Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, "man that girl is popular."

[daleanime]

(Bonus points if you can name the quote.)

The push continues, if we don't give all our love, affection, and absolute undying loyalty to her then evil wins and the sun will go dark.

Oh, brother...


Look, I know several posters I respect that support her and that's their right. If they feel like it they are more then welcome to tell me why they do so and why they think I should too. In fact I hope they do so. So let's make it easy for them.

1-Think of a reason other then fear of republican clowns. I admit, republican clowns are kind of creepy. But I won't allow fear to control me. Besides, we still nearly two years out from the election and I've heard that far too many times already. After being hit over the head long enough, you kind of go numb.

2-Just because I say some thing about her that's not glowing doesn't mean that evil wins. It's OK to talk about her war hawk nature, her embrace of corporate culture, or the involvement with the TPP.... Most of us come here to talk about our opinions, right?

3-Do not assign motives to me. If you want to know why I believe some thing, ask me. I will do my best to answer you.

4-If you want me to take you seriously, then please do the same. We may end up disagreeing, but that's not bad. I prefer an honest disagreement to mock unity everyday of the week.

5-Her election would not be a slam dunk, so don't pretend that it would be. There is no way to overstate the amount of hate that the republican base has for her. It's not far from the unreasoning hate given to Obama. While her own base varies between indifference and active dislike. Which brings me to....

6-Don't think name recognition polls are going to sway me. Please, you cheapen your self with this.


Fair enough? Now have fun out there.

[boston bean]

1. There's not even an election yet.

[daleanime]

2. Could be wrong....

but I'm fairly sure there will be one.


At least I hope so.

[boston bean]

4. When there is and there is an alternative candidate, let's have these discussions.

As of right now, it is nothing but an argument for some as to why Hillary shouldn't run.

She should, for a multitude of reasons that are obvious and do not need to be spoon fed.

You have someone else in mind you would like to run... tell me who it is?

[daleanime]

9. I'm not allowed to want something?

My choices are only what I'm given?

Sorry, multitude of reasons not obvious. Please produce spoon.


And I'm sorry, but I have no one in mind. I do have people I prefer over Hillary, but view all as less then perfect. Warren is more of a war hawk then I would like, Bernie has that scary word in his resume, etc...

[boston bean]

13. I have no problem with Hillary running.

There is no election as of yet.. So, what is it you would like me to do? Sit here and argue some points about some fictitious someone who doesn't exist as to why they are better than Hillary?

[daleanime]

15. I'm sorry, wasn't the OP clear?

Please let me know where I left you puzzled and I'll do my best to clarify myself.


Also, you've made me curious. Your support of Hillary is only relative when viewed against others?

[WhiteTara]

10. crickets

as usual.

[daleanime]

12. Huh?

[riversedge]

3. We have about 1 yr and 7 months--and needs lots of organizing and money.

yes, money is important. Not 2 years anymore. If other Dems are going to throw their hats in--I do hope they are doing the work now.

[daleanime]

5. Money is important....

that's one of main issues for me. Nothing we need to address will be until money is removed from the system..

[HereSince1628]

6. IMO, other folks -have been- testing the fund-raising, the issues etc...

There is evidence from the horse's mouth that Sanders -has- been doing that.
There is evidence that the "Draft Warren" movement -has- been doing that.

Pretty obviously the declared 'exploratory' committee of Webb has been doing that.

[fadedrose]

7. Afflicted with common sense?

you stand the risk of being alerted on. You, I, and many are in the underground of DU, not the top layer who are the real Democrats

We are low class in here, and just like in real life, the low class is in the majority. Funny, isn't it.

Carry on, daleanime...

And I don't know who said, HHH, "man that girl is popular." It sure wasn't me.
I would have said something like "If you keep repeating something over and over, people will believe it." And I suspicion that phrase stemmed from the same belief I have about repetition.

[daleanime]

11. Inside joke...

quota from a favorite show.


And thanks.

[awake]

8. Thank you, I hope to hear clear answers from HRC supporters

These are important questions that if aired now will only lead to a stronger candidate I look forward to reading more respondses with helpful information.

[JaneyVee]

14. What exactly is the point of this OP?

And why do non-Hillary supporters constantly feel the need to have Hillary supporters explain themselves to others? Meanwhile, the non-Hillary supporters never have to name a candidate or ever explain a path to their preferred candidates victory. All anyone hears is "if we nominate Hillary it won't be a slam dunk", or "if we nominate Hillary, we lose", yet all the polling as of now shows quite the opposite, that if we don't nominate Hillary we probably lose. (btw, no election is ever a slam dunk)

Also, a big misconception around here is that Hillary supporters are monolithic about supporting only her when it's actually the Hillary supporters who are guaranteed to vote for the Dem nominee while the non-Hillary supporters seem to claim otherwise.

[daleanime]

16. I will vote for the best candidate I'm offered....

and I'm sure that that candidate will be democratic. And I've said it over, and over, and over again....

You don't have to "explain" yourself to any one. If you don't want to, please don't. It was a simple plea for the best way to do so if you want to. (And you missed the last point of the OP.)

[Cosmic Kitten]

17. The point is... sell Hillary on "substance"

Don't use the typical canards to
justify why it's "Hillary or doom"!

If Hillary supporters want to honestly
make her the Democratic nominee;
shouldn't they be promoting within
the party, with information that we
can all agree on, what makes her our MVP?

Aside from fear, name recognition, SCOTUS,
and being a career politician, etc, why should
the Democratic Wing vote for Hillary?

[JaneyVee]

18. And you want Hillary supporters to "sell" her on substance?

Isn't that what primaries are for? Let her sell herself on substance and stop bullying supporters for explanations. People don't owe anyone an explanation for their votes. Some people may vote for her because of women's issues, some may vote for her because they understand how destructive a Repub prez would be.

[Cosmic Kitten]

19. You think this is "bullying"? Odd?

If people HERE on DU are promoting
a candidate then they must have
a rationale for said support.

When another member says,
"no thanks" and then the
Hillary supporters shriek...
SCOTUS, republicans win, HATER
we are supposed to wait for the primary
to hear why someone supports Hillary?

That's just odd.
Since when is asking for opinion "bullying"?

In fact, it seems it's the Hillary supporters
who are the bullies...
*Vote for Hillary or you want republicans to win*
*if you don't like Hillary you hate her*

There is no credible reason a Hillary supporter can't
or shouldn't offer substantive reasons to vote for her.
And it's certainly not "bullying"

[L0oniX]

35. +1

[JaneyVee]

37. Not you personally, DU in general.

There's been numerous posts demanding Hillary supporters explain themselves. Now you're asking them to "sell" her. That's what primaries are for. And it's not really far fetched to believe that not voting for whoever the Democratic party nominee is actually aiding the Republican party. That's how our 2 party system works. Not voting = GOP advantage.

[daleanime]

20. +1

yes, thank you.

[Cosmic Kitten]

21. +1 too

[William769]

22. A post by NYC Liberal:

44. I “live with her record” easily, because when you actually look at her record, it is a strong liberal one.

It’s true that Clinton sat on the Wal-Mart board for six years while her husband was governor of Arkansas, where the chain has its corporate headquarters. She was paid about $18,000 a year for doing it. At the time, she worked at the Rose Law Firm, which had represented Wal-Mart in various matters.

But according to accounts from other board members, Clinton was a thorn in the side of the company’s founder, Sam Walton, on the matter of promoting women, few of whom were in the ranks of managers or executives at the time. She also strongly advocated for more environmentally sound corporate practices. She made limited progress in both areas. In 2005 she returned a $5,000 contribution from Wal-Mart, citing “serious differences” with its “current” practices.

Reich was even more gladdened by Hillary's passionate condemnation of corporate-executive compensation—one of the Labor Secretary's favorite populist topics. "These are real issues, Bill," she said, pointing out that the average CEO of a big company "is now earning 200 times the average hourly wage. Twenty years ago the ratio was about forty times ... People all over this country are really upset about this." When Bill demurred, saying he couldn't be "out front" on such issues, Hillary said sharply, "Well, somebody in the administration ought to be making these arguments," turning to Reich. "I agree," replied Bill with a nod.

Let’s finally do something about the growing economic inequality that is tearing our country apart. The top 1% of our households hold 22% of our nation’s wealth. That is the highest concentration of wealth in a very small number of people since 1929. So let’s close that gap. Let’s start holding corporate America responsible, make them pay their fair share again. Enough with the corporate welfare. Enough with the golden parachutes. And enough with the tax incentives for companies to shift jobs overseas.

We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system. We need to make sure that we do deal with the distinction between crack and powder cocaine. And ultimately we need an attorney general and a system of justice that truly does treat people equally, and that has not happened under this administration.

I have spoken out on my belief that we should have drug courts that would serve as alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system for low-level offenders. If the person comes before the court, agrees to stay clean, is subjected to drug tests once a week, they are diverted from the criminal justice system. We need more treatment. It is unfair to urge people to get rid of their addiction and not have the treatment facilities when people finally makes up their minds to get treatment.

• Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
• Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
• Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
• Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
• Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
• Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
• Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
• Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
• Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
• Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
• Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
• Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
• Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
• Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
• Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
• Require public notification when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
• Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
• Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
• Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
• Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)
• Gas tax holiday for the summer. (Apr 2008)

I think we need to give people about $650, if they qualify--which will be millions of people--to help pay their energy bills this winter. There are so many people on fixed incomes and working people who are not going to be able to afford the spike in energy costs. And then we will have money for rebates, but let’s make them the right rebates. A lot of our seniors on fixed incomes don’t pay income taxes. But that doesn’t mean they’re immune from the energy costs.

• Count Every Vote Act: end voting discrimination by race. (Jun 2007)
• Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress. (Sep 2007)
• Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections. (Jul 2007)
• Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
• Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
• Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
• Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
• Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
• Voluntary public financing for all general elections. (Aug 2000)
• Criminalize false or deceptive info about elections. (Nov 2005)
• Reject photo ID requirements for voting. (Sep 2005)
• Post earmarks on the Internet before voting on them. (Jan 2006)
• Establish the United States Public Service Academy. (Mar 2007)
• Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections. (Mar 2007)
• Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting. (Nov 2007)

Clinton’s foes say she doesn’t deserve credit for expanding federal health insurance, a claim Clinton has made literally thousands of times. She “got health insurance for six million kids,” according to one ad.

We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality.

If you don’t start out trying to get universal health care, we know--and our members of Congress know--you’ll never get there. If a Democrat doesn’t stand for universal health care that includes every single American, you can see the consequences of what that will mean. It is imperative that we have plans, as both John and I do, that from the very beginning say, “You know what? Everybody has got to be covered.” There’s only three ways of doing it. You can have a single-payer system, you can require employers, or you can have individual responsibility. My plan combines employers and individual responsibility, while maintaining Medicare and Medicaid. The whole idea of universal health care is such a core Democratic principle that I am willing to go to the mat for it. I’ve been there before. I will be there again. I am not giving in; I am not giving up; and I’m not going to start out leaving 15 million Americans out of health care.

She bitterly condemned the greed of health insurers, who she said were pushing the United States “to the brink of bankruptcy.”

• Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
• Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
• Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
• Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
• Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
• Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
• Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
• Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
• Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)

• Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)
• Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
• Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
• Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
• Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
• Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
• Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
• Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)
• Federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)
• Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)

Following two and a half years of study, members of Bill’s Advisory Co until on Social Security offered proposals for investing a portion of Social Security retirement funds in the stock market. Hillary reacted emphatically to the report, telling her husband, “We mustn’t let Social Security be privatized.”

Social Security is one of the greatest inventions in American democracy, and I will do everything possible to protect & defend it, starting with getting back to fiscal responsibility, instead of borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. We need to provide some additional opportunities for people to invest, on top of their base guarantee of Social Security, more of a chance to build their nest egg. The risky scheme to privatize would cost between $1 and $2 trillion. That would undermine the promise of Social Security.

Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record

At a time when her contemporaries were challenging the authority of college administrators, she steered the antiwar movement at Wellesley away from the kind of confrontation that convulsed other campuses.

Still, Hillary and her class were responsible for greater changes at Wellesley than any in its history. Black Studies was added to the curriculum. A summer Upward Bound program for inner-city children was initiated, antiwar activities were conducted in college facilities, the skirt rule had been rescinded, grades were given on a pass-fail basis, and interdisciplinary majors were permitted. One of Hillary’s strengths as a leader, still evident, was her willingness to participate in the drudgery of government rather than simply direct policy.

I’m relieved that the intelligence community has reached this conclusion, but I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change. I have for two years advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I think that’s what the president should do.

VoteMatch Responses
Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right
(+5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 2:
Require hiring more women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits
(+5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 4:
Teacher-led prayer in public schools
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 9:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Parents choose schools via vouchers
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 14:
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
(+5 points on Social scale)



Sources:

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

From this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026396578#post44

Fair enough?

[daleanime]

23. Seen it repeatedly...

still unmoved.

[Blue_Adept]

24. but it works on many others

And for good reason, because when you talk to your main stream Democrat, that's where they'll line up with things. And they can't understand the hate from the "underground" side because they see it as an attack on themselves and their stances.

At this point, I just wish two things:

1) We had a primary 2016 forum for all of this to go into

2) More promotion of potential candidates instead of constant teardowns

[Cosmic Kitten]

25. Notice how that reply avoided using their own words?

Odd how Hillary supporters cannot
use their own actual thoughts?

It's either, avoid going on the record
with their actual opinion, or a C&P?

Almost like message management,
or boilerplate talking point reply's?
It never comes off as authentic?

