Why the pile-on of Hillary at DU?

[AtomicKitten]

I often read ubiquitous posts dissing her, some thinly veiled, others more creative than others.

If people are adamantly opposed to her winning the nomination, does kvetching about it 24/7 at DU really seem like a proactive way to prevent that from happening?

Those that have vowed to not vote or vote third party if she gets the nod aren't concerned about the outcome of their efforts here, but I wonder if those that fall into the 24/7 Hillary trash-a-thon that have declared they will, in fact, vote for the Democratic nominee regardless think this nonstop bashing is a good idea. She isn't my first, second, or third choice, but I wonder if DU is capable of making a 180 if she does get the nod.

It is human nature for people to ultimately be put off by negativity as that inevitably often creates precisely the opposite result of what is intended. However, one would think expounding the virtues and working on behalf of a preferable candidate would be the smart way to go. But that's me and my strategy in this upcoming election.

[southerncrone]

1. There is time to make sure we nominate someone else.

I would prefer to see other candidates praised than to see any of our candidates bashed. ...Unless they behave in a manner that is not in the best interest of the party.

[AtomicKitten]

7. I would strongly prefer

.... those that didn't vote yes on the IWR, but she isn't the only one, nor am I impressed by and award extra points for their apologies, explanations, or excuses for having done so.

I just wonder if folks have digested the possibility that she may be the nominee.

[mahina]

139. If she is our nominee, I will not vote,

and that will be a first. My district will be without an organizer and a 24-7 worker bee. And it will break my heart, but I'll be damned if I will compromise to the degree required to choke down Hillary.

[mahina]

140. ps- Go Obama!

[JNelson6563]

144. I hope you'll just go elsewhere

I'm very active in my local and district parties. If Hillary is our nominee I fully intend to invest my energies elsewhere such as a state house race or maybe a county commission race.

Additionally, we buy lots and lots of swag (lawn-signs etc) of the pres. campaign, whoever the candidate, take in donations for the stuff and do very, very well. While getting better visibility for the pres. candidate you may not care for, you've raked in lots of funds you can help candidates, more local candidates (who you actually like), with. It's a more-than-fair trade IMO.

Don't drop out, consider how to make best, most productive use of the situation. Always remember the Dem party is not just one person. A 24/7 worker bee like yourself dropping away from a Pres. campaign won't matter all that much to them but, on the other hand, a 24/7er like you joining a more local race could make a massive difference (like the difference between a win or a loss) and actually be very appreciated.

All the best no matter what you choose to do! :toast:

Julie

[AtomicKitten]

191. thank you for your hard work

I thank you, the Democratic Party thanks you.

[mahina]

208. Hey good point.

I would do that. Thanks.

[JNelson6563]

223. I know well the value of people like you

When you said "24/7 worker bee" I knew I was lookin' at a valuable asset to the cause. ;-)

Julie

[Rockholm]

312. Nice attitude.

The election is over 1 1/2 years away. If she is the nominee of the Party and you choose to not support her, then IMHO you and those like you are the problem.
Now, that said, it is up to you and those who do not support HRC to get out and get your candidate as the nominee.
As of today, I have no idea who I would like to see as the Democratic nominee. In 2004, I supported Edwards in the primary. I was highly disappointed in Kerry, but he was the nominee of my party and I voted for him. I am keeping all options open, even HRC.
I WANT A DEMOCRAT IN OFFICE, dammit. With a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS to boot.

[cleveramerican]

323. Bush, Clinton, Bush,Clinton

its a natural reaction to that!

300 million people and two families get to run the place for 30 years?

the white house needs new blood, its as simple as that!

[Flying Dream Blues]

331. So a Republican would be better?

I don't want HRC as our nominee, either, but I'll be damned if I'll abstain or vote third party when nothing less than our country is at stake. Hillary may not be my dream president, but she's sure better than continuing on this road to ruin by allowing another neo-con to further the destruction of the US.

[job777]

324. me too

and I don't believe she is electable.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. because

she is pandering to the religious reich
she is pandering to conservatives at the expense of a natural, but disappearing base
she is more concerned about triangulating than serious policy issues
she is convinced that not making a decision is safer for now, until the sediment settles
she is tied to the DLC, the worst thing that happened to our country since the neocon movement
she is more in line with neocons than with democrats
she is poll-based, focus-group controlled, and incapable of taking a ethical stance on any issue without their help and input.

she is a fraud.


but that is just a minute's reflection. I am sure that if I tried, I could be extremely specific, with cites, sites, and sights.

[AtomicKitten]

4. over-the-top analysis

[FogerRox]

136. This is over the top

HRC is a shill for the corporate elitists, she is a plan "B", after GWB.

[RapidCreek]

322. EXACTLY!!!

RC

[etherealtruth]

5. "she is more in line with neocons than with democrats"

Here's a link to her voting record: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

Doesn't look in line with the neocons to me ... seems to me, she has worked hard to represent her constituents.

She's not my first choice ... but, I would prefer her to every single Republican candidate and quite a few of the Dems

[TheConstantGardener]

10. She worked so hard she didn't debate her Primary opponent in 2006

Jonathan Tasini was never debated by Hillary because she refused to even recognize him. Unlike her, he had antiwar positions and single payer healthcare positions.

She betrayed her constituency for political expediency. Not the first time.

[etherealtruth]

15. Even in 2005 she seems to have the support of a great deal of her state

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1348331/posts

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1016

HRC is not my first choice, she's not my second ... however, I do question the absolute vilification of her.

[TheConstantGardener]

23. That means absolutely nothing

Politicians who don't listen to the people are "popular" all the time -- because there is no viable alternative. The polls didn't ask peopel's opinions on the policies she is upholding and whether they'd prefer those or alternative ones.

The polls there essetially ask "Do you prefer this louse or a Republican?" That's not a hard one to answer.

[AtomicKitten]

29. A choice we we may be asked to make

.... even if you choose to frame it in those terms.

If you are going to not vote or vote third party if she gets the nod, this thread wasn't directed to you for whatever it's worth. You have already made up your mind.

[TheConstantGardener]

31. If I have anything to say in it that's not going to be our choice

And you said in earlier post you have the same convictions so let's stop arguing and work on this.

[AtomicKitten]

36. I support Al Gore, Barack Obama, or Wes Clark

.... and am working on their move to the front of the back, thanks very much.

But that really isn't my point.

[TheConstantGardener]

40. Two aren't running

So um...

[AtomicKitten]

44. not yet -- oh ye of little faith

[TheConstantGardener]

51. I just think it makes sense for them not to run

And I think they agree.

[etherealtruth]

57. The true polls are the elections ...she won

HRC is not my first choice, nor my second ... not even my third. HRC is not evil incarnate, she is a successful and strong politician.

I countered a response that HRC is aligned with the neocons with her voting record (which doesn't look like a neocon record to me).

In response to "she betrayed her constituency" I posted links to polls showing that her constituency seems to support her in large numbers ... and a poll comparing her to a popular republican showing the same thing. Popular politicians were voted out of office this cycle because of their policies and the country's desire for change.

Your biggest argument seems to be that you don't like her ... its all a matter of taste ... no one will ever convince me that fennel tastes good, I won't try to convince you that HRC is not simply "our" louse opposing their louse.

[MADem]

46. No she didn't betray anyone. He didn't bring it. Gee, he had antiwar positions.

Big deal. Who wants MORE war, really? Tell me who has campaigned on the slogan MORE WAR?

He had HEALTHCARE positions? Wow. And Hillary NEVER had those!

If his ideas were so great, why didn't people turn away from the incumbent Senator with the seat on the Armed Services Committee (first NYer EVER) and leap to vote for this guy? Why didn't he have a base?

Because he didn't bring it.

HRC was right not to waste time with him. You don't entertain every crank. Especially when you don't HAVE to.

[AZBlue]

99. In reality...

Clinton didn't debate Tasini because he didn't have much support, so the point was moot.

But, hey, why let reality get in the way of a good slur??

[rinsd]

281. Why would she recognize her opponent when he was polling around 10%?

Tasini couldn't even raise $200K in one of the richest anti-war states in the country.

He should be thankful to NY1, without the controversy created he would have never gotten 20%.

And here's one to blow your mind.

Cynthia McKinney rarely debated her primary opponents(she skipped the first series of debates but did debate Hank Johnson after the ruboff was scheduled). It cost her this time around.

Was Cynthia McKinney betraying her constituency? Or does that BS only apply to Clinton?

[AtomicKitten]

299. yahtzee

Or does that BS only apply to Clinton?

[Cascadian]

325. This is a sure fire sign of arrogance.

Tasini should have had the chance to get paired up with Hillary to debate. What was Hillary worried about? That Tasini would show her up in the debate and make her look bad? God help us if she has this same attitude towards the other Democratic candidates for '08 and she gets the nomination. The Democrats will be sunk if this happens.

John

[MADem]

39. Yeah, a real fascist right winger...to people who don't READ!!!

OR do their OWN research, but instead parrot bullshit!!!! It's a hoot, isn't it...how people will repeat a lie, over and over again, and just because they say it LOUD, that makes it TRUE, see?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Hillary Clinton is a moderate liberal.

[AtomicKitten]

45. thank you for the info

[MADem]

53. Anytime. I like the truth. No matter where it leads!!

That ON THE ISSUES website is a gem--you can really sort the corn out of the bullshit there!

[AtomicKitten]

59. thanks for the heads-up on that site

here's the link: http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

[Hepburn]

152. She is not my pick either...

...but you hit the nail on the head ~~ if she is better than anything the Pubbies have running.

[MannyGoldstein]

34. But She's A Leader!

She was out front twice in her life, as far as I can tell - no-insurance-company-CEO-left-behind health care, and the criminalization of flag burning. Can't think of a single other issue that she's taken the lead on.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

190. leadershit by focus groups, polling and seeing how the wind blows.

yeah, just what our country needs after 8 yrs of bushistas

[AtomicKitten]

197. Are you suggesting she is the only politician

... that utilizes focus groups and polling in an election?

Ah, okay.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

219. no, but the only one to rely on them for every decision and position.

nothing about her is real, except her eye on the presidency.

[AtomicKitten]

225. That is a pretty broad-brush accusation to make.

There is no concrete evidence of that, and that is precisely the kind of over-the-top rhetoric I am referring to in my OP. Just because you imagine it to be true does not make it so.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

235. it may not be true, but every single bloody thing she does seems scripted

honestly, I get a visceral reaction when she starts orating. I can't help it. It is no where as strong as my reaction to Bush or Cheney, or even Condi, but it is there, and it is strong. I have tried to push it aside and give her a chance, but each time she then takes a position so nuanced, so prepared, so lame and processed that all of those same emotional responses return.

Funny, the GOP is not the group attacking her; it is liberals who mistrust, dislike her and see through her "performances". Only her true supporters make the claim that GOPers are the ones with the focus group and polling complaints. Well, I am no GOPer, never heard one say that, and those observations and opinions are based on what I see and comprehend.

Despite trying for a long time to like her, or even just respect her enough to not worry if she is our candidate, I find that in good faith I cannot. She will never get me support, much like Condi, Jeb, McCain, and others who lost it forever.

[AtomicKitten]

238. Your reaction is justified

... because there is no doubt she is tightly scripted. But let me put it to you this way. Considering the barrage of bullshit she has endured through the 1990s through today, do you blame her? The Heathers in the MSM have crawled up and nested in her butt, scrutinizing every word and move she makes. The GOP Wrecking Machine is taking notes, the further left folks criticize the way she breathes. You must admit she gets slammed for doing or saying the same exact thing as other candidates here, right?

Politics is a chess game, a dog and pony show. Step back a bit and try not to take the performances that literally. They all are playing the game. If you can manage to give each a bit of space knowing they are strategizing not only the primary but the general election as well, maybe you won't be so bothered by the day-to-day machinations of campaigns.

In the meantime, work your ass off for the candidate you prefer. That's what democracy is all about. And once the candidate has been chosen, and hopefully with a more open primary election (thanks Howard!) the rest of the country will have a say, then you need to decide if you are going to join a cohesive voting block to kick the ever lovin' shit out of the Republican candidate, or not.

I guess part of my frustration at DU is that with the plethora of material emanating from the other side of the aisle to get pissed off about, the anger seems to be primarily directed at Democrats. I don't get that, really.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

246. purrfect words, kitten, & please accept this back stroke & a scratch behind

the ears.

[AtomicKitten]

248. purrrrrrrr

[JetCityLiberal]

330. agreed

I don't feel anything about her is real either, she waits for the coast to clear or the polls before she has a real opinion.

[papau]

80. "could be extremely specific" ? No - I doubt that you could be specific - but I will

read with great interest any posts that has specifics. Your list reads like the Fox News morning talking points memo that Roger Ailes always has sent out so that all staff know what to push on all GOP supporters in the media so they know what to push into the publics mind - sans any facts most of the time.

For me, she is one of many that may get my primary vote, but in the general any Democratic Party candidate will get my vote. I do not want GOPers in office.

As to issues, if she does not come out with more of a health care position - more toward Medicare for all - or at least cut the crap of subsidizing insurance companies to have them insure children and instead to propose child coverage via Medicare - she will drop way down my list.

[truedelphi]

321. Your last paragraph could have fallen out of me own

Grey matter.

<<As to issues, if she does not come out with more of a health care position - more toward Medicare for all - or at least cut the crap of subsidizing insurance companies to have them insure children and instead to propose child coverage via Medicare - she will drop way down my list.

Hill is so careful to never quite step on the toes of Corporate America.

The change that we need in this country demands that whoever is President in 2008 DAMN well better be able to step on some toes, or even bash a few shins in.

[Hawkowl]

284. Succinct and to the point

I agree completely. Her main flaw is her complete lack of leadership ability. She polls, holds her finger in the air, and then makes the most milquetoast non-decision her handlers allow. Vomit!

[AtomicKitten]

292. I'll bet the other candidates

... will be pissed off when they find out that polling and focus groups are available to them too during an election cycle.

[bobbie]

3. Er, I'll just take a wild guess that people hold a wee bit of a grudge

over the fact that she voted for the Iraq invasion purely for political gain because that's the way the wind was blowing and she didn't and doesn't care about the hundreds of thousands of dead thanks to her ilk. She's a classic two-faced pol.

