Obama is Unoriginal! Hilary is a Hypocrite! Edwards is ... too pretty!

[Anser]

And on and on... same old crap. Sorry, I'm sure there have been similar posts to this one. Still, if you'll bear with a relatively new poster such as myself, I think its worth repeating.

You'd think after over 6 years of Bush we'd be ready for some sort of paradigm shift. Like, I don't know, maybe not doing the right wing's job for them by having our candidates go negative 16 months before the election. There are so many anti-candidate X posts on the gretest page, its astounding.

Its just so tiresome. Maybe the solution is this. Before declaring how horrible democratic candidate X is, watch some clips from a republican debate. Maybe the part where they are all having a joygasm over torture. Or the parts where they field questions relating to religion and science (Soon you can have Sunday school for your kids every day! yipee)

Ok, so some candidates are more pro business than others, some may sound more hawkish than others at times. BUT, none of them will continue the march into the dark ages that Bush and co. has had us on. None will take away a woman's right to control her own body and health. None will continue to erode science from school curriculums. None will ignore/deny global warming. None will ignore the shambles that our health care system is in.

Let's focus on the positives, the similarities. If the candidates won't band together to take our country back, at least we can. Band together, show a united front. Liberals and progressives and democrats in general are a passionate and intelligent group.

We each have our issues that are very important to us. Some candidates doen't represent all our issues. But we need to be selfless. We need to work together to elect a democratic president. Our intelligence makes us un-Karl-Rove-able. We can't be herded into a homogenous voting block like the right. Therefore, we have to do it by choice. We have to use our brains to recognize the catch-22 we create for ourselves, and work around it. Even if it means voting for, and even supporting (or, at least, not actively fighting against), a candidate that's not our #1 choice.

In other words, don't let the narrow minded right wing win by virtue of their narrow minds!

[Clintonista2]

1. People who say "I won't vote for Hillary if she's our nominee"

say this not because of how they feel towards Hillary, they say this because if they don't win, they don't want anybody else to win either.

[jgraz]

3. No, we say it because we're sick of amoral triangulating Rethug-Lites posting as Democrats

But thanks for telling us all how we really feel.

[Clintonista2]

5. "Rethug-Lites posting as Democrats"

Because only a true Democrat doesn't vote for the Democratic nominee, right?

[pnwmom]

8. LOL! n/t

[jgraz]

12. non-sequitor, but I'll address it

At some point, the progressives in this party need to resoundingly answer the "who else are you going to vote for" taunt. Until that happens, the Democrats will continue to be under assault from corporate toadies like Rahm, Hillary and Harold Ford.

[Clintonista2]

16. I hate to break this to you but

Why do you think Hillary leads in every Democratic poll? You represent a very small minority of people who believe that you can somehow "punish" the Democratic party in the country by helping elect a Republican. You are no friend of progressive politics, sir.

[jgraz]

20. Another non-sequitor. Hey, this is fun!

You know damn well why Hillary leads in every poll. It's early in the race and nobody's paying attention. She has the most name recognition and gets the most coverage in the MSM, mostly due to her lead in right-wing corporate donations.

Too bad we can't limit the polling to committed, politically active Democrats. I'd bet Hillary wouldn't get out of single digits.

[Clintonista2]

28. Prove it.

Prove Hillary Clinton "Gets the most coverage in the MSM, mostly due to her lead in right-wing corporate donations."

I'd love to see your source for this one. It's nice and easy to make claims like this, because you never have to provide proof for such bold statements. So bring me some hard, empirical data that proves this is happening.

Don't worry, I won't hold my breath for a response.

[jgraz]

32. And we descend into the endless "cite your source" retorts

You're new here, so you should know that the "link?" canard is the DU equivalent of throwing the gun at someone after you've run out of bullets. If you don't like my reasoning, feel free to refute it. But if you're just pissed that your arguments are being demolished, don't try to cover your ass by asking for a research paper. It's too obvious.

[Clintonista2]

40. God forbid you should have to cite your source

Rather than make factless statements.

[jgraz]

45. God forbid you should have to form a cogent argument

You're the one making the claim that these early poll results are significant. Given past campaigns, that's an extraordinary claim that needs to be backed up. My answer to your "why do you think" question is far less extraordinary. Ask around.

But while we're on the subject of "factless statements", let's look at a few more, shall we?

