Maureen Down eviscerates Hillary Clinton

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Feb 15, 2015.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    Man, this woman wields a wicked pen. I wonder what prompted this column, a brutal takedown of the entire Clinton organization? There is definitely some animus here. Or perhaps Maureen (an arch, unapologetic liberal) is trying to toughen up Hillary for the general election.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-call-off-the-dogs.html
     
  2. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #2
    FYI, the correct spelling of her last name is Dowd.
     
  3. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #3
    I saw no surprises in the Dowd op-ed. The fact that the Clintons understand the power of money and negative campaigning is one thing that gives Hilary a good chance in 2016 despite the flood of Koch & friends money. Whoever is nominated by the Democrats will be swimming upstream:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html
     
  4. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #4
    That really depends on who the republican candidate will be. I may be an optimist, but I believe that all the money in the world can only skew the will of the voters so much.
     
  5. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #5
    I don't know how any self proclaimed liberal can claim they will vote for Hillary Clinton.

    She's the DNC version of John McCain but full of **** to an even greater exent.

    I understand why a progressive would like Obama or Warren but never Clinton
     
  6. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #6
    When she's your only choice, she becomes the lesser of two evils compared to mostly all the potential republican candidates on the table now. That's really the sad reality. I will pinch my nose shut and vote for her when it comes down to it.
     
  7. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #7
    Rand Paul is left of Clinton on war, banking, spying, and more. I've seen Jon Stewart and Bill Maher talk positively about Paul. That's saying something. At least some progressives have an open mind. Or will they toe the party line?
     
  8. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    Thus the reason why we always get stuck with evil. If people stuck to their morals/ethics/values. While voting the country would be a lot better, Instead people vote for the shiny "R"or"D" because OMG, they are not as "evil" as the other ones, even when they head down the SAME parth as the party you voted against:mad:
     
  9. iBlazed, Feb 15, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2015

    iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #9
    Well, no, she won't. I vote based on issues that effect me, my family, or my friends. I know for a fact that she will never sign a bill to repeal the ACA, which has benefitted my family tremendously. I know she will never sign any sort of "religious freedom restoration" type bills, or anything anti-gay. I know if a bill is passed to add gay people to the current federal anti-discrimination laws, she will sign it. This effects some people who I love dearly. I know she won't put into effect any laws designed to snuff out the constitutional right to abortion. As much as some people like to paint both parties as identical, it's simply false. My life and that of people I love can change for the worse if republicans take control of the White House AND congress at the same time. Things seem to be better for me and many around me, not to mention the economy, when Democrats are in control. So for that reason, I will continue to vote for the shiny D. I have peace of mind when Democrats are in control.

    Edit: Two more reasons. I don't have to worry about Hillary electing far right slanted judges to the Supreme Court when Ginsburg and Scalia croak or retire, which could very well be within the next president's term given their ages. Not just the Supreme Court, but other lower federal courts around the county as well. Also, I don't have to worry about Hillary being a thorn in the side of states who choose to legalize recreational marijuana. She may not have fully "evolved" on legalization yet, but she's not a rabid opponent either.

    If you notice my pattern, I care more about domestic issues than anything else. Economy, abortion, gay rights, minority rights and the police brutality epidemic, healthcare, judicial nominees, marijuana legalization, green energy. These issues are just too important to me to vote for anyone without a shiny D next to their name. I love this country too damn much to see it fall into what I feel are the wrong hands.
     
  10. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #10
    Dowd got her Pulitzer by hitting the Clintons, so it's no surprise she's ready with another broadside.


    Right. And, that will be a sign that we've gotten somewhere horrible, but considering the riffraff currently paraded around, I think we're in trouble.

    However, that doesn't mean that Paul will be the GOP candidate for President. Moreover, while I support many of his stances I don't trust him and I'm not sure he's a realistic choice for the White House.

    The fact that he's been playing sketchy games with his own board certification worries me.

    The short version: he's said his board certified and that's true, but it's by a board he created that operates only in Kentucky.
     
  11. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    Rand Paul does seem to have a lot of interesting ideas. However his disrespect of the Supreme Court on Obamacare and abortion is worrying.
     
  12. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #12
    Rand Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance at winning the GOP nomination, let alone the election. That's a pity because he is the most advanced thinker in the entire GOP clown car. However, his fumbling over the vaccination issue shows that he is still a lightweight in national politics. IMO, he's more useful in the Senate where he can counterbalance the GOPs pro-war, anything-Israel-wants, neocon wing.
     
  13. td1439 macrumors 6502

    td1439

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2012
    Location:
    Boston-ish
    #13
    He also came out in support of the TPP. So, I can't take him seriously as anything other than yet another corporatist.
     
  14. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #14
    Yeah, when the "board certified" Ophthalmologist can't jump on the vaccination question with a serious answer, you know he's in trouble.

    He's like Warren in some ways, useful as a counterbalance and able to make important points, but he's dog food on the run to the presidency.
     
  15. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #15
    He has also been lying about graduating from Baylor, so obviously he had to create his own board.

    That is not good, how does he justify that position? Because freedom?
     
  16. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #16
    Who is Clinton running against? Bachmann, Palin, Santorum, Huckabee, McCain? Romney, Ryan, Boehner, Perry, Paul, Paul, Rubio? Bush? I have no idea, but, it probably won't be Gary Johnson or Jon Huntsman, possibly the only two Republican leaders I can think of, who wouldn't embarrass me if they were President. Not that I agree with either of them on economics, but, I think they are about the only two Republican leaders who are not off the scale for hypocrisy.
     
  17. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #17
    that apple fell pretty far from the tree.
     
  18. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #18
    Rand is Ron without the mixed-nuts. However, he is still too inexperienced.
     
  19. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #19
    nuts was endorsing Romney.
     
  20. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #20
    That didn't stop our current president.
     

Share This Page