Why is it ok to post from RW BS websites to attack Hillary?

[rinsd]

Earlier today someone started a thread linking to a story from the Hillaryproject quoting a FoxNews discussion to attack Hillary. When they got called on it, they deleted it.

Now someone has put up a link to scoop from a book by Bill Sammon!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bill_Sammon

And yet I am told that its a legit article and I just don't like the story.

Seriously, wtf is wrong with you that you post rw garbage just because it attacks Hillary Clinton?

[William769]

1. They can't do it on their own.

So they do the next best thing. Ignorant minds think alike.

[Cameron27]

2. It's not ok, and it tells me a lot about anyone who

resorts to that crap.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Why Worry?

We all know that resistance is futile, and all our votes are belong to Hillary.

Relax. It's all good.

[William769]

4. I love your enthusiasm!

[SaveElmer]

17. Thank You, Thank You Very Much!

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Oh, You're Quite Welcome

[Tellurian]

5. A poster sent me an alert this morning about that site..

I checked it out thoroughly. There were 14 referrals to Democratic Underground in their info box down near the bottom of their page. I clicked on the referrals link and it put me right back into my own e-mail. They have a cookie tracker embedded in their site to follow you around documenting everywhere you go. Rest assured, I deleted my cache and all my cookies.

[Mythsaje]

6. What difference does it make?

You don't like it when we post our OWN negative impressions of her. We get accused of relying on RW talking points, even though MOST of the issues people here have with her is they don't think she's left enough. NO ONE on the right thinks that.

So either we like Hillary or pretend we do or we shut up.

[William769]

7. So then you agree it's ok to use RW garbage on this site?

[depakid]

9. Seems to me that people are bright enough to see through RW garbage

Ironically, a lot of that stuff tries to prortay her as some sort of "ultraliberal" demon. LOL.

[Mythsaje]

13. It's hard to take much of it seriously

precisely because of that.

The RW objections to Hillary have little, if anything, to do with the LW objection to Hillary.

[Mythsaje]

11. I don't think it matters.

Most of OUR issues with her have nothing to do with THEIR issues with her. Often times, they're diametrically opposed.

Well...okay, in all honesty, it doesn't matter to ME. Your mileage may vary.

I think she's going to be the nominee. I think she's the worst choice of the dems for a variety of reasons. Those of us who don't like her know why we don't like her. Those of you who DO like her know why you like her.

As was pointed out by another DUer, those who support Hillary seem to be socially liberal with little interest in foreign policy, labor, or free trade issues. When it comes to those areas, she doesn't sound all that different from a Republican.

[pnwmom]

23. Did you know that she's moved away from Bill's positions on

free trade? I suspect she's always been more liberal than he has.

I have a strong interest in foreign policy, and would be happy with any of the current front-runners.

How would it appear if instead of this huge "anybody but Hillary" crowd we had a huge "anybody but Obama" crowd? Wouldn't that give you pause?

I'm not talking about you personally, but I can't help but wonder how much her gender has to do with the degree of antipathy toward her.

[Mythsaje]

24. It seems to be about perception...

Some of us see her as pro-corporate...some of us don't. Most of those who don't like her do so for reasons that have nothing to do with right wing.

And I'm not sure she's backed away from Bill's positions as much as tried to straddle as close to the middle as possible. Of course, that's just a suspicion and based on nothing but my own impressions.

And as far as the gender thing... Take a poll. Come up with names of prominent women politicians and ask around as to how they'd fare if they were in Hillary's place. I'm curious to see how it shook out.

[cui bono]

27. Oh come one, don't play the gender card. I'm a woman and I can't stand her.

And I would love to see a woman as president, but I'd take just about any of the other candidates before her. She will be bad for America and I wish she would drop out.

Enough already. Let's get someone in who cares about the world and the people of this country. God it kills me that so many Dems are bamboozled by her. She is not the best candidate by far, and her supporters are going to ruin it for the rest of us. I don't understand how they can't see that. It's not like the evidence isn't out there.

I know this is my take on it and blah blah blah, but I also know I'm right about her. I just know it. And it seems so damn obvious and that's why it drives me crazy!

I'm not going to get into a debate about her, but I had to spout off when I see someone say that they think it's all about her being a woman.

PUHLEASE!!! There's plenty of things to despise about her and that's not one of them, and to say that as if to say "golly gee, she's so wonderful there's nothing anyone could not like about her, it must be because she's a woman" is so arrogant and shallow and it really gets my goat (can you tell?).

[Cameron27]

29. I'm sure that the gender and race are, and will be used,

and as far as your blah blah blah, that's all it is. I know that John Edwards is a great big phony. I just know it and it kills me that so many Dems are bamboozled by him. It seems so damned obvious, it's not like the evidence isn't out there.

She's not any more arrogant than any other candidate, and certainly not as hypocritically sanctimonious as some.

[cui bono]

33. But the poster said s/he thinks it's just because Hill is a woman.

THAT is CRAZY!

That's not to say there's not something to criticize in each and every candidate, because there is, but that poster was basically saying there's nothing wrong with Hill so s/he thinks people don't like just because she's a woman. That is ludicrous and they can't possibly be taking a good, hard, honest look at Hill if they can't find anything that someone might disagree with about her.

