Molly Ivins: Not. Backing. Hillary.

[elehhhhna]

Molly Ivins: Not. backing. Hillary.

Friday, January 20, 2006; Posted: 9:18 a.m. EST (14:18 GMT)

AUSTIN, Texas (Creators Syndicate) -- I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/20/ivins.hillary/

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Molly RAWKS!

[medeak]

2. Wish Molly would run for pres n/t

[Mandate My Ass]

10. Me too!

I love her so much I have her in my sig line.

[mattclearing]

23. LOL.

Every time anyone says anything positive, there's always someone on DU that wants to draft them for President.

Congratulations. Today, you are that guy.

[medeak]

41. have been a Molly fan since she quit NYTimes

many years ago for making her wear panty hose. Nothing new here at all...

[mattclearing]

47. I'm a fan too.

I just think it's funny how people throw around running for president here, like there's a shortage of candidates. :D

[madokie]

204. she would be a candidate in the true texas spirit

[FSogol]

3. Very nice. n/t

[helderheid]

4. Good. I can forgive her for poo-pooing Kucinich now.

edited to add I'll support whomever the nominee is, but I will vote with my heart in the primaries.

[marmar]

5. If she was the candidate, I would definitely support her...

but she's definitely not my first choice.

[Warpy]

7. I will no longer participate in my own finanacial destruction

so no, I won't support a Hillary Clinton candidacy.

Sorry about that.

[Solly Mack]

6. ah.... snicker

:popcorn:

potentially fun thread....well, for those of us with a keen appreciation for the ethical dilemmas of others

[SaveElmer]

28. Are you saying Hillary supporters are ethically challenged?

[Solly Mack]

32. Where did you get that from?

The ethical dilemma in this case would be love Molly/hate Molly - depending on if she agrees with you or not. You know, how heroes die if they disagree with us? How people pit two heroes against each other? Without fail, such threads engender a fair amount of hypocrisy. I happen to enjoy such internal conflicts being played out so publicly. It's amusement for me. I'm a meanie. lolololol

[SaveElmer]

37. Gotcha...just wanted to be sure...

I do think you will see a difference in reaction from Hillary supporters now that someone they admire has attacked her, than the way Hillary critics attack her when she disagrees with someone they admire.

I doubt you will see anyone accusing Molly of being a traitor, or asking she be fired, or say she is in some other way defective because we don't agree with her.

I love Molly, but in this case I believe she is dead wrong both about what kind of ruthless political campaign it will take to win, and about Hillary Clinton's strategy and views. I will still read her columns, and still admire her because she is on our side.

[Ronnie]

8. I like Molly, but...

...didn't she back Nader in 2000?

[OzarkDem]

77. Um, no.

[Ronnie]

95. Um,

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=8841

[SaveElmer]

141. Game, set, and match...nt

[fishwax]

216. so she voted for nader but backed gore against bush

[WI_DEM]

9. Nominated! Exactly enough is enough

those are my sentiments exactly. We need a leader not an equivocator. Clintonesque "triangulation" doesn't work in Bush-America.

[wicket]

11. Amen Molly!!!!

:kick:

[SaveElmer]

12. I love Molly...but she is dead wrong...nt

[Beam Me Up]

34. And you say that because....?

[SaveElmer]

42. I believe Molly has taken hook line and sinker...

The lies that have become conventional wisdom about Hillary. I wonder if she has talked to Hillary, or how much she actually knows about her record.

I also think the she, along with many Democrats are very naive about what kind of ruthlessness and discipline it is going to take to beat the Republicans in 2008. It is obvious simply being right on the issues is not enough. We are going to have to get down and dirty to win. Sad but true, and no one in the Democratic Party has been through the rigors of the Republican slime machine with as much success as Hillary Clinton (except Bill)

[elehhhhna]

58. Who cares about "conventional wisdom"? Her voting record

speaks for itsself. I'm wit' Mol.

[SaveElmer]

94. Have you looked at her voting record...

And her ratings with groups aligned with the left? I doubt it.

95 from the ADA
95% voting record with her party according to Congressional Quarterly

Top ratings from environmental, women's rights, labor, and civil rights groups...

You disagree with her on her approach on the war...fine...but take a look at her floor statement accouncing her support (along with many other Democrats) of the IWR. It was hardly a clarion call to war...and she specifically states her opposition to an immediate attack.

[Strawman]

106. We shouldn't have to read the fine print

She has deliberately been ambiguous. That's not just unfair labeling. That's her strategy. She wants to have it both ways on too many issues. Ivins doesn't like it. Neither do I really.

[SaveElmer]

108. So you don't want to put the minimal amount of effort in...

Not surpised...New Yorkers apparently do not have any trouble figuring out where she stands.

[Strawman]

Give me a break

[SaveElmer]

114. Wow...

[Strawman]

165. Don't you think there's more to pols than their voting records?

Like their public statements and PR, their deliberate attempt to cultivate a public image as a centrist at the expense of standing strong for core Democratic principles. There are Dems likely to run in 2008 that appear at face value to be actually proud to be considered "liberal." They don't run away from it and in the primaries I will vote for one of them, and not Hillary. I don't have to look to the ADA ratings to know where they stand. I don't have to parse their floor speeches and go "Well gee whiz three paragraphs and two sentences into her March 1, 2002 remarks in the Congressional Record, she said something that sounded like a mild warning against rushing to war without UN approval."

Hillary supporters act like we should all rally around her cause and run to her defense just because she gets unfair bullshit from the right. But when it suits her purposes, she'll run away from us (the anti-war movement, Howard Dean) and she'll do it when we need her the most if she thinks she can score style points with the mainstream punditocracy. It's nice that I agree with her probably 80% of the time. I'll certainly have that in mind when I pull the lever for her if she's the nominee. But looking at the 80% agreement leaves out some highly salient stuff in the other 20%. So in the primaries, I'll be voting for a proud prima facie liberal Democrat.

