Some of you folks here make the GOP look better with how they treat women!!!

[LynneSin]

I'm sorry I have to say this and if you get pissed at me so be it but this is getting to be utter BULLSHIT and I should know because I survived this same exact bullshit back in 2007-2008 and I'm never once voted for or supported Hillary Clinton EVER.

But you know how the GOP still keep women coming back to vote for them - simple they don't treat their high profile female candidates like shit. Sure they have batshit crazies like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and now Joni Ernst but do you see anyone in the GOP coming out and saying that to their face. Treating them like dirt? Do you see their supporters using words about them like 'vomit-inducing' or other derogatory words.

I do not give a RATS ASS what you think of Hillary Clinton and her policies. I don't care how you think you might vote in the upcoming election because I still don't know how I'm going to vote although I will say this, the idea of a republican in the White House is far scarier than Hillary Clinton. Nothing you can say will change my mind about casting any vote in the general election that would help put the GOP into the White House. But that's general election stuff and we haven't had a primary yet.

But you want to convince the rest of DU why Hillary Clinton isn't electable then come on folks try to act like democrats. We're suppose to be the party that uses facts and not rumors and heresay that can be stretched into news stories fed to the sheep who watch Faux News. And we are suppose to be the party that judges people on issues - stick with facts but be respectful of others. I know I'm not being very respectful now but I'm hoping maybe just this one thread is a wake-up call to other to say 'Yes I can learn to disagree with others but still play fair because in the end the real enemy is the GOP'.

And no matter what you think of Hillary Clinton here's a few things about her you should know. First and foremost she hasn't won anything yet so let's stop assuming she's the nominee or will be the nominee. Folks tried that in 2008 and look how that turned out. And second, no matter what, Hillary Clinton has worked hard to get where she is today and sometimes I think about half the crap I read about her is still the right-wing bullshit machine throwing shit at her like they have been since the Clintons first came into the spotlight back in the 1990s. How she manages to keep doing what she does despite all the mud slung at her I do not know. But I also know there are a few issues out there that I'm concerned about which keeps me from wanting to support her in the primaries.

So I look forward to the debate season but come on folks, let's not devolve into name-calling and innuendos. We're democrats and we are better than that.

And you pro-Hillary folks, you need to be just as respectful too, people have the right to say why they aren't supporting Hillary.

[woodsprite]

1. Thank you, Lynne! This needs to be shouted from the rooftops. n/t

[yuiyoshida]

13. I agree with you and Lynne

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. thank you for saying this, LynneSin, K&R

[Blue_Adept]

3. I wish the Primary 2016 forum would open up already

So that all of this can be contained there instead of GD.

But totally in agreement with you here, Lynne. Sadly, people suck and they think they're playing hardball politics that will help their position when it does anything but that.

[salin]

4. Here, Hear!

Thank you for writing this. I agree with everything you said - right down to the ambivalence, at this point, to Secretary Clinton as a candidate - and if she becomes the candidate I will work hard for her.

I also think it is really hard to fathom a primary season, in an open primary (no incumbent) with a sole candidate. Even Mondale was challenged by Hart. What does that mean? In a general election is that a net gain, or a net loss, or neutral.

Look at that - a commentary about the nature of this upcoming primary and how it seems to be shaping up - without attacks, without belittlement of the candidate and without belittlement of fellow DUers.

Thanks again LynneSin.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

99. I loved Gary Hart and loathed Mondale because I thought his campaign was petty...

However, I had no problem voting for him in 1984 because he had a (D) after his name.

[snooper2]

5. easiest way to troll a democratic message board is to go as "far left" as possible

Therefore your morals and beliefs are high and mighty and cannot be questioned!

[Egnever]

8. ^^^This^^^

[Fumesucker]

12. Two words

LoZoccolo

[Rex]

16. Easiest way to troll a democratic message board is to pretend you are in the center

some pretend it is the center-left. You can bash real liberals all day long, it is like a golden ticket for trolls. Sadly, they do it all the time here when moral is low (in their opinion). So liberal bashing they go.

[RiverLover]

18. Exactly. 1000xs thank you. nt

[HappyMe]

19. Yup.

It guarantees you a bunch of agreement, and you don't stick out.

[JDPriestly]

32. Thank you. Ih fact, in my view, OUR ENTIRE PARTY HAS BEEN TROLLEDmby the big money guys

who hate unions, poor people, working mothers, women as an entire category except when they spew right-wing propaganda, anyone of a different religion and traditional Democrats.

[99Forever]

39. Yessir.

The losing message plays on. Same ol' same ol'.

[jobycom]

50. God damn it, seriously?

Center, left, far left, blah blah blah.

I stopped hanging out around here because I could get more useful discussion on Facebook, or at the local grocery store, where people had no idea what to call themselves. At least there they hear an argument and respond to it instead of just attacking the other person for not fitting the right nuance of left.

Rex, I know you were responding to the previous post and not the OP, so this isn't directed at you, or anyone, but the OP was about the sexism that creeps into the attacks on Clinton and the way it alienates (in all senses of the word) female voters, and women in general. The OP didn't attack any ideology. She went out of her way to say she wasn't attacking any ideology. She just attacked a sad trend in the whole left-of-center political spectrum. Now this whole sub-branch is shifting the debate into the whole centrist-leftist crap that always winds up derailing any useful discussion around this increasingly banal place.

We have Godwin's Law about Hitler, now we need another law which states that any discussion on DU will devolve into a shouting match between sides that will completely ignore the original point, and the speed with which that will happen will be directly proportional to the validity of the original point.

Not your fault, Rex. Not anyone's fault. People with passion about leftist ideology are the beautiful people of the world. I just wish we could all aim that passion at the right. (Even if a few bombs fired from the far left don't make it over the center line, at least they are aimed in the right direction).

[Rex]

70. I know, just like to counter obvious bullshit. Some just don't say anything and won't.

They don't want to rock the boat, NP. That is their right, I won't ask them to counter trollish crap when it gets posted here. I have always replied to garbage that gets posted here and will never stop doing that.

Very nice post and you are so right, nothing good comes from disrupting a good thread, it is sad that it always happens.

You should try explaining that to the people that like to disrupt good threads. The left/far left garbage is something repeated by the RW all the time and it is telling that posters do it here and still pretend they are sincere and progressive.

I am sorry you left, it is sad when people leave because the trolls run them off. That however won't be happening to me, I will always call their garbage and I don't care what thread it is in. Use RWing garbage talking points, get called out for it.

As for discussion, never had a problem with that here. Then again, the people that I discuss things with don't seem to let the trolls get to them either. I see a sub-thread with a few people agreeing with me. Glad the world did not end.

[Fumesucker]

85. How come you didn't respond to post #5 that started this "who is trolling" brouhaha?

Hmmm?

[zeemike]

56. It is not one or the other it is both.

And once in a while they will throw in a right winger that makes outrageous remarks that the first two can be outraged about and call for a purge.

The goal of trolls is to create friction and disunity and that is how it is done.
At some point we must realize that the problem is not them it is us...we get our buttons pushed and then we react, and it is the reactions they are looking for. They know we are emotional people and they work that.

Divide and conquer is what it is about...and we are being conquered.

[BrotherIvan]

69. Times A Billion

And since most of the "reality-based centrists" are to the right of Nixon and Reagan, everyone in the traditional Democratic position LOOKS far left. Punching left is so natural and automatic, this place resembles Yahoo comments in certain threads.

This week I was called a "progressive" by a very prominent poster as if that was an epithet.

I've also been called a Left-Leaning Independent (LLI) if I did not support a conservative policy. Because that's what Democrats do right? Suck it up, Buttercup, and do as I say! Right now we're all supposed to be fighting for funding of Homeland Security because it scores points against Republicans. Can you spell K A B U K I?

The centrists on this board are not centrists at all. They are groupies following their chosen person around. I have seen the poster who called me a "progressive" obliquely support the TPP and Keystone because he didn't know Obama's position yet. Once Obama signaled his position, we had always been at war with Eastasia.

I have seen the word liberal used with the same disdain that freepers do, except they don't have the guts to spell it LIBRUL or LIBTARD but the sentiment is the same.

And now all those same people are now trying to force everyone to support whomever they support. In the nastiest, snarkiest terms while at the same time screaming to the high heavens of being persecuted. This is a problem of behavior, not a disagreement. And like the persecuted Kristians and rwnj, the persecution is of their own making.

[Rex]

73. True someone pointed out to me last week how

they want their pony to be the only one, yet chastise anyone else for wanting another pony in the race. The double standard would have gotten them laughed off of DU2. Either ya love democracy or you hate it. Seems a lot of people hate it, yet give it lip service when it is needed.

I know what you mean...they just don't have the guts to say LIBRUL or LIBTARD, but that hatred is the same. They just don't want to get TSd. Remember, you can bash liberals all day here, as long as you pretend they are destroying the party. It is sad to watch.

[BrotherIvan]

91. I am equally tired of it and apathetic

It's the same crowd. They rule this board. I'm sorry that people who want to learn and discuss issues aren't able to. But I guess the loudest one wins.

[cui bono]

149. Oh they do say "firebagger" and there was something else starting with "emo"...

And of course there's Paulbot, Putin Lover... they are unable to understand that there may actually be some things that Libertarians and Liberals agree on.

It is literally "you're either for us or against us" all over again. And you are right, they are the nastiest and snarkiest and their posts have no substance and end with the rofl smiley. I had someone over the last couple days use "ratfucking" (several times), "idiotic", "in the fucking twilight zone" and other phrases and names towards me and someone else and I said "apologist" and he says I'm the one whose posts are all nasty insults! And of course the first posts by them in that thread were completely devoid of any substance what so ever. Just rude ridicule. Everything he said about me was pure projection. Unbelievable. Well, actually not, because that is seen on this board over and over again.

[BrotherIvan]

159. Also alert stalking

I was on a jury and got the results for a rhett o rick post and the comments under the hides showed clearly it was a personal vendetta.

They will get a hide for someone else when they have been the aggressor on the thread. And I've seen them go after Manny like a pack of hyenas. It's disgusting.

Oh well, the hall monitors may think they have won, but being bullies of the board really isn't much.

[cui bono]

162. There were a few actively trying to get people banned from the site

in the host forum.

Yeah, they aren't winning what they think they are. But hey, they like to try to stifle ideas and speech they don't like. And we all know who acts just the same as they do, but we can't say it for fear of a hide.

[BrotherIvan]

163. It has certainly been revealing

I have never encountered Democratic authoritarians, but I guess there are more than a few. I blame the media and the divisivness of politics as entertainment. When they discovered they could make politicians into celebrities with adoring fans, they created a whole new weapon.

[cui bono]

164. Yeah. I talk about the new politics as "team sport" way of doing things a lot.

Stand by your team no matter what. As long as your team wins you win. Problem is, we are all losing in this game. TPTB keep us playing the wrong game and so we never come together against them. Unfortunately, the Third Way has gotten Dems to play the game within the party so now the liberals get demonized. And the idolizing of Obama is out of control. When what is supposed to be a serious political board has teen fan magazine type posts about our president you know we are in trouble.

Agree on the media being to blame as well. I always hate to watch Maddow during any election because she gets off of covering the news/issues and covers the horse race instead.

[BrotherIvan]

166. Totally agree!

It's nice to know I'm not the only cynic here.

[WilliamPitt]

77. For the win.

[awoke_in_2003]

103. +1000. nt

[Rex]

122. Aw it looks like I gave the libertarians here a sadz!

I love watching them stew in their own juices! They make for almost as good of entertainment as republicans. Thankfully they are a tiny group here and not reflective of DU or the real world. Their words make me laugh and laugh at them as they pretend to be progressives, yet post just like their republican cousins (out of deep seated anger, poor dears cannot help it)!

I do feel a little pity for them as their numbers shrink here on a daily basis. I guess their pathetic trolling is getting them nowhere!
What worked for them years ago, is being met with ridicule and they cannot handle it!

[awoke_in_2003]

125. The turning point, IMO,

was Rush's Operation Chaos. We had a large wave of disruptors join up, and they knew how to skirt that line. A lot never went away, and more kept coming.

[cui bono]

165. Libertarians? Or Third Wayers? n/t

[Rex]

175. What's the difference? Both love neoliberalism.

Both don't give one shit about human life and only care about profit.

[Doctor_J]

145. The op is saying that republicans treat women better than dems do. holy shit

Some of the shit posted here these days is unbelievable. I have voted straight democratic since 1978, but am called "independent" by a shit stirring nut because I won't get on the corporate healthcare bandwagon. The BOG is downright creepy. Our hope of getting the country back on the right track is minimal like this

[deurbano]

148. I think the headline might be a bit misleading. It's really about how Republicans treat

female Republican candidates.

[TheKentuckian]

146. Having your "Hail Obama" or "Hail Clinton" in order seems pretty effective.

[heaven05]

81. Lieberman sucked

[AgingAmerican]

28. Trolls on a left wing board are not left wing

They are right wing. They hide behind the word 'centrist' which essentially means halfpublican.

[Quantess]

89. Yes, and turn it into a contest, "I am to the left of you on every topic, so you belong must on FR!"

I'm the leftiest leftist in the land!

[stonecutter357]

102. K&R!

[Agschmid]

124. Yup.

[tenderfoot]

134. Go far left to offset how far right democrats are these days

eom

[Bobbie Jo]

136. +10000

Nailed it.

It's a never-ending holier than thou pissing match.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

139. That would be one way. Another way would be to LOL at every one of one's

dumb ass posts. Going as far as LOLing when a woman gets decapitated. Oh and posting dumb ass videos, most of which are marginally funny at best, with the occasional mediocre music video sprinkled in.
LOL
LOL
LOL....... or something.

[cui bono]

151. No, the easiest way to troll the board, and the entire Dem Party,

is call yourself a liberal when you are really center-right, support moderate Republican policies and then pull out the insults - such as yours above - and the "ponies" line when the real liberals criticize moderate Republican policy. This is what is moving the Dem Party further and further right and it's a danger to our democracy.

[Tarheel_Dem]

155. +1! You Better Believe It!