Post 1: People who say "I won't vote for Hillary if she's our nominee" say this not because of how they feel towards Hillary, they say this because if they don't win, they don't want anybody else to win either.

Post 16: You represent a very small minority of people who believe that you can somehow "punish" the Democratic party in the country by helping elect a Republican.

Post 13: Hillary supported FULL universal Health care coverage before any other candidate did

Post 29: her plan was intended to be a transitionary phase towards a single-payer system

Post 29: Hillary is more progressive than Obama

I particularly like this one, because you can actually trace it from dissembling to full-blown falsehood:

From Hillary and Obama have the EXACT SAME voting record in the Senate when it comes to Iraq issues

To she's among the most liberal members of the Senate, based on her voting record (from pwnmom)

To Hillary is more progressive than Obama

Nice.

Continuing on, we have...

Posts 26 & 27: Your accusation that Obama and Edwards take as much from Big Health and Pharma as Hillary (a lie so nice you made it twice)

Posts 39 & 41: You use a different metric from Michael Moore to cover for your original bogus statement. (Twice!)

Post 9: Fear is the prime tool used by the rabid Hillary-haters.


So, once you've cited your sources for each and every one of these statements, I may consider googling for a few articles that say exactly what I was saying re: Hill's name recognition. Maybe.

[Clintonista2]

46. Because you liked it so much

====================Post 29: Hillary is more progressive than Obama

I particularly like this one, because you can actually trace it from dissembling to full-blown falsehood:

From Hillary and Obama have the EXACT SAME voting record in the Senate when it comes to Iraq issues

To she's among the most liberal members of the Senate, based on her voting record (from pwnmom)

To Hillary is more progressive than Obama

Nice.====================

Hillary and Obama DO have the same voting record when it comes to Iraq issues. That doesn't mean they have the exact same OVERALL voting record on non-iraq issues. The site that pwnmom posted, has Hillary rated more progressive than Obama.

Easily debunked, will get to the others when I get home.

[jgraz]

47. Eh, don't bother

If that's what you call debunking (e.g. actually supporting my argument by showing how you're cherry picking), then I'm gonna move on. I doubt you'll have much to say on your ridiculous claims about Hillary's opponents anyway.

[pnwmom]

7. You can't be talking about Hillary then, because she's among the

most liberal members of the Senate, based on her voting record.

www.progressivepunch.org

Progressive Punch consistently puts her above the 90% percentile on progressive issues. The typical Republican has a score in the 20's or below.

[jgraz]

11. One of the most liberal members of the Senate...

Sort of like being the skinniest kid a fat camp, isn't it?

Tell me, what do you expect from Hillary with regards to health care, labor and trade reform and the Iraq occupation? So far, she's been toeing the corporate line in all of these areas.

[Clintonista2]

13. Hillary supported

FULL universal Health care coverage before any other candidate did, and she has also pledged to have all troops home by '09, for starters. By the way, are you aware that Hillary and Obama have the EXACT SAME voting record in the Senate when it comes to Iraq issues?

[jgraz]

19. That is a quintessentially Clintonian answer

Her health-care initiative was never universal, as you well know. The central tenet was still private insurance through employers, which would have been of little help to the unemployed or their children. And after 15 years of thinking, she hasn't come up with anything better.

Pledging to have the troops home by 09 is hardly the most progressive position, especially since she continues to flog the destructive meme that our failure there is due in part to the failure of the Iraq government. Do you really trust her to go after the war profiteers and other criminals once she's in office? To kick the oil companies in the ass and give Iraq back to the people? Or will she follow her hubby's lead and forgive and forget in favor of pretending that we're all one big happy country?

And I couldn't care less what how her voting record stacks up against Obama's. What I care about is what she says and, more importantly, what she doesn't say when she's campaigning. This country can't afford another 4 years of conservative rule, and that's exactly what Hillary represents.

[Clintonista2]

29. Response

====Her health-care initiative was never universal, as you well know. The central tenet was still private insurance through employers, which would have been of little help to the unemployed or their children. And after 15 years of thinking, she hasn't come up with anything better.====

And as you well know, her plan was intended to be a transitionary phase towards a single-payer system. She put alot on the line at the time, and it totally contradicts everything the rabid anti-hillary crowd say about her.

====Pledging to have the troops home by 09 is hardly the most progressive position, especially since she continues to flog the destructive meme that our failure there is due in part to the failure of the Iraq government.====

When has Obama pledged to have the troops home by? And are you trying to claim that, in all honesty, the Iraqi government is doing a great job? I'm sure everything in Iraq will be fixed after they get back from their 3 week vacation.