In her article, Molly Ivins mentions Gene McCarthy. That's a little before my time, but I know that Gene McCarthy stood against the Vietnam War. So did the people who voted for him and made LBJ step down. No indepth research into the Congressional Record was required. 30 years from now, based on what we've seen up to this point do you honestly think anyone will be saying the same thing about Hillary Clinton re this current war? Gene McCarthy was worried about being right, Hillary Clinton is too worried about being on the "right side of history" when it comes to this war.

[SaveElmer]

175. Some good points there...

But right now...I am more worried about winning the WHite House. An objective reading of Hillary's record and statements reveals the truth of where she stands. She is a solid liberal, a friend of the environment, labor, women, and minorities. I know the crux of opposition to her is on the war, and that is ok. But I think it is necessary to actually look at where she stands, not the caricature of it. If you read her floor speech in support of the IWR, you can plainly see she is not voting for war, and explicitly states her opposition to an immediate attack. She does not supprt an immediate withdrawl for valid reasons, not because she is fond of killing.

In my opinion we need a tough ruthless politician to defeat the Republicans. One who has stood up to the Republican slime machine and beaten it on numeroud occasions. I believe Hillary is that person. I know where she stands, her votes and record testify to it.

As to Eugene McCarthy. I am old enough to remember him. And I grew up in Minnesota when he was its Senator. And I do admire him. But I have to point out he did not become President, Richard Nixon did. McCarthy was not good at the political game that is going to be required to beat the Republicans in 2008.

[Strawman]

215. I don't think Hillary Clinton is fond of killing

I never would say such a thing. In fact I know she is a goodhearted and decent person. Mostly, I disagree with the idea that we can win or accomplish anything though trinagulation, deliberate ambiguity and timid incrementalism.

And I understand what she said on floor. I used the same rationale when I switched my support from Dean to JK in 2004. JK did the same thing. Ultimately though they voted for what they knew was a green light for * to go to war. I believe it was her way and JK's way of having it both ways politically and preempting RW attacks on their patriotism.

I want to win too. But I think that requires coherence. Too often we Dems basically buy the idea that the conservatives are right about the voters being more like them and that we need to appear more conservative to the voters to get elected. I think we need to have leaders who try to make the mainstream more liberal rather than liberals who make themselves more mainstream (conservative) to get elected. That, to me, is leadership. The other is gamesmanship.

[bettyellen]

119. i know where she stands, and being wrong on big issues is enough for me

go molly!

[SaveElmer]

130. Name the issues...

I take it you are against her stance on the war...on which I would like you to articulate her position for me to see what you think of it.

Start there, and then go issue by issue and tell me where you disagree with her.

[bettyellen]

132. no thanks, elmer. i owe you nothing, i've heard this all before.

i'm very well read on the subject and know who i can and can't support.

[SaveElmer]

135. As I suspected...

Cheers

[bettyellen]

142. yep, i'm very well informed and don't need your input, but thanks!

[SaveElmer]

154. Why are you reluctant to enlighten us...

I would really like to know on what issues you feel this way about Hillary. I don't care if people don't support her I just like to know why.

[bettyellen]

162. no, you'd like to argue, to pretend to enlighten me, so, again no thanks.

as i said, i'm very well informed and don't need your input. please stop pushing and insinuating, okay?
goodbye elmer.

[SaveElmer]

167. How about...

If I guarantee not to respond to you...or refer to your answers in any other thread.

I have no doubt you are well infomed

I just want to know...I ask many the same question and most don't like to answer...I strongly support her, and really want to understand the root of the opposition to her.

But if you really don't want to I won't ask again.

[elehhhhna]

219. read the thread and you'll understand.

[Greyhound]

331. Here's two reasons

1.) The "health care" scheme she came out with in the first admin (it was another corporate giveaway although not as egregious as the shrubCo scheme).
2.) and

[LWolf]

318. lol

Nobody has to itemize their disagreement with Hillary for you; why should they? Because you haven't made up your own mind?

My disagreement with Hillary begins from when I first met her in the primaries leading up to Bill's first campaign for the WH. It continues to grow from there. None of your "talking points" are going to change that.

[SaveElmer]

320. Unfortunately...

That is the same answer I get 90% of the time. Those opposing Hillary seem particularly unwilling to list the reasons for their opposition.

[LWolf]

336. It's probably because of the way you ask.

You see, if someone "reads" your purpose in asking as a desire to debate, then they may decide not to engage you. If someone, like me for example, has her own reasons for opposing someone, and has already heard all of the oppositions "talking points," those talking points aren't going to shift the pov, and arguing with you would be a waste of time and bandwidth. If you can assure me, in all honesty, that you don't want to debate whether or not I should oppose Hillary; if I thought that you wanted to know out of a sincere desire to ponder my pov without trying to "oppose" it, I'd probably be happy to share. Since I don't read your purpose that way, I'm unwilling to engage you.

Get it?

[SaveElmer]

337. Sure...

I guarantee not to respond to you in this thread, or refer to your answer in another. I am interested in what motivates opposition to Hillary. If you don't want to engage in debate about it that is fine by me.

[LWolf]

370. Ok, here ya go:

I have not trusted Hillary since Bill's first run for president. It's not a judgement on her intelligence; I know she and Bill are both highly intelligent. It's a personal issue.

I sat and watched her "stand by her man" on 60 minutes, offering up forgiveness for his cheating. That severed trust for me. Why? Because I can't tolerate cheaters. I don't accept a cheater's "reform." I think that if they are willing to cheat, to violate a promise or commitment in one area, they are willing to do so in others when it gratifies them. While I generally liked Clinton, I never trusted him, and he wasn't my first choice for the WH, because he is a cheater. Guess what? We got burned big time by his willingness to cheat.

As far as Hillary goes, I saw a strong, intelligent woman who was willing to allow someone to offer up disrespect in the form of marital infidelity. I would have respected her more if she would have forgiven him as she gave him the boot. The "stand by her man" thing was a total turnoff. Because of her obvious strength and intelligence, I surmised that it was a political decision, and possibly more a political partnership than a marriage. That's fine, if you want to be honest about it, but they weren't honest, and it set us up for scandal and impeachment.

