• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On July - 8 - 2014

Hillary Clinton2

For those who harbor concerns about Hillary Clinton becoming the triangulating, Republican agenda empowering candidate that Bill was as President, looks like those concerns may be well grounded:

Hillary Clinton has begun distancing herself from President Barack Obama, suggesting that she would do more to woo Republicans and take a more assertive stance toward global crises, while sounding more downbeat than her former boss about the U.S. economic recovery.

Mrs. Clinton gave a gentle account of their policy differences in her new book, “Hard Choices,” though she wrote that she would have armed moderate Syrian rebels at a much earlier point in the country’s bloody civil war.

In another contrast, Mrs. Clinton has said U.S. presidents must never stop courting Congress. Mr. Obama has questioned whether such efforts make any difference. Mrs. Clinton expressed skepticism of candidates with “beautiful vision,” while Mr. Obama still hammers on his 2008 campaign mantra: “Hope.”

“I mean, some people can paint a beautiful vision,” she said at a CNN event last month. “And, thankfully, we can all learn from that. But then, can you, with the tenacity, the persistence, the getting-knocked down/getting-back-up resilience, can you lead us there?”

http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/hillary-clinton-begins-to-move-away-from-obama-ahead-of-2016-1404691988-lMyQjAxMTA0MDAwNzEwNDcyWj

The recent tactics from Hillary seem to be revealing the same mercenary, conservative/non-Progressive sensibilities we saw from Hillary in 2008. I’m not going to rely on one article to define Hillary but I am prepared for the possibility of seeing Hillary continue down this road of Republicanism under the guise of “working for bipartisanship” and “reaching out to Republicans”…just as Bill did.

Bill Clinton’s years were a boon for many key Repub agendas, destroying unions while outsourcing jobs via NAFTA, killing Glass-Steagall and setting the country on a course for Wall Street to rob the 99% and crash the economy and forcing a work requirement on those on Welfare.

Anyone who’s become a bit familiar with Bill Clinton and his foundation knows that it’s all about networking with the wealthiest people to get them to back his projects. Bill has extremely close relationships with the same wealthy Republican throwing millions into elections to elect Republicans by hook or by crook (with an emphasis on the “crook”). Chelsea Clinton worked for a hedge fund, her husband ran a hedge fund and the Clintons have a net worth somewhere between $55-$80 million dollars.

Now that may not be Romney cheddar but how many people do you know who have $55 million and think most about those who are struggling? In between their catered benefits and galas?

Bill Clinton makes $200,000 per speech (that’s more than $200,000/hour since his speeches don’t last as long as an hour…so maybe $200,000/half hour?) and in total, he’s made over $100 million just for giving speeches.

Hillary Clinton received a $14 million advance on her recent book, Hard Choices and receives the same average of $200,000 for her speaking fee (guess taking that kind of money for just speaking isn’t a Hard Choice). She claims that all of the money she gets from college speaking fees (that doesn’t include fundraising, corporate and other speaking fees) go to the Clinton Foundation, not to her. Er, isn’t her last name Clinton?

The Clintons are incredibly wealthy people who move in the circles of the same wealthy and powerful people who have inordinate control over our democracy and society, they are friends and peers with them…so is it most likely that if elected, she’s going to hammer her best friends to help “the others”?

Her quickness and lack of hesitation or conscience to spin and stab Obama in the back as referenced at the top of this article and her dishonesty about her and Bill leaving the White House “dead broke” revive that creepy feeling in me that I had about her in 2008…that she may be what we used to call…”A Republican”.

While he was President, it was argued that Bill Clinton was one of the better Republican Presidents. Hillary Clinton seems like she can hardly contain herself when it comes to saber rattling, anxious to prove she doesn’t think “like a girl” and would happily send our troops into harm’s way if given the chance (this hawk aspect of Hillary is primarily what opened the door for Obama in 2008).

Because the Republican Party has moved so far to the lunatic fringe, in comparison, a Hillary Clinton who wants limited new wars, wants to support bills to which Republicans are sympathetic and is beginning to run against Obama as part of her campaign may not seem to be the definition of today’s GOP but think back a decade or two, wouldn’t a Republican in the 1990’s have similar positions?

It is probable that whoever the Republican candidate turns out to be, would be far more toxic for our nation than Hillary. In a General Election against Rand Paul or Jeb Bush, she would be the better choice…but since it still wouldn’t be voting for a Progressive, it would be more a situation of voting for the lesser  of two Republicans.

I make predictions here from time to time, my batting average ain’t so bad but of course it’s not perfect (I was so sure that aqua was going to be the new black this season!). I do think this is an easy one though since she’s already seemed to tip her hand a bit. I expect Hillary to run philosophically as a moderate Republican. That is, she will support the social issues that most Dems support, the right to contraception and abortion, immigration reform, gay marriage, etc., but she will also support the financial and international issues that Republicans support, aggressive involvement in world conflicts, minimizing regulations on corporations and supporting tax benefits for the wealthy (“to encourage investment”) and framing Obama and his successes as failures.

You couldn’t blame Hillary for being convinced by those in her bubble and the MSM that she’s entitled to win the Presidency and make history as the first woman President. You couldn’t be surprised by her taking the Progressive base for granted (“Who are they going to vote for anyway?”) and appealing to conservatives and RWs to win the election in a mandate landslide. And she shouldn’t be surprised that a presently unlikely candidate for the Dem nomination may run to her left and give her a run for her money (which would be quite a run)…and maybe even beat her.

Hillary seems to be ready to start off as running for the General Election instead of running to win the Dem primary and that is the same slippery slope she slid down in 2008. It wouldn’t be strange if an actually Progressive candidate started gaining ground on her in the primaries. I could imagine her suddenly adopting that candidate’s Progressive values while attacking that candidate as ruthlessly as she attacked Obama (we all remember how vicious she and Bill were towards Obama when he started looking stronger…both throwing around the race card with Reverend Wright and other racial statements, it was Hillary supporters who started the Birther accusations against Obama, Hillary attacked Obama as unAmerican for his “ties” to Bill Ayers and of course Hillary just outright lied about her and Chelsea being shot at on a runway by a Bosnian sniper to seem more heroic than Obama).

Counting on a leopard to change its spots is not the best bet to make in Vegas. Bill and Hillary breathe the same rarefied air that the mostly Republican 1% breathe, they fly in the same private jets, they’ve supported the same policies and agendas and they “pal around” with the same financial terrorists who destroyed our economy and cracked economic inequity wide open for the 99% (far more than Obama “palled around” with Bill Ayers). So does she really look like she’ll be the champion of the 99% over the 1% if she becomes President?

We should never crown Presidents in America. Hillary doesn’t have a right to become President, she should have to compete against worthy opponents and earn the nomination if she’s to have it. I’m hoping to see a very spirited Democratic Primary in 2016 and I will support whoever wins that primary against whatever lying nihilist likely comes out of the GOP’s primary…but let’s have a real Primary race and elect the Democrat who best reflects Progressive values.

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

247 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. NoManIsAnIsland says:

    You’re very welcome, Kalima.

    Years ago I got one of the greatest compliments of my life when I
    was told I had the patience of Job — but I have nothing on you.

    To say you tried is quite an understatement because you tried, and
    tried, and tried, and — then Oh, my! — you tried again!

  2. cyndibru says:

    I wrote : “HRC has a lot of female support and quite an organization and funds already in place — a big jump on any other candidate. I think it’s pretty much hers to lose, but of course that could certainly happen.”

    TresL wrote: “HRC had all those advantages in 2008 and still lost. I can only hope the same is true in 2016.”

    I responded: “Yes, but there’s no potential of the “first black President” to compete with this time around, nor will there be the same starry-eyed swallowing of the rhetoric of “hope and change” and jumping on the “yes we can” bandwagon.”

    This led to quite a few comments filled with negativity and going off in tangents having absolutely nothing to do with what I actually said. Obviously my comments are pointing out two things that will be different and significant IMO between this Democratic primary and the one in 2008. Why so many of you can’t separate your personal feelings about Obama and his agenda from talking about what goes on in the wider political arena of this country completely bewilders me. That you take such offense to pointing out the obvious facts that many of your fellow Americans voted for President Obama for less-informed reasons than your own, much less assume that by pointing out the facts I am “critiquing” his campaign or the fact that he is black or that he is a progressive again mystifies me. It is obvious that Barak Obama ran a brilliant campaign in 2008.

    It is also obvious that whomever challenges HRC for the nomination this time will not have what I named as advantages in going against her.

    While I realize that many of you are NOT disappointed in Obama’s presidential performance, many other Americans who voted for him are, some for justifiable reasons, some not. ….just like people vote for a candidate for various reasons….some justifiable, some not. But for those who believed the campaign rhetoric and were disappointed (some because he didn’t go far enough to do what he promised, others because they misunderstood what he wanted and was promising), they’re not going to be as blindly believing this time around. Like it or not, a lot of people feel like they didn’t get their “hope and change”. …even if most of them can’t even define it in concrete terms (which actually is the point of such rhetoric).

    Sorry, but I’m a realist. There will be people who vote for HRC simply because she is a female, and there will be people who vote against her for the same reason…..and those will be their only reasons. The same thing happened in 2008 with Obama, on a racial basis. If that fact bothers you and leads to vitriol and personal attacks basically calling me a racist, that’s your problem, not my problem. And if you disagree that soaring oratory and rhetoric had any effect, I know you’re intellectually dishonest, no matter how many here back you up. For the record, his mastery of public speaking and persuasion is one of the things I happen to admire about President Obama.