[Cameron27]

35. I didn't get that at all.

"I can't help but wonder how much her gender has to do with the degree of antipathy toward her."

I also wonder how much her gender has to do with the degree of hate she's getting. She's not any more arrogant, or opinionated, or power hungry than any male candidate. She's certainly not shooting off as many negative attacks as other campaigns are, but as a female presidential candidate her voice is called shrill, her laugh is a cackle, and even her wardrobe is criticized.

I think it's a legit thing to wonder about.

[cui bono]

40. You're right. My apologies to that poster. I guess it just sets off a nerve

when anyone attributes a disliking of Hillary to her being a woman when there is so much to dislike about her without even thinking about that.

I cannot stand that woman and it has nothing to do with her being a woman.

And I do concede that I do hear more stupid remarks about her affectations than other candidates, but that does not negate all the other things there are to disagree with her on that have nothing to do with that. Perhaps if I agreed with her and supported her candidacy I would notice it more, but since I really hate most of what she stands for and fear her winning the nomination I don't pay attention to that stuff as much as the more important things that could really mess up this country.

[pnwmom]

42. That's not what I said.

[cui bono]

48. You're right. My apologies. Please see this post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3546068&mesg_id=3546435

[pnwmom]

41. You're not answering my question.

I still don't understand why people who would be sensitive to the statement, repeated over and over in different contexts -- "I'll vote for anyone but Obama" -- don't see anything wrong with saying that about Clinton.

[cui bono]

49. Because she is the most beholden to corporate interests,

she voted for the war without apologies and without admitting what a disastrous mistake it was. She takes a lot of money from the lobby industries. She panders, she doesn't seem to make up her mind about anything until she knows how it will fly. Just a few reasons why she's my least favorite candidate...

[pnwmom]

50. She has said, over and over again, that she regrets that vote.

What is she supposed to do to make you happy -- put on sackcloth and ashes?

[cui bono]

51. But she regrets it because of the outcome, not because she thinks she made the wrong vote.

She still says "if I knew then what I know now" and that's a cop out. That's blaming her vote on others. If citizens knew it was bogus information, certainly a senator should have known. Plus, it's that she gave up the power of the senate with that vote, her constitutional power to declare war. She gave it up to a known imbecile with a known evil VP. She knew about PNAC, she knew Bush would use that power no matter what. So that's a failure to do her duty and uphold the constitution. And you can't blame anyone else for that.

[Cameron27]

55. That's exactly what Edwards said in his apology

and then he went on to blame his vote on faulty intel, and "the Clinton people." The fact that bush cooked the intel was evidenced in the NIE docs, which he never read. Clinton didn't read it either, but she wasn't on the committee and didn't have access to any of the closed door sessions that were available to Edwards. He was the only Democrat on the committee who never bothered to read those documents btw.

[cui bono]

58. But we're talking about Hillary, aren't we?

[earthlover]

31. So have the Clintonistas used right wing quotes to support their cause? I think so...

How is that different?

Pot meet kettle.

[Cameron27]

32. Post some links

before you start accusing. I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I haven't seen a whole lot of RW sources used by them.

[William769]

36. I haven't seen any.

But then again thats another RW tactic. I think we see a pattern here.

[pnwmom]

43. What right wing quotes? I've never heard any. n/t

[earthlover]

52. Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks have spoken highly of Clinton's campaign

Wanna link? http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2007/07/hillary-and-the.html

And Hillary supporters even on this blog have quoted Krauthammer as if he was a paragon of wisdom.

David Brooks And Charles Krauthammer are right wing in my book. And they are not exactly trying to see to it that Hillary is not nominated....

[Cameron27]

57. I meant links that show the Clinton supporters

used RW sources. Everyone uses the New York Times as a source here, not just the Clinton posters and there are a variety of reasons for Brooks' and Krauthammer's OpEds. One is the fact that they may be simply reporting the truth, she actually is running a successful campaign and may very well cinch the nomination.

edited to say that there's a thread from a Brooks piece being used right now, and it's being used against Clinton by an Obama supporter:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3547017&mesg_id=3547017

[earthlover]

59. I can remember several times Hillary supporters referring to Krauthammer

Now I didn't mark each one, so I can't provide a link, but my memory hasn't faded with my age.

Krauthammer was one of Bill Clinton's biggest trashers. He has no love for the Democratic Party.

Hillary supporters want to paint opposition to Hillary as if it was all inspired by right wing talking points. But they are ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the living room.....the right wing is trying to paint Hillary as inevitable. They want to run against her.

[rinsd]

8. This wasn't rw talking points. These were outright rw sources.

"So either we like Hillary or pretend we do or we shut up."

Or you could actually make salient points against Hillary. Difficult given that your candidate is Edwards and therefore open to easy counterattack but still there better options than quoting Bill fucking Sammon.

[Mythsaje]

12. I've done so...repeatedly...

In my own words.

I've never quoted the RW yet.

What's your beef?

[rinsd]

16. I thought I was fairly specific in my beef.

I cited two specific instances in the OP.