Camille Paglia also makes some good points (never thought I'd live to utter those words) about Bill's wife in Salon:

"Hillary didn't help herself with her over-the-top sermon at the First Baptist Church in Selma, Alabama, two weeks ago. Her aping of a black Southern accent from the pulpit was so inept and patronizing that it should get a Razzie Award for Worst Performance of the Year. At times, it approached the Southern Gothic burlesque of Bette Davis chewing up the scenery in "Hush ... Hush, Sweet Charlotte." Does Hillary Clinton have a stable or coherent sense of self? Or is everything factitious, mimed and scripted (like her flipping butch and femme masks) for expediency?"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2007/03/14/coulter/

[AtomicKitten]

6. 27 other Senators voted for it too

.... and in my opinion ALL OF THEM for preservation of their own political backsides.

You have no clue as to her motivations or what she does or does not care about, and neither do her other detractors. It is presumptuous and self-serving to claim otherwise.

[DemKR]

9. I would have voted for the war

based on the information that I was given at the time. How can we argue that Bush lied if we use the "We saw the same intelligence" argument? Come on.

Hillary said that knowing what she knew today she would not have voted "AYE" on the war. Same deal with Edwards.

[TheConstantGardener]

14. You would've voted against the UN Charter and 90% of the world

I have to say I wouldn't elect neither Ms. Clinton or yourself.

[bobbie]

259. Perfectly said ConstantGardener

And I'll add that when an immoral politician is endorsed by an uninformed person it doesn't put the immoral pol in a better light.

[AtomicKitten]

263. That was rather presumptuous

... to call those that don't agree with a scorched earth opinion uninformed, but that sort of personal attack is often resorted to when a viable argument cannot be made. No worries though because I appreciate you illustrating the snotty machinations that ensue when people aren't capable of disagreeing gracefully.

[bobbie]

266. Look up uninformed in the dictionary sweetie

It means not having information. That applies to anyone who would have supported attacking Iraq without having the information that Bush was a lying sack of shit.

Learn the language before you start lashing out.

Oh, and you're a fine one to lecture others on "grace" given that you're calling people "presumptuous and self-serving."

Sweetie pie.

[AtomicKitten]

268. there is really no need to get ugly -- which is really the point of my OP

... and apparently my pointing that out has merely incited more from you.

We're done.

[bobbie]

269. We're not done 'til I say we're done

We're done.

:evilgrin:



Thanks for playing...

[AtomicKitten]

20. I wouldn't have.

And the fact that many, many congresspeople didn't makes that vote impossible for me to forgive. It's just embedded in my gut. How could millions of Americans armed with only a computer know - absolutely know beyond a doubt - how Junior would cash the blank check that the IWR gave him?

Well, that's me, and I simply cannot support any of the "yes" voters in the primary. In fact, I will go as far as to say it should make them ineligible to run, but that is just my opinion. I will, however, vote for the Democratic nominee regardless.

[TheConstantGardener]

28. Do you think they really believed Iraq to be a threat

Or were they just politically calculating things?

No one in the world believed this nonsense. The tiny nation of Kuwait was much more powerful than Iraq was.

[AtomicKitten]

35. in my opinion

... most were looking out for the political longevity. However, in a narrower analysis, the vote could be construed as voting on the information they were given, and we all know it was cooked. My expectation, however, is that the Dems not buy into this debacle - the vote for which the GOP set up right before an election which is cheesy long-used strategy on their part - with their 'yes' vote.

I would prefer someone as our candidate that did not vote 'yes' - will continue to remind people that Hillary wasn't the only one nor am I impressed with the backtracking on the vote after the fact - but I will support the Democratic candidate chosen democratically in the primary by my fellow Dems.

[AZBlue]

100. Ding! Ding! Ding!

but I will support the Democratic candidate chosen democratically in the primary by my fellow Dems.

I understand not supporting HRC in the primary - as I've said before, I've got a couple of people I support now and when I narrow it down, it's very possible she's not the one I'll be working for in the primaries. But it absoltetely baffles me how anyone on this board can say - and unfortunately there are many of them - that they will not support her should she win the nom. I have a website I'd like to suggest to those who say that, I think they'll feel more comfortable there: freerepublic.com.

[MGKrebs]

63. The outcome was inevitable.

Even Clinton haters admit that Bush was committed to attack no matter what Democrats did. Therefore, it was a symbolic vote, with no implications as far as troops, lives, policies, or actions were concerned.

[SOS]

83. True, Bush was going into Iraq no matter what,

but knowing that, wouldn't it have been better to vote no on the IWR and give 100% responsibility to Bush?
Force him to invoke his executive authority as Nixon did after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was repealed in 1971.
We could now be going into 2008 with no baggage, offering a way out of the mess Bush created.
Instead many good Democrats are now stuck with this quicksand issue.

[AtomicKitten]

84. absolutely

... wouldn't it have been better to vote no on the IWR and give 100% responsibility to Bush? ....
We could now be going into 2008 with no baggage, offering a way out of the mess Bush created. Instead many good Democrats are now stuck with this quicksand issue.

[Hippo_Tron]

214. More importantly, we could've gone into 2004 with no baggage...

I still contend that if the Democrats had united in opposition to the IWR, Kerry would be president today.

[AtomicKitten]

218. I agree.

And although some were incensed by the thread I posted a while back pondering that very same question -- would an antiwar candidate and platform have been more successful in 2004 -- I believe it was rolling the dice at that time.

This time around there is no question Dems must unite in opposing our further presence in Iraq.

[bobbie]

262. I disagree that it was merely symbolic

But if it was then Hillary's vote was symbolic of a cynical calculating immoral pol.

[AtomicKitten]

265. "a cynical calculating immoral pol"

Ah, okay.

[laugle]

247. I don't know if this will make much of a difference to you, but

911 happened in New York! I remember the climate at that time and people were very angry and wanted our government to KICK-ASS immediately. This is not an excuse for Hillary voting for the IWR, but I do think it puts her in a more unique position, as I can't imagine any Senator from N.Y not voting for it at that time.

I think the people of N.Y. probably would have lynched her if she voted differently.

Again, it's not an excuse, I just thought it should be part of the dialogue.

[AtomicKitten]

267. I absolutely agree

... that that is a something that should be factored in. Representing the will of one's constituents is part of the job. I definitely agree with that.

Truthfully I have an emotional response to the IWR, it made me that upset and angry; I fully acknowledge it isn't completely reasonable or rational. I do so look forward to moving beyond it.

[NYCGirl]

301. There were more than a million people in the streets of NYC before the war

in Iraq started protesting against it.

[bobbie]

260. How presumptuous and self-serving

:evilgrin:

[bobbie]

258. If you would have voted for the war then I'd have the same low opinion of you

It was fuckin' obvious from the get go that they were using 911 as an excuse to launch their PNAC plans.
And if you were that naive you wouldn't belong in congress, just as Hillary doesn't belong in congress or the white house, and the others who disgraced the country by voting to steal oil don't deserve to be in congress.

They all knew exactly what they were doing.

[roguevalley]

18. so, if 27 others voted to save their backsides, we can assume she

did too. Therefore, one can deduce from that that her character is as weak and self-serving as anyone else's.

[AtomicKitten]

22. I said that.

But my point is that she was not the only one.

[TheConstantGardener]

25. You're right, all of them were crooks and liars

My apologies to www.crooksandliars.com

Sorry, they had enough voting power in the Senate to filibuster. They didn't. Bunch of dummies.

[roguevalley]

30. I agree, atomickitten. the whole 27+ have atonement to make. none

of them are exempt in my book.

[AtomicKitten]

37. thanks

Sometimes even that reasonable point is tough to make with this crowd! :)

[MADem]

55. And the ones who say "I wouldn't have voted for it" are likely LYING.

There aren't that many Ted Kennedys and Paul Wellstones out there. There just AREN'T.

No matter how much people want to convince themselves that there are.

[bvar22]

188. There ARE about 150 Democrats with Integrity!!!! Honor them!

The Democratic Party Honor Roll
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.

IWR

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[lastout]

220. you're right-- the most important agenda for an elected is to be reelected

no matter what party you are.
my nickels worth

[bobbie]

257. Hey there AtomicKitten

Someone asked why one of the Iraq war promoting Senators was disliked at DU and I answered the question.
Note that they didn't ask about the other 26, therefore I didn't answer an unasked question.

And it's logical to conclude that Hillary's motivation was political given that she's a--you know--POLITICIAN.

Regardless of her motivation, there's is no possible motivation or rationale or excuse for voting to attack a country that had no WMDs and nothing to do with 911 and posed us no threat. No excuse for voting to kill hundreds of thousands of people to steal oil. Or are you going to also dispute the obvious fact that this regime went to steal oil?

[AtomicKitten]

261. And permanent bases are being built to protect the oil.

My point was simply to point out the totality of the knuckleheads that voted yes since often one Senator in particular is held accountable more so and often exclusive of the others, but that in no way was meant to nor mitigates the bone-headed, no doubt politically motivated vote that abdicated Congress' war-declaring powers to a moron.

Just spreading the love. :)

[bobbie]

264. I understand that now AtomicKitten, thanks

But she is not being held more accountable than the others.
She is one of two prominent Dems who voted to invade and are now running for prez. And both are being given hell (as they should be) over their vote. Just one was the subject of this thread; thus our focus on her.

Ask me about any of the other Dems who voted to invade and I'll give 'em hell.

Meanwhile my kudos go to Senator Kennedy, who showed the Kennedy courage I've long admired.

[Captain Hilts]

67. How do you know that's why HRC voted? Read her statement upon making the vote...

And Camile Paglia is a woman-hating @#*! for brains.

[Andromeda]

310. Camille Paglia is a slagg...

she's never said anything good about anybody.

Not missing anything at Salon.com.

[TheConstantGardener]

8. We care about dead Iraqis, dead Lebanese, people without healthcare

People suffering for whom she doesn't have the courage to speak out for.

I don't care if the person's name I'm supporting is Clinton, Bush, Reagan, or Carter. I care about the lives of people these policies affect.

My despising of Clinton is nothing personsal. She seems like a nice lady. Her policies are anything but.

[MADem]

66. Ahhhhh, and just what does that grandiose comment actually MEAN?

Here, this link might be helpful--read up on her record. She actually HAS one. It differs from what some say about her. Interesting, that:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record
Rated 82% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record

[AZBlue]

101. Ha! Most important info in that post may very well be:

Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record

Now that's a record worth consideration!!!!

[MADem]

111. Yeah, I found that tidbit an especial delight, as well! NT

[AtomicKitten]

130. that's a nice round figure

that definitely matters to me

[CTLawGuy]

168. a pro-peace voting record?

does that include the IWR vote?

[MADem]

239. I have absolutely NO intention of doing your research for you.

If you want to know, really, do your own research. You know how she voted, now it is up to you to see how SANE came to their conclusion...that is, if you REALLY want to know. I suspect you don't, though. Your mind is made up.

But I see you support another Senator, by your avatar. Let's compare the two, in a broad-brush kind of way, using ON THE ISSUES graphics: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

Funny, the way people talk, you'd think these two candidates would be MILES apart on these graphs!!! I'm shocked at how close they are, myself!!!!!




Barack Obama is a Populist-Leaning Liberal




Hillary Clinton is a Moderate Liberal
http://recent.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

VoteMatch
Candidate's Political Philosophy
The below is a way of thinking about the candidate's political philosophy by dividing the candidate's VoteMatch answers into "personal" and "economic" questions. It is only a theory - please take it with a grain of salt!
Personal Questions: Liberals and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while conservatives and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictions answers.

Economic Questions: Conservatives and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while liberals and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictions answers.

Personal Score
This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people's personal lives. Personal issues include health, morality, love, recreation, prayer and other activities that are not measured in dollars.

A high score (above 60%) means the candidate believes in tolerance for different people and lifestyles.
A low score (below 40%) means the candidate believes that standards of morality & safety should be enforced by government.
Economic Score

This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people's economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes.

A high score (above 60%) means the candidate believes in personal responsibility for financial matters, and that free-market competition is better for people than central planning by the government.
A low score (below 40%) means the candidate believes that a good society is best achieved by the government redistributing wealth. The candidate believes that government's purpose is to decide which programs are good for society, and how much should be spent on each program.
This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people's economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes.

[AtomicKitten]

244. fascinating analysis, really

I hope people are paying attention.

[MADem]

278. Well, really....what do way too many Americans believe?

Their own lying eyes, or horseshit that's been repeated like a mantra?

I really do wish people would do their own research. We know enough to look at the actual record, the totality of it. For EVERY candidate. There's so much bullshit going on, from McCain being a "straight talker" to Rudy being the "Fireman's friend!!" It gets repeated and repeated, and the unquestioning become hypnotized by it.

Now, I happen to like Jack Murtha as a friend of the Department of Defense, because he helped "us" (us meaning the military, back in the day before BushCo ruined it) on a lot of matters hear and dear to my heart(and my damn job, to be honest). He also, as a retired military man, sees things the way I and many of MY retired pals do as regards this idiotic war. However, I know damned well that Jack is not on "my" team on choice, that he has a lobbyist brother that he "thinks of" when he votes, and he's way to the right of me on many other issues as well. I can weigh all of Jack's good points, and less good, and come to a conclusion that I'll stick with Jack because, overall, he trends in my direction. Those who put "CHOICE FIRST," though, want his head on a pike. You try to tell some people the simple, not mean or accusatory, truth about Jack's record, and you get charged with being a rightwing operative who is "smearing" the guy.

Like I said, to some, a contact sport. To some, a team endeavor where thought is neither desired nor required.

[CTLawGuy]

315. It depends on the methodology

used to come up with the graph. A major flaw with a lot of these tests as well as interest group ratings is that they don't weigh issues by importance. A vote to name a post office after Noam Chomsky would count the same as a vote to authorize war in Iraq.

As you can probably tell, I weigh position on the IWR very highly. Yes, Hillary and Obama are very similar. Most of our candidates are. But I am infuriated that in 2002, the DEMOCRATIC-CONTROLLED Senate allowed the IWR to pass through,

without meaningful limits on the president's power,
without requiring involvement by the UN and the international community,
without having a real (non-rushed) debate about the merits of the war,
without requiring a plan including an exit strategy,
without requiring reasonable estimates of time and cost,
without asking for alternative contingency plans in case (oh I don't know) sectarian warfare breaks out, among other things,
in the heat of an election season when people's minds would be consumed by their races (a very BAD time to be considering whether to go to war).

This is not about the intelligence being wrong. This is about the fact that our legislators should not have delegated the power to go to war to a reckless president for political reasons. Even if the intelligence were DEAD ON, this would be true.

