NYT: "Frustration on the Left Over Iraq Unlikely to Trouble Clinton"

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/nyregion/28hillary.html?pagewanted=all

The frustration on the left toward Mrs. Clinton, the junior senator from New York, has been building for months, particularly as opinion has turned against the war and some Democrats in Congress have begun to pressure President Bush to begin a withdrawal of American troops.

Recently, the anger erupted into public view, with antiwar activists publicly protesting against the senator and, perhaps more significantly, an antiwar candidate emerging to challenge her in the Democratic primary next year.

<snip>Political analysts say Mrs. Clinton's standing within the party gives her greater room to maneuver politically.

"She has the left in her back pocket," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac institute. "She doesn't have to worry about catering to them. She has to worry about attracting centrist Democrats, the mainstream of the party."

__________

Nothing like taking the base for granted--hard to do though, in the primaries.

[LaurenG]

1. Umm Ok

"She has the left in her back pocket," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac institute. "She doesn't have to worry about catering to them. She has to worry about attracting centrist Democrats, the mainstream of the party." :rofl:

Nope.

[bluestateguy]

8. Most "centrist Democrats" think the war is bullshit too

I'm not talking about the DLC-Beltway Joe Lieberman, Al From crowd, but regular Americans who are moderate to conservative Democrats. They have long since realized the war is wrong. It seems that if Hillary wants their votes she should join the likes of Jack Murtha and call for an orderly withdrawal. Rather, it seems like Hillary is trying to win the PNAC endorsement (which she'll never get, no matter how hard she tries).

[LaurenG]

13. I wonder why she would be so stubborn

Murtha is no dummy. He wouldn't put our troops at risk, he's done his homework and it's a feasible objective. Why does Hillary want to keep us there? Something just isn't right with her and I can't imagine why she's doing this. She'll not get my vote.

[formernaderite]

16. because in order to win she'll need more than 49%

and she's no Bill Clinton. Without repubs voting for her in strong numbers....she's toast, so she'll run as a repub-lite.

[billbuckhead]

28. Maybe she knows there's a coming war with Iran or something else

Maybe she's thinking about actually governing and defending the nation in the future and wants to be viewed as a hard liner by our enemies . There's no long term upside in any Dem presidential candidate being a short term peacenik. Murtha's not running for President and Dean didn't win a single primary outside his home county sized state. I know it's frustrating but Hillary can't stop the war as a senator. She's famous for saying that you can't do anything unless you win. At the end of the day, it all comes down to trust and trust the Clinton's more than I trust Warner or Feingold. I know that when push come to shove, Hillary's the one they will trust because they trusted Clintonism in the past and it worked out well.

[Clark2008]

53. But Hillary isn't Bill.

And I don't think swing voters are going to trust a woman to govern during wartime. Sorry, but this country has gone BACKWARD over the past five years. Maybe 10 years ago, a woman could have won during wartime, but with the right-swing of the propaganda media, I don't think that's possible now.

[Andromeda]

77. Sometimes I wonder ...

if the Democrats aren't just as resistant to having a woman president. A lot of what I hear on DU sounds like gender bias.

Maybe the thought of Hillary as president scares the bejeebers out of some of our more insecure male counterparts.

At least it's something to chew on.

[Clark2008]

52. Former Independent-turned-Moderate Democrat here!

And I won't be voting for Hil in the primaries!

:hi:

[Capn Sunshine]

81. "Centrist Democrats " is code

for right wing corporate whores.

[SpiralHawk]

2. These are merely the noises Republicans make when struck with fear

over the prospect of a woman in power.

I suppose I'm on the left. And I can say Hilary has not impressed me, and I remain as Independent as a Hog on Ice. Not in any back pocket whatsoever.

Although I am always amused to watch the Repub NeoCons tremle in fear and cowardice.

[bluestateguy]

3. That's what she thinks

I won't vote for her in my state's primary, barring a major change in her stance on the war (and if she waits until late 2007 to change her stance on the war, it will be dismissed as an election year conversion).

If she's the nominee, I'll vote for her, but that's all. I won't campaign for her. I won't put up lawn signs for her, and I won't do a whole lot to defend her on the Internet. Just a quiet vote on election day, and that's all.