====And I couldn't care less what how her voting record stacks up against Obama's. What I care about is what she says and, more importantly, what she doesn't say when she's campaigning.====

In other words, you care about what the candidates say, rather than what they do? By the way, Obama is rated as less progressive than Hillary

====This country can't afford another 4 years of conservative rule, and that's exactly what Hillary represents====

As has already been mentioned, Hillary is more progressive than Obama. And remind me how electing a republican would save the country from another 4 years of conservative rule?

[jgraz]

35. Response to your response

====Her health-care initiative was never universal, as you well know. The central tenet was still private insurance through employers, which would have been of little help to the unemployed or their children. And after 15 years of thinking, she hasn't come up with anything better.====

And as you well know, her plan was intended to be a transitionary phase towards a single-payer system. She put alot on the line at the time, and it totally contradicts everything the rabid anti-hillary crowd say about her.

In what way was it transitionary? There were no concrete plans to move away from private insurance. IIRC, the Clinton's shied away from the "single payer" discussion for fear that it would make the insurance companies angry.

Just find me one quote from '93 where Hill or Bill or any of their underlings say that this is transitionary to single-payer. I've looked, and I can't find a single statement about it, modulo some right-wing think-tanks who were trying to scare the industry with talk of commie, ooga-booga single payer scariness.

====Pledging to have the troops home by 09 is hardly the most progressive position, especially since she continues to flog the destructive meme that our failure there is due in part to the failure of the Iraq government.====

When has Obama pledged to have the troops home by? And are you trying to claim that, in all honesty, the Iraqi government is doing a great job? I'm sure everything in Iraq will be fixed after they get back from their 3 week vacation.

Again, Obama is irrelevant. Can't your candidate stand on her own merits?

Here you accept the framing of the Bush administration, as does Hillary. The Iraqi government is not the problem. The American occupation and genocide is.

====And I couldn't care less what how her voting record stacks up against Obama's. What I care about is what she says and, more importantly, what she doesn't say when she's campaigning.====

In other words, you care about what the candidates say, rather than what they do? By the way, Obama is rated as less progressive than Hillary

Words are important. Words have meaning. Except in parsey-parse triangulating Clinton-land.

And once again, who is this "Obama" you keep referring to?

====This country can't afford another 4 years of conservative rule, and that's exactly what Hillary represents====

As has already been mentioned, Hillary is more progressive than Obama. And remind me how electing a republican would save the country from another 4 years of conservative rule?

I see what you did there. We go from "her votes in the Senate are more progressive" to "Hillary is rated as more progressive" (rated by who?) to "Hillary is more progressive". Nice. Not true, but nice.

Also, please quit trying to scare people with this "support Hillary or elect a Rethug" BS. This country is unlikely to elect another Rethug in 2008. If the election is as much of a wipeout as we expect it to be, why should I waste a California vote on a right-wing Dem? I'd rather give a bit of help to a third party. If Hillary is the nominee (something I doubt), the best thing the progressives could do for the country is to show that there is a strong, committed voting bloc that won't stand for the status quo.

[pnwmom]

36. "Everyone" expects the election to be a "wipeout"? Are you kidding?

The Rethug system is well enough entrenched that even a lowlife like Bush won't keep the faithful from the polls. And Bush still has control of the levers of government, and he and Rove will do everything they can to ensure that they take the electoral votes of just enough states -- regardless of what the popular vote outcome is.

The Rethugs were shocked by the 2006 outcome -- they aren't going to let this happen easily again.

I think we'll win but that due to rampant election fraud it will be close. Every last vote will matter.

In California, by the way, there is a new proposal to divide electoral votes by district -- no longer all votes going to the state winner. This could put more than 20 votes in the Republican column that otherwise would have gone to the state overall winner. That alone could turn the national election. I hope you plan to work against that.

[jgraz]

42. The CA proposal is going nowhere

And, yes, I'm gonna help to make sure it goes nowhere (if for nothing else, it will force me to vote for Hillary if she's nominated).

"I think we'll win but that due to rampant election fraud it will be close. Every last vote will matter."

And what will your candidate do if there is rampant election fraud?? What has she done or said up to this point? Do you really expect that Hillary will challenge the results if the election is, once again, stolen?