And HRC thought her vote was just fine and dandy becuase in her mind, it was the right course of action at the time. But becuase of the deficiencies above, I wholeheartedly disagree. Warmaking is not the power of the president, he is only the commander in chief, carrying out Congress' desire to go to war by commanding the troops to that end.

To delegate warmaking authority to the president as Congress did is an abrogation of their duty under Art. I sec. 8 of the US Constitution to be the sole branch of government that can "declare war."

HRC views it one way, I view it another.

[AtomicKitten]

319. I share your dismay

about the IWR, everything except the part of declaring what HRC is thinking because you don't know that. Abdicating constitutionally mandated war-declaring powers to a moron was a huge mistake, one that a few other presidential candidates made as well, and I intend to act out my displeasure regarding that in the primary election. I sincerely hope we choose a candidate in the primary that was against the war from the get-go, Gore or Obama my preferences.

I just cringe when POVs are laced with name-calling epithets and grotesque exaggerations of policy, and that is the subject of my OP.

[etherealtruth]

11. The main problem I have with HRC right now ....

...is that she is allowing herself to be "over handled."

Much like Al Gore:loveya: did ... she can speak passionately and persuasively; however, she is speaking too carefully and too scripted ... which is making her appear less genuine than I believe she really is.

[AtomicKitten]

12. seriously over-handled

I discussed that with someone at dinner the other night. That is frequently misconstrued here for having other implications. But having experienced the GOP jihad during the 1990s against the Clintons, do you blame her? Still it comes off as such a benign persona when I think most of us are looking for fire in the belly.

My fervent hope and orgasmic dream is that Al Gore will step in. Gore has the gravitas and the momentum to make it all the way to the White House which he so deserves.

[etherealtruth]

33. I don't blame her ...

Its astounding, that even to this day ... the right blames the Clinton's for everything, everywhere, every time ... I just hope she is able to loosen up and let her true self shine through.

[AtomicKitten]

43. I think an ounce of

.... authenticity from the candidates would invigorate the party like nothing else.

It would behoove people to think back on 1990s and the work of the GOP Wrecking Machine and then fast-forward to 2004 and the Swift Boat Liars.

I am entirely sympathetic to ALL the candidates trying to maneuver the mine field on both sides of the aisle. It's brutal out there.

When we do ultimately choose a candidate, we need to lock arms and fight back against the barrage of cheese that will be thrown at our nominee 24/7. I for one look forward to kicking some GOP ass.

[ElizabethDC]

19. I agree with this

Hillary is capable of showing her personality, but has become too restrained over the years. I think it's because she got burned too much in the early years of Bill's administration (what with her "cookie-baking" comments and such - a more recent example is her "evil and bad men" joke) that she's learned to carefully control what she says in public.

I think she definitely needs to loosen up but, in the days of youtube, when every gaffe can be highlighted, sometimes it's just better to stick to the script.

[ElizabethDC]

13. As a Hillary supporter,

I feel that a lot of people do have honest, legitimate criticisms of her, and while I may disagree with them, I at least have respect for those people who can back up their criticims with fact rather than emotion.

What I don't really care for is those people who, even when Hillary does something they agree with, simply post in response "she's such a panderer" and other such knee-jerk reactions. I'm sure Hillary does pander (as do pretty much all successful politicians), but I don't understand why people won't give her credit where credit is due. Some people just have such negative feelings toward her that they can't bring themselves to say one positive thing about her, and I think that such across-the-board hatred is dangerous and unfair when applied to anyone.

Additionally, Hillary catches a lot of added flack for some of her statements and actions even when our other candidates might do the same thing - as if it's somehow bad when she does it, but fine when others do it.

[AtomicKitten]

24. word

Hillary catches a lot of added flack for some of her statements and actions even when our other candidates might do the same thing - as if it's somehow bad when she does it, but fine when others do it.

[MADem]

69. AS a non-Hillary supporter (but not an opponent, either) I have to agree with you.

My sense of fair play is roused when I see some of the unfair and ignorant posts about the woman. It takes two minutes to check facts, but some just repeat the same old, tired, rightwing lies. And others, I hate to say it, seem to have a "female" problem, shall we say. There just seems to be no other explanation for some of the insults.

I'm waiting for the debates, unless Gore gets in. But she'll get a good listen from me, as will the rest of the pack.

[ruggerson]

16. Because some immature people on the left like to destroy everyone

who isn't with them 100%. I suppose it's part of the anti authoritarian thing.

What's surprising is how many don't see that they're essentially shooting themselves in the foot.

[TheConstantGardener]

72. I have 3 wonderful choices who didn't vote to kill Iraqi children

I guess that's her "not being with me 100%"

[mtnsnake]

88. You nailed it. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

91. yeah, esp. the anti-gun folks. r i g h t .

I am so happy that so many paid, preyed, played, pro-hlllarious folks manage to avoid so many unpleasant facts - just looking at her senate history?

[AtomicKitten]

97. One can only imagine how icky the GOP nominee will be.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

143. will they select someone?

when "none of the above" is growing ever stronger?

[MGKrebs]

17. I've been thinking about this too.

The troubling thing for me is the absolutism we are seeing so much of. Very distressing.

HC is not the devil.
DK is not God.
We're all humans.

[ruggerson]

21. Some on the rabid left are the flip side of the rabid religious rightwing

I see a lot of similarities in absolutism.

[AtomicKitten]

27. indeed

I chafe at the rigidity of it all. Just the tone of it sticks in my craw; it is reminiscent of the right-wingnut M.O.

[TheConstantGardener]

38. I don't vote for people who authorize cluster bomb sales

Because I don't like children being blown apart by cluster bombs. It's not a complicated calculus, really. Edwards and Obama voted to end the cluster bomb sales, Hillary did not.

I guess I'm so "absolutist" because when I have a wide field of great Dems I decide not to vote for one.

[ruggerson]

48. Not relevant to the OP

you have every right not to support Hillary. I applaud and admire whatever rational decision you make about whom you can and cannot support.

The OP asks about the "pile on." Meaning the angry, hyperventilating, sometimes irrational, sometimes hypocritical, daily attacks on Hillary.

Your calm, reasoned decision not to support her is not related to what I believe is the question posed by the OP.

[karynnj]

98. Edwards was not in the Senate for that vote

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Feinstein Amdt. No. 4882 )
Vote Number: 232 Vote Date: September 6, 2006, 12:00 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4882 to H.R. 5631
Statement of Purpose: To protect civilian lives from unexploded cluster munitions.
Vote Counts: YEAs 30
NAYs 70
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Allen (R-VA), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burns (R-MT), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Nay
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Talent (R-MO), Nay
Thomas (R-WY), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

This vote was soon after cluster bombs were used in Lebanon. It is pathetic that most of the Senators running voted against it. Biden, Dodd and H. Clinton voted against it. Of those now running only Obama voted for it (Kerry who was likely planning to run when he voted voted for it as well.)

[MGKrebs]

42. It might be a reflection of our activism success.

We do such a good job of exposing and villifying opponents to progressivism that we sometimes fail to see the gray areas in between the extremes. For example, we can dislike an establishment organization for a lot of reasons, but that doesn't mean that everything they do is automatically evil or that anybody associated with them is completely evil, or perhaps more importantly, that because we don't like them that they are automatically irrelevent. I think we are supposed to be able to detect more complexity than that. Even during campaign season!

I will say this: I hope we end up with a viable candidate who is more progressive than Hillary Clinton. But if we don't, I'll take progress on universal healthcare, education reform, support for unions, and a woman president as not a total loss.

[AtomicKitten]

47. I think our field is brilliant

... more so than I can recall in a long, long time.

[Captain Hilts]

65. there is a GREAT selection this year. I like Clark, Richardson and Dodd most.

But I like something about ALL of them!

[AtomicKitten]

70. We have a great pool from which to choose a cabinet too.

The Dems certainly have their work cut out for them reversing the damage done to America by the Bush Cabal. I almost hate to dump it in their laps, but somebody has to roll up their sleeves and lead the clean-up crew.

[AZBlue]

102. There are kool-aid drinkers on both sides of the aisle.

Sad to say.

[AtomicKitten]

129. its mirror-image venom

it's almost viral -- some people are so willing to get sucked into the vortex of the vitriol with very little thought or provocation

[AZBlue]

252. Unfortunately it's the anonymity that allows people to get away with it.

People find a release for all their other frustrations in life here and can do so behind an anonymous screen name. Kind of sad really - seems like a better plan would be to address those frustrations head-on instead of using some innocent bystander as a punching bag. In terms of HRC, certainly she has her detractors - I know some personally. But I've never heard any of them spew the hatred and negativity that I find here - nor do I think those who spew it here actually say these things in their "real" offline life.

[AtomicKitten]

253. Anonymity does brings out unbridled ugliness.

I have started having dinner parties a couple times a month with my sassy political friends. It gets heated but all in good fun. A particular conversation resulted in one guy saying to another, "You stupid cow," (mimicking the character in Little Britain) which caused a dinner roll to be lobbed at his head which caused the Shiraz to come out of my nose. Ah, good times.

I only wish we could have that kind of fun here.

[AZBlue]

255. Ah, I believe you've identified the problem:

We need more rolls and Shiraz here.


Well, definitely more Shiraz.

[AtomicKitten]

256. definitely more Shiraz

[etherealtruth]

26. No, no, no ...

HRC is evil incarnate ... she is the reason all is not good in the world:sarcasm:

She is a successful politician ... so yes, she has engaged in politicking.

edit: to add ... I'm agreeing with everything you said.

[MADem]

32. It's easier than saying why other candidates are a better choice, is my guess.

It's cheap and easy. It's a shortcut for the intellectually uncurious and the flat-out lazy. It's great for fight-starting.

Then, there's a subset of rather immature "counterculture for counterculture's sake" folk who don't have a clue about how politics in DC works, but they just like to rage against anything they view as conventional and old-fogeyish, because that's 'cool' I suppose.

Also, it's entirely possible that some of these folks are deliberate agitators with a mission to derail the Senator's candidacy, and they're doing it knowingly, and maybe even getting paid for it. I'm told that this scenario is more common than many of us realize. I've never come right up against one of them one-on-one that I know of (though I've seen a few folks get the old stone avatar, not sure if for that or something else), but I've no reason to disbelieve these reports.

These hating people don't like to admit it, but many of them are from the very demographic group that doesn't even bother to make it to the polls. The All Talk, No Walk subset. They are very vocal here, but they are not the majority of the Democratic Party. This forum is not representative of the entire spectrum of the party--it leans way more left than the party actually is. There's scant representation from the right side of the party (though Jack Murtha, who is a Dem-rightie, gets a pass here for a short while due to his war views), and not much of the vast mushy middle, either.

I agree with your sense that deliberate negativity tends to bring out the contrarian in a lot of people. The more they shit on someone in repetitive, cheap and unfair fashion, the more I sense that the person might have something to offer, and I question the motives of the trashers, else why protest so much?

That said, I'm still undecided (unless Gore gets in), and I'll wait for the debates before I make a choice. And the more people crap on any one candidate, the closer I will listen to their views.

[pampango]

151. How much of the anti-Hillary movement is issues based vs.

"She's #1 in the polls and our guy can't win unless she loses" strategic approach? For many it is a combination of the two but the percentages would be interesting, if it were possible to calculate them. I imagine that if (when?) Obama moves to #1 in the polls, the Hillary, Edwards, Gore, Clark and other camps will launch an explosion of questions about him and his stance, or lack thereof, on issues as a means of knocking him of the perch.

Every one of us is entitled to a "litmus test", by any name, whether it is the IWR, current withdrawal/defunding proposals, prochoice, antiglobalization, or any other issue in terms of whom we can support and whom we can't. Others choose to go with a "body of work" approach to their candidate selection. The important question for the Democratic Party is "what happens in the general election if the Democratic and Republican candidates fail the "litmus test"? Do you fall back to the "body of work" factor or go third party and stay true to your beliefs?"

[MADem]

224. Based on some comments I have read on this very forum, a lot of the objections are based on lies.

Not issues, nor litmus tests, nor strategic considerations.

I'm stunned at how her positions are authoritatively misrepresented by people who claim to be Democrats--it's as though they've got the Faux newsfeed running in continuous loop in their heads.

I have no objection to people who take issue with her on her specific stances, but when they get all High School Drama Class and spout horseshit and falsehoods, I lose all respect for them. I also wonder what could be their motivation, frankly.

And if some want "litmus test" well, fine with me, go for it. But they mustn't assert that she failed the litmus test AND eats ground-up infants with her oatmeal at breakfast. And if some prefer "Body of work" well, that's fine too, but don't suggest that she wants to start a war with Australia to take control of the Kangaroo population! There's always a smidgen of truth plopped on the Texas Toast of Lies with that woman--I have no idea why, but that's how it seems to play.

I don't think you understand my position on the Senator, though, because you are asking these questions of me as though I am her advocate. I am not. I am an undecided voter who will decide if Gore jumps in. If he doesn't, I intend to make up my mind after I see a debate or three. I think the field has some good choices in it--the weakest candidate is a hundred times stronger than the present occupant of the White House. I speak up for Clinton every now and again because I have a sense of fair play, and I think the piling-on is cruel, ignorant, cowardly, a bit sexist, and dare I say, un-Democratic.

As for third party options, and this is not a suggestion, an admonition, or anything other than just my very personal opinion: Third party voters might ask themselves what the hell they are doing here if they are serious about their beliefs, and not just playing the role of "Contrary, Attention-Seeking Blowhard." If they aren't onboard with the Democratic Party, they really don't need to be engaging me on Democratic Underground, because I am uninterested in useless debate. My goal is to put a Democrat (who will choose a Democratic cabinet, seat sane judges, and fill Supreme Court vacancies with people who don't believe that Adam and Eve had a pet dinosaur) in the White House, not dance around with ineffectual whiners who support Third Party impossible pipe dreams. That may sound harsh, and I don't mean it to be, but I do mean it to be FIRM. I have no time for the "Take My Ball and Go Home" bozos--fine, let them, so we can get on with our work.

Third Party enthusiasts, if they were serious about their own candidates, would be out working for them, not nibbling around the fringes of DU, trolling for the odd voter and trying to foment discontent. As we get closer to the elections, too, third party voters won't be welcomed here, if they're supporting any candidates in opposition to Democrats. That's not me being mean, that's in the forum rules--this isn't Third Party Underground, after all.

