I want the Democrats to win. I don't like Hillary. They're not mutually exclusive.

[Armstead]

To the Hilary supporters.

Can you please give the "For her or against us" rhetoric a rest?

I don't like Hillary because she represents a faction of the Democratic Party that I believe is antithetical to both liberal and progressive goals.

She represents a status quo that has enabled power and wealth to become increasingly concentrated over the last few decades. She represents a dilution of what the Democratic Party once stood for -- and a capitulation to the forces of Corporate Conservatism.

IMO, we need to return to a more muscular and unapologetic liberal/progressive agenda to protect the interests of the majority in the United States and abroad. I also believe such a Proud Liberal platform would also be a key to electoral victory.

The basic instincts of individuals have not really moved so far to the right that the nation has become more conservative. Rather, IMO, the political spectrum has been shifted by the lack of support from the Democratic Party over the years.

The surrender (or sell out) by the Democratic Party of the interests of the middle, working and poor classes to the line of bullshit of the Corporate Conservatives is (again IMO) a major reason for the apathy and cynicism that most Americans now view the system with.

Rather than an embrace of conservatism, the real winner in this climate has been fatalism. "It's sucks, but no one's going to fight it or change it. Elections don't matter because politicians are all alike." And that leads to the ability by the GOP to use side-issues to appeal to the darker instincts of Americans.

That could be changed if the Democrats were to offer a real and clear alternative to the matrix of wealth and power epitomized by the unholy alliance of the Beltway Elite and Wall St. A return to Muscular Fighting Liberalism would demonstrate to a winning majority of Americans which party is really on their side.

But to do that we have to move away from the Politics of Triangulation and the double-talk and spin and corporate interdependency.

Oh, and also, being against the power of the Corporate Elite is NOT anti-business or socialism. Nor is it utopianism. Not is it excessively idealistic. It would simply be a return to the True Center of America, in which liberalism and conservatism are in more of a balance.

Anyone is free to agree or disagree with my premise. But those of us who are critical of Hillary Clinton and what she stands for are neither against a Democratic victory, or advocating that the Democrats fall on their swords for some unrealistic principles.

It is simply a belief that, as Paul Wellstone used to say, the "We can do better."

[asdjrocky]

1. Agreed!

What a great post. I don't insult. I state facts about my candidate, then end of defending him against baseless attacks. It's almost like trying to talk to RW'ers in the real world. I just don't get all the hate from the Hillary supporters.

[Hieronymus]

67. I second that. Hillary and Dianne Feinstein are both too corporate for me.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

88. Earlier FOX gave a whole spot to Combs defending Kerry...

...pertaining to the Swiftboat ads. ...It blew my mind to see that FOX was defending Kerry, and showed beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Swiftboaters lied. All I could think is that when we see neo-conservative/corporate loving FOX, supporting a democrat, WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE!!!

FOX is trying to seem fair and balance just as people are realizing its obvious bias. Now FOX will be seen as an honest news source.

When a democrat is "elected" in 2008, EVERYONE will think that democracy is still in place and that republicans aren’t stealing elections (those stupid liberals).

I can’t believe that the people who stole the last two elections will give up their power so easily. We have to be openly hard on our corporate dems. We can’t let corporate America get away with stealing another election.

[rAVES]

146. Somebody mentioned this the other day but:

Couldn't this be so that when the Goul is "swiftboated" by the firemen it will just make it seem like politics as normal?

A kind of flack jacket for him?

"Oh just like folks came out to ruin John Kerry's presidential bid, they come out after Giuliani too!
Typical!" *Hannity rolls his beady little eyes*

[Just-plain-Kathy]

162. You have a point, but, I think the public would believe our firemen before they'd believe Rudy.

I don't think FOX would concede and give a dem a break unless there wasn't something in it for them. FOX picks on Hillary for the most nonsensical things, like wearing a low cut blouse. Issues that would drive a voter to come to her rescue for being picked on.

Rupert Murdock loves the Clintons, and every media owner is going to love the money a Clinton campaign generates.

[Spiffarino]

99. For me, too...but

...DiFi is more Republican-Lite. California would have been better off with Hillary. Feinstein is a nothing but a corporate stooge.

[MethuenProgressive]

119. The only way the GOP can beat Clinton is with help from Democrats.

"I just don't get all the hate from the Hillary supporters."
Well, I just don't get all the hate from the HillHaters.

[mrbluto]

134. Implicite message

if we don't all vote for Hillary then a republican victory will be our fault?

[Lerkfish]

141. yup, that's the threat.

its akin to "if you don't reelect Bush the terrorists will attack us again".

its a transparent attempt to win through fear and intimidation, shaming and condescenscion.

It works well with republican sheep, not so well with independent minded democrats.

[Windy]

2. Thank you from all of us who are here for a real substantive debate of the issues

and the candidates.

Your points are well taken and I hope that your views garner the respect that they deserve and not partisan attacks.

[merbex]

3. K& R n/t

[eleny]

4. K&R

[Czolgosz]

5. "not mutually exclusive"? I go farther and say those ideas go hand-in-hand

[jjr5]

83. So true!

[IndianaJones]

6. that would be fine if a liberal agenda did represent the majority. we shall see in January. nt.

[ThomCat]

15. Do you mean the opinions of the majority of people

when polled about their personal views? Or the opinions of the majority as interpreted and presented by the media?

Unforunately, the opinions of the population never translate into elections, policy, or passed legislation because there are too many filters in place. The media filters out the interests of the population, and so do the lobbyists, and so does the insider culture of D.C. and the professional policy makers, and so does culture of think tanks and "experts." :(

[Armstead]

121. That's it

In some of the "red" states that voted for GW last time, the same voters passed raises in their states' minimum wage.

That, IMO, indicates that there is a huge disconnect between what people support in terms of real issues, and the phony templates of "liberal" and "conservative" that are presented by media filters and phony political rhetoric.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[jjr5]

84. But wait . . .

I don't think that Hillary Clinton's views represent those of the majority either, which is the problem -

[bvar22]

94. Here's some numbers for you.

Here is what the MAJORITY of Americans (Democrats AND Republicans) want from OUR government!

In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

8. Over 63% oppose the War on the Iraqi People.

9. 92% of ALL Americans support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445

The above stats are 2 years old. The numbers would be even further Left if the polls were taken today.



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.

[RufusTFirefly]

7. What a wonderful post! Thank you!!

I'm tired of being pigeon-holed as unrealistic, misogynistic, Republican-enabling, or Rovian because I don't want my lifelong party to cement a lasting relationship with the Corporatocracy.

[Bitwit1234]

8. I want the democrats to win also but I pray every day that Obama

doesn't even win one state he is becoming an embarrassment and should just fade away.

[JeanGrey]

124. Fade away? How do you figure since he is now beating

Hillary in Iowa?

[MLFerrell]

9. "we have to move away from the Politics of Triangulation, the double-talk, spin and corporatism"

Which are precisely what Hillary represents.

Not to mention that if she's the Dem nominee, we can look forward to President Giuliani in 2009.

I wish that for the good of the country, she would drop out of the race.

But she's no more interested in the good of the United States than * is...

[Cameron27]

10. You know you're right,

well, I don't share your opinion about Clinton, but no one should be considered anti-Demcratic for not supporting her. I think I would add though, that using RW sources to attack any of our candidates should stop.

[NoFederales]

11. Very nicely put. And a big K&R

NoFederales

[mod mom]

12. Where are the threads explaining why her supporters like free trade or her vote on Kyl lieberman?

I have failed to find them.

I believe we need a candidate who fights for the people (INCLUDING KEEPING THEIR JOBS HERE! NOT OUTSOURCING THEM FOR HIGHER PROFITS FOR CORPORATIONS)

I believe we need a candidate who will end this war and will not make provocative statements (as the Kyl Lieberman amendment did) that might provoke another.

I believe we need a candidate who will uphold the constitution by impeaching a pResident and VpR who blatant break laws to fulfill their own wealth and disfunctional agenda.

We already have an entire party dedicated to the protection of big money/corporate interest-it's called the Republican Party. We need real change, not more of the same:
New data from the Internal Revenue Service show that income inequality continues to widen. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earn more than 21 percent of all income. That's a postwar record. The bottom 50 percent of all Americans, when all their wages are combined, earn just 12.8 percent of the nation's income.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/25/taxes/

[JDPriestly]

48. Thanks mod mom. You said it well.

[LWolf]

13. Thank you for laying it out in a civilized, but crystal clear, manner.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Yael]

14. Beautiful post.

K & R

[wyldwolf]

16. how many examples can you give of the "For her or against us" rhetoric?

[xiamiam]

17. too many to count these days on du..but i think many of us have grown very tired of it ..& see thru

the distraction..

[wyldwolf]

18. gimme four.

[xiamiam]

19. there are at least 4 every day...just read the threads..and no, im not participating in this with

you..its just too readily available..at your fingertips

[wyldwolf]

20. gimme one. Just from today. Should be easy if there are so many

[JackORoses]

22. just do a search for bitwit1234, any of his posts should do

[wyldwolf]

24. uh... nope.

:shrug:

Why should I have to prove someone else's point?

[JackORoses]

27. right, right

why should you even have to prove your own?

that would take too much effort.
and after all, you've got another Pro-sHill garbage thread to start.

[Yukari Yakumo]

28. Distort, Redirect, and Dodge

I'll reiterate wyldwolf's challenge, give us four threads in the past week that are "for her or against us" rhetoric?

Here's the truth. You can't find those four threads. You react with anger and bluster because you cannot bring yourself to admit that you are wrong. So instead of "being a man", you instead demonstrate a trait seemingly common among Clinton detractors; a liar.

Meanwhile I could probably easily find four "against her or against us" bullshit posts in the last 24 hours if I wanted to.

[kenfrequed]

40. Don't move the bar

I believe 4 threads containing entries written by Hillary supporters where people are given certain "vote Hillary or you are supporting a republican" statements would be adequate.

In that regard I can easily find 4 within the space of this week (or even by tommorrow).

[Lerkfish]

145. don't fall for their rhetorical traps

several traps they use to avoid discussing substantive issues:

1. the wearying repetition trap:
where they attempt to force you to repeatedly prove obviously true or clearly made points over and over again, feigning ignorance or pretending not to "get it"....after several volleys, a reasonable person throws up their hands, at which point they declare victory as if they've actually proved their when in fact they just made you exhausted proving and reproving the same point.

2. Prove it by links trap:
Similar to #1, only they keep insisting that unless you provide endless links you cannot be correct, even on clearly obvious points. And then, once you DO provide links, they refuse to accept your source, and continue to insist you've proven nothing.

3. Moving the bar:
They demand you prove point A, and once you do, they insist you've failed to prove point B. They will keep moving from point to point and never admit when you've proven each point. Further, they will claim by not proving point C, point A cannot be valid, even if they are completely unrelated points.

4. Playing the victim:
No matter what valid point you have, they claim you "have it in for them" and therefore your point is automatically null because you're a "hater". This allows them to never address any point you make because you're a hater therefore you deserve any abuse they heap on you to keep you from arguing. In this trap, they will make the discussion about YOU instead of what you're trying to discuss.

[earthlover]

170. Excellent post! Sometimes I feel like I am in the twilight zone facing this....

I think many of us come to this forum for a challenging discussion and exchange of ideas. Faced with this sort of stuff, it really isn't that much fun, and even less productive. I think most of us are going to support the nominee, whomever it will be, even most of those who now say they won't. In the meantime, I think the reason the parties have primaries is the progressive idea of getting the people involved with the decision making and the free flow of ideas about various candidates.

[wyldwolf]

30. when I have a point to prove, I provide a links. You think people should find the link for you

[RainDog]

147. You put me off of Hillary

Go look back at your posts and read the one that talks about Robert Parry's article about Hillary. You really shouldn't try to smear a reporter who is seen by many as a hero for the work he's done, and continues to do, to bring information to the American people that gets suppressed by the corporate news networks.

I don't read any of the candidate threads anymore because they make me ill.

But I thought it might be useful to you to know that your "hitman" attitude toward anything that's not totally Hillary-good is harming your cause. By the same lights, all the Hillary attacks after the last debate made me sick of those who attack her, too.

fwiw.

[rAVES]

148. Why should anyone have to prove theirs to you?

Oh thats right! you're a Hillary supporter, you're better than us right?

[earthlover]

61. I'll give you one...from Hillary herself!

In last week's debate she called attacks on her wanting her to be harder on corporative control Republican talking points. Republicans, of course, do not use as a talking point attacking too much corporatism! The talking points she was calling Republican were actually liberal Democratic talking points.

The clearly implied message here is that if you don't agree with Hillary, you are following Republican talking points.
Which is about as close to "you are for hillary or against us" as you can get!

I don't think I have to find four examples on these boards. Just seeing Hillary reflect a similar sentiment should be enough.

I am amazed, simply amazed that you would be unaware that people are being called Republicans, or helping the Republicans, or using Republican talking points, or hurting the Democratic Party, etc for the "sin" of disagreeing with the premise that Hillary is the best candidate to run AGAINST the Republicans!

Are.You.Really.That.Unaware?

[Imperialism Inc.]

118. None are so blind as those who will not see...

[L0oniX]

66. I just got called a repuke for posting an ugly Hillary picture today

which just increased my ignore list. There's a lot of punks here who insult you if you post anything negative about Hillary. It's like being in high school all over again. People insult others so as to make themselves feel like they are better than others. I suspect that they have an inferiority complex problem.

[earthlover]

71. Yeah, and the final insult is that the Hillary supporters try to make you believe ...

...that they didn't really say you are a repuke.

[Enrique]

21. who said you had to like her?

[Imagevision]

23. Some Dems are approaching the; "You're not patriotic if you don't support Hillary" zone...

[inthebrain]

25. I wouldn't say patriotic

I just think, looking over these past 7 years, people have reaal short memory spans. Hillary did little to support Kerry in 04 and talked up the war the whole time. She's part of the reason why congress is looked on in such a negative light.

She also took time off on some very key votes as well.

Hillary has her loyalties but it's not a question of patriotism. It's a matter of working with the forces like Emannual that want to the left muted and kicked out of this party. This is not the same Hillary i remember from early in the Clinton presidency.

This is the Barry Goldwater Hillary that she used to be all those years ago.

[JDPriestly]

51. They don't want to kick out the left. They just want to silence us altogether.

I voted for Gore, but I note that when the left-wing of the Democratic Party decided to vote for Nader after putting up with Bill Clinton for eight years without any recognition for left-wing interests, the Democratic Party was furious. The Democratic Party claims to be a big tent. Let's make this claim real. Let's be a big tent.

I support Edwards, but I am interested in finding out why other people support their candidates. I can see some very good qualities in the other Democratic candidates. I like them all. I just like Edwards best, and I am willing to articulate why I like him best. I will not deny that I like some of the things that Bidden says about foreign policy, that Dodd says about defending the Constitution, that Kucinich says about many issues. In addition I like Obama as a speaker and as a person. I could vote for any of these. Oh, and Richardson. I like his experience in negotiating in the foreign policy area.

I used to like Hillary, but I have come to dislike her during this primary election. The Hillaryites do not seem to be able to allow themselves to have a positive thought about any other candidate. I would like to know what they like about Hillary besides that she is married to Bill and from New York and has experience. None of those facts speak to me. I keep asking about the corporate lobbyists' donations to Hillary. But no Hillaryite has explained to me why they support her in spite of her taking that money. I ask and ask and ask and don't get an answer from Hillary's supporters. I don't understand Hillary's stance on corruption. How is Hillary going to rid D.C. of corruption. That is the number one issue for me. That is why I back Edwards and also like Kucinich very much. No one has articulated a single argument that would make me want to vote for Hillary over the other great candidates we have.

[Rockholm]

45. Ah, the old "some" Dems meme

I really despise that "Some" term. I really have not heard THAT one. Must make a note of that.

[AzDar]

26. Spot-on.

:)

[tekisui]

29. Let's Nominate a True Progressive!

AND put a Democrat in the White House.

[datavg]

97. Uh...

...how do you do that when more Americans then ever before own equity based investments.

(For Ye Unwashed, that means the stock market.)

You don't. And you won't.

I don't like Hillary either, but she and her people understand this.

You don't.

[Donnachaidh]

117. so more dems owning stocks mean that we need to trash progressive views

just so YOU can reap the profit?

Don't.think.so.toots. If you want to play republican lite, just take the leap and join the other party. Because we don't need that kind of mindset here.

[datavg]

168. No...

...more people owning stocks means fewer voters will embrace the nutty leftie policy stands of people like Kucinich and the late Paul Wellstone. They'll vote their pocketbooks as most people do.

This is not the United States of Northern California. Yes, people in Northern California are very progressive. They can afford it. There's a very high tolerance for taxation there. That's why I paid sixty bucks for a steak dinner and four bucks for a gallon of gas when I was in San Ramon for a contract earlier this year. People who live in southern and midwestern states would never tolerate it...and don't. That's one of several reasons Democrats haven't been able to build a fifty state coalition. It's real easy to figure out - half the party is mentally or emotionally disturbed!

If you want to live in Europe, move there! If you want to live in Northern California or Massachusetts, move there...if you can afford it. Most people can't.

Otherwise, shut up...'cause you ain't gettin' Kucinich or anyone like him. It ain't gonna happen because there are more of us than there are of you.

And that's the end of it. You lose. Period.

My dad called me on the road last Friday night to tell me how Dennis was almost screeching about impeachment during the Vegas debate...and how Blitzer was doing everything possible to make sure he didn't derail the event for everyone else. I don't normally care for Wolf but he was in a tough spot.

It's time for Pelosi to get tough with this guy. Kucinich represents a staunchly Democratic district on the west side of Cleveland. They could have run any number of candidates for that seat with the same money and half the effort. Instead, now they've got themselves a pain in the ass who threatens to split the whole damn caucus wide open.

She'd better do something about it.

[balantz]

31. My sentiments exactly!

Vote for Billary if that pleases you. I won't join you. Clinton's corporate ties would keep us remaining in the hole we have been suffering in for too long. Edwards is the clear choice for America to re-focus and move in the direction out of this hole and into the light of a new day. I'm for shaking off the old and bringing on the new. I don't want this country to remain in that hole any longer, I want Americans to take ownership of their country and decide together how it will be run from here on out. Edwards shows again and again that he would be just that kind of a president for us.

[ronnykmarshall]

50. Billary?

Oh goody! Another use of a right wing smear from the 90's.

I'm for shaking off the old and bringing on the new.

That's fuck laugh.

[balantz]

59. Sorry

I should have said Bill and Hillary. I figure they would work together. And I will try more not to post slandering things about Clinton.

[L0oniX]

68. You mean this Billary?

I'm going to cut to the chase and just put you on my ignore list now. Have a nice day.

[balantz]

77. Ha ha ha ha!

That's something.

That's all I'm saying.

[Spiffarino]

95. That's fucking hilarious

Sorry Hillary fans, but if you can't laugh at your own you have a weak sense of humor indeed.

Well played, compadre.

[D23MIURG23]

101. lmao

thats disturbing.

[mrbluto]

108. Not a smear

Maybe republicans came up with it, but I don't consider that a smear.

That Bill is in the mix will be one of the saving graces of a Hillary nomination.

[maddiejoan]

129. Which Edwards will be President?

The one that is pretending to be Kucinich? Or the one with the Corporate/Centrist voting record.

Edwards as President? Sorry --I don't wanna take that chance.

[Carrieyazel]

32. Democrats can't win if Hillary is the nominee. Half the electorate will never vote for her.

And she has significant opposition among Democrats who dislike her and her elite status.

An acquaitance of mine, (who is supporting Edwards) said to me that if Hillary is the nominee, she will vote third party "to teach the Dems a lesson for nominating her."

Senator Hillary Clinton is POISON in the general election. She cannot win and will not win.

She doesn't represent change. She's about the past. We must move above and beyond.

WE CAN do so much better.

[paulk]

41. as usual, all you can offer is a big, steaming pile of

anecdotes, conjecture, and nonsense you just pulled directly out of your...

imagination.

[JDPriestly]

52. Could you be a little more specific?

Your post is precisely one of the posts that expresses a negative emotion but does not further the conversation. If you can't articulate a thought that is useful, please don't post. Wait until you have something real to say. If you can only express a very brief negative thought, you probably need to think and learn more. I don't mean this about you personally. I mean this about the kind of discussion we have. It is one thing to right a short, general post in support of something someone has said. But a short post that just says, "I disagree" is useless. That is just a put-down, not a statement that furthers discourse.

[paulk]

90. I need to think and learn more.

I can't articulate a thought that is useful.

I have nothing real to say.

I shouldn't post.

But it's nothing personal...

LOL!

You're a real hoot, Priestly!

[mrbluto]

109. A bit thin

Your post was a bit thin.

If you read my posts on this board you'll see that I share your apprehensions about factless opinon-ating. I call people on it and ask for backup when it can further the dialog.

But that's the point: further the dialog.

Ask some sincere earnest questions. Offer you own opinion. Mix it up a bit.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

126. I'm with you on this one, paulk.

It's frustrating when anecdotes suffice for facts and opinion for events.

Particularly when the pattern repeats.

Hang in there!

:toast:
MKJ

[incapsulated]

33. Strawman

I've never seen a Hillary supporter demand anyone be "for her or against her".

Only to give her the same respect you would any democrat and stop treating her like she is the Enemy of Everything We Stand For. That is pure hyperbole. Oh, and the "anyone but Hillary" "I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES"... who the fuck else has to deal with this shit constantly?

[kenfrequed]

39. Well actually

It is more a matter of "Hillery or a Republican"

People that support other candidates, or that have either serious opposition to her, or serious questions for her supporters are occasionally accused of being Naderites, Greens, Freepers, or of "Not wanting the Democrats to win."

Sometimes these are passive voice accusations like "Not everyone here posting so critically is REALLY a Democrat" or, often after an large post "Some of the posters here are freepers crossposting"


And on this score there really ARE too many postings like this...

[zalinda]

55. Edwards supporters n/t

[mrbluto]

110. I'd grit my teeth....

...and vote for Hillary if she's the nominee.

But not with much enthusiasm. Certainly not the enthusiasim with which some will vote against her.

Nor much hope that she'd be able to "triangulate" away the abuse of the past eight years. (hint "triangulating" is a variant on splitting the difference. It's one step short of the sort of technique that allows one to boil a frog with no lid on the pan)

I get the feeling that me and my sort aren't going to get listened to by a Hillary administration.

I get the feeling that she's depending on the fact that many of us will say "at least she's not a republican".

That's great for an electoral strategy.

Not good for a change strategy.

As for "Enemy of Everything We Stand For"

No, I don't think she's an enemy - I just don't feel that she particularly cares past what it will take to get elected.

[Armstead]

125. She doesn;t get subjected to anything otehr candidates do

There are often vituperative attacks against Obama, Edwards, et.al. here.

Yes there are more of them critical of Hillary, but that's because she is a front runner, and she has been cast as the candidate of inevitability.

However in terms of degree, I've seen just as much negative against the other candidates.

[mrfixit]

138. I think this is a valid concern.

No other candidate will have to deal with this.

Anyone ELSE taking the nomination will get pretty much the full support of the Democratic Party. HRC will NOT.

I would gladly vote for any OTHER nominee, for instance. They are all pretty good this cycle, with the exception of HRC.

That being said, if HRC is the Democratic nominee, I will simply either just NOT VOTE AT ALL, or look for an Independent.

