for the nomination. “Rejecting her is a way of rejecting the establishment."


    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-millennial-women-20160203-story.html




  24. #24
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Hillary Clinton Turns Stand-Up Comic: "I’m a Progressive Who Gets Things Done"

    Promoting Fracking Worldwide is Not Progressive:

    On behalf of Chevron and other US oil companies, Secretary Clinton and the State Department pushed fracking globally, as Mother Jones has do ented: “How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Sold Fracking to the World.”


    Boosting Corporate-Friendly Trade Deals is
    Not Progressive:

    Secretary Clinton repeatedly praised the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – as it was being negotiated by the US Trade Representative and her State Department – and she recruited countries into the deal. In October, with Bernie Sanders climbing in the polls, Clinton said she no longer supported the pact, and prevaricated about her earlier boosterism.


    Enabling Military Coups is
    Not Progressive:

    When she headed the State Department, it enabled a military coup in Honduras that overthrew democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya, a progressive. Clinton wasbriefed on the dishonesty that allowed aid to illegally reach the coup government.


    Pocketing Millions from Corporate Lectures Fees is
    Not Progressive:

    When Wall Street, Big Pharma and other corporate interests paid a soon-to-be presidential candidate an average of $230,000 for a speech, did Hillary Clinton think it was for her brilliant stand-up comedy? Or was it more akin to political bribery? Clinton now says these firms just wanted to hear the views of a former Secretary of State on our “complicated world” – or about the Bin Laden raid. ButPolitico reported in 2013 soon after one of her three speeches to Goldman Sachs: “Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish.” (Releasing the speech transcripts would help settle the matter.)


    Escalating the Afghan War is
    Not Progressive:

    As insider books on the Obama administration have revealed, Secretary Clinton was among the most hawkish of Obama’s advisors in country after country – for example, vociferously urging the failed and pointless 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan.


    Chaotic Military Intervention in the Middle East and Libya is
    Not Progressive:

    If not for Hillary Clinton’s 2002 Senate vote in support of Bush’s Iraq invasion, Obama would not have defeated her in 2008. As if having learned nothing from the post-invasion chaos in Iraq, Secretary Clinton was one of the strongest voices in 2011 urging Obama to militarily depose Qaddafi in Libya, a country now in total, deadly chaos.

    On the campaign trail lately, Hillary Clinton is doing her best to sound much more progressive than her record in office, but she’s a rank amateur compared to her husband’s slickness on this score in the 1990s. President Bill Clinton did “get things done” – but some of his biggest initiatives were the opposite of progressive:

    1993
    : Passage of the corporate-friendly trade deal NAFTA, which passed mostly with Republican support against the votes of most Democrats in Congress.


    1996
    : Passage of the Telecommunications Act, the biggest change in media law since the 1930s, which helped big media companies grow even bigger. Bill Clinton got this done by working closely with Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, as both major parties received large donations from media and telecommunications corporations.


    1996
    : Repeal of federally-guaranteed welfare in the form of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), a program enacted in 1935 during Franklyn Roosevelt’s New Deal. The Children’s Defense Fund – a group Hillary Clinton worked with and repeatedly invokes to shore up her “progressive” credentials –vehemently denounced repeal.


    1999-2000
    : Deregulation of Wall Street, working closely with right-wing Senator Phil Gramm. Among other things, President Clinton ended the 1933 Glass-Steagall legislation which had separated Main Street banks from the more speculative Wall Street banks (a measure Hillary Clinton says she is opposed to reins uting). Dereg led directly to the 2007/2008 economic meltdown.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...ts-things-done

    Trying to equal or out-progressive Bernie shows how scared Hillary and her camp are.



  25. #25
    Complete player hitmanyr2k's Avatar
    My Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Post Count
    8,336
    She does have an annoying voice when she's trying to generate excitement to her crowd lol. Someone on her staff really needs to tell her to tone it down a bit. It comes across as forced like she's trying to be inspiring but she's anything but. It's really surprising after all these years she hasn't learned to be a better orator. At least she got rid of that stupid clap she used to do

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •