Why does Hillary Clinton have to bow down and repent?

[Kalish]

The mere mention of Clinton causes many on DU to get red faced and call her all kinds of names. She's a traitor to the cause, repug-lite, etc.

Yet these same folks enthusiastically voted for Kerry, and many enthusiastically still support him for '08.

Edwards is popular here too. As are many other Democrats who have essentially the SAME DAMN VOTING RECORD as Hillary.

Why is she expected to get down grovel and apologize? Why is she the 'great sinner'?

What a joke.

[flpoljunkie]

1. Why do we have to accept Hillary Clinton as our defacto nominee in 2005!

The better question.

[Richard Steele]

2. Because the REPUBS say she is, and they are always right. nm

[wyldwolf]

3. who does?

[election_2004]

76. Americans, according to the media and pundits....

Cuz it's "INEVITABLE" donchaknow!

[Raiden]

59. I agree! If she thinks she's gonna be our nominee

she's gotta stand up to the right and stand up for the people -- that's pretty much all I ask

[Imagevision]

87. we don't have to ...do we?!! Hillary is the only game in town or will

they run her against so many losers that you'll have no alternative choice.

Something like voting for Bush or Gore, now that was a contest except I believe they were equally mentally an even match.

[Psephos]

4. Her biggest critics here want purity more than electoral victory

I'm no fan of Hillary. However, it does not take a political genius to see that she understands that to win she needs moderates to vote for her. Ergo, her centrist jag. Those on the farther reaches of the left are numerically less significant than the fat middle of the spectrum. Just a fact of life.

If it comes down to trusting her election planner (Bill) or the purity police, I don't have much problem figuring out who's giving her better advice, and neither does she.

Not intended to offend anyone...just my observations.

Peace.

[flpoljunkie]

14. Standing up and fighting for people and for what is right is what we need

to get people excited about any hope for the future in this fading democracy. Trying to find the mushy middle or the third way, while screwing the middle class by enabling legislation like the one-sided bankruptcy bill to become law--aint' gonna cut it anymore.

I would remind you that Hillary Clinton voted for the bankruptcy bill of 2001, and what passed this year was virtually the same bad bill.

And I am not sure I trust her "election planner" either.

[ChiciB1]

67. She's Doing Presidential 2008 & Much Too

quickly. She's also hooked on her own MEDIA! What she's also seems not to be understanding is that it's the "other side" who really wants her to run!

Not for me!!

[MadHound]

18. What good is electoral victory

When the person we put in office turns around and stabs us in the back repeatedly.

I'm not looking for purity friend, I'm looking for somebody who puts their constituents above corporate money.

[Larkspur]

31. Bingo!!!! This is my main reason for criticizing Hillary and the DLC

clowns.

[Inland]

34. Yeah, let's get someone who stabs us in front, to our face

rather than risk a back stabbing.

And the only way to do that is to have another Bush in office.

You could worry about the possibility that Hillary is going to turn out to be something other than what she seems to be. Or you could worry about the certainthy that republicans are going to follow their announced agenda.

I'll take the percentage shot.

[MadHound]

52. Or gee, we could work to break the stranglehod

That the two party/same corporate master system of government has on this country, and start supporting and electing people who don't take any corporate cash, and who put we the people before the almighty dollar. Wow, what a novel fucking concept:eyes:

Oh, and judging by Hillary's record so far, it has long gone from being a "possibility" that Hillary is going to stab us in the back, well into the realm of certainty.

Wake the fuck up and smell the corruption friend. This good cop/bad cop routine has you dazed and confused. I've been a good loyal Dem for thirty plus years, and what the hell has it gotten me. I ring side seat watching as the Dems have moved ever rightward, and sold us down the river. Why in the hell do you think most major corporations contribute to BOTH the Republicans and Democrats? It is called buying the candidate, and this is the norm now, where both parties pay more attention to pen and ink corporations, and leave their flesh and blood constituents to rot in a crony capitalist hell.

Sorry friend, but I've tried it your way, repeatedly. And your way is not working, it is only making matters worse. It is time for something new, a candidate who isn't beholden to corporate corruption. Wow, a novel concept eh?

[Inland]

54. More of the "there's no difference" stuff. Not reality, my friend.

If you've been a loyal democrat for 35 years, then you know that THEY haven't screwed the country. What's happened is that they lost, or were constantly in a state of losing. Only the winners get the spoils, only the winners get to call the shots.

So I suggest something different--not losing--and you aren't interested.

You've tried not losing? Really? When was that? Well, there was two years when Clinton had half a democratic congress......and your solution is to, what?

Fact is, I would really like democrats to have friends that aren't just looking for a return on a monetary investment. I'm willing to be such a person. But you aren't offering that.

You offering me the choice between someone who might stab me in the back and someone who promises to stab me in the front, and you are telling me that it's all the same. It isn't. And I could vote for Nader a million times and it would still be the same choice and still be the same result.

[MadHound]

58. Well then, let's look at what winning brought us, ie Clinton

NAFTA
'96 Telecom Act(which by the by pretty much insured the muzzling of liberal voices)
welfare "reform"
A stepped up drug war, resulting in all of civil liberties being stripped down
Don't ask, don't tell, a meaningless mouthing that has made matters worse for our gay brothers and sisters in the military, not better.
A continued decline in real world wages
A record breaking gap between the rich and the rest of us, greater than the gap achieved during the days of robber barons.