[betsuni]

183. And then brag about it.

Because trolling the right-wing is too easy. Belling Democratic cats is more of a challenge. Guess they have a lot of free time and nothing else to do.

[treestar]

186. I have to wonder about the ones who NEVER have anything good to say about any Democrat

And/or pretend to support a Democrat who has no chance of winning, or an Independent.

I suppose there are real socialists who might troll here for more members during non-election season. Still, you think they'd occasionally have something good to say about a Democrat.

The really suspicious ones to me are the ones who worry about our being unfair to Republicans. It's OK if a Democratic President does it. Why not? We can't micro-manage everything, and we might trust a Democrat to do what we'd want if we had all the facts.

[FSogol]

6. K & R. n/t

[prayin4rain]

7. To be fair though, I think the GOP realizes

that they'd better be nice to any woman insane (or greedy) enough to sell themselves out and go along with the GOP's overall anti-woman agenda.

[LynneSin]

10. The GOP is about image.

They know if they show they can be nice to a few then their supporters and other clueless folks will think 'gee maybe there is room for me in this party'

Perfect example is the billboard I pass in the way home on I95n here in Delaware where the GOP congrats all the big winners from 2014. Of course here in Delaware GOP won nothing but the GOP thinks if the put the photo of that one African American woman from Utah that got elected as a Republican that somehow other African Americans in our state will think maybe the GOP is the party for them. Maybe they'll overlook how the GOP treats working class families, votes against minimum wage increases and in general makes life harder for minorities.

I know as Democrats we do better for the 99%. But I still think think we can do better when it comes to disagreeing with those in our party. I'm not trying to make people here Hillary supporters. Just trying to make the discussion better.

[prayin4rain]

22. I totally agree with you, great post! n/t

[jobycom]

53. Excellent post. nt

[Hekate]

9. KnRn Good Luck with this message

[randome]

11. Promote an alternative instead of trying to tear someone down.

I guess going negative wins the day even here on DU because it requires less effort.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. +1 ...

My political fantasy would be a contest in which the candidates talked about THEIR position ... THEIR vision ... without reference their opponent.

But you are correct ... being critical requires far less thought.

[Liberalynn]

44. I would like this too.

[BrotherIvan]

71. Then be the change you seek

[cui bono]

150. The most negative posts on DU are the ones that have only some smarmy insult,

name calling, don't discuss policy and end with the rofl smiley.

So you could start by approaching those types of posts if you want to get rid of the negativity.

[RiverLover]

14. Hillary needs to treat women better too.

They said on ABC's The View, she paid paid her female senate staffers 28% less than her male senate staffers.

Maybe all of her male staffers had the better jobs, but either way, it doesn't look good.

[LynneSin]

17. Discussing an issue like that is one thing

Using derogatory words about her or finding reasons to not vote for her based on flimsy stories from weak sources is my issue.

[Upward]

156. "I'd Love to Vote for a Woman. But Not THAT Woman"

Don't forget that neat little meme.

[LynneSin]

174. I think of all of the issues about Hillary Clinton that I do not like. Then I think....

President Chris Christie
President Scott Walker
President Mario Rubio
President Jeb Bush
etc.....

And in the end I realize that although it is very doubtful I can find any reason to support Hillary Clinton in the primaries just like I found none to support in 2008, I also know that in the end I will not EVER cast a vote that in any way shape or form help put any GOP in the White House.

Because in the end on Hillary Clinton's absolutely worst day ever when she made the worst vote of her life or the worst comment or wore the worst pant suit or wore the worst hair style or did the worst whatever it is someone decided that make her so unelectable....

She is still a better choice than
President Chris Christie
President Scott Walker
President Mario Rubio
President Jeb Bush
etc....


And btw we tried this 'Maybe we need to teach the conservative democrats and see what it's like with a republican president blah blah blah' bullshit back in 2000/2004. Not buying that line ever again.

I hope to have a very vibrant primaries with a good slate of candidates and to those who say 'but Hillary can't be beaten' I say 'I'm sorry to hear about that coma you had back in 2007-2008'.

[Doctor_J]

178. So you think ti's impossible for someone to support Warren but not HRC?

[uberblonde]

140. And of course, no Democrat deserves the benefit of the doubt?

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E%2C*PL%5B%3D%23P%20%20%0A

Limitation on Number of Employees Hired by the MRA
Each Member may use the MRA to employ no more than 18 permanent employees, a level that
has remained unchanged for nearly four decades. A Member may employ up to four additional
employees if they fall into one of the following categories:19
1. part-time employees,
2. shared employees,

Did it occur to you that maybe Clinton, who's rather famous for mentoring women, has more female part-timers who are trying to balance their family life?

More to the point: Whenever I hear ANYTHING outrageous about ANY Democrat, I say to myself, "Whenever I have looked into similar stories in the past, there is almost always a logical explanation." Which is why I give Democrats the benefit of the doubt. You might want to try it.

[LeFleur1]

15. Yes, Yes, YES!

Thank you for saying what needed to be said, LynneSin.

[demigoddess]

20. agree with you! and the only way we will KNOW how Hillary

will behave as president is to elect her. I have a problem with all the people who just KNOW that she will behave worse than a republican in the white house.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. +1 ...

Last edited Thu Feb 26, 2015, 03:14 PM - Edit history (1)

especially when one pauses to consider that those most certain have been consistently proven incorrect by what actually happens (e.g., President Obama will cut Social Security ... President Obama will bomb the Assad regime ... President Obama will approve Keystone ETA: ... President Obama will oppose Net Neutrality).

[sheshe2]

51. ^^^^This^^^^100%^^^^

[randys1]

104. Obama and I have something in common, difference is when I bluff I make maybe $200

with my crap hand in Hold Em, when he bluffs, he saves social programs and makes fools out of the cons at the same time.

He is ten steps ahead of them at all time.

[1StrongBlackMan]

116. It's not a bluff play ...

when you know your opponent and their tendencies. It's just a well played hand.

[randys1]

118. The bluff play is the hardest play in poker, and in life.

Dont minimize it

I have nearly had heart attacks waiting to see what the other person was gonna do after I initiated it

[TheKentuckian]

147. Obama proposed the cut and it was harmful and stupid to do so and got shut down on Syria.

I'm glad net neutrality came out thankfully there was a lot of pressure.

[1StrongBlackMan]

170. Okay. m/t

[Fumesucker]

87. Indeed...

[haikugal]

133. A prime example....Damn that's sad. nt

[Doctor_J]

169. so we HAVE to elect her first, then see if we agree with her?

[taught_me_patience]

21. I agree.

Anti-Hillary threads have gone over the top recently we're not even a year from primary season yet.

[G_j]

23. discuss policy/issues/

facts. It should be a no-brainer, but name calling is completely unproductive

[SheilaT]

24. Thank you, LynneSin.

One of the things I really dislike about DU is how often those derogatory words you referenced are used. Calling anyone, no matter who, by nasty names, doesn't accomplish a thing, and all too often we collective look like childish idiots.

I am beyond frustrated by those who assure us that Hillary will be the nominee and of course she will win the general election, so there's no point in anyone else even considering playing. We heard a lot of that in 2007 and into early 2008, and I keep on wondering how in the world is it that she's not our current President.