    • AdLib says:

      cyndibru, there is a very interesting phenomenon about some people when it comes to race. They may be genuinely kind people who would never intentionally be insulting to those of other races, religions, etc. However, they have been raised and/or surround themselves in an environment where everyone around them shares the same taken-for-granted “facts” about “others” that are actually bigotry but seem to such a community, just to be the way things are.

      Such people can express prejudiced views openly but be oblivious to the fact that they are prejudiced. Their meter doesn’t begin at zero like others who aren’t prejudiced, it begins higher up the scale so from their perspective, when they’re really registering well up the prejudice scale with most other people, they see themselves at zero.

      It’s oblivious prejudice. You can try to explain to such people that what they’re saying is prejudiced but in their minds, it’s absurd that anyone could accuse them of that, just for saying what “everyone knows”, such as black people are so shallow that they will vote for candidates solely because they are black (ask Herman Cain how many black people voted for him).

      I wouldn’t expect such people to “get it”. They use all kinds of different codes for essentially saying that white people are smart because they vote on the issues but minorities are so simple minded, they only vote based on the race of the candidate. Some people expressing such views are incredulous and offended that their views haven’t been seen as matter-of-factly as their fellow oblivious colleagues would have viewed them.

      It is a very familiar approach to make sweeping generalizations about those one disagrees with, often employing race, gender, religion, etc. then claim that one just “knows” they’re right with absolute certainty how people with very different mindsets think (never providing any documentation or links from credible sources to support their claims of course)…even though they don’t associate with such people in their personal lives. Then when their prejudiced proclamations are batted back at them, being oblivious, they claim they’re being attacked and victimized unfairly. So, first one portrays others in an offensive way (obliviously or not) then that same person claims they’re being attacked when their attacks aren’t left to stand unchallenged.

      From what you’ve written, it would seem appropriate to assume that you would not describe yourself as a Progressive (I believe you’ve described yourself as a Libertarian?). I would think that you could well describe the thought process of Libertarians but what seems clear is that you really don’t understand how Progressives think and make choices.

      You are absolutely entitled to express your views of Progressives just as those who you generalize about in a negative way have every right to refute your flawed assertions.

      My question to you is, are you interested in truth and if so, why wouldn’t you ask those who see things differently than you do, why they do, instead of adopting prejudiced assumptions that appear to be constructed solely to be self-affirming?

      • NoManIsAnIsland says:

        AdLib, I hear you and concur with your conclusions
        in this and your, Kalima’s, and TresL’s earlier most eloquent rebuttals to Cyndibru’s unsubstantiated charges.

        If Cyndibru has any non ad hominem, evidence-based points to make, they haven’t been offered yet as far as I can tell.

    • SueInCa says:

      Hi Cyndibru

      I am curious as to why you would assume that people voted for a person because of his soaring rhetoric? Are you saying that President Obama got 65 million people to vote for him on rhetoric? Or is there maybe a subset that you can point to specifically that voted that way? I am not sure how you can make the claims you do without anything to substantiate those claims. If you do have a study that proves people voted on rhetoric, please share it with us. I am equally curious how he was re-elected if so many were disappointed in his first term?

      It is no secret that some progressives got their feelings hurt because they did not see instant gratification with the things they wanted, their whining has been noted. I do wonder, though, how you feel a President is to achieve the things he wants with a Congress that makes it clear they will not work with him and are there only to see him fail. If it were you in his shoes, how would you remedy that and the daily attacks, racist jokes, comments about his family, the list goes on and on. How would you deal with the knowledge that as you were attending inauguration festivities a group of powerful Republicans were in a meeting planning how to disrupt your agenda at every turn?

      Please do tell me how, if you were in his shoes, you would remedy all the negativeness that has been thrown his way?

      • NoManIsAnIsland says:

        Exactly right, Sue. While Cyndibru is far more
        articulate and considerably less insulting than the run of the mill reactionaries and tinfoil hat crowd that pollute many other websites, in the end she (from the name, I assume the poster is a woman) has come essentially unarmed to the discussion.

        In debating terms, it’s like bringing a knife to a
        gunfight.

        • SueInCa says:

          Mo Man
          It just bothers me when people make claims for which they have no citations. I do try to post only things that I know for sure and if I a wrong, I will readily admit it but I really do try to post accurate information.

          I agree about the knife thing too. No offense to Cyndibru but I am always going to challenge comments that seem to be made based on personal opinion.

    • TresL says:

      Hi Cyndibru,

      I wasn’t aware that this conversation was still going on because my first ever visit to Planet POV was Tuesday and I’d return and comment only after receiving an email response to one of my comments. This morning, however, when I was logging in to another site, Planet POV appeared in my browser, obviously, because of my frequent visits this week so I decided to peek in.

      Well, I won’t speak for anyone else but my issue with your comment was the dismissive tone. It seemed to suggest that HRC lost because Obama voters were unsophisticated and swayed only by beautiful oratory and dark skin which implies that HRC voters were somehow superior in their thinking and voting. That may not have been your intent but that’s certainly the way I read it.

      “Yes, but there’s no potential of the “first black President” to compete with this time around, nor will there be the same starry-eyed swallowing of the rhetoric of “hope and change” and jumping on the “yes we can” bandwagon.”

      Is it black voters you believe only voted for the President because he was black because I seem to recall it was Iowa that gave PBO his first victory and a well-deserved victory at that. PBO worked his ass off in that state. He did dozens of town halls and campaigned all over Iowa almost every day. The Obama campaign registered thousands of new voters everywhere he had an office. Your comment diminishes PBO, his supporters and voters and their tireless efforts. In 2008, I registered nearly 600 voters in six weeks while working for the liberal group, Grassroots Campaigns. In 2011, as an OFA Fall Fellow, I turned my apartment into a campaign office working from home calling hundreds of voters to recruit them to volunteer and work in neighborhood teams, to donate or to just commit their support to PBO. People were calling me at home at all hours of the day and night to volunteer to be trained for data entry, canvassing and voter registration. I had what seemed like thousands of conversations about PBO’s policies and vision for this country. PBO built his campaign from the bottom up while HRC built hers from the top down. My congressman was a huge HRC supporter yet I never was. PBO was my first choice from day one followed by Biden, Edwards and Richardson. I think you get the point that I wanted anyone but her then and now so when HRC supporters focus so much on PBO and his supporters, they miss the multitude of reasons voters might prefer someone other than her. The most obvious reason is that in a country of over 300 million people, it’s just plain silly to keep selecting our presidents from the same two very average families. I would like to see the first woman president be someone who has her own identity clearly distinct from that of her husband and who is willing to put in the work. For some black people, Al Sharpton is an important voice. In his recent book, he explained why he endorsed PBO over HRC. It was because PBO respected him and the voters who follow him enough to meet with him in person and ask for his support. HRC sent Bill instead. I could go on and on with examples of how PBO bested HRC in ways large and small that have nothing to do with oratory and skin color; but, I ‘m sure you get the point. Even if people voted for PBO for the reasons you suggest, HRC might still have won had she worked harder, planned better, learned how to count delegates, not run out of money by Super Tuesday and accorded potential supporters even a modicum of respect.

      There’s so much more I can write but I do have to get to work. I hope this helps.

      • NoManIsAnIsland says:

        Wow, TresL, the first post of yours I read and admired told me you were a very special person. Reading your comments above confirm that in spades, and I thank you for your service to the Obama campaign and, consequently, to our country!

        Full disclosure now: While the fact those trying
        to destroy Obama’s presidency even before his inauguration and bring the whole country down with him have somehow stood in his way from
        becoming the greatest president since George
        Washington, I’m still proud to say before Obama finished the first sentence of his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I turned to my wife and said, “Whether he knows it or not yet, this young man is going to run for president some day — and he WILL win!”

        Since then volunteers of different races in both
        of his campaigns and posters responding to me
        on the internet have told me they had the same reaction at the same time.

        No, Barack Obama isn’t a saint and isn’t likely to
        be immortalized on Mt. Rushmore, but only 4 presidents have to date. But he does have
        qualities and an appeal going above mere
        rhetoric; and his margin of victory in 2012,
        one of the greatest in our history, speaks
        to that.

        What you’ve so well and clearly should
        help Cindibru, but I must say nothing
        anyone has posted so far has seemed
        to budge her thinking an inch — nor
        is it likely to. The self-deluded mind
        is absolutely impervious to reason
        and change, unfortunately, and it
        remains true as ever “There are none
        so blind as those who will not see….”

      • kesmarn says:

        TresL, thanks so much for such an eloquent comment. And even more thanks for all the hard work you’ve put into turning your (and others’) ideals into reality over the last few years.

        That’s a lot of labor (and probably very little sleep) there! And not just for a day or two, either.

        You’re a valuable and very welcome addition to our Planet community and we hope to hear much more from you!

        • TresL says:

          kesmarn, thank you so much. I think another thing people don’t get when they make broad assumptions is that there was an ongoing debate in black communities about who to support. Most people liked both candidates but generally split among age with younger blacks preferring PBO and older blacks preferring HRC. There were people who didn’t want to support PBO out of fear for his life. There were others who thought he should wait and get more experience under his belt. What finally pushed many blacks to PBO was the behavior of HRC, Bill and her campaign. The race-baiting, which they continue to deny to this day, shocked many blacks because they liked Bill and had supported him in the past; but, the quickest way to lose support from black people is to start playing racial politics. We expect that kind of behavior from Republicans; not from Democrats.