Damn with anymore "wins" like that, we won't need anymore losses friend, we'll be dead.

And you know, there is a theory about insanity stating that it is doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting a different result every time. We have been engaged in a collective act of insanity for decades now friend, and I refuse to participate anymore.

But apparently you are more than willing to go even further down that road of madness. What will it take to open your eyes? When will you wake up to the reality that we are living under the two party/same corporate master system of government? I tell you what, do me a favor. Go look up the corporate donor list for the '00 and '04 election cycles. Find out how much these corporations gave to each party. A little hint for you, Phillip Morris ponied up a cool 2 mil plus to both sides in '00, the top donor for that cycle.

It is time that you break out of that bipolar thinking, for it is a chimera fantasy. The only way to get this country out of the mess we're in is to refuse our support to any candidate who takes corporate cash, work our ass off for publicly funded election campaigns, and work like hell for instant run-off voting. That my friend is they way out of this wilderness, the only way we all win. Until then, all we are doing is continuing to engage in a collective form of madness.

[Inland]

60. 22 marines dead in last 24 hours. You lose.

No, seriously, you lose.

"Stepped up drug war" vs Patriot Act and Padilla in jail forever without trial.

Don't ask don't tell, a great leap over previous law, vs. constitutional amendments.

Phillip Morris just got a settlement of the gov. lawsuit reducted from $130 billion to $14B--without even asking.

Clinton raised taxes on the rich. Bush didn't.

Say, why not tell us how corrupt the Clinton administration was too, while you are at it, and blame him for 9/11?

You can't make up enough shit about Clinton to even COME CLOSE to the tragedies that have occurred in this country.

You can live with Bush just as easily as you can with Clinton.

But not everyone can. 1806 dead in Iraq, dude. Wake fucking up.

[MadHound]

109. No friend, we've all been losing for decades now

You want to compare death counts, try this one on for size. 400,000 innocent Iraqis dead during the Clinton years due to sanctions and the up to thrice weekly bombing we delivered on that country.

Clinton was just another corporate whore, selling out to the highest bidder. Was he better than Bush, sure. But that still doesn't mean he was a good president. Would a good president ship well paying jobs that are filled, to a large extent by his base, overseas, only to have them replaced by low paying McJobs? Would a good president rip out the social safety net that had been established by his populist predesessor? What I'm trying to tell you is that if we remove the corporate lucre from the equation, we can get truly great Presidents in office again, not just faux presidents, asking how high when their coprorate master says jump.

But no, you're stuck in that bipolar, bipartisan, insane mode of thinking, willing to settle for evil, just so long as it is packaged as the lesser evil. We bitch and complain about media hypnotized Bush drones needing to wake up, well they're not the only ones friend.

400,000 innocent Iraqis dead under Clinton. Wake the fuck up yourself.

[Pepperbelly]

69. If you would rather have had Bush I during the 90s ...

I question your sanity. And make no mistake about it ... that was the choice.

So which do you want?

Bush or Clinton?

[MadHound]

110. Great, more insane, inane bipolar thinking

Geez friend, even I've heard you say you wished for more fucking choices during the '04 election cycle. So why not work towards that? Work to remove the corporate cash that is poisoning our body politic by instituting publicly financed election campaigns. Send a message to our politicians that we refuse to be governed by corporate America, and instead support only candidates who take no corporate cash(in '04 that would have been Kucinich, but hey, it was all about ABB now wasn't it?)

But the longer we play this bipolar, bipartisan bullshit game, the longer we all lose. It is time, past time, that we took our country back from the corporations. Continuing to do the same ol' same ol' that got us into this mess won't achieve that end. Thus the need to break out of that bipolar, bipartisan mode of thinking.

[Pepperbelly]

113. that was the choice ...

So which do you prefer?

Bush I or Clinton?

[MadHound]

117. Well duh dude, I'm a liberal

And as much as I hated to, I voted for Clinton twice, Gore, and Kerry, and in fact I donated both money and effort to all of those campaigns. No more though, I'm going to be working for long term real change in this country, not the faux change that we've seen over the past thirty years.

Now then, are you willing to continue settling for the lesser of two evils, thus insuring our continued corporate rule, or will you too decide to work for real change?

[Nikki Stone 1]

104. '96 Telecom Act: More info please, Madhound?

Just some info. Not entering the debate here.

[MadHound]

111. The '96 Telecom Act

This allowed an already consolidated media to consolidate even more. It allowed more media monopolization. Back in '96, there was 15-20 media corporations that controlled 90% of the US media market, books, TV, movies, newspapers, magazines etc. With the signing of the Telecom Act, it allowed those corporations to merge even more, and now we have wound up with 5 corporations controlling 95% of the media market. Oh, and out of the those five corporations, four of them have a direct, vested money interest in continuing the war in Iraq.

Here's a link if you wish to read the whole thing: <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/top/publicationmedia/newsltr/telcom_act.htm>

[Nikki Stone 1]

125. Thank you. And who was FCC chairman at that time?

Interesting how things like this slip the old memory. :(

[MadHound]

127. That would be Michael Powell

Son of Colin. Small world eh:eyes:

[election_2004]

77. But why does she have to be the *ONLY CHOICE*...?

Some Democrats act like she's somehow the ONLY ONE who could win, and no other Democrat would stand a chance against the GOP.

Yes, that bothers me...especially because it's a crock of bullshit.

[sendero]

114. I'm at core..

.... a pragmatist. Though Hillary's politics are unimpressive to me, if I thought she could win I'd be supporting her in a second.

I don't think she can win. I think she will energize the RW base like no other candidate. They will be so sure of their base turning out, they will play to the center and win.

Hillary is a divisive figure, whether she deserves to be or not. The baggage in her past, the failed "health care" plan, travelgate, filegate - it will be more grist for the talking points mill than the Repugs have had in a long time.

Then you can get to the question of whether or not America is ready for a female president. I am, but it needs to be the right female. Hillary isnt' it.

[Eloriel]

Uh, nooooo

I feel about the same way about Hillary as I do about Kerry and Edwards and Biden and a bunch of others.

And I haven't seen anyone particularly calling for her to apologize -- just change her wicked ways and start SUPPORTING the PEOPLE instead of corporations and the DLC, that's all.

[Kalish]

7. must Kerry change his 'wicked ways' as well?

[Eloriel]

55. Acrtually, no

AFAIC, he's a hopeless case.

[wyldwolf]

5. because a Hillary candidacy guarantees that...

... someone else's candidate loses.

[Imagevision]

89. I believe if Hillary runs against Jeb Bush she'll lose and it'll be

accepted. I believe this administration has demonstrated that nothing can stop them or get in they're way of acomplishing whatever they want to do. All we have going for us is John Conyers and hopes in Fitz.
and that's basically it, right or wrong??

[AllyCat]

6. Well, I demanded that Kerry and Edwards get down and grovel

for:

Not showing up for the NCLB vote.
Not showing up for the elimination of overtime vote.
Voting for the war (I know, a whole new can of worms I don't want to get into).
Voting for the Patriot Act.
Being DLC.

I did not support them in the primaries. I do not support them for '08.

But you know, given them vs. the imposter in the White House? I voted for them in the GE. And if it happens that the DNC is that stupid to put them up again in '08, or Hilary Clinton for that matter, I will vote for any of them again.

I've got a great idea: why don't we stop putting up Senators for President? I'd like to see someone with executive experience like a high-ranking military leader or state governor. Their positions are not so easy to pick apart like Senators are. The average American has no frickin' clue how votes work in Congress and cannot grasp how someone can vote for something and then against it.

[AlGore-08.com]

8. Or a former Vice President?

;)

[AllyCat]

28. Well, yes, AlGore-08

I've posted here before about some not so cool things Mr. Gore did running for office. They were enough to make me vote Green that year.

I listen to him speak now and he is a powerful, insightful, intelligent speaker, but I wish he would not have gone down that road while he was running in '00.

Winning elections is important, but I don't see the point if we get more of the same legal-bending, -breaking, -ignoring crapola that this current cabal embraces.

Given that, if Gore is the nom, I know enough about how the RNC works to know that anything is better than what they will put up, but I find it easier to get behind someone who has not done the same kinds of things (albeit on a much smaller, non-lethal scale than the current gang of crooks).

[Clark2008]

9. I supported Wes Clark

And wasn't very enthusiastic about voting for Kerry/Edwards.

I guess I can still make the "Hillary Won't Win" comments, then?

(Because she won't, you know. NOT ONE RED STATE)

[Kalish]

12. for purposes of this thread yea

although I disagree and believe she could win, and in fact, she most probably will be the next President.

[Clark2008]

16. No she won't

NOT ONE RED STATE will flip for her.

Sorry. She's too much of a pariah around here for many people - including non-Republicans - to even listen to, much less vote for.

[Kalish]

22. Ohia and Florida could and will

mark my words.

[Clark2008]

24. Nope.

Ohio definately won't. Florida, probably not. AND she'll lose Pennsylvania because the hunters won't vote for her.

Sorry.

[AntiCoup2K4]

36. Mark your words?

Did Al From buy the Diebold franchises in those states? Because (in case last night wasn't a clue) that's the only way any Democrat (or DLC) is going to get anything other than a fake 52-48 margin in those states.

[election_2004]

78. Even if that's true....

How will red state senators (who will be up for reelection in '08) benefit from Hillary being at the top of the ticket?

[William769]

10. I will Follow Hillary anywhere

Can't stand Kerry or Edwards. If you want to know why, just look at the last election.

[Clark2008]

11. What are you going to do when Hillary loses the same states

plus one more?

[William769]

19. Won't happen

Wesley Clark will be her VP. You heard it here first.

[Clark2008]

21. That's backwards.

Why do so many here want to put the senator in charge of the military and the general in charge of the Senate?

Makes no sense.

[William769]

26. I voted for Clark in the Primaries

I wished he would run for President again, but he won't. If asked I think he would accept the V.P. slot & I'm sure Hillary would offer it to him.

[Cosmocat]

98. As of today, that is my ticket, too ...

d

[Kalish]

13. Have she and her husband ever lost an important battle?

No. When it's all on the line they come through.

[Clark2008]

20. SHE has only been in one battle and it wasn't much of one.

HE did a lot, however, but SHE is NOT Bill.

[kenny blankenship]

35. And she lost it: healthcare

no, she didn't lose it. SHE BLEW IT.

[Clark2008]

73. Yep. Forgot about that one.

I was speaking of the New York senate racel; however. That wasn't much of a race.

[Larkspur]

33. Their victories are Pyhrric victories for Dems

especially Progressive Dems. Clinton won 2 terms, but his support for Free Trade hurt Dems by hurting unions and blue-collar workers.

[kenny blankenship]

37. Bill Clinton didn't do a damn thing for me

as a Democrat. He TRIANGULATED against Democratic causes, programs and constituencies. Then he got caught in a sleazy sex scandal.
FUCK HIM.

[MadHound]

15. Sorry, I didn't "enthusiastically" vote for Kerry/Edwards`

In fact I was, and still am, rather pissed that once more I was forced into voting for the lesser of two evils under the premise of ABB.

I think that Hillary's record and statements speak volumes about how she would govern, another corporate whore willing to sell out the American public for those thirty pieces of corporate lucre.


I think that you are generalizing a bit there friend. There are many people, both here at DU and out in the real world who feel as I do.

[Mass]

17. Was it necessary to start another flame war.

You like Clinton - Fine.

Why cant you accept that others disagree with you.

[election_2004]

79. Because "the rest of us" must be indoctrinated....

We must "get used to" the idea of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee.

That will make it easier for Hillary and her supporters to handicap the race in her favor.

[ronnykmarshall]

23. Damn you're on fire today!

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[aspberger]

25. SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING

Most of the anti-Hillary baloney is right-wing crap that some members of the left have swallowed(when they should have spit).

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[aspberger]

50. you are so friendly

and your ideas as well as your vocabulary and manners are sure going to charm people into voting Democrat and taking back this country.

[Catherine Vincent]

64. LOL!

I like your style. Like Eddie Murphy Get. The. F***. Out!.

[Clark2008]

71. I haven't swallowed anything.

The woman's great - for New York - but she won't flip NOT ONE RED STATE.

And, yes, that will be my mantra about Hillary - to Dems online, in grocery stores, at the car wash, at the voting booth - everywhere. Dems need to think about the general election and not just the primaries.

[election_2004]

80. Especially downticket races, including the U.S. Senate....

Can you imagine a President Hillary having to deal with an increased and emboldened Republican Majority in the U.S. Senate?

[Cosmocat]

99. You know what is funny ...

The Rs are hammering away about how liberal she is, while the "extreme left" is upset that she has become a "centrist ..."

I agree ... The Rs are scared to death of her ... You can tell in how quickly they try to dismiss her ...

[Clark2008]

103. They're not scared of her. Oh geez.

They WANT her as our nominee because she won't win NOT ONE RED STATE.

Come on!

[Cha]

124. hillary's voting record is not

rw talking point crap..it's out there for all the world to see and live through or not.

hillary first lost me when she voted for the IWR and gave some sad speech about why she was gonna do it("see ya suckers")..after so many of us called her's and schumer's offices to beg them not to.

I've met her and took her picture but that was before..things changed.

[Larkspur]

27. I supported Dean, not the DLC clowns Edwards, Kerry, or Gephardt

and only voted for Kerry/Edwards as an ABB voter. Did not donate time or money to K/E campaign because I refused to donate to war crimminls, even though they were not as bad as Bush/Cheney.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

38. why do you call this person a "troll?"

Just curious if the criteria used can also be used on the anti-DLCers on DU.

[Mass]

41. Because this thread is clearly flame bait.

And I have used the same term for people on the other side who clearly want to provoke also.

I am just tired of that DLC/anti DLC war and wished that people would spend time (ON BOTH SIDES) fighting against the Repubs with a democratic agenda, and not fight against each others.

[wyldwolf]

45. I, of course, am with you 100% ... but...

There are clearly more anti-DLC flame bait posts on DU than not.

In fact, the DUers who are more moderate and more prone to support DLC candidates offer up "flame bait" in response to others.

Me? I'd rather just go into the anti-DLC threads and expose most of the points for the bullshit it is.

[AntiCoup2K4]

44. There's at least two trolls in this thread.

But only one of them works for your boss Big Al. The other one's just a garden variety freep lunatic.

[Mass]

47. delete

[wyldwolf]

49. well, there is now that you've shown up.

[AntiCoup2K4]

53. Now that was uncalled for. When have I ever called YOU a troll?

A DLC stooge? absolutely. But a troll, nah... ;)

[wyldwolf]

56. yah just did

[AntiCoup2K4]

57. How so?

Did you think YOU were the troll on Al From's payroll?

Nah, I was referring to the person who started this thread and the Boxer bash at the same time.

[greekspeak]

29. Bow down and repent, no. Act as a member of the opposition party? Yes

If she thinks that she is going to win one Republican vote by acting like a Republican, she is sorely mistaken. First, Republicans have been trained with "Hilary" as the attack word. Second, they have their OWN candidates who act like Republicans, because they are. If she wants to be a groveler, let her grovel. She gets no respect from me for this, and no vote. If she wants to act like a Democrat, and think about human beings instead of corperations, then she will get some respect from me.

[sandnsea]

32. They didn't enthusiastically support Kerry

The people who attack Hillary attacked Kerry as well, many of them all the way through the campaign. Others used what should have been one day campaign bumps as excuses to continue to attack him. Others suspended attacks temporarily, only to use his concession as an excuse to start attacking him again.

What you might have asked is why people support Paul Hackett as a blue print for the party when he supports "completing the mission", just like Bush does.

[Kalish]

39. I guess because he called it a mistake

I believe, and that's a big step in the right direction.

He also called Bush an SOB. People like things like that, so do I.