I'm genuinely bothered by those who arrogantly dismiss any other possible candidate, as they're not living in the real world. There might be others who will come forward and run, maybe even more than one who will make a good run for it or will win the nomination. It's been nearly a year now that the rabid Hillary supporters have been doing their best to shout down anyone who suggests anyone other than her. There are several things wrong with this. First of all, she hasn't declared she's actually running. Stunning news, I know. Second, I'm seeing no thoughtful consideration of her qualities as a potential nominee, let alone much of a thoughtful assessment of her weaknesses. What I mainly hear is that she's the Perfect Candidate, and all you haters (odd how they assume anyone who wants to question her inevitability is a hater) just better sit down and shut up.

The real thing that disturbs me about the apparent selection of the candidate around three years before the election, is that it does not take into consideration that anything at all in the world might change in the next year or so. We'd all -- potential candidates and all us voters -- be far better off to sit back, pay attention to everything that's happening in the world, and just watch events unfold, and towards the end of this year finally start thinking about who might make a good President.

Personally, I'd like to see a far more wide-open field in the primary season. There are candidates who are reasonably well known who I'd love to see running. There are several other less well known who might be wonderful in the job, but it looks as if they have no Presidential aspirations whatsoever because they are not getting out there and trying to build their name recognition.

[LynneSin]

30. I have a ton of respect for Hillary Clinton but she is not owed anything...

let alone a free ride to the democratic nomination. And this is not to be disrespectful of our supporters of Hillary, I want them to know that in the general election I will not cast any vote that could possible help put a republican in the White House. Unless some bizarro reason we nominate the lovechild of Stalin and Hitler as our nominee then I am without a doubt voting Democrat in the general election.

But I think in 2008 we had a pretty diverse slate of candidates and I was sorta on team Joe Biden (I'm from Delaware how could I not be) just like in 2016 I'm kinda on that team now (but realistic that the guy is a bit too old to run, he's even older than Bernie Sanders). It's too early to tell and I like the idea of keeping an open mind and enjoying the primary season without being committed to any one candidate. I think 2004 I got burned out with the Dean campaign - all that work and he didn't even get a delegate. In 2008 there were so many great choices it was easier to keep an open mind and see how things played out in the end.

[SheilaT]

46. Yes. The most important point is that she is not owed anything.

If she is crowned as the one and only worthy candidate, years before the election, and without any real consideration as a whole of other candidates, it sets up a chain of very bad things, in my opinion.

First off, it's now eight years since her last Presidential campaign. Various things have changed and they must be considered.

Second, if we get in the habit of selecting our nominees years out, it severely handicaps both our ability to respond to new circumstances, and shuts out any potential newcomers. I like to point out that after the first Gulf War, President George HW Bush's popularity was so huge, and it was so obvious he'd win re-election in a cakewalk, that every name Democrat decided it wasn't a good idea to run in 1992. Remember his re-election? Then, after Gore lost in 2000, it was obvious to the most casual observer that he'd be the nominee again in 2004 and would of course win second time around. Remember? Oh. After Kerry lost in 2004 (keep forgetting what happened to Gore) it was obvious he'd run again in 2008 and then win. Oops, he decided not to go through that a second time and so it became obvious to the most casual observer the Hillary Clinton was the only possible candidate and she'd be completely unbeatable. Then there was this little-known one term Senator from Illinois . . . .

Third, in this country we don't need political dynasties, especially not at the Presidential level.

My point is that the conventional wisdom is often wrong. There is much that is admirable in fiercely supporting your candidate, but I wish more people would look at the actual realities of campaigning and of party politics. It's disheartening that some who would potentially be excellent Presidents, aren't even running, at least not this time around.

I will say that the biggest problem with Hillary Clinton as a candidate is how very despised she is outside of a very loyal hard core group of supporters. The claim has been made that since she went through a pretty grueling campaign in 2008, she's going to be bullet-proof now. Oh, now, that attitude does not begin to take into account how fiercely hated she is, nor how powerful Benghazi will be, even though we here all understand that the Benghazi thing is utter nonsense. It also doesn't take into account that merely running a woman for President will not pull in lots of otherwise good Republican women. If anything, it will solidify the anti-woman vote. Hillary has such very high negatives in so many places, that I honestly don't see them being overcome in this next election.

That's just my opinion.

[riqster]

25. Damn skippy.

Great post.

[progressoid]

26. Do we have anyone as batshit crazy as Palin or Ernst?

If we do, they should be allowed to get that far in our party.

[Man from Pickens]

27. meh

"the idea of a republican in the White House is far scarier than Hillary Clinton."

I see them as equivalent, and that's me being generous to Hillary Clinton. She really is, in many many ways, the ultimate modern GOP candidate. That she's not a Republican, but rather in our party, is a scandal in and of itself.

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. Really? ...

You see them as equivalent?

I suspect women and "minorities" and the LGBT community (i.e., the Democratic Base ... AKA, those that will be hurt most by the difference) can recognize the vast difference.

[Man from Pickens]

60. My expectations are different

I suspect minorities will be the first ones to die on the front lines of Hillary's next war. Or the one after that, or the one after that.

There is not one single person in the entire Democratic Party with a bigger hard-on for war than Hillary Clinton. She is so much an outlier on war policy with respect to the rest of the party, that I assert she doesn't belong among us.

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. Your concern for the minority well-being is noted ...

Specious; but noted.

http://statisticbrain.com/demographics-of-active-duty-u-s-military/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK206861/

[Man from Pickens]

68. Thanks

Also noted is that Hillary support basically revolves around specious and highly non-specific claims of benefits while ignoring the absolute certainty of more war and all its attendant horrors.

[1StrongBlackMan]

84. What claims of HRC support have you seen on DU ...

other than maybe in reference to her electability (in the General Election) and/or her being the preferred candidate over ANY republican?

DU is absolutely certain about so much that never occurs. So ...

[Bobbie Jo]

138. This

DU is absolutely certain about so much that never occurs. So ...

Time and again....

[randys1]

105. Talking to another white male libertarian who shrugs off the HORROR of a republican presidency, are

you?

I will assume so, though I cant know for sure, but most who talk like that are.

Their attitude about it makes sense if they are saying it for a specific purpose and agenda, but if they are saying it just to be flippant then it is maddening.

[BubbaFett]

78. "minorities" and LGBT

will be most hurt by republican Lite democrats.

Plus the working class of all colors, shapes, and etc.

[1StrongBlackMan]

86. No ...

even that mythical "republican lite Democrat" prioritizes the civil rights/social issues, that really, real Democrat candidates do not.

[BubbaFett]

88. I think you are living in a fantasy world

because that isn't what happens in the real world.

[1StrongBlackMan]

92. LOL ...

I'm living in a fantasy world?

A Black man that supports candidates that prioritize civil rights/social issues?

Wow.

[JustAnotherGen]

94. Glad you said it

[1StrongBlackMan]

95. Thank you for telling me about me world ...

[JustAnotherGen]

115. Yeah - I noticed that

Cray craaaaaaaay!

[Number23]

101. This whole thread just highlights how bizarre this place is

The OP is pretty clear that she's concerned about the sexist and dishonest language being used against Hillary, and that much of the language being used is the other side of the coin from what the right wing uses.