[mzmolly]

34. I'm not a fan of the notion of a Hillary Clinton Presidency, but Wellstone would have supported her

if she won the nomination. I am certain of that. He and Nader debated on the "differences" between the two major parties, and let's be clear on the following. Clinton does not equal the "Bush version" of the status quo.

I agree we need to return our Party to the poor and working class, and to growing and strengthening the middle class in this Country. And, I don't think Hillary is the person to do that. But, I also feel that she's a far cry from Republican ideals.

[balantz]

35. Voting Republican is not on my list of things to do.

But I don't like the thought of having to vote for an enabler of the Right.

[mzmolly]

38. Her overall voting record does not suggest she's an "enabler of the right."

She's too hawkish for me, but she has an excellent record on many other issues.

[parkerll]

156. no

I believe Wellstone would have supported Kucinich.

[mzmolly]

164. I disagree, however I'm speaking of the G.E. not the primaries.

:hi: Welcome

[Maven]

36. Good. Then let's stop pretending that our other "top-tier" candidates are so much different.

Yes, all three of them are different personalities. But if you think an Edwards or Obama administration would ring in some kind of new New Deal you're fooling yourself. Saying you're for "change" doesn't make it so, and even if you are for change, you need the political know-how to make it happen.

I agree with everything you said, I just think the prevailing attitude around here that Hillary is the sole embodiment of status-quo, corporate America is disingenuous. Yes, Obama and Edwards position themselves as the "change" candidates to Hillary's "establishment" candidacy. That's a political strategy. Just like Hillary's hawkish posturing is a political strategy. Look at their policies, though, and the distinctions start to fade.

The fact is, I think a lot of people here are disgruntled with the way American politics works today (as well they should be), and they need some symbol of that to knock down so they can feel they're making progress. But if you want to do something truly progressive, stop pretending that Hillary's top-tier alternatives are the solution and start putting your efforts behind the so-called "long shot" candidates who truly represent change. Until then, save the sanctimony.

I believe that's what Sen. Wellstone meant when he said, "We can do better."

[JDPriestly]

53. One, but only one factor in my judgment of Hillary: I judge people in part by the company they keep.

Hillary talks the Democratic talk. But then so did Lyndon B. Johnson. And Johnson delivered in many areas -- civil rights, War on Poverty, Medicare. But, like Hillary LBJ owed his rise to corporate donors-- primarily Brown & Root which we call Halliburton. We owe the Halliburton century to LBJ. I voted for LBJ. I don't want to make that mistake again. I do not want to vote for another product of the corporate culture. I want to vote for a candidate who relies on my vote and my money, not corporate money and the votes it buys.

When LBJ ran for president, I was young. It never occurred to me to look at who supported him, who he relied on for his campaign funds. Had I done so, I might not have voted for him.

Now, Hillary is running. I think back on LBJ, and while, as I said Hillary talks the Democratic talk, I do not like some of the people whose company Hillary keeps. First, there is Mark Penn. He works for Burson-Marsteller, a company that everyone on DU has read about. The folks at Burson-Marsteller are bad news. That company prostitutes itself for anyone who pays enough for their services. That has included the government of Argentina during the repressive regime of the military and, more recently, Blackwater. Burson-Marsteller people are, in my view, not good people. All the candidates except Kucinich have one or more "bad guys" they have hung around with. But Hillary has the most.

Another one of Hillary's major guides and supporters is James Carville. Watch the movie, Our Brand Is Crisis, then read the chapter in Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine on Carville's role in Bolivia's elections and finally, reflect on the fact that Carville is married to Mary Matalin. Lots of good Democrats are married to active Republicans. But Carville's being married to Mary Matalin causes me to question whether he cares about Democratic principles at all. That's like being married to the uber-Republican. She is just as extreme as they come.

And on top of that Hillary is accepting money from corporate lobbyists. Why should I vote for the favorite Democrat of the corporate lobbyists. Those lobbyists are not on my side.

I also have big questions about Hillary's stance on wiretapping on surveillance of electronic communications. This is because I read a German website that claimed that the Bill Clinton administration pressured the EU to do away with laws that prohibited surveillance and recording of European electronic communications. The Clinton administration argued that communications needed to be under surveillance to prevent copyright violations. Hs Hillary said anything clear about this? Have any of the other candidates for that matter?

And what about habeas corpus. Edwards has stated that he will ask Congress to change the laws that got rid of it. What specific changes will the candidates make to the Patriot Act? Edwards issues statements on every issue. If anyone wants to know his, I will try to find his statements. If you want to help your candidate, post the candidates views on the crucial issues here rather than fuss about stupid side issues. Thanks. I will gladly read them. Thanks.

[Maven]

56. That's a valid concern, however

my point was that as far as I can see, none of Edwards' and Obama's policy proposals are substantially more unfriendly to corporate power in America than Hillary's. This is particularly evident in the area of health care.

As for the Marc Penn/James Carville thing, I agree--there's no excuse for associating with people like that. Then again, there's no excuse for associating with Donnie McClurkin, either. Each top-tier candidate has shown a willingness to consort with unsavory characters to win votes.

My candidate, as you've probably guessed by now, is Dennis Kucinich, and his positions are well known. I am not a Hillary supporter, but I resent Edwards and Obama supporters trying to perpetuate the illusion that their candidates are really trying to turn a new leaf in this country whereas Big Bad Hillary is Bush 2.0.

[mrbluto]

113. Illusion?

I don't agree that Edwards is perpetuating an illusion.

Why to you presuppose what Edwards presents is an illusion.

DK seems like a good guy, but unfortunately it looks like the country is simply not going to go where he leads right now, nor within the next year or so unless the sh*t really hits the fan.

I hate to have to say this, but we can't afford to let the (nigh) perfect be the enemy of the good this election.

[info being]

143. You have to admit though...

aside from Kucinich, Edwards is the best.

[Maven]

149. Yes, I agree with that

Although I think Biden has a lot to offer too.

[mrbluto]

112. Sincerely Curious

You mention...

All the candidates except Kucinich have one or more "bad guys" they have hung around with.

I'm sincerely curious - what bad guys has Edwards hung out with?

[mrbluto]

111. I don't agree.

I do think that Edwards would be a departure from the status quo. He was an anti-corporate lawyer. He knows just what it takes to give the irresponsible ones the spanking they deserve.

I think Obama doesn't have enough of a machine to do what he might want to do - they'd tie him down quicker than they did Bill.

I think the nice part of a Hillary administration is that she's got enough of a machine to give the Republicans a taste of what they've been dishing out for 6+ years.

Sadly I doubt any of the other candidates are actual contenders in the current media enviroment.

But I'd rather have a change.

[info being]

142. I agree with your analysis

[Armstead]

127. I don;t disagree totally what what you say

But that's as bigger issue than I was addressing in the OP.

Even if he is taking a tactical position, for example, the message of Edwards is a lot closer to what we need than the message of Hillary. And therefore, if he does well (or wins) that message does well. Which will show voters that they are not alone. And eventually will get through the thick skulls of the Beltway Elites and perhaps even the media.

[CGrantt57]

37. Yes, we can do better.

Please vote your conscience in the primaries.

Come the general election, though, hold your nose and vote.

It's the only way we can even begin to take back our country.

Wishing and hoping for a "better" candidate probably won't make it happen.

Regards,

[Rockholm]

46. Ah, so may I ask who is "better"

You could certainly answer "who is different" in respect to positions on major concerns. But "better?" Please.
I will pick the Democrat, whomever is nominated.

[Prophet 451]

64. Who's better? Kooch.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Spiffarino]

98. So will I

Any Dem is better than any Republican. I'd vote for friggin' Zell Miller over Rudy, Mitt or Grandpa Fred.

Even though I like her, I don't like Hillary's positions on important issues of the day. She's against equal rights for gay Americans (DOMA), she voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution in '02, she's rarely met a military bill she didn't like, and she gladly takes money from Washington lobbyists. She is far too conservative a Democrat for me and I don't believe her presidency would yield the best outcomes compared to a progressive Democrat.

In spite of all that, if she gets the nomination she'll have my vote. Anything is better than 4 more years of GOP Hell.

[Oldenuff]

60. Not to "call you out" or take you to task

or anything like that,but's it the notion that if we "hold our noses" and vote for the lesser of 2 evils,everything will be alright.Can you imagine what another term by a "corporate led President" would do to this country?We are on the brink of an economic collapse,not to mention the real prospect of losing our rights altogether.If we allow ourselves to think that the lesser of 2 evils is acceptable,then we have lost.

Several folks on the boards have suggested that if there is not a real "Champion of the People" nominated,that they will bolt and vote 3rd party,or write in their candidate.I have come to the conclusion,that this seems to be the only avenue available to me as well.There are those who would say that this would allow another Repug to be elected.I am sure that a Guliani regime would be a little worse than a Clinton regime,but he would look better in a pantsuit.:)

[Tarc]

62. Can you image a Supreme Court

stacked with 2-3 more Scalitos? That is what I find most frightening about having another Republican in the White House next year. For all Hillary's faults, she will at least not be dooming the Supreme Court to a generation of rolling back progressive, liberal gains made in the last 40 years.

[Oldenuff]

69. Again,not to cause any undue controversy,but

I don't trust Hillary to do the right things,plain and simple.

I believe that if we don't stand up and select a decent President,that we will continue down the path to oblivion.Maybe a little faster with a "confessed Republican",but down the path nonetheless.We can be led around by the nose by the party and the media.....or we can say "enough already,no more shills".

[Tarc]

165. That's fine for the primary, but

if it comes to a general election and she is the nominee, then I do not see anyone on the Republican side that I would prefer.

I probably won't vote for her in the primary, as I kinda like Obama and still secretly pine for Gore. But if she wins, she's leagues better than the swill on the GOP side of the aisle.

[saltpoint]

92. SCOTUS nominees. Yes. We must work toward a Democratic White House

so that the Court does not become the all-powerful scorched-earth right-wing force it is in danger of becoming.

If Senator Clinton is not all Democrats' first choice, I bet Rudy Giuliani's Supreme Court picks would be a lot farther down the list.

[Beaverhausen]

42. We need change, pure and simple

another Clinton won't bring change.

[Rocky2007]

43. Great piece

You are spot on. 2008 is the year for change: Washington must change, the government must change. Hillary is NOT ABOUT CHANGE!

[Nostradammit]

44. I concur

I don't want to see President Hillary because I am certain she would do to the Democratic Party what G.W. has done to the Republican.

I honestly don't think she can lead. And that doesn't mean I think women can't lead.

[JDPriestly]

47. Thanks.

[roxnev]

49. Bush was so bad, people are scared

so in hope of a win, Thy will stick with most popular person

[nealmhughes]

54. Why do you hate women and promote a class war?

:sarcasm: That seems to be the reply many HRC supports would give. I, however, love women and am promoting the class war.

[mojowork_n]

57. It's naive to think so, I know, but I'd want a candidate who...

...really could appeal to all sides of the electorate. Specifically, to the more independent-minded moderates, and the sort of traditionally Republican fiscal conservatives most likely to be repulsed by the Bush administration's blatant corruption and croneyism. (I mean, if anybody's been paying attention to the financial pages lately, there's more and more talk of imminent meltdown of our whole economy.)

I'd want a candidatae who could start by pointing out the obscene profits the oil companies and health insurance and pharmaceutical companies have been making. Someone who could specifically name the parties in Washington who helped set it up, and have been letting it continue.

In order for Hillary to be able to begin delivering that sort of message, she would need to fire her current debate coach and completely change the tenor and tone of her delivery. She still sounds too much like she's trying to be all things to all voters, but at the same time appears too often to be defensive, like she's trying to win vindicatation for some decade-old personal business. In that respect, she's the candidate most likely to be hurt by voter preconceptions. Dragging around all that old baggage makes her the least likely candidate to deliver a fresh message, or convince voters on the margin (undecided, but otherwise rational) that this country needs a new direction.

I put a post up in my local state chapter's forum, that started out as a commentary on state healthcare/budget issues, but then turned toward a more wide open discussion of larger campaign issues:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=186x22832

[mtnsnake]

58. The candidate your describing is more like John Edwards, not Hillary Clinton

If you're so afraid of conservatism and worried for liberalism, as am I, then you better hope to hell that John Edwards doesn't get the nod, and that either Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, or Obama does, because their records have proven to be way way way more liberal and progressive than John Edwards' record could ever hope to be. Edwards was one of the biggest allies of the Republican neocon agenda all during his tenure in the Senate and he's got the conservative record to prove it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

63. Nicely said.

Now prove it.

yes, he voted for the IWR. And he realized his mistake and spoke out against it YEARS ago - not weeks ago like Hillary with her half-hearted waffling. And he has been consistant on it ever since.

He has gone toe to toe with corporate america - NOT taken its donations to his campaign. Yes, he's slow on getting the troops out, but no more so than Hillary.

He is socially more conservative than some others, but that does not make him a neo-con. How do you back that up?

[Reno.Muse]

82. At least more than a few Dems still in Congress made the same mistake

and want us to allow them to move forward.

[illinoisprogressive]

65. Obama and Edwards run stronger in head to head over hillary

[antigop]

70. Thank you, Armstead. The corporate elite have destroyed many, many lives. n/t

[usregimechange]

72. I endorse that aforementioned comments

[bagrman]

73. We need this man for president.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x70762

[muntrv]

74. Hillary does not represent the Democratic party or progressives.

[maddiejoan]

132. That's nonsense.

Have you ever really looked at her stance and record on progressive issues?

If you actually did, you'd find her slightly to the left of Edwards, Biden AND Obama.

[Perry Logan]

75. Here's some information on Hillary's record. Judge for yourself.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Trust for Historic Preservation 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Children's Defense Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 91 percent in 2006.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 100 percent in 2005

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100 percent from 1988-2003 (Senate) or 1991-2003 (House).

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Public Health Association 80 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 84 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 88 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 83 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Committee for an Effective Congress 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2005.

According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 80 percent of the Senators.

According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on social policy issues than 83 percent of the Senators.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 92 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Bread for the World 100 percent in 2003-2004.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Partnership for the Homeless 100 percent in 2003-2004.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

She was promoting universal coverage before it was cool. Furthermore she helped to create the SCHIP program. And most importantly she was dead on in the debate the other week where she said political will was the most important thing needed to push health care reform through and we know without a doubt she has that.

She has fougt unrelentingly for a woman's right to choose as well as women's rights both domestically and abroad

Create a Strategic Energy Fund - Hillary has proposed a Strategic Energy Fund that would inject $50 billion into research, development and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol and other homegrown biofuels. Hillary's proposal would give oil companies a choice: invest in renewable energy or pay into the fund. Hillary's proposal would also eliminate oil company tax breaks and make sure that oil companies pay their fair share for drilling on public lands. Instead of sending billions of dollars to the Middle East for their oil, Hillary's proposal will create a new clean energy industry in America and create tens of thousands of jobs here.

Champion a Market-Based "Cap and Trade" Approach - Hillary supports a market-based, cap and trade approach to reducing carbon emissions and fight global warming. This approach was used successfully to limit sulfur dioxide and reduce levels of acid rain in the 1990s. By capping the amount of emissions in the environment and allowing corporations to buy and sell permits, this approach offers corporations a flexible, cost-efficient method to do their share to reduce emissions and combat global warming. The program will reduce emissions, drive the development of clean technologies, and create a market for projects that store carbon dioxide.

