Why is it so very important to Clinton supporters that

[MannyGoldstein]

everyone else believe that nobody else could possibly run and win the Democratic nomination?

So many threads are the same, basically:

Her name is Hillary, candidate of candidates:
Look on her works, ye Proles, and despair!

It's at the point where criticism of Hillary or praise for a potential Democratic opponent is labeled as subversive "ratfucking" by many in that crowd - and this is even tolerated (usually) on DU.

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Because it's true.

What the hell, nothing like pouring gasoline on a popcorn thread.

[TDale313]

2. Cause they're nervous about so many people wishing there were someone else?

And they saw that inevitable actually wasn't in '08?

I find the bullying tactics really irritating, frankly. Advocate for your candidate, but the call for loyalty oaths and calling anyone looking at other options at this point delusional doesn't reflect well on her.

[daleanime]

4. Amen.....

[RufusTFirefly]

24. Surprisingly, their rationale is similar to our history of military invasions under false pretexts

If you can deceive or intimidate people long enough to get things going and create the false impression that we have no choice, you can then turn around and accuse those people of disloyalty for questioning the decision. "What do you want us to do? Cut and run?!"

[rhett o rick]

37. You give them too much credit. Most are living in a small reality bubble of denial.

They can't handle the truth so stop trying to force it on them. They stick with Clinton because they are afraid of losing, whatever that really means. Their lesser of evil meme means they are willing to sacrifice their liberties for a promise of security.

[2banon]

41. Bingo! Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding. n/t

[L0oniX]

3. The oligarchy is loved.

[rhett o rick]

38. I think that is true. The authoritarian followers look to a leader that

as a strong authoritarian leader like a parent.

[awake]

5. The answer is as easy as ABC

Anybody But Clinton, this happen to her in 2008 and she does not want it to happen again.

[aspirant]

6. Reverse Psychology

they're trying to avoid a ballot with just HRC and "none of the above" with the latter being the probable winner.

[tularetom]

7. They want her to nail down the nomination before too many ugly facts come out

And they're starting to panic because it ain't going so well, so they're lashing out.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. Because they don't want any other Dem to win when they believe it is 'her time'.

They don't even want to see another woman win, it 'has to be' Hillary. It's not about breaking any 'glass ceilings', it's simply because they like what Hillary stands for. Not what Dems stand for, although they'll praise her to high Heaven for things that any other Dem that runs would also support. But the things where they want her because she differs with other Dems. Ie, the things that make her most like Republicans.

[whereisjustice]

9. Because letting Wall Street choose candidates is ultimate goal of the real ratfuckers

saving Wall Street conservatives squatting in the Dem Party from those of us too stupid to recognize Hillary's gilded purity.

[Cosmic Kitten]

10. +1 3rd=Way baybeeee

[GoneFishin]

13. +1

[Scootaloo]

21. That's exactly what it means when they hinge support on "fundraising."

They want the presidency to be determined by corporate bidding.

[Vincardog]

25. No they want the "corporate bidding" to be over they have bought their candidate and we should STFU

Remember our place and let them do what they want.

[L0oniX]

40. Nailed it!

[RufusTFirefly]

26. And Wall Street has no intentions of letting the loonies near the White House

Their job is just to scare us into settling for a corporatist out of fear that if we don't a certified whackjob will take the reins.

[whereisjustice]

27. Hillary is good cop, Cruz is bad cop. It's all a game to play each side against the middle class

[L0oniX]

39. Smart cop / dumb cop show ...entertainment for the oligarchy.

[Cosmic Kitten]

11. Look on her works, ye Proles, and despair!...

Until you ask where she stands
on a current issue!

Then ye be met with....
"wait until the primaries".

[nxylas]

12. They'll need someone to blame if she loses in 2016

If she's the Democratic nominee, and if we end up with a Republican president, they won't want to admit that she failed to inspire the voters. It'll have to be because the dirty damn hippies failed to believe enough in the righteousness of our cause in Viet...uh, Washington.

[840high]

15. ...

[GoneFishin]

14. Her record as a progressive is indefensible. They must push the "inevitability" or the "lesser of

two evils" argument.

[Martin Eden]

16. The General Election

I don't think Hillary supporters limit the assertion to the Dem primary, that only Hillary is capable of winning.

[MisterP]

17. coronations can't have any legitimate heirs running around

but, yes, their campaign has a big critical fault--that she has to be inevitable as early as the pre-primaries a year out to get any traction

but looking over all the sheer nastiness they've put out--a seamy, cramped little microcosm where anyone who complains about Iraq is "serving the GOP" or otherwise a double agent provocateur--worries me because they actually seem to think that this is "fighting to win," that browbeatings and tongue-lashings are the royal road to Dem victory

or they're just maintaining the atmosphere where the idea that "criticism hurts us all the polls" remains plausible, so they're expecting to lose AND are pre-blaming everyone else for it

[Android3.14]

18. Because without that narrative, she is as viable as pond scum

The truth is that creating a successful campaign to defeat a Republican candidate is relatively simple. The Rs have nothing except war, racism and crazy bat shit to peddle these days. We could run just about any yahoo (except HRC) and we'd be able to beat the Republicans. Unfortunately, it's not about electing a person to lead the people, but a long-running program to make the unwashed masses continue fighting each other and accept this corporate fascist state.