[mtnsnake]

249. Wow! Now that is one quality post. Thank you for posting that.

That is one of the best posts ever on this subject and worthy of a thread in itself.

My hat is off to you, MADem!

:toast:

[AtomicKitten]

254. damn, mine too

My hat is off to you, MADem!

[MADem]

279. Awwww, shucks...

:toast:

Thanks!

[Alamom]

287. YES, excellent post. n/t

[juajen]

272. Fantastic post!

Worth reading the crap to get to the gold. Thanks for your eloquence.

[Tellurian]

277. Great analysis..

As for third party options, and this is not a suggestion, an admonition, or anything other than just my very personal opinion: Third party voters might ask themselves what the hell they are doing here if they are serious about their beliefs, and not just playing the role of "Contrary, Attention-Seeking Blowhard." If they aren't onboard with the Democratic Party, they really don't need to be engaging me on Democratic Underground, because I am uninterested in useless debate. My goal is to put a Democrat (who will choose a Democratic cabinet, seat sane judges, and fill Supreme Court vacancies with people who don't believe that Adam and Eve had a pet dinosaur) in the White House, not dance around with ineffectual whiners who support Third Party impossible pipe dreams. That may sound harsh, and I don't mean it to be, but I do mean it to be FIRM. I have no time for the "Take My Ball and Go Home" bozos--fine, let them, so we can get on with our work.

Third Party enthusiasts, if they were serious about their own candidates, would be out working for them, not nibbling around the fringes of DU, trolling for the odd voter and trying to foment discontent. As we get closer to the elections, too, third party voters won't be welcomed here, if they're supporting any candidates in opposition to Democrats. That's not me being mean, that's in the forum rules--this isn't Third Party Underground, after all.

And, well stated. Hopefully the forum rules will be adhered-to allowing us to get to work for the real fight, the fight to get our candidate elected and installed into the White House.

[laugle]

305. Great post!! Thanks.....you hit it on the head! n/t

[ghastly]

41. Hilary pile-on

If all remember, the late great Molly forcefully came out
against Hilary's candidacy early, accused her and DC dems as
triangulating' to death.

[MADem]

50. Just because she's dead doesn't mean everyone has to agree with her, though.

She's a late great Democrat with an opinion about another Democrat who is running for the Presidency.

Democrats who support the Senator are STILL Democrats, no matter how many people here try to suggest otherwise.

[mtnsnake]

61. Do you always let one single person influence how you feel about another?

Maybe you ought to get to know the real Hillary better so you can judge her for yourself, not from what somebody else thinks of her.

[mtnsnake]

49. Why the pile on? It's easy to understand why

Lots of different reasons.

Some pile on because she doesn't subscribe to ONLY the 1 or 2 special interests that's all that matters to some people. Hillary is more about compromise, and compromise is not a word in the dictionary of all her naysayers here.

Others pile on out of sheer jealousy because their favorite candidate doesn't come close to holding the same clout that Hillary has...clout she's earned on her own, btw.

Others pile on because they think that if they run her into the ground with their lies and allegations about her that the sheep will believe their propaganda if it's repeated enough times.

Yet others pile on because some just can't stand it that a moderate Democrat will most likely get the nod, whether it's Hillary, Obama, or Edwards...and all three of them will be moderate once the general election rolls around no matter which onc gets the nod. These people are never happy no matter what.

Still more pile on because they're just plain angry, and who better to take out their anger and bitterness on than a brilliant woman like Hillary.

Mostly, the people who pile on do it because they're just plain weak, and piling on with the crowd is a lot easier than standing up for the truth.

The lies about Hillary roll on and on as if coming down an assembly line. Whether it's from the right or left, well there isn't much to distinguish between the two extremes.

[MADem]

52. Well, I gotta say YOU have a lotta NERVE!!!!

Telling the TRUTH like that, in such a reasonable and mature manner!!!

Seriously, good post.

[mtnsnake]

54. Thanks, MADem.

Don't forget...the t in mtnsnake stands for truth. :evilgrin:

[AtomicKitten]

56. I can only stomach Faux News for about 10 seconds

..... and then have to turn the channel. It is that same kind of twisting of facts and knee-jerks nasty epithets heard here at DU about Hillary that completely puts me off. I respect honest, reasonable opposition to her, hell I'm opposed to any of the knuckleheads that voted "yes" on the IWR, but really gag on the unmitigated BS spread around about her and parroted by others with no clue as to true or reality. My point is that we could very well be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

That said, I fully support Al Gore and, if he doesn't run, Gobama. w00t!!!

[mike_c]

58. I don't post OPs trashing HRC but I WILL NOT vote for her...

...under any circumstances. I will argue about my reasons, but frankly see no justification for a trash-a-thon. My mind is already quite made up about HRC.

[AtomicKitten]

62. I respect your opinion.

Thanks for stating it reasonably.

[TreasonousBastard]

60. Just think back to the mess a couple of years ago...

and brace yourself for a repeat.

We got trolls and we got assholes. Unfortunately, it too often seems the loudest voices around here are the ones who know or care, least about what's going on, but insist we all hear about it. Keyboard warriors, and I'll admit much of the time I'm one too, drive me nuts

Maybe the ones really working positively for a candidate are too busy working to post?

Maybe, like the actual Kerry campaign worker who got hounded off here in 2000, the real players just can't be bothered trying to be heard above the noise. After all, even 100,000+ members means means squat if they can't agree on anything and a positive comment often as not gets you attacked from all sides.

[AtomicKitten]

64. I "missed" the 2002 and 2004 election chat here at DU.

From what I hear "missed" perhaps isn't the appropriate word. :)

[TreasonousBastard]

71. You didn't miss much-- it was horrible...

the primary wars were bad enough, but even during the general there was as much complaining about how things were going, and "advice" on how to fix things as useful commentary.

We lost a lot of good DUers in those times.

Fasten your seatbelt...

[AtomicKitten]

75. Truthfully, I don't know if I have the stomach for it.

[TreasonousBastard]

82. Like I say-- we lost a lot of good people...

and some not so good ones, too. but I miss the good ones.

The "ignore" button can be your best friend at times like this. I hate to use it, but it helps retain sanity.

[bluehighways911]

68. I Love Bush Jr.

Hillary is what we need. Another George Bush.

She is another puppet that would be nowhere without her last name.

At don't worry, I consider Edwards the same as her.

They knew Bush was lying and voted for the war anyway.

So tell me, why should I trust them now.

[AtomicKitten]

73. So, Hillary is "another George Bush"???????

Hardly, but thanks for parroting the very rhetoric I was referring to in my OP.

[MADem]

77. It didn't take long, did it?

I do take heart in this little survey, but sometimes I am disappointed when everyone cannot live up to this fine standard:

Libertarians are much more likely to be male (59%) and young (33% are under age 30) than are any of the other groups; they are also more numerous in western states. Liberals are far better educated than other groups (48% college graduates, compared with an overall average of 27%). By contrast, populists are less educated, with just 16% holding college degrees, and nearly half of them live in the south. They are less affluent as well: only 13% live in households with incomes of $75,000 or higher - 8 percentage points lower than the national average.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/17/in-search-of-ideologues-in-america

[druidity33]

149. what are you saying?

Are you saying that if you've not been to college, you're less educated? I believe populism among working folk is rampant because people are working folk and don't trust the "educated elite" to look out for them. Have they ever?

I am not excited about some of Hills decisions and WILL NOT vote for her in a primary. I will hold my nose and vote for her in the general if she gets the nod. But IMO, i would prefer a candidate who knows what it is like to live in a working class family. Better yet, someone who's family has seen financial struggles, who understands what it is REALLY LIKE to be out there. She's not that candidate. Maybe Clark, or Kooch, but not her...

So please clarify what this quote is supposed to mean for us... b/c the way i see it, you're saying that the votes of poor and uneducated people are somehow less valid or informed. Tell me that isn't so...

[MADem]

221. You really should read the ENTIRE thead in context before you spend all that

time writing a "response rant" that is full of assumptions about what you THINK I was saying. I wasn't talking to you, either the individual you, or the collective you. I was responding to AtomicKitten. The quote was for her, in the context of her discussions.

Pull the string, and read the entire thread, and pay close attention to the knee-jerk repetitions of false, rightwing talking points that are being spoon fed to the uninitiated here.

When people repeat lies, and they're called on them and provided proof that they are spouting untruths, and yet they still insist on parroting them again, that's not a recommendation as to their intelligence. I won't go further than that. If you want to take it further in your own mind, go right ahead.

You have every right to dislike Senator Clinton, if you so choose. So long as your dislike is based on TRUE objections to her policies, and not a stinking load of false GOP horseshit sprinkled with powdered sugar that you've greedily shovelled down like a hearty breakfast, I'm not aiming at you.

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't insist on trying to cram your foot into it.

[AtomicKitten]

227. good imagery

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't insist on trying to cram your foot into it.

[mtnsnake]

89. I believe you do. Next you'll be bragging how you voted for Nader

and sat there in shock when Bush was handed the job and you wondered why.

[peaceandfreedom]

320. she is corrupt

HRC is completely corrupt! It is so obvious. Her corruption goes back at least to the Clinton presidency if not back to Ark. She is for sale to the highest bidder. She will represent the interests of the corporations, super wealthy, war mongers, neocons, and other countries before she will represent the people of the USA. She is a star member of the Bush crime family. She will continue global endless war. I have many questions before I would vote for her. But just one will suffice? HRC, tell me what happened to Vince Foster? Why were people who worked for you in his office removing documents before you supposedly know he was dead? What was removed? Sorry, one more question, if you are opposed to the Iraq war, why did you vote for it? You were misled? How come I knew at the time that Bush was lying but you did not? What are you doing to end the war now, besides nothing? What are you doing to stop an Iran war?

[unkachuck]

74. I think we're witnessing....

....the Shit-Pile phenomena....

....did you ever travel and see a small pile of shit/garbage along-side a road in a ditch?....day after day the pile grows larger and larger as people add their shit to the pile, simply because it's there....

....Hillary is a war-mongering, corporatist Shit-Pile and people just can't control themselves....

[AtomicKitten]

76. "Hillary is a war-mongering, corporatist Shit-Pile"

Ah, okay.

Thanks for the contribution to the conversation and illustrating what I'm talking about in the OP.

[laugle]

242. Hey AK! I've been gone awhile......sometimes "life" gets in the way...

but I guess "the more things change the more they stay the same!"

"Shit pile" now that's really intelligent dialogue!!

Thanks again for at least trying to inject some civility into the mix......

[AtomicKitten]

245. Hey stranger.

Rumor has it this stuff is cyclic. The scary part is not knowing which part of the cycle we are in now.

Please quit being such a stranger around here.

[unkachuck]

307. now you did it....

....I was just about ready to vote for Hillary and now I've changed my mind....screw you, you elitist twit....

[laugle]

308. Stop the name calling!!

You just proved my point again!!

You have no respect for people--you need some anger management therapy.

[mtnsnake]

90. Not everyone runs around studying shit piles like you do

...so, no, many of us haven't witnessed these shit piles that you seem to be such an authority about. I'm curious, though. How does one get involved in the hobby of shit piles?

[NDP]

78. I could care less about "Hillary Clinton," but I care a lot about what "Hillary Clinton" represents.

She represents a past that does not need to be relived. We can do "better" than we did during the 1990s, when the Republican Party and the Corporate media were empowered through further corporatizing of the Democratic Party and that ridiculous Telecommunications bill. Besides, why would we want to spend all of 2008 hearing about Bill's alleged indiscretions.

She represents privilege. No one would be taking her seriously if she wasn't married to a former President. Her advantage is based on who she's married to, and "Mrs Entitlement" knows it. That is privilege.

She represents the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, the side that the "bigs" love almost as much as the Republican Party. She is a corporate Uncle Tom, in a house that's ultimately not in line with what I believe the country needs in terms of economic fairness.

The mindset that we should support anyone with a "D" behind their name, as if being a Democrat is all that matters, should bring a smile to Zell Miller's face. Well, the truth is nothing would bring a smile to Zell Miller's face. But it definitely brings a smile to the faces of the powers that be, whenever they can get a two for one. Either a Republican or a corporate-Dem, because their party will give them to us just because they have a "D" behind their name.

My solution. Kick the Clintons and the Bushes to the curb.

[AtomicKitten]

79. There is strength in solidarity.

I don't know about you, but I care whether the next president is a Democrat or a Republican. Justice Stevens is 86 and the next president will almost certainly appoint the next Supreme Court justice. That matters. In fact, that matters MORE than the presidency itself as it may very well alter the very fabric of America for generations to come.

While you may be content, perhaps even smug in your rhetorical platitudes regarding Hillary, there is a much bigger picture here that you are not seeing; whether that is purposefully or just carelessly, I can't say.

[MADem]

222. The next President picks a cabinet, judges, a Supreme or three.

People who insist it doesn't matter aren't too swift. A lot of them just don't see the picture laid before them. They actually think this shit is a team sport, not our very real future.

[AtomicKitten]

226. indeed

It matters.

[NDP]

230. Yes, who is nominated and who wins matters, so nominate someone other than Clinton. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

232. Democracy works like this:

One vote per person. The one with the most votes wins.

No sniveling.

Repeat and rinse for the general.

Disclaimer:

[NDP]

229. Who said it doesn't matter? I described Clinton as Republican-lite, but the fact is, she does not

have to be nominated, period. People who walk around with this ridiculous acceptance of her media-anointed sense of "inevitability" need to wake up. I'm not saying that a Republican = a Democrat. I'm saying the powers that be would love Hillary or a Republican.

[MADem]

231. Your characterization of her, though, is false. Your assumptions about her are based on the big GOP

LIE. One that you just repeated (she is NOT Republican-Lite, unless you're talking a Linc Chaffee Republican, and that guy was more "Democratic" than some of our sitting Blue Dogs).

Take some time and actually read her """MODERATE-LIBERAL""" record. Check her votes. Check her ACLU, Teachers Association, and other group endorsements. There are links to that information in this thread.

I just can't take you seriously when you make those kinds of broad-brush remarks. No one is saying she HAS to be nominated, except you--you're suggesting it, with dire portent. Who said shit about "inevitability?"

It does matter that we get a Democrat in. And if she makes it to the nom, well, there ya go. But walk back the cat--this THREAD is ABOUT Hillary...that's why she's the subject of these subset discussions--because this thread is ABOUT her.

Step back and put the discussion into context.