          • kesmarn says:

            That is so interesting, TresL — to learn about the various options that were considered and the changes of opinions that happened over the course of that campaign. It was truly a gripping era in American history.

            It was my son who really introduced me to Barack Obama back then. He was such a relative new-comer that I hardly knew a thing about him. But I’ve never regretted my vote once.

            He has seemed to have the hand of destiny on him. The man of the hour to help to undo the very significant damage that Dubya had done. I think there are probably barely two dozen humans on the planet who could have handled all that he’s had to handle over the past six years.

            We’re fortunate to have him in office.

            • Nirek says:

              Tresl, we have not met, but let me say welcome to the Planet.
              I agree with you on “blanket statements” but I carry it a little further. Blanket statements about any group of people are silly at best.

              I find it offensive when I hear that all men or women are whatever the speaker says. We are all human but not all of us are exactly the same.

              My Dad used to say, “it’s a good thing we don’t all love the same woman”! You can plug in any word in place of “women”.

              Again welcome. Peace.

            • kesmarn says:

              I ran out of room down there, TresL, but I just have to say that your last sentence summed it up in a nutshell. It doesn’t get more logical than that!

            • TresL says:

              Thanks! This is why blanket statements about how black people vote really annoy me. I’ve been on the ground the last two presidential election cycles talking to black people of varying education and income so I know what’s true in my corner of the universe based on that experience. People think we’re a monolith because we overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Many of us vote in the interest of community before self. It’s also pretty much impossible to vote for a party that makes it clear in every way possible that it hates you.

    • SallyT says:

      Okay, I am late to the ball park here but, cyndibru, you have totally confused me. I can’t tell if you are for Hillary or a conservative looking to argue. But, if you are for Hillary, I think Hill would be asking about now for you to stop helping! You are not helping! If you are a conservative, well, you knew the reactions you were going to get here. I can tell you this, I don’t care if Obama was purple, I would have voted for him before McCain and Palin! Or Romney!
      I didn’t vote for President Obama either time because of his race. I wouldn’t vote for any woman just because she was a woman. Again, I didn’t vote for McCain just because he had a woman on the ticket with him. Now, I have never voted for a Republican for President and I don’t think I ever could. But, I will leave that as a possibility because I could be drugged and not know what the hell I was doing someday.
      I voted for a Democrat and we got a good one! I haven’t always agreed with somethings he has done or certain people he has chosen or keep on his cabinets. But, that is far from calling him a failure. Disappointments, maybe a couple, but my disappointments doesn’t make him a failure either. I am not wearing rose colored glasses or blinders. I can see things in many directions. I am happy with my choice for President in the last 2 elections. I am sure I will be happy with voting for whomever the Democrats choose to run in 2016, even if it is Hillary. Nose holding or not. I trust our platform and after primaries, we’ll get the right candidate again.
      So, again, I don’t know your angle here but if you are for Hillary….you are not helping her and you should stop!

      • NoManIsAnIsland says:

        Right on, Sally! :)

      • kesmarn says:

        Sally, well said. If a big section of the population were inclined to vote for/against a candidate based solely on race or gender, don’t you think that tendency would have shown up when Sarah Palin and Herman Cain were being seriously considered?

        Virtually no black person I know thought Herman Cain was presidential material. They wouldn’t have voted for him even if he’d somehow managed to secure the nomination.

        And that same with Palin. Women aren’t silly enough to vote for a person as obviously mentally challenged as she is just because she’s a woman.

        American voters may not always be the sharpest knives in the drawer, but they’re not that stupid.

        • TresL says:

          Exactly! Black people very rarely vote against their interests and are far more sophisticated than people ever give us credit for. The black voters in Detroit elected a white man for mayor over a black opponent. The black voters in Maryland did not vote for the black Republican, Michael Steele; they voted for the white Democrat, Ben Cardin because we’ve known for decades what many Americans are just now finding out. The Republican Party is basically the political arm of the Klan.

          We rarely get to vote for candidates we like. The candidate that gets our vote is the one we think will do us the least amount of harm which is what we just witnessed in the MS Senate race.

          In PBO, we saw someone who was a perfect candidate who we also really liked. I think HRC assumed that the affinity some blacks had for Bill was transferable to her when she really needed to put in the work herself.

          • SallyT says:

            Thank you, TresL, for commenting and extending my comment with needed points and understanding from you. I can only add to the others that I am with you!

          • kesmarn says:

            I was just thinking of that recent election in Detroit! So true. It took a lot of black votes to elect that white mayor. And the black Detroit population is also savvy enough to recognize when a white GOP Governor plugs in a puppet black “manager” to carry out the Koch agenda there and they do not like it one bit! Nobody is fooling anybody there in Michigan.

            A similar situation just happened in Toledo, Ohio — a city with a large black population. A black mayor was just made a one-termer because he campaigned in “stealth mode” and then went full-on Tea Party once he got elected. (GOP Gov. John Kasich was a crony of his.) It didn’t take the black community long to figure out whose interests he had at heart. They tossed him and elected a white guy with some ethics and a heart for the poor.

            • kesmarn says:

              You’re very welcome, TresL. And I’m totally with you on the issue of complexity. Only lazy thinkers rely on stereotypes, no?

            • TresL says:

              Thank you, kesmarn, for sharing that. These stories reveal that while black people, have been in this country for centuries, the broader society has no idea who we really are. The media feeds them a constant diet of stereotypes which informs their view; but, there is great complexity that’s often missed.

      • monicaangela says:

        Hear, hear !!!!!!

    • VegasBabe says:

      It’s unfortunate your candidate failed to deliver “soaring oratory and rhetoric” and in fact, did exactly the opposite. Your continual insults and disrespect and putrid attempts to tell folks why they voted for who they voted for continues to alarm and astound. Your candidate lost, for many here, our candidate won. It’s really quite that simple! Get over it! And for the record, you’ve failed to present any facts thus far.

      • cyndibru says:

        In the discussion I was engaged in we were discussing Hillary’s chances in the upcoming Democratic primary and comparing and contrasting them to the previous Democratic one in 2008, not the general election and whose candidate won and whose didn’t. I never mentioned anything about the GOP whatsoever. I’m sorry that you obviously cannot follow the context of a discussion and choose instead to take umbrage and insult where there was none. Nothing you said above has any bearing or relevance to any comments I have made, nor did I address anyone here as to why they voted and for whom, other than to state that obviously they are more informed voters than the general populace simply by virtue of being here. Since you can’t apparently can’t tell the difference between general discussion of an issue and personal feelings about it, and are obviously feel that someone of a different political persuasion is not entitled to respectful discussion, I’ll leave you to your one-sided perspectives.

        • Kalima says:

          Sorry cyndi, but everyone here reacted to exactly what you wrote in your comments on this post. Maybe you should read your comments and replies here again, or better still, I’ve put them all together in my comment. You are not a victim here, you actually wrote these opinions, and when others replied, you accused them of attacking you. No one attacked you and please point to the “vitriol”, everyone just strongly disagreed with you. There is a huge difference. If you are going to make bold and overreaching statements, you should be prepared for others to take you on or you could provide the proof.

          cyndibru says:
          07/09/2014 at 1:50 PM (Edit)
          After reading all of these comments, I feel a LOT better about the probability that HRC will be our next president. I knew in 2008 I preferred her to Obama, so it was already an improvement, but seeing how much “progressives” dislike her and will have to “hold their noses” if she is the Dem nominee really helps. Makes me wonder about all those claims of GOP obstructionism being the problem with things today though….if one of the big progressive concerns about HRC is that she might actually be better at working with the other side of the aisle and possibly get some things you care about done. Perhaps not to your complete and total satisfaction, and perhaps with the other side getting some things it wants too…..which is what I suspect is the bigger fear than gridlock for some people.

          “Makes me wonder about all those claims of GOP obstructionism being the problem with things today though….if one of the big progressive concerns about HRC is that she might actually be better at working with the other side of the aisle and possibly get some things you care about done.”

          cyndibru says:
          07/10/2014 at 9:22 PM (Edit)
          If you sincerely think that Obama’s race had nothing to do with his election, then you also likely think that no one opposes him for exactly the same reason. I happen to abhor both sets of circumstances, but I don’t ignore the fact that they exist. There are many people who voted for Obama for no other reason than to elect the first black president and knew or cared nothing about his actual policies, and there are many people who oppose him personally for the same reason rather than opposing his policies. To acknowledge those facts in no way “simplistically reduces the argument”. I also addressed the fact that he was really good with rhetorical uplifting motivating speechifying. I did leave out that because of dissatisfaction with Bush, some voters were voting simply against the GOP, just as will be the case in reverse in 2016. I realize you support the man, and many people obviously did and some still do. But if you truly think the majority of Americans voted on his issues and his promises, I think you’re incorrect. The vast majority of Americans (even the ones who vote), couldn’t tell you the issues much less frame any of the specifics. They swallow the sound bites and the rhetoric they find most appealing.

          cyndibru says:
          07/10/2014 at 10:13 PM (Edit)
          How do I know such things? Because I read, see and hear interviews with voters, and know and understand human nature, and don’t discount facts I dislike. I’m sorry, but I find it hilarious that so many of you constantly talk about the “uninformed voters”, the “disinterested voters”, the lack of political knowledge of the general populace, but are now OFFENDED by the notion that it applies to Americans in general, even if they supported the same candidate you did. To acknowledge racism is not the same as agreeing with it. Those who dislike President Obama because he is half-black are racist. Those who support President Obama because he is half-black are ALSO racist. To pretend that the election of ANY politician in this country is not influenced by race, both ways, is ridiculous.

          cyndibru says:
          07/09/2014 at 9:58 PM (Edit)
          Yes, but there’s no potential of the “first black President” to compete with this time around, nor will there be the same starry-eyed swallowing of the rhetoric of “hope and change” and jumping on the “yes we can” bandwagon.

          cyndibru says:
          07/10/2014 at 10:03 PM (Edit)
          I wrote : “HRC has a lot of female support and quite an organization and funds already in place — a big jump on any other candidate. I think it’s pretty much hers to lose, but of course that could certainly happen.”