The DLC is complicit in this program. If we lose this upcoming election, it is because the DLC planned it that way.

[Maedhros]

20. I had an extended disagreement with one of my good friends on Friday.

He's a Hillary supporter, and used all the canned talking points.

What I've come to believe is that they have one, and only one, political motivation: hatred for Republicans. They have given up on trying to improve the situation in this country, and believe the only thing we can do is to try and slow down the Fascist train. To that end, the only thing that matters is putting the right letter next to the President's name, regardless of that President's policies, because it will piss off the Republicans. They have essentially conceded the country to Republican ideals while simultaneously despising them.

It's Orwellian doublethink at its best.

[Kalidurga]

22. I have no idea

But, many of them seem as hateful as eh hem the other party. I am not talking about people who just prefer Hillary as their candidate and they support her. I am talking about the ones that bandy about the term ratfucker and say things like enjoy your President Cruz. I don't call Hillary supporters names like 3rd Way Dems, Neolibs, or Corporate Shills I think this is how it should be. I don't engage with people who use bully tactics in debates unless I just wish to mock them. So, I will probably not be talking to that type at all.

[KoKo]

23. I keep wondering why there's no Discussion of Bill's Role in Hillary Administration...

Is it Nostalgia for the Clinton Years when we were Happy living through the scandals but "Dot Com STUFF" ruled our Lives and we missed the stuff he passed in Deregulation that came back for the haunt years later?

We were so involved in Defending Bill & Hillary against the same Repub TRASH who go after every Dem Candidate with lies and obfuscation that we missed that Bill compromised with "Welfare Reform, Deregulation of Media and Wall Street Banks and other "items on Repub Agenda" that we ignore that and LONG in our HEARTS for the "Good Years of Clinton" even though doing Oral Sex on a Monica in a room off the Oval Office was the Distraction.

I think what he did was disgusting but was too distracted at the time to see that "Compromised Bill" was not vetoing Legislation that sold the Middle Class and Poor of America out. Was he compromised or was it what he wanted all along. We will probably never know.

But, those of us who lived through those times do wonder that was all about.... And, that we were so captivated by Clinton Charisma all we wanted to do was defend him. And...I DID! Wasn't until many years later that I realized what had gone on there.

Whatever......

[whereisjustice]

28. +1 Very good post and spot on! History repeats itself.

[Oilwellian]

45. Here's a peek at what's going on behind the scenes

Bill Clinton Admitting Paul Ryan's Budget is a Good Plan

[mylye2222]

46. Sooo revealing.

[kelly1mm]

29. Because they leaned the lesson of 2008 well. Try to kill any upstart campain

in it's infancy or else she will not be able to compare her positions to the R's positions, but rather to other, less corporatist D's.

[whereisjustice]

30. good point

[dflprincess]

31. It's just another version of the "A Liberal (or Progressive) Can't Win a National Election" song

Hopefully, we won't fall for it this time.

[Dragonfli]

32. I was just told

Seems that the HRC haters are ,,,,,

operating much like the GOP did in the General Election of 2012 and 2008, that is to say they energy and focus is directed at "anyone but Clinton" as the GOP's energy and focus was "anybody but Obama".

I am getting so sick of the whole "hater" meme, there are many reasons to want anybody but Clinton that neither require nor contain "hate" or "hatred", hate has nothing to do with it, we just want a Democrat that will act like one (or so it would appear having talked to others like myself that don't want her)

Part of my reply, for what it's worth:

I can assure you, hate is not required to wish to pursue a candidate that holds Democratic values on more than social issues, by all appearances such would define Hillary Clinton quite well, financial right, social left. I appreciate that she finally has decided that she doesn't care whom someone marries (although that took quite a bit longer than one might have expected), I am also quite happy that she appears to believe in equality for women and occasionally minorities (as long as she is not running against a person of color and dog whistling seems appropriate to her at the time).

It is not hate that drives me to seek out and wish to vote for someone that does not favor a permanent war status, H1b visas, wage lowering "trade" schemes, entitlement reforms, Corporate superiority and one that has Larry Summers on speed dial. I am blue collar and not an investment banker, so my desire for a candidate that will not make my life worse does not make me a hater, quite the contrary, if I did seek such a candidate I would be rightly classified as a self hating masochist that enjoys losing financial ground while the bulk of his neighbors fall further into poverty.

So, no, most if not all of us not so white collar and wealthy people within the party are not HATERS (whatever that means, I think you are just trying to sound like you have street cred or something to use a term more likely found in my sub-culture than the comfortable neighborhood you appear to call home).