If Hillary were so damned Republican, the right wing wouldn't be trying so desperately to marginalize her in any and every way they can, to INCLUDE telling the right wing she's a liberal and the left wing she's a rightie.

And FWIW, I'll repeat this one more time--I'm not on her team. I just dislike it when people shop false assertions about her, about Senator Obama, about any of the candidates. It offends my sense of fair play.

[NDP]

228. Democrat does not mean "Hillary Clinton." There is a much bigger picture that you are not seeing

because you are too fixated on the "D." Give me a Democrat other than Hillary Clinton, and I'll be satisfied.

[AtomicKitten]

234. You are clearly an absolutist.

Not only does democracy not mean Hillary Clinton, it includes Hillary Clinton.

It also means that the candidate with the most votes wins the primary, and that is how our nominee will be chosen. That's how democracy works. Whether or not you are satisfied is beside the point.

I am throwing my support behind the only viable entity - THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE - that can and will beat the Republican nominee; that is the object of my "fixation."

[Hawkowl]

285. You missed the point

He said we can do BETTER. That is not negative, that is positive thinking. You are disingenuous when you denigrate those who genuinely are nothing but negative bashers and then spin a positive "we can do better post into an anti-Hilary diatribe". I don't think you mean to do this, but that is exactly the line Hilary supporters take-- a simply more nuanced "you're either for us or against us" mentality.

Take off your blinders and a few minutes to think before you type. He didn't say there was no difference between rethugs and dems. He said Hilary represents the corporation supporting wing of the democratic party and we could do better than the corporatist wing of the democratic party. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT ASSERTION?

There are a great many of us who don't support Hilary at all, but would never vote against her in the general election. However, this is a crucial crisis in American History. As Al Gore and the Chinese say crisis is opportunity. The last time this happened we got Jimmy Carter, a saint of a man who couldn't play hardball to save his life. This resulted in us missing the opportunity to put the stake in the heart of the vampires of the rethuglican party and they indeed came back from the dead under Reagan (e.g; Cheney & Rumsfeld).

If Hilary gets elected, she will unite the opposition in hatred and prevent the complete dissolution of the rethuglican party. She could very well be a one term president and once again we miss our opportunity to really refashion the military/industrial/congressional complex. This is what is at stake. I don't give a damn about her personally, I care about if she will run the country or her puppet masters the corporations will run it by pulling her strings.

We can do better by choosing a candidate who can unite at least unite the Democratic party first, before attempting to unite the country and the world as a whole.

[AtomicKitten]

291. you might want to read/re-read my OP and this thread

The analysis you have launched is based on misconceptions that would have been easily cleared up or answered had you read the thread, but since I have a couple minutes to burn today, I'll indulge you:

1.

You are disingenuous when you denigrate those who genuinely are nothing but negative bashers and then spin a positive "we can do better post into an anti-Hilary diatribe". I don't think you mean to do this, but that is exactly the line Hilary supporters take-- a simply more nuanced "you're either for us or against us" mentality.

My OP doesn't tell anyone how to vote, it is in specific reference to caliber of dialogue around here at DU and directed to those that plan to vote for the Democratic nominee whoever that may be. The post on solidarity was merely explaining the merits of a cohesive voting block.


2.

Take off your blinders and a few minutes to think before you type.

Dismissive yet instructional.


3.

He said Hilary represents the corporation supporting wing of the democratic party and we could do better than the corporatist wing of the democratic party. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT ASSERTION?

I have answered that several times, but you would have had to read the thread in order to ascertain that information. No, I don't agree with that broad-brush accusation. ALL the candidates take money from corporations. That is a sad, hard cold fact of the American election process, and until reform is effected across the board, I would never sacrifice the Democratic candidates on the altar of ideological purity.



4.

There are a great many of us who don't support Hilary at all, but would never vote against her in the general election.

That is your prerogative. However, as I mentioned in my OP which you would have had to read to know, people that aren't going to vote for her anyway don't care about the effect of the 24/7 Hillary trash-a-thon if she does get the nod, ergo, the question in my OP was directed specifically to people that will support the Democratic nominee whoever that may be.


Good luck on your campaign here at DU.

[cascadiance]

133. Same for me. I really don't have much personally against HRC... But the DLC is another story!

I will do my DAMNDEST to make sure that the DLC and any other organization that exercises corporate influence will not have power over our 2008 nominated candidate. Hillary is too tied to the DLC for my tastes. To me that is THE MOST important thing I'm looking for and it is almost as important as the general election is, because it is in effect our only means in the nomination process to get rid of the corporate one party rule that affects both parties now and affects all of the ways they vote on stuff and is why so many in congress now are two faced or "do nothing". They're trying to ansewr to two masters, and it doesn't work, and it doesn't serve us who are SUPPOSED to be their constituents. But they're being tugged at by the money purse strings, and as long as we have that we're going to continue to get screwed in so many areas (education, health care, election lobbying and integrity, global warming, outsourcing of jobs, etc.) You name it and almost every issue has an undercurrent of corporate control that works against our wishes.

Until Hillary Clinton comes out boldly and says she wants to institute public campaign financing to wean ourselves off of corporate control, she will most assuredly not be my first choice for the nomination. Now if it's the general election, and I'm told I have a choice between her and a Republican that's just as beholden to corporations then I'll hold my nose and vote for her all the while while I'm considering moving to Europe or someplace else that might not be seeing its democracy going downhill so much as it is here.

[Warren Stupidity]

81. It is not our fault. Code Pink made us do it. nt.

[Hav]

85. .

Ok, I just read that you weren't here in 2004.
I don't want to deny that many posters here have real reasons that make them "dislike" Hillary Clinton besides having their own favourite candidate. But I think an important reason is that she is currently seen as the front runner. That makes her the target number 1, the person to beat for their own candidate.
If another candidate comes really close, he will become the next major target for the other camps. That's how it was in 2004.
Back then, in order to push their own candidate, many good Dems were trashed right here on DU. Even typical right wing smears were used.

Dean was a nut-job who had no chance at all to win the general election, Clark wasn't a real Democrat because many years ago he voted for Repubs, Kerry's war wounds were nothing more than paper cuts and so on. Of course, every smear thread resulted in more smear threads in order to retaliate and these were just as stupid.
And almost a year before the important primaries, this reasoning to post stupid smear threads to counter other attack threads can already be seen in action.

I never got it. It is transparent and in 2004 it surely didn't help their own candidates because it caused many bad feelings.

[AtomicKitten]

86. Thanks for explaining the way it went

... and that really does put my dismay at the way it is going down here now into perspective.

Good to know.

Hopefully this guy's candidacy will turn the hose on some of the nastiness here:

[lwcon]

87. I don't habitually trash Hillary

I thought she did a fine job as First Lady, and I've been enthusiastic about her taking up shop in the Senate. I was also impressed by the excerpts of her thesis, which recently made the rounds.

But she's said and done a lot of things on this still-young campaign that are very disappointing.

Buddying up to Rupert Murdoch, insulting young people, continuing to (intermittently) rationalize the Iraq war, and hanging gays out to dry by saying it's up to others to decide whether they're moral. All these things frustrate the hell out of me, and move her way, way down my list.

I do, however, trust that if elected she'd try to improve the country in her own overly consultanted "centrist" way. She's smart, and she has -- I think -- a good heart.

When all is said and done, I will vote for any nominated Dem to the left of Joe Lieberman. Today's Republican Party is a thoroughly disgraced and discredited organization that should not be allowed near anything including dog catcher.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[AtomicKitten]

95. I think you are being too kind.

Today's Republican Party is a thoroughly disgraced and discredited organization that should not be allowed near anything including dog catcher.

Did you see Mike Huckabee on Bill Maher? I actually used to find him pleasant, but he has become homogenized and so enmeshed in the GOP talking points with his nose firmly embedded in Bush's arse. Disgusting.

Actually we should be thrilled none of the GOP candidates deviate much from the same talking points because otherwise they might be dangerous.

[lwcon]

159. In his way...

... I thought Huckabee was showing the same symptoms of consultanted Stepford mind control that Hillary has, but in the service of The Dark Side. He dared to take the high road on atheists, but then he let the programmed voices in his head take over on the gay rights questions, somewhat worse than Hillary just did, but nowhere near as hideously as McCain just did on the AIDS questions.

[OHdem10]

92. I am going out on a limb--Could it

possibly be that it is not Hillary, per se, but a fowled
up system. Could it be that some(maybe even in subconscious
level) are really angry at system which on appearances
decided we have only 2 frontrunners. Could it be they
feel they have had something kinda shoved down their
throat. It has been as though someone on high said
Hey, DU, Democrats.Com Daily Kos and other Dem Sites,
here are your candidates. Choose one I do not pretend
to know what goes through everyones' mind. I have just
wondered if there is some"just under the surface anger,
frustration, whatever one might call it; and Hilary
being a lightening rod, God Bless Her, she catches
the flying fur.

Those old days when Candidates were chosen in "smoke-filled
backrooms brought us some darn good presidents.

[AtomicKitten]

96. money in politics and the media Heathers

.... have completely distorted the election process. Quite frankly, I don't envy any of them and wonder how it will affect the ultimate nominee. The MSM has been notoriously unfriendly to the Democratic candidates. One thing Hill does have going for her is that she is pretty resilient to the tidal wave of crap thrown at her. I hope this election our candidate has an immediate response team to deal with it.

And I so hope the best man or woman wins the nomination. America requires it.

[skipos]

93. I don't think she should be our nominee. It's that simple.

She doesn't have the best record of our candidates.
She doesn't have the most experience.
She won't be the strongest in the general election.
I do not think she would be the best president.

I can think of no reason to support her.

[AtomicKitten]

94. you have stated your case respectfully

... and I respect that. Thank you.

[rodeodance]

103. I try to ignore those posts (for the most part). We need to give all

the candidates a chance and all this dissing of Hil is very unproductive.

[AtomicKitten]

110. some refuse influx of actual information and facts

on her and others .... they have made up their minds already and aren't interested

[jaysunb]

104. Some people don't want her for President.

I hope this answers your question....

[AtomicKitten]

109. that doesn't explain the behavior

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ellisonz]

135. And for good reason!

Until she says, my vote for the war was wrong (+the other crap votes) and I regret making it and ever standing by it, I will not even give her a chance.

She's no Bobby Kennedy, that's for sure!

:hi:

[Clarkie1]

105. This country will not advance forward until we break free of the Bush/Clinton hold on government. nt

[AtomicKitten]

107. No one can state with certainty

that she would be a terrible president. I don't think ANY of our possible contenders would be a terrible president, but any one of the GOP contenders would most certainly be a disaster - and I sure as hell don't want one of THEM appointing the next Supreme Court justice.

Broad-brush characterizations aren't conducive to a reasonable discussion of actual issues.

[Captain Hilts]

145. Please don't link the Bush Admins and the Clinton admin. They're very different. nt

[leftofthedial]

106. she's a weird democratic-repuke hybrid

that makes actual democrats uncomfortable, or even pissed off.

[AtomicKitten]

108. not even close

courtesy of MADem upthread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3168003&mesg_id=3168067

Hillary Clinton is a moderate liberal.

[w4rma]

112. The BS she pulls behind the scenes is the problem. She has carefully crafted her voting record.

Also, she's too polarizing to be our nominee. The Rethugs will turn out in record number just to get a piece of her at the voting booth. And that will hurt every race in every state.

Actually, let me add to that that. She's only polarizing to the right-wing. The left-wing will *not* turn out in record numbers to offset the Rethugs who will.

I strongly oppose her because I am concerned with what her nomination will do to the Democratic Party.

[AtomicKitten]

113. "BS she pulls behind the scenes" is internet lore

... with zero proof but perpetrated and spread around as if it is fact.

It's the kind of crap that exists within the blog (i.e. opinion) community that has life breathed into it by people that want it to be true as an excuse to fuel the jihad waged against the Clintons.

[w4rma]

115. Geeze, don't tell me you're another Hillary zealot. I've been paying close attention to her actions

and her words. Did you even know that Hillary was a former board member of Wal-Mart and that company benefited the most, of any business in the world, from Clinton's Presidency? That is most likely not just a coincidence. Or maybe you'll write that off as more "internet lore", too.

And, btw, it ticks me off when people demean the internet as a source for news. Especially when one considers the alternative and who owns and operates most of it. Just makes me like her less.

[AtomicKitten]

116. that's right, w4rma

I am a zealot fanatically committed to fairness and reason.

You need to check the dates on your Wal*Mart "facts." It completely mitigates your accusation.

I don't and did not demean the internet as a news source. I do, however, have a problem with people that don't know the difference between opinion and fact.

[w4rma]

117. There can't be anything wrong with my "dates" since I never noted any "dates". Check your facts.(nt)

[AtomicKitten]

122. she was appointed to the board in 1986

Wal*Mart was a very different company then.

Here's some facts:

Hillary Clinton Returns Wal-Mart Cash

The Associated Press reports that Hillary Clinton has returned $5,000 Wal-Mart's political action committee had previously donated to her "because of serious differences with current company practices."

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton gathered checks from Hollywood friends, John Kerry's wife and even a former Republican congressman, but records filed Friday show she returned cash from an even older ally -- Wal-Mart...

Clinton returned $5,000 to the political action committee of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., a company with long ties to the Clintons dating back to their days in Arkansas, where Wal-Mart is headquartered.

Clinton campaign spokeswoman Ann Lewis said the money was returned "because of serious differences with current company practices."

The senator served on the Wal-Mart board from 1986 to 1992, and was close with the Walton family that created the nation's largest retailer.

But the senator signaled a new stance on the company's business practices in a speech last week, when she told the U.S. Conference of Mayors that the company should provide better worker benefits.

"Cities and states are saying we can't keep holding the bag here," Clinton told the conference, citing a new Maryland law requiring Wal-Mart to spend 8 percent of payroll in health benefits or contribute to insurance plans.

[w4rma]

124. Wow, she was a board member for a longer time and more recently than I had thought. Thanks. (nt)

[MADem]

236. Another one of those little 'divide and conquer' lies. It's amazing, people here actually believe

this shit.

You'd think they'd take two seconds to do a little checking. Too much to ask, perhaps?

[leftofthedial]

121. I didn't call her a conservative or liberal

I called her a democrat-repuke hybrid.

she's a politician, not an ideologue.

[oasis]

216. "The truth is hell" said Harry Truman.(eom)

[omega minimo]

114. Good questions. Could be folks are looking for a Populist and Hillary is a Corporatist?

:hi:

[AtomicKitten]

119. "corporatist"

Just not liking her is enough for some people, others actually research the record of candidates to formulate their opinion rather than parroting rhetoric they read on a message board.