Think about that one hard and you'll have a good idea why so many people find it difficult to support this candidate.

[emilyg]

18. What do you expect from your candidate?

[jgraz]

21. Integrity and true progressive values

That's what I see in Kucinich and, to some extent, Edwards. That's also what I see in guys like Al Gore and Russ Feingold. I haven't picked "my candidate" yet, but Hillary is about as far away from that ideal as a Democrat could possibly be.

[Hieronymus]

25. According to Michael Moore, Hillary takes large sums from the

pharmaceutical corporations. She's definitely NOT a strong Liberal.
Better than what we've got, and I'll certainly support her if she is the nominee.

[Clintonista2]

26. As do Obama... and Edwards. nt.

[jgraz]

30. A flat-out lie

You know full well that Edwards and Obama have both announced that they will be taking little or no PAC money in this election.

Here's the breakdown so others can see how much you're distorting the facts:

Clinton:$173,340 in Business PAC contributions
Obama: $3,250 in Business PAC contributions
Edwards:$0 in Business PAC contributions

[Clintonista2]

39. That's not what Michael Moore says

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/sickos-for-sale/candidates/

[jgraz]

43. Another twisting of the facts

"Contributions from the Health Industry - January 1st to March 31st, 2007
HMOs, pharmaceutical companies, physicians and other health professionals."

Moore is counting individual contributors. Perhaps a fair metric, but certainly a different one than you used to slime Obama and Edwards.

Seriously, it took you all night to find this?

[Clintonista2]

27. As do Obama... and Edwards. nt.

[jgraz]

31. A duplicate flat-out lie

See above

[Clintonista2]

41. That's not what Michael Moore says

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/sickos-for-sale/candidates/

[jgraz]

44. A duplicate twisting of the facts

see above

[pnwmom]

4. I think it's meant as a threat. "If you people vote for her, then I'm going

to help her to lose."

[Clintonista2]

9. Exactly

Fear is the prime tool used by the rabid Hillary-haters.

[jgraz]

24. It must be tough having to attack all your candidate's critics

Wouldn't it be nice to support someone who actually had real, positive values that you didn't have to lie about?

[pnwmom]

2. Welcome to DU! What really disappoints me is when posters here

twist and distort the positions of their favorite candidate's competitors.

If we're going to debate candidates' merits here, the least we can do is try to be as fair as possible and not swift-boat our own candidates before the Republicans do.

[jgraz]

6. Sorry, not ready to make nice

If the Dems have a biggest fault, it's our reflexive choice of comity over conflict -- even when a little conflict can be a good thing. If we're really the better choice (and we all know we are), this party should be strong enough to withstand a little down-to-earth politickin'.

[pnwmom]

10. Politicking I don't mind. Lying and distorting I do mind. n/t

[jgraz]

14. OK, no distortions: what health care policy do you expect under a Clinton administration

What policy on NAFTA? The Iraq War? Marijuana and Hemp laws? CAFE standards? etc, etc, etc...

If the only thing we get from Hillary is a pro-choice Supreme Court nominee, that's nowhere near enough for me.

[Anser]

15. But nice is so... nice, no?

Comity over conflict is not what I've seen. I see the front runners (or at least their supporters) trying to tear each other down, just like in past elections. When it comes to the races, it seems comity goes out the window and in comes our

I've seen a bunch of well meaning idealist democrats (a group that I consider myself a part) expecting to have a choice of a candidate that represents their values. It seems such an expectation is more than our two party system can deliver on.

Until we reform it however, I think playing nice may be our smartest choice.

But one thing I agree with, when it comse to talk of bipartisanship, thats where the democrats aren't ready enough for conflict.. with republicans.

[jgraz]

23. no

Some candidates need to be torn down for the good of the country. Others need a swift kick in the ass, like Edwards on gay marriage and all of them (except Kucinich) on impeachment.

A nice, clean, friendly primary gets us another John Kerry or Michael Dukakis. We need a fighter this time, because they're damn well gonna have to fight once they get into office.

[pnwmom]

38. I agree we need to fight harder against the Rethugs.

But keep our internal arguments respectful.

[Anser]

17. Oh the Irony

Don't think of an elephant! ...


I'm glad I made a nice thread area for people to complain about and defend one of the candidates.

hehe

[jgraz]

22. You expected something else?

Welcome to DU :hi:

[Milo_Bloom]

33. Here's the problem...

You can trace the origins of the this current administration and some of the insane power grab back to the Clinton Administration and democrats willing to look the other way while Clinton passed legislation that paved the way for the media consolidation, outsourcing and allowed issues that plague us today to become vogue. Clinton was a great president in many ways, but hurt progressives as his pro-business stances allowed some of the sane policies to be seen as "radical left".

bush is the worst and best thing that has happened. He is responsible for untold suffering, BUT he has provided a window for a REAL progressive to actually become President. He has exposed the right wing of the GOP for the sadistic f*cks they really are. If the democrats nominate a capitulator, we give back so much of the progress that has been made. Liberal will still be a dirty word and we will continue to have a country shifted far to the right, not because it really is, but because the "oposition" party is in the center, instead of the left.

Putting the wrong democrat in office COULD be the worst mistake of all. Yes, in the short term, even a bad democrat will be better than a republican; however, a center democrat, allows the right wing of the GOP to continue to look not that crazy by comparrison.

The GOP is done and gone in this next election. This one will be between the democrat and a 3rd party candidate (probably Michael Bloomberg) and to be perfectly frank if the democrats aren't willing to put a progressive up, I would rather the "centrist" come from an independent party than from the "left"... if nothing else, having an idependent centrist candidate win would allow the parties to re-allign and get democrats to be DEMOCRATS again.

[jgraz]

34. Post of the night

:applause:

[leez34]

37. -

This is one of the smartest posts I've ever seen on here. You should make it a Daily Kos diary! How incisive.

[Anser]

48. OK, sure

You may be right. But what if you are wrong about one thing. What if a democratic president isn't a forgone conclusion?

Sure it'd be great to get a true progressive in the white house. Most american's don't think that way though. THey can't handle huge change, only incremental. There is just so much as stake that such a gamble as your propose could lead to a country that many of us really woldn't want to live in.

But, our ideas are not mutually exclusive. Go ahead, support your candidate that you think is better. But why do we need to be going negative against each other. Stay positive. The republicans will take care of making whichever candidate that gets the nod look bad.

[Milo_Bloom]

51. Carter to Reagan was a HUGE CHANGE.

"THey can't handle huge change, only incremental." People keep saying this, but it isn't really true. People love big, bold ideas that shake foundations, as long as those ideas are sold to them in a way that they understand.

70%+ of the country think we are off track. (http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm). We haven't seen numbers like this since the early 90's and that disatisfaction led to another HUGE CHANGE, which was the republican revolution of 1994, in which they proposed radical solutions to problems, that were crappy, but people were looking for any solution at that point and they bought it and gave them control for the first time in I don't know how many years.

Keep in mind, I don't think a democratic president is a forgone conclusion... I just think not having a GOP one is a forgone conclusion, because the public just doesn't trust the GOP (nor should they.) So the question to me becomes, is it a Democratic President or a Independent one? Now, here is the real problem. I just don't see too much difference between many of the democratic candidates and the current suspected Indpendent one.

The reason me and some other people are so negative towards some of these candidates is that we really want to vote for Democrat in November. However, we don't want an independent in Democratic clothing. We want someone who is not afraid to stand up for Democratic principles, not afraid to say we need to get the profit out of health care, not afraid to talk about peace over war, someone who is just not afraid of being a democrat.

I honestly believe that if the wrong candidate gets in office, we are not stopping this march towards the country we don't want to live in, we are just creating a small detour in the road that eventually leads back to the same place.

[Anser]

52. I agree with most of that, but...

... if we make enough detours maybe we can end up someplace really great.

But seriously, I think the only point where I realy differ with you is that I don't think we can count out the republicans. This two party system of ours, hate it as I may, is a bastard to buck. The two candidates getting the most votes will most likely be a republican and a democrat. I'd too be happy with an independent over some of the democrats, I just think its a bit of a pipe dream. People may distrust republican somewhat but.. their daddy voted republican so...

Anyway I like your idealism about the american peoples penchant for change, and in fact I once shared it. But stupid traditions die hard, and two most, choosing between a democrat and a republican is a forgone conclusion. I just want to make sure, if we are stuck with that choice, we make the best of it.

[Capn Sunshine]

49. No, drone wars must continue!

nothing important should happen. We have to sling mud
It's DU after all

[goodhue]

50. Actually, I think your subject line pretty much captures the reality of first tier

I guess I'd go for good looks over unoriginal hypocrites. :shrug: