It's not written as opinion. It's written as though it's information you can take to the bank. And it would be nice if the anti-hillary posts would just either use credible information or just state up front that it's a bunch of crap that some yahoo blogger may very well have just pulled out of their butthole.
It would be nice if the OP's of this crapola would check the information THEMSELVES before they post it so that the rest of us could read the threads here with a peaceful sense of knowing that if we read it on DU and it's posted by long time or relatively well known DU'ers, then it is most likely credible.
I really resent that I just spent (probably wasted) 25-30 minutes of my time doing the research that I feel you should do. After this, I’m going to simply start noting who authors irresponsible threads such as these and I’m not going to be the one proving that the b.s. accusations are untrue. That’s the kind of game the Republicans play and it infuriates me (accusing the Dems of this or that and then putting us on the defense when the original accusation is complete bullshit).
Really as a community we ought to expect more from each other. We ought to be able to rely on one another to make sure that we all are as informed of the facts as possible. But day after day I look through these threads at some of the accusations against Clinton and the other Dems and I pity how absolutely uninformed my fellow Democratic party members are here. And I don't respect those who cause this kind of disinformation. So the source of this crappy article is as bad as a Republican in my POV.
*******
“Only 72 percent of Americans will vote for a woman.”I found between 81-86%.
Eighty-six percent of Americans say that they, personally, would vote for a qualified woman for president.
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/Facts/Elections/Gallup_Nearly_Half_of_Americans.pdfA nationwide poll from Hearst Newspapers and Siena College says 81 percent of registered voters would vote for a woman for president of the United States.
"The results are fascinating and very encouraging for women - and all Americans who want the nation's highest office held by the best people, regardless of their gender," said Dr. Douglas Lonnstrom, director of the Siena Research Institute.
http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2005/02/21/daily12.html”Hilary Clinton is the most detested politician outside of the Bush Administration.
So detested, her name is a punchline in most of America”There aren’t any polls regarding the most detested politician, this is one of those “facts” that was apparently pulled out of the bloggers butthole. Considering she polls higher than quite a few of the other Dem Presidential condenders, I’d say it’s not unreasonable to call that statement a big fat lie.
“She can't campaign for Dems outside the Far West and Northeast.”Let me try to understand this by repeating it. She can’t campaign for Dems outside the Far West and Northeast. I don’t even know what the heck this is supposed to mean. She can’t campaign for who? Herself? Other Dems running for President? The fact is that she can campaign for Dems outside of the coasts and she HAS. Unless I've misunderstood it, this is got to be the dumbest thing I’ve read in a long time.
"She has zero legislative accomplishments.No she doesn’t. She’s authored, sponsored, and co-sponsored legislation over the years. Do remember that she is a junior senator. They don’t get the cream of the crop. Secondly, she has been in the minority party which has made it difficult for ANY Dem Senators to get any legislation passed. Here’s a few links for you to prove she’s not just sitting around. You can find a lot more information if you’re really interested but I’m not going to spend the time doing it because I’ve already wasted my time and I just know it and it’s pissing me off right now that I even bothered doing this much. I have 15,000 other things I should have spent this time doing but here I am sifting through Google to debunk baseless accusations that nobody is going to read. I’m such a sucker.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htmOn June 16, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) delivered the opening address of the ACS 2006 National Convention with a major policy address on privacy in which she announced new proposed legislation to address the security of private information. Declaring privacy to be "synonymous with liberty," Senator Clinton called for greater federal protection for personal data from theft or misuse by private commericial actors, as well as greater Congressional and judicial oversight over domestic surveillance and data-mining programs unilaterally crafted by the executive branch.
http://www.acslaw.org/node/2967Count Every Vote Act 2005
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, along with others, recently unveiled a sweeping federal election reform bill, the Count Every Vote Act of 2005.
The Count Every Vote Act addresses an impressive number of the problems that Election Protection volunteers documented in 2004, and there's good reason for that. People For the American Way and the Election Protection coalition advised the bill's authors after spending weeks and months poring over the incident reports and voter testimonials which EP volunteers helped gather.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=18049Link to committees she serves on.
http://clinton.senate.gov/senate/committees/index.cfmClick the various icons to see where Clinton stands on the issues what what legislation she has authored or co sponsored and what passed.
http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/“She supported the Iraq war”I’m not going there. So did Kerry. This argument has been beaten to death and I’m over it.
“She has no national security experience”She’s the Senator from New York so she’s done a lot to pro-actively protect her state from further attacks. Besides that she’s on the Senate Armed Services committee. It simply cannot be stated that she has no national security experience. She can hold her own on this topic now. And might I add, it’s pretty funny for a liberal blogger to use this against her when it’s the liberal blogger-types that have done absolutely nothing but criticize Hillary at every possible turn and in every possible way anytime she has done anything to bolster this experience for her record. So typical.
“She has no defining political philosophy.”Come on now. She has a website that anyone can read that shows her voting record. She’s pro choice, pro universal health care, pro taking care of veterans and a whole lotta other things that she has consistently proven to be her philosophy based on her voting record. People who are simply too lazy to look at her voting record before casting out accusations are becoming a huge pet peeve of mine.
http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/“I think the Clinton campaign is a house of cards. When she is pressed hard and expected to actually take controversal stands, she is going to falter. She is a cautious politician, who despite all of her experiences, does not gauge the antipathy she faces on the left and the middle.”Being that this statement begins with “I think….” It is obviously an opinion that I do not need to debunk. This is the only statement of them all that appears to be an opinion and is not stated as fact, by the way.
”There isn't a chance in hell I would support Clinton, or to be honest, Obama, in a primary at this point. Neither has done more than talk and that will not cut it when we have to salvage our reputation and foreign policy.”Bullshit 2-fer-one statement ("neither has done more than talk"). He smeared Clinton AND Obama with – not facts – but one big swipe of poo-poo from the limitless supply of crap he apparently luvs pulling from his ass.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