[omega minimo]

202. This election will be between the Corporatist and the Populist

If it is a free and fair election, the Populist will win.

You presume to assume too much.

[AtomicKitten]

205. and you use labels instead of analysis

I don't presume/assume anything; you, however, have called this election already based on labels.

Miss Scarlet in the Library with the lead pipe.

Frankly, I'm bored with the mind-numbingly tired rhetorical epithets thrown out here in lieu of substantive discussion and the pissing contest that inevitably ensues by those that think the best insult wins. Feh.

[omega minimo]

215. Back it up a minute, AK, esp. if you are really interested in "substantive discussion"

"Good questions. Could be folks are looking for a Populist and Hillary is a Corporatist?"

My post was in the form of a question-- actually two questions-- about what folks could be looking for, in general. Sneer at the labels if you will. They're appropriate.

I believe those are the broad values that will be relevant in this election, for the American people, anyway. That doesn't mean I believe it will play out that way-- again, I said "If" we have free and fair elections. We'll see.

I also believe Hillary may become presiden. She is not my choice. And I also am not part of any Hillary "pile-ons." Again, my post was a question: "Could be......"

"Frankly, I'm bored with the mind-numbingly tired rhetorical epithets thrown out here in lieu of substantive discussion and the pissing contest that inevitably ensues by those that think the best insult wins. Feh."

I am also not one of your generic pile of DUers and will always refuse to be lumped into some imaginary group behavior and insulted as if that's me. Feh, indeed.

Please-- I mean that, please-- look at your presumptions, assumptions and attitude and ask yourself if sometime you misapply your disgust and "rhetorical epithets thrown out here in lieu of substantive discussion." Your snarks tend to nip discussion in the bud and leave the impression that one has been smacked by a gatekeeper.

[AtomicKitten]

217. Sorry, I took it as a rhetorical question.

I think you are applying the label of "corporatist" rather randomly. Unfortunately the current election system is such that ALL the serious contenders, i.e., those that have a snowball's chance in hell of making it to the show, again ALL of them take $$$ from corporations. And while I am assuming you are labeling Edwards the populist, I agree with that but, again, he is not the only one although he is punctuating that wisely. My only problem with Edwards is that he co-sponsored the IWR which makes him even more complicit than those that just voted 'yes;' still I will express my displeasure in the primary re: the IWR across the board.

I am shell-shocked by some of the mindless snarky epithets thrown about DU, and I certainly did not direct that sigh over the status quo at you but rather was explaining the basis for my OP. My concern remains the "what if" scenario and whether or not DU is trending toward cutting off its nose to spite its face.

And all this will be moot if Al Gore jumps in and bridges the ideological divide here at DU and out there like no other candidate can.

[omega minimo]

233. i see now

"Unfortunately the current election system is such that ALL the serious contenders, i.e., those that have a snowball's chance in hell of making it to the show, again ALL of them take $$$ from corporations."

Yes. That's part of the problem isn't it, including the question mark around how authentic this next election cycle will be?

I don't know if Edwards or anyone at all will step forward as The Populist. So the labels may be randomly floating out there, waiting for someone or no one to take the roles that will decide the future of this nation.

We are continuing down the path that Thom Hartmann calls "Reaganism." What does it mean that many on DU think this mess started "six years ago"? Will a candidate with associations with the Clinton administration explain to the public why the solidification of globalization and corporate consolidation that occurred during Clinton's terms are not part of the same Trickle Down train wreck that RR fashioned for the U.S.?

"My concern remains the "what if" scenario and whether or not DU is trending toward cutting off its nose to spite its face."

I wonder what could help avoid that? The election periods are notorious around here.

And we still as a group and as a Party need to know how dependable the election results will be before we start tearing each OTHER'S noses off during campaigns :spray:

Americans have never come to terms with the past two elections that inflicted Bushco on us. Assuming that we can depend on the 2008 outcome is wishful thinking. Maybe if we took that seriously enough, it could build combined efforts beyond allegiance to candidate.

:thumbsup:

[AtomicKitten]

237. I realize the Dems' plate is full with the

... pile of felonies to be investigated, but I am watching the clock tick-tick-tick realizing we can't waste a moment getting the NEXT election in order. There must be a top-to-bottom review of the myriad of electronic voting machines across the nation; returning to paper and pencil voting may be the only answer. There is no question that unless we ensure clean elections, elections will remain ripe for fraud and at best a crapshoot.

We already know to what depths the GOP will stoop. 2002 was my personal favorite fraud-festival with magical overnight 17-18 point swings in the polling as opposed to the actual outcome, with Congress changing hands as a result. Ironic how the notion that exit polling is used as the harbinger of fraud in other countries but for some mysterious reason was rendered ineffective as of 2000 here in America. Right. A magical coinkidink indeed.

[The River]

118. She's Not A Real Leader

IMHO. The opposite actually..always following what polls well.
She's an OK Senator I guess but I will not vote for her...ever.
Gore, Clark even Edwards but not MRS Clinton

[BenDavid]

120. I believe it's about time I

wrote my thoughts about HRC and the constant negative statements by those that do not support her. For some reason, some Democrats in here can't say, "I prefer Edwards or Obama." No, that won't do - that would take a measure of adulthood. It is always something negative about HRC, but that is your right to express exactly what you desire. but I too get to write what I feel....

I wonder if these same folks that respond to anything HRC puts out are the same ones that say she must apologize for her vote on Iraq and in some way claim she is enabling this war? Ask yourself how stupid it would sound to say,Max Cleland's enabling the Iraq war disaster, Joe Biden's enabling the Iraq war disaster, Tom Harken's enabling the Iraq war disaster, John Kerry's enabling the Iraq war disaster, Chuck Schumers enabling the Iraq war disaster.(On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 voted Yea)

You see? It's no fun to hold Harken or Kerry responsible for BUSH's disaster, but the freshman Senator from New York, SHE's responsible for BUSH's disaster all on her own. It was HER vote thats killed 3216 soldiers and Cleland, Kerry and Edwards had NOTHING to do with it.

If this is not you, then why is it that folks keep up the rant that HRC must apologize.....This fever reminds me of the GOP's impeachment fever back in 1998. Bill's impeachment was like a criminal assault and battery. NOTHING was going to stop that impeachment because they had the fever. The GOP was "caught up" with impeachment fever - that's all they could see or hear. Bill's approval rating was in the 70s - and voters clearly didn't want him to be impeached, but like the criminal who can't stop until he assaults enough, it was GOING to happen.

Hell, the GOP lost seats in November of 1998 - but that didn't matter to them. NOTHING was going to stop that impeachment because they had the fever. They lived and breathed impeachment the way some people are now living and breathing "Stop her!"

IF YOU,LIKE ANOTHER CANDIDATE BETTER THAN HRC,VOTE FOR HIM OR HER...... But when I read some of the vitriol comments directed towards HRC, you got the fever and that tells me something.

Question: Of all the people screaming at Her today, how many gave Kerry a pass for his vote in 2004? Gee, suddenly the room got reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal quiet.Let's have a show of hands - who forgave Kerry in 2004 for his Iraq vote, but now hates Hillary's f-ing guts for voting exactly the same way he did?

Explain why Kerry got a pass on the Iraq war vote - but she doesn't.And when asked the question: If you knew then what you know now would you still send troops? Hillary answered NO! What did Kerry answer? Remember? You should. It was a clear day, with him standing at the Grand Canyon and a reporter asked him(Kerry) that same question and Kerry answered. YES!


And to THOSE, "I'll vote Republican before I'll vote for Her," Democrats need to worry because your "Stop her!" fever is turning you into what the GOP was in 1998, and one other point:

Listen folks each time we hear a talk radio Nazi, or any Fox reporter say "The republicans want Senator Clinton to run," means they're afraid of her. Talk radio and Fox whores are saying great things about Obama, which should make you wonder. Why would facsist bastards say nice things about Obama?

I have nothing bad to say about Obama. If Obama wins - whoever wins the Democratic nomination, I'm behind him/her all the way. (That's a sentence you won't hear from most in here.)

But seriously, between Obama with two years experience and the only team to win back-to-back presidential campaigns since FDR, (the team that beat war hero Bush and war hero Dole), ...

who do you think the super-racist GOP wants to run against?

I do thank you
"in the interest of peace"(mi-pene darkhei shalom)

[AtomicKitten]

125. thank you

Too many people interject kneejerk rhetoric thinking the nastier their repartee is the better; they've done their job.

I am so grateful to read such a thoughtful analysis that you have shared with us here. More than you know. You are a mensch.

[w4rma]

128. I prefer Edwards *and* Obama. And I prefer Gore, Clark, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson and Biden.

I prefer all of them more than Hillary.

Does that satisfy you?

[snot]

123. Because we feel someone's foisting her on us for their good not ours.

Certainly I'd vote for her before I'd vote for any Repub.

But I'm mystified as to why she's a front-runner -- it seems to have more to do with choices by powers behind the scenes than with spontaneous popular support.

[babylonsister]

126. Holy moly. I read the first question, and yours. I totally agree. She's being FOISTED

on us, the rethugs are in a tizzy, and I ain't buying it.

[jaysunb]

213. I'm with you Lil Sis...

The " dark side " has been trying to convince us of her inevitability for several years now, and I for one am not buying it. As fond of the Clintons as I am, I have absolutely no reason to want her as President. NONE ! She has not put forth one idea or one passion that would make a difference to the average American. NOT ONE......

The people of New York have a good and able jr. Senator and I hope it will remain that way. Meanwhile, America is in need of a fresh vision and new leadership to get us into the global community.

[AtomicKitten]

127. I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons why.

Which is why I'm thrilled Obama is giving her a run for her money. Competition hones better contenders for the general.

I think it is really, really, really early and there will be a lot of movement in the field. And, if we're lucky (in my opinion), Al Gore will jump in and all this kvetching will be for naught.

[Blue_In_AK]

328. Yes, yes, yes,

FOISTED. The media has told us she was the front-runner before the campaign even got started. I'd like to know who they're polling and where they're doing it because nobody's asked me or anybody I know who their favorite is (other than here on DU where Hillary is definitely at the back of the pack).

I'm all for a female candidate and president, but wouldn't it have been nice if it could have been someone who achieved her popularity because of her own accomplishments, not those of her husband?

Sorry, Hillary just makes me feel very cynical. I'll vote for her if I have to, but I won't be happy about it.

[lostnotforgotten]

131. She Voted For The Iraq War - Bush Enabler - Won't Vote For Her!

eom

[AtomicKitten]

193. So you will be withholding your vote for

... the others that voted for the IWR too? I agree with not rewarding those in the primary that voted "yes" on the IWR, but that includes ALL of them.

[lostnotforgotten]

210. Not DK - Check Your Facts!

eom

[AtomicKitten]

212. Funny story.

I actually wrote and the deleted "the heavier weight candidates" to qualify, but thought that was too snarky.

While I love Dennis Kucinich, organized two fundraisers for him when he spoke in my town in 2004, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning either the primary or general election. Sorry.

[lostnotforgotten]

240. I Vote On Principle Not Media Driven Favoritism!

You can vote however you please!

[AtomicKitten]

243. I vote with principle AND pragmatic common sense.

Now that we have established our individually-perceived "rightness," we both can vote as we please.

Democracy is awesome!

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYCGirl]

146. No offense, but you're wrong. AK's preferred candidate is not Hillary.

I don't believe Hillary is even in her top 5. But she is fed up with the piling on, as are many of us.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

174. Offense intended --- Did you even bother to read my comments in that thread?

From my thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3166168&mesg_id=3166168

Here are my comments on that same thread which prove that (1) I am an Obama supporter, and (2) you obviously don't read threads and just shoot from the lip (high-five to Molly).

My comments:

I had computer trouble earlier when I posted this and couldn't elaborate.

I was originally sent this from someone who had seen it as BREAKING NEWS on the Fox Noise Channel and researched it back to the original LA Times article.

Interestingly I found that the LA Times had been accused of coddling Obama which I thought was pretty amusing in light of this beauty they printed yesterday well AFTER this medrassa crappola had already been dispelled pretty thoroughly.

Anyhoo, FNC had a field day with this mess and all Obama can do is put out statements poo-poo'ing it over and over again.

This struck me as something the wingnuts will do .... it never occurred to me that they would be aided and abetted by the allegedly "ultraliberal Obama-coddling LA Times," or in other words, it's election season again and the Dems better bring a gun to the knife fight.

I was rather stunned to see it come from the LA Times.

I found this article aggressively over-the-top and downright obnoxious.

The MSM LUV being bitchy with the Democratic candidates.

This is from an article I wrote:

CNN's Reliable Sources August 10, 2002 was a genuine eye-opener. Guest Josh Marshall, webmaster of Talking Points, stated, "... I think deep down most reporters just have contempt for Al Gore. I don't even think it's dislike. It's more like disdain and contempt." None of the talking heads disagreed. Guest Dana Milbank, White House reporter for the Washington Post offered,"You know what it is? I think that Gore is sanctimonious and that's sort of the worst thing in the eyes of the press. And he has been disliked all along and it was because he gives a sense that he is better than us ... as reporters."

I thought it was interesting.

I thought the LA Times article was aggressively over-the-top and that Obama must be getting sick and tired of having to correct the misinformation that the MSM seems to love passing around about him.

Ya know, you don't have to post on a thread that you find so lacking of newsworthiness.

Obama has a fascinating diverse background

... and I get the impression that the MSM either doesn't understand that or are trying to exploit it opportunistically just to be bitchy. They have a tendency to do that with Democratic presidential candidates.

[libodem]

137. I don't want to see her shat on by the Republicans.

[AtomicKitten]

196. The GOP Wrecking Machine

... will try to annihilate whoever we put up.

[PresidentObama]

199. Lets hope our brickwall candidate is strong enough for the wrecking ball.

No more crumbling to slime machine tactics of the GOP, and the gotcha politics of the MSM!!

[AtomicKitten]

201. you've got that right

I'm gearing up for a full-on, all-out war with the GOP. We've seen their arsenal of cheese.

[HuffleClaw]

138. what i find hilarious is it that it is the corporate media that is largely responsible

for propping up hillary as THE candidate, though i firmly believe that the vast majority of nay-sayers would still vote for her if she is the nominee.

