Liberal Dems tired of HRC's victomology


Not long ago, I told a group of friends, all liberal Dems, that I believed she was keeping open the possibility of a rematch against Trump, and might already have decided to run.

It was unanimous — they were horrified. “I would not give her a single cent,” one man, formerly a big donor to Clinton, said emphatically.

Their reasons are no surprise: Her moment has passed, she was a terrible candidate and her endless claims of victimhood are tiring rather than inspiring. It’s time to find new blood.

Note: In an effort to save space in the title I used the abbreviations ‘Dems’ and ‘HRC’. I hope no one was offended.

The author of the article used the term ‘liberal’ to describe a certain element of the party. So I assumed it was ok to use that term in the title even though many members of CAF seem to object to the use of the term.


I’m pretty conservative, and I object to calling many posters here “liberal” because they are not. Few in the Democrat party today are, indeed, liberal, but rather ILliberal, INtolerant leftists.

And a primary tool of leftists is to play victim, so you may very well see many object to calling them such a terrible name as “liberal”.


These labels only have meaning for the extremes. I hope most of us are neither liberal nor conservative but rather a sensible balance.

More likely to see Elizabeth Warren than HRC.


Bloomberg is probably the only candidate that has prospects, and I don’t think he can beat Trump.
He doesn’t excite the socialist wing and independents would prefer “the devil you know”


Senators have a dismal record in getting electoral votes. Try a Mark Cuban or Oprah or Stormy Daniel’s lawyer.


I don’t know of anyone who wants HRC to run again, and that includes many friends and family members who voted for her. It’s over. Move on and find new blood.


I look forward to the time when HRC is the answer to a trivia question that most people can’t remember, just like Dewey, Stevenson, Humphrey, Mondale, and Dukakis. Expect that in about thee years. I must be getting old. I had to lookup Dukakis because I had forgotten him, and I am usually pretty good at trivia.


Stevenson and Mondale, good folk they are.
Embarassing to mix them with HRC.


She is not the type to go gracefully into the sunset. Unfortunately for the other possible candidates, she is still the best known with the most money and that does talk. This could be very divisive for the Democrats as they are going to have to start coalescing around some names by next summer.

Let’s revisit after the mid-term elections.


What bothers me is that younger Democrats are rejecting HRC because she was not radical enough, not because she was wrong and dishonest. They see socialism as the future because they know nothing of the past.


I have a bunch of adele stevenson silver lapel pins


The younger generations have been taught well as I can see via my Bernie Bro contemporaries.


I wonder how she would gain enough strength for a run in ‘20


You were complaining the other day about people using initials when refering to people. Now here you are using initals to refer to someone.


Since when is HRC used outside of the context of Hillary Rodham Clinton as a slur on someone?


What is the total number of excuses / blamees so far?


Her Royal Clintoness?


Since when is BO used inside the context of Barak Obama a slur on him? Blame his parents for your precieved slur if you need to complain… its only in your head that there is a problem. People use initals to refer short hand to people all the time, something your use of initials proves.


Agree with this. It would be political suicide to put HRC up again.


You’ve led an extremely sheltered existence if you think BO isn’t used to refer to body odor — or if you think it hasn’t been used to slam Obama. :roll_eyes:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit