I am disgusted by the anti-HRC sentiment here at DU.

[AtomicKitten]

I am a Democrat and will support the Democratic nominee regardless of who that is. Now there are some of you that find that sort of declaration to be what a former DU'er called "voting the shirt." That's irrelevant to this discussion.

I can hardly believe my eyes coming here to DU daily and watching the tag-team assaults against one of our strongest candidates, some direct hits, others subtle manipulations. An earlier poll I posted indicated only 29% of you will not vote for HRC if she gets the nod, yet about 75% of the threads on GD-P are dedicated to denigrating HRC and all things Clinton.

What if she gets the nod? What effect will all this dirty work have on the membership here? Will some of you be proud of having brainwashed simply by virtue of repetition of nastiness convincing others to withhold votes for her if she is the nominee?

The SUPREME COURT should be looming in the minds of those here. Justice Stevens is 86 years old. The court hangs in the balance. Are people that blind that they are content to cut off their nose to spite their face?

Feh.

[babylonsister]

1. Quite 'rich' coming from you! nt

[ProSense]

29. See post 19.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Blue_In_AK]

284. Yep... n/t

[AUYellowDog]

339. It's not that I hate HRC

It's that she can't win a general election. You've gotta pull one swing state and she's so polarizing, she can't do it. That's what makes me skeptical about Obama, but I hope he can do it. It's not ideology, it's being realistic.

[liberaldemocrat7]

377. I will vote for her if she gets the nomination but I will not vote for her in the NY primary.

I just did not like the pandering she made to the right wing over the last 6 years in the senate. As much as I liked Bill Clinton, consider this nonvoting for Hillary in the primary as a protest vote for Bill Clinton signing the WHELFARE LAW the Republicans passed in both houses in 1996.

There appears only one way I will vote for her in the NY primary: If she somehow gets congress to repeal Medicare Part D and replace it with a simple prescription drug benefit placed in Medicare Part B covering 80 percent of medication, with no extra premium, no extra deductible, no means test, no coverage gap and no late signup penalties.

If she does that before 2008 I will enthusiastically vote for her. Until then NO DICE!

[patricia92243]

2. You go girl!!! Good post

[AtomicKitten]

34. thank you

[k_jerome]

3. i love it. it is a great indicator that she is doing well...

in the real world.

[Dr Fate]

350. Right- only DUers "hate" Hillary- while everyone out in Red-State land just loves her...

I hope that Hillary supporters continue to believe that myth.

[mtnsnake]

376. Red staters might be expected to hate her. But posters on a Democratic forum?

Just plain wrong.

[Deep13]

4. I think there is some resentment that she has been picked for us...

...and that our role in selecting the nominee is essentially irrelevant. Plus a lot of former admirers cannot help noticing that she has made a turn to the right since being in the Senate, especially on war matters.

[The Magistrate]

12. That Charge, Sir, Really Is Bogus

What is being refered to a 'picking her for us' in the media is simply an expression fo commentators attempting to demonstrate competence in understanmding political events in our country. Successful prediction of the outcome of a system's operation is the best proof one understands its workings. Senator Clinton has,a s a matter of simple fact, tremendous advantages over those competeing with her for the Demcoratic Party's nomination. She has been a figure on the national stage, a household word, for fifteen years. She has available an excellent political machine, composed of skilled operatives with a record of success. She has a great deal of money. She is a very tough-minded and ruthless individual of great intelligence. All these are things certain to tell over the long haul....

"The race is not always to the swift, or the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."

[patrice]

47. Are you telling people that they aren't feeling what they are feeling?

Mistaken or Not, people's feelings are what they are.

She doesn't need our money. All we have are our votes.

[The Magistrate]

53. What Someone Feels, Sir, Is Not Necessarily An Accurate Assessment Of A Situation

People feel a lot of things that are not congruent with reality, and often come to considerable grief over being unable to discern the difference.

[patrice]

73. Indeed, what I'm saying is you can't tell them not to feel what they are feeling.

You have to begin with what is causing the feelings. If you start by attacking their feelings, you never get to the (correct or incorrect) facts upon which those feelings are based.

BTW, this is the U.S., where patrice is a woman's name.

[Labors of Hercules]

152. exposure of sexual bias just deflated her whole argument... delightful!

CHEERS!!:toast:

[KoKo]

164. And...denying Energy over Inertia.....that's another point...eom.

[KoKo]

160. With all due respect ...What Some People Feel Does Turn Out True!

So these observations by the "rational" can always have "outliers." And, "outliers" can often be correct...wouldn't you agree?

[Deep13]

299. "commentators attempting to demonstrate competence in understanmding political events"

:rofl:
Yeah, because giving us the facts is what the media does.

It's not a "charge" it's an observation. My observation that people are resentful is factually accurate. This makes your charge of it being "bogus" to be a thoughtless reaction at best. Wipe the foam from your mouth and read what people write before snapping at them.

We haven't had a single state primary and, in fact, it isn't even an election year. Still in the corporate media and in the popular mind, it is HRC, Obama or, to a lesser degree, Edwards.

[Dr Fate]

351. I'm a half-way smart guy- and I dont find that perception to be "bogus" what-so-ever.

Your facts about Hillary dont take away from the correct perception stated- half-way smart people can see exactly what is going on- and we feel like there is something that seems awfully pre-ordained about all of this- Hillary and supporters would do well to stop acting like they are entitled to lead the party- especially after being so dead wrong about the major issues.

[burythehatchet]

429. I'm a quarter-way smart and I agree!

:rofl:

[AZBlue]

395. By stating that you are letting the media dictate your life.

Don't want Hillary - get out there, support another candidate and make this process work. Just complaining about how she's already the nominee, a year before any primary takes place, just lets those the media win. That's not how I'm going to let the elections be run - how about you? (and by you I mean everyone on DU who repeats this statement endlessly)

[Deep13]

421. I was writing about a general sentiment...

...not what I was doing. Read it again.

[PresidentObama]

5. Hmmmmmm......

Not my first, second, third, or even fourth choice. But I'm beginning to enjoy Hillary Clinton in this race. If she gets the nomination, I'll gladly support her. Not sure that will happen, we'll see. I think she's got a difficult road ahead, and we shouldn't rely fully on the polls. It's going to be very interesting, but I really hate the candidate supporters here attacking each other for their own gain. It gets old, from all sides.

If you don't like Hillary, don't support her. But don't foam out the mouth to find EVERY anti-Hillary thread to post in, Jesus!!

[AtomicKitten]

32. mine neither

Not my first, second, third, or even fourth choice.

Which really speaks to the level of disgust felt at the efforts here.

[PresidentObama]

42. Dennis Kucinich isn't one of my top choices.

I saw him getting bashed yesterday, and I defended him. My theory is I will give criticism of these candidates, out of hope they'll run the best campaigns possible. Because we need them to win!! But bashing? No thank you. I don't want to put my foot in my mouth if they get the nod, and I have to support them and eat a big piece of humble pie ;)

[blm]

6. It doesn't bother Hillary to attack other Democrats w/RW talkingpoints so why would anyone feel

bothered for her when she gets attacked BACK?

I'm just surprised that Wolfson is SO quick to counter perceived attacks on Hillary but never bothered to do it against Lieberman for Lamont when he was 'donated' to the Lamont campaign by Hillary.

[The Magistrate]

14. Politics Ain't Bean-Bag, Ma'am

[blm]

18. So I said. Hillary gets her shots in at other Democrats, why whine when someone shoots back?

It IS wrong to shoot when it is a RW lie, but then, Hillary makes those shots, too.

[The Magistrate]

23. Is Senator Clinton Posting Here, Ma'am?

No such complaints seem to have emerged from her, though a number of counter-attacks have....

[blm]

45. Maybe you should direct your comment to OP who is upset on Sen Clinton's behalf

and mine is merely one of many replies who think Hillary doesn't NEED or deserve defense for attacks that she feels free to initiate at the drop of a pronoun.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

386. Stop with the condescending BS and tone, Magistrate

You, "good sir," have displayed a remarkable arrogance and condescension to very relevant points made by others here. Cease and desist.

[mtnsnake]

248. You and your RW talking points

Why is it that whenever you find something you don't agree with, you label it as RW talking points, when the reality is that it's RW talking points in your mind only.

[blm]

304. So Hillary WASN'T using RW talking points when she said that SOME Democrats

don't want to fight the war on terror, but SHE does?

So Hillary WASN'T agreeing with Bush and McCain when she scolded Kerry knowing FULL WELL that Kerry has the best record of supporting the troops and veterans of anyone in the senate, yet she agreed with McCain and Bush on their CONCOCTED claim that he insulted the troops.

[mtnsnake]

306. If you call that scolding, then you don't know what scolding is

yet she agreed with McCain and Bush on their CONCOCTED claim that he (Kerry) insulted the troops.

She agreed with no one. She simply answered the reporter's question and told it like it is. It's not my problem if telling it like it is is something none of the Kerry apologists can accept. Accepting the reality that Kerry doesn't have a way with words would go a long way in your healing process that the guy simply doesn't have it when it comes to any form of campaigning on a presidential level. When it comes to saying the right thing, some people have it and some don't.

[blm]

307. Hillary's way with words is RW talking points - SOME Democrats not willing to fight terror

war - yeah - that's a way with words that one could never expect out of anyone but Bush and Rove.

[mtnsnake]

313. lol, according to you, anyone who dares to criticize Kerry is using RW talking points. nt

[blm]

317. Hillary saying some Dems are unwilling to fight terror is NOT a RW talking point?

Since when? It was a RW talking point when Bush, Rush and Hannity used it for the last 5 years - now that Hillary is using it you think it's LOL funny, eh?

Boy you always seem ready to defend RW talking points against other Democrats, especially when they come from Hillary.

[mtnsnake]

334. Here you go again, spinning your tales, right in mid-stream

Boy you always seem ready to defend RW talking points against other Democrats, especially when they come from Hillary.

Only in your mind are they RW talking points, so enough with your spinning it as me defending anything RW.

If I or any other Democrat just happens to say something that resembles some point the RW has made about Mr Perfect, John Kerry, then tough tiddlies for you. I guess the RW just happens to be RIGHT in that or any other instance where by coincidence or whatever fate they just happen to use the same rationale as we do in any criticism.

[flpoljunkie]

342. Americablog's John Aravosis thinks Hillary is "Sister Soulja'ing" the entire Dem party.

Blm is not alone in this. There are others who wonder what in the world Hillary Clinton is thinking and saying--going after the Democratic base with "right wing" talking points. Funny, the media is giving her a pass on this--so far.

Hillary is Sistah Souljah'ing the entire Democratic Party

by John in DC · 2/21/2007 11:55:00 AM ET
Discuss this post here: Comments (374)

I don't relish writing these repeated columns deploring Senator Clinton - you'll recall that we were one of the blogs that, up until recently, didn't have a problem with her (check our archives, you won't find a lot of Hillary (or Bill) bashing). But Senator Clinton's increasingly nasty campaign tactics and anti-Democratic messaging is getting out of control.

<>It's becoming increasingly clear that Hillary isn't running as a new Democrat, she's running as as a non-Democrat. Her strategy seems to be attacking everything and everyone associated with the Democratic party, and especially its base - and using Republican talking points, at that - in order to somehow position Hillary as a modern-day Diogenes, independent, above-the-fray, alone in the wilderness, forever on the look-out for honest politics.

In other words, Hillary is Joe Lieberman.

Funny I should mention that. Who are two of Hillary's top advisers? Pollster Mark Penn and media consultant Mandy Grunwald, both of whom worked on Joe Lieberman's 2004 presidential run. And we all know Joe "Surge" Lieberman, the man who just can't get enough of George Bush and the ever-successful war in Iraq. The guy who simply can't say a kind word about Democrats.

Yesterday, Mrs. Clinton was quoted as telling an outright lie. She said that some of the other Democratic candidates don't think America faces a threat from terrorism:

In response to an audience member’s question about the war — one of eight she fielded — Clinton said America faces a dire threat from terrorism.

“To underscore a point, some people may be running who tell you we don’t face a real threat from terrorism,” she said. “I’m not one of them. We have serious enemies who want to do us serious harm.”

Today, Mrs. Clinton is called a liar and her campaign goes ballistic, trying to destroy one of the biggest Democratic donors in Hollywood (anybody else get a whiff of Bill Donohue from this one?). Two days ago, she told the entire left-wing of the party to go take a hike. And just yesterday, she told all of America that George Bush was right, some of our Democratic leaders actually don't think terrorism is a problem. Who will be Hillary's next Democratic target? The blogs?

To paraphrase Martin Niemoller: Some day, Mrs. Clinton, you may find that there will be no one left to vote for you.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/hillary-is-sistah-souljahing-entire.html

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

387. Actually, looks like the mainstream media is starting to call her on it

The major nightly news programs have been highlighting much of the strong-arming from Hillary and members of her campaign. She's no longer getting a pass on this ridiculous behavior.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

385. This is it exactly

Hillary herself has been all too willing to join in with the Right Wing smear machine against her fellow Democrats, so why should any of us feel sympathy for her when she's hit back? Especially by a respected Democrat like David Geffen?

[JuniperLea]

7. *yawn*

Errmmm... it's called... the process.

Politics has always been this way. I'm sure you've dissed your share of Dems...

[quickesst]

8. Good post....

"Are people that blind that they are content to cut off their nose to spite their face?" Yes. Proof is already been posted, and I'm sure more is coming. Thanks.
quickesst

[AtomicKitten]

59. thank you

It is our duty as citizens to preserve the Supreme Court.

[patrice]

9. I can respect your concerns.

Can you respect mine?

Or is everyone who is concerned about HC out to do harm?

[Truthseeker013]

10. I am disgusted by the anti-HRC sentiment here at DU

(handing AtomicKitten an award for keeping his/her eye on the ball)

At the close of business, that's all that the Presidency is about. Any legislation enacted by a POTUS can be overturned by another. But SC appointments are for *life*.

[AtomicKitten]

33. thank you

[KoKo]

143. Have you read this?

http://www.easycartsecure.com/CounterPunch/CounterPunch_Books.html

[karynnj]

93. Ok -

but did Carville think about that in 2004, when he spent his valuable airtime blasting the Kerry campaign for spending too much time speaking of Iraq and terrorism? Did McAuliffe marshall all the Democrats to react to the despicable purple heart bandaids ?- the lack of react sent a signal. The one person who could not have led an effort to show outrage at the way a medal given for a soldier's sacrifice was desparaged was the victim. Kerry protesting would have sounded weak - all Democrats questioning the Republicans support of the troops would have caused that to back fire. Imagine someone calling out McCain to refuse to speak till they were gone.

Before you tell us that we can not criticize in the PRE-PRIMARIES, consider that Clinton's wing publicly felt free to do that ON TV during the general election in 2004. Kerry nearly beat a war time President who had nearly a 50% approval rating compared to GHWB being at 33% in 1992. Bush was at 60% in Jan 2004. At the same time, generic Democrat lost by 17 points, Dean by 22 points. No wonder Hillary didn't run.)

Kerry incidently would already have picked two supreme court justices.

[ProSense]

109. Imagine that!

No Roberts, no Alito.

[Captain Hilts]

11. I agree. She's not my first or second choice, but I'll vote for her if I have to.

With enthusiasm.

[FiveGoodMen]

13. Voted Dubya a blank check for war (yes she did!)

Is already helping to beat the drums for war in Iran
Prefers the flag to the constitution
Raises money with the owner of the FOX news channel
Couldn't possibly win in '08 even if she deserved to

Be as disgusted as you like. She's not the one we need in the White House.

[mtnsnake]

250. You don't have a clue

Prefers the flag to the constitution

Hillary never pushed for an amendment to the constitution. Wake up.

yawn

[liberaldemocrat7]

379. Hillary cosponsored a flag burning law.

I don't want any democrat pandering to right wing kooks.

[mtnsnake]

435. That's correct. She wanted legislation INSTEAD of an amendment

All anyone has to do is a search to know that in June of 2005 she co-sponsored legislation to WARD OFF any amendment to the Constitution, yet her naysayers here love to spin it that she somehow wanted to mess with our freedom of speech and yada yada yada.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

15. "strongest candidate?"

only in the minds of the corrupted.

Hillary cannot win and can only cause harm to us. Not to mention, she is not one of us.
she is a rabid GOPer in disguise, but for the fact that the GOP hates her as much as many of us do.

[AtomicKitten]

38. that's "one of our" strongest candidates

That qualifier posted in the OP changes the actual meaning of the phrase you are commenting on, or maybe being precise doesn't matter to you.

[kimmerspixelated]

56. I'm inclined to strongly agree with you.

It's hard for me to believe that she's really a Dem. Wasn't she a Rep. just b4 hooking up with Bill?

[paulk]

134. no - she was a Republican when she was a teenager

I believe it's your sort of post that the OP is referring to...

a baseless attempt at smearing HRC.



ps - it's hard for me to believe that you're really a Dem.

[juajen]

98. Bullshit!

Who allows you to judge who's corrupted? "She's not one of us"? is not your judgment to make. I've been here a while, and she is certainly one of us; you know, the dem "big tent"?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

106. so we disagree, with me disagreeing with you EXTREMELY STRONGLY

because she is horrible. Have you met her? I have. Have you dealt with her? I have.

and I can tell you that the process was not at all fun.

Go get a life and realize, in the process, that she is not the best candidate for our party, nor our country.

[mtnsnake]

251. "Hillary cannot win and can only cause harm to us"

Is this the Twilight Zone or something? Where do you come up with this goofy stuff?

she is not one of us

Speak for yourself. Hillary = strong Democrat. If she's not one of your crowd, then what's that equal? See if you can figure it out and let us know.

[longship]

16. It's a matter that many people here do not support her.

And there *is* a feeling that she is being shoved down our throats, by the media and by many others, too.

Plus, there's this minor matter that it's freaking 20-some months until the election.

Frankly, I feel strongly that anybody who's picked a candidate now for 2008 is not thinking rationally and likely has bought into the sixteen tons of media hype. There is precisely *zero* urgency about this right now. It's just a distraction from more important things. For instance, Impeaching Cheney and Bush.

[AtomicKitten]

28. a worthwhile endeavor

Impeaching Cheney and Bush.

[Felinity]

100. I just posted this on another thread, please forgive duplication

I am not asking you to support Hillary

I am asking you to focus on current issues and stop being a tool of the MSM/RNC. They want you to take your eyes off the ball, while promoting discord among Democrats. I am suggesting that you, and the other Hillary haters, keep your venom to yourself, at least until we're closer to the primaries. And I wish Hillary & Obama would both shut the fuck up and attend to the current crisis in what is left of our nation.

FYI I am not a big Hillary fan. She is not my #1 choice, she is not my #2 choice, and not my #3 choice. Neither, by the way, is Obama. That's all the further I want to think about it for now.

We should be saying to these candidates, "Here's the contest. Which one of you can make the best progress to bring the Senate Republicans into the mix in Congress and start righting the wrongs of the Bush administration. Whoever does the best job gets to run for President." Their focus on the Presidential election is a dereliction of duty: they are just like the * administration beating the war drum on Iran instead of focusing all our efforts on diplomatic solutions. Hillary & Barack are beating the Primary Drum instead of doing the hard work to bring the Senate back to a functioning body, through discourse, not campaign rhetoric.

If the Senate doesn't come around, I believe we are running a great risk of being under martial law, with no 2008 election. It's come down to endgame in America--this is the SHOW, baby. IMHO. Let's get serious.

[longship]

266. Hillary hater? I beg your pardon!

I did *NOT* diss Hillary. If fact I wrote absolutely *NOTHING* about Hillary except stating a fact that there are many people here who do not support her.

Part of the problem with Hillary may be the people who have jumped the shark and have already selected her as their 2008 candidate and who, when anybody says or writes anything that can remotely resemble a lack of support for her as the only candidate, start labelling people as Hillary haters.

I fully support Hillary as senator. I do not know if I can support her as presidential candidate in 2008. However, there is plenty of time to decide because it's freaking 20 months to the election and 12 months until the very early primaries.

It is *way* to early for many people to even begin thinking about 2008. However, if you were to force me to make a declaration on Clinton for 2008 at this time I would have to decline support for her. So maybe the best tact is for the Hillary supporters to stop trying to shove her down everybody's throat.

And the same thing goes for the Obama supporters, the Kucinich supporters, the Vilsak supporters, the Dodd supporters, etc.

If you want to present information on your favorite candidate that will enable us undecideds to make up our minds, by all means do so. But do so in a positive frame and do not label people as Hillary haters just because they aren't ready to jump into the pool with you.

Some of us need time to make an informed decision.

[Felinity]

297. Actually, I was agreeing with you

As it was posted on another thread, it had been directed to the author of that thread. I apologize for not making that clear; I should have edited it to avoid confusion.

But I was merely chiming in that it is too early to focus all this attention on the Presidential primary. The Repugs are thrilled with the distractability of the Democratic base; it gives them 2 more years to destroy our government and raid our treasury.

[AndyTiedye]

374. Yeah! I Want NANCY PELOSI to Be President. THIS YEAR!

IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY!

[byronius]

17. Former Hillary Fanatic, here.

I understand her strategy, but it's distanced me from her. I want the old Hillary back.

Nonetheless, her sticker goes on my truck if she wins the nomination. I like her as a person, and I think she'll make a great president -- but I think running to the right has damaged her politically. Flag-burning? The War? Jeez. Who's talking to her? Break out of the shrink-wrap, Hillary, and be a person again, and I'll even vote for you in the primary.

I wouldn't doubt that this is a common opinion for the standard Democrat. And I think the people (and I know a few) who said Gore was exactly like Bush, yadayadayada, won't be so fucking bonehead stupid next time around. Talk all they want, but really, will they keep their 'integrity' all the way down to Dead Planet? I don't think so. Lot of talk. That's all.

You do what you can do with what you've got. Like I said, Hillary the Person is fine by me. Hillary the blister-pak Action Figure? Bleh. If we were a smarter nation, her stance wouldn't be necessary. I know she's positioned for Joe Walmart. I get it. But it hurts to watch.

Now, Al Gore -- I get REALLY EXCITED ABOUT. I refuse to acknowledge his 'withdrawal'.

Did. Not. Happen. He's the Last Elected President Of The United States, after all.

[AtomicKitten]

24. word

Now, Al Gore -- I get REALLY EXCITED ABOUT. I refuse to acknowledge his 'withdrawal'.

[Pirate Smile]

101. Great post. I can sure relate.

:)

[KoKo]

144. and check this out.......

http://www.easycartsecure.com/CounterPunch/CounterPunch_Books.html

[ProSense]

19. Note to self, edit OP title

I am was disgusted by the anti-HRC Kerry sentiment here at DU.


Rich! Rich! Rich!


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

21. note to ProSense

HRC is a current presidential candidate, Kerry is not.

So that makes your post NonSense. No worries, your team will be by directly with the high-fives.

[ProSense]

.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[babylonsister]

51. Rich is right! Pot meet kettle!

:hi: :spray: :rofl:

[mtnsnake]

256. Those threads of hers that you provided the links to are all spot on

about Kerry, the guy who lost to a moron.

Trouble is, you and your minions couldn't stand the truth so you got your collective fingers breaking the Richter scale on the alert button until the threads got locked. You don't fool anyone.

[ProSense]

268. Doesn't matter!

Have you seen how many people in this thread despise Clinton? And she didn't lose to the moron. Come to think of it, why didn't Super Hillary run in 2004?

[mtnsnake]

276. What really doesn't matter

is that so "many people in this thread despise Clinton" because in the grand scheme of things, the people here do not reflect at all the feelings of mainstream Democrats across the country, the same Democrats who consistently pick Hillary Clinton as their first choice in the primaries.

And she didn't lose to the moron. Come to think of it, why didn't Super Hillary run in 2004?

No, she sure didn't lose to one. Why didn't she run back then? Don't you remember? Uhhh, like she wanted to be Senator for a while, although in retrospect, most Democrats I know wish she DID run instead of Kerry. Then again, in retrospect, most Democrats wish ANYONE but Kerry ran. Had Dean gotten the nod like he should have, history would be totally different the last two years. But Kerry ran and he blew it. Thus 4 more years of Bush.

[ProSense]

278. Excuses!

Didn't Super Hillary care about the Supreme Court? Where did I read that.


:rofl:

[PresidentObama]

333. Can we please stop this....

I'm not just disgusted by the anti-Hillary sentiments here at DU, I'm disgusted by the anti-Democrat sentiments sometimes. Besides a few members on her team, I generally like Hillary's campaign and think it's running pretty well. She's a major candidate for a reason, and if she wins the nomination she'll be the next President.

Do we have to drag Kerry through the mud now? Especially in a thread where the OP's point was to stop dragging Hillary through the mud. And I'm not picking on you mtnsnake, I'm talking to the others who are using this as an opportunity to unleash hell against HRC. On both sides it's wrong, and unwelcome. Clinton and Kerry are both great Democrats, one of them is running for President...and may be our nominee!!

[More Than A Feeling]

20. The nomination hasn't been resolved yet.

You are trying to shut down fair criticism. That's never appropriate. But its especially not appropriate before the nomination has resolved itself.

[AtomicKitten]

46. hardly

You are trying to shut down fair criticism.

I suspect you know precisely what I'm taking about.

I can only wish the criticism of the candidates at DU was fair.

[John Q. Citizen]

63. Aw, people shouldn't pick on poor Hillary. Bill and Monica made her a victim,

her secret Health care planning sessions where she tried to help the big insurance companies and then they turned around and shafted her plan made her a victim, and george bush tricked her about Iraq and made her a victim.

Come on people, be nice to Hillary. She's been a victim for too long.

Vote for Hillary to end her victimhood already!

[AtomicKitten]

79. ah, okay

I'll give you snaps for drama.

[Laurab]

22. I will support HRC is she is nominated

but I really wish I could understand why she is "one of our strongest candidates". What has she done - what does she have, aside from name recognition, and cash? I fail to understand why she is one of our strongest candidates, except that the republics say so.

I would much prefer to wait until a candidate has proven themselves to be a "strong candidate" to make my choice.

That being said, I agree that anyone who says they will not vote for her IF she gets the nomination, must like having a repuke in the WH.


On edit - I do know that some say it would be the same as having a repuke in the WH. That is bullshit. A Dem President, surrounded by democratic advisors, is the only thing that is going to begin to get this country back on the right track. Hillary IS a Democrat, and of course will be held to different standards by the media, as well. That can only be a good thing, since governing will not be done behind closed doors.

[AtomicKitten]

49. my OP does not

presume to answer your question of 'why.' She and Obama and Edwards are all running strong; it is what it is. America is looking to the Democrats, and the 2008 presidential election is the Democrats to lose.

[peace13]

58. It is my hope that all of the candidates are not in the ring yet.

As far as America goes, we need people to get off of their butts and wake up. The vast majority of the American population has no clue what is going on and that is where the problem lies.

[AtomicKitten]

60. it is my most sincere hope

that Al Gore throws his hat in the ring

[peace13]

76. What would that be like?

My brain would probably explode. My 'Hope Meter" would truly peg! I like your idea.

[AtomicKitten]

81. what would that be like?

orgasmic :)

[peace13]

82. Ha! n/t

[Hekate]

25. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Hekate

[AtomicKitten]

50. you're welcome

:)

[Firespirit]

26. She provides the material.

When she comes out and says that some of her opponents don't think that terrorism is a real threat, a line that the neocons have used for over five years against us, it's a problem. If it had been Lieberman who had said that, he would've been ripped even worse. Why should she be given a pass?

In the 1990s I greatly admired Hillary. I really did. What disgusts many of us is that she and people acting on her behalf have made a pattern in the past year of attacking other Democrats for absolutely no legitimate reason. Had Hillary and many longtime Clinton people not done what they did time and time again, to several different people, I would still admire her. But I don't admire or respect that type of behavior, and I don't feel that I am obligated to, even if the person doing it wears the letter D after her name.

[ToeBot]

27. I am disgusted by the anti-HRC sentiment here too...

It's not nearly as strident and organized as it should be. Lets work to correct that!

[More Than A Feeling]

30. LOL, now that I can get behind!

:thumbsup:

[KoKo]

145. Really? Read this...and get back into discussion...

http://www.easycartsecure.com/CounterPunch/CounterPunch_Books.html

[eridani]

213. Which one?

There are a whole bunch of books on that page.

[KoKo]

242. Here:

Don't agree with all of it...but much of it is eye opening:

http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair02212007.html

[John Q. Citizen]

292. That's a good read. Thanks. Lot of very insightful analysis and also some

interesting facts.

[KingFlorez]

31. I agree

It's getting ridiculous.

[Gman]

35. Kitten, you're not new here

although you weren't around (per your profile) in '04 and maybe you never saw the bloodletting threads between '01 and '04 on Nader. But surely you've noticed there is a very small but very vocal bunch here who will never be Democrats and who's entire political ideology revolves around 3 issues. The war, corporatism and the DLC enabling the first two.

I joined the Democratic Underground in '01 because the word "Democratic" preceeding the word "Underground" in the name was exactly how not only I, but a whole lot of us Democrats felt after the '00 election. Even though the statement of DU now mentions "like thinking" people (i.e. Greens, etc.) I still see DU as Democrat first.

Make no mistake. If HRC is the nominee, anyone here on DU that does not support Hillary is the enemy. They are trying to defeat our candidate and that makes them no better and no different than the most vile right wing Republican.

That being said, there are a whole big bunch of good Democrats here on DU so fret not. The people here that will support Kucinich or nobody are a very small minority here. We don't have them as votes and we never will. They're more concerned with the drama, rush and theatrics of fighting losing battles "for the right cause" but at the expense of every single middle class and poor American.

[peace13]

52. Wow!

This is still America. A good Democrat can still have an opinion I would hope. I hope our campaign slogan isn't 'Blood for oil or bust'!

[AtomicKitten]

54. thank you for the info that puts my OP in perspective for me.

You are right, I missed the primaries last go here at DU. From what I understand, that is a blessing!

[The Magistrate]

66. Those Was Big Fun, Ma'am

For people whose tastes run to razors and bludgeons....

[AtomicKitten]

69. I will be prepared to protect my soft underbelly.

thanks for the heads-up

[roguevalley]

237. but it is the way dem politics plays out. read up on it. its always

been that way. the pugs stand in line and take their turn to be candidate. the dems fight it out. to not do that is to be too much like the idiots on the other side. i personally prefer the shouting.

[blm]

74. If you had been here you'd find it easier to back off of people who went through them and BECAME

more aligned as Democrats, no matter what preceded before.

Your treatment of other DUers here as if they are bad Democrats (many of them have worked for 30-40 years for Democratic candidates and issues) has always been unfair, imo, because you DIDN'T experience what went on before.

[mtnsnake]

261. Yikes!! Who are you to be blaming someone else for being unfair?

Your treatment of other DUers here as if they are bad Democrats (many of them have worked for 30-40 years for Democratic candidates and issues) has always been unfair, imo

I've read enough of your repetitive pasted propaganda about the Clintons to know who's fair and who isn't. If you had it your way, you'd have everyone believing that the Clintons are traitors. You'd also done your best to have everyone believing Kerry lost BECAUSE of the Clintons, when the fact is that your idol, Kerry, has no one else to blame for his pathetic showing in 2004 than himself. How's that? Fair enough?

[k_jerome]

296. hey, the Clintons are drug runners. there is PROOF. nt

[blm]

303. Straw man. No one said they were drugrunners. REAL BushInc opponents wanted serious matters

dealt with - outstanding matters reIranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning. Clinton chose to protect Poppy Bush's secrecy and privilege, instead.

You may be the type of citizen that doesn't care about corruption and open government - but there are citizens who DO care.

YOU side with Clinton's decisions protecting the secrecy and privilege of the Bush family. I do NOT. But why you choose to post strawman attacks - no one has ever said Clintons were drugrunners except posts by YOU claiming it's been said.

[blm]

302. If you HAD been here earlier you would've seen me defending Clintons for years

and only turn on them after Bill chose to insult longtime Bush opponents like me by refusing to detail any of the issues most important to us and most important to what this nation is going through today.

YOU are happy that he closed the books on outstanding matters reIranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning. Some of us who foresaw the dangers in not dealing with these serious matters openly are NOT content as citizens and especially NOT after 9-11.

[Adelante]

97. You woulda loved it

;)

[Gman]

119. Mind you, I'm not ecstatic with all Democratic policies

and if I had to pick one person to be president, it would be either Jesse Jackson or Ralph Nader. But that's not going to happen. I wrote a post in '04 about how we would love to have Ralph Nader as president, but we can't "afford" him. Nader is the Cadillac of all candidates, he's big and full of wonderful features. But since I can't afford that big Cadillac, it wouldn't be long before the bank took it back and I had I'm driving the old junker Bush (or now, another Republican) again. I'd rather go for the candidate that I'll get something out of more often than not such as a HRC and I can "afford". Interestingly, not too long after I posted this, Randi Rhodes confronted Ralph Nader with this same analogy of "affording" him.

And, I like to win elections. You can get someone elected that might not be all things to all people, but you can sure bend his/her ear with access that you won't have with a Republic, and remind this person that we put him/her there and there will be another primary where he/she will need us.

When the Great DU Gang Wars of 2004 (where your avatar was your gang colors) were over, I was very proud to be affiliated with DU as so many people of diverse beliefs all came together and fought like hell for Kerry in November '04. I expect that in spite of all the infighting going on, the same will happen in '08. And, remember that no group fights each other more and better than Democrats. But when it's time, we all pull together.

[eridani]

219. In the primaries, why not ask for what you want?

We all understand that we'll take what we get in the general election, no matter who it is, but why not stand up for the issues that drive you RIGHT NOW?

[Gman]

411. For that matter,

I voted for Sharpton in '04 in the primary, then went to the precinct convention and signed in as a Kerry delegate to begin working my way to Boston. I knew I wouldn't get to Boston any other way but as a Kerry delegate. The primary votes didn't count toward delegate allocation. So I still voted for who I wanted, but supported Kerry.

[k_jerome]

295. this is the best post i have read in a while...i would encourage you...

to start a thread. wow.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

393. Yes, G-man, you have declared the One True Democratic Course for all of us

Thank you for setting us straight. Per your declarations from atop your horse on high, our choice is either to a) support the corporate rubber-stamped, war-supporting, big business-boosting, backstabbing-her-fellow-Democrats quasi-Democrat Hillary Clinton, or b) we can keep our mouths shut.

No objections to Hillary's support for the Iraq war and belligerence toward Iran allowed. No questioning of her boosting of an amendment to ban free speech related to the flag allowed. No objections allowed about Hillary's reprehensible behavior toward her fellow Democrats-- repeating neoconservative talking points about Democrats being "soft on terrorism," trashing John Kerry for a remark that she herself took out of context, having Terry McAuliffe quote George W. Bush himself toward fellow Democrats in saying "You're either with us or against us," then demanding that Barack Obama apologize for a remark he didn't even make, and that was in fact made independently by David Geffen who had once been a Hillary Clinton supporter himself.

Sorry to burst your bubble G-man, but Hillary's brought this resentment among Democrats squarely upon herself. And it's only gonna get much more intense.

[Gman]

413. What? No mention of the DLC???

and you call yourself a liberal...

[sandnsea]

36. I'm disgusted by the HRC lovefest

Having been called every sort of right wing troll name for the last 4 years at DU - I am STUNNED at the support for Hillary who is the emobodiment of everything DUers have repeatedly told me they were against. SHE is the rot in the Democratic Party that needs to be removed. She just said today that she promised health care reform by the end of her SECOND term - not her first because that might put HER at risk. She is politics as usual, and worse, and I can't understand why any DUer, particularly, is supporting her.

[mod mom]

129. Me too, which is why I usually avoid GD: Politics.

I have always been a straight party Dem until they failed to fight for their votes. There is a segment of the party who wishes to change the party to appease the corporations and folks with big bucks at the expense of the middle class. All those who promote this agenda are not going to receive a cent of my money nor my vote. I will in fact work to defeat them. They attempt to undermine Howard Dean's efforts, they blamed Gore's loss on his shift to populism (which is what lead to his victory) and of course Bob Woodward revealed how James Carville started the wheels working that lead to Kerry's decision to concede. Just because someone has a D after their name, doesn't mean they are working in the best interest of the party. Think Zell Miller and Joe Liebermann. I include Hillary in that group as well.

[mtnsnake]

263. Carville caused Kerry to concede? That's funny!!

The truth is: Kerry, and Kerry only, deserves full credit for conceding AND getting beat by a moron. It's not Carville's fault, it's not anyone's fault....but Kerry's that he conceded and lost.

Instead of being pissed about Hillary this and Hillary that, you ought to be pissed about Kerry getting whipped by an imbecile. Thanks to him, we got hit with a continuation of the worst president in history, Part II.

[John Q. Citizen]

293. Word! Well said.

[k_jerome]

135. bwahaha. what a crock. nt.

[flpoljunkie]

344. Yes, what is up with the "by the end of my second term" HRC will have universal health care.

[AZBlue]

397. Lovefest? Where? Link please!

It would be a nice balance to DU.

[Tom Joad]

37. I am disgusted by her support of the Iraq war. Support bloody wars of aggression,

and expect to get unpopular among people who care about peace.

[The Magistrate]

57. Who Do You Support For President, Mr. Joad?

[Tom Joad]

87. Jim Sagle.

[The Magistrate]

89. He Will Be Honored By Your Confidence, Sir

Have you any preferences among those candidates who have actually announced for the Democratic Party's nomination?

[DancingBear]

103. I'm an Andy Lewis guy myself

Lewis/Magistrate '08.

The theme song could be "On The Border."

HA!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tom Joad]

122. Magistrate has a lovely political philosophy.

Masses of people are moved by emotion, and that is powerful emotional tool. It is the firection people are moved to that concerns me, not the means that gets them going. People are far more reliably moved to action against something than for it, and so anger and hate are the common tools of competent political work.... The Magistrate, Fri Sep-15-06

I think they will be a very compatible team.

[DancingBear]

140. I think so as well

They will most probably do the majority of the heavy lifting undercover, but that is to be expected, predicated on the aforementioned operations manual.

[The Magistrate]

189. There Are Much Better Songs, Mr. Bear

"I hate people when they're not polite...."

[DancingBear]

197. Ah then, you must be bereft of mirrors

"How can I miss you when you won't go away"

[The Magistrate]

246. Who Wants To Be Missed, Mr. Bear?

"What's one million years in the scheme of one man's life?"

[KoKo]

161. "Magistrate" is indeed charming...and we all love him...but he

would be the first to admit...He's NOT ALWAYS CORRECT! And, this is from a DU'er who thinks his charm is from his astute observation as much as his "Interesting Persona," here.

He's a great foil...and I love him...but definitely don't always agree with him...even with :hug: to him.

[The Magistrate]

193. Perfection Is For The Gods, Ma'am

"On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."

[The Magistrate]

187. It Is A Pleasure To Know You Are Paying Attention, Joad

And keeping such excellent track of my commentaries here....

"This is the best world possible: everything in it is a necessary evil."

[patrice]

39. If she can't/doesn't want to exaplain her IWR vote (which makes people distrust her)

She could do an awful lot for her problems with some people by proposing something substantial concerning one or more of the following:
Free Palestine
Real Campaign Finance Reform
Electoral Fraud.

[durrrty libby]

113. It has been explained many many times

It is a shame that people are so unbelievably

thick-headed or dense that they don't understand

David Brooks has a new article about it. Try that.... if you dare


Very edumacational

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/nyts-david-brooks-hillary-doesnt-need.html

[patrice]

120. I don't understand it and I've tried!

By my count there are at least 8 different sets of factors that could account for a IWR yes.

It's an important question, because without a more detailed explanation, it looks to much like *, i.e taking advantage of a whole class of people, with little or no assurance of success.

I'm not saying it's her fault alone, she has just become emblematic of the problem. I would love to hear a more open discussion of the whole thing. That would go a long way toward moving her into a more positive balance with the other candidates for me. I really do believe that can happen, so it makes me wonder why it doesn't.

[patrice]

146. Interesting post you used to cite the David Brooks NYT piece.

Did you read the whole thing? Last paragraph:

"I would just add one more thing. People who assume that Hillary's only problem is with the "anti-war Left" are missing the boat. Not all of us are the anti-war left, and not all of us could give a hoot about an apology, or Hillary's vote at all. I honestly don't care that she voted for the war authorization. What I do care about is feeling like I'm being played. And Hillary's answers in response to the war vote feel scripted, as if she's searching for the perfect soundbite that will please 50.1% of the voters.

I don't want to hear scripting, I want to hear Hillary."

What's a shame is that people refer to other people as thick headed and dense, when they have absolutely no idea of what a person thinks or where they are on the issues. Although I was less inclined to believe what the anti-Hillary crowd was saying before your post, I am more inclined to believe it now. Apparently, no one can have questions or even entertain the possibility of disagreement without being thought stupid and obstructionist. Why are others or non-decideds the only ones who are required to be open minded?

[durrrty libby]

159. The point of the article is that she did not just jump up and down

cheering on a war

!)”she specifically rejected a pre-emptive, unilateral attack on Saddam”

2)” she called for a longer U.N. inspections”

3)” I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial”?

And that is only part of it

Good grief! It is eye-poppingly telling that this place can have so many

dunderheads yapping “She voted for the war” “Apoligize for the vote”

The haters take something complex and try to water it down. That is just moronic

[patrice]

162. I know she didn't "vote for the war".

As I said earlier, there are at least 8 different sets of factors one could have been trying to "triangulate" in making the decision of how to vote on the IWR. I think it would help us all if we understood better, that's what I've been saying on this board for weeks now. Mostly, I am ignored by both sides.

I intend to work for the candidate that I pick, but I'm not making my decision unless and until things get a whole lot more civil between the candidates AND their supporters.

[durrrty libby]

180. Well then ok. You are way ahead of almost everyone else

[patrice]

184. Not really, I'm pretty confused by what's going on in the blogosphere

All kinds of actors of various types, double, tripple agents, some paid, some not, some just simply anarchists. Impossible to parse; I had been hoping the candidates could use it as a means to hear the people, and stop going through paid intermediaries who tell them what the people think, but there might be too much BS going on I'm afraid.

The best thing for voters to do is go to original sources, don't give too much credence to unknown persons on some blog.

[bvar22]

218. Hey, don't mess up Hillary threads.....

...with ISSUES!
FEEL the LOVE, Man. Forget the ISSUES and just jump on the wagon!
You'll feel so much better if you stop thinking.



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.

[jaysunb]

40. I've watched the same scenario played out

on this site since 2001.

It's healthy , it's wise and it's what politics are all about.


Gore/Obama 08

[mikelgb]

41. ya gotta do everything you can to prevent holding your nose

i'll support the nominee WHEN they ARE the nominee, no sooner, unless of course the nominee is Dennis Kucinich then

the thing is I wish people could carry the logic that says they'll support Hillary if she's the nominee over to Dennis who most say they agree with almost his whole platform... why can't people assume the Hillary supporters will support the eventual nominee if not her? why?

[peace13]

43. I am disgusted by Hillary's anti Democratic values!

Her vote on Iraq for one. How long did she have to get a good consistent story out about that. She comes out of the gate stammering and stepping all over herself. The issue will be a thorn in her side until the election is over. The Iran issue. One more war that she is not afraid to get us involved in. Last but not least, the media has selected Hillary. She is the opponent that they want to fight. It is so clear that the Democrats will not pick the person for the job. It will be done for us and that is very overwhelming. Peace, KIm

[Nimrod2005]

44. Ok, calm down, she may not be there at the end.....nt

[melissinha]

48. not to speak for others, but if she is the candidate we will support her

We may prefer someone else, but I am sure I can speak for most on DU that we will support her if she gets the nod, but until then we will support other candidates who have closer views to ours.

Plus its her job to appeal to us. I am a little put off by constant sell job of HRC by Begala and Carville and by the assumptions that she will win the nod based on her war chest.... I don't like being bought and manipulated, but by no means will we support some Republican and risk another Republican cabinet, potential SCOTUS members and more Republican Federal Court nominees, no way.

[bpeale]

327. speak for yourself please

if she is the candidate i, for one, will not support her. period. i will not be told that my vote is "wasted" if i don't either. my vote is MINE to give, not the party's.

[AZBlue]

399. This I don't get. Why are you here if you're going to support the Republicans?

That's exactly what you're doing if you don't support the Dem nominee, no matter who she or he winds up being.

[bpeale]

415. i will vote for whomever i believe is best for the job

but it will not be hillary under any circumstances. she is no better than a republican. i would vote a write in candidate or a libertarian first. you may not like it, but its my vote, not yours, and not automatically the dems either.

[enough already]

55. "What if she gets the nod?"

She'll lose. Royally.

[AtomicKitten]

64. I didn't know you are clairvoyant.

awesome

[peace13]

70. How nice would it be to have a candidate that we could really

stand beside. I can't imagine the feeling.

[bpeale]

328. better think about it

it's in the republican's best interests for her to be the candidate. then they can attack and use Bill's issues to keep people from looking at the real issues. she's way to polarizing. face it. the repugs don't want us to front a candidate they would have to actually debate with real issues because THEY would lose. and they know it.

[melissinha]

408. as far as I can see she is direct victim of Bill's personal mistakes

She's the one that was cheated on, I don't see how the fact that he cheated on her has any bearing on her. Now I find many faults with her, I agree with you she is polarizing, so we need to work even harder for some other candidate, but lets me constructive and just work to get a better candidate than her without bickering about her faults...

But I stand by my statement, the Democratic candidate gets my vote, whomever it is. Cause like Randi says, any one of our candidates would make a better President than any of theirs.

[kimmerspixelated]

61. Thing is,

she is very polarizing. Just like Kerry in some ways, in that folx either loved him or hated him. I grew to really love Kerry, and like you AK, I got really pissed at anything negative. But we're in this for a long haul, so maybe we could all tone it down a bit.

[cleveramerican]

62. Get over it

Tough scrutiny comes with being a presidential candidate. That includes the scrutiny of ordinary dem-leaning voters, not only from her political opponents.


I am anxiously waiting and hoping she will strike the right tone to get me fired up for her, but at this point in time I cannot say weather that will happen at some future time, or weather some other smart capable candidate will capture my attention more fully. The campaign matters, what she says, as well as what other candidates say, MATTERS.

[AtomicKitten]

65. ah, if only

Tough scrutiny

that would be delightful

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. I'm disgusted with Hillary Clinton.

:shrug:

[w4rma]

68. It's the Democratic primary and many people *really* dislike the way she conducts herself.

When the primary is over and if she somehow becomes the nominee, then you can be "disgusted". Until then, ethical Democrats are going to try to stop her from winning the nomination.

[AtomicKitten]

71. some of the attacks here are far from "ethical"

in fact, they are the dregs of the lowest of the low

[ProSense]

72. Ethical? See post 19.

Ethical?


Rich! Rich! Rich!


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

77. again I will remind you

NonSense - HRC is a current presidential candidate, Kerry is not.

Having trouble digesting that?

[ProSense]

85. Agree: Kerry is not a candidate for president. Still, Clinton is fair game for criticism.

Having trouble digesting that?


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[karynnj]

104. I found it MORE despicable when you started

3 threads so clearly flamebait that they were all locked in one day AFTER KERRY WAS NOT RUNNING.

Now is the time that known liabilities should be discussed. I think Geffen went over the top on some of the attacks. The only one I consider valid is that Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich - this does need to be vetted. In the past, you claimed that all of Hillary's liabilities were vetted but they weren't.

[ProSense]

114. Kick for hypocricy! n/t

[JI7]

240. this is just crazy

since Hillary is running she should NOT be criticized but it's ok to bash Kerry endlessly because he isn't running. never mind that the person bashed anything Kerry did even before he announced he wasn't running by claiming he was running for Pres.

HHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAH, WHAT A FUCKING JOKE.

[w4rma]

136. All the more reason to go after Hillary with full force.

And all the more reason to NOT go after Sen. Kerry.

[patrice]

90. Too True.

People should disagree without attacking one another or the candidate personally.

However, personal attacks REALLY disuade the large majority of leaners. You can trust people to make these decisions when they see the strife.

[w4rma]

138. She's fought, through surrogates, against every attack on the neo-cons since Bush was selected.

Her actions have not been ethical. They have been opportunistic.

Honestly, I don't care if the right-wing StopHillaryPAC stops her from winning the primary.
As long as she doesn't make it into the general.

I'm serious. She's no underdog. She has many in big business backing her. She's the front runner. She's bad news.

[KoKo]

147. To back up your post...folks should READ THIS!

http://www.easycartsecure.com/CounterPunch/CounterPunch_Books.html

[cadmium]

149. Who do you mean by lowest of the low?

Lowest of the low is very low in 21st century politics

[Miss Chybil]

75. I'm with you. nt

[AtomicKitten]

78. thank you

[zulchzulu]

80. Senator Clinton does not get a free pass...

Her actions of late are very disturbing to not only myself but others. Her snotty statement about how she is stronger on terrorism than "some other candidates" in South Carolina and her mamby-pamby tantrum on Geffen's financial contributions to Senator Obama's campaign need to be addressed and discussed.

It's her words, her press releases from her campaign that are representative of her... these things are not just popping out of some vortex...out of the abyss...

There are other issues as well regarding her candidacy that many people are disturbed by. They are not stupid, uninformed, left-wing wackos, tied-dyed Koochheads and they will not stand down. I know I won't.

If Senator Clinton makes it through the primary season next year, I know I and many Democrats will back her over the alternative. But in the meantime, I would hope that people are not expected to shut up and sit in the corner and await the coronation...

[AtomicKitten]

86. I'd settle for

I would hope that people are not expected to shut up and sit in the corner and await the coronation...

... for curtailing the over-the-top personal assaults on her, the assigning of motives and thoughts to her, the grotesque exaggerations of her record and policy statements ...

Better yet, I'd like fair and decent treatment of any of those that have declared their intention to throw themselves into the fire to become our nominee; I'm talking about our actual contenders, not sour grapes over the wannabees.

[zulchzulu]

96. If someone sings out of key, the other band members need to point it out

Otherwise the band sucks...

Again, words count. Actions count. If someone says something that is possibly disagreeable, I would expect those that care and are listening to respond.

BTW, who are the actual contenders and who are the wannabees? Je suis curieux.

[AtomicKitten]

105. the answer to your question

is those that have actually declared they are running, not those that we wish would run.

BTW, who are the actual contenders and who are the wannabees?

[roguevalley]

245. I also find the reference to New York and the WTC offensive. I am

sure it was tough but it was tougher on the people who were in it or lost people. There were lots of people at the WTC and they are dealing. Somehow I don't think being in Washington when it happened makes her anymore sad or suffering than anyone else in the country that wasn't there and using 911, by her or anyone else, sucks. Unless she is talking about it demanding an accounting, the use of it otherwise by her sucks. Any candidate using 911 sucks, including the fucker in the white house.

[zulchzulu]

252. I missed that little gem...what was that about?

You mentioned the use of 911 and WTC...what event occurred where those were used as pity props?

[roguevalley]

257. I will find the link and post it.

[roguevalley]

280. here is the link. the story is halfway down the page under the

title: "Hillary now using Bush talking points, says fellow Dems don't care about the war on terror"

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_americablog_archive.html

[Firespirit]

83. I'd like to know something

You say you are a Gore supporter. OK, great. But you post a LOT of posts in defense of Hillary, far more than in defense of other 2008 candidates. Generally, whenever someone self-identifies as a supporter for a presidential candidate and then posts about that person as often as you do about HRC, that person becomes known as a shill. Not saying it's fair, but it's what happens. You have avoided this label because you identify as a Gore supporter rather than a Hillary one.

However, is she your #2?

I am not asking this so that I can call you a shill. That's a personal attack. I just think it's disingenuous to hide behind a candidate who is most likely not running, while doing the same activity that gets called "shilling" when it is done by an open supporter.

Now, to head off your request, here's my list.

1. Edwards.
2. Gore, if running. Obama if not.
3. Clark, if Gore is out. Obama if he's in.

Are you game?

[AtomicKitten]

92. I'm game.

1. Al Gore.
2. Al Gore.
3. Al Gore.
4. Barack Obama.
5. Wesley Clark.

The theme here is those that did not vote 'yes' on the IWR. I will not vote for HRC in the primary nor any of the other knuckleheads that voted 'yes' on the IWR. But that's me; I don't presume to offer that up as a voting guide for others.

However, I am by nature the champion of the underdog.* HRC has virtually no or very little outspoken support here at DU but there are plenty of those willing to say the most vile things about her.

There really needs to be an effort at some sort of balance on these boards. I have many friends and colleagues that think this place is a joke and shun it precisely because of what I have outlined in the OP, and they too are not particularly HRC supporters. What they are are SOLID DEMOCRATS that see no advantage in annihilating one of our strongest contenders. People have legitimate criticism regarding her candidacy but would be hard-pressed to dispute the fact that she is one of our strongest contenders. What is apparent to those looking in is that DU is moving towards cutting off its collective nose to spite its collective face.

* I also adopt the unadoptable pets from the SPCA.

[Firespirit]

110. I would disagree that HRC is an underdog here

She was a year ago, but she isn't now. And there are certainly outspoken supporters. If I look at the threads in this forum, I see several "on fire" threads that are started by Hillary supporters. By definition those people are outspoken.

If I look at any random 2008 poll (with a reasonable number of votes), Hillary's portion definitely registers. She is legitimately an underdog on the Daily Kos, where she typically polls in the low single digits on that type of poll, but for some reason the demographics on DU are different.

And as for annihilating her -- well, clearly she's not annihilated. There have been unsubstantiated attacks on her made in here, but this type of attack is always debunked when it happens and the thread is locked. Even people who don't support her, don't want to encourage lies, because they realize -- rightly -- that it hurts their own candidates. The attacks that have legs are the ones with some fact to them. IWR, the comments that her people have made, this "terror" remark... if it can be proven, it is fair game, as far as I'm concerned.

[patrice]

118. I don't think people really understand what damage they do

to their own position when they are ugly. It's kind of confusing really. If the point is persuasion, they either don't know what they are doing or they don't care.

Even if people want to agree with those who promote ugliness, a lot of people won't agree with them for that reason alone.

[bvar22]

232. Using that criteria...

you should be a HUGE Kucinich supporter.
:)

[AtomicKitten]

249. I would be if he stood a chance.

In fact, I organized two fundraisers for him in Santa Cruz, California during the 2004 primaries.
I figure you probably meant to be snarky, but sometimes people just assume things about others.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

84. Maybe, for many DUers...

their "anti-Hillary sentiment" has been come by honestly, after many, many years of observing, learning, and evaluating. How is that wrong? Should they just keep their mouths shut about what they have concluded for fear of "tainting" her candidacy?

People here are adults -- they can look at all sides and come to their own conclusions about Hillary Clinton, or any other Democratic candidate.

[Alamom]

88. I'm with you and so are a lot of other people....outside DU

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070220/cm_thenation/45167719

02/20/07


The new Harris Interactive poll of 3,423 potential voters nationwide finds that among all adults -- Democrats, Republicans and Independents -- Clinton is the clear favorite. According to the Harris analysts, "Fully 45 percent would consider voting for her compared to 37 percent for Obama, 29 percent for Giuliani, 28 percent for Edwards, 26 percent for McCain and 26 percent for Al Gore."

Forced to choose one favorite among all the candidates, fully 20 percent of those surveyed selected the senator from New York, as compared with only 10 percent for the next strongest contender, Obama. The top Republican, Giuliani, could muster just eight percent, while the supposed superstar of the contest, McCain, was at six percent.

Of course, it is necessary to note that national surveys do not tell us what will happen in early caucuses and primaries. But they do suggest that those who claim that Hillary Clinton would be a dangerously unpopular nominee for the Democrats are stuck in a timewarp.

[AtomicKitten]

94. thanks for the link

It speaks volumes.

[Morgana LaFey]

439. Yeah, volumes about

name recognition and very little more.

Those who are involved with politics -- political junkies like DUers -- aren't that hot on her. See, for example: Iowa.

[patrice]

107. This is not an attack. But you need to understand that many people

have a problem with what you've just cited there.

"Support her because she will win." The campaign builds momentum on that alone, which causes it to build more momentum, which leads to more momentum. The effect is that Nothing else matters.

Many of us believe it would be more possible for others to win if so many people weren't creating that momentum.

[Alamom]

123. So, there is no momentum building for the other candidates?

Senator Obama's Fundraiser in Hollywood (last night) being a HUGH SUCCESS has been on TV all day.



The author of the article says he is not a HRC supporter. He is giving an opinion based on polls. I have nothing to do with the results of polls.
I will post articles I find interesting about the candidates.

I did not say support her because she will win. You did.
I support HRC now, but I will vote for the Democratic Nominee when that time comes.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say.......however, if a complimentary post about HRC bothers you, there are about 5 posts bashing her to every 1, complimenting her.


You need to understand, many of us feel she "IS" the best candidate.

[patrice]

132. Re your tone: Attacking me pretty much supports my concerns.

I haven't chosen a candidate yet. I am now feeling less inclined toward HC than I did 5 minutes ago. Apparently I don't matter.

There are too many people around being paid for what they say. And that's part of the problem.

[Alamom]

165. You have not been attacked. Your opinion was addressed in the same

tone as your reply & now, your assumption of paid supporters.

I addressed your momentum concerns about other candidates and repeated, more or less, one of your sentences about understanding.

You have also already stated you were less inclined to support this candidate upthread........



I am not being paid and I don't try to tell people what they can or can not post.



Good luck to you.

[patrice]

176. As I have said,

you are only proving the anti-HC crowd is right about her supporters at minimum. Just keep on digging that hole; you're making my decisions easier. With such support the woman doesn't need enemies.

[grace0418]

91. I think the sentiment is warranted. I'm sorry but that's how I feel. I will vote for HRC

if I must but I really, really, REALLY hope I don't have to resort to that. She's better than a Republican, and that's the only good thing I can say about her.

[AtomicKitten]

95. your feelings on the subject

... are valid and expressed in a perfectly genuine and palatable way.

Well done.

[grace0418]

116. Thank you.

We can disagree without becoming crazy about it.

[durrrty libby]

99. There is definitely a hidden agenda with the haters

I laugh at the ridiculous assertions they make,

and yes, there will be many noseless faces

walking the streets

[Alamom]

108. You paint a hilarious picture. Thanks.

:rofl:

[KoKo]

167. Read this and re-consider the use of "Haters." Link:

http://www.easycartsecure.com/CounterPunch/CounterPunch_Books.html

[elizm]

102. Maybe if she behaved...

...There wouldn't be so much anti-Hillary sentiment. Don't you think it is odd that the only Democratic candidate that is not getting smeared in the media is Hillary?? Look what they have tried to do to Obama and Edwards. You gotta wonder where it is coming or NOT coming from.

[Timbuk3]

111. The SUPREME COURT...hangs in the balance.

You can't say that often enough.

Which makes me wonder why the candidates aren't saying it.

[seaglass]

130. Because it's the primaries, that's not an argument that needs to

be made until the primaries are over. What would be the difference in the make-up of the USSC between Obama, Clinton Edwards etc.?

[cascadiance]

148. That's precisely one reason why I AM concerned about HRC being the nominee

I don't want to bash her, but up until now, I really don't see the substance I want from a candidate from her yet. A lot of what has been celebrated for her, Obama and others is style. To me, I don't think there's another election in our lifetimes that is SO important to have someone of substance get elected. That's why, no matter how nice they may seem, no matter how much ground we can cover towards electing a woman or a minority, that still isn't enough to get my vote. I want SUBSTANCE from the person I vote for. And I see the important battleground to get that person is the primary.

I don't want to "bash" other candidates necessarily, but I will point out areas where I am concerned about them, and why I'll have a hard time supporting them.

Perhaps my primary issue of concern about whoever we get elected in 2008 is whether they will do their best to get corporations out of politics. I see that as the infection that affects just about every other issue negatively for our side. Solving that would immensely change the equation and help us move more towards a progressive government, and perhaps one even that would serve some of those on the conservative side who are also not rich folks but start to see the light of all of this corporate corruption we have now.

That's why the person I want elected, I want to FULLY support clean elections public financing and champion such a bill passing for national elections in the congress, and to nominate Supreme Court Justices who will, if they are asked to stick to the constitution, not dismiss ruling to get rid of corporate personhood (probably the greatest act of judicial activism in our history), instead of the usual Roe v. Wade question regarding "judicial activist decisions".

When I see Hillary basically be about the first Democratic Candidate to dismiss in record time any idea of using public financing for her campaign (which others in the past have held out for a lot longer on), which inflates the cost of the primaries quite a bit more than usual, I REALLY don't see that being consistent with someone who wants to put in place a REAL program of public financing. This issue as well as others tells me that she won't make a priority of getting corporate influence out of politics a primary goal of hers. That makes it VERY hard for me to support her for 2008! If you can pressure her, or Obama for that matter to publicly make that an issue they would support (and they follow it up with actions in the senate and in their campaign to give indications that they aren't just pandering to us), then I might change my mind.

I don't want to "bash" Hillary, because I still would like her FAR more than someone like Bush. However, she's got a long way to go to earning my full support, especially during primary season. And I'm not going to support her just because she's a woman, or support Obama just because he's an African American, any more than I obviously wouldn't support Condi Rice for both of those reasons. I want them to show me ACTIONS that I can support before I will jump on any of their bandwagons.

[AtomicKitten]

112. thanks for the discussion DU

I appreciate it. :)

Over and out.

[countmyvote4real]

115. That’s hysterical. n/t

[DemKR]

117. I agree with you 100% GO HILLARY! n/t

[Morgana LaFey]

121. And I am disgusted by Dems who can't see thru her

and boy oh boy is that easy. She's an opportunistic corporatist, a DLCer, and I don't want her for our nominee. If I feel strongly about that -- and I DO -- then I have the right if not the OBLIGATION to suggest that others take a very long, hard look at how very good she ISN'T. If you object, you can ignore my responses, and indeed put me on Ignore. I could care less. But you don't do democracy itself much good by decrying the process at this early stage.

If she's the nominee, yeah, I'll probably vote for her, but with a heavy heart and trying to control my gag reflex: :puke:

But we've got a long, long way to go before we get to where she's the nominee. (And here's an advance clue for you: even if she IS the nominee, I can still criticize her and probably will. 'Cause I freakin' can't stand her.)

[Tellurian]

125. But will you cast your vote for her if she is the dem nominee as promised..?

[Morgana LaFey]

169. I already gave you my answer on that

I did qualify it some by saying "probably," but all that means is that I don't know what will happen in the meantime: I can't predict the future. Maybe I'll be on my deathbed in which case I won't vote at all, probably. Maybe Howard Dean or Al Gore will break away from the do-nothing Dems and have a really decent bipartisan following and I'll have to vote for them. No, that's NOT likely to happen, esp. people as loyal to the party as these two -- I'm just trying to point out I don't KNOW what will happen and barring unforeseen circumstances which would otherwise make me a liar, yes, I'll be voting for her sorry ass. I just don't make blanket, ironclad promises, that's all. I just don't.

[fuzzyball]

124. AK, you are my favorite poster :-)

[Tellurian]

126. AK is one of my favorites too! ;-)

[zulchzulu]

141. I agree also

We may not agree on every issue, but she is a treat.

[smoogatz]

127. I'll oppose her in the primaries.

Her IWR vote was unconscionable, plain and simple. She bears a considerable chunk of the responsibility for the mess we're in--her vote in particular put the Clinton seal of approval on this war. But if she wins the nom, I'll support her like a titanium brassiere. I agree with AK in the sense that I believe that any DUer who would advocate non-participation or support of some third-party spoiler in the event that Hillary wins the nom has got his/her head irretrievably lodged up his/her rectum, and ought to find his/herself a good proctopsychologist.

[ProSense]

128. Ah! One of my favorite things:

democracy!

Love it!

[MasonJar]

131. I agree with you that we need to support whomever the Dems

select. I am actually shocked that after the monster years of Repugs everywhere that any DUers would not vote for our candidate for any reason. Please say it isn't so. We have many great candidates and Hill is one of them. Are any of you implying that the Pugs did not vote for IWR? Think, y'all! I am personally not going to degrade any of the dems; he or she may end up being the one I work for.

[bonito]

133. Defending HRC is like defending AIPAC

As they pay for politicians to do their bidding.

[Forkboy]

137. It seems so early in the season for the "I'm disgusted by..." threads.

Must be the global warming.

[KoKo]

177. Maybe that New Virus....Corporate Whore Media Frenzie/CWMF

that infects us inbetween election cycles. After all the Corporatists gotta keep whipping us into the Frenzy...it draws folks to ESPN and whips us up for the "Cycle." Advertisers/Lobbyists/Porkers and Think Tanks...all in the fray...

[elizm]

139. Maybe you should read...

Some of the other many liberal blogs. It 'ain't' just here, honey. She is disliked widely among liberals.

[KoKo]

142. Well...read this ...and then tell us what you think...

http://www.easycartsecure.com/CounterPunch/CounterPunch_Books.html

[PassingFair]

150. Can you believe it? People used to talk about JOE LIEBERMAN this way too!

Shameless whiners!

[ShortnFiery]

151. That makes one of us ...

AK. When Hillary was The First Lady, we were living on Quantico Marine Corps Base Officers' Housing. Seemingly EVERYONE (family members in our housing area) hated Hillary, but not me ... well at THAT time I greatly respected HRC. I even wore my "I'm a Member of Hillary's Fan Club" to her appearance at the Child Development center.

HRC's behavior has changed since the mid 90s and NOT in a good way. One, she now reminds me of haughty officer's wives who seemingly wore their husband's rank by always referring to them. Two, she dismisses those of us who believe that every member of The Senate who voted for the IWR should "own up" to their partial responsibility that gave our Mad King George the authority to invade Iraq. Three, I am honestly disgusted with Bill Clinton's womanizing and he's never truly "wowed me" to begin with. Perhaps I always shy away from someone who's believed to be "The bomb" or "The Big Dog." And finally, HRC has demonstrated arrogance and swagger that I find very distasteful in any politician regardless of gender, race or culture.

I mentioned earlier: Bill Clinton can NOT stop having affairs, i.e., he's a compulsive and serial adulterer. Considering all the grilling Bill Clinton took during the 1996 election over Flower's accusations, a person in control of their hormones would have learned his/her lesson TWICE OVER. I know that it's unpopular on DU and I recognize Bill Clinton's high intelligence ... but let's be happy having "The Big Dog" as Secretary of State under someone such as President Obama? That way when he flirts and cheats on Hillary, nobody will truly give a damn given that he is not representing the highest office in our Country. We need the whole package - not just banking on distored memories of the days of yore. :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

172. your story certainly explains

your opinion and I only hope for the sake of those adamant about not supporting her even if she becomes the nominee that the nominee is someone different, Gore perhaps - which would most certainly make me one happy camper - who appears to garner support across the board.

[ShortnFiery]

182. That was very thoughtful and gracious of you AK

I bow to the diplomatic master :applause: ... well, despite the fact that we tangle often, IMO, you're one likable soul. :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

186. if we all thought alike

... we'd be Republicans - and there were would be no fireworks at my dinner parties.

back at ya

[Tellurian]

200. If your dinner parties are on the beach, AK..

count me in..

[LSK]

153. Its called Primaries????

:shrug:

[burythehatchet]

154. every "Clinton Outrage" thread strengthens my resolve

to work for ANYONE else. What's more, I see the people who support her, and not all, but most of those posters, are the ones in whose opinions I place little value in general. They confirm my sentiments towards "Hil"

[AtomicKitten]

168. no doubt

What's more, I see the people who support her, and not all, but most of those posters, are the ones in whose opinions I place little value in general.

.... your negative assessment has caused the sun to shine a little less bright in the world.

[DeepModem Mom]

155. From an Obama supporter, K&R. nt

[AtomicKitten]

170. thank you, mam

[Clarkie1]

156. I'm not. No one who voted for the war should ever receive the nomination. nt

[Southsideirish]

157. Her odious vote on the bankruptcy bill sealed it for me. I'll N E V E R vote

for her. Not in a zillion years!

[PassingFair]

166. To be fair, I think she sat that vote out....

I think Bill had had a heart attack at the time, and
she missed the vote.

[ShortnFiery]

178. HRC abstained in 2005, but in 2001 HRC supported the notorious Bankruptcy Bill.

Why Pretend That Hillary Clinton Is Progressive?
by Norman Solomon

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0612-30.htm

snip

But the people who "do consider Hillary progressive" could mostly be divided into two categories -- those who are Fox-News-attuned enough to believe any non-Republican is a far leftist, and those who are left-leaning but don't realize how viciously opportunistic Sen. Clinton has been. Today, in keeping with her political character, she welcomes the fund-raising support of reactionary media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

Unfortunately, the kind of confusion that sees Hillary Clinton as progressive is apt to get a boost from her appearance at a conference with avowedly progressive sponsorship -- particularly because the person in the best position to dispel such confusion is not on the program. The "Take Back America" schedule set aside half an hour for a speech from Clinton but not a minute for any words from Jonathan Tasini, the longtime union activist who's running -- on an antiwar and all-around progressive platform -- against Clinton in this year's Democratic primary for senator from New York.

It's sad to see that the progressive conference has excluded from the podium the vigorous primary challenger Tasini while featuring a speaker who has stood against the progressive agenda consistently for a decade on issues ranging from NAFTA to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Tasini points out that Hillary Clinton remains for the war in Iraq, for so-called "free trade" agreements and for the death penalty. She supported the notorious 2001 bankruptcy bill, "has never been for single-payer health insurance" and has worked hard to undermine a host of other progressive positions.

/snip

[paulk]

320. HRC gave a floor speech prior to the 2005 vote

explaining that, if she had been able, (her husband was having heart surgery at the time, and she felt it more important to be at his side), she would have voted against it. Her vote would not have made a difference in the final outcome, since Republicans controlled the Senate at the time.

The "notorious bankruptcy bill" you mention passed by a vote of 87 - 13, so, by your count, there are only 13 true progressives in the Senate.

[Labors of Hercules]

158. Yes, a Dem needs the win, and it may be Hillary who's our best shot...

She's sure tough enough, but I don't trust her. kinda the same way I don't trust sushi... not that I don't like it, it just makes me uneasy.

[KoKo]

171. Read this before you decide.............link:

http://www.easycartsecure.com/CounterPunch/CounterPunch_Books.html

[AtomicKitten]

173. I believe

you rival another DU'er for posting the same material a gazillion times at DU and on this thread alone.

Got it.

[KoKo]

174. Did you read it! If you do...Will you Post about it "Pro or Con?"

That's what I'm asking...

[MrSlayer]

163. And I am disgusted by HRC.

So we're even.

[Labors of Hercules]

175. nope, we're two to one.

at least. :bounce:

[ShortnFiery]

179. Wait! Two to Two.

;) :hi:

But hey, if you continue the, IMO, self-righteous preaching about what we should and should not post, you're only making an already OUTED (for AIPAC and Corporations first) HRC even less popular with the non-investor classes (Americans who don't have at least 300,000 invested in the stock market).

Perhaps more corporate cash thrown her way and increased whoring by the M$M will get HRC nominated despite the will of The American Populace? NOT! :rofl:

[Labors of Hercules]

188. No WAIT WAIT! 3 to 1!!!

at least, based on what you've written here... CHEERS!
:hi: :toast:

[kohodog]

181. I don't want to hold my nose when I vote anymore.

I'm fgoing to wait and see who is the real deal, if there is one. It is too early. Anti-Hillary is not necessarily anti-Dem.

btw, her communications director only helped to alienate me today. He came across as an arrogant ass.

[Porcupine]

281. I would like some hope of improvement. HRC offers none. nt.

.

[roguevalley]

183. well, i guess its over. you can't have convictions, you can't have

points of view, you can't express them. hrc is being rammed down my throat and i'm supposed to shut up and swallow. sad.

[AtomicKitten]

185. as always

... snaps for drama

[durrrty libby]

190. Hee.....and sooo true

[roguevalley]

226. two of my favorite drama queens :) I, however, find it tiresome to

find that everytime someone doesn't agree or conform to opinion about ANY candidate, especially the two that are being touted as the media darlings and therefore the ones the media have constructed as shoe-ins, someone jumps on you and kicks your ass. If that entitles me to be a drama queen, then I revel in it. Rather. You will forgive me when I made the mistake of believing that we didn't have to toe the media, party, etc line and fall in behind a candidate that we didn't believe in.

I guess I'm old. I remember when the primaries were for duking it out and the winner take the crown. Funny me. Democracy and free speech. how quaint.

[AtomicKitten]

243. If you can state

with a straight face that you don't think HRC is righteously reamed here at DU, exponentially more so than the other candidates, you must not wander over to GD-P very often. It is an accomplished sport here.

Nobody is complaining about a thorough thrashing in the form of criticism. Seriously, I think you just aren't aware of the way she is treated here. Hang out a bit more and you will understand what I'm talking about.

Two snaps around the world, and back again.

[roguevalley]

259. okay. list the unjust comments and links. make it easy for us.

[AtomicKitten]

260. ***

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3125867&mesg_id=3126733

[ProSense]

191. Here's a

blog tour.

[NobleCynic]

192. Nonsense

Most of us will vote for her in the general should she win in the primaries. But our attacking her serves a very real purpose. By demonstrating our discontent, we inspire other candidates to take a less moderate and more ideological stance. Some of us believe in the virtue of campaigning at the extremes even if we do not believe we should be governed by the extremes. No one is inspired by a moderate. You win converts in politics by preaching strong ideology, that is why the Republicans were able to grow so quickly from Reagan forward. They gave no ideological ground. Even if you don't believe in a black and white stance, preaching flat grey is a suboptimal approach at best.

Sure, you may win a single election by moving center, but by doing so you push the center away from you which hurts your cause next election. People do not pay close attention to politics, they judge the center to be in between the two parties. Therefore when one party moves center, the entire country moves away from that party because they assume that the center is still in between the two parties. Only by running from the center can you pull the country with you.

That is why many of us attack Hillary. Any who aim for the center do so at the cost of the entire party. She aims for the middle on every issue you can name, to the detriment of us all.

If you're disgusted by it, fine. But realize there are good reasons for attacking her. We're trying to force her, and any other candidate running, a little farther left than dead center. Winning with a complete moderate is no more than a push at a blackjack table. We want to win something in 2008, not just prevent another Bush.

(edited for spelling)

[patrice]

202. Wow! What a great post!!!

Love!!! that point about the center always moving away from wherever any particular candidate/party locates it.

Re your point about Republican ideologs: My husband, the Libertarian attorney, says they also ALWAYS start out asking for the moon, because they know it's going to get bargained down, but the problem is if they don't get bargained down, they WILL take the moon. Democrats are too realistic; they start out with something more reasonable and acceptable to everyone and then they get bargained down to next to nothing.

[eridani]

233. Exactly!

Hillary supporters are the people who'd advertise their used car for sale for the $3000 they'll take if they have to, and not the $5000 they'd like to get if they could.

The Republics have no problems whatsoever in continuing to advocate for an end to Social Security, even though that's a wildly unpopular non-starter. Dems start out wussy, and will not call for universal health care and fair trade, despite the fact that those are issues which are really popular with average people.

[NobleCynic]

290. Maybe I should repost it as an original thread

Your Libertarian analogy is also quite good, and helps build on the idea.

[patrice]

311. I wish I could get him to post if you did.

He's a corporate attorney, so he has a lot of experience in negotiations, but he's also extremely careful about saying things around people he doesn't know, and he doesn't trust this medium.

I think you should do that anyway; it might help some people understand what is going with themselves and/or others.

[NobleCynic]

354. I reposted it here if you'd like to contribute

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3128280

[AtomicKitten]

205. 29% have said they will not

Most of us will vote for her in the general should she win in the primaries.

The issue of the Supreme Court fueled my OP. If you're disgusted by that, so be it.

Also, I am rather apprehensive about offering up a bloody mess as our candidate which may be the end result of a primary season that you describe.

I would like to allow our candidate the space of choosing how to run their own campaign; that is their prerogative. The idea of them battling both sides of the aisles is most repugnant to me.

[NobleCynic]

289. There is a valid point in that a primary can get too bloody

But at the same time, do you remember how vile the Republican primary was in 2000? "Black baby" John McCain being thrown around by the Bush team?

Although in fairness, if McCain had won the primary, he might have been too bloodied to win the general. Damage from the primaries may only affect moderate candidates to a large degree. The more extreme candidate is always in a better position to shrug off primary damage, because by their very nature, the extremes of any ideological position are easier to defend in argument. But this is just idle speculalation.

I will certainly cede the possibility that such a primary may cost us the general. But at the same time, it would leave us in a better position for the next election. Lose an election, but move the center farther left. Lose another, but keep the public moving left. Eventually the Republicans end up where Democrats once stood. I will readily admit the flaws in such a strategy. My point is that it is a solid long term strategy for shifting public opinion leftward.

The other major flaw of this strategy is in the possibility of losing a crucial election where the damage done in the short run is so great that it overwhelms whatever long run good good have been gained. The current president being a good example. But only hindsight can grant such knowledge.

And as a side note, I strongly suspect that the 29% who voted that way don't actually feel that way. They just voted that way to further demonstrate their unhappiness with Hillary. Push comes to shove, odds are they're voting Democrat over Republican, even if the Democrat is Hillary.

[Tellurian]

212. An absurd elaborate platform justifying abuse and harrassment..

"You Can't Get There From Here"



Alice through the Looking Glass..

[NobleCynic]

287. Politics is an nasty, ugly, abusive business

Those that don't treat it so get trampled. Perhaps the world would be a better place if it weren't so, but it is.

[Tellurian]

319. Theres nothing noble about being a cynic,,

skepticism is healthy. Cynicism is an unhealthy closed minded ideology.

[Forkboy]

337. Cynics are just prematurely disappointed in the future

We're always ahead of the game :)

[Tellurian]

341. Putting yourself behind the 8 ball is ahead?

wow- new philosophy..

FAILURE FIRST!

[Forkboy]

360. Cynics are almost always right

I bet we have a better average than most Vegas gamblers.

And it's free!!!

[RiverStone]

229. Please don't confuse party loyalty with anger toward Hillary

IMHO, Hillary's arrogance, her IWR & Bankruptcy Bill votes, DLC corporate connects, and long time Washington insider make her way to the right of what a majority of us here at DU values as our core DEM beliefs.

If when the primary dust settles, Hillary is left standing - at that point in time my critical focus on her will end and shift fully to the rethug opponent for Pres. Above all - I do WANT a DEM in the White House (even Hillary by default).

Yet, until we reach the moment the delegates are casting their votes at the DEM convention, I'll fight like hell for a candidate that has been against the IWR from the get-go. HRC is the media darling, with a BIG cash advantage already. We DEMS don't march in lock-step like rethugs (thankfully) and the discourse around Hillary on DU is not only welcome - but I encourage it for our country and our big blue wonderful party!

:kick:

[NobleCynic]

288. I think I agree with everything you just said

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? If you're disagreeing, I apologize, but I'm not clear how.

[melissinha]

412. well said NobleCynic!

We do need to push her/them and tell them what they need to be working on. The politicians don't have the guts without crowds behind them. I think most of them are moving to the center because that is were they perceive the crowd to be, but they are wrong, we need to embolden them to stand up for us and true American values.

[AtomicKitten]

194. funny story

I was just driving here in SF and heard Mike Malloy talk about this brouhaha today with Geffen vis a vis Maureen Dowd's article. I don't think anyone would argue that Malloy is most definitely a progressive. He said in his opinion, Dowd is just being pissy and her anti-Clinton rants are legendary. He said he thinks it's because BC didn't play grab-ass with her and she's jealous because HRC is so intelligent.

Malloy is NO Clinton fan - quite the opposite - but he didn't think much of the overblown dust-up about Geffen and the HRC/Obama camps, and neither did I. What it did do was provide fodder for the anti-HRC folks to launch thread after thread to go off on yet another bent which seems to happen with very little provocation around here.

I really hope we can agree that the Supreme Court is MORE important than POTUS and that SC decisions shape our lives and last decades if not forever. My declared solidarity for whomever get the nod is all about that, not going along to get along or whatever nasty epithet has been hurled at me for my OP. This is more important than just about anything else IMO.

[ProSense]

195. Funnier story:

hypocrisy.

[AtomicKitten]

196. sad story

punctuated by bitterness and the inability to move on

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3125867&mesg_id=3126487

[ProSense]

199. "Supreme Court is MORE important than POTUS and that SC decisions shape our lives and last decades"

Remember when Clinton team member Carville was bashing Kerry during the general election and there were two Supreme Courts seats soon to be filled (eventually filled by Alito and Roberts)? Reminder.

[AtomicKitten]

203. thanks for the invite

... back in time and for your bitter albeit stale tales bemoaning the past.

However, this is 2007 and most of the rest of us are looking forward and pretty much regard your bitterness as sour grapes and the inability to move on.

If you want to participate in working towards the future, you are more than welcome; otherwise your input is tantamount to that of a spoiled, whining child pulling on his mother's skirt.

[ProSense]

206. "whining child pulling on his mother's skirt" very apt description of the OP.

Another way to work toward the future.

A lot of Democrats running for the spot! Hope more jump in.

[AtomicKitten]

207. yawn

[ProSense]

209. Wonder if DUers recognize this as your quote: "whining child pulling on his mother's skirt" n/t

[Tellurian]

223. yawn2...

[ProSense]

235. Yawn?

:rofl:

[Hippo_Tron]

210. Kerry's campaign was an undisciplined mess

And Carville was very right about that. Of course, whether Carville could've put his money where his mouth was and done any better in '04 was a different story. "It's the economy stupid" worked well in 1992, but probably wouldn't have in 2004.

[ProSense]

216. If you say so, but Carville still shot his mouth off. Still

not everyone agrees with you:

And then there is talent.

Speaking of knowing where the bucks are, how about knowing where the voters live, work, play and pray? Kerry had some of the most seasoned (and best) grass-roots organizers and political strategists in the Democratic Party at his command in 2004. Just think who could be made available — Michael Whouley, Charlie Baker, Jack Corrigan, John Sasso, Tad Devine, Jill Alper and others who understand not only how to count votes, but also how to build organizations that last through the tough political terrains in the primary and general elections. And they could help identify where the potholes are down the road.

Some of these candidates, while running at a hectic pace, also could learn a thing or two from Kerry about becoming a hot commodity only to burn out and come back from the political graveyard. As a Vietnam War veteran, and as someone who says he made a huge mistake voting “yes” on the 2002 Iraq War resolution, Kerry’s contribution to this growing debate will be followed, and some of the candidates now trying on their warrior belts could use a pointer in figuring out just how to stake out a position and hold their ground.

Chuckie Carville and Terrible McAwful are bound to make this campaign year a circus!

[Hippo_Tron]

282. The ones you mention either weren't brough on until later, or their voices were shut out...

By Bob Shrum. Jim Margolis was very effective as Kerry's ad guy during the late primaries but got into a dispute with Shrum about percentage of the ad buys. Neither Mary Beth Cahill nor Kerry himself would exert any leadership and actually resolve the dispute. Therefore Margolis left and Shrum was in charge of strategy, which Kerry claimed would never happen given Shrum's dismal record of losing 7 presidential elections.

Sasso didn't come on until September when Kerry finally realized that it was time to bench Shrum, but by then it was too late.

[Tellurian]

220. To be sure, a memoir waiting in the wings to be written..

The Carville version or the Kerry version?

[AtomicKitten]

224. no contest

... only the purposely blind can't see the forest for the trees ... and who gives a shit about Kerry anyway for crissakes? Just because some of these loons turn every conversation about anything here at DU to John Kerry (and then complain about it) doesn't mean we need to board that bus. We have bigger fish to fry than to get sucked in these same moronic conversations about shit that just doesn't matter.

[PresidentObama]

230. With all due respect AK, I give a shit about JK.

He's very valuable in the Senate, and is doing great work there. But he isn't a candidate for President, and it's unfortunate that he's dragged into my threads that are about 2008 and the race for President. I will agree, we have big fish to fry. We have to regain our majority in the Congress in 2008, and win the Presidency!! And hopefully Kerry is re-elected, BTW. And hopefully he and the other fine Democratic Senators will have a great Democratic President to deal with!!

[patrice]

315. Thank You Kerry2008! Me too.

:applause:

[ProSense]

238. "Who gives a shit about Kerry anyway for crissakes?"

See post 19.

[Tellurian]

241. It would help if you clarified your statement

for the purposefully blind..perhaps in:

[Forkboy]

367. Going from what I've seen in this very thread I'd say you gave a big shit about Kerry

And "big shit" seems about right.

[Hippo_Tron]

283. Carville's already written his account of the Kerry campaign

In a joint book with Begala. Most DUers would be actually interested to know that he mentions the possibility that '04 was stolen and references the RFK Jr. Rolling Stone article.

But I'm not particularly interested in Carville's take. I'm more interested in hearing Kerry say that putting Bob Shrum in charge of strategy was the dumbest thing he's ever done and why.

[patrice]

312. That's what the internet has done; now it's about *how* the decisions are made,

not necessarily a decision itself, "hearing Kerry say that putting Bob Shrum in charge of strategy was the dumbest thing he's ever done and why" - .e.g. for me is any IWR Yes.

After the fact, it does no good to just gripe about and punish the decision. Many of us need to understand the thinking. There is conflict between us and candidates who think consultants are the be all and end all of political rhetoric. Consultants tinker and meddle with the "buttons and levers" of the underlying processes, but, because of the internet, many people are tapping into and participating in the processes themselves, so there is this conflict now between consultants and free-range bloggers.

[Hippo_Tron]

347. I agree about the IWR, in the context of the campaign it was the dumbest thing he's ever done

And while the conflict you speak of is true, the fact is that consultants are still extremely important because they control how a candidate is portrayed. Kerry came off as stiff and inhuman because Bob Shrum told him what to say and do, which isn't what Kerry really wanted to say and do.

One speech writer suggested that Kerry campaign on how Bush had failed to call on the nation to make sacrifices after 9/11. He suggested to Kerry that he go to Yale and tell them they need to re-instate the ROTC program, go to Detroit and tell the auto manufacturers that they need to raise fuel efficiency standards to help the country lessen its dependence on foreign oil, and challenge other various groups to make sacrifices for their country.

Shrum talked Kerry out of most of this and watered down what remained of it. We heard about how American troops should never be held hostage over foreign oil but it wasn't a central theme when it should have been.

[election_2004]

198. Wah Wah Wah

Just like how HRC supporters claim that polls showing their queen with high negatives are "meaningless"...oh, but all the polls that show Senator Clinton in the lead are suddenly somehow indicative of "what's going on in the real world outside of DU"...

Can we say: SHILLARISTAS!!!

[AtomicKitten]

201. so we'll put you down for your usual input here at DU

Wah Wah Wah

[election_2004]

215. Define "my usual input"....

And then maybe you'll actually have a valid point, kiddo.

[Warren Stupidity]

204. Fight like hell in the primaries: all against all.

Fight like hell in the general election: all for one.

It is that simple. Your post is ridiculous. It is primary season. We get to fight like hell for whomever we each want to see nominated and against whomever else is running. Get over it. I dislike Clinton for her positions on many issues. I will not support her in the primaries. Worse, I will oppose her as best I can. If she manages to win, oh well, then she is a great candidate and I will champion all of the issues she advocates that I can honestly support as well, and work as hard as I can for her election.

[ProSense]

217. Well said. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

221. I'll get over it

... when we offer up a candidate that isn't a bloody mess. Although your idea of a primary is swell, neglecting to consider the actual end-result if the status quo remains as is is ridiculous.

If you can't acknowledge that HRC gets a righteous reaming at DU compared to all the other candidates, then I would say your post is ridiculous.

And we will put you down for opposing her in the primaries "as best you can" rather than actually supporting a candidate. That strategy is most certainly so very DU.

[ProSense]

231. Adults realize that a presidential primary is a process of elimination.

Opposing a candidate while supporting another is not such a strenuous undertaking.

Seems like team Clinton is already trying to take out her opponents.

[AtomicKitten]

236. ha-ha-ha

"opposing a candidate" = hatchetjob in your world

we've seen your work on our current candidates ...

But, please do go on.

[ProSense]

239. No, but

Criticism is grounds for whining in yours!


:rofl:

[Cameron27]

208. Well of course I agree with you..

criticism is one thing, but Hillary gets trashed for the things that other candidates somehow rate a free pass. She's become the DU's universal scapegoat, so as soon as one candidate starts taking the heat for anything, Hillary's name is bound to pop up as having done the same thing...only so much worse. She's a handy diversion, with the facts usually being twisted against her.

She's not even my #3 favorite candidate, but if she wins the nomination, she'll be my #1. I'm all for arguments and debates before the primaries, but at least we should level the playing field.

[AtomicKitten]

227. thank you, mam

[patrice]

318. I agree she is being treated differently than all of the other IWR Yeas.

I do have some problem with that if the treatment is unfair, but she IS a leader. To whom much is given, much is expected. And she has put herself in this position perhaps by mistaking the criticism to be purely motivated by destruction, or thinking it will all just go away, or not understanding what that vote represents to people, and, apparently, saying people who have a problem with it don't count.

This is all so un-necessary; if she'd stop listening to her handlers and listen to and talk to us.

[Hippo_Tron]

211. IMO, I think that attitudes will change once it's general election season

The media isn't really giving much coverage to the GOP candidates and so we aren't constantly reminded of how bad they are. It is easy to tear down Hillary in the primaries, but if she is the nominee I believe that people who don't like her will look down the ballot at their alternatives and change their mind pretty quickly.

[AtomicKitten]

214. I sure hope so.

The battle is against the Republicans, and the GOP Wrecking Machine is as nasty and devious and unprincipled as ever. I would hate to have done the work for them by make a bloody mess of our candidate.

[FiveGoodMen]

222. She might be your candidate ... she's not 'ours'

[AtomicKitten]

225. read the thread

and then get back to me ...

[FiveGoodMen]

228. We've all made our points by now.

I've read plenty.

Give it up. You've had your say.

[AtomicKitten]

234. If you had read the thread

... which you obviously did not - you wouldn't have come to the conclusion you did. No sir, I'd say you have demonstrated telltale evidence of a jackrabbit poster.

Here's a clue: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3125867&mesg_id=3126070

I would suggest you "give it up" but I find your bossiness kinda funny.

[San Diego]

244. So who, exactly, made you the queen of DU?

I've been here since 2001 (albeit under a previously-banned moniker that I don't want to reactivate).

This place is about debate. It always has been and I hope it always will be.


If you don't like the fact that your precious Queen is being attacked, then perhaps you should start your own BBS and open membership to only those who vow to praise your Queen regardless of her actual stance.

[AtomicKitten]

253. * they took a vote *

If you read the thread, oh great one and long-timer to boot, you would realize she is, in fact, not my "precious Queen;" however, perhaps you should hang in GD-P a bit and make an attempt to guage what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is a far cry from debate. Most others know precisely what I'm referring to.

And thank you for your invitation to start my own discussion board. I'll take that under advisement.

[Tellurian]

262. hahaha!

:rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

264. I'm hoping I do well in the bonus round.

Fingers crossed.

[mtnsnake]

247. Great post, AK! Thank you for spelling out the truth again!

It's frigging shameful the amount of lies, gross exaggerations, and innuendo that get posted and pasted about Hillary over and over like a broken record stuck in the Twilight Zone. Mostly it's because of the Sore Loser Syndrome they're afflicted with. There's no cure. lol

[AtomicKitten]

254. hey stranger

We missed you. :)

[mtnsnake]

267. Yo

haha, here I go away for a while to take care of some business at hand, and soon as I get back to where I can reach a computer I tune in to DU and what do I see but AK right in the middle of it. lol :)

[roguevalley]

255. Okay. list the lies, the links, whatever on this board. A lot of posts

about 'lies and smears'. show us. Might make things easier, don't you think?

[AtomicKitten]

258. I would LOVE to help you out

but alas it is against DU rules and would be construed as calling people out. If you like I can PM some to you when I have some time. With your permission, of course.

[roguevalley]

272. I don't mind, AK. I am not against being informed. However, I do

reserve the right to have and hold and express my own opinion, same as you are. I think that is being lost in the thread here, the right to speak. Some of us remember when that wasn't even a problem in this country.

[AtomicKitten]

274. absofreakinlutely

Never intended to suggest otherwise.

I am a bit behind on my work tonight (bad AK) so will PM some salient points soon (maybe tomorrow ?) just to give you an idea of what prompted me to write this OP. Thanks for being open to understanding where I am coming from. :)

[roguevalley]

275. that is what discussion is for. :)

[patrice]

321. If you don't mind, I'd like to see those too. *Not* to argue with

folks, but I want to know what is going (online communities were my research topic for my MS in educational technology). I miss most of the fights, not looking for them mind you, just happens that I also don't run into them very often, so it's interesting to me when I see one, and I have no real idea what prompted your OP. BTW, you can search my uname and see that I have been saying that, though I'm not a supporter (haven't chosen a candidate yet) HC should be treated fairly, for a while now, and I'm usually ignored.

[mtnsnake]

265. You wanna see the lies?

Use the search function. Use my handle if you wish, and go back during the last year or so when I wasted way too much time defending Hillary from outright slander, much of it based on nonsense. Among other things, I suppose nobody ever called her a neocon or Republican lite or said she voted for a flag burning amendment, when she never did or was any of that. She's a moderate Democrat, period, and she's not in the same ballpark as Joe Lieberman, as so often claimed here. I'm not naming names. You wanna see proof of all the lies, do some digging on your own. Knock yourself out!

[roguevalley]

271. sure I will. Also, your tone doesn't win converts. Personally, I have

no stake in this argument. I will vote for anyone who isn't a repig in the election. However, I don't have to like it and the arrogance of the tone on this thread will make it one of the hardest things I've done in voting for forty years. Knock yourself out.

[HuffleClaw]

269. 'strongest candidates' according to WHO?

its the corporate media and the republicans who are constantly propping up obama and hillary as the 'front runners'. to the detriment of the others i might add. that said, i'm pretty certain that all but the teensiest number of hillary naysayers would end up voting for her if she were nominated. in fact, i'm pretty sure if the democrats nominated spongebob most would vote for the porous fellow instead of republican x or y.

[Pushed To The Left]

270. K & R! The circular firing squad needs to come to an end

John McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. Rudy Guliani wants to stack the Courts with right wing Justices. And those are so-called "liberal" Republicans! I will be voting for the Democratic nominee in November 2008 no matter which one of our great candidates gets the nomination. Even if a candidate I'm not crazy about gets the nomination, it will still be a better choice than a Court-stacking religious-right-pandering Republican! In my opinion, not voting for the Democratic candidate for President (or for the Senate) is like handing the future of the country to the religious right. It's not about blindly following a "party line"..it's about keeping the radical right out of power.

[AtomicKitten]

273. what you said !!!!!

You get it, you really get it!! That is what matters, not cults of personality.

Smoochy kisses through the internet to you.

[Pushed To The Left]

285. Thanks!

I think that's the first time I've been kissed on DU! :) The poll I posted is turning out better than I thought, even though a couple votes really surprised me:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3126837

[kdpeters]

277. I will do all to nominate another (D), but I will do all to see her elected POTUS otherwise.

I don't personally like her, but admit it, she'd make a DAMN fine president and an absolutely stellar ambassador to the rest of the world. She's a politician, much like Bill. I didn't like him either, but look back now -- don't you wish you had him back?

One thing good about Senator Clinton is that she CARES what the public thinks. You may think that evinces a lack of character -- I think it's an indicator that I can affect her decisions as President with my voice and my involvement -- as is MY civic duty.

I'll seek moral character among people who are NOT politicians. I want my president to know who it is who is boss around here.

[bonito]

279. We really do need to bring AIPAC to the discussion.

[Dr Fate]

286. Some folks just dont like her, I guess.

But seriously- who cares if your candidate is getting attacked? It's all good, clean politics as long as folks are making truthful statements.

It is the primaries- you might want to tell her to call off her DLC attack dogs that are on TV all the time before you worry about what folks in a chat room are saying...

[flyarm]

291. personally i am sick of the *hes and the clintons! i want new blood

this is not a monarchy!!

enough of the nepotism!!..i want someone new with new ideas ..and begone with all the damn neo con B* ass sucking and sonny boy clinton kenneybunkport crap..

i want someone new with inovative ideas of how to get the fuck out of iraq..and how to pay off the debt our kids will be strapped with..

i want someone with brass balls..who has the guts to stand up against the octopus..and the fuckers who got us into this fascist state...

i want my habeas corpus back..i want my phones back..i want my email back..i want my snail mail back with all the rights i was born with...and my children were born with..

i do not want anyone ruppert murdock supports!!

if that eliminates some people..oh well, that i my choice, and my choice alone..i do not want anyone telling me who i need to support!!

i do not want one more kid of ours killed in a civil war of which we had no damn reason going to war with to begin with..if i knew the war was a lie ..why didn't those in congress know??????????

if i knew 9/11 was a bunch of bullshit lies..why didn't those in congress know..and stand for the truth?????????

i am not ready to make nice..i am done with nice...

let them earn my respect and my support..it will not be given away cheeply!

i will hold my nose and vote for her only if she wins the primary..but it will sincerely be with my fingers squeezing my nostrils tightly!

fly

[flyarm]

294. Its call democracy..in a democracy we can chose to pick apart candidates..

its democracy that allows us free speech to find the faults of each candidate and the strongest and those who stand for our values is the one who survives..

it should not be $$$$$$$$$$

in a democracy we pick apart all who run and find the best possible person to represent us in this republic...

seems there are some here that have gotten accustom to the * bullshit..of shut up and let us shove this shit down your throat..

well no thanks..i have been fighting for democracy and to keep our democracy strong my entire life...

and no one will shut me up...i am too old to be silenced...

and too smart now, for anyone to tell me i have to be quiet about candidate i think is wrong for my nation and who has not stood up for my democratic values!!

democracy..it used to be a wonderful thing..too bad it is even disappearing here at DU!!


oh and debate..debate used to be part of democracy...but it seems some would like to shut out debate..now... who does that remind you of ...reich wing??????????/perhaps???

democracy..i will fight for it no matter how others will try to destroy it..it is the only legacy i will true-ly leave my children!!

fly

[AtomicKitten]

365. I'm sure your children will be impressed

... with the world molded in the rightwing church-IS-state image if the Democrats lose the WH in 2008.

I will vote my conscience in the primary, in the general I will join the only viable voting block available to stop the GOP from taking the WH.

I realize your strident tone indicates you are bursting with self-righteous idealism. The problem is that it doesn't translate into anything in the neighborhood of pragmatism. I hope you are as confident explaining to your children the possible consequences of said strident idealism as you are here.

[GeorgeGist]

298. Washing brains seems to fit...

you to a tee. "I am a Democrat and will support the Democratic nominee regardless of who that is. " :rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

361. I agree the third party nonsense is a form of brain washing.

It usually enraptures those easily misled yet strident in their POV. Best of luck swatting flies.

= A lame debate technique usually employed by those incapable of formulating a viable argument.

[Forkboy]

368. Brain washing is brainwashing

And the most effective way to do it is to dress up the message in a safe and accepting way.

Strident POV's indeed.

Don't become that which you mock.

[AtomicKitten]

370. Really?

Having written for a third party newspaper for a few years, I find your rhetoric particularly amusing.

Hey, knock yourself out and vote any damn way you please. Nobody expects to change heart and minds here. This is a discussion board.

But when you offer up the third party way as the smart, soulful, principled way to go, history throws it right back in your face. At this particular time in our history, with the Supreme Court hanging in the balance and one of the justices presently 86 years of age, voting third party is none of those things.

If you feel mocked, that probably comes from internal feelings; perhaps you suspect I just might be right. That's not important to me. We are here to exchange ideas, not lob insults. But if that's all you've got, again, knock yourself out.

[Forkboy]

384. "Nobody expects to change heart and minds here."

Uh huh.

Why post then?

Having written for a third party newspaper for a few years, I find your rhetoric particularly amusing.

Well,I can't compete with that resume.

[AtomicKitten]

390. it's a message board -- maybe somebody could draw you a map

[Forkboy]

392. No shit...you should have thought of that when you started this dumb ass thread.

:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

394. if it's making you so cranky

perhaps you shouldn't continue to aggravate yourself by continuing to post on this thread that I started

you can just walk away, right?

just wondering

[Forkboy]

398. I could,but I'm not cranky

:shrug:

You can just walk away if you're so sure of the type of person I am,right?

Just wondering.

[Bridget Burke]

300. I'd like to see more threads saying positive things about candidates.

Hillary is not my #1 choice. I still want Gore, although he appears to be uninterested in running. So I'd love to see stuff about the others. Come on folks--let me know why your guy is the best!

Threads started only to bash candidates are neither enlightening nor productive. And the spectre of 2000 still haunts us: "Republicans & Democrats are just the same. Vote for Nader!"

[Jennicut]

301. I have disliked Hillary since I was 17 years old in 1993

I didn't need to be brainwashed to not like her. I have always felt and always will that this is a person who puts their own interests ahead of the American people. I never let her off the hook even if she was a Dem. Whitewater was enough for me. She may have some more moderate views than a Rethug would but she is not much different than them (esp. Guliani) in terms of how she "does business". I also believe unlike many others here that she will get the nomination and she will win. After all, may people voted for Bush in 2004 after knowing what he was all about. You see, the reason I dislike Hillary is because of her need and quest for power and control. Look into the pardon of Marc Rich by Bill Clinton and tell me what you think. Marc Rich's wife Denise gave a hefty amount to Hillary's Senate campaign in the past. Marc Rich is a criminal who has ties to the Rethugs and especially the Bushes. Delve a little deeper into Hillary's ties not just to big business but to Jack Abramoff and the right wing of Israel. Tell me whether I'm being nasty or whether I am just plain disgusted that these politicians all operate the "I'm above the law" level. Yes she would be better that a Rethug as they are even more evil and corrupted but not that much better and that is what some of us are disgusted over. None of this will ever be mentioned in the mainstream media except for maybe K.O. and that disgusts some of us as well. Nor have I been a third party voter or green voter. I voted for Clinton in 1996 (what was the other choice, Bob Dole?) and I voted for Al Gore in 2000 because I knew deep down he was a good person who honestly wanted to change the country for the better. His actions after 2000 have proven that. I think its a good thing that he is as far away from the Clinton's and their "friends" as possible. The more you hang around these corrupted types the more you become exactly what you dreaded. That is my fear for Obama. How long will he stay clean until he too becomes just like the rest? Don't be naive. Most of Washington is corrupt and could care less about us. I want to vote but who for? The lesser of two evils I guess.:shrug:

[Ishoutandscream2]

305. Not my first choice

Nor second, third, fourth, or even fifth. But I tend to agree with you. We can have honest debate, but some of the threads concerning Senator Clinton here have been a bit disheartening to me.

There is something big at stake in 08. I will simply vote Democratic, yes possibly the veritable "holding my nose" but the stench would be more revolting if my vote went to a Repig or a third party person.

I have to follow the advice, of all people, St. Ronnie who stated never to publicly criticize another candidate of his party. I actually think those are wise words.

[Mark E. Smith]

308. K&R

[DemCam]

309. I had my thanks, Atomic Kitten.

[AtomicKitten]

366. thank you

[mike_c]

310. I make no bones about it-- if HRC gets the nomination I will not vote for her....

I'm sorry if that offends you, but I believe my responsibility to vote for the best candidate for America supersedes any duty to support the democratic party candidate specifically. HRC is just not the best choice for America, IMO.

[mtnsnake]

335. The Bush family & the entire Republican Party sends you their best regards! nt

[ileus]

314. HRC 2008! preach it to 'em

[MrMickeysMom]

316. May I just say something right here, Atomic Kitten?

Hey! :spank:

Having limited posts here, and not following the pulse of DU quite as much as other posting this forum, I non-the-less understand why people should not be real happy with HRC these days. What are we supposed to act like when people winning their Senate seat play it safe, so's not to ruin their chance at the Presidential run? I have a brain. You feel that I've turned against whatever we Democrats are" with insisting that I don't act like a fucking Republican sheep? Why? Cause she once had my support? Well, she fucking ruined that along with many others in the Senate, include the last person to have election stolen.

I wondered by what methods and how long Hillary would shape her path to the White House run, which I at one time would have heartily endorsed. She did not stand up to Cheney in the run up to war in Iraq. She, in fact, made one of the safest statements when giving Bush his war powers. I remember saying to myself, "Oh shit, you've bent over, haven't you Hil? And all for the chance of a glorious future White House bid!" Well, that future is sort of trashed further and made much more difficult, given all of the civil liberties that have dissappeared since then. Anyway you look at it, we have one hell of a mess to change directions from this point in Washington, regardless of which one of the Democratic candidates get the bid. I guess I"m not a politico as much as I am desparate for policy to change in Washington. I no longer have faith in anyone this far in advance to their run for the White House- particularly when they have pandered as much as Hillary Rodham Clinton has to the RIGHT. Unless you're living under a rock, can you not see how many turns and nods she's made to the conservative base? Can we not agree that she knew what was going to ensue when she said, "We'll be looking at what happens, Mr. Bush." and then allow with all those other senate votes, the illegal war for which we've paid so dearly. She let Mr Bush's "freedom march" right the hell into Bagdad. She sold out.

I noticed that you support Al Gore. Perhaps you think those of us who still call ourselves Democrats should support any of the Democratic hopefuls. AT THIS POINT. I DO NOT.

And as a Democrat, that puts me right in line with the majority of others who have more important things on our minds.

[AtomicKitten]

363. my response

I will vote my conscience in the primaries; in the general I will support the Democratic nominee because I want to prevent the GOP from taking the WH. If you think that isn't important or have another credible way to prevent that, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'm okay with my strategy.

[MrMickeysMom]

410. Well then, your strategy isn't any different than mine, is it?

The key phrase being, "vote you conscience"... Other than that, you didn't have a response at all, other than concern over folks not giving enough respect to HRC. How you conclude I might not think it's important to prevent the GOP from taking the WH is a a strange interpretation of what I said. Increase your perepheral vision, will ya?

Every potential vote in this country is worth increasing. To thine own self be true- you just said it. My definition of this is, not to look the other way like a sheep, when Clinton had opportunity to join some in the Senate leading the way TO the White House with her vote before March 03. I also don't buy some of the stuff I've seen posted tonight insisting our Democratic leaders are doing what they have to in order to get to the primaries, and once in office...

Neither one of us will know WHICH strategy works to get the other 50% interested in going to the polls again.

[AtomicKitten]

414. it is the general election strategy that differs perhaps

I never asked for respect for HRC, hell I'd settle for people just refraining from saying the most outrageously over-the-top false stuff about her, which they do, misrepresenting her record, etc. She gets the brunt of the IWR vote that 27 other Senators made. (And, no, I won't for any of them in the primary). It's unsettling. Edwards and Obama have some pretty vicious detractors here as well, but nowhere in the ballpark of the anti-HRC venom. Statistically it is the minority but that kind of venom seeps into all corners of DU.

Rather than discussing candidates and issues here, we often get distracted by really, really nasty personal BS that prevents constructive debate regarding the primaries. Each to his own on that, but I don't think it's out of line to campaign for and hope that most of us can come together as a cohesive voting block in the general? Perhaps you disagree. I want to win the WH in 2008.

But even that is the same old, same old every four-year argument: third party resistance against the Democratic nominee, complaints about holding one's nose. Every four years. And the truth is I have no expectations that that will change just as you should have no expectations that this is last time this discussion will arise.

[Mrspeeker]

322. We don't elect the president BTW

So that disgusts me far more than what we on DU, which is not the Democratic party website but a site where people with democratic views come to post their opinions, think about HRC.

[Prophet 451]

323. IF she gets the nod

I imagine most here will vote for her but that's a big "if". I suspect most are following Molly Ivins: "In the primary, I vote to change the world. In the general, I vote for the lesser of two evils".

[patrice]

324. K&R

This is a very interesting thread.

:kick:

[truedelphi]

325. I consider muyself a progressive and until HRC shows herself to

Understand the meaningof the word, I willnot support her in any way, other than if this *Gatekeeper* does become the Dem name on the ballot in Nv 08, and if I am not living in California, I will vote for her

However should she be the Dem candidate and I am living in California, I will vote for whoever I want, as the Democratic candidate always wins the state regardless of what we progressives do

[MrMickeysMom]

326. Sort of makes you wish we had instant runoff votes, eh? n/t

[patrice]

349. Absolutely!

I haven't looked at it closely yet, so I don't know of any criticisms against it. Other than implementation, what's the downside? Seems like a really good solution to several issues to me.

[truedelphi]

425. Sure does! City of San Francisco has it

Maybe Santa Cruz too?

[StrictlyRockers]

329. Hillary is great! I would be more than satisfied with her. K&R

[closeupready]

330. If she wins the primary I will vote for her. I like her, but I hope someone else wins the primary.

I do not hate her. I just think she isn't all that. And she's my senator. (Well, not my personal senator - I mean, I live in NY State. :D )

[closeupready]

331. And lest we forget (someone probably already mentioned this), just the other day she said

"...and if you don't like it, go vote for somebody else." Something like that.

So fine and dandy. :shrug:

[Colobo]

332. Obama '08! preach it to 'em

[Skittles]

336. I'm tired of being told I have to goose-step in support of a candidate

I'm not a g.d. conservative fascist

[Forkboy]

338. oh,who you trying to kid?

:evilgrin: :P

Brings back fond memories of the Kerry campaign,doesn't it? Bow before the annointed one!

Nahhh.

[Skittles]

340. HOWDY Forkboy

you know I gave you a heart, right? Yes indeed! :hi:

[Forkboy]

359. YAY!!!! I wondered who the crazy people were!

:evilgrin:

:loveya:

[AtomicKitten]

364. brilliant strategy

not

If the Democrats don't take the WH in 2008, the GOP will have the chance to appoint another Supreme Court judge. Justice Stevens is 86. Then you'll get a chance to see what real rightwing fascism looks like when they remove the separation between church and state.

Keep swatting at flies. If nothing else your strident tone is entertaining.

[Forkboy]

369. Once again,look at your at your own stridency before mocking others for theirs

[AtomicKitten]

371. when I'm mocking you, forkperson, you'll know it

this ain't it; in fact, I rarely if ever employ mocking in repertoire of human interaction

[Forkboy]

382. Well gosh,I hope so

[Skittles]

416. well of course we ALL want the Dems to take the White House

not all of us want to get behind candidates we DON'T LIKE - WE WANT THE DEMOCRATS TO OFFER BETTER CANDIDATES - WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND???

[AtomicKitten]

423. a regular vulgarian

aren't you?

[Skittles]

434. not vulgar enough to accuse DUers of being un-Democratic

because they think Hillary stinks

[dave123williams]

343. Oh, I'm sorry - I guess she DIDN'T vote for the war when she knew it was wrong.

[AtomicKitten]

345. self-delete

[Pawel K]

346. If she wins the nomination so be it, I will hold my nose and vote for her

However, I will do everything I can to help other candidates win the primary. Her remarks about Iran did it for me, if she is stupid enough to fall for the same bullshit only 4 years later she can not be trusted with control of our military. I know, its kind of shitty as she is a democrat and the wife of one of the best presidents since Kennedy but that doesn't mean she is automatically the right person for the job.

[treestar]

348. Rather than complain about it, pump up her positive side

The attacks aren't all bad. They let the candidate learn and pave the way for dealing with the real attacks when they come from the Repukes.

[ripple]

352. There's plenty of anti-Obama sentiment, too

and a lot of it appears to be coming from Hillary supporters.


Things are turning ugly pretty quick around here. I think what I find most aggravating is the condescending stereotyping of the "type" of person who would support a given candidate.


I wasn't here in 2003-2004, but I'm sure the same sorts of attacks were going on then. That doesn't excuse it, but it does put it into perspective, I suppose.


It's becoming more and more difficult to maintain a semblance of civility with some of the more contentious posters. The only thing I can guarantee with certainty is that I'll support the dem nominee in the general- no matter who it is.

:patriot:

[PATRICK]

353. Tis the season

if you go to investigative posts that have an unabashed tinfoil hat flavor there are nonetheless crying and impoertnat issues raised, the pursuit of truth and justice topping the list. Methodology and emotions are another matter.

So too in candidate choice time. Even the complaints are so common and old that they are legendary. Attacks on the complaints and the process heat up the flames. Fighting fire with fire.

Underneath all there are REASONS to support and oppose any mere huamn desitring consideration for the highest office in a dangerous time. There are PEOPLE who will vote or least want to who cannot be won 100% by any false pomp or mere argumentation. In the case of candidates and the system, we know almost all of it. Descent to bashing and dark allegations are not necessary but they will be there even if suppressed by the boards or individually repressed "for the good of the party". Even the healthiest, most wise discussions must sting like hell and the constant adversarial role of the media circus irritates, exploits and toys with our worst, most rash instincts.

The system that is giving Hillary the nod is now done without a ballot cast. Ballots that can be predictably judged at this time to be of shallow committment, hostile or frustrated at her candidacy. So the major flaw here is the system during the silly season. The money raising, the endorsements, the media sparring games, the shallow opinion polls.

I do join with the poster on one BIG thing. It is not necessary to attack the person. Maybe the false image which ranges from RW lies to facile political props. The value of each Dem candidate is so many light years ahead of the destructive nausea the other side will set up as a "choice" that we should both savor and sift for quality and fundamentally get real, not real angry or fearful. Reality bites all "democratically". What irritates and fuels HRC's candidacy is legitmately powerful but strength and weakness nearly cancel out to oblivion barring some magical trick of anointing that deprives voters of getting a better choice. This is above and beyond her actual value, her person or anything else, something she is stuck with as a blessing and curse. People with laughable chances have gone for the candidacy with much less and yes, there is a chance she can "win" whereas there never was a chance that Lieberman could have. Yet there was as much real vitriol and fear against Joe which faded only reality bit hard.

Have a little faith, hope and charity. Build, don't destroy. Critique everyone and face reality. Patience with ourselves at least.

[wiley]

355. I don't trash Hillary. Neither should anyone else.

[patrice]

356. I wish folks would listen to Thom Hartman more, for an example

of how to debate without side-tracking into BS, insults, and personal grievances. It is so much more effective AND destructive to the opposing case. When I see someone using loaded language, or ridicule, or making a big deal out of stuff that's beside the point, or mischaracterizing the opposition, I discount the validity of what they have to say, no matter how "fact-based" they tell me it is.

[wiley]

427. So true.

Thank You. It just makes so much more sense. We all have so much crap we have to deal with in our lives. To hear it coming from DU is just senseless. We are truly freeped and underwhelmed by so many people at times.

[Skittles]

417. you sound like repukes talking about bush

:puke:

[Elidor]

357. My heart bleeds for you

:sarcasm:

[AtomicKitten]

358. back at ya

and I really, really mean it

[DainBramaged]

362. Hear hear

Let them follow Lieberman.

[ProSense]

372. Even the OP doesn't plan on voting for Hillary in the primaries

No Hillary

[madfloridian]

373. Since the Iraq war vote....

we have been asked "to stay on board", that it would be disastrous if the other side won.

Most of us did. In fact a high majority of us here did get on board with Kerry. And we worked locally.

We watched right after the 2006 election wins as Hillary's close friend and confidant James Carville asked the chairman to step down for winning.

He later said that they had not told him to hush about Dean, and he said that silence was meaningful. They did not dispute him.

She told us the other day that if we don't like the way she talks about her vote for the war, that we can vote for someone else.

Maybe she meant it. I don't know. But she holds herself aloof when her advisors like Carville say Dean was incompetent, when Begala says he doesn't need to hear from assholes from Vermont.

Her silence is telling, just as telling as her invitation to vote for someone else.

She will win. She will win the primary and probably lose the general unless she takes a Republican VP.

I am very tired of getting lectures. I was on board in 2002, only to see Bill McBride blow the whole damn campaign for governor here. I was on board in 2004, and the rest is history.

I think that it will no longer work to just give warnings. It is far too late for that, and most of us know it. Hillary will never reach out to the people of the party. I used to feel differently, but now I know she does not care what we think.

I don't have a candidate yet. I don't know what I will do. But your post brings out a stubbornness in me, and in many others. And those joining with you to instill guilt are not helping either.

The time is past for warning us to stay on board.

And I have been wanting to say this since 2003..."hell...it's just politics." All the attacks here then....just politics. If you play dirty politics it comes back to bite you in the butt. That's how it is...get over it..."it's politics."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1101

[AtomicKitten]

375. there's politics and then there's reality

The purpose of my post is to point out the valid point that the Supreme Court hangs in the balance with Justice Stevens being 86 years of age. I will vote my conscience in the primaries, but I intend to vote with the only viable voting block capable of preventing the GOP from taking the WH in 2008. IMO the Supreme Court has a more pervasive effect on the country than the WH, and the way to keep the balance on the court is through the WH.

Knock yourself out and vote how you like. But don't pretend this time around veering off third party in this particular election is smart or principled, not THIS election. With Roberts and Alito on the court, this is no hollow threat. It's quite real.

I do hope a candidate most can agree on, and that appears to be Al Gore, throws his hat in the ring. Ideally as close to a consensus among Democrats would be great. I am hoping for the best in that regard.

[ProSense]

378. So your conscience has nothing to do with your charade about the IWR

I will vote my conscience in the primaries, but I intend to vote with the only viable voting block capable of preventing the GOP from taking the WH in 2008.

Would that viable voting block be Clinton's? If it is, in fact and in reality, this charade seems to be all about Hillary obsession!

[AtomicKitten]

380. There is nothing inconsistent with what I've posted.

The viable cohesive voting block is THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Duh.

I will vote my conscience in the primary (not for anyone that voted yes on the IWR), but will vote for in the general whoever wins the Democratic primary.

Your jackrabbit posting around these boards to try to stir up shit is just plain obnoxious.

[ProSense]

381. No Hillary in the primary, just seeking clarification n/t

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

383. Well, AtomicKitten, we're disgusted at the anti-Democrat antics of Hillary's campaign

Let's not even get into Hillary's Iraq War support and anti-worker stances. Look at the way she twisted in the knife against John Kerry last year, joining with the GOP in distorting his words. And her attacks on Obama are disgusting, esp when Geffen himself independently made those remarks!

[enough already]

389. They may be racist as well

Why is she only attacking Obama?

[PresidentObama]

401. OH COME ON.

Because Obama is her main opponent. RACIST??

Give me a fucking break!!

[enough already]

422. Some of us still remember Bill's "Sister Souljah" attack

Welfare "reform" was also an attack on people of color. Too many "coincidences" for my taste.

[ProSense]

388. Your Supreme Court argument is a strawman for stifling criticism of HRC:

here.

[AtomicKitten]

391. Hardly - that's just NonSense.

But since you are the purveyor of some of the most insidious crap about HRC and Obama here, of course you would be expected to try subterfuge to defuse a point that exposes how you operate in particular.

The nastiness of these boards towards the candidates - HRC in particular - eeks out onto the Internet and DU is legendary for being ANTI-Democratic Underground. Clearly the third party types are fine with that, but it is turning good solid Democrats away. Considering that only 29% of those in a recent poll said they would not vote for HRC in the general if she got the nod, that means the minority of people are trying to give the impression they are the majority, sort of like those toads that puff themselves up to appear larger.

Of course I would leave it to you in particular to try to manipulate the point, but it is for naught. People aren't stupid I'm pleased to say. They understand the ramifications of the Supreme Court and don't want to leave it up to the GOP to mold the very fabric of our lives in America.

Strawman argument!? You wish.

[ProSense]

396. Reality -- three things:

Blog tour

National Journal

Post 19

[AZBlue]

402. How is it a strawman argument?

Explanation please.

[AZBlue]

400. Apparently 8 more years like Bush is ok for some on DU.

On a personal note: I, however, won't allow it to happen. I'll fight with every ounce of energy I have before I let this country go further into ruin.

Thanks for the post, you wonderful DU'er!

[PresidentObama]

403. I don't think we could survive eight more years.

I'll work my little ass off for any Democratic nominee to prevent eight more years of this bullshit.

If not "OH, CANADA...."

:scared: No more GOP President's please!!

[Colobo]

404. Nah...

If you have made it through Bush, you are ready for anything.

[PresidentObama]

405. We haven't made it....yet!!

And no I'm not ready for anything. I'm not ready for four to eight more years of middle class crumbling, rich getting richer, government that breaks the laws on the books and misleads America, turns the other cheek on global warming and ignores the crisis, healthcare system that continues to get ignored, and breaking down the possibility of equality and choice for all!!

No way, no how!!

[AZBlue]

407. Except that it won't stop here. It won't be 8 more years of status quo

They'll take what they've destroyed and make it even more unbearable. They're not done, unfortunately.

[AZBlue]

406. I've also heard Fiji is nice.....

Less snow than Canada!

[PresidentObama]

409. I'll take that into consideration.

Maybe I can claim to be Anna Nicole Smith's babies daddy, and get a nice book deal to pay for my trip!!

:rofl:

[Skittles]

418. oh COME OFF IT

I don't care for Hillary = I support bush? That sounds eerily like We don't like the war = We like terrorists

[flpoljunkie]

419. Or Terry McAQuliffe telling potential donors, "You're either with us, or against us."

Interesting choice of phrase there, Terry.

[Skittles]

420. I cannot believe this sh**, and on a DEMOCRATIC board

unbelievable

[AtomicKitten]

424. It certainly is unbelievable.

Some of you haven't a clue about being a DEMOCRAT, in fact, it is pretty clear some of you could use either a dictionary or a compass, clearly having taken a wrong turn on the internet.

But at least it is clear some of you lack the self-control required in the general at DU if HRC does happen to get the nod, the point of this exercise. We'll miss you. Really. I mean it.

[Skittles]

433. I'd hold my nose and vote for her, same as I did for Kerry

but you cannot make me LIKE her or stop being CRITICAL of her. I know g.d well what it means to be a Democrat -and an AMERICAN

[zulchzulu]

428. ...and I can't believe McAuliffe said that sh*t...

The point was made that McAuliffe said this at a Beverly Hills event regarding getting support for Senator Clinton's campaign:

"This isn't the John Kerry campaign," he quips. "You are either with us or you're against us."

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-et-cause30jan30,1,6597621.story?coll=la-celebrity-news

Those are his words, not magical foggy words blobbing out of some vortexualized abyss... not only did he trash another Democrat, he also plays the role of a used car salesman really well.

Maybe he should sell flood insurance in the Katrina Zone...

Not that you'll listen, but one thing I find puzzling is that some of Senator Clinton's UberFans seem to toss off other people pointing out her and her campaign's actual words and statements and play up the Pity Party that they are Clinton Haters.

Free pass... like warts.... no thanks.

[ProSense]

431. I cannot believe this sh**, and on a DEMOCRATIC board

See post 19.

[ProSense]

432. Also,

Why the indigantaion by some when people criticize McAwful and Craville for their atrocious comments?

[AZBlue]

426. Yeah, don't exaggerate or anything.

I was obviously referring to those who will not vote for Hillary should she be the nominee. I couldn't care less if you like her now or not. I really don't care who you like or dislike. But if she should become the Dem nominee for '08, anyone who doesn't want another 8 years of GOP disasterous rule will need to vote for her, like her or not. At that point, it may wind up being the "lesser of two evils" and that's unfortunate, but it's reality. And that reality stands no matter who the nominee is, not just Hillary.

[Tellurian]

430. Those that refuse to vote for whoever the nominee

if it should be Hillary are not real Democrats.

Take em` to the woodshed!

[area51]

436. So you like her right-wing stances?

Her pro-war, pro-offshoring, pro-rightwing health insurance companies, anti-singlepayer healthcare? I'm not fine w/that.

[LeftishBrit]

437. From the world's point of view, ANYONE would be better than any of the likely Republicans

[election_2004]

438. How about this compromise, AtomicKitten?

I won't vote for Hillary Clinton if she's the Democratic nominee, but I also promise I won't campaign against her either. I won't try to "disrupt" DU with any negative threads about her if she's nominated.

Furthermore, in such a scenario, after the primaries are over I will redirect my energy into campaigning for and supporting viable and progressive local candidates (my state won't have any gubernatorial or U.S. Senate races in '08), or campaigning to educate people on important ballot initiatives.