[wyldwolf]

27. Notice how you want opinions over substance?

Odd how Hillary detractors ask for reasons then disregard them because the person who replied used facts instead of touchy-feely feelings.

[Cosmic Kitten]

64. are those mutually exclusive concepts to you?

None of your opinions are based on substance?
You just make up opinions based on intangibles?

[wyldwolf]

65. "facts" and "touch-feely feelings" are very much mutually exclusive concepts

My opinions are based on facts, not the other way around.

Ah, yes, the obligatory

[daleanime]

36. Plus you have to love the 'wall of text' shut down....

it's a classic.

[treestar]

61. Well that is her record

And her own words. How else would a rational person decide. It debunks much of what is said of her.

[daleanime]

63. But not my issue with her...

[wyldwolf]

26. Then you're only moved by words

No other contender has the legislative record and accomplishments. Apparently you're moved by people who pretend to be angry all the time, repeat the words they know 'progressives' want to hear and point their fingers a lot

[daleanime]

28. It's too hard to ask me?

[wyldwolf]

29. ah! You're right. What candidate would move you?

[daleanime]

31. Nice job asking wrong question....

try again.

[wyldwolf]

32. ok, you pick the question you want to answer.

[daleanime]

34. What? You weren't interested in what moves me?

Sorry about that, I'll try not to make that mistake again.

[wyldwolf]

39. See, six replies between us and you're avoiding the obvious question you wanted to be asked.

Post #23 you said you were unmoved. Asking what would move you was, in your words, the wrong question. Asking you to answer the question you'd prefer to be asked was the wrong response as well. Seems you don't really have much to say.

[daleanime]

44. Huh? Just give it but let me try again....

If You Are Interested In Why I Am Unmoved You Just Need To Ask.


But neither of us think you really are, so don't worry.

[wyldwolf]

47. I am interested in what WOULD move you - as I originally asked.

[daleanime]

49. Honestly, no you didn't. You provided me with reason....

of your own making.

My number one concern is climate change. Unfortunately we are not going to see significant movement on that issue as long as the money culture maintains it's grip. I don't see Hillary as some one who would change that.

[wyldwolf]

52. Quote me the post where I "provided you with reason of my own making."

[daleanime]

54. See post #53.....

gee always wanted to say that.

[wyldwolf]

55. Which doesn't even address what I'm (trying) to discuss with you - you're just running away from it

[daleanime]

53. Consider this post repeated....

"you're only moved by words...."

"you're moved by people who pretend...."

" 'progressives' "

[wyldwolf]

56. Which is irrelevant to what I'm (trying) to discuss with you - you're just running away from it

[daleanime]

57. That one's #49

and repeated for good measure.

My number one concern is climate change and that won't be addressed as long as the money culture maintains it's control. I don't see Hillary doing anything to change that.

[wyldwolf]

58. And you're still running. So I'll ask one more time

WHO would move you. We know who you're against. WHO are you FOR?

[daleanime]

62. Oh, I'm running around because you've skipped back to what you want me to answer....

Now since I don't support Hillary because of concerns about money in the system, it follows that I would support anyone that make any improvements in that.



Does that really matter?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Facts are stubborn things...

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.


-John Adams

[daleanime]

33. Problem is when it comes to my opinion....

I decide what the facts are. I am willing to be influenced, but that job doesn't call for a hammer. Please reference OP.

[wyldwolf]

60. we agree that is a problem

"when it comes to my opinion, I decide what the facts are." Noted.

[William769]

43. That's your problem not mine.

Just goes to show you're disingenuous.

[daleanime]

46. How so?

[William769]

48. When facts are presented and you ignore them and go into passive aggressive mode

That's trolling. & since that's what you are doing here and not interested in the facts, this conversation is over.

Have a nice day.

[daleanime]

50. So take the 'facts' that your given?

Right, sure. Have fun.

[99Forever]

38. You missed one of the current offensive "reasons"...

.. for being required to support HRC. :

"If you don't LOVE Hillary Clinton and all she has done, what are you doing on a Democratic website?"


Now, that really pulls in supporters, eh?

[daleanime]

40. Oops...oh cheez....uh, my fingers were getting tired, yeah that's it...

[99Forever]

45. It's okay...

... just thought I'd pitch in and help. It's how I roll.

[treestar]

41. Reason one is very good

I don't see why it is to be dismissed.

[daleanime]

51. Because it's true for every democratic candidate?

[ND-Dem]

42. +100

[MisterP]

59. in order: fear, denial, fingerpointing, and triumphalism

they never had anything else since 2001--why d'you think they start every election season pre-blaming critics for their losses?

[stevenleser]

66. 2008 and 2012 would seem to be a big problem with your theory. nt