Maureen Down eviscerates Hillary Clinton

aaronvan

Suspended
Original poster
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
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.

Hillary hasn’t announced a 2016 campaign yet. She’s busy polling more than 200 policy experts on how to show that she really cares about the poor while courting the banks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-call-off-the-dogs.html
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
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
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:

The political network overseen by the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch plans to spend close to $900 million on the 2016 campaign, an unparalleled effort by coordinated outside groups to shape a presidential election that is already on track to be the most expensive in history.

The spending goal, revealed Monday at the Kochs’ annual winter donor retreat near Palm Springs, Calif., would allow their political organization to operate at the same financial scale as the Democratic and Republican Parties. It would require a significant financial commitment from the Kochs and roughly 300 other donors they have recruited over the years, and covers both the presidential and congressional races. In the last presidential election, the Republican National Committee and the party’s two congressional campaign committees spent a total of $657 million.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
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
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
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
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.
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
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.
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?
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,011
Criminal Mexi Midget
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.
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:
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
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:
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.
 
Last edited:

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,235
quae tangit perit Trump
Dowd got her Pulitzer by hitting the Clintons, so it's no surprise she's ready with another broadside.


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.
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.

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?
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.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,379
UK
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?
Rand Paul does seem to have a lot of interesting ideas. However his disrespect of the Supreme Court on Obamacare and abortion is worrying.
 

aaronvan

Suspended
Original poster
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
Rand Paul does seem to have a lot of interesting ideas. However his disrespect of the Supreme Court on Obamacare and abortion is worrying.
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.
 

td1439

macrumors 6502
Sep 29, 2012
337
115
Boston-ish
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.
He also came out in support of the TPP. So, I can't take him seriously as anything other than yet another corporatist.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,235
quae tangit perit Trump
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.
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.
 

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2009
2,105
2,163
IOKWARDI
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.
He has also been lying about graduating from Baylor, so obviously he had to create his own board.

He also came out in support of the TPP. So, I can't take him seriously as anything other than yet another corporatist.
That is not good, how does he justify that position? Because freedom?
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
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
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.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,011
Criminal Mexi Midget
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.
that apple fell pretty far from the tree.