I didn't generalize/demonize any groups of supporters.

I was a little snarky in my answer to you, its been a long day. So for that I apologize.

[Mythsaje]

20. It's okay.

I think using the RW against any of our candidates is stupid, since we usually don't look at the same things as they do as being "bad."

But that's just me.

[LittleClarkie]

26. It matters because we wouldn't trust the same rag for any other news

so if they occasionally agree with us, suddenly they're a reliable news source when they would NEVER be used as such any other time?

Not just Hillary, I've seen it with Kerry. I'm sure others can site other instances and targets.

[MethuenProgressive]

10. Some people don't like it when the source of their info is pointed out.

No one likes being duped, and certainly no one really likes having it pointed out.
The Clinton Swiftboat is Titanic in size, and Democrats are boarding all day every day...

[Bitwit1234]

14. It shows that a lot of democrats have picked up on republican talking points

The more jealous they get of Hillary because she is beating their candidate the more flaming they do.

[Mythsaje]

15. Yes, because obviously the left wing and the right wing

dislike the SAME things about Hillary.

[maximusveritas]

18. Evidently it's not ok, since the post was deleted

As far as the book/article by Sammon, you just have to take it with the proper amount of salt (a whole tub full). Sammon's articles are essentially propaganda pieces from the White House. As long as you look at them critically in that context, I don't have a problem with people posting them and discussing them, even if it has a negative impact on a Democratic candidate. However, if people are just posting the propaganda uncritically, I would have a problem with that.

[rinsd]

19. The poster in question likes to hit and run post with headlines and a link only

[frogcycle]

44. an obvious candidate for banning, imo

thats just mischief making

[SaveElmer]

21. You quote an Opinion Dynamics poll and people here go through the roof...

But quote a RW smear site as long it is smearing Hillary...and all is hunky dory...

Its the same dynamic that induces RW'ers to go over board in their attacks on Hillary...always redounds to her benefit in the end!

[LittleClarkie]

25. Join the club

when people used to do that to Kerry, and I called them on their source (for pete's sake, the Boston Herald?!) I was told simply that even a broken clock is right twice a day. How convenient that it just happened to be right precisely when these people needed it to be.

[Connie_Corleone]

28. It's not okay. I've seen a couple of Obama supporters posting...

right wing sources about Hillary Clinton. I wouldn't want a bunch of right wing sources posted here about Obama. And it shouldn't be done regarding Clinton, Edwards, any of the candidates.

Some people here are just too rabid about their candidates that they have to seek out any source to make another candidate look bad.

It doesn't help our individual candidates. They're just turning off people to their candidate.

[pnwmom]

46. I know the rabid supporters are turning me off. I really like Obama

but some of his supporters are driving me crazy. And it's just backfiring on them, because whenever I see HRC unfairly attacked, I feel like defending her. Instead of noticing what's good about the other candidates.

[oasis]

30. At least 1/3 of the AntiHills at DU are GOPbots. They are quite familiar with their news sources.

:puke:

[ripple]

34. Did you miss the Drudge attack on Obama?

Or another particularly nasty Hillary supporter's sig? I agree with your sentiment, but the door swings both ways.

And rinsd, I definitely appreciate that you support your candidate without trashing others. I just get tired of some Hillary supporters trying to claim the moral high ground when it comes to such attacks, when many of the very same posters are equally as guilty.

Your point is well taken, though. DU'ers should not be posting that sort of crap here, no matter who they happen to support.

[Cameron27]

37. I actually did miss that,

and I'm sorry to hear that anything like that happened.

[ripple]

38. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3543476&mesg_id=3543476

Fortunately, that thread has been locked. Such tactics also occur very frequently in one particular poster's sig, which links to an Obama smear site.

[William769]

39. A Obama smear site?

:rofl:

[rinsd]

54. Agreed. No one should be using rw BS to attack anyone's candidate.

I know you don't. I know most supporters of whatever candidate don't. But sometimes you see it and you just get angry.

[Rowdyboy]

45. Back in 2004, a few posters used lots of right wing sites to attack Wes Clark

Everytime I saw one I checked the source, reported it to the moderators promptly, and each was locked. I hope it still works that way.

[pnwmom]

47. One of those RW anti-Hillary threads got locked today.

[LanternWaste]

53. A source is credible, or not credible...

A source is credible, or not credible. Not too much maneuver room in that.

I happen to think that RW sources, by and large are not credible. In citing RW sources, the poster loses quite a bit of credibility themselves. However, I'm sure the closer we get to voting for the nominee, we'll end up seeing anti-candidate sources starting with 'http://freerepublic...'.


(Post Script-- I've neither decided on, nor ruled out any candidate yet)

[Perky]

56. Because we do not want her to be the nominee of our party

and we will us any ammo we can find to make the case?

Yes we will support her viorously if she is the nominee. But she is a piss poor choice who will prove to ber a drag on the downticket.

[1932]

61. But if the best arguments against her are criticisms from the far right, then isn't that an

indication that Democrats should like her?

[Dawgs]

60. Why do Hillary supporters use RW websites to attack Edwards or Obama?

Every candidate has supporters that will do it.