[firefox]

4. Wouldn't vote for her if she were the only one running.

No drug warriors or Empire builders for me. Shove it Hillary.

[arewenotdemo]

39. Me neither

She can go to hell and stay.

[radio4progressives]

5. She has the "Left" in her Back Pocket? Oh Boy!

That's pretty goddam arrogant - If that's what the DP actually thinks, then i think they're going to be in for something of a big surprise.

:popcorn:

[LittleClarkie]

6. Just keep thinking that, Senator

You, I suspect, are in for a rude awakening come primary time.

I thought that was her strategy. I'm right. She has the Centrist. She does not have the left. And she will never have any moderate Republicans either, I bet you.

[patrice]

7. Wrong.

I can and will stop giving money and time if "my Party" doesn't listen. We use most of our resources for military spending and that doesn't even really benefit the troops themselves. This country needs social and economic justice.

[roguevalley]

9. This is why I despise her. Her emptiness on core belief is the same

thing wrong with the repigs. She will NEVER, EVER, EVER get my vote. EVER. God, this makes me sooooooooo
angry.

[billbuckhead]

11. The polling guy said she has the "left" in her back pocket

She didn't say she has the"left" in her pocket and this could even be rightwing propaganda. That being said, activists like those on DU are going to be shocked how she beats them on the ground with actual voters. The Clinton's will have more public support than what's left of the Democratic party or whatever anti-war activists can put together to try to defeat her. The masses want the return to normalcy that the Clinton's offer.

[LaurenG]

14. I disagree with this

should she have as much support as you say I would be very surprised. I can only say I hope she stays where she is. America does not need anymore of the same and I am very weary of it.

[billbuckhead]

17. You're gonna be real surprised

Hillary is as tough as new rope, that's why repuKKKes hate her so much. I would have liked to be there when she told Dickhead Cheney to go to Iraq and see for himself how things are going.

[LaurenG]

18. My question to you would then be;

If the republicans hate her so much who is she "posing" for. Why is she following republican talking points. What is that all about? Then too the majority of democrats aren't happy with her either as they are really tired of the republican agenda. Who is she speaking to then?

You may be right and I may be surprised but I doubt it.

[billbuckhead]

21. She's not posing. And she's not following Republican talking points

The Clinton's have always put moderate Republican's, Independents and conservative Democrats in play. They actually believe in a big tent.

BTW, are you for flag burning and sex with street ho's as rewards in children's video games? Do you honestly think any Democrat could have stopped the war in Iraq at any point in the timeline?

[LaurenG]

24. What is your problem?

Because I don't agree with you suddenly means I'm "for Flag burning and sex with street ho's as rewards in children's video games?" Lighten up and have someone take a look at that stick you have shoved up your backside, it's causing me not to like you. :eyes:

[billbuckhead]

30. You said Hillary is posing and that's not true, in fact it's a lie

She's pretty much been for the same things for thirty years.

[LaurenG]

49. Ok, my opinion is not a lie it is my opinion

I would only ask that you truly check all the candidates that are possible runners in the next election. If you really think that HRC has more integrity, experience and a chance to win, vote for her. My OPINION is that she is a mediocre candidate. I would prefer a shining star, the BEST of the party, someone like Feingold.

I don't see in her what you do. I want the best for our country not someone who cannot understand that we have been hijacked and feels no urgency to say a thing about it. I want them all to STOP playing with our lives and speak to the lies and corruption instead of keeping silent so they can grow a base out of ignorant Americans. I am really done with that type of politician. If we don't DEMAND the best we get what we are willing to settle for. I for one am not willing to settle for the DLC's candidate.

[billbuckhead]

68. Team Clinton is the most professional and battle tested

Realistically, you have no choice but to settle for a DLC candidate or start another party. That's reality. It's either DLC or a Republican.

[flpoljunkie]

70. Really? "You have no choice but to settle for a DLC candidate or start...

another party?"

Well, we will see in the primaries if we have to have a DLC candidate shoved down our throats.

[MN ChimpH8R]

64. You miss the point entirely

Worrying about flag burning (a non-issue if ever there was one) and video games while there is an illegal war raging that is killing thousands of people, while a pseudo-president declares himself above the law, and while the middle class is being systematically dismantled is like worrying about the arrangement of the deck furniture on the Titanic. It is IRRELEVANT PANDERING to people who would not vote for a real Dem in any case.

There are REAL issues out there and Hillary is on the wrong side of the most important ones.

[flpoljunkie]

66. Very well put, MN ChimpH8r! Great post!

[billbuckhead]

72. If flag burning wasn't a real issue than the RepuKKKes wouldn't

use it as a wedge issue. You need to go back to politcs 101.

[flpoljunkie]

75. Perhaps you and the other Hillaristas ought to go back to Constitution 101

What is it about freedom of expression, Constitutionally protected free speech, that you don't understand?

[billbuckhead]

79. Free speech isn't absolute and never has been

Team Clinton is acting proactive to head off the anti-Constitution forces from wiping their asses with the Constitution itself. Sadly the reason the repuKKKes get away with this grandstanding is because of people like you who want to turn flag burning into free speech.

[flpoljunkie]

83. Tell that to the United States Supreme Court. You want to wipe your ass

first with this totally unconstitutional and misnamed Flag Protection Act? Reprehensible as it might be, flag burning is free speech--political speech--just like criticizing the Commander-in-Chief.

The flag does not need protecting by "Team Clinton." Our Constitution needs to be protected and respected. Anyone who would pass this unconstitutional law does not respect the Constitution or the people's right to political dissent--and that includes Hillary Clinton.

[billbuckhead]

84. I can't wait to see the first Dem candiate call her on it

Yep, I want to see Russ Feinstein call her on it in a presidential debate debate with 5 red state men to the right of her and Bill and Chelsea in the audience. Yep, that's what I want to see.

[flpoljunkie]

86. That's Russ Feingold, not Feinstein, and he will be up to the task.

Why does Hillary Clinton want to destroy the Constitution to save it from a flag-burning amendment?

[billbuckhead]

90. Answer in the form of a question---"It's the right thing to do"

Why does Hillary Clinton want to to save the Constitution from a flag-burning amendment?

[Auntie Bush]

88. Did she really say that? I hadn't heard. Good for her if she did.

Good for anyone who'd say that.

[flpoljunkie]

19. You think "the masses" want "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton," eh?

The Bush Dynasty followed by the Clinton dynasty? I think not.

[billbuckhead]

23. The Clinton's don't have a dynasty, they are just a working family

They have no equivalents to Prescott Bush or Brown Brothers or Jeb Bush or Bandar Bush.

[flpoljunkie]

25. A "Presidential succession" dynasty. Am not the first to use the term.

There are those who would prefer to have a less divisive person as President. No more Bushes either--ever!

[billbuckhead]

27. All candidates are divisive by definition

Just because you quote someone else doesn't make it true.

Do you want to run a Jewish guy who's been divorced twice, voted for Ashcroft and for bring impeachment charges against Bill Clinton?
Do you want to run a DLC corporatist who built his fortune on a phone system that fails so often that people smash their phones against the wall in frustration?
Name me a candidate who isn't divisive and has no baggage?

[flpoljunkie]

50. Sounds like a man with integrity, something sorely lacking in some Dems.

I am not a fan of the self-identified "centrist" Mark Warner. Al From says Warner is one of "our candidates"--but so is Clinton. Al From listed Hillary Clinton first--then Vilsack, Warner and Bayh.

As for divisiveness, the Clintons take the cake. All others pale in comparison, even From's other DLC presidential candidates.

I was an early supporter of our nominee last time--John Kerry, and his VP nominee, John Edwards, was a fine choice. I also could enthusiastically support Feingold or Clark. None of them are particularly disliked by the right--other than for just being Democrats.

[Clark2008]

55. Nope. I want to run a war hero who has a degree in

economics and actually wrote legislation effecting economics, has foreign policy and diplomacy experience, told Congress the war in Iraq wasn't necessary, and, for the sheeple, is handsome as all get-out.

:7

P.S. Oh - and said candidate probably would flip at least two, possibly three or four, red states. Something Hillary will NEVER accomplish.

[billbuckhead]

67. Never say never. Hillary will win AR, NM, FL, OH, CO,maybe more

Wes is a good candidate but Team Clinton will win. I wouldn't be surprised if Clark is the VP candidate.

[Clark2008]

54. She may very well "beat them to the ground with actual voters"

in the primary and that scares the shit out of me.

Why?

Because she'll never, ever, ever win the general election. Period.

[OneBlueSky]

10. well, here's one leftie she doesn't have in ANY pocket . . .

nominating Hillary would be a disaster for the Democrats . . .

[sandnsea]

12. If that's what Hillary thinks..

then let her fucking think it. :rofl:

She doesn't even have ME in her back pocket and I'm not even the left she thinks she's got. lol. And the centrists don't want her because they're afraid of the controversy she'll generate.

I'm thinking maybe Hillary is sunk because she's relying on Republicans to tell her what Democrats think, that's the biggest problem the DLC wing has. If so, it's the best news I could get next to George's impeachment proceedings.

[MrMonk]

15. "She has the left in her back pocket"

Has anyone told "the left"?

[chaumont58]

20. The best thing going for the Green Party is the DLC

The god damn DLC creates more Green Party followers every day.

[billbuckhead]

22. That wonderful green party that gave us the Bush regime

and is often funded by Republicans. The biggest lie of 2000 wasn't told by Bush, it was told by Ralph Nadir who said there was no difference between Bush and Gore. The green party would be great in a parlimentary system but in our system are just allies of fascism.

[chaumont58]

33. I agree, Nader did give us chimpie

That doesn't stop the disgust with the DLC. I don't know how in the god damn hell anyone finds anything good about the Iraqi War. The DLC does. Lieberman blasts some of 'his fellow Dems' for not loving chimpie the way he does. It seems like every day, some DLC muckymuck finds someway to blast 'his fellow Dems.' 'We've got to love chimpie, or love the war, or people will think Dems are weak on national defense. The DLC is caught in the 1970s time warp.
By the way, you should ask Lieberman what he thinks of Nader. Lieberman, who loves to give chimpie warm, wet kisses on the mouth, with tongue no doubt, just might think Nader did the nation a favor.
I believe that gay people should be able to walk in the sun light. The DLC wants certain law schools to drop their disapproval of 'don't ask, don't tell' and let military recruiters have access to law school students. The DLC went so far as to blame Abu Graib on law schools not allowering military recruiters.
My kind of people! No shit. I'll just god damn love voting for them.

[radio4progressives]

36. hellooooo!!

don't you read? Or do you just like hanging on to moronic mythology?

Nader didn't give us the Chimp. Stop being an ignorant ass.

Even the New York Times reported that the Gore WON the 2000 elections.

In other words, the fucking elections were Stolen. both in 2000 and in 2004.

Do yourself and the country a favor and read : "Fooled Again - How the Right Stole the 2004 Elections, and why They'll Steal the Next One too, (Unless We Stop Them)" by Mark Crispin Miller.

When you're finished with that, i've got a few more to recommend. In the meantime, check your facts stop spreading ignorance.

[billbuckhead]

41. You're right but Nadir provided a cover story and depressed Dem turnout

Until we actually start counting all the votes, elections are all pretty much bullshit.

[AtomicKitten]

44. Yahtzee. No point voting until the EVM "thing" is fixed. n/t

[billbuckhead]

38. The Democratic party is a poor platform to take on corporations

I blame the Constitution more than I blame Democrats. It's unfortunate that we can't have dozens of parties like in Europe because we are trapped in a 2 party system dominated by corporations.

[radio4progressives]

94. We don't have to be trapped into a 2 Party System

We really can push for this change and it would be a hell of lot easier I think, because even libertarians and evangelicals want it.

so, if evangelicals are a third of the electorate, repukes and repuke lites are about a third of the electorate, and progressives and Libertarians together make up about a third, that leaves about 2/3 thirds of the electorate who would be in favor of a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College system and implement Proportional Representation.

No more whining about "Spoiler" candidates.

[xkenx]

26. All I know is

that the Rethugs are promoting HRC's candidacy like crazy as if she is inevitable. They want her badly. If you thought Kerry got tarred with labels, wait till the RW masses their followers to go after Hillary. They will vote in record numbers. Hillary is Bill-squared to them. And then when Hillary fails to even get out the Dem. vote, here comes a 48 state defeat. Wes Clark is the one candidate who many Republicans will vote for because they know he is rock-solid on National Security, and he'll beat the shit out of any Swift-boaters. Yet Dems. in the know know that Clark is a solid progressive whose policies come from conviction (another trait Americans like)rather than from the "wet-finger-in-the-wind" which turns out to be the "middle-finger-in-the-air" to progressives.

[billbuckhead]

29. Clark has never won an election and Clinton's have won many

Rudi Guiliani would be senator if Hillary hadn't run. Clark will make a spendid vice president.

[high density]

31. Well Clinton won the Presidency twice thanks in big part to Perot

And Hillary won a senate seat from a generally solid blue state. Unless Perot has a comeback I think we need somebody without the unfortunate and undeserved baggage that comes with the name "Clinton." Overall I like the Clintons, but I do not want Hillary to run for president. She's may have money but I don't think anybody can name a red state that she's going to turn blue.

By the way, I don't think Clark is going to be anybody's vice president. I don't know where everybody gets the strange idea of putting him in that second fiddle position, but I see it constantly here on DU. At least you didn't propose something really laughable like "Edwards/Clark."

[Gloria]

32. Clinton has won 1 election ....NY...and Clark has won 1--OK

Clark is also not afraid to go on FAUX and deny their spinning hosts the satisfaction of having an easy time with him. He delivers the truth the them and their audience every time he's on.

[billbuckhead]

35. The Clinton's are a proven winning team ready to hit the ground running

Hillary told Dickhead Cheney to go to Iraq and see for himself what's going on. I would have paid hundreds to see his face when she said that.

HILL TO VP: GO TO IRAQ
By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent
December 17, 2005 -- WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton offered Vice President Dick Cheney a little unsolicited advice yesterday: go take a firsthand look at what's going on in Iraq.
Clinton's surprising suggestion came moments before a top-level war briefing at the White House, a source involved with the meeting told The Post.

Clinton, who has been to Iraq twice and has been sharply critical of the administration's handling of the war, told Cheney it would be a positive experience to see the troops and terrain for himself, the source added.
-----------snip-----------------------
<http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/58957.htm>

[karynnj]

43. He won a primary - he has NEVER actually been the nominee

for anything. There are other arguments - this one should be dropped.

If primaries count as wins - stick with Kerry he won many. (Plus 4 MA Senate runs and a LT GOV run)

[Andromeda]

48. Which election did Clark win?

[billbuckhead]

80. Oklahoma primary

Wes did better than Dean did and came very very late to the race.

[karynnj]

42. No, he wouldn't - as long as the Democrats had a

half way decent candidate. His run IMPLODED over various things like announcing his divorce, before telling his wife. For nearly a half year there were unbelievable headlines - including a story that a previous girlfriend was still in a very plum city job. He said he quit because he had prostrate cancer - and that it would be difficult to run for Senate.

This doesn't say that Hillary wasn't a great candidate - just that she has yet to have a run where she needed to be.

[Clark2008]

56. Hillary's only won one - what many?

BILL won't elections. Hillary has won ONE.

They're different people.

And - btw - Eisenhower, Grant and Washington had never won any elections before becoming president, either. :P (Oh - and they were all generals, too).

[AtomicKitten]

45. the Repubs already gave HRC their best shot. n/t

[karynnj]

57. not really, Guiliani 2000 was not the same as Guiliani post 911

and Lazio was very weak. It was also a Senate run - you could have made a better case for this in 2004 for Kerry - Weld was an extremely popular moderate Republican - and Kerry beat him in 1996. That campaign not the 1990 or 2002 campaigns where Kerry had weaker opponents did test him. Hillary's 2006 run is likely to be like Kerry's 2002 one - where he had no strong opposition and won 81% of the vote.

[AtomicKitten]

61. really; I'm talking about while she was First Lady

They had already exhausted all their "material;" nothing new to hit her with during her Senate campaign.

[karynnj]

71. I'm sorry - I really got the comment wrong

thinking you meant that Guiliani, one of the GOP stars now, was the best shot - and he dropped out! Not at all your point. I do think they did investigate the Clintons to death - there is some baggage - but I agree we probably know the extent of it. (which is not true of any other candidate other than Kerry)

[AtomicKitten]

74. no problem, the responses are circuitous

Sometimes it's easier to read it from the top and click on the responses. In the complete text portions below, the posts indicate the post is in response to such and such post, the number in the upper righthand corner. Sorry to instruct if you already know this. In order words, they aren't listed in chronological order but follow the order of the upper half format.

[IndianaGreen]

34. "She has the left in her back pocket"

The only left Hillary has in her back pocket is Big Dog's left testicle.

She is in for a rude awakening!

[Totally Committed]

65. Wow... AMEN to THAT! n/t

TC

[MasonJar]

37. Remember that it wasn't Hillary that made that stupid statement.

I am sure it will be hard for any woman to win the Presidency...at least the first time. I am going to work hard, spend money and any etc. it takes to get the Pugs out of there. Whoever is chosen is alright with me.

[AtomicKitten]

46. doesn't matter to these people if she said it or not ....

they need zero provocation to set them off on their hate-HRC bent.

[mmonk]

40. I'm not in anyone's back pocket so I doubt many of the "left"

feel so and certainly any DLC'er that thinks so is crazy.

[Andromeda]

47. Great! That's just what we need.

Another "quote" from someone who is the director of the (What?) institute. Hillary didn't say it, so why is everybody getting their knickers in a knot over it?

Jeebus, we don't have to believe every frickin' word that we read in the paper or on somebody's blog. We don't know that HRC feels that she has the "lefties" in her back pocket. That's just somebody's opinion.

Why don't you all take a nice cold shower and cool down a little? :)

[flpoljunkie]

51. Only someone who felt they had the left in their back pocket would feel

free to co-sponsor Bill Bennett's, R-UT, flag-burning bill, the Flag Protection Act. We supposedly have the first amendment to protect us from laws like this, don't we?

Excerpt from Hillary Clinton's statement regarding her co-sponsorship and support of Bennett's bill:

"As I have said in the past, I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer.

Burning or destroying an American flag is a despicable act that disrespects the sacrifices of our brave veterans and soldiers who fought to protect the very freedom of speech that flag burners exploit.

http://www.newswatch50.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=B38DC286-D175-4BE7-9FEC-E671D31BA010

______________________

Why do we need a Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning if we pass a law that bans flag burning? The Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is speech that is Constitutionally protected. Is this how Hillary Clinton would protect our Constitutional rights--by legislating them away?

[Cocoa]

58. so you found a pundit that agrees with you

if people are going to post every bad thing any random pundit says about Hillary it's going to be a long three years.

Especially if it's posted multiple times

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5711906#top

[flpoljunkie]

59. So you and others here are intent on shoving Hillary down our throats.

It will only backfire. The post you cite, by the way, followed mine.

I do agree that it is going to a long three years--no matter how you slice it.

Interesting, you have no response to Hillary's co-sponsoring Bennett's Flag Protect Act.

[Cocoa]

60. I don't like Hillary

and I don't like the stupid flag thing.

If you think my post or anything I've written is "shoving Hillary down your throat" then you are not thinking clearly. I wasn't promoting her and I've never promoted her, aggressively or non-aggressively.

This pundit has his head up his ass. The strongest emotion among the Left towards Hillary is hatred, sometimes as virulent as the Right's hatred toward her. Some on DU for example are so blinded by their hatred and fear of her that they don't even realize they engage in the same kind of demonization of her that the Right does.

[flpoljunkie]

62. Great you are not among those trying to shove Hillary down our throats.

You must agree that there are those on DU who are attempting to do exactly that, and it will backfire on them.

The pundit is exactly right in his assessment. See my post about Hillary Clinton's signing as co-sponsor of Bill Bennett's Flag Protection Act--pure political pandering! We expect and demand better from our potential presidential candidates.

[Andromeda]

76. Who cares about the Flag Protection Act?

It's just fluff; a gesture to make Hillary look like she's "reaching across the aisle." I don't know if it comes from a deep conviction or if she's just playing politics.

IT'S JUST NOT THAT IMPORTANT! And nobody is trying to shove Hillary down any body's throat.

Why do so many people, mostly on the left, go absolutely crazy when HRC's name is mentioned? It's irrational--just as irrational as the right-wing's blinding hatred of her.

Pick your battles for crying out loud. Sometimes you have to save your energies for the really BIG wars.

[flpoljunkie]

78. I consider our basic Constitutional rights important, and if Hillary

knows better, which she should, as a trained laywer, then this move is pure political pandering of the worst type, and unworthy of a Democratic nominee for President. If she thinks this pandering will endear to the other side aisle, she is politically tone deaf. It ain't gonna happen.

If our Constitutional right to free speech, which the Supreme court has affirmed, is not important to you, that is your perogative, but don't chastise those who consider Hillary Clinton's pandering abhorrent.

Interesting, that Hillary has said not a word about the NSA's wiretapping of American citizens. Is she okay with that, too?

[Skip Intro]

91. Wow. You're right. Good questions too.

I know, I think I know, that this is just politics, that, in order to WIN she has to do some things to attract more people to vote for her than for her opponent(s).

But you are exactly right, imho, about this issue. Its a matter of Freedom, Freedom (supposedly) for which tens of thousands have had their lives taken in the last two years . We don't kill for it while simultaneously feeding it into a mulcher. Who the hell does that make us, our country?

I don't like it when repubs say it and I don't like it when Dems say it. Burning the flag is a freedom of speech issue, and if laws were enacted against it, what will be next in the wake of that precident?

I think the last 5 articles I've read on Hillary, over the last few months, have left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not going to support curtailed freedoms for the sake of a Dem admin.

The freedoms are more important than the symbol for them. Sheesh.

You're right. I can't think about it further right now. Getting too pissed.

[Totally Committed]

63. I can't even BEGIN to tell you how wrong this statement is:

"She has the left in her back pocket," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac institute. "She doesn't have to worry about catering to them..."

Over the holidays I see and/or touch base with almost every one of my dearest, most-long-standing friends. These friends are part of the Liberal Left "base" of this Party, and TO A PERSON (each and every one) echoed the sentiment that if Hillary gets the nomination, they WILL NOT VOTE in 2008. They don't see it as a betrayal of the Party, they feel the nomination will be a betrayal BY the Party. EVERY ONE OF THEM is prepared to sit out the election in protest over what they see as the Party's synical move to the center, and the DLC power-play that will have put (again) the wrong candidate into the nomination.

You may say, well, then, they want the Republicans to stay in power. WRONG. They want the DEMOCRATS in power... not the cynical center who will legislate like Republicans, collude with the Republicans, and toe the corporate line.

This Party is at a real crossroads. I don't think they perceive exactly how much of their loyal base will protest another centrist pro-corporate/pro-war candidate. They are believing the pollsters (the same ones that said Kerry was the most electable Democrat last time out, and, whether or not there was voter fraud or not, we all saw the Dukakis-lite campaign that got us.) I am here to tell you and the Democratic Party: Ignore your loyal, Liberal Left "base" at your own peril. You will live to regret that decision bitterly.

TC

[election_2004]

69. The Hillaristas are getting a jump even before the New Year begins....!!!

What do you bet Maurice Carroll ends up as a member of Hillary's January 2007 presidential "exploratory committee"?

[IndianaGreen]

73. Hillary is our Eva Peron!

Hillaristas and Peronistas do share one common trait: blind adulation!

PS: I like "Hillaristas" to describe the Hillary fans.

[election_2004]

93. Hillaristas: they spawn like gnats....

Including right here at DemocraticUnderground.

[Cha]

82. THis maurice carrol sounds like

a real too deep inside the beltway..almost inside the ass.

[robbedvoter]

85. Precisely. Bush's.

[Skip Intro]

87. To be fair, she didn't claim to have the left in her back pocket, MC did.

maurice carroll claimed she had the left in her back pocket. And while that line pissed me off, I can't condemn Hillary for it - she didn't say it.

All the same, I'd like her to just speak the dammed truth about Iraq, why we're there, what we do now, and when do we hold those responsible for this giant crime accountable.

[flpoljunkie]

89. See Post #51.

[Skip Intro]

92. See post #91

you're right.

[flpoljunkie]

95. Saw Post #91.

You're right, too. Very well said.

[bread_and_roses]

96. My response to HC's year-end fund-raising letter

Stop supporting the US slaughter of Iraqis and I'll contribute to your Senate campaign. Not until then.
-a former supporter who volunteered daily for six months to help your UpState NY Senate campaign

Not that it will do any good. Nor does asking repeatedly to be taken off her mailing list.