So of course that launches into head scratching and pointless comments about how it's those on the "center" that are trolling DU complete with a bunch of high fives. The center is where the vast majority of Democrats and even Republicans are within their respective parties, though the insane right seems to have a lot more clout than its left wing counterpart. So how the hell is it "trolling" to represent the views of the majority of the Democratic party and the American people on a political message board? How could that comment make sense to anybody, let alone a group of people that love to pat themselves on the back with how "informed" they are?

The fact that the comment was even made and more people didn't say "huh?" as well as the fact that people are still using the most absurd and even sexist "criticisms" against Hillary to crap all over her despite the fact that she enjoys about 85% support from the Democratic party and is whomping every single last one of her Republican counterparts just shows how completely divorced from any semblance of reality this place is. And it also bolsters the point that was made that trolling from the "left" would truly be the most effective and long term form of trolling here as we have seen time and time again.

[randys1]

107. I thought huh but assumed I was reading it wrong or that they were referring to someone else

Lets be honest, there is an agenda here.

Mine is to get all Americans to vote, theirs is not.


FOLLOW THIS TWITTER PLEASE

AND REPORT VOTING IRREGULARITIES

https://twitter.com/DidTheyLetUVote

https://twitter.com/DidTheyLetUVote

[Number23]

108. "Lets be honest, there is an agenda here."

Yep. And now we've got people actually TELLING the minority members here who would hurt us the most as if we are too stupid to know for ourselves.

Speaking only for myself, I'd take the opinions of the few remaining minority posters here any day of the week and twice on Sunday than over a full 100% of the "darlings" in GD and their pals. And I know I am by no means alone in that regard.

Luckily, this "agenda" is being played out in such a bumbling, laughably stupid way that I guess we should be glad that DU seems to be the only place in the world that these people have even the tiniest bit of clout.

[randys1]

110. I will make the point daily that there is a reason white/straight/protestant/libertarian MEN

are most likely to be the ones who will urge others not to vote for Hillary, if she is the nominee.

There is a very real and important reason for this.

[steve2470]

184. +1000 nt

[randys1]

106. W O W wouldn't believe it if I didnt see it with my own eyes

[1StrongBlackMan]

119. Sighhh ...

Sometimes I wonder if some people actually believe what they write?

But then, I read: "If you can't see that income inequality is THE problem; then, YOU are the problem.", and realized, "Yeah, they do."

{Note: The above is not a exact quote ... the poster self-deleted the post ... no doubt after getting a "Shhh, you know you're not supposed to say that in mixed company" PM.}

[Widget2000]

152. Oh yes, we only had to wait how many years for Obama to "evolve"?

Face it, he waited until the momentum was undeniable and then went with the flow. There was no leadership there. How soon do you forget how vigorously his justice department defended DOMA, comparing gays with bestiality and pedophilia?

[1StrongBlackMan]

171. When did the DoJ ...

compare gays with bestiality and pedophilia?

[Widget2000]

177. Oh, I'm sorry, it was incest and underage marriage.

As if that's any better.
http://politicalhotwire.com/political-discussion/38948-obama-doj-compares-gay-marriage-incest.html

[1StrongBlackMan]

179. The linked to article ...

Doesn't say what you're saying it says ... it is Politico saying the filing compared SSM to incest and underage marriage.

And reading the article ... the DoJ response didn't say what Politicos said it said. (So may confidence level is low that the filing said what they say it says)

[Widget2000]

181. We've been through this shit years ago

Go ahead and google yourself, I just grabbed the first result.

[1StrongBlackMan]

182. Thanks. n/t

[Sheepshank]

114. NO...THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT

spouting such nonsense, is sincerely so painfully obvious in it's attempted endeavour to suppress the enthusiasm to vote.

YOU FAIL.

Since you are so convinced they are the same....pray tell, which of the current GOP POTUS wannabe's are just like a Democratic candidate? And why not expand on their platform and stance on healthcare, abortion, womens rights, taxes, food stamps, unemployment, minimum wage, climate change, evolution, LGBT rights, immigration, SCOTUS choicesm, and privitization of schools.

[1StrongBlackMan]

142. None of that matters ...

we must vote for the candidate that will try and close the income gap ... never mind all that social crap ... that is not a problem for me!

[Jamaal510]

160. It's weird because

when you look at the grand scheme of things, all of the Democratic would-be 2016 candidates ultimately support the same economic agenda and one that is a stark contrast to the GOP's.

[1StrongBlackMan]

172. Well, there's that ...

But one candidate pursing that economic agenda will lead to salvation and the others pursing that economic agenda will lead to Armageddon!

[Gman]

29. They didn't care about this in 08

And won't now. Many are RW trolls.

[Dawgs]

31. You're in for a long two years if you're getting this upset now.

Me, on the other hand, is looking forward to it.. good, bad, and otherwise.

[LynneSin]

37. This is the thing. I lived through all of this in 2008

It's almost like 'Not this shit again'

I see a thread about how people need to get a backbone because all the dirt they are going to dig up on Hillary. I'm like 'what fricking dirt?' This is a woman who has survived two elections with her husband, all of her husband's scandals (real and faux news generated) during his 2 terms as president, her two senate runs, her 'maybe she will or maybe she won't' presidential runs in 2000 and 2004, her actual presidential run in 2008 where she and Obama pretty much dug up alot of dirt during the primaries.

We've dug up so much fricking dirt on Hillary we've dug ourselves a hole that leads us all the way to China.

I know it is important to discuss Hillary Clinton's shortfallings because she has them but then again name one candidate who doesn't. But this mudslinging is getting old. Hillary Clinton is one of the most exposed women in the history of American Politics and I for one survived 2008 so I'm ready to just focus on 2012 on issues and skip the other bullshit.

[SheilaT]

49. You are absolutely right, of course,

but the general election, no matter who the Democratic nominee is, will be all about digging up dirt on that person. It is so rarely about issues as to be completely disheartening.

The enormous problem is that the vast majority of people get their only information about candidates and issues from TV advertizing. They are, so far as I can tell, almost always negative. I happen to not have a TV. I've been without one since the middle of 2008, and let me tell you, it's the best thing that ever happened to me. I see NO political ads, other than what someone like Rachel Maddow may run on her show to make a point of some kind. It's quite refreshing. It's among the reasons I encourage people to get rid of their TV, the cable hook-up, the satellite dish.

I think maybe if I were dictator of the world, I'd forbid all political advertizing that wasn't a statement of a candidates accomplishments and promises. Nothing ever about the opponent. Sigh. Won't ever happen, I know.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

58. and in '08 we had Moderators. This whole alert/jury system will get the ultimate test.

Things are just now starting to get ... uhm ... interesting ...

[randys1]

111. HUGE problem...A passionate liberal needs to reign it in around here, because the odds

are very good that some very far right posters will gang up on him or her in the jury.

Personally I love that rightwingers post here and argue with us, it is how we expose their ideology.

The problem is they should have ZERO power to silence a liberal.

[Upward]

157. We Had Biased Moderators

That allowed all manner of sexist attacks stand.