20% Renewable Electricity Standard by 2020 - Hillary believes we need to shift our reliance on high carbon electricity sources to low-carbon electricity sources by investing in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind. As President, she'll work to require power companies to obtain 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Make Federal Buildings Carbon Neutral - Hillary believes that the federal government should lead the way in reducing carbon emissions from buildings. Buildings account for 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and the federal government owns or leases more than 500,000. Hillary would require all federal buildings to steadily increase the use of green design principles, energy efficient technologies, and to generate energy on-site from solar and other renewable sources. By 2030, all new federal buildings and major renovations would be carbon neutral, helping to fight global warming and cutting the $5.6 billion that the federal government spends each year on heating, cooling and lighting.

Protecting Against Exposure to Toxic Chemicals - Hillary wants to make the products we use safer, especially for children. There are tens of thousands of chemicals used in the U.S. and hundreds of new chemicals introduced each year, but little health testing is conducted for many of them. Hillary would require chemical companies to prove that new chemicals are safe before they are put on the market, and would set more stringent exposure standards for kids. She would also create a "priority list" of existing chemicals and require testing to make sure they are safe. To improve our understanding of the links between chemicals and diseases like cancer, Hillary would create an "environmental health tracking network" that ties together information about pollution and chronic diseases.

Hillary's Record

Hillary has been a leading member of the Environment and Public Works Committee since she was elected to the Senate. Today, she chairs the Superfund and Environmental Health Subcommittee and in that capacity has promoted legislation to evaluate and protect against the impact of environmental pollutants on people's health and clean up toxic waste.

Global warming and Clean Air
Spoken out forcefully about the need to tackle global warming in hearings, speeches, rallies and on the Senate floor and co-sponsored "cap and trade" legislation.
Worked to reduce air pollution that causes asthma and other respiratory diseases by writing and helping to pass new laws to clean up exhaust from school buses, and other diesel-powered equipment.
Supported legislation to reduce pollution from power plants, including harmful emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide - emissions that contribute to poor air quality, smog, acid rain, global warming, and mercury contamination of fish.
Aggressively fought the Bush Administration's ill-advised attempts to weaken clean air laws.

Improving Water Quality and Protecting Drinking Water
Helped to overturn the Bush Administration's attempt to allow more arsenic in drinking water.
Cosponsored legislation to protect lakes, rivers and coastal waters by fighting the spread of destructive invasive species, such as the zebra mussel.
Helped ot pass new clean water laws, including measures to protect New York City's water supplies and clean up Long Island Sound.

Protecting Public Lands
Fought oil company efforts to pen the Artic Wildlife Refuge in Alask and Pacific and Atlantic coastal waters to drilling.
Cosponsored the Roadless Area Conservation Act, which prohibits road construction and logging in unspoiled, roadless areas of the National Forest System, and voted for additional funding and manpower to combat forest fires in the west.

Reducing Dangerous Chemicals and Cleaning Up Hazardous Waste
Supported legislation to restore the "polluter pays" principle by reinstating a chemical company fee to fund cleanups of highly contaminated "Superfund" waste sites.
Cosponsored the "kids-Safe Chemical Act," which requires chemical companies to provide health and safety before putting new chemicals in consumer products.
Proposed legislation to create an environmental health tracking network to enable us to better understand the impact of environmental hazards on human health and well-being.

Tackling the Toxic Legacy of 9/11
Pushed for health care benefits for first responders, residents and others whose health has been impacted from breathing the toxic dust and smoke in New York City after 9/11.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/20/134810/677

The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch)
Overall Progressive Score: 92% 90%
Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad: 98% 97%
Corporate Subsidies 100% N/A
Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%
Environment 92% 100%
Fair Taxation 97% 100%
Family Planning 88% 80%
Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%
Healthcare 98% 94%
Housing 100% 100%
Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%
Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%
Labor Rights 91% 91%
Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%
War and Peace 80% 86%

[mrfixit]

150. Here's some REAL information on her record, from the same source:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

03/10/2005 Bankruptcy Reform Bill - NV
06/18/2002 Terrorism Insurance Bill - Y
06/06/2007 Law Enforcement Review of Z Visa Applications - N
11/07/2007 Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies - NV
10/23/2007 Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies - NV
11/01/2007 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (CHIP) - NV
09/07/2006 Media in the Middle East Amendment - N
11/19/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 - Y
03/27/2007 Iraq Withdrawal Amendment - N
10/11/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq - Y
03/02/2006 USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization - Y
10/06/2004 National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 - Y
10/25/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 - Y
09/14/2001 Military Force Authorization resolution - Y
06/07/2006 Same Sex Marriage Resolution - N

HRC speaks DEMOCRAT, but she votes REPUBLICAN.

She CANNOT be trusted.

[redqueen]

153. Thank you for pointing out the 'problem' votes.

I can't fricking stand the spamming people do to try to prove a point. It's nice to see it trimmed down.

:thumbsup:

[parkerll]

157. Thanks

Actions speak louder than words (or labels) and her votes on these issues are far more important to me. We are faced with a nation sliding rapidly toward fascism (which is a melding of government and corporations). I refuse to throw in the towel and vote for someone simply because they wear the "Democrat" label. You are right, she DOES vote like a Republican.
But then, I'm a die hard Kucinich supporter and the more I hear him speak the stronger my support for him becomes.

[K Gardner]

76. Agreed and well put. n/t

[Strelnikov_]

78. KnR n/t

[nradisic]

80. I'm with you...

I want the Democrats to win, but I don't like Hillary. She would mean just more of this corporatism.

[Reno.Muse]

81. I view her bid for president is self-serving and vengeful and she will cost

Dems all the gains we've made in recent years. Sorry, but I don't want to relive the Clinton White House years. Time to move on with a Progessive who isn't in bed with corporations.

John Edwards 2008

[The River]

86. She's Been Running for President Since Bills 2nd Term

Why?
I still don't know.
I don't see "leadership" or true issue passion.
Just "in it to win it" for ego's sake?

[MissDeeds]

85. Kicked and Recommended

And yes, we can - and must - do better.

[neutron]

87. she's also an "ambitious woman" and "power hungry" too

[mrbluto]

114. Playing the gender card?

Look: I'm so past the idea of a woman as a president I am actually willing to criticize, or listen to criticism on just those points.

Do you think your content-less post advanced this dialog?

Or perhapse it was just a criticism terminating trope?

[johncoby2]

89. Vote for Kucinich! He has the best chance of winning the white house!

:sarcasm:

[Armstead]

128. His positions do

Unfortunately, for a combination of reasons, Kucinich has been characterized as a flaky non-candidate and/or ignored by the media and the Beltyway Elite.

However, I'd bet that in blind polls of people's actual opinions, a whole lot of mainstream Democrats and independents and even honest moderate conservatives would agree with him on most issues.

[bvar22]

160. Here are some numbers:

Here is what the MAJORITY of Americans (Democrats AND Republicans) want from OUR government!

In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

8. Over 63% oppose the War on the Iraqi People.

9. 92% of ALL Americans support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445

While all of the candidates agree on some of these issues, ONLY Kucinich could use this list for his platform.
Hillary is farhtest from these values.




”Unlike other candidates, I am not funded by those corporate interests.
I owe them no loyalty, and they have no influence over me or my policies.” ---Dennis Kucinich

[Armstead]

163. That should be posted on the wall of every Democrat...

..as a reminder that the right thing to do is also what people want to have done.

[saltpoint]

91. Senator Clinton is more palatable to me correspondent to who's attacking her.

That is, I acknowledge and respect the obvious strengths. Her constituents have twice sent her to the U.S. Senate. Among those constituents are Democrats I have known a long time and respect a great deal.

There is a prevalent sedition in conservative talk radio which defines itself in subverting clarity and respect, going instead for character assassination and ratings grabs. Democrats are generally the target and Senator Clinton has been singled out because she's you-know-who's spouse and, IMO, because she's female. Rush Limbaugh must be terribly threatened by females to speak in such puerile ways about Hillary Clinton, and of course few right-wing hate talk hosts have the cajones to actually invite her on their programs for an interview. Most 8th grade boys treat females better than Rush Limbaugh, and most 8th grade boys aren't drug addicts, either.

Were she male I wouldn't care for their conduct any better. It's bad conduct, plain and simple, no matter who it's directed at, but there's an undercurrent of violence against females that fuels a lot of the hate-talk programming, and there's no question but that Senator Clinton has had to shovel more than her share.

One last positive. She's smart. I like smart people. I like accomplished people. Senator Clinton is both. There is the Phyllis Schlafly model of career women and then there is the Hillary Clinton model. I'd choose the Clinton model over the Schlafly model any day. That isn't as much an endorsement for political ideology as it is temperament. The nation's cities, counties, and states would be stronger communities with more of the Clinton model and far less of the Schlafly model, which is not to say that I'd prefer the Bella Abzug model and the Barbara Jordan model over any model.

Polling shows that Clinton's lead is formidable. Today's Iowa polling shows her slipping some, but still in obvious and fierce contention. That race is a gambler's finish, and my hunch is nobody can sit back and coast between now and January 3rd. DUer Catchawave posted today on the mechanics of the Iowa caucus process, and it is very much worth a look. In fact, I hope people here will bookmark it. It's a keeper, and it has the added gift of permitting more seasoned and more civilized threads on the nomination race. My fingers are crossed on that one, hoping for the best.

People who we've crossed paths with in NYC, California, and yes, Des Moines and Ames, Iowa are beginning to weigh in on the nomination race generally and the Iowa caucus especially, and none of them is counting on a predictable finish. We hear that it's fluid, volatile, iffy, slapdash, sketchy, and front-loaded with maybes. It's almost anyone's race there, is the take-away. If you're for Dodd, he's not out of it. If you're for Biden, he's rising in the polling, especially 2nd-choice polling considered crucial to the caucus process. If you're for Obama, today's poll provided uplift. If you're for HClinton, you can see that the arena is getting hotter, more crowded, and less predictable; nevertheless, your candidate leads all Democrats nationally, and by a convincing margin at the moment.

I'm for Edwards. If he wins in Iowa, it's no occasion for chest-pounding. If he loses, nobody at my house will blow their brains out. Republicans are our target and there are any number of Democrats in our field who can win the White House. I'm hellbent on that goal because I don't want a street thug like Rudy Giuliani choosing the next Supreme Court appointees. Vote for your favorite, certainly. But keep an eye on what is actually dangerous in 2008, and I'm hunching that judicial appointments might be high on many of our lists.

If HClinton wins the nomination, most Democrats will vote for her. We may see her choose Clark or Bayh or Breaux or Vilsack or someone else for the other spot on the ticket. I'm voting for our ticket even if my candidate is not selected. Other Democrats in other places get first crack at our ticket. I have to wait my turn. I'll take what comes. In a more perfect world, I would personally get to choose our nation's representatives at all levels, plus pick the Supreme Court, and musicians of my choice would serenade me on demand. In the off-chance that that doesn't come to fruition, I'll navigate the landscape as it is. Ray Davies of the Kinks reminds us that "Reality is over-rated." He's right, but it's where we are all registered to vote, licensed to drive, and attuned to the infinite.

In the meanwhile, I would like to hear HClinton speak from the places in her personality and experience that she has simply not spoken from to date, or when she has with little passion. I won't begrudge her her fame and position and I will even defend her against the shitheads on right-wing radio. But I keep listening for the passion and the vibrational commitment to public service, and by god I'm just not hearing it.

I don't argue that it isn't there. It may be. But I hear it and see it and feel it in Kucinich, Edwards, Biden, Obama, Dodd, Richardson and even Gravel to a much greater extent than I do when Senator Clinton is speaking. She's tip-toeing through the campaign so far and I just don't think that's a very compelling profile at this point in our country's history. I want some blood-and-bones ferocity toward the life of our citizenry as regards health care, schooling, veterans' care, and not least, foreign policy. And I'm just not getting the voltage I want from HClinton's campaign. It's too cautious, too flat-sprited, too tip-toey.

This is no time to hold grudges. There are Republicans to defeat and marginalize. But if Hillary Clinton is going to be our candidate for this battle, I hope she speaks and acts as if she's going to be more passionately committed than her presentation suggests right now.

[Armstead]

130. "I want some blood-and-bones ferocity toward the life of our citizenry "

I like that phrase, and agree it's what we really need.

[femrap]

93. And we could do

a hell of a lot worse.

Elect a Dem in '08. And in '09, put her/his feet to the FIRE!

May We, the People Rule!

[datavg]

96. I'm Telling Ya...

...you're dreaming. It's not gonna happen.

You need to vote third party. Maybe that's what you'll do.

[Armstead]

154. At some point the "deja vu" Democrats will get defeated internally

At this point a third party would only make it more likely that the GOP will win. (Although one can hope that a third party of ultra conservative Christian Conservatives will emerge to dilute the GOP).

But at some point, I'm hoping the Democrats will shake off this template that seems to occur in every election, and get back to the basic of being party of moderate to left.

Hope springs eternal, as they say...

[bvar22]

100. If you want:

*More War

*Extended Occupation Of Iraq

*Expansion/Escalation of hostilities with Iran

*Iraqi Oil Resources given to US Oil Corporations (Oil Law)

*A BIGGER Military

*A BIGGER "Defense" budget

*More unquestioned support for the Right Wing Israeli Government

*More taxpayer money diverted to the Armaments Industry

*More US Jobs shipped overseas

*More US jobs given to low wage foreign workers

*More "Free Trade"

*More Top Down authoritarian Democratic Party leadership(?)/ less input from grassroots

*More Wealth & Power concentrated into fewer hands

*Millions (Billions?) of taxpayer money diverted into the rich pockets of the Health Insurance Industry

*More Corporate Power Consolidation

*Less Corporatre regulation

*More privitization of the Commons

*More entrenchemnt of "The Unitary Executive"

*Ending investigations and prosecutions of the War/Constitutional Criminals of the Republican administration.

*No REAL attempt to limit the Corporate voice in DC.

If you want MORE of the above, then vote for Hillary!
She's your girl!


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.

[NoFederales]

136. Powerful, and to the point! nt

NoFederales

[DrFunkenstein]

102. With Us or The Terrorists Win, Your Criticisms Only Embolden The Enemy

Seriously, it wasn't THAT long ago when we could all agree that these types of arguments were cheap and harmful to democracy. But the SAME EXACT logic is being used by the candidate, her campaign and her supporters around here.

Criticizing Clinton's positions does not:

1. Come from Republican playbooks.

2. Weaken us in the general election.


Actually, suggesting that any criticism only weakens our resolve is something that comes from Republican playbooks.

If we had been "allowed" to criticize the Bush administration's mishandling of the war, we could have stemmed this unending fiasco significantly. But Republicans said it would help the terrorists by showing us divided.

We can do better.

[Lugnut]

103. K&R n/t

[Kurovski]

104. Good enough to grace with yet another recommend.

Thanks, Armstead.

Molly Ivin's spelled it out in one of her columns:

"I will not support Hillary Clinton for president
January 20, 2006

...What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF? "



http://freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304

[saltpoint]

105. You can be a good leader without being a good speaker but being a good

speaker helps the leadership component.

I take nothing away from the woman's brains but she is one of the dullest speakers I've ever heard.

Evan Bayh is also a contender in this category of dull speakers.

Between the two of them they could put a hyperactive monkey into a coma.

[Kurovski]

106. Then by all means, let's get them to lecture George Bush.

[saltpoint]

116. If a venue can be arranged, I'll pay for gas and put them up at Motel 6.

[Kurovski]

166. I'll provide the pillow mints.

A whole big box.

Let me put in some calls. We may have a good alternative to impeachment here.

[saltpoint]

172. LOL!

[mrbluto]

107. The Hillary/Obama Problem

Let's put it this way:

If Obama wasn't in this race, splitting the anti-hillary vote, then Edwards would be ahead right now as far as I can tell.

Whatever nice things you can say about Hillary and Obama it seems to me that they make a Democratic victory dicey. Who knows how energized the rabid right would get over Hillary? Who knows how much racism would rear it's head?

I want to see the preconceptions about race and gender that have made the presidency a preserve for rich white guys demolished - but this particular election is too important to take a risk. Four more years of a republican as president and we can kiss democracy goodbye. Can't risk it.

That said there are some other things that unsettle me about Hillary and Obama. As much as I fondly recall the 90s and Bill Clinton's administration I have to ask "where did it get us?" it was a brief, embattled inter-reginum bracketed by the worst Republican governance we've seen in modern times. It seems, to me that a Hillary administration has a fair chance of being the same thing (never mind that we'd have 26 years of the presidency being traded between just two families). There was no lasting change that Bush & Co didn't roll back inside of 18 months as far as I can tell. I've seen some press that puts Obama in close proximity to Lieberman - perhaps it's nothing, but I haven't heard much out of the Obama campaign that makes me want to do much research on the subject. Perhaps someone can inform me better.

There are other Democrats running, but IMHO they're not going to make it unless there's some fluke. DK has a good stance and understanding of many issues, but the general electorate has too far to come before they'd resist the spin the echo chamber would paste him with. The only person, other than Edwards, that I think would be a workable antidote to the past eight years is Gore. Sadly I believe him when he says he's not running.

Edwards is electable, from the south, and relatively veted in both ethical and media terms. Does anyone think Rove would have held back from his oppo research during the Kerry/Edwards run? This is why they have to go for the "Haircut" attacks - they have little else on him. Edwards has already had a "shake-down" campaign - we're less likely to discover half a worm in this apple, nor see one planted.

And here is the most telling thing for me, the thing that tells me that the old powers (both Republican and the DLC Triangulators) don't want him:

The MSM ignores him to whatever extent they can.

They want you to forget him.

Watch the news with this in mind and see if you disagree.

Rove, either himself, or his doppleganger for the eventual republican candidate, salivates at the prospect of running versus either Obama or Hillary. Their reasons may not be fair or well founded, but that has never stopped them.

One more thing about Hillary -- does it bother anyone that her PR guy has represented Microsoft and Blackwater?

I find that chilling and just a bit too convenient.

Triangulation is nothing close to the roll-back we need to have happen.

We need a swath of indictments and convictions to ensure we avoid creating a moral hazard the way both Iran-Contra and Watergate established that there was no negative expected value to subverting government for corporate gain. Time for Democrats to make it clear to the Republican party: No free coupe attempts.

As a trial lawyer Edwards understands the need for punitive damages to be applied.

It's the only way to get certain parties to change their tune.

[Armstead]

133. The 90's were a wasted opportunity

Bill (and Hillary) had an opportunity to push the country in a more liberal direction (towards a TRUE center) after 92.

However through a combination of incompetence and pandering to the corporate elite, they and the DLC Centrists, blew it. Very little was done to address the core issues of concentration of wealth and power, and they allowed honest liberal and progressive positions to become marginalized by their "triangulation" strategy.

Instead of a much-needed clean up of the welfare system that should have gone hand-in-hand with improvements in the plight of low-wage workers, for example, they gave in and transformed it in a way that threw too many poor people to the mercies of the Cheap-Labor Conservatives with no support.

Instead of continually fighting for universal and affordable health care, they proposed a conviluted plan that relied on the same insurers and health-care conglomerates that caused the mess. TRhen after that was defeated on the first round, they gave up on the whole issue.

Thus the modest gains that were made were so flimsy and context-less that GWB Inc. had no problems wiping them away in the blink of an eye. The only things that did last was the pandering to the corporate elite that the Clinton's engaged in and the GOP supported.

[xchrom]

115. 91st recommendation

[Norrin Radd]

120. k+r

[Botany]

122. Bottom Line .... I don't trust her

Hillary is for anything that makes Hillary stronger @ the time.
She is whip smart, able to look @ many sides of an issue, and
triangulating to the nth degree.

Past actions are the best indicators of future performance.

She was a "Goldwater Girl" in college & head of campus
young Republicans but now she wants to become the democratic
nominee for President.

In the 1990s she worked on Health Care reform and was seen as
hostile to the "for profit health care industry" but now takes more
money from HMOs, big Insurance, and pharmaceutical companies
than anyone.

During the last debate she had packed the crowd to jeer her opposition,
had planted questions, and had some link to CNN's control over the
debate but Hillary herself wasn't aware of these actions.

She has stated her opposition to the war in Iraq but went ahead
and supported the Kyle / Leiberman bill that can be seen as supporting
an out of control President and his wishes to widen the war to
include Iraq.

When she ran for Senate she picked neither her birth state (Illinois)
nor the state she lived for a number of years (Arkansas) but choose
New York and went around w/ a charm bracelet to show everybody
what a big time New York Yankee fan she was.

And on a purely personal note I have the feeling that millions &
millions of dollars are being spent to force the idea on us that
Hillary is a "done deal" and the nomination is hers so why try
to fight it?

[bvar22]

161. In the 90s, Hillary was the target of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"...

Now,

Hillary is "their girl".

[Kurovski]

167. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?

Good cop, bad cop? The plan all along? Take 'em down from within? She's a super-friendly gal who likes everyone?

If it's a case of "Let's work together", The RW sure as hell aren't ever going to compromise what they want.

I have no clear vision of who Sen. Clinton is. This is a part of my discontent.

[johncoby2]

123. zzzzzz ZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzz

Go block walk for your candidate.

[quickesst]

131. Just a simple observation..

but I don't believe any member of DU condemns anyone for criticizing any candidate. What many members of DU do not care for is the horse-shit, Faux news-spin a lot of people use to express their abject, and irrational hatred for Clinton. That's two completely different things, and if the HRC Hate Club could find it in themselves to criticize where criticism is due, and stow the spin, or at least direct it towards the party that deserves it, the atmosphere here would improve immensely. The two types of Clinton "critics" are mutually exclusive, and the op and like company should know the difference. The op defends critics of Clinton, which is the American way, but the op includes the irrational hatred of some in a blanket defense. Defenders of HRC will not lie down, and they will not abide unfair, twisted, or spun facts for the sake of appeasing HRC's critics. I would venture to guess, that if many anti-Hillarites put half as much energy into touting their own candidate, as they do "criticizing" Clinton, perhaps their chosen candidate might be doing better. My o2. Thanks.
quickesst

[boricua79]

135. totally agreement

I'm for Democrats...I'm for progressivism.

I'm NOT for DLC-establishment elite centrists who consistently vote wrongly because "they didn't know then what I know now". Don't buy it all, Hillary.

[karlrschneider]

137. I don't like any of them but will vote for whichever gets the nom.

...

[parkerll]

159. Yellow Dog Democrat

"I don't like any of them but will vote for whichever gets the nom."

That's exactly why nothing will ever change. They don't have to effect real change because they know you'll vote for them anyway.

[karlrschneider]

169. I guess you're right...I should vote for Mitt. That'll show 'em.

:eyes:

[sheppdogg]

139. Yes, we can do better

Well said Armstead. I would like to point out that we are faulting Hillary Clinton for being the one candidate most adept at working the election system that we as a nation have provided. (I support a different candidate by the way).

Elections costs ungodly sums: the candidates have little choice but to either work the system or lose. Meanwhile, it's our duty to force change on campaign finance reform.

commoncause.org is a good place for us all to start!

[Lerkfish]

140. proud to reccomend this thread!

you eloquently stated what some of us have been trying to express. Thanks.

[Melissa G]

144. Happy to be rec 100! n/t

[Imagevision]

151. Democrats can't win if Hillary is the nominee...

[Lerkfish]

158. I think its possible, it would just be a lot harder to win in the general than

it needs to be if she is the nominee.

If it were Edwards, for example, it'd be less of an uphill battle to overcome negative perceptions.

[natrat]

152. democrats will be crushed as independents see the fraud

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

171. Well, that's a cheery sentiment!

:-) MKJ

[parkerll]

155. I agree

Armstead, I totally agree with you.