[mtnsnake]

150. Yes, & it's alarming how many people take it out on HER because of what the media does

Because the corporate media props her up as THE candidate, most of her naysayers here take the brunt of their frustrations out on Hillary, instead of the media, because it's the easy thing to do, even though it's not Hillary's fault that the media is focussing on her so much.

[PresidentObama]

194. Hillary isn't responsible for what the MSM reports.

The media is oozing over the fact that we have a leading candidate in this race that is a woman, and a leading candidate that is black. Thats why Obama and Clinton are getting air time. Not only that but because she's the former First Lady, thats historic. She can't help if they cover her, she can only take advantage of it. You pretend because the Clintons made such a big name for themselves being successful that the MSM shouldn't cover her even though she's a Senator, former First Lady, and would be the first woman nominee and President.

While I wished the media gave Edwards and the second tier candidates more air time, I understand why they cover her so much. Not that I'm defending it, but it's better than 24/7 Anna Nicole Smith coverage. Sheesh.

[Vinca]

141. I don't care for her and will use my NH primary vote for someone else.

I'm convinced the Republicans have something juicy on her and are chomping at the bit, trying to get her nominated as the Democratic candidate. Why else would all of them plus the corporate media be acting as Hillary cheerleaders? That said, if she's the nominee I'll hold my nose and pull the lever. (If any of the following win in 2008, I'm a Canadian: Giuliani, Gingrich, Brownback, Hunter, Romney, McCain.)

[sarcasmo]

142. PNAC. Everything she says smells of PNAC.

[AtomicKitten]

then you need to research PNAC

because she's nowhere in the same ballpark ....

[ulysses]

147. I don't care for her politics.

As to pile-ons, candidates get flak here in proportion to their media exposure and DU popularity.

[Oakland]

153. Nobody like Hillary, anywhere, except

Emily's list and the rest of the establishment who own and crowned her.
If the Dems run a DLC owned canidate, I'm not voting for the President.

[PresidentObama]

154. Nobody likes Hillary? How stupid.....

:boring: Let me know when you can justify THAT position!!

BTW, I think Obama and Edwards both would have something to say about you saying she was crowned the nominee. Sheesh!!

[mtnsnake]

155. Go whine about it on the Green Underground where they might give a shit

If the Dems run a DLC owned canidate, I'm not voting for the President

So wadda ya want, a medal?

[smoogatz]

156. Yes. Please stop piling Hillary on DU.

Every time you make a pile of Hillary on DU, somebody has to clean it up.

[AtomicKitten]

318. who cleans up the snark around here?

I'm sure those that do support her thank you for your sensitivity.



I yearn for a grown-up, snark-free conversation about politics, something that is scarce here.

[kdpeters]

157. I will not support her. It's too late.

I wonder if DU is capable of making a 180 if she does get the nod.

I may hold my nose and vote for her if McCain or Guliani get the Republican nom, but you're asking too much for a 180 degree turn and 100% support. She won't get it. She hasn't earned it.

Hillary Clinton is the only Democrat I would vote against. Anyone else but her gets my full support. I'd vote for Ron Paul over her.

[AtomicKitten]

179. didn't ask you to support her

My OP is directed to those that have not pledged to not vote or to vote third party if she gets the nod. My question was whether or not the 24/7 trash-a-thon at DU is a good idea if there is a possibilty she might get the nod.

[kdpeters]

207. Oh, good grief. Cut the nit pickety and scroll past if you don't like my post

Just was it in your reply you thought might interest me? I gave you an honest sincere answer and you gave me a talking to. Save your keystrokes. Just scroll if you don't want to bother with an honest sincere reply.

[AtomicKitten]

211. Oh dear, you're upset I kept my response on-topic.

You can always start your own thread.

[IndianaGreen]

158. Hillary is an agent of Israel's rightwing, and she will continue the war in Iraq

Israel's foreign agents that comprise AIPAC are bragging that they got the Democratic leadership in Congress to drop a provision that would have required Bush to come to Congress for authority to take military action against Iran.

Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the daily Haaretz this week that US must keep troops in Iraq in order to protect Israel.

Hillary Clinton has a long track record of kow-towing to the most rightwing elements in Israel, going as far as referring to Ariel Sharon as "great man."

There is no disputing the fact that if elected President, Hillary will continue the war in Iraq perhaps with John Negroponte's El Salvador option that the Pentagon is now discussing as an option if the "surge" fails, as it seems to be doing.

Published on Thursday, March 15, 2007 by the New York Times

If Elected... Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain

by Michael R. Gordon and Patrick Healy

WASHINGTON — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0315-02.htm

Published on Friday, March 16, 2007 by The Progressive

Salvador Option Surfaces Again

by Elizabeth DiNovella

During Bush’s “social justice” tour of Latin America, he didn’t stop in El Salvador, a nation sorely needing some social justice. His military planners, though, had the small Central American country on their minds.

The same day Bush talked about the U.S. being “generous and compassionate” on his Latin American tour, Pentagon officials and military consultants discussed a fallback strategy for Iraq based on counterinsurgency tactics used in El Salvador.

The U.S. government spent millions of dollars to support the Salvadoran military throughout the 1980s as part of its Cold War strategy of propping up anti-Communist forces. Reagan also sent fifty-five Green Berets to train Salvadoran troops, led for several years by James Steele.

<snip>

And James Steele is back prosecuting another counterinsurgency conflict, this time in Iraq.

But the similarities between U.S. military involvement in Iraq and El Salvador don’t end there. In order to circumvent Congressionally mandated limits on the number of U.S. military personnel on the ground, the Pentagon outsourced the work to private contractors. Some of the same private military contractors, such as DynCorp, now hold contracts for security work in Iraq.

The use of paramilitaries and mercenaries led to the deaths of thousands of people in El Salvador. This is not a decent option for the people of Iraq.

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0316-29.htm

[mtnsnake]

160. Yeah that's why she promised to end the war if she's elected. Nice try

Funny how you failed to mention it how she made it a promise to end the war if she took the oath in Jan of '09.

Try posting something in context sometime.

[IndianaGreen]

161. That's not what she told the NY Times! Read it and weep instead of knee jerking!

She mentioned OIL and ISRAEL as reasons for keeping troops in Iraq!

[mtnsnake]

163. Well according to this NYT article, Hillary said just what I said she said. Ha!!

I made a claim in my other post to you and I guess I was right. Nice try, though!!

“If we in Congress don’t end this war before January of 2009, as president I will,” she said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/us/politics/03candidates.html?ex=1174363200&en=0f7e52f7c3f32b46&ei=5070

BTW, I never said she told the New York Times ANYTHING. Go back and read my post again. Your slippery wording in your response didn't fool anyone, at least not me it didn't.

[IndianaGreen]

164. My article is more recent than yours, and it was an extended interview

and she made very clear she was going to keep troops in Iraq to protect the oil and Israel.

[mtnsnake]

165. Priceless!!!

Another feeble attempt at covering your tracks after I made up a mockery out of your own post.

she made very clear she was going to keep troops in Iraq to protect the oil and Israel

Show me where she said, even in your "more recent" article (snicker), where she didn't plan to end the war in January of '09...if she gets elected and if the war was still going on. You won't because you can't. There is nothing you can say or do to prove what I said was wrong, but knock yourself out trying!

[IndianaGreen]

166. Hillary will turn Iraq from a Republican war into a Democratic war

and in doing so, she will become responsible for any crimes committed by US troops and US-trained death squads in Iraq.

I want a pledge from every Democratic candidate that if elected President, and upon taking the oath of office, they will order the immediate withdrawal of all US troops and personnel out of Iraq.

Will your precious Hillary make such a pledge?

Published on Thursday, March 15, 2007 by the New York Times

If Elected... Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain

by Michael R. Gordon and Patrick Healy

WASHINGTON — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0315-02.htm

[PresidentObama]

167. "reduced military force" <- Thats not continuing the war for oil, my friend.

Stop making something out of nothing. I hope our troops are home before January 2009, and I hope Senator Clinton does more to end this war now rather than later. But I believe her when she says she'd end the war if it isn't over. Why? Because if she wants to be a two term President, assuming she gets the nomination and wins, the Iraq issue will be something voters watch her very closely over. She wouldn't continue this war. Talk about political suicide. Sheesh.

And NO President, Republican or Democrat, is going to redeploy every last troop. You don't believe me? Reality will say otherwise. It's the FACTS. MOST troops will leave Iraq with a reduced military force still in Iraq.

[IndianaGreen]

177. Neither the Left, nor antiwar independents, will support continuing occupation of Iraq

even under a Democratic Administration.

Each day there are American troops in Iraq, is a day in which GIs will die. Is that what you are defending, endless occupation and war? I hope not!

[PresidentObama]

181. Did I say that? Absolutely not.

I've convinced the next President with have the letter D next to their name. And if that happens, I'm convinced whomever it is will end this war. Quite simply put. We all know it's a mistake, we all know it's been poor ran and executed, and we all know the grime and tragic details of this brutal war. Hillary is NO different. But no President, whether Republican or Democrat, is going to remove every last troop. Every single troop. Most of them? Yes. A HUGE percentage of them? Absolutely. But all? I'd bet not. And thats what your doing is twisting Hillarys words to say she is FOR continuing this war, and saying she wants to do it for OIL.

[IndianaGreen]

185. The majority of Iraqis want us out of their country. Who do we think we are?

Nothing short of a total US withdrawal from Iraq will do now! Any American President that is foolish enough to keep an imperialist footprint in Iraq, will be met with resistance at home and abroad.

[PresidentObama]

189. Absolutely right, they want us out.

And we should be out of there by now. I agree. Which is why this escalation is so dangerous. They don't want us there, and more troops will only fuel the anger. We have to reduce the number of troops drastically and responsibly. And we have to bring our men and women home!! And you don't think Hillary will do that? Just as any of the other Democratic candidates would, she would too. She knows the will of the people is saying get out of Iraq, and she'll listen to the will of the people. Assuming she wins the nomination and GE, and wants to be a two term President!!

[AtomicKitten]

200. I would like to see a serious discussion of the permanent bases

... built in Iraq; the media barely mentions it. Seeding Iraq with our bases just as we did in Saudi Arabia will cause nothing but seething resentment. We had no business invading and overthrowing the government of a sovereign nation and we have no business staying.

I, however, would never presume to predict what our candidates will do in the future based on an extrapolation of various statements made on the campaign trail. That inevitably results in a Frankenstein-esque sewn together prognostication of what they might do pawned off as absolutely, positively, without equivocation what they will do, which in effect is nothing short of propaganda.

[PresidentObama]

203. Has any candidate openly said they won't have bases in Iraq?

I don't think they have, have they? If not, I don't understand why some are peppering Hillary with this when she's being honest while the rest are zipping their mouths shut. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If not this, they'll find something else to go after her with. But yes, a serious discussion would be in order. I'm not advocating it by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm being realistic about it when it comes to our candidates.

[mtnsnake]

169. This prediction has about as much chance of happening as your last 999 predictions

Let me know someday when one of your predictions comes true...that is...if I live long enough to ever see it happen (snicker)

[AtomicKitten]

183. That kind of scorched earth rhetoric

... has no basis in fact but has become the "flair" worn by some for purely propaganda purposes. DU reeks of ulterior motives.

[mtnsnake]

187. Aint that the truth

:toast:

[IndianaGreen]

195. In 1969 Nixon turned a Democratic war into a Republican one

Nixon was elected in 1968 having pledged to bring the Vietnam War to an end. He didn't! What had been a Democratic war, and the war crimes of a Democratic President, became a Republican war, with war crimes committed by a Republican President.

If Hillary holds true to what she told the NY Times on Thursday, then as President she will pull a Nixon on Iraq. The antiwar anger that is now directed at Bush, will quickly transfer to a President Hillary, and the demonstrations will go on for as long as there is an American imperialist footprint in Iraq.

As long as there are US troops in Iraq, GIs will continue to die.

[PresidentObama]

198. Are you missing the point? Hillary said she'd end the war.

If she doesn't, it's political suicide. She'll be the one and only one term Clinton in the WH!! NO one on the Democratic side is advocating staying in Iraq. No one. Period.

[IndianaGreen]

209. Hillary told the NY Times that Iraq would require the continuing deployment of American troops

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0315-02.htm

[Manifestor_of_Light]

273. Remember his "secret plan" to end the war during the '72 campaign?

Idiots bought that crap too. He had no intention of ending the war.

[IndianaGreen]

276. Nixon's secret plan was used in '68 campaign, in '72 it was "Peace with Honor"

Many of the arguments used by Nixon and his prowar allies in both parties to justify continuing the war, have been recycled and are now being used by Bush, Lieberman, and others to justify the same in Iraq.

[zulchzulu]

162. The "pile-on" seems to coincide with statements made by the Senator

Whether an analysis is worthy of discussion on issues regarding Senator Clinton or any other candidate is a question of whether the art of politics is too much for some people to take.

[blm]

170. Why did Hillary join Bush, McCain, and RW media pile on against Kerry last Oct?

Did she really believe he insulted the troops like Bush said, or did she do it because she thought lying about it was good for the country?

[mtnsnake]

172. Maybe she was pissed because Kerry wanted McCain as his VP instead of her

Hard to say.

[PresidentObama]

175. That picture mtnsnake.

You better hope I never get a picture of you in my hands. I'll photoshop you next to Zell Miller challenging Chris Matthews to a fight.

:rofl:

Oh, and stop trying to rewrite history. Kerry NEVER wanted McCain as his VP. No matter how many NewsMax articles and speculation pieces you provide. Kerry and McCain both have said not true, Kerry didn't offer McCain anything. And neither put serious thought into it.

;) Thanks anyway, bucko.

[mtnsnake]

180. Hey, K0, it wasn't just Newsmax. It was MSNBC and a slew of them.

I'll photoshop you next to Zell Miller challenging Chris Matthews to a fight.

Tweety would be all over Miller like bird on seed!

[PresidentObama]

182. Yuck, get my John away from LIEberman.

Senator Kerry doesn't need any Joementum, thank you!!

:scared:

[blm]

176. Yeah, that RW lie got almost as much press as the RW lie that Kerry insulted the troops.

Why do people who call themselves Democrats join those Pile ons when the RW lies, anyway?

Maybe you give can give us some insight into that, since you seem to be comfortable with that type of Democrat who not only JOINS the RW liars but spreads their lies for them.