To put it bluntly, it is simply that unlike others, we are not ready for what she offers, the worst of what she offers can be summarized in a bumper sticker that would be (if honesty were the outstanding virtue of her supporters) a favorite to be displayed wherever convenient by them, here is a copy that you can have printed and proudly display while those of us not so keen on Reaganism and corporate personhood continue looking for candidates that might support the rest of us 99% (a pursuit that although possibly Quixotic is by no means an expression of HATE.)

I hope you like it, I am sure it will look good on whichever vehicle you prefer to take out the most.

[2banon]

42. Excellent response, but the Royalists Loyalists HRC Supporters likely have chosen to "ignore" so

they can continue to dwell in denial and bask in their delusions - and continue on with their hateful spiteful bullying.

[NanceGreggs]

33. Why is it so very important to Clinton non-supporters …

… that everyone else believe that HRC “cannot win” in the general election? All polls and surveys point to the opposite thus far. So why the insistence that if nominated, she can’t win? I’ve yet to see anyone here state that “nobody else could possibly run and win the Democratic nomination”. But surely you have many links to that being said - right?

So many threads are the same, basically: “She thinks she’s ‘entitled’, she thinks it’s ‘her turn’.” Does anyone have any links to actual quotes from Hill expressing those ideas? No, of course not. Some here feel perfectly comfortable attributing thoughts and ideas to someone who has never expressed them, so long as it serves their purpose.

It is perfectly understandable that there are those who don’t want Hill to be the nominee. What flies in the face of the “logic” of many of them, however, is the notion that consistently tearing down a very popular potential nominee will somehow pave the way for their chosen candidate – a candidate they’ve yet to identify at this juncture.

The “anyone but Hillary” crowd – well, the name speaks for itself. “I know I don’t want Hillary – but don’t ask me WHO I want, because I don’t know.” Well, when they DO know, maybe they’ll be able to express exactly why their choice is better than Hill. Until that momentous occasion arises, I suppose we’re all supposed to sit on the sidelines and wait for them to make up their minds.

No one here has stated that HRC is “inevitable”. That meme was promoted by the MSM back in 2008, and has been resurrected out of the sheer laziness that our present-day so-called "journalists" have become famous for. It’s surprising to see how many DUers, who consistently boast of not being influenced by the useless mainstream media, have adopted that claim as being factual in respect of Hill, or in respect of the Party as a whole.

This site has been replete with posts about “coronations” and dispensing with a primary. Where does this shit come from? Who said anything about skipping the primaries and handing the nomination to “the anointed one”? No one, that’s who. And yet that bullshit is repeated here constantly as though it were fact.

“Her name is Hillary, candidate of candidates: Look on her works, ye Proles, and despair!” Has anyone here actually said that, or anything remotely like it? Of course not. But let’s pretend that such statements have been made, and go from there – because facts should never interfere with an OP that rallies the gullible, who will literally swallow anything.

The facts are the facts. HRC polls better against all GOP contenders. Reiterating that FACT does not equate to “no others need apply”; it does it mean that another potential candidate is precluded from running. Nor does it mean that another potential candidate couldn’t surpass Hill’s current numbers against all Republican wannabes, and emerge as an even more viable candidate against the opposition.

But until that happens, the incessant whining from the “anyone but Hillary” contingent is pointless. If they have someone who has the potential to win in 2016, let’s hear about him/her. If they have someone who polls better against the opposition, we’re all ears. But thus far, they don’t. And “watch this space, which will eventually be filled by the perfect Dem candidate” really doesn’t cut it.

It’s amusing to watch all of the same people who have for years berated the Republicans for campaigning only on what’s wrong with the (D) contenders, instead of focusing on the positives of their own candidates, now adopting that same strategy. “Here’s why you shouldn’t support HRC” is a poor substitution for why we should support “to be announced – eventually – as soon as we get our shit together”.

HRC’s run in 2016 was predicted – and fully expected – within minutes of her concession speech in 2008 acknowledging that Obama was the choice of the people. The fact that it is only NOW that her detractors are scurrying to find someone else – anyone else – to challenge her at what is, in political terms, “the last minute” speaks for itself.

But by all means, please continue to insist that HRC supporters have stated that "no one else could possibly run and win the Democratic nomination" - because we wouldn't want actual facts to interfere with your fact-free proclamations.

[2banon]

43. Speaking as a Non-Supporter, I don't take that view at all.

Although I've seen it written on occasion by a few, that isn't actually the basis for our opposition to her candidacy.

[sabrina 1]

47. I don't think that she cannot win. Anyone who is expecting to raise Two and a half BILLION Dollars

cannot lose, unless the other side raises more than that.

Certainly someone, like say Sherrod Brown if he were to run, who will not attract Big Money from Big Donors cannot compete with Billions of dollars.

And THAT is one of the main reasons why people are not in support of those candidates who CAN.

Because the Rich and Powerful don't give money away for nothing.

So the question is, what will 2.5 Billion$ buy? And for whom?

[antigop]

34. Manny, I guess you missed this one...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026295443

[MannyGoldstein]

35. I did. Thanks for pointing it out! nt

[2banon]

44. I missed it the first time too. H2O Man nails it again...

[marym625]

36. It's kind of mind blowing

Don't get it.