[sandnsea]

48. He doesn't support withdrawal

Kerry said a cazillion times he wouldn't have gone to war at the time Bush did. Doesn't matter, all you hear is "he voted for the war". If any other Democrat says they support "completing the mission", they're called PNAC warmongers. Hillary included. It's insanity as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, people liked him because he called Bush names. But not every candidate is an Iraq War Vet who can get away with that, and you sure as heck can't get away with it in a Presidential campaign.

[Larkspur]

40. Unlike Kerry, Hackett said he would NOT have voted for IWR

and he bluntly chasitised Bush for his ludicrous remark to Iraq's insurgents, "Bring it on!" Kerry chose the mealy mouth method of attack.

Kerry said that he'd vote for IWR again even though he knew about all the lies and distorions Bush used to ram it through Congress. Kerry is a moral coward. Hackett showed courage and conviction in the face of impossible odds. Kerry reeks of political opportunism.

[Mass]

42. Again and again and again, you will never learn

I will not fall in the trap and answer. This would be useless.

(Oh after all - Kerry did chastise Bush for the "Bring it all"- You were just in your alternate universe this day).

[sandnsea]

46. He supports Bush's occupation

I really don't care about the IWR, I'm not going to argue it anymore.

Hackett supports Bush's occupation, the same thing the left beats the hell out of the rest of the Democratic Party for. It's bizarre.

[Larkspur]

128. Take your drugs Sandnsea, not everyone on the Left has an answer to the

Catch-22 Bush, who was enabled by Dems like Kerry, Hillary, Biden, Lieberman, Daschle, Gephardt, etc., has put this nation into.

There is no easy way out of Iraq and there is no easy answer to resolving the chaos in Iraq.

If it's true that the Baath Party prepared for at least a decade of insurgency, then I predict that Iraqis will eventually drive us out. The Shiites will get training and supplies from Iran and the Sunnis still have their cache or supply lines of weapons and between the two of them, they will drive us out. Then they will turn on each other. Meanwhile the Kurds will keep flexing their muscles on autonomy and the Turks will feel the need to respond at least covertly and possibly militarily.

Bush enabled by the DLC Dems created a Hell hole in Iraq.

[Larkspur]

129. And unlike Kerry and the DLC clowns, Hackett said something that would

shock the DLC idiots, including Hillary... "Gay marriage—who the hell cares? If you're gay you're gay—more power to you. What you want is to be treated fairly by the law and any American who doesn't think that should be the case is, frankly, un-American."

Wow!! That sounds more like Dean than Hillary or Kerry. And remember Dean doesn't support immediate withdrawal from Iraq either, but his reasons are different than the pro-corporate DLC and Bush's.

[sandnsea]

130. He supports Bush's occupation

What happened to never voting for anybody who supports Bush's occupation?

[Larkspur]

132. No, Hackett did not support Bush's occupation

Bush occupies Iraq to help his crony corporate donors rape Iraq's resources.

Hackett believed that American has a moral duty to help Iraqis rebuild their nation. That is not the same reasoning as supporting Bush's occupation.

Retake your drugs, sandnsea, so you can become lucid again.

[welshTerrier2]

65. just for the record ...

had a progressive Democrat or a progressive from another party run against Hackett, i would have supported the progressive because of Hackett's position on Iraq ...

i was sorry he lost but i will not put my money or energies into a "we're stuck there" Democrat ...

[sandnsea]

68. Somebody who's honest

I'm impressed, truly.

I'd have put my money and energy in either kind of Democrat though. Therein lies a very important distinction, and a real necessity to win.

[welshTerrier2]

70. it's not a decision i take lightly ...

i hated Kerry's position on the war last year and did what i could to help him win ... for me, ABB is dead ...

it's critically important for there to be unity in the Party ... i hope it can be achieved ... i'm open to seeking compromise where it's possible ...

but i'm no longer willing to just go along ... i think the Party, especially DLC-types, have turned their back on progressives ... they want our campaign work, our money and our votes but not our ideas ...

that has to change ... my intention is to do all i can to help progressive Democrats but to do all i can for progressive non-Democrats when there is not a progressive Democrat running ... i've never voted third party before ... i'm afraid that will be changing in the 2008 presidential election ...

you don't need to explain to me why this will hurt the Democrats' chances ... it's not too late for the Party to reach out to everyone and put an end to the dissent ... if they want unity, they're going to have to earn it ... i'm willing to meet them part way; i am not willing to blindly pull the "D" lever anymore ... ABB is dead ...

[sandnsea]

74. I understand

That is honestly why I keep saying the left has got to build either a strong voice or a strong Green Party. My preference is the strong Green Party. That way America is hearing progressive ideas, separate from the Democratic Party. Single payer is separated from other Democratic health plans, and presented by people who believe in it. If the DLC would then treat those plans with as much respect as they do stupid Republican plans, we'd have a real national debate on health care.

The trade-off for the Green Party would be real respect from the Dems and DLC in exchange for Presidential campaign votes. But I don't think we're going to get anywhere as long as the DLC and far left are just shooting at each other, and I'm sure the Republicans love it every time it happens.

[welshTerrier2]

86. so what's your advice?

after last year's election, i realized the Democratic Party no longer represented my views ... i might have left the Party after the primaries but eventually decided bush was just too dangerous to do anything but ABB ... Kerry had so much potential but he chose a centrist route ... i hated supporting him but fought like hell to do all that i could for him and the Party ...

and then, after the election, many wise old owls persuaded me that leaving would accomplish nothing ... they argued that i should stay in the Party and fight for control ... with DFA and PDA, we had a real chance ... i ran for my town's DTC and won ... i've been trying to change the party from the inside ...

but the problem is, i don't believe these movements will be able to gain control anytime soon if at all ... and i absolutely refuse to vote for anyone who has pushed the "we're stuck there" meme in Iraq ... we're stuck there because there has been no one to answer the calls of the American people for withdrawal ... there's been no one on the national stage fighting for our position ... it's not easy to gain support for this position when all the big names from BOTH PARTIES refuse to call for withdrawal ... yeah, they're being ever so responsible ... more and more deaths as Iraq becomes less and less stable ... who's kidding whom?

and you've made an argument here for a stronger Green Party? is that what you're planning to do? i've always been a Democrat but it's becoming more and more impossible to remain one ... i truly believe the Party is putting politics ahead of doing the right thing in Iraq ... the "Party line" is that we have to convince Americans that we are "tough on defense" and "we can't just "turn tail and run"" ... yeah, that's a flattering image for those of us who don't believe we will ever succeed in Iraq regardless of what objectives are being sought ... someone should tell these jackasses it is not about cowardice it's about the national, an international, interest ...

anyway, is that your advice to people who hold the views i hold? you think we should leave the Party and join the Greens? you don't agree with those who think we should stay with the Party and try to change things from the inside?

if that's where you're coming from, i'm not sure i disagree ... time will tell ... right now, i'm keeping my options open ...

[sandnsea]

91. A strong left voice

I don't know where you're at, my little town is like DU live. It drives me batso. Some people talking about ground up, but turn around and run on the same old tired platforms and refuse to try anything new. We didn't run anybody for shool board for chissake and we're a nice shade of lavendar. grrrr.

Anyway, I've got two problems with PDA. One is attacking instead of advocating. America hasn't had left policies presented sensibly, in a positive solution oriented process. There's always an attack on somebody along with the proposal. That's got to stop, in my estimation. The other is the notion that you're going to take over the Democratic Party. Uhm, no, Democrats really and truly aren't leftists.

I see 3 kinds of Democrats really. Left, DLC and the rest that are like me. It's not enough to save the spotted owl anymore, free health care is the dumbest slogan ever, government sponsored work for everyone, dumb too. Equally, DLC stupidity like ethanol subsidies, ignoring nuclear waste, and refusing to differentiate between smart foreign policy and toughness for the sake of toughness. I'm left of center, but not quite all the way Green.

So, if you want to work within the party, I'd say choose 3 priorities. And just drum them into people's heads. A positive solution that has considered all consequences and be honest about them. Locally, the truth is Democrats win in tough areas by not aligning with the national party because the latte liberal image hurts enormously. You have to make left policies look like average joe policies, not socialist joe policies. Usually it means tweaking language, not the plan itself.

Or, go Green. And the advice would still be the same, I just think you'd have an easier time getting where you want to go as a Green. I never expected the Greens to fade after last year, I thought it was just a truce. They have to get back out there again, but hopefully with a strong agenda for change, that focuses more on failed Republican policies. Principles over personalities. And trust that what happened to Joe Lieberman will happen to any Democrat who tries to run on his agenda. Blech.

Us left of center Dems really did try to choose the most liberal guy we could who still had a chance to win.

[Guaranteed]

112. Are you sure these were all the same people? nt

[NoPasaran]

51. She has refused to meet our demand for a shrubbery

[union_maid]

61. Why Hillary

Why do so many people think our best chance is with the one candidate who is controversial, not because of her politics, like say, Kucinich, but just because she's so hated by a significant number of people? It's unfair and in a lot of cases obsessional - the hatred, I mean. She wouldn't be my choice because of politics, but that's not the issue. Why put up a candidate who's a red flag for so many before she's done anything?

I agree with the poster who says she wouldn't carry one red state and I think she'd make it close in a few blue ones, too.

[election_2004]

82. "Oh, but GWB is controversial, and he still took TWO elections"....

Notice I didn't say "won"....

The reason they are making excuses for Hillary is they want *REVENGE*. That's what it's all about to them. NOT which Democrat would make the best president. Instead, they want the Democrat who will "stick it to the Republicans" most blatantly.

That's their rationale for the mission to put Hillary (and Bill) back in the White House.

[LittleClarkie]

62. Misrepresentation

Hillary's record is much more conservative than Kerry's.

If I checked them on www.vote-smart.org, I bet I'd find I was right.

And, people like Kerry and Edwards are dealing with issues that matter at the moment, like veteran rights or poverty, or the Supreme Court. Hillary, conversely, is worrying about... video games. For cripes sake, you gotta be kidding.

[OKNancy]

81. I looked at the 2004 voting records

published by Americans for Democratic Action ( the oldest liberal ranking organization)

http://www.adaction.org/ADATodayVR2004.pdf

You can't tell because Kerry missed so many votes and only got a 25%
Clinton was at 95%. She voted against the liberal side on one issue having to do with missle defense.

[LittleClarkie]

84. Look at a year when Kerry wasn't campaigning for President

How about 2002?

I still prefer www.vote-smart.org

[OKNancy]

92. 2002

http://www.adaction.org/SenateVR2002.htm

Clinton -95%
Kerry - 85%
Shumer 85%

---

[LittleClarkie]

95. Eh, I'll still have to look at them with my resource

that takes into consideration several groups, not just ADA.