[randys1]

109. Personally, my mother taught me to respect Women and to treat them accordingly

Now I know that to be politically correct I need to respect men equally, but there is something about a man who can pass off the attacks Hillary is taking as if they are nothing, that irritates the shit out of me.

[valerief]

33. What makes you think those people aren't GOP? nt

[LynneSin]

38. What makes you think I don't already think that

Been here long enough to know some of the tricks.

[valerief]

41. Badda bing!

[McCamy Taylor]

35. Sexism is still a huge -ism around the world and at home.

Maybe this election, the Democratic Party can get it out of its system.

We can start by declaring name calling of the witch/bitch/cunt variety uncool. If you have a complaint, make the complaint. Don't resort to sexist name calling.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. I won't be voting for Hillary because of issues/policies/principles.

Her gender, family name, (i.e. "Dynasty&quot , looks, charisma, voter appeal, polls, don't sway my vote. I don't agree with her policies, the issues she espouses, and her "bi-partisan", neolib, principles.

[randome]

40. Obviously you can make up your own mind...

...but who do you think Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders will vote for?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. I have no idea and no concern. It's their votes to use as they please.

And, like mine, their votes will, in all probability, have no effect on the outcome of the election.

[randys1]

112. That question exposes them in a heartbeat

[99Forever]

43. ^^^This^^^

I don't give a hoot about the next President's gender.

It's about policies, period.

[Art_from_Ark]

137. I agree

Policies are much more important than any superficial consideration.

[LittleBlue]

47. +2

[MissDeeds]

64. +1

Same here.

[LynneSin]

72. I want you to know I have total respect for this

What I have no respect for is some of the bullshit stories and sexism against her. I'm still waiting for some DUer to post the store about the so-called 50 people the Clintons had 'murdered' while in the White House and call this a reason to not vote for Hillary.

DUers have plenty of respect for you Tierra and I want you to know I do too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

129. Thank you. The feeling is mutual.

[RBInMaine]

168. If she is the nominee you had better vote for her or you will exist to help the Republicans.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

176. Humbug.

[Liberalynn]

52. Well said Lynne!

Hillary isn't my first choice for the Primaries, but if she becomes the Democratic nominee I will vote for her in the General Election. I don't want a Republican President.

[MisterP]

54. all DU already knows you don't care about her policies

but nothing will guarantee the victory of GOP policy long-term more than a Hillary candidacy: not even if the Dems paid each American $2,000 to not vote

[DeSwiss]

55. While I agree with your central theme......

[center]''We came, we saw, he died.''[/center]

- That's the one that did it for me. To rejoice over any person's death is sick and it's not something I want in a leader who supposedly stands for freedom and justice........

K&R

[LynneSin]

83. Now think about any of the GOP candidates

Your concerns are very valid and give me reason to think about my vote for the primary.

But IF (and I stress that word IF) she wins the nomination- that isn't enough for me to not vote for her. I have a completely different mindset for general elections.

But here is to a vibrant 2016 Democratic primary season that brings us a great slate of candidates and excellent debate!

[DeSwiss]

96. I try not to think about any of the candidates, as much as possible.

None of them can solve the problems we face. They created them. Why do we continue to go back the the same people who lead us here, for answers?

- I want REVOLUTION!

[LynneSin]

100. Well that is why I am undecided now

Because I refuse to think it's going to be Clinton in a cake walk.

[DeSwiss]

120. Clinton in a cake walk is what the system's primed for.....

...and it will be delivered because it's their system. And unfortunately there don't seem to be enough people who are awake enough to see this.

Here are just a few of the things we don't talk about anymore (because they're normal):

• The extra-legal murder of two US citizens via Star Chamber.

• The indiscriminate drone-bombing of funerals and weddings killing babies and their mothers.

• The kidnapping and torture of individuals held in secret and not-so-secret gulags.

• A domestic black site in Chicago were we torture and disappear people. And we have no idea how many more are out there.

• The funding of terrorists via our proxies (and providing them with weapons) whose now greater threat level then gives ''justification'' for greater defense spending. And even more military action, thus feeding upon itself.

These are issues at levels that far exceed the ability of any one person to do any damned thing about. And unlike Clinton, even if they wanted to. Not Warren. Not Sanders. No. One. It is totally out of control. The bankers own this casino and the MIC controls the larger parts of it.

The rest they're leaving to the local cops and sheriffs to keep in-check, and we can see how they're responding. They love it. They get to kill and maim with little or no repercussions. How many deaths does it take before even a peep is heard from the White House? The Congress. Not even many liberals are pointing at the cops. They're scared of them too and of course they don't want to appear ''soft on crime.''

- The only solution I can see to stop it from killing us, is it to leave it completely alone and let it die.

[center][/center]

The Venus Project
J.V. King - The Future of Government

[frankfacts]

185. Good post, and one that reminds me to vote a straight anti-Military ticket

It seems it's not enough to simply be anti-war, at this juncture.

[randys1]

113. If you truly want a revolution, regardless of whether it is nonviolent or not

And I am not passing judgment on whether that is a valid wish or not.

But in that case then voting or not voting in a way that elects the con is the right choice.

Nothing will bring on a revolution faster than teaparty agenda being enforced by law.

I have actually said this may be the only way to get what we deserve, I am just not sure I am willing to put others thru that hell

[DeSwiss]

158. Show me where I said......

....''regardless of whether it is nonviolent or not.'' I didn't. In fact I said quite the opposite. Leave it alone is what I said. The system functions on our energy. Without it, it collapses.

- For now. Soon with robots and computers, they won't need us.......

[Amimnoch]

57. Holy hell! K&R

Wonderfully said!

[calimary]

59. Eloquent as can be, LynneSin! Especially this part:

"...the idea of a republican in the White House is far scarier than Hillary Clinton. Nothing you can say will change my mind about casting any vote in the general election that would help put the GOP into the White House."

Sorry - what was that again (she said, hoping to simplify it further)?

"...the idea of a republican in the White House is far scarier than Hillary Clinton."

A vote to stay home and sulk because Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders weren't on the ticket - is a vote for the GOP.

THINK ABOUT IT, DEAR DU BROTHERS AND SISTERS!!!!!!!

I saw President Obama point out in that MSNBC Town Hall last night - that there was a 30% voter turnout last November. Mostly on our side. And look what it got us? That was only ONE out of every THREE voters who actually got up off their asses and went to the polls and voted. Man we really DO NOT have democracy and majority rule here, especially when so many on our side decide they're gonna sit this one out, because they didn't get a perfect candidate, they only got a good one. We DO have minority rule here.

Who do you think jeb bush or Heaven forbid scott walker would pick for the Supreme Court? And if you decide to stay home in 2016, and jeb bush gets in, do you doubt for even a nanosecond that paul wolfowitz won't be riding back into power on jebbie's coattails? What do you think THAT will get us?

[TheKentuckian]

180. I guess one person's "good candidate" is another's unacceptable, I guess.

Just as another's "perfect" is someone else's good, solid, or maybe even just middlin.

I've gone along to get along my whole life with this party and all it has bought is ever more corporate, more interventionist, more anti civil liberties, more "free trade", more drug war, and less responsive politicians and I'm over selling out my values and all of our futures on better than whatever Republican piece of shit of the day while ignoring the Republicans belong in prison or an asylum and everyday the "not perfect" resembles Reagan more and more.

I said in 2012 that we'd have to better yet I am being ignored, mocked, guilted, and threatened to get in line once again this time without even the courtesy of lip service and it has not escaped my notice that the folks that are the nastiest, snarkiest, and most demanding have not once had to hold their noses or swallow a damn thing except what they have on the agenda anyway so I am committed to breaking them because they are the opposition not allies.

Nothing can really change with the Turd Way death grip on the party and seeing that they are here there must be something they want that the TeaPubliKlans won't offer but corporate Democrats can and I hope to break them and take away the vehicle to these desires until they decide to be more reasonable about being apart of a coalition and give as good as they get.

Bullies must be fought and fought by any means necessary. I'll feel the brunt of the hammer fall way before they do, I have no doubt as am not among the "upwardly mobile", the comfortably well off, the rich, or the white but eventually they will though we will have to stay the course for a while because it is plain the Turd Way well try to capture TeaPubliKlans but that will fail and eventually they will fold they still want what the thugs won't offer.

It might take 3-4 Presidential cycles to do it but I figure that is infinitely faster than the dystopian corporate serfdom never we are on pace for here.

[The_Commonist]

61. That's pretty much how I feel about it.

I'm quite left of center, though not all the way to the left. Mrs. Clinton was my senator for 2 terms, even though I've never cast a vote for her. I don't particularly like her, her policy choices and many of her corporate supporters.

But I do feel that she has worked very hard, and she has earned much grudging respect from me. I probably won't vote for her in the primaries, depending upon who else is running. If/when she gets the nomination, I might not even vote for her in the general election, since I live in a "safe" state, that she or any Dem will win by a large margin. Or, I might vote for her on the Working Families Party ticket, as I did twice with Mr. Obama. And if she does win the presidency, I'm fine with that. Bill Clinton was the "best Republican president since Ike" and Obama is the second best. Maybe even a "better Republican president than Mr. Clinton." Mrs. Clinton will most certainly carry on that tradition, and she will certainly be better than whoever runs against her in the general.

And that's probably about all I'm going to say about that around here! I left DU (I had a different user name then) during the 2008 primaries, because this place got truly and utterly disgusting. "Liberals" are infinitely worse about tearing each other apart than "Conservatives" are, because "Liberals" like to think they are clever and witty when they are tearing each other to shreds, while "Conservatives" are just dumbasses.

And it has begun already. Tearing each other apart over something that is well over a year away. Actually, I have to wonder who the dumbasses are...

[Thinkingabout]

62. I can respect those who are anti Hillary but where does their respect of themselves when they spin

The same stories told by RW and know there is more than enough proof the stories they are telling is spin or untruths. Hillary isn't in the hands of the 1% any more than she is in the hands of the 99%. Yes, she and Bill have acquired wealth, we should be happy someone has climbed up to economic scale.

[uponit7771]

63. AMEN and AMEN!!! - " a republican in the White House is far scarier than Hillary Clinton"

[Logical]

76. True, but lets worry about that after the primaries! nt

[cwydro]

66. Spot on!

[cally]

67. Thank you. The sexist name calling aimed at Hillary is over the top

and uncalled for. I will support her if she is the Democratic candidate but I want a more progressive candidate if given a choice. The gender based slurs aimed at her are abhorrent. I know it will only get worse. Just as the racism towards President Obama has increased over the years, I can't even imagine what will happen if Hillary becomes President. Already, I am moving away from many so called progressive writers, speakers, and posters due to their sexist attacks. It will divide progressives if all of us don't stand up and say enough. It is not just a women's issue, nor just a Hillary issue, but all of our issue when sexism is allowed to continue.

[one_voice]

74. If nothing else this...

Hillary Clinton has worked hard to get where she is today...... How she manages to keep doing what she does despite all the mud slung at her I do not know.

She has taken and continues to take a lot of shit. Gotta give it up to her she keeps on keepin' on

K&R

[Logical]

75. FFS, do you realize many posters that do not like Hillary LOVE Warren? Quit....

Trying to turn this shit into some sexist issue!

[LynneSin]

79. That is GOP logic

scroll up to my comment about the GOP billboard in Delaware.

Being a Warren fan doesn't give anyone a license to be derogatory towards another woman. And I would bet Elizabeth Warren would agree with that 100%!

[Logical]

123. So saying I do not like Hillary and think she is aloof and insincere is sexist? Define "derogatory"

[prayin4rain]

128. As opposed to seeming warm and caring? Or nurturing, even? n/t

[RiverLover]

135. I'm female, an FDR dem, and I firmly believe Hillary would not be good for our country.

And I have to wonder, if its so easy to believe others don't like her because she's a woman, is that the only reason people DO like her? It certainly isn't her actions as SOS that scream perfect Dem candidate. Her actions as SOS are a better match with running as a rethug.

Run Warren Run!!!!!!!!!!!

[BubbaFett]

80. Thank you, voice of reason!

[msanthrope]

117. Fail--just because you use sexist language only towards women you dislike doesn't mean you aren't a

sexist. nt

[Logical]

126. Doesn't mean you ARE either does it? You ever insult GOP women on here? Why?? nt

[uberblonde]

143. You obviously don't know much about sexism.

"If I like that nice, polite woman over there who says everything I agree with, and hate that pushy, evil, ambitious monster over here, how can I possibly be sexist?"

Maybe because one fits your idea of what women should be, and the other one doesn't?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. I literally got this response from one poster

"Hillary Clinton LOL


"

At first I thought attributing it to misogyny was silly but then realizing that we all have biases that we aren't aware of I'm beginning to re-evaluate my position.

[blkmusclmachine]

90. Clinton is a big fat NO! If she's at the top of the ballot, both of us leave it blank.

This isn't the 90s anymore, and any pretense that the GOP will "work across the aisle" is laughable on it's face. Only lying charlatans still claim to be able to work with the Terrorists in the GOP ...

[LynneSin]

98. Unfortunately the potential name at the top of the GOP ticket

Will keep me from leaving that spot blank or voting 3rd party in November 2016. But anyone who assumes this is Hillary's election must have been in a coma 2007-8. It is to early to worry about the general election when we have 11 months until Super Tuesday. A lot can happen until then.

[Duppers]

93. Bravo!!

[mopinko]

97. same old sexist double standard at work over and over.

people projecting their oedipus complexes.

[Warren DeMontague]

121. Given that the majority of the "anti-Hillary" folks, rightly or wrongly, want Liz Warren to run

I think spinning this as about "women" is silly.

If people are complaining about her shoes or her hairdo or saying she "sounds shrill" then yes, there is probably a gender component.

If people are talking about Benghazi or Bosnia or Vince Foster's underwear then clearly they are right wing trolls.

But in another thread I'm supposed to believe it's not "legitimate" to bring up her IWR vote.

i'm sorry, the biggest foreign policy clusterfuck in 50 years... Yes, it's a legitimate issue.

No, she's not the nominee yet. Yes, she may be, and many of us may end up -even enthusiastically- supporting her. But to demand there must be no criticism or questions of her policy and history, until then, is not reasonable.