There really is no argument against a personal antipathy. I overlooked that, though, and was glad to see her enter the senate. I don't overlook her hawkish stance. She helped send my loved one to Iraq without cause. I don't forgive that. I don't overlook her willingness to step on my civil liberties with her support of the Patriot Act. I'm really glad that she's decided she has "concerns." Those concerns don't amount to much when weighed against her votes. At least, not for me.

[Laurab]

275. I live in NY State

and I agree with Molly. I do think Hillary makes a fine Senator, and should continue being just that.

[Greyhound]

333. Oh yes we should all vote according to the "ratings" given her

by other political insiders and their agendas. Apparently you don't get it, we are sick and tired of the DLC "conventional wisdom". This brand of wisdom has put here and we're not going to take it anymore.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. The amount of loathing Hillary inspires on the right

is only matched by the antipathy and lack of enthusiasm she drums up here on the left.

Sorry, chum, but she's screwed things up pretty bad for '08. I don't think too many of us are going to buy the DLC lies about what it "takes" to win (speaking of conventional wisdom) this time around. No, we've played things your way for a couple too many losing election cycles. Time to run someone who is unafraid to take potentially unpopular stances and speak out with fire and conviction, damn the 'conventional wisdom'.

I'm sure that candidate will welcome Senator Clinton's support in the election, however. :hi:

[SaveElmer]

91. Really...

So the 40-45% she draws in the polls when matched up against other candidates represent the deluded in our party? We live in a liberal DU bubbble here, with everyone preaching to the choir. Hillary is far more popular than you or many here realize. The republicans realize this as well which is why they so viciously attacked her last week.

She is the only Democratic candidate out there who can defeat the Republicans and the sleaze tactics.

[Flubadubya]

155. 40-45% ... Name recognition, Buddy... name recognition only.

That's where those numbers are coming from. When the rubber meets the road... 'fraid poor Hil melts. :shrug:

[SaveElmer]

161. So Democratic voters are sooooo stupid...

They don't know who John Kerry, or John Edwards, or Wesley Clark are...they are so addle brained, they cannot remember who they voted for or against just two years ago?

I know it comforts you to think this way...enjoy it while it lasts, becasue the reality of Hillary's popularity is going to hit you like cold slap in the face.

[Flubadubya]

176. Let's just take this apart for a moment...

When I say name recognition, I am not restricting that to Dem voters only... as you apparently are. John Kerry, John Edwards, Wesley Clark are all names recognized by cogent democratic voters. When I say name recognition, I don't mean just Democratic voters... I refer to the American public, in general. Sure, most people in the United States of America, at this point in time, might say that they would vote for Hillary Clinton... again, name recognition. I won't argue this further, you are obviously a dyed in the wool Hillary supporter, and I don't intend to dissuade from that particular persuasion. All I say is this... let's let the games begin. Let us see who ultimately does and does not support her candidacy. Meanwhile... I shall subscribe to Molly Ivins' righteous indignation with Hillary's, Rohm's, and every other Pink Tu-Tu Democrat's efforts to placate the masses who PRETEND to be on OUR side. Sorry, buddy... but you ain't got no convert here.

[SaveElmer]

179. Not trying to convert anyone...

First, Hillary leads in polls of Democratic voters. In fact polls of previous Democratic primary voters. I will dig up the links for you.

Second, I really have no illusions about converting anyone. And I will be more than happy to vote for whomever gets the nomination, most are good candidates.

WHat I do not like is the ad hominem personal attacks against Hillary for what appear to be irrational reasons. I am trying to understand specifically what is the source of opposition, and if I can present arguments against it, all the better. You won't see me smear any other Democratic candidate personally, no matter how much I may disagree with them, becasue I know in general we are all on the same side. I just wonder why Hillary is not accorded that same courtesy by many.

[Flubadubya]

185. One question only...

Did you read Molly Ivins' column critically? Do you not understand the equivocation amongst our Democratic leaders, only singling out Hillary because of her already accrued noteriety? This is not a contest of Hillary vs. anybody (else), it is rather a commentary on where the politicos stand on the issues and what they are willing to stand for (or against). I truly believe that Molly has hit the nail on the head. If our elected reprentatives do not stand (and, yes! ...accoring to polls) for what we "the people" stand for, then what is the purpose of "so-called" potitical dialogue? Hillary misses the mark... sorry!

[SaveElmer]

191. I did read it actually...

And I do not agree with her. What to do about Iraq, in my opinion is more complex than an either or position. Staying in abviously has many drawbacks, most notably as Howard Dean warned, the increasing terrorism in the country. But an immeidate withdrawl too could be catastrophic. How would we protect those in Iraq who aided the US in good faith from recrimination by the insurgents for example. It would be a blood bath. The Iraqi military and police are no where near ready to maintain order. Bush is an incompetant who has screwed this up from day one. I believe Hillary would have the ability not only to bring wisdom and competence in our efforts there, she would also have enough good will to bring other countries in on the effort.

Hillary uses Eugene McCarthy as an example...and he was a wonderful man. I grew up in Minnesota when he was Senator. But the fact is he did not become President. Even at that late date, there were enough people in the country that supported the war still (hard to believe looking back on it), that a purely anti-Vietnam position was not a winner in a Presidential election.

[Warren DeMontague]

195. you do understand the first rule of holes, don't you?

Nuance only means more of our soldiers will die occupying a country where they're clearly NOT WANTED.

[SaveElmer]

208. I understand that is your position...

But really how would you handle such a withdrawl. It really would be a comlicated and messay operation.

[Warren DeMontague]

234. Hardly more complicated and messy than staying would be.

And what, precisely, are we accomplishing?