Thanks for the resource though. :)

[welshTerrier2]

63. two reasons: ABB is DEAD and Hillary is badly out of touch ...

that's some weak argument your making ... there were many, many Democrats who were ABB last year ... i was and i will never do that again ... and Mrs. Clinton's continued support for bush's imperialistic occupation of Iraq makes her DOA ...

Hillary does not understand what priorities are important to many of us ... her recent "2005 Issues Survey" was a joke ... not only doesn't she support the issues i care about but they obviously are not even important enough for her to ask about on her survey ...

want details? read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1961981

[CTLawGuy]

66. that doesn't describe me

I dislike them all equally (as I dislike anyone who supported the war)

[ibegurpard]

72. She doesn't

She epitomizes, for me, the "good enough but not great" type of person that is acceptable for padding the numbers advantage for Democrats. However, no way in hell is that a good enough reason for me to support any Presidential ambitions she might have. Not going down that road again.

[election_2004]

75. I don't think she should.....

It's simply ridiculous that people are letting her benefit from this corporate-manufactured "frontrunner" status in regard to the 2008 presidential race.

[usregimechange]

83. I like her just don't think she can win.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

85. what is this and is it true?

found this while surfing

http://mistakesweremade.com/vid/the_mena_connection.wmv

[OKNancy]

93. Right wing claptrap

only believed by the likes of Jerry Falwell and the nuttiest of the nuts.
Edit: and posted on sites that are not allowed on DU btw.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

94. that's what i thought too ....

but i think i found it on a lefty site

[Generator]

88. I was just thinking

That if by some twist of hell, she is the "Dem" nominee in 2008 I will not vote for her. Will probably not vote for president at all because I never would ever vote Republican. I never have and if the last eight years haven't made a Republican rue the fact they ever voted for these people..starting with Nixon..then you're hopeless. But anyway..I've ALREADY SEEN THE WORST. I've lived through Reagan/Bush. Now Bush and this surreal creeping fascist nightmare.

What's the big threat? Are they gonna run Stalin or something? It's gonna be worse than BUSH? THAN 9/11????? THAN Vietnam 2? (Iraq and the terrorism that breeds..at least the Vietnamese weren't bombing the subway)

I'm not voting for anybody that's enabled the Bush horror. And her pussyfooting around language and deeds (video games..oh the children..what HORROR)..and worse to me her implicit support of the war after the fact..no no no. Her husband really pisses me off too. Just look at his gushing remarks on Roberts in the LBN. If you aren't ON RECORD doing everything you can to bring Bush down-I don't want you. I'm expecting great things from somebody-and when he/she appears..he/she will have my vote.

[Kalish]

90. just when you think you've lost everything

you find out you can always lose a little more.

[election_2004]

101. Yes, it CAN get worse...

And it will, *IF* Bill Frist or George Allen or Sam Brownback or some other theocratic nutball becomes president.

But that doesn't mean I, as a voter, have to support Hillary Rodham Clinton if the party elitists try to shove her down my throat. And I won't be.

[LittleClarkie]

96. She doesn't have to bow down and repent

unless that's what she thinks she needs to do to get elected.

I, on the other hand, don't have to vote for her.

She may find that assuming the primaries are hers, and running to the middle NOW for the General Election crowd will bite her in the ass.

[tedoll78]

97. I think she's being punished for something she isn't doing.

SHE isn't the one forcing the media to talk about her incessantly.
SHE isn't the one holding a gun to the heads of the publishers, or copyroom editors, or TV producers.
SHE isn't the one going around talking about how a Clinton nomination is inevitable.

And yet, so many friggin' geniuses around here automatically nail her to the f*cking wall because of the coverage she garners - coverage that she isn't controlling.

I actually have a theory that those who are attacking her most vociferously somewhat believe the "inevitable" meme, and that their postings here are just the equivalent of two-year-olds throwing temper tantrums. The votes haven't even been cast, the debates haven't been held, the money hasn't been raised, and yet they're already whining like their preferred candidates haven't even been given a chance. WAAAhh..!

How about a hint, whiners? If you want to stop Hillary, start NOW. Sitting on your ass here whining at DU isn't gonna do the trick. Should she win the straw polls & primaries, she will have done it FAIR & SQUARE - and with the votes of YOUR FELLOW DEMOCRATS - voters that YOUR preferred candidate failed to reach.

{And let me be perfectly clear.. this is coming from someone who has a certain other horse in the race that he prefers..}

[election_2004]

100. What makes you think the money hasn't been raised?

All we ever hear is how HRC is raking in the dough to last her beyond her reelection in '06. Hmmm...

How about a hint, whiners? If you want to stop Hillary, start NOW.

That's exactly what I'm doing. That's exactly why I've picked a favorite candidate and am supporting that candidate for 2008.

If Democrats are stupid and arrogant enough to hand her the nomination on a silver platter (with transparent help from the tabloid-obsessed media whores), then count me out in supporting her. She will not have my vote, nor will Bill FristFlop or George Allen. I will find someone else to support in the presidential race, thank you very much.

[tedoll78]

102. Good for you!

And should the new Supreme Court overturn Roe or Griswold or Lawrence, I hope you have an easy time looking in the mirror.

[election_2004]

105. Don't try to lay a guilt trip on me....

So I decide to get involved with the democratic process, and you, in turn, spit sarcasm at me like a hissing python.

So would you prefer that I simply not participate and not vote at all?