If she is as inevitable as some think, her candidacy can handle it.

[Oilwellian]

127. The OP title is ridiculous, embarrassing, and insulting

I'm sure right wingers are having a good laugh over it.

[obxhead]

130. So, we're supposed to turn a blind eye

on:

War
Taxes
Trade
Healthcare
Wages
Unions
Domestic spying
Innocents killed by drones
Hell, I'm done with just that list.

Sure, you may have an argument, but you lost me by the second paragraph. The real fight against HRC is her absolute entrenchment WITH the extreme right.

I could give a shit about her donors, her sexual orientation, her husband, her gender......

Hillary IS a REPUBLICAN! She may throw some beads to the throngs of supporters standing in awe, but in the end she is no different than ANY of the Republicans that have announced.

Her ONLY goal will be doing everything that the Bush admin did... only better..... for the 1%

[Maraya1969]

131. THANK YOU! It seems to happen every election cycle. People hating on our own Democrats.

I can't help but think that they really are the GOP and that they want to create friction in our party and want people to dislike our candidates.

I mean ranting on about how horrible Hilary is is a damn job for the GOP right? So why does someone do it here on DU??

Because they are republicans. And if God forbid they really are Democrats then please leave and join the GOP. Because you seem to fit the low IQ membership requirements.

[Stellar]

132. I agree with you 100 percent!

[Andy823]

141. It's the same crowd

They have been bashing Obama for years here on DU, along with the whole party in general, now they have simply shifted gear and are doing the same thing with Hillary. It's really pathetic.

I did not vote for Hillary in 2008 and will not vote for her in the primary, but if she is the nominee I WILL vote for her. Anyone that thinks a republican would be better is not a real liberal, democrat or progressive, no matter what they may say. It's insane to NOT vote since that always helps the republicans.

[PatrickforO]

144. Some points well taken.

Hillary Clinton would indeed be better than ANY Republican in the White House, period. Absolutely.

There are a couple of things I worry about with her, though.
- Several times when she was Secretary of State, I worried about her physical health and stamina, simply because she looked so very, very tired.
- In 2008, Barack Obama came 'out of nowhere' and went neck and neck with then Senator Clinton. While Obama was building the huge and sophisticated campaign machine that won him two presidential elections, Clinton's campaign floundered. The sad fact is that if a campaign self-destructs like Clinton's did, the reason is necessarily poor leadership. She had lots of people out on the line who were doing superhuman stuff trying to keep her afloat, but at the top there was disorganization and then sniping.

Now, my hope is that Clinton learned a different style of leadership in Obama's administration, and so will run a tighter, more effective ship.

However, Americans, I think most Americans, are very hungry for a real populist candidate. One who says the truths that we all know: we need to reform the corporate tax code so these big corporations like GE and Wells Fargo actually pay US income tax instead of offshoring profit. We need much stiffer regulation for Wall Street, because they are doing EXACTLY the same stuff that caused the Great Recession right now. Again. Basically, people want a level playing field - affordable child care, early childhood education, good K-12, affordable postsecondary education, expanded Social Security and single payer healthcare that is NOT tied to employment and NOT a giant corporate welfare program for insurance companies. People are tired of watching their wages going down, down, down like in the Johnny Cash song, and I think would like to see some REAL support for unions. And, WHY do we need a trillion a year for 'defense' and 'national security?' And WHY are PRISONS privatized??? And what about at least decriminalizing marijuana? Finally, WHY are we not taking a leadership role in mitigating climate change? It would be a really good thing to make gerrymandering illegal as well. These things would get us off to a really good start. Basically we are REALLY, REALLY sick of the corporate and political corruption that has made living in this country a soul-sucking black hole for so many Americans.

So, we'll see how Clinton does against her opponents in the primary, and then we'll GET BEHIND whoever the Democratic candidate is and ELECT them.

[MadDAsHell]

153. There is absolutely an incredibly strong anti-female force on DU...

People were so rabidly desperate for Barack Obama to get the nomination in 2008 that they would say and believe anything, and I mean ANYTHING, about Hillary if it helped the cause of putting an African-American in the White House instead of a woman.

The sexist vitriol was disgusting and it took me about 6 years after that before I finally felt comfortable enough to go from lurker to poster. But here we go again...

[GP6971]

154. I look at it from a different perspective

I will support and vote for any nominee the Democratic Party puts up. But so much attention to national politics takes our "eyes off the ball". It's local politics that is the driver.......repug control
of city, county & state governments drives national election results. Kick the local Repugs out and we have a shot nationally across all 3 segments of the government

My honest opinion is Repugs are cowards. I had a repug candidate for the state house knock on my door last year. I recognized him as being a former school board member that my wife locked horns with over cuts to the budget. And I mean they really locked horns. He started his crap talk and I interrupted him saying "you don't remember us, do you"?" As soon as I told him our names, he couldn't get out of there fast enough. Thankfully, he lost in the election and I hope I had something to do with it.......I told every person I knew what an idiot he was.

[Jamaal510]

161. K&R, and

it's a little frustrating seeing people in general putting so much stock into the 2016 presidential elections and looking at presidents as monarchs who can do anything. There will also be Congressional elections in 2016. Whether Clinton, Warren, Sanders, Biden, Webb, etc. get elected, they won't be able to do much if the R's still control one or both Houses. Nonetheless, a Republican winning the presidency is out of the question for so many groups of disadvantaged people, and from the perspective of the Supreme Court.

[RBInMaine]

167. Thanks. IF Hillary is the nominee, electing her over a RePUKElican MUST happen. Period.

[freemay20]

173. That is not the only thing wrong here

DU used to be exactly what the name implies. Ever since the "Creators" (actually made strong by the participants) tasted that money the site has gone down hill. They should drop the name and call it "a site for discussion of nonsensical babble and bullshit brought on by the originators' greed." Yep, this site has fallen pray to dolts and whack jobs; to the extent many of the original members no longer want to be a part of it and no longer post. There used to be an air of truth in posting, now, when I actually visit the site, fact checking sites are up on my browser at the same time. Some days it is almost as bad as inadvertently turning on Faux News. My point is, the site used to treat all as equals and those at the site had ethics and were dedicated to being truthful, but the greed by the "Creators" to hype the member numbers to gain higher profits has landed a stinky turd on this site.

[NaturalHigh]

187. I'm a huge fan of Secretary Clinton.

The attacks on her grate against my nerves sometimes, but I haven't seen the sexist attacks that you seem to think are popping up. The most common theme among Clinton haters seems to be a desire to have Elizabeth Warren as president, and I think I read somewhere that she's a woman.

I don't see the need to throw gas on the DU gender war fires.

[daredtowork]

188. There are a few closet "Men's Right's Activists" lurking

They will pop up from time to time to try a new strategy, like mocking "social justice warriors" ( ) or trying their hand at the victim card ( "nerd-shaming" ) ...but their true misogynistic nature always spews forth in the comments. It's actually interesting to see what other causes they align with or oppose on DU. For instance, a number of the same names came up in the Crush All Anti-Vaxxers(!) threads. I'm not sure if they were in it for the science or the urge to crush(!) though!