          TresL wrote: “HRC had all those advantages in 2008 and still lost. I can only hope the same is true in 2016.”

          I responded: “Yes, but there’s no potential of the “first black President” to compete with this time around, nor will there be the same starry-eyed swallowing of the rhetoric of “hope and change” and jumping on the “yes we can” bandwagon.”

          This led to quite a few comments filled with negativity and going off in tangents having absolutely nothing to do with what I actually said. Obviously my comments are pointing out two things that will be different and significant IMO between this Democratic primary and the one in 2008. Why so many of you can’t separate your personal feelings about Obama and his agenda from talking about what goes on in the wider political arena of this country completely bewilders me. That you take such offense to pointing out the obvious facts that many of your fellow Americans voted for President Obama for less-informed reasons than your own, much less assume that by pointing out the facts I am “critiquing” his campaign or the fact that he is black or that he is a progressive again mystifies me. It is obvious that Barak Obama ran a brilliant campaign in 2008.

          It is also obvious that whomever challenges HRC for the nomination this time will not have what I named as advantages in going against her.

          While I realize that many of you are NOT disappointed in Obama’s presidential performance, many other Americans who voted for him are, some for justifiable reasons, some not. ….just like people vote for a candidate for various reasons….some justifiable, some not. But for those who believed the campaign rhetoric and were disappointed (some because he didn’t go far enough to do what he promised, others because they misunderstood what he wanted and was promising), they’re not going to be as blindly believing this time around. Like it or not, a lot of people feel like they didn’t get their “hope and change”. …even if most of them can’t even define it in concrete terms (which actually is the point of such rhetoric).

          Sorry, but I’m a realist. There will be people who vote for HRC simply because she is a female, and there will be people who vote against her for the same reason…..and those will be their only reasons. The same thing happened in 2008 with Obama, on a racial basis. If that fact bothers you and leads to vitriol and personal attacks basically calling me a racist, that’s your problem, not my problem. And if you disagree that soaring oratory and rhetoric had any effect, I know you’re intellectually dishonest, no matter how many here back you up. For the record, his mastery of public speaking and persuasion is one of the things I happen to admire about President Obama.

          • NoManIsAnIsland says:

            Spot on, Kalima. With all due
            respect, if you were debating
            a brick wall, you would have
            won hands down — and the
            wall would have been the
            first to admit it.

            But to attempt to engage one
            caught in the trap of her own
            mind is a most thankless and
            hopeless task.

          • cyndibru says:

            Yes, it’s quite interesting how you leave out what I was replying to in between my comments that you have so conveniently aggregated. I stand by my comments as written, in the entirety of the thread. And starting your post with “sorry” is completely disingenuous. I was replying to a personal post directed at me, not to everyone on the thread nor was I asking for your assistance, nor was the other poster that I could tell. She seems quite capable of speaking for herself should she wish to respond. It’s quite telling where you feel the need to inject your “assistance” and where you don’t.

            • Kalima says:

              All people have to do is scroll down this page to see who you were replying to cyndi, I said that I had reposted your comments, and that’s what I did. There was no ulterior motive so you can stop with that false accusation, and I only have the use of my right eye so it’s difficult to C&P everything.

              There are no “personal” posts here, everyone has the right to jump in whenever they want to. This is an open public site. I run The Planet together with AdLib, so I think I’ve earned the right to jump in wherever I want to, and so can the rest of our members. If you want to reposts the replies from other members, please feel free to do that, but it won’t change a thing.

              FYI, I’m in a totally different time zone from all of you, so whatever you are implying by where and when I choose to or choose not to “inject my assistance” makes absolutely no sense to me.

              Nevertheless, I hope I’ve been of some assistance, and cleared a few things up for you.

  3. NoManIsAnIsland says:

    If it’s laughs you’re after, Murph, how about this? I posted a
    work in progress of this to AdLib a few days ago, but I think the
    latest version may be better:

    Hillary, dillalry, dock,
    In Bosnia she ran out the clock.
    No snipers showed up,
    She made it all up!
    Pillory Hilllary — thwock!

  4. NoManIsAnIsland says:

    Murph, to refresh your memory, this is the conclusion of your post of
    July 1 that I responded to:

    “I was with you all the way until the end of your last
    sentence. Yes the 4 most conservative judges really are reactionary- that is they are reacting against rather than acting for — the very definition of being anti-progressive. But this does not mean they are operating within a totalitarian superstructure. They are not. The operate within the same context as the liberal courts of the past have done.”

    This is what I wrote to you later that night:

    “Murph, I take your point; and as I think I can see how I failed to
    make my meaning clear to you and possibly others, I welcome a second chance to state it better.

    When I compared the ‘reasoning and unconstitutional decisions’ of the reactionary justices of the SCOTUS to the deliberations, such as they were, in the totalitarian regimes I noted, in no way did I intend to imply the SCOTUS operates within a ‘totalitarian superstructure.’ I would be the last to claim any faction of justices reaches majority decisions except by achieving a majority of the justices’ votes.

    All I wanted to say was that as apparent partisans and all but open allies of the reactionary American ruling elites, our ‘4 most conservative judges’ (in your words) in their enthusiasm to rule in favor of corporations over individuals, to equate money with speech, and to keep women in what they think is ‘their place’ — remind me of judges in countries ruled by dictators, where every decision is made automatically for the state and its masters.

    But the SCOTUS is still a democratic institution, and over the span of our history has so far managed to reach some periods of reasonable equilibrium — even as it’s sometimes veered in lamentable and reckless directions.

    I can’t know if this explanation will bring you ‘all the way ‘ with me, but I hope at least you understand now what I was trying to get across. In any case, I’d like to know what you think now.”

    • MurphTheSurf3 says:

      I get your point.

      The justices are operating within the long standing rules of the court but three of the justices (Alito, Scalia and Thomas) have clearly decided to associate their judgments and judicial philosophy with corporatism and have been able to entice Roberts and Kennedy to join them a number of times.

      A corporate vs. citizen based understanding of rights is very much in keeping with totalitarian regimes. Indeed, at its heart, fascism is defined in terms of corporate bodies (banking, manufacture, farming, labor, church, and government) first and foremost.

      We agree.

      • NoManIsAnIsland says:

        Thanks for taking the time to let me sort this out
        for you, Murph, as I would be disappointed for a
        possible miscommunication on my part to have
        made it seem I thought something I did not.

        In the few years we’ve exchanged ideas, I think
        we’ve been on the same page so far and didn’t expect this would be an exception.

        And as for the last in a series of plaudits for my
        writing you posted here in the last few weeks, I
        hadn’t thanked you yet but want to do so now.
        I waited until now as I couldn’t find words
        adequate to the occasion. And while I still
        can’t, let me offer you my humble (really)
        thanks now.

  5. RSGmusic says:

    WOW Adlib, nice article I give it a 9.

    It is a different look at Hillary. Great points on why she and bill are moderate republicans.

    The discussions above of previous have a lot of good things also.

    Hillary if she gets the dem spot is better then any GOP candidate. For those who might go to the GOP, think abut their social issues and religious issues and you should cringe in fear.

    OK i have actually been to many CEO board meetings in my OIL company one of the largest in the world. I was the token POOR and one of two minorities for theses special meetings. I got that seat as a diversity candidate, i sat on that board for 4 yrs. This oil company roared to the for front of diversity 12 yrs a go. The next CEO is always the goal there for a CEO in this oil company serves 5 yrs, with only one accept-ion of seven. They all are pretty silent on their agenda’s until or when they get the seat. Almost politicians are the same. That is why your article is so good.

    Now think of Hillary, warren, sanders and Biden all sitting on the board put not the CEO. All of the above know corporate issues like a republican but 3 will will not FOLD like Hillary.

    the best candidate other then Hillary. Warren no question, second Sanders and third Biden.
    Warren sanders of the other way is a winning combination.
    Sanders Hillary would win but Hillary is not interested in being VP.
    Biden Sanders is the long shot, Biden has some of the baggage of Obama. I do not see Warren running though. I would vote for nay of these other combinations.

    OK last work on Obama. IN the future he will be rated among the top presidents.
    One he had No money of his own, got elected twice and was blocked at every turn. HE did have lofty goals but goals are hard to accomplish or should be set high they can not be reached.

    I would like to see a candidate that actually makes 50 to 200 k as a candidate devoted to being a democrat and liberal.

    ——-
    A synthesizer can create any instrument made and others that have not be created yet.

    • AdLib says:

      Thanks RSGMusic, very appreciated!

      It is a game that politicians typically play with the public, putting on a song and dance for elections to tell people what they think will get them elected…which sometimes has no bearing on what they will actually do once they’re in office (Republicans Governors appear to be the biggest role models for this including Pat McCrory in NC, Scott Walker in WI, Rick Scott in FL, Tom Corbett in MI, etc., all stunning the electorate with what they’ve done once they won office).

      I’m going to be patient to see who runs in the Dem primary and I’m not going to count anyone out or anyone in (hear that, Hillary?).

      Remember how Obama was discounted early on as to why he couldn’t win? “He’s black.” “He’s not black enough.” “He’s too young.” “He’s inexperienced.” “He’s only a one term Senator.” “No one knows who he is and Hillary can’t be beaten.”

      I also agree with your view that as time goes by, Obama will be seen as a great President who steered the course of the nation through stormy seas with a steady hand. Lincoln was not so popular during his Presidency. It’s hard for some people to view the present with a wider view, in context of the past and what lies ahead. However, the remarkable accomplishments of this President and how he has worked hard to move the country forward will be appreciated more and more as time goes by.

  6. NoManIsAnIsland says:

    SallyT, I hope you’ll see this as there was no
    box left to respond to your last post!

    It was great to learn something of your
    background in St. Joe. When you lived there,
    by any chance did you or your family know
    an Arst family? I didn’t know them, but they
    were good friends of my parents and a
    cousin who went to college with one of their
    sons.

    I was born in St. Louis and have lived in
    the county for almost all my life.

    There are still Baptists and Democrats
    coming from Missouri, and St. Louis and K.C.
    are still big enough Democratic strongholds
    to elect governors and at least one senator
    often.

    And I will hold my ground, thanks! ;)

    • SallyT says:

      And, NoManIsAnIsland, I hope you saw mine about our noses that I left.

      I don’t recall the Arst name. My dad was a farmer and owned a commercial feedlot there. Long before they shot cattle with growth hormones and crap. He grew his own feed for the most part and never over crowded his pins. There were hundreds of head but dad treated each with care. They were to end up in market but I can assure you that they never were mistreated before they went by him. St. Joseph was a big Livestock and Stockyards town back then. He also raised Quarter Horses. And, was state champion 2 years in a row in Tractor Pulling!

      So, if your friend was in anyway involved in that, I am sure my dad knew them and they knew him.

      Like St. Louis and Kansas City, Portland has the same stronghold over Oregon. You can’t get much more liberal and Progressive than Portland, Oregon!

      Nice getting to know you, too, NoManIsAnIsland!

      • NoManIsAnIsland says:

        I just saw your comment about the noses. And if it comes to having to (Ugh!) vote for Hillary, it’s very reassuring for me to nose — sorry! — you and KT will include me in your nose-holding circle!

        The Arsts weren’t involved in farming but owned
        a clothing store in town, as I remember, and may have known your dad that way. From what you say about him, he had to have been a very respected and much loved figure in the area. I know I would have liked to have met him!

        It’s as much a pleasure getting to know you as it has been reading your very interesting and insightful posts tonight, and I hope to see you again when I pop in on PlanetPOV as I can find time.

        I don’t know if you read the Chris Christie-inspired nursery rhyme parodies here some months ago, but AdLib said he was inspired to start the thread after I posted “Humpty Christie sat on a wall….” and other paens of rage in dishonor of the infamous governor’s utterly sordid actions and character, rather his lack thereof.

  7. I wonder sometimes if the Underwoods in the great Netflix original production, “House of Cards,” were actually based on Bill and Hillary.

  8. VegasBabe says:

    Anticipating her base and the PUMA’s resurrecting the gender card (HRC is judged more harshly because she’s a woman {despite some of the stupidity that escapes her lips}) in five, four, three, two……

    • AdLib says:

      VB, spot on! No question in my mind how heavy handed the gender card will be played by Hillary’s team and core supporters, to try and insulate her from criticism and attacks, just as we saw in 2008.

      As I mentioned below to cyndibru about race, it is a negative reflection on those who would use gender or race to justify their support or opposition to candidates.

      In a nation where equality is supposed to be supported, all candidates no matter their gender or race should be treated with the same respect and level of scrutiny. Elections are supposed to be about issues, not the color of one’s skin or the gender of the candidate.

      We shouldn’t respect prejudice in any case, especially when it swings in a desirable way, we should be supporting candidates and voting based on the issues and character a candidate represents.

    • Hey VB, you make a good point. I think part of the motivation behind Hillary’s Bosnia whopper was that she wanted to look tough and brave. She surely didn’t want to be seen as a “meek,” female.

      Remember, the press jumped all over her when she got a little over emotional in one instance and called her a cry baby, insinuating that she lacked the emotional strength to lead the nation.

  9. cyndibru says:

    After reading all of these comments, I feel a LOT better about the probability that HRC will be our next president. I knew in 2008 I preferred her to Obama, so it was already an improvement, but seeing how much “progressives” dislike her and will have to “hold their noses” if she is the Dem nominee really helps. Makes me wonder about all those claims of GOP obstructionism being the problem with things today though….if one of the big progressive concerns about HRC is that she might actually be better at working with the other side of the aisle and possibly get some things you care about done. Perhaps not to your complete and total satisfaction, and perhaps with the other side getting some things it wants too…..which is what I suspect is the bigger fear than gridlock for some people.

    • AdLib says:

      cyndibru, in 2008 Progressives expressed the same reservations about Hillary and Hillary lost. So your proposition has history and reality against it. I would also add my POV to Kalima’s and others’ comments that trying to attribute Obama’s election to his race is an unfortunate, race-based mindset that is frequently used by those on the Right and is disappointing to see you echo.

      Trying to disqualify the intelligence and ability to discern of all those who voted for a candidate you did not support, and reduce them to simple and wrong minded people who voted on race alone actually reflects the race consciousness of the one proposing such a ridiculous accusation.

      Such a tactic is also trying to trivialize the issues Obama stood for and that voters overwhelmingly supported that led to his election, including the ACA, women’s rights, immigration reform, financial reform, protecting SS and Medicare from being destroyed by privatization, etc.

      Also, such a racial theory falls apart when it comes to Obama’s re-election in 2012 since the factor you try to represent as the only reason Obama was elected didn’t exist then, namely, he wasn’t running to become the first African American President.

      I am always happy to discuss and debate different points of views on issues but when that is all reduced into such simplistic, racial terms in order to devalue others, it is beneath consideration as a serious or substantive POV.

      • cyndibru says:

        If you sincerely think that Obama’s race had nothing to do with his election, then you also likely think that no one opposes him for exactly the same reason. I happen to abhor both sets of circumstances, but I don’t ignore the fact that they exist. There are many people who voted for Obama for no other reason than to elect the first black president and knew or cared nothing about his actual policies, and there are many people who oppose him personally for the same reason rather than opposing his policies. To acknowledge those facts in no way “simplistically reduces the argument”. I also addressed the fact that he was really good with rhetorical uplifting motivating speechifying. I did leave out that because of dissatisfaction with Bush, some voters were voting simply against the GOP, just as will be the case in reverse in 2016. I realize you support the man, and many people obviously did and some still do. But if you truly think the majority of Americans voted on his issues and his promises, I think you’re incorrect. The vast majority of Americans (even the ones who vote), couldn’t tell you the issues much less frame any of the specifics. They swallow the sound bites and the rhetoric they find most appealing.

        • How do you know such intimate things about the people who voted for PRESIDENT Obama?

          Did you go around and survey each Obama voter and ask them their reasons for choosing Obama?

          How in the world could you claim such a thing, unless it was based on preconceived notions?

          Gee, why wouldn’t a black man or woman vote for a candidate that promised them hope?

          Comment’s like the one you just made are sickening to me and support the notion that people who oppose PRESIDENT Obama do so on a basis steeped in racism.

          • cyndibru says:

            How do I know such things? Because I read, see and hear interviews with voters, and know and understand human nature, and don’t discount facts I dislike. I’m sorry, but I find it hilarious that so many of you constantly talk about the “uninformed voters”, the “disinterested voters”, the lack of political knowledge of the general populace, but are now OFFENDED by the notion that it applies to Americans in general, even if they supported the same candidate you did. To acknowledge racism is not the same as agreeing with it. Those who dislike President Obama because he is half-black are racist. Those who support President Obama because he is half-black are ALSO racist. To pretend that the election of ANY politician in this country is not influenced by race, both ways, is ridiculous.

            • I’m sorry Cyndi, but what you write is just so much white noise. (no pun intended)

              I’ve heard it all before, and to be honest, it completely bores me.

              When you can come up with precise reasons, backed by facts, that prove your assertions to be real, then I might take them more seriously.

              If you are going solely by what you’ve read or seen in the media, then you just don’t get the words and actions of OUR PRESIDENT.

          • VegasBabe says:

            SPOT ON KT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Voters chose as did I who they determined the better candidate and for most of us, it had little to do with what color he was. It seems the poster completely fails to acknowledge how McCain portrayed himself let alone his selection of a running mate. sheesh….at least your post was well said and I applaud you!!!!

            • Thank you Vegas Babe. I just get so sick of these racist dog whistles constantly blown by the right who have no valid, fact based argument against our president.

              They just hate the fact that there is a “black man,” in their “white,” house! I’m just so sick of it.

    • kesmarn says:

      So could we assume that you plan to vote for her?

    • Well, don’t count your chickens just yet Cyndi. Of course progressives want a progressive candidate, and someone who is a bit more progressive than Hillary.

      The primaries haven’t even started yet and who knows what’s going to happen by 2016. The dems have several good choices. I don’t see anybody on the right who isn’t a fanatical ideologue.

      • cyndibru says:

        Of course they do, but anyone who thinks Warren or Sanders has a prayer of being the nominee is just wishful thinking. And I’d be surprised if any of the other ones mentioned so far on this thread actually ran, but who knows? HRC has a lot of female support and quite an organization and funds already in place — a big jump on any other candidate. I think it’s pretty much hers to lose, but of course that could certainly happen.

        • TresL says:

          HRC had all those advantages in 2008 and still lost. I can only hope the same is true in 2016.

          • cyndibru says:

            Yes, but there’s no potential of the “first black President” to compete with this time around, nor will there be the same starry-eyed swallowing of the rhetoric of “hope and change” and jumping on the “yes we can” bandwagon.

            • When Sarah Palin asked the president, in his absence of course, “How’s that hopey changey thing goin for ya,” I think the president would have said “Just fine, thank you.”

              Maybe you should look at a list of all the president’s accomplishments so far.

            • kesmarn says:

              It’s probably going to be even harder for the electorate to swallow the GOP/TP message of “Nihilism Forever!” and “I’ve Got Mine. You Get Your Own, Loser.”

            • GreenChica says:

              I’ve always wondered why you conservatives resent Obama’s popularity so much, constantly calling it “starry-eyed” and using that mocking “how’s that hopey changey thingie coming?” that I’ve seen so much online over the past 6 years. Why does hope for progress annoy conservatives so much?

            • TresL says:

              cyndibru, Kalima has stolen pretty much all of my thunder with her outstanding, passionate and very thorough response to your comment. I will add, however, that it is my sincere hope that HRC also believes those are the reasons she was defeated because that would mean she’s likely to repeat many of the mistakes of 2008 thereby leading to yet another defeat. She and her supporters should stop looking outward for reasons she lost and look inward instead. In my mind, she lost for two reasons: the Iraq war vote and her shitty campaign; neither of which have any thing to do with PBO. Ask any athlete and they’ll tell you that sometimes it is possible to win without your “A” game; but, only when you’re up against lesser competition. She did not have her “A” game in 2008; it was more like a “C” or “D” game and, unbelievably, that was almost enough. Nine out of ten times it probably would have been were it not for PBO’s near perfect campaign. As Kalima noted below, your comment is insulting on so many levels. First of all, Black men do not have any special edge in this racist country outside of athletics. That’s it. It’s far more likely for white women to be elected statewide than it is for black men. Just look at how many WW have been elected governor and to the Senate as opposed to black men. Also, hope and belief is the foundation on which change is built and yes we can is the positive affirmation of that belief. Nothing can be accomplished without hope. I’m sure HRC’s supporters “hoped” their candidate would emerge victorious and “change” how female leadership is viewed in this country, but it was not to be and as long as they continue to belittle PBO’s oratorical talents and ability to inspire, she will be defeated again and soundly at that. His supporters will see to it.

            • Kalima says:

              What’s wrong with “Hope and Change” in the context of how it was intended when the last government almost handed you a whopping recession, trashed your precious Constitution, spied on you, and over 4,000 fellow Americans lost their lives fighting in an illegal war?

              If you think President Obama was only elected because he’s black (mixed race actually) then you obviously were more concerned with his skin colour than the majority of people who voted for him, and heard nothing about what he had to offer the American people. Yes, he is black for those who can only see the surface and nothing else, but that’s not why he won twice. Strangely enough, he actually cares about what happens to the American people and wants to better their lives. Now fancy that.

              I cringe every time someone says that they will vote for someone who will work with the other side. Are you serious? That is all the President tried to do in his first term. How can you compromise with a party who planned to oppose him on everything from day one, encouraged disgusting racism at every turn, and privately thought/still think, that Obama should be serving their dinner instead of living and working in the White House? Anyone who missed that glaring fact must have been living on another planet for the past 5 years, or chooses to have selective memory. He held out his hand to them, and the most unworthy of them bit it, the others refused to shake it.

              Nothing in the least bit “starry-eyed” about it, in fact that term is rather insulting to millions.

              If people just vote for Hillary because she is a woman, they are letting their country down just to feed a selfish need.

              What does your party offer those without healthcare or without jobs? As far as I can see, just more of the same as they pamper the rich as usual, and tell Americans how to lead their private lives according to their misguided interpretation of the Bible. The fanatics will vote for that because they are just as sick as the politicians who push it, but the majority trying to survive, will not.

              Sneering at something you cannot grasp, and millions of people wanted after 8 years of bondage and shame with Bush, almost calling the President a con man, won’t help you change hearts and minds here if that is what you were planning to do.

        • As I’ve said, I really don’t think Warren is even going to run. She has stated that she already has a job to do and she is going to do it to the best of her abilities.

          Sanders is not a viable candidate because he’s an avowed socialist, and America is just not ready for a socialist candidate. (too bad, really)

          Hillary may very well get the nomination, but I think it’s far too early to make any accurate predictions.

          • SallyT says:

            KT, I would love to see Bernie Sanders in the debates, though. I think he could bring up some good questions on where people really are and I love to watch him when he gets a little angry. His head rises on his neck and he lets whomever have it!

  10. Excellent. Summed up many of the misgivings I have about Hillary. FWIW, I don’t think she’ll be the next president in any case, but it’s going to be ugly. There’s a dusty tractor-trailer parked somewhere in Texas that has all of Karl Rove’s unused opposition research from 2008 still in it. It won’t get used until/unless she gets the nomination, but if that happens, the revelations are nasty. And there’s probably no political figure as polarizing as Hillary Clinton--a significant plurality of Americans hate her and would never vote for her.

    The Repub field is a mess at the moment--somebody was asking Romney a month or so ago if he’d take up the cause. Christie, Scott, and Baker are all in perp-walk territory, and Cruz and Rubio can’t cut it. If the GOP field is broken, why should Democrats settle for a pro-corporate, pro-war, pro-Monsanto candidate?

    • AdLib says:

      Misterbadexample, I actually think much of the trove of opposition research Rove and others have on Hillary are so old, most people are not going to care. I’ll also bet that much of it is against Bill Clinton who isn’t the candidate. However, considering all the pies that the Clintons have their fingers in and have had their fingers in over the last couple of decades, there is probably enough to break something new every week.

      It should be a consideration, we remember how gleeful the Repubs were in 2008 at being able to use their compiled attacks against her in a GE…and how unprepared they were for Obama being the nominee.

      I’d have to say at this point it is likelier than not that she would win the Dem nom and the GE but far from a certainty. I would especially point to what a terrible campaigner she is and how she frequently says things that get her in trouble (including her propensity to lie).

      With Hillary tacking to the right, against Obama’s Presidency and for greater militarism, don’t be surprised if a Dem as unknown nationally as Obama was in 2007, emerges as the Progressive alternative to Hillary and becomes more attractive to Dem voters than Hillary.

      • AdLib, while most of the Rove info is old, I don’t think Rove ever broke up his opposition team (and there’s always Benghazi). And you’re right about her tone-deafness and inability to connect to people. She also walks a fine line--if she distances herself from Obama too much, she’ll alienate the Dem voters who still think he was a great president. And her tendency to prevaricate will inevitably remind people of Bubba’s worst behavior.

        Hillary (and Biden for that matter) both face the problem McCain had in 2008. How do you advocate for your candidacy while your party’s guy is still in office and not doing so well? What can you say about what you’d do differently without upsetting the apple cart? There was no Repub heir apparent in 2008, but McCain still had W’s support--and that didn’t help. That problem of being linked to the incumbent is NOT shared by Warren and Sanders--Warren hasn’t had a warm and cuddly relationship with Obama, and Sanders is a Socialist.
        Nobody should be making assumptions about 2016.

        • AdLib says:

          MBE, you’re of course right that Rove, the Kochs, etc. have continued trying to stockpile ammunition against Hillary so there will be new accusations against her (very trumped up ones too like Benghazi) but the game they’re going to be playing will be so exposed when they come at her with decades old charges that include trying to tar her with Bill’s actions while President.

          My bet is that they will hold back on attacks on Hillary during the Dem primary, in hopes that she will win and to keep their attacks “fresh” for the GE. Then there will be a massive avalanche of attacks on her. They may think that will work but it could have a boomerang effect on the public, turning them against the attackers and gravitating to Hillary out of empathy.

          But Hillary may not make it to the GE. I sure am getting the feeling of the “inevitable” candidate once again having feet of clay. With all her strengths and overpowering advantages, when she speaks out, she frequently trips herself up. And if it becomes a close race between her and someone else, if she and Bill start getting scared that 2016 will turn out like 2008, they could push the panic button, launching a brutal negative campaign (as they did when they were foundering in 2008)that brings them down instead.

          Elizabeth Warren would be an ideal candidate for me but I believe her when she says she’s not going to run in 2016. Sherrod Brown is a great potential prospect if he wants to run. Joe Biden is such a solid and dependable Progressive, he shouldn’t be counted out.

          I like Bernie Sanders but the superficial things could prove difficult for him (even though that’s not fair). Being a socialist and independent, looking a bit old, these should be irrelevant but voters can be a bit shallow when it comes to such things. He’s almost always in the right place on the issues and a true Progressive but I wouldn’t give him the strongest chance to win…though his influence in a primary in pulling candidates over to the Left could be invaluable.

        • TresL says:

          PBO’s presidency is doing quite well if you ignore the media coverage and a “smart” candidate will accentuate the positive and blame the Repubs’ obstruction for the negative.

          • AdLib says:

            Couldn’t agree more, TresL!

            • TresL says:

              AdLib, I just would really like to see Democrats talk up PBO’s accomplishments more and stop blaming him for the racist, hyper-partisan behavior of the Republicans. All they have are lies and conspiracy theories which they promote with great confidence and vigor. We have the truth and actual, tangible progress and accomplishments yet we are either silent or mealy-mouthed about our successes. PBO has already accomplished much of his agenda yet too many Dems accept the GOP/media framing of his presidency. If he were a white male, his approval would be around 70%. Be wary of polling companies whose job is to reflect public opinion but are now trying to shape it instead.
              Our media has completely abdicated its responsibility to truthfully inform the public so if uninformed people are being asked their opinion on the issues of the day, how can you trust the results. There are people in this country who did not know that the ACA and Obamacare were and are the same thing. The Foxification of all our media has made the country significantly and dangerously dumber.

              On the campaign trail in 2008, PBO talked about stabilizing our economy, DONE; universal health care, DONE; ending the Iraq War, DONE; ending DADT, DONE; raising taxes on the wealthy, DONE; getting Bin Laden, DONE; improving our standing in the world/more diplomacy, DONE. The only major promise he’s made that hasn’t come to fruition was the closing of GITMO and all Democrats should know that Congress including many Democrats (Bernie Sanders)have blocked his efforts to do so. This is a great presidency with incredible accomplishments in the face of unprecedented treasonous and racist obstruction and I don’t need history to tell me in 20 years what I already know now!

    • NoManIsAnIsland says:

      And your very cogent commentary, Misterbadexample, adds fuel to AdLib’s fire.

      Hillary Clinton, in addition to losing the votes of virtually
      all remaining moderate Republicans and most independents,
      wouldn’t get the support of enough Democrats to ensure her
      election. The distaste for her of the majority of posters on
      this thread is mild compared to that felt by large numbers of
      the Democratic base she’s unnecessarily polarized, and they —
      as well as we — haven’t forgiven or forgotten the racist,
      unprincipled campaign Hillary and Bill Clinton waged against
      Obama in the 2008 primaries.

      While most of us writing here would grit our teeth, hold our
      noses and reluctantly vote for Hillary only if push came to
      shove, there’s no guarantee enough of the Democratic base in
      general would do the same to ensure her election.

      So there’s no earthly reason, even given a broken field of GOP
      reactionary right wingers and pathetic hacks, why Democrats should “…settle for a pro-corporate, pro-war, pro-Monsanto candidate.” — Especially when, alphabetically speaking, we
      have excellent potential candidates from Biden to Warren to
      choose from.

    • monicaangela says:

      Spot on Misterbadexample. Why? We really don’t have to, nor should we. We have many good candidates that could step up to the plate and run for and win in 2016…IMHO of course.

  11. kevinbr38 says:

    Great article AdLib,
    My takeaway from it at this point, is that we all need to do a better job of supporting President Obama for the remainder of his term…
    Starting by voting EN MASSE in this year’s midterms.
    While no Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or Sherrod Brown, Mr. Obama is certainly to the left of, more representative of Progressive ethics than is Hillary Clinton.
    If she runs, and I truly believe she will, she would be well-advised to name one of those three as her running mate.
    That would demonstrate that she understands our thirst for a more progressive stance from the White House, and would go a long way towards assuaging some of the skepticism that may have towards her.
    And of course, would lay the groundwork for a more progressive government out of Washington after she leaves office.

    • AdLib says:

      Thanks kevinbr38!

      Right with you on that, we do need to stand strongly behind Obama and getting out the vote this year. Betrayal is the new black this season, more Dems are strutting around thinking how cool they are for dissing Obama but those ingrates should be countered with Dems and Progressives who know what loyalty means.

      As for Hillary picking a Progressive as a running mate, I think she’ll do just the opposite and pick a blue dog or a conservative Dem. She’s already acting like she doesn’t need to pander to Progressives, with her chicken hawk rhetoric and insulting Obama, she no doubt believes, “Who else are they going to vote for anyway?” So she has now positioned herself to appeal to Republicans and conservatives, hence this latest campaign style of hers.

      I don’t think she really wants a more Progressive America, she is part of the 1% who are flourishing and getting richer each year while the 99% fall behind. The status quo is making her family and friends more wealthy and powerful each year, I don’t think she wants that to change.

      • kevinbr38 says:

        You make good points…
        Sadly.

      • NoManIsAnIsland says:

        Exactly right, AdLib. And taking a leaf from
        the Republicans’ and Bill Clinton’s playbook,
        Hillary has learned how to con low-information
        Americans into supporting and voting for her
        and cutting their noses off to spite their faces.

        She’s nothing more than a Republican, fellow
        traveler wolf in pretend liberal sheep’s clothing!

        • AdLib says:

          NoMan, Hillary and Bill are self-admitted corporatists and they are elitists. Isn’t that the job description of Republicans?

          They have been core members of the DLC which is basically, Democrats for Corporations and Wealth.

          So even if they don’t refer to themselves as Republicans, they share many of the same values.

        • TresL says:

          You’re exactly right. There’s a commenter on another blog I frequent who always says, “they campaign like liberals and govern like Republicans.” Considering Bill’s humble roots, he sure wears entitlement well and HRC’s roots are as Republican as they come.

          • NoManIsAnIsland says:

            Well said, TresL. And while it’s
            only to be expected that people
            like the Clintons will try to pull
            the wool over people’s eyes,
            there’s no good reason for people
            to help them by pulling the wool
            over their OWN eyes first!

      • Ad, I would hesitate to put the Clintons in the 1%er category. Sure, they are millionaires, many times over, but when I think of 1%ers, I think of people who have hundreds of millions and several billion.

        The Clinton Foundation DOES do good work around the world, and they do it without evangelizing. I don’t think they’ll ever really forget where they came from, despite their wealth.

        • AdLib says:

          KT, I know what you mean but just speaking technically, the top 1% of income earners in this nation begins at around $340,000. The Clintons pull down tens of millions so they are probably towards the top of the top 1%.

          I have heard of some things the Clinton Foundation has done that are very good but I don’t know the full scope of their operations, once I do, I can be a bit more affirmative about how I view it.

          There is no dispute though that the Clintons rely on the wealthiest and most powerful people to contribute to their foundation and that is who they spend the most time with. So I can’t say at this point that the Clintons are down to Earth people as they were before Bill’s Presidency, they live in a new, very elite neighborhood now and they don’t come into contact with “real people” very often.

          Remember when Obama was coming down on Wall Street over inequality and Bill Clinton warned him to lay off Wall Street and the wealthy? That’s not someone who remembers where he came from when he chooses protecting the 1% over the 99%.

          They’ve cultivated that image for themselves but in politics, images should rarely be believed.

  12. Allymax says:

    Aside from supporting policies to the right of many Democrats, Hillary appears inauthentic especially over inconsequential things. Does anyone remember after the official White House photo was released of Obama and his security team in the situation room watching the bin Laden raid and Hillary had her hand over her mouth, when a reporter asked her about her reaction she said she was having an allergy attack.

    Voters would understand she reacted in fear at seeing a helicopter down or our Seals in danger, but her first inclination was to lie. She comes across as calculating and I wouldn’t mind if another Democrat most of us haven’t heard of came out of nowhere and forced her to answer tough questions.

    Donating her college speaking fees to the Clinton Foundation that is chaired by a Chelsea friend and that pays her and her family’s salaries isn’t the same as donating to a charity with no family connections. And when the electorate thinks about charities, the Clinton Foundation doesn’t spring to mind.

    • Oh, I don’t know, the Clinton Foundation has done some pretty good work around the world.

    • AdLib says:

      Allymax, you nailed it, the key word that comes to mind for me with regards to Hillary is “inauthentic”. She says things that have the depth of a cookie sheet, her words always seem like a means to an end instead of meaningful and genuine, as if she is only saying something to manipulate instead of saying things earnestly.

      Her backstabbing of Obama seems just like a political calculation that it would benefit her, I never see any struggle with conscience from her when she changes positions, she just seems to have decided on a particular day that she’ll gain more from saying this today instead of that.

      And your points on Hillary’s faux “charity”, giving money to her family’s foundation is supposed to be doing something that she and her family don’t benefit from are well made.

      If someone starts out her campaign this way, where is there for her to go during the campaign but lower?

      And welcome to The Planet, Allymax!

    • TresL says:

      ITA! I recall an interview she had that felt like she was trying to horn in on the good coverage PBO was getting after the OBL raid because he was simultaneously cracking jokes at the WHCD. I can’t remember all the details but it had something to do with someone asking her something about Bin Laden that she obviously could not answer honestly at the time. It was as though she wanted everyone to know she kept the secret too and deserved similar plaudits. I remember thinking at that moment she could be telling the truth but I don’t believe her.

  13. Nirek says:

    Ad, I will vote for the Democratic candidate. The Republicans do not have anyone I could vote for. Personally I would want either Sanders or Warren.I respect both of them far more than anyone else in politics.
    If Clinton wins the nomination I will vote for her.

    • SallyT says:

      Nirek, that is one thing about the Republicans, they do stick with their candidate no matter what. They did not like Romney all that much but they did get out and vote for him. Even the damn Tea Party.

      I will vote for the Democratic candidate right along with you, Nirek! It is too dangerous to sit it out. Think Supreme Court!

    • Hey Nirek. I really like Joe Biden. Some say he’s too old, but I don’t think so. We have had many great statesmen that were in their 70s and 80s.

      Joe has served under six presidential administrations. He’s also sincere, has great foreign policy experience and truly cares about working class men and women.

      With the right campaign manager, I think he’s got a pretty good chance at being our next POTUS.

    • AdLib says:

      Nirek, I feel the same way. Being a purist and being willing to act against one’s own interest because someone doesn’t conform to all your political beliefs is just foolish. I may not be crazy about Hillary being President but I would be furious if Rand Paul was President…and if my refusing to vote for Hillary brought that about.

    • NoManIsAnIsland says:

      I hear you, Nirek, and the Republicans have NEVER nominated anyone I could vote for. I would be just as thrilled if Bernie Sanders were nominated as if Elizabeth Warren were.

      In a worst-case scenario, Clinton would be preferable to a wild-eyed, right-wing, reactionary Republican; but we don’t have to let her be the nominee if we make it clear she’s very damaged
      goods and give the nomination to a real Democrat, a champion of the man and woman in the street — like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, Sherrod Brown, or others of their sterling caliber.

  14. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    A+++++++++

    I gave you 10 Stars out of 10 Stars.

    Ad Lib, this story deserves to be seen widely. How about cross-posting it at other site?

    =========================

    I chose Barack Obama initially as a fall back position.

    I was living in SC in 2007 and went to the state Democratic Convention as a delegate in May of that year. The two leaders of the pack were Hillary Clinton and John Edwards but Hillary was ahead of Edwards by a mile.

    As I drove up to the Columbia SC convention center I noticed that the streets were lined with dozens of large signs -- 30 feet tall, kept erect by huge fans at their bases each proclaiming “Hillary”. At the Convention center there was a sea of yard signs and scores of volunteer lined up outside.

    At each of the entrances there was a common display- A stand alone white door, framed by flowering plants, with a set of brick steps leading up to the door. The door had a nameplate that read “Madame President.”

    On the main floor, in the area set aside for candidates the Hillary “table” was an entire pre-fab control center with computer check in for volunteers who got color coded name tag linked to a staff member who coordinated the work to be done by each group. There was a training area screened off from the floor for new volunteer to train them in how to chant “Hil-La-Ry” which differed for men and women. Each volunteer got an itinerary telling them what to do and where to be at precise times.

    When Hillary arrived there was a high school band outside and a local choir inside…..as she moved through the crowd, the volunteers chanted her name while the members of the choir called out: “You Go Girl, You Go Girl.”

    It was all so slick, so well organized, and obviously expensive.

    Her speech at the Jefferson/Jackson dinner was carefully nuanced to appeal the Blue Dog Dems and as I think back on it THIS is Hillary’s natural audience- an Arkansas audience. Democrats who are really old GOP.

    The next day I picked up “Dreams of My Father” by Barack Obama.

    • AdLib says:

      Thanks Murph!

      Really enjoyed reading your recollection of 2007 and your punchline about supporting Obama after seeing how slick and elitist Hillary’s operation was.

      Kind of ironic too that Obama pioneered the small donation financing through the web and out-raised her in the end!

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        JUST IN CASE YOU DID NOT SEE THIS….

        NoManIsAnIsland says:
        07/09/2014 at 2:27 PM

        I agree with Murph, AdLib, and think it
        would be helpful in the coming fight for
        the heart of the Democratic Party to give
        your case against Hillary Clinton the
        widest readership it can get.

        Vital as your superb indictment is, if it’s
        not seen and read by as many people as
        possible it will be little more effective
        than a voice crying in the wilderness in
        terms of letting Hillary and her backers
        know we have no welcome mats in front
        of our doors for her. Our mats read
        “Stay Away,” and the sooner she and
        they realize it, the sooner we can begin
        the process of selecting a genuine,
        caring Democratic candidate we will enthusiastically vote to be our next
        president in 2016!

        • MurphTheSurf3 says:

          I copied and pasted your excellent response to Ad Lib. Thanks for the backup on this. I am for a thorough examination of Hillary’s claim to be ready and if she proves that this is so then she will get my primary vote….and, bottom line, I am voting for whoever the Democrats nominate. For SCOTUS sake if nothing else.

          • NoManIsAnIsland says:

            Murph, I’m flattered you thought
            my post worth repeating, and
            know my posts and I are on call
            to back you up any time!

            And since you may have noticed
            I’m on a one-man campaign to
            expose Hillary for what she really
            is — to get people to judge her
            for themselves and encourage
            her to explain and defend her
            actions and record — just so my
            position is crystal clear, if she
            still becomes the Democratic
            nominee for president in 2016
            I will, like you, vote for her “for
            SCOTUS sake if nothing else.”

            • MurphTheSurf3 says:

              No flattery- just a recognition of a class act.

              I think that you, I, Ad Lib, and many others here are on the same page in this.

              If we can make HRC a better candidate and thus a better president through scrutiny then we will be doing an important service.

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        Welcome. How about getting your excellent effort to a wider audience? Are ye fer it or agin it?

        • NoManIsAnIsland says:

          I agree with Murph, AdLib, and think it
          would be helpful in the coming fight for
          the heart of the Democratic Party to give
          your case against Hillary Clinton the
          widest readership it can get.

          Vital as your superb indictment is, if it’s
          not seen and read by as many people as
          possible it will be little more effective
          than a voice crying in the wilderness in
          terms of letting Hillary and her backers
          know we have no welcome mats in front
          of our doors for her. Our mats read
          “Stay Away,” and the sooner she and
          they realize it, the sooner we can begin
          the process of selecting a genuine,
          caring Democratic candidate we will enthusiastically vote to be our next
          president in 2016!

    • So Murph, I will ask the same question I have asked others on this thread. What are you going to do if Hillary gets the nomination?

      Are you going to vote for someone who really has no chance of winning? Will you assuage your conscience at the expense of a real shitbag getting the presidency? “Hard Choices,” indeed.

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        You know the answer. If she is our nominee, she will have my vote, my voice, my support in the campaign, and left leaning point of view pushing my progressive agenda.

        Since my simple philosophy has become- vote Democrat, any Democrat -- no matter how good the GOP candidate might be because the Republicans, as a party, are bad for America.

        • Thanks for your reply Murph. I’m glad to hear it and I feel the same way. I used to scorn voting solidly along party lines, but that was before the GOP became nothing but a bunch of power mad fanatics who clearly showed me they don’t give a damn about the American people.

          I would love to see Joe Biden get the nod.

          • MurphTheSurf3 says:

            Biden 1988- yes true but he does not seem to have the corporate connections and I think he has largely been fortunate not to have strong opponent in his own primaries and in opposition.

            I just finished looking at his success in raising funds for Obama in 2008 and in 2012. Not bad.

            Current stories, and there are a lot of them, say he is having success attracting crowds but no numbers.

          • MurphTheSurf3 says:

            I am for Joe as well. Better him than Hillary….

            My guess though is that the women’s vote is going to so favor HRC that she plus, a male Hispanic would be my guess, will be the ticket.

            I don’t see him getting the Big Money backing that he will need- he has never gotten that backing, ever.

          • NoManIsAnIsland says:

            I would love to see Joe Biden get
            the nod also, KT, and wish he had
            gotten it decades ago.

            And this doesn’t change my wish
            for Elizabeth Warren to run under
            what she’d choose appropriate
            circumstances for her, if only
            because she would be a sure shot
            — and I don’t have the same gut
            feeling for Biden’s chances.

            • I don’t think EW would be a “sure shot.”

              I would love to see her run in 2020. I really like her and admire her courage and pragmatism, but I don’t think 2016 is the right time for her.

              As for Biden, I really think if he has a really good campaign manager, he could very well be elected the next POTUS. A lot of dems really like Joe. He has that “regular guy,” appeal, plus tons of experience and a brain in his head.

    • NoManIsAnIsland says:

      No slow learner you, Murph! :)

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        I don’t, in any way, regret my choice then. Having said that it will not stop me from supporting her if she is our only viable choice.

        • NoManIsAnIsland says:

          I see and take your point, Murph, but let’s
          hope she decides not to run and spares us
          the necessity of making an almost Hobson’s
          Choice.

          • MurphTheSurf3 says:

            I tried to find the post you are referring to from July 1…can’t nail it down. Repost with context and I will respond. I must have missed it in the flurry of comments here at the Planet, at Daily Kos and at Salon.

            • NoManIsAnIsland says:

              Murph, as of 5:41 PM, CDT, the
              reposting is at the top of this page, under the heading

              “NoManIsAnIsland says:
              07/10/2014 at 12:10 PM.”

              I hope it will be easy to find
              now.

          • MurphTheSurf3 says:

            It would take too great a personal shift on her part or some great external scandal to convince her to set aside a long time dream….to have Bill as HER FIRST GENTLEMAN.

            • NoManIsAnIsland says:

              I think you’re right on that score, Murph.

              And on a different topic, I’d
              like to know if you saw my response to your post of
              07/01/2014 at 9:09 PM regarding
              the SCOTUS and “Corporations
              Are Religious Extremists Too!”
              beginning, “I was with you all the way until the end of your last sentence.”

              I haven’t been able to post a
              working link to my response, but I’d be glad to re-post it here to save you time
              (if that would be O.K.) as I’m
              really interested in your reaction to it.


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Sponsors
Features