My piddly little vote in the General Election wouldn't sway the presidency toward or away from Nominee Hillary. I'll be living in a blue state that would vote overwhelmingly for her regardless of who the Republicans nominate.

If Democrats want my support as a voter, then they need to respect me enough to welcome me into the process.

Besides, if your supposition is that a race with Hillary Clinton as the nominee would be that close, then maybe you should tell that to those people who insist she'd be the "strongest" candidate and suggest to them that they reassess their adoration of her.

[tedoll78]

107. It's not a guilt trip, and I'm not being sarcastic.

I tend to hold that silly belief that every vote counts - red, blue, or purple state.
I also tend to believe that with the GOP fiends we're dealing with, we don't take chances; we took chances with them in 2000, and now we're in this little mess.

What would you define as "respect you enough?"
Democrats hold a primary. You hear their positions. They hear your opinion (email, phone, letters, town halls, etc). You and millions of Democrats vote, and the one with the most votes wins.
Is there something unfair or unwelcoming about that?

And as far as race closeness.. my position holds for any of the potential Democratic candidates. Should Clark win the nomination, or Clinton or Warner or Bayh or Lieberman or Hackett or Obama or Feingold.. I'm going to be preaching party unity no matter what.

[election_2004]

108. The primary per se would be fair....

Democrats hold a primary. You hear their positions. They hear your opinion (email, phone, letters, town halls, etc). You and millions of Democrats vote, and the one with the most votes wins.
Is there something unfair or unwelcoming about that?

In theory, the scenario you've described would indeed be part of a fair process.

But not as long as the Democratic establishment continues to enable the media whores by perpetuating the belief that Senator Clinton is "unbeatable" when it comes to the primaries.

Can you honestly say they're not trying to handicap the race?

This preemptive coronation is bullshit.

And I, along with many other Americans, don't appreciate being told who to vote for. When are elitists from both major parties going to realize this?

[leesa]

106. Because she steadfastly refuses to publicly acknowledge the crimes

of the Bush administration. She is a leader and she has contibuted quite a bit of support to this war crime.

[union_maid]

115. What about her Senate race?

Every Senate seat is vital. Whether you're a fan or not, Hillary has voted better than a Republican would most of the time. She has to run for re-election. Yes, New York is a blue state, but we're also the state of Al D'Amato. NYC, which is where most of the Democratic votes come from elected Guiliani. Bloomberg is Republican lite, the city still voted for the man with the R next to his name. The Republicans are going to see Hillary's possible run for the White House as a vulnerability and pour a lot into this race unless they're dumber than they've seemed up to now.

She's going to be asked at every campaign stop and in every interview. It's going to stressed to the point of the ridiculous by her opponent. And is it really so ridiculous? If she wins in 2006 and then runs for president she'll already be campaigning for the nomination before she starts her new term in the Senate. I don't think that in the current climate doing both is possible. What do people think about that?

[election_2004]

122. I think she wants the presidency too badly....

And she won't care that her second U.S. Senate term is just beginning.

That being said, I think it'll be a problem for her in her reelection race. I still think she be reelected handily, but I also agree that speculation over her presidential ambitions will dog her to no end.

[CWebster]

116. At least the others have a saving grace or two.

Kerry's support was never what anyone would define as "enthusiastic" and, at least Edwards makes it woth his while to speak for the working class and the poor.

[Midlodemocrat]

118. A very smart liberal I know who resides in Manhattan

recently told me, 'Don't underestimate the big dog'. If he is behind a run for the President by Hillary, she could very well win and win big.

I personally don't think that this country is ready for a woman President, too many misogynists, and I am female. But, I think we could be underestimating Hillary and Bill's intelligence and the fact that she is a pretty popular senator.

[CWebster]

119. we have had enough of Hillary and Bill

They are part of the problem, not part of the solution and their stranglehold on party dominance creates a log jam in current party effectiveness.

They are divisive, polarizing and their tired strategies, corporate chumminess and old baggage are eroding the party's future dynamic new voices from gaining ground and eclipsing the Clinton act.

[Midlodemocrat]

120. I disagree.

I think Bill is one of the most magnetic personalities on the planet. I didn't always agree with him, because he is much more moderate than I am, but I sure as hell would prefer someone he backed to anyone the rethugs ran.

[CWebster]

121. Really not much of a comparison

Personally, I prefer Dean's authenticity to Clinton's insincerity and calculated triangulation.

The Clintons lost the farm and we need new pioneers to speak for the Democrats as relevant to the issues of now. Please, before the Clintons' sad, worn-out compromises, locked in the past, lose us the house in town too.

[Nikki Stone 1]

126. On the other hand, Monica Lewinsky will be back in the spotlight

if Hillary runs.

Maybe the girl might even get herself interviewed again, and she can hawk her silly handbags.

[LittleClarkie]

131. Oh, maybe we can get her a spot as Sec of State?

The local radio guys imagined Monica sending one of those handbags to Hillary as a piece offering, and Hillary filling it with rocks, and nailing him with it "Poof,poof,poof." Even as a Democrat who likes Bill, the way they did it was somewhat amusing.

[Neshanic]

123. Bow down and repent? Tell her to stop prancing across the stage.

She's not getting my vote. Her video game/Lieberman/Tipper shtick is old, and she has no problem inserting her moderate/DLC propoganda at the drop of a hat.

Clark's getting mine as of now. Hillary...never, no matter what the MSM and all her pals say.