[PresidentObama]

178. I've never understood why mtnsnake pushes the Kerry/McCain thing so much.

mtnsnake is a bright guy. Knows the issues well, and so on. But simply put, no evidence has EVER been offered to suggest Kerry wanted McCain as his VP. Both had downright denied it, and Kerry has went as far as to say both had issue with it and went their seperate ways on the idea after a brief discussion as friends. It was simply fueled by McCain's camp, and the MSM media. And no matter how many RW 'news' sources and speculation pieces you provide, this has been debunked time after time.

[PresidentObama]

173. This is something I firmly hold against Senator Clinton.

Otherwise, I thoroughly enjoy her. She's not my first, second, third or fourth choice.....but, well, she's doing pretty good thus far in this race. But anyway, back to her Kerry remark...I disagreed with her and didn't understand why she would say that against Senator Kerry when she knew John wasn't insulting the troops. Something tells me she was listening to Terry McAuliffe or James Carville a little too much, but anyway....

I think she made a bad move here. This and the mistake of not apologizing for her IWR vote are the two things I hold against her. Otherwise, I'd have no problem voting for her in the general election. Assuming she wins the nomination, and Obama or Edwards don't win it instead.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

171. Because there's nothing the far left hates more than the centre-left.

It really is as simple as that.

[Forkboy]

184. Not really,but a deeper answer would have required thinking

[AtomicKitten]

186. Having worked for a third party newspaper

... I'd have to say that analysis is correct. It came as quite a surprise to me. While agreeing on most other issues, most of the venom spewed in the paper was for the center-left Democrats, more so than even for the GOP. Nader pounded Gore and Kerry rather than the GOP. I think that is why he ended up being a pariah instead of being remembered for his otherwise brilliant work in consumer activism.

[Solon]

270. And that's different than so called moderates how?

Look at ANY so called "centrist" democratic blog and you see 5 posts deriding Democrats or Liberals for every ONE that derides Republicans and conservatives. Even within articles that criticize Republicans or conservatives, there's almost ALWAYS a swipe against those damned "Leftists".

[AtomicKitten]

297. Can't say.

I was only commenting on my experience working for a third party newspaper.

[Forkboy]

192. I think it's indicative of the real dislike she has generated on both sides of the aisle.

Or at least as indicative as anything at DU can be,which admittedly may not be much.

[MasonJar]

204. I am a member of Emily's list and I take umbrage at the smear on

that organization and on Hillary. Emily's list has worked very hard to elect pro- choice, women candidates at all levels of government. I am appalled at the drivel above; if you are not going to back our nominee, what are doing on Democratic Underground, with special emphasis on democratic? If you do not like Hill, don't vote for her in the primaries. But vote for our nominee in the election. Have you forgotten the last 6 years? I personally am 100% behind whomever the majority of dems select. Please join me. I do think that it is high time for a woman president, but I think all of our candidates are head and shoulders above any of the Pugs. They are statesmen and women.

[AtomicKitten]

206. thank you

I personally am 100% behind whomever the majority of dems select. Please join me.

We have some GOP ass to kick.

[Robson]

241. Best candidate

I'm behind the best candidate and the one most likely to unite and win, regardless of gender, color or religion.

[cadmium]

250. I try not to pile on Hillary, but sometimes I crack. In the end i

am going to support the Dem no matter who and that includes Hillary Clinton.

I don't feel good about Hillary Clinton - three immediate things come to mind in no real order because they are unrelated: First, I resent the MSM insinuations about her inevitabilty as the nominee, then secondly (and most viscerally) her taking the Republican side against John Kerry on the "botched joke" flap, then thirdly and probably most importantly she did not come out against the Iraq invasion until way after it was obvious it was a mistake. So those are my reasons. Why did you pile on John Kerry up until he declined to run for president. Is this a double standard or do you just dislike one more than the other? If it is just a matter of likes and dislikes you probably have your answer about the essense of the pile ons. If she gets the nomination I will vote for her, but I don't like her.

[AtomicKitten]

251. As far as visceral reactions are concerned

.... I feel the same way about Kerry as you do about Hillary. 2004 really changed my opinion of him. However, had he declared his candidacy I would have backed off him just like I have everyone else running, sort of my election mode switching of gears. My ONLY criticism of the candidates is the IWR and unfortunately IMO that taints too many of those running.

(On edit: I have already backed off JK in deference to a handful of Kerry supporters who don't treat me like crap.)

I do not share the subjective critique about timing and sincerity of apologies, explanations, etc. for the IWR vote; IMO none of it mitigates the gravity and implications of it. I also have vowed to not continue to proselytize on that subject other than to state my opinion. I would prefer a candidate that was against the war from the get-go because I think it is an important part of moving forward from this debacle. But that is not up to me as my opinion is only worth one vote.

I will vote for whomever gets the nod in the primary. It is critical a Democrat is in the White House in 2008. My biggest concern is the precarious balance of the Supreme Court.

[Faryn Balyncd]

271. If Hillary stops her support of perpetual occupation of Iraq, perhaps some might reconsider.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/washington/14cnd-clinton.html?ex=1331524800&en=205ac04e1a67b900&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[IndianaGreen]

275. The DLC's neoliberal PPI is the flip side of the neocon PNAC

They are both imperialist and hegemonists that advocate controlling the world's resources while exploiting the masses of the world, by military force if need be.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

274. I like her personally, think she's very bright and articulate

But she's too conservative, bought off by the corporations (was on the board of WallyWorld in Arkansas) like most Democrats & all the Repubes and voted for the IWR.

Just too conservative for me. Not really a Democrat and not doing anything for the people, the working people or the formerly working people, or anybody who is not rich.

[ElizabethDC]

300. Well, aren't her efforts to provide universal healthcare

something that would benefit the working people? Just last week, she was promoting a plan to provide health care to all children. And universal health care isn't exactly a conservative issue.

Also, I believe she also recently reintroduced the "Count Every Vote Act" to ensure that no one is disenfranchised (which, as we all know, is more likely to happen in less affluent areas).

So, I think Sen. Clinton does do a lot for the working people, and you just need to take a look at her record.

[TriMetFan]

280. I think that what people forget is....

that Hillary was a Barry Goldwater Republican. Now here is the $5 question. What will people do if the only choice is Hillary or Rudy Giuliani? Would Democrats sit out because they don't like Hillary, but would let Rudy Giuliani win? Which would be worst?

[AtomicKitten]

289. She was a Goldwater Republican as a college student

.... at Wellesley College a hundred years ago, an interesting factoid mined from her curriculum vitae, but when thrown out there in the discussion as if has any relevance today becomes a red herring.

I think any of our Democratic candidates would make a fine president.

[TriMetFan]

293. I think you need to re-read my post.

Would Democrats that don't like Hillary just sit out and let Rudy win if that was just the two choices we had? Would that be the right thing to do? I don't think so.

And yes it does matter if she was a Goldwater Republican. That is why she is a Republican Lite. Also you right that any of our Democratic Candidates would make a fine President, that even includes Hillary.

[AtomicKitten]

294. to some

... Barack's middle name of Hussein matters. That sure as hell doesn't mean that's a reasonable or logical response.

Calling her "Republican Lite" is one of those internet epithets that is meaningless. In fact, Hillary has a quite liberal voting record which you can find upthread under one of MADem's wonderfully cohesive, instructional posts. I'll wager you aren't interested enough to look.

And this nicely illustrates my point of the parroting of mindless caustic epithets that have no basis in fact. Thanks for that.

[TriMetFan]

295. Look I'm not trying to put you down....

or anything. But come on. I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. What I'm saying is that if Hillary and Rudy was, was left and there was no one else to vote for, would these Democratis that don't like her, would they just sit by and let Rudy win??? To me there is nothing wrong with Hillary.

[AtomicKitten]

296. can't predict what others will do

I am just trying to encourage some tempering of the over-the-top epithets and rhetoric, that's all. And, yes, I do think some people here posing as Democrats will most definitely advocate voting third party or not at all and not care if the Republican wins thinking they are holding true to their ideological purity in doing so. Boggles the mind. I always have the Supreme Court foremost in my mind in these discussions which matters more to me than which Democrat in particular sits in the WH.

[ElizabethDC]

298. Well, Reagan used to be a Democrat

and he wasn't exactly "Democrat Lite." Also my mother, like Hillary, was a Republican until college, and now she's one of the most liberal people I know. So one's political beliefs during childhood and the college years (and even later, in cases like Reagan) don't necessarily make them any more sympathetic to that cause later.

[Cascadian]

327. Some Democrats may sit it out, vote third party, or write in a candidate.

The concensus of people who will not vote for Hillary here on DU is pretty clear. A lot of people simply will not vote for her and how will that be for the Democrats? It doesn't matter if the money raised is more than the total GDP of Luxembourg, it does not make her a good candidate for the Democrats in '08. She will be a disaster and even if she does win, how many people in the Democratic Party let alone DU will back every policy decision she makes? Especially if it involves the errosion of our rights and freedoms, panders to the multinationals, and continues certain war, death and desctruction to the men and women in our military?

Think about that one for a moment!


John

[churchofreality]

282. She is by far the best candidate

Sorry idealists, but you need someone who knows how to win, and is a politician. You can want Kucinich or Clark or whoever, but no one will fight harder (and has an actual chance to win) than Hillary.

Go vote for Nader again you assclowns.

[ronnykmarshall]

286. Word!

[mtnsnake]

303. Now THAT'S telling it like it is

Go vote for Nader again you assclowns.

hahaha, I like your style! :evilgrin:

[unkachuck]

306. ok....

....and Happy 4th-Year Iraqi War Anniversary to you!...are you enjoying your war yet?....the war we didn't want or need?....the corporate-for-profit war....I bet those defense stocks are doing great....

....it seems we have two worthless political parties lead by equally worthless politicians that love squandering our nations resources not on healthcare or schools or the pothole in front of my house but on totally wasted for-profit war-scams....

....why don't we just save the young lives and give the corporate politicians, corporations and the scumbag-wealthy all our money directly if they promise to leave us alone? Consider it protection money. Think Capone....

....what a pathectic excuse for a government and political system with a matching corrupt economic structure....all those patrons of this system who try to ram another corporatist down our throats had better prepare to embrace their new repug president, congress and supreme court....you shall be denied....

[churchofreality]

313. Its called politics, if she is elected, she will end the war.

You can take that to the bank. But why show her cards now and have the hawks trash her as a pinko anti-war liberal?

[Tellurian]

314. Agreed...

Even simplistic reasoning is too much for some. I imagine they don't even notice during an NFL football game the coaches and players cover their mouths to the cameras when discussing their playing strategy. Lip Readers-R-US are ever vigilant in having the advantage, knowing their opponents next move.

[Learn2Swim]

283. I dunno,

could it be that she is easily the worst candidate we could possibly put up? Could it be that she is HATED by both sides? Could it be that she would get absolutely BURIED in the general election? Or is it because she is no different than Shrub?

We can do better. :toast:

[AtomicKitten]

290. I dunno.

I think the GOP will attempt to annihilate any of our candidates,
and I also think any one of our candidates would make an excellent president.

Otherwise, your analysis requires:

[JNelson6563]

302. I'm glad to see you write this

and I know you've long stated you'll support whoever wins the primary, as will I. I hope you will take notice of some of the antics of those who like to regularly pile on other candidates. Though Hillary draws the most fire I have noticed a boringly predicatable pile-on of Edwards that's actually kinda been goin' on for some four years now....quite tiresome and lots of negative energy generated there....as in all pile-ons.

No matter how many angles I look at it from, every one of our candidates is buckets better than any of theirs so I will vote Dem no matter what. It is my greatest hope that I will be fortunate enough to vote for President Gore again and of course I agree with you that a candidacy by him would put an end to much of this bickering between camps.

:toast:

Julie

[AtomicKitten]

304. cheers

[Bridget Burke]

288. Too bad they can't put all that energy into telling us about their guys!

Senator Clinton isn't my favorite, either. But I'll vote for her in November if she's the candidate.

And I realize that some of the "sincere" Clinton-haters are here to spread dissension. Since Republicans didn't do so well in 2006, they want to discourage Democrats from voting.

[LittleClarkie]

309. Why would Hillary get a pass from you

when she voted for the IWR, and that would seem to be a big issue with you?

[AtomicKitten]

311. apples and oranges

My OP and my thoughts about the IWR and how that impacts my primary vote are two entirely different and separate issues, and that would be crystal clear had you actually read the thread. And neither has anything to do with anybody getting a pass.

Sometimes it helps to actually read the OP and the thread.

[DemDogs]

316. Peter Dauo, you must be here somewhere

A thread like this is the HRC machine at work.

[AtomicKitten]

317. actually

... a thread like this, and since it is my OP I am qualified to make that clarification for you, is an exploration of common courtesy and common sense, and it is unfortunate that you choose instead to frame and delegate those traits to political strategy rather than human behavior. Not everything is about raw politics.

Sometimes it helps to actually read the OP and thread before making kneejerk snarky comments that are nowhere in the ballpark of the topic, a behavior which ironically is the topic.

[Cascadian]

326. She is a corporatist and pro-war.

I also had an issue with her fake Southern twang in Selma. What the hell was that about? Does that mean when she goes to Boston will she start dropping the "R's" when she speaks? (Eating Chowdah at the Bah!) She is just disingenuous and too divisive within the Democratic Party. The party needs a true uniter and Hillary is not it! Not only that, I do not want the Presidency turning into some dynastic office (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush?). If you want to lose voters, make Hillary the nominee. I know I WILL NOT vote for her. Go ahead and curse me out all you want!


John

[AtomicKitten]

329. your opinion is based on falsehoods

Corporatist?
She is no more a corporatist than any of the other Dem contenders that take money from corporations. Any of them.

Pro-war?
Her 'yes' vote on the IWR weighs no more heavily than any of the other 27 knuckleheads that voted yes. She has pledged to end the war in Iraq if Junior doesn't. Hardly pro-war.

Southern twang?
She was relating a quote. This misconception has been disproved by Media Matters and you can look it up yourself.

Disingenuous and divisive? Not a uniter?
According to whom? You? Subjective analysis doesn't count.

You are entitled to harbor an opinion based on extrapolated BS and completely subjective impressions; knock yourself out. Parrot the infamous "loony left"/RW rhetoric that has no basis in fact. Get back to us when you have an argument that holds water.

In the meantime, try something proactive and spend 1/10 the energy you waste trash-talking Hillary instead lauding a candidate you do support. Oy vey, what a concept!

[IndianaGreen]

332. "Eating Chowdah at the Bah!"

LMAO! :-)