The VAST Majority of the people in that country DON'T want us there. The rationales upon which we invaded are have either been proven to be cheap lies (WMDs, "Al Qaeda") or they are now null and void. (Saddam) Our presence there isn't 'protecting' anyone, if anything it is inciting more violence. This is Vietnam all over again, in case you haven't noticed. Personally, I'd like to get out before we lost 58,000 lives in THIS clusterfuck, as well.

Whatever good we might have been able to accomplish went out the window when team Bush screwed up the immediate post-invasion period just like they screw everything up. Hmmmm. Wonder where that $9 Billion in missing reconstruction money went? Maybe your tax dollars aren't being blown on enough useless shit as it is, but mine sure as shit are.

How would I handle such a withdrawl? Hmmmm. Lets see. They still have use those c130 Troop transport planes? Yeah. Load everybody on those things, or something similar- and fly them out of there. THAT'S how I would handle it.

[SaveElmer]

238. No doubt...

Staying is bad...I agree...but a precipituous withdrawl would be just as bad. A middle ground is required, one that competently gets Iraq on its feet, truly marshalls international support to help us, and makes it very clear we are not going to stay with benchmarks that must be met. Bush cannot handle that, I believe Hillary could.

And with such a sudden withdrawl how would you deal with the inevitable massacre of virtually anyone who aided the US. WOuld you attempt to protect them, or simply leave them to their own devices.

[Warren Stupidity]

236. Sorry but I think you are quite wrong about that.

The military already has the bugging out plans all set and good to go. The only complicated and messy part will be the craven war hawks explaining how this all happened again and figuring out who to blame for it this time, and the probable additional bloody chaos BETWEEN IRAQIS after we bug out. And we will be bugging out, sooner or later. Personaly I vote for sooner. Hillary is a big fan of later. She should send her daughter to help out with the occupation that she wants to prolong.

[SaveElmer]

242. Well you said it yourself...

There will be a bloody massacre if we pull out. Given that we induced many Iraqi's to help us with the promise that we would aid them, I do think we have a responsibility to do what we can to protect them. In my view the best way is to get some competent leadership in there with a mature world view, and who doesn't look upon our allies as children. Get the country's infrastructure up and running, accelerate the training of Iraqi police, set a plan with benchmarks that must be met, and most of all garner real international support in the effort...Bush is not capable enough to handle it, I believe Hillary (or really any Democrat being talked about as a potential nominee) , is.

I really don't like when we tell chicken hawks, or whoever to send their children over to this or that place. Really lowers the debate if you ask me.

[Warren Stupidity]

246. There already is a bloody massacre.

The final resolution of the blood-massacre-in-progress will not take place until we bug out. The longer we stay, the worse it gets. Eventually even our friends there will openly turn on us.

We can't get the infrastructure up and running because there is an ongoing insurgency that prevents that. We can't end the insurgency. The whole 'we will build up the infrastructure and then they will love us' theory is idiocy.

We train new police recruits and either 1) they get blown up, or 2) they feed information and supplies to the insurgents, or 3) both. That program is going nowhere. Read the news. We don't trust either the Iraq police or the Iraqi army. We've been here before.

The situation is hopeless and always was hopeless. The whole war-hawk-dem program of a better occupation is just more neocon bullshit, it's a non-starter.

But thanks for reminding me again of why Hillary's Iraq position is the primary reason why I will not support her in the primaries.

[SaveElmer]

251. Yeah I am not advocting...

Getting them to love us. The situation is hopeless with Bush in there. I simply do not ascribe to the view that we cannot protect those to whom promises were made. I do believe competent leadership can get us to a point where we can leave without encouraging more chaos.

While I respect that you disagree, I don't think describing Hillary or any other Democrat who holds this position, including Howard Dean, can be classified as a neocon.

[acmavm]

328. Is that you Bill????? n/t

[Usrename]

248. Yes, that is the challenging part!

"The only complicated and messy part will be the craven war hawks explaining how this all happened again and figuring out who to blame for it this time..

But they don't intend to even try that. Instead there will be another large scale "incident". Everyone knows that is what is coming down the pike, except (suspending disbelief) our leadership. We are supposed to be docile enough to "wait and see" where our "leadership" stands after what we all know is going to happen, happens. To not stand strongly against these monsters NOW is to be a traitor. And for this...

Heads on Pikes!!!

[Warren DeMontague]

192. See Post #194.

And, yeah- lets see some links.

Personally, I think Hillary's "Front Runner" status is a manufactured myth brought to us by the same media that has been shilling for Bush and the Iraq war these past few years.

Want to know why I'm opposed to Hillary? Aside from pandering inanities like flag burning and porno in video games, I'll give you ONE FUCKING WORD: IRAQ.

That's not "ad hominem", and that's certainly not "irrational". Shit, I used to LIKE Hillary, once upon a time. If we were talking about the 1972 version of Hillary, or even the 1993 version, I'd be an enthusiastic booster. But she has sold out- and HARD- on certain key issues, seemingly at the behest of a certain faction of our party. And I'm not buying the crap that those folks are peddling, this time around.

[sundancekid]

279. "not trying to convert anyone" - could have fooled me -- protest too much?

maybe Elmer SaveElmer Save????

Ever heard that Henry Ford line: "all the while you speak your actions thunder over you so loudly I can't hear a thing you're saying?"

[SaveElmer]

286. My intention is not to convert...

I affirm everyones right to support whomever they like. I simply believe that criticism of Hillary, and some is surely warranted, be done on fact and not be unfair. WHere I see that someone is criticising her in a way I believe is unfair, I would like to correct that, or at least engage in dialogie on it. I am not infallible, perhaps I am wrong as to where she stands on certain issues. I have no illusion I will be able to convert those who do not support her however

I recognize it is entirely possible that many who do not support her do so totally aware of her true positions on issues...I have no problem with that whatsoever.

[Warren DeMontague]

190. Uh Huh. How many of those polls include Al Gore as a choice?

I'll be here, waiting for your answer.

[SaveElmer]

233. None... Gore has made it very clear...

He is not running....

I'm not so sure how well he would do...but it would be interesting to see...

I would support Al no problem!

[Warren DeMontague]

239. I don't think, seeing as we're still over 2 yrs away from the election

that 'statements' re: running amount to a Hillary of Beans. I mean, she hasn't announced that she's running, has she? In fact, I think she's issued some carefully ambiguous denials of her own around the issue.

My point stands- the polls being used to crown her the alleged "Front runner" are suspect, at best. Sure, line her up against Tom Vilsack and Evan Bayh and Rep. Fred Dingleberry Von Never-Heard-of-'im, and she'll emerge the "front runner". I'm not buying it. She sure as shit isn't the front runner around HERE. I'm with you. Lets see Zogby or whoever run a poll (of registered Democrats - I know for a fact that Hillary is far and away top choice among rightwing GOP AM Radio Personalities) that includes Al Gore. I personally suspect he would clean everyone's clock, including Hillary- especially after that speech he just gave.

[SaveElmer]

241. Actually the polls I have seen...

Are of Democratic primary voters...and of course the include the names you mentioned except that Dingleberry guy...but they have also included Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Warner and others. So I really do believe she is the leading candidate, and I do believe her popularity is higher than you think (don't know where you live). So, but let's let the system work and see who floats to the top. There is no one being talked about as a serious candidate that I would have any trouble supporting in the general!

Do you have a preferred candidate besides Gore?

[Warren DeMontague]

277. Well, I live in a remote part of the country that has one or two democrats

Called "California". Perhaps you've heard of us!

HRC is EXTREMELY unpopular around these parts, these days.

Beyond Gore.. Hmmm, who would I like to see run. Clark aint bad, I have trouble getting enthused about a Kerry 2.0 run.. Not entirely convinced about Edwards in the #1 slot. Honestly, like I said, two years is a long time. Given enough bridge-building, I might change my mind back about HRC.. But -in addition to Iraq, which is a biggie- I have to admit that hearing her speak at the March for Womens lives in DC in April '04-- and then watching her backpedal on choice after the election. Man, that was disheartening. I think she has a lot of ground to make up with the base if she REALLY wants to make it work.

Who else? Dream candidates- Russ Feingold would be nice. I'd like to see a Gore/Feingold ticket, myself... Barbara Boxer... I think Dick Durbin is perhaps the most underrated member of the U.S. Senate, I'd like to see him get some party props...

Bill Hicks is, unfortunately, dead. He would have made a DAMN fine President.

BTW, excellent quote in your sig. :applause:

[SaveElmer]

283. Thanks...

What part of Cali do you live in ?

I live in Northern Virginia...don't hear much negative about her her at all...except from the righties of course. The other day a Fedex driver stuck his head in the door of the store I own here and said he like my bumper sticker. Well I have a sticker with a Confederate flag X'd out with the slogan "You lost get over it" next to it. That is the sticker that gets most reaction as you can imagine. But he said he liked my Hillary sticker and hoped she got the nod...I naturally assumed he said this because he thought she would be easy to beat. But then he said he was originally from Arkansas and has loved Hillary since she was first lady of Arkansas. Just thought it was interesting. I of course talk to many other Democrats and don't the impression you do about her at all. But as you say 2 years is a really long time in politics, so we will see how it shakes out.

I have to say I think you have mischaracterized her position regarding choice. She simply believes as many pro-choice people do that the less abortions the better, and advocates education, contraception etc to alleviate it. Her commitment to a pro-choice position has not wavered in the slightest.

[fishwax]

220. she is the only candidate who can win?

seems we heard that about a certain candidate in '04, too, and he lost.

I don't buy the insistence Hilary can't win, and I am not yet decided on who I will support in the primaries, but I definitely don't believe that she is "the only Democratic candidate out there who can defeat the Republicans and the sleaze tactics."

[SaveElmer]

235. Yeah I overstated it...

I actually believe any of the main talked about candidates can win....and I would happily support any of them.

What I meant is that Hillary comes in as a seasoned veteran at beating back Republican sleaze attempts. I really cannot imagine Hillary putting up with a Swift Boat type smear...and she probably would be most adept at making it backfire. I think we start from a stronger position with her.

[conflictgirl]

267. That doesn't represent what I see

Most of the Democrats I encounter on a regular basis are not part of the 'liberal DU bubble'. They're people who don't have a clue about the workings of the DLC. They're people I talk to in my community, and they don't support Hillary either. Many of them even like Hillary, but don't feel that she stands a chance in the next Presidential election because she's too polarizing of a figure. The important thing to remember is that just because someone's name is floated in the media as a possible candidate for president, it doesn't mean that person actually has the popular support to win.

In addition, I know a good handful of Republicans and independents that voted for Bush and now regret it. Many of them are open to the idea of voting for a Dem in the next election. But almost without exception, they don't like Hillary. We need a candidate that has the kind of appeal that will reach across party lines and include those who want a true change. I seriously believe that if the Dem party clings too tightly to the idea of President Hillary, it will spell another four years of a Republican presidency. In the real world that I see, the support for Hillary that you're talking about just isn't there.

[SaveElmer]

273. Sorry...not what I see at all...

And I live in a purple area of a red state. Many Democrats I run into here are very supportive of Hillary, and many Republican friends of mine do not underestimate her. I have had a Hillary '08 sticker on my car for some time and I invariably get thumbs up from people!!!

[Laurab]

276. Actually I think she's the only candidate who could help the repukes

in their "get out the vote" campaign. She is vilified by the right - HATED. No matter how good a President you believe she might make, it's just not going to happen IMO.

It is wishful thinking to think she could defeat the repukes and their sleaze tactics - they WANT us to think she's the best person to run, for just that reason. It's unfortunate that the right hates her so much, but it's also a fact.

I don't ever like to come on here and bash Dems, and I'm trying not to bash Hillary, since I have nothing against her personally, and she's my senator. I just know how much she is hated by the right. They believe all the propaganda, they think she's the devil herself, and they will mobilize against her to a degree they wouldn't do for any other candidate. I feel bad for her for that reason, she doesn't deserve it, but it's fact.

I'm just being realistic. She'd probably make a fine president (votes I disagree with notwithstanding), but it's not gonna happen.

[SaveElmer]

290. I have to disagree with you...

You say

It is wishful thinking to think she could defeat the repukes and their sleaze tactics - they WANT us to think she's the best person to run, for just that reason. It's unfortunate that the right hates her so much, but it's also a fact.

The fact is the has been been defeating the repukes and their sleaze tactics for 13 years. Everytime they launch an attack, she emerges on the other side stronger and more popular. SHe is the only candidate who has this experience frankly.

If the right wanted her to run they would simply say nothing. She is already the perceived frontrunner, and it does not take a great leap of logic to see that compliments of her by Republicans would be viewed suspiciously by Democrats (as you demonstrate)

[rateyes]

322. If Al Gore runs...

he will wipe up the floor with Hillary in the primaries...guaranteed. He's speaking truth to people and he's not "pandering" the way Hillary is. I lose more and more respect for Hillary every day.

[SaveElmer]

340. Gore will not run...

And if he did I do not expect he would be that successful frankly.

If Gore did run, as soon as he took a position that was not popular here, he would be accused of pandering too.

[SaveElmer]

343. Gore would have to make quite a leap...

I loved his speech too...but in the hinterland, didn't get that much play. Here is the last Democratic preference poll to include Gore

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Nov. 4-7, 2005. N=1,003 adults nationwide.

"Let me mention some people who might seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. If the next Democratic primary for president were being held today, for which one of the following candidates would you vote: ?" If unsure: "Well, which way do you lean?" Asked of registered voters who are Democrats/leaners, or are independents who would vote in a Democratic presidential primary.

Hillary Clinton 41%
John Edwards 14
Al Gore 12
John Kerry 10
Joe Biden 5
Wesley Clark 4
Bill Richardson 3
Other (vol.) 1
None (vol.) 4
Unsure 6

[OzarkDem]

78. Perhaps you should re-read the column

Getting down and dirty to beat the GOP is exactly what she's proposing.

And I disagree regarding Hillary's (and other Repub lite Dems) past success. Triangulation and fuzziness on the issues hasn't helped them at all. Running in a heavily Democratic state has.

[SaveElmer]

89. It's not about triangulation...

It's about sound and savvy political strategy. Bill and Hillary Clinton have proven masters of it so far, and that is the type of person I want up against the Republicn slime machine.

[Bake]

151. Correction: BILL was the master of it.

Hillary is not. She comes off as a panderer, most clearly in the war stance and the flag burning "issue." If she had any balls she would have just said straight out the truth about those. OF course, maybe she DID tell the truth about her positions. If so, that's enough for me not to support her.

Bake

[SaveElmer]

164. Keep telling yourself that....

I clearly remember Bob Kerrey saying that Clinton's pandering would open him up in the general election like a soft peanut. I remember Paul Tsongas holding up "pander-bear." This was followed by Bill Clinton in the White House for 8 years.

In my opinion, Hillary has as good or possibly better political instincts than Bill. So if she does decide to run, I do believe she will win, and probably more comfortably than many think.

[tabasco]

266. It's a sound strategy to be against free speech?

Hillary supports a flag-burning ban. She supports a ban on pure political speech.

She has been schooled and understands the importance of the First Amendment.

This is a sellout. She can hit the bricks.

[progressoid]

79. If , as you say, the lies have become conventional wisdom...

then rank and files Americans are going to take them hook line and sinker as well.

Hillary may well make an outstanding President. But at this point, the baggage (real or imagined) is so great that it will make her run a disaster.

[SaveElmer]

88. I should have qualified my statement...

They have become conventional wisdom here on DU, and other blogs etc, where the most liberal of our party congregate. Among rank and file, Hillary is far in the lead, and far more popular than most giver her credit for.

[Clark2008]

126. Where? Not here.

She's only getting the "I don't want to sound stupid because I don't know these other candidates, so I'll pick Clinton" popularity vote in the polls, anyway.

In the South, believe me, no Democrat wants her to be the nominee. We want to flip a red state or two or three.

BTW, I disagree with Molly on one point: it shouldn't be Hillary because of the triangulation, it should not be Hillary because she can't win. Period.

WILL NOT FLIP A SINGLE RED STATE - repeat, lather and rinse.

[SaveElmer]

133. Really?...

So you believe that Democratic rank and file are sooo stupid they don't know who John Kerry is, or John Edwards, or Wesley Clark? You mean to tell me they cannot remember who they voted for or against in the election held only two years ago...?

Hillary will flip the following Red states...Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Iowa...with Florida, Ohio, and West Virginia strong possibilities as well.

[Clark2008]

136. They don't poll the Democratic rank and file

They poll whatever shmoe answers the phone.

Or didn't you know that?

PS. There is not way in hell she flips any of those states. If we're at war - and we will be - moderate swing voters WILL NOT vote for a woman. As a woman myself, I find this rather sad, but it's true.

[SaveElmer]

138. They do both...

They identify past Democratic voters to do polls among Democrats...and others for all voters...

Are you saying Hillary is pulling those numbers among Democrats and non-democrats?

[Clark2008]

278. I'm saying they poll people who vote, but who don't

pay attention.

[rg302200]

272. She won't flip Ohio....she is loathed here!

I promise that if Mark Warner runs and wins the nomination he will carry Ohio. He has all the tools to win Ohio...Remember Bill Clinton won Ohio because he was a liberal from the south. New England Liberal is a four letter word in Ohio. Hell, a state senator by the name of Joy Padgett used Clinton as a reference by telling voters her opponent was from New York...land of Hillary Clinton...Padgett won in a landslide. Hillary won't win in "Battle Ground States" she will fail just like Kerry did. We need to look to the south for our next candidate. Is it any coincidence that our last 3 democratic candidates came from the south?

[SaveElmer]

291. Interesting...

How everyone who replies to evidence of Hillary's popularity always notes how hated she is where they live. They must be polling Canadians.

[rg302200]

301. No.....

Just middle of the road, hard working Americans. They love her husband but can't stand her. Oh I like Hillary...I will vote for her if she gets the nomination. But I won't vote for her in the primaries.

[Clark2008]

358. They never poll me - I know that much.

Actually, I can no longer say that, per se.

I was polled by the local television station regarding the senate race - the first time I was ever polled in my life. But, I've still never been polled by a big polling company for a national race - and I've been voting nearly 18 years.

[elehhhhna]

223. The REEPS (& MSM< imo) are pushing HRC '08. NOT the Dems.

Gee what does that tell you?

[SaveElmer]

244. Yet they attack her like mad...

Look at the WH reaction to her MLK comments...

If they truly were interested in running against her they would be silent, because she is the frontrunner (or perceived frontrunner), now!

It doesn't take a big leap to realize most Democrats would be suspicious of Republicans pushing a Democratic candidacy at this stage...just as you are.

[PBass]

159. "We are going to have to get down and dirty to win."

Pardon me?

We're going to have to be on the RIGHT SIDE OF THE ISSUES to win. And as Molly points out in her article, that's also where the majority of Americans are.

It's totallly RIDICULOUS to think that Hillary Clinton votes one way on the issues, but secretly she really thinks a different way. And somehow, the voters will understand that?

Are you freaking insane?

[SaveElmer]

184. You really need to look at her voting record...

Ignore her 95 ADA rating...COngressional Quarterly notes she votes the Democratic position 95% of the time. Her record shows her to be a good solid liberal Democrat.

The fact is, Democrats have always bee right on the issues...that is not enough in the political climate we live in. In a country where a war hero can be smeared, and a draft dodger elevated, being correct on the issues are no longer the whole ballgame (if they ever where).

Look at her record, in detail. I know she has not voted the way everyone wants her to every time, but the fact that she takes the Democratic position 95 % of the time, that she is a solid supporter of the environment, women, minorities, and labor, that she does have a very good liberal rating from the ADA really shows she is not Republican-lite as she is often accused of being.

[FredStembottom]

297. It's not a matter of lies

It's a matter of years of waiting for Hillary to do something, anything besides merely dissembling. She is a no-talent. Not bad. Not evil. Just a famous-for-being-famous blank slate.

[Tesha]

54. Well, she's got company.

I will never again support Hillary in any way, whether with donations,
campaign work, or even my vote.

Tesha

[SaveElmer]

96. That is your right of course...

As is the right to cut off your nose to spite your face...

[Tesha]

123. Nahh, it's just time to end the age of "Faux Democrats"

> That is your right of course...
> As is the right to cut off your nose to spite your face...

Nahh, it's just time to end the age of "Faux Democrats" who
constantly leave people confused about what the Democratic
Party actually stands (stood?) for.

Hillary and Bill are great confusers and Republican enablers.

Tesha

[SaveElmer]

Based on what issues...

Cite the statements she makes and the votes she takes that give you pause...

[Tesha]

196. C'mon, you already know the littany.

She stupidly voted to give Bush authority to wage war.

She stupidly panders away our free-speech rights on flag-burning legislation.

She seems to have more time to spend on porn and video games than advancing
Democratic positions.

etc.

etc.

Tesha

[Catherine Vincent]

13. Yeah right.

She may not support Hillary, but if she were to win the nomination (which I don't want), I'll bet she will vote for Hillary instead of the republican.

[WhereThereIsFire]

20. I am sure she would support Hillary if HC is the candidate ...

I even have a HC-2008 sticker on my car at the moment ... but in reality, that is not the precise ticket I'd like to see in 2008. JRE, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Barak Obama ... many others are speaking out in ways that drive the message home stronger and better.

Have to give it to Hillary ... the health plan she tried to provide for America (as then First Lady) was patterned on the successful (almost socialistic) plan that then worked in Hawaii. (Her plan was in part researched in Hawaii by Dukakis.) There were no cracks, no one fell through, and even visitor's were covered for free. Not only did ALL Americans lose a chance at that thanks to the repugs, Hawaii's health care system got undermined with HMO's moving in and taking over.

Overhauling the economy and BUILDING a completely new healthcare system so that NO AMERICAN (or visitor to America) falls through the crack ... is the very least we should expect from the person elected in 2008.

[AZBlue]

45. I would hope so.

No matter who the Dem nominee is, they will have my support because no Republican would ever be better than a Dem. I may not agree on every issue with the Dem, but I'm sure I'll agree on more issues than I would with a Rep. I think everyone here would.

[Tesha]

125. I'd vote for the Green. (NT)

[Yollam]

14. I'll second that. The only dem who I listen to that is for Hillary...

...is Bartcop, and I'm afraid his devotion to her, and his incomprehensible belief that she's somehow the best electoral bet is to the point of delusion. If she were the nominee, I'd be forced to vote for here, and I suspect she'd run a better campaign then the dismal, half-hearted pretense by Skull-n-Bones ringer boy, but I will fight with all my might for someone else. I'd sooner go for Edwards or Dean or Kucinich or Graham. Enough of sacrificial lambs and DLC dinos. Please, for once, we really need a democrat.

[Canuckistanian]

255. I was just thinking that Bart won't like this

He's probably banging away at his keyboard as we're discussing this.

[Yollam]

259. Strange someon in Tulsa would be so into her cult.

If this were Bill, it would be another story. He could still pull it off. But Hillary has such high negatives with people on the right and left, and even with people at the center, many of whom have swallowed the media concept of Hillary as shrill, cold careerist feminazi harpy. Of course the only truth in there is that she's a careerist, but the meme is as well-cemented in the national consciousness as is Dean's supposed craziness with the "scream".

Sure she would get the Anybody but Bushco vote, but who in the center or left would be excited to get out and work for her? For her to pull it off would require her to a. reposition herself to the left, at least in Kerry territory, b. permanently lay off the nonsense with the video games c. stage some kind of public argument with Lieberman to distance herself from one of the most unpopular of democrats and establish some sense of independence from the DLC, and a whole slew of other ploys to remake her image to that of warm, caring progressive pragmatist. I just don't see it happening, though. She doesn't have half the charisma Bill had. She's got some, but not enough to go up against Diebold and the wingnut media.

[Canuckistanian]

262. I was neutral until the flag flap

With that, she proved herself to be just another "go along to get along" Democrat.

And, as I see it, the DLC is NOT the future of a successful Democratic party.

[PatGund]

312. Agreed

I like Bartcop but his blind devotion to Hillary is getting real old.

Almost all the pundits I see and hear promoting Hillary are right-wingers. That is enough right there to set off alarm bells. And she doesn't have nearly the popularity that her husband does.

Sorry, but I think the GOP could nominate bozo the clown against Hillary and win. I do not believe she is a viable option.

[WhereThereIsFire]

15. Enjoyed the entire article ... thanks for the link ... and ...

I e-mailed it on to many others. Molly hits another home run!

[mdmc]

16. I might support her for reelection 2006 NY. Here is her primary opponent

being interview by a local progressive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=192590&mesg_id=192590

[acmavm]

17. YES!!!! Finally someone wrote an article regarding exactly

why this woman cannot be the 2008 nominee for the Democratic party. And it's not because I'm anti-female for president, I'm female myself. I agree, Molly Ivins would make an wonderful nominee. But NOT HILLARY.

[rucky]

264. Barbara Boxer should be the next Prez n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. Smart woman. n/t

[huerhuero1]

19. Gore for president in 2008

Hillary is an opportunist and Republican-lite.

[drfresh]

310. Welcome to DU huerhuero!

And Al Gore would be one cool cat in the oval office :)

[RufusEarl]

21. Go Molly Go

Molly Ivins is one of the few things we Texans have to be proud of these days.

[glitch]

22. Hillary would do very well to listen to Molly. If she does, she could be

one of the great ones.

Triangulation is a FAILED policy, which should be obvious from our current national predicament.

[Pacifist Patriot]

24. Once again Molly does a phenomenal job of putting my thoughts

into words. She is incredible!

[quinnox]

25. I wonder who she wants the candidate to be

Or is it she is saying only she is against Hillary.

[AZBlue]

48. Excellent question!

I'm not sure if this is where you were going, but I have tons of respect for someone who supports another candidate - well, of course, as long as there's no "R" after their name. But, if someone is just against someone (or something for that matter) with no better alternative, that's a problem for me. It's not very helpful or productive.

[yknot]

26. I've said it before , I'll say it again

She can't be the most qualified democrat we've got. Notoriety is NOT enough.

[immoderate]

27. ZZZIIINNNGGG!!!!

--IMM

[Generator]

29. Regular politcs. Exactly what I've been saying

It's not 1995 anymore. This nation is in a crisis. Average old Dems-Hillary, and Obama and the politics of nice and appeasment and compromise and mealy-mouthedness won't do. Yeah, Hillary had a nice speech on MLK day but one speech does not undo her record in this most horrible of times. I don't know WHO that leader is, but it isn't the old guard that you can be damn well sure-the old guard has got us to this day.

[leftchick]

197. and the next day she is calling for sanctions against Iran!

Go Molly! Enough of the DLC dreck!

[anitar1]

222. Exactly, Generator. Took the words out of my mouth.

Many of us are sick of the same old thing. I do not know one person who would vote for her. We discuss this with each other, and not ONE wants her to run. she is better off in the Senate for now.

[aintitfunny]

30. Me. Either. (eom)

[PATRICK]

From the failed Health Plan

our last best shot to really getting fooled by Bill to becoming a diligent DLC Senator she just is NOT presidential quality for these times. The fact that few are is not an argument in her favor. Her political resources are naive or tainted and the wrong recipe of cynical smarts and ideals to ever expect a win.

Yet I wouldn't go so far to trash her because I might be afraid she would sink a better candidate. Any candidate who can't warm up by capitalizing on her weaknesses will never be able to handle the GOP. Nor do I have to demonize her as a way to hiding the real fear that no candidate with the right stuff will emerge and succeed by reaching out to the people and tackling the criminals head on and underground simultaneously. It is too late for the warhorse to change convincingly no matter what sleight of PR hand they trot out.

Powerful Dems should do- humbly- for country and party- what they can do to aid someone else- because no candidate can ever do it on their own merits alone now.

[Elidor]

31. Molly is righteously pissed! I love it when she stops playing nice.

And it's not just about Hillary.

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?

I listen to people like Rahm Emanuel superciliously explaining elementary politics to us clueless naifs outside the Beltway ("First, you have to win elections"). Can't you even read the damn polls?

[Zodiak]

118. wow

those statements apply here on DU, as well.

[mtnsnake]

33. I'll bet Hillary throws in the towel when she finds out a columnist doesnt

back her.

:rofl:

[oasis]

67. As long as Hillary stays off Andy Rooney's shit list, she's okay by me.

:loveya:

[robbedvoter]

35. Not really a wound from a Nader endorser.

Sorry, I like her writing and don't care much for Hillary, but her endorsements....She called Wes Clark "rich" in her last boo-boo. I know not to ask Molly for advice on that one.
On Texas politics though - she's good!
Molly, get out of the endorsement business - you may stir me to Joementum if you dislike him!

[ixion]

36. thank you Miss Molly

for putting it down so succinctly.

:applause: :woohoo: :applause:

[sandnsea]

38. She's right, BUT

The winning by the right is twofold, first, in the mucky labeling of viscious campaigns, and those who don't vote. What needs to be done is to create a brand that can't easily be smeared AND that attracts those who don't vote. Unfortunately, the right is better at manipulating the emotions of Americans against the peacenik nanny brand and that is what the centrists are trying to overcome. They're going about it all wrong, but they do understand that portion of the problem. Whereas, people like Molly understand the core issues, but misinterpret the need and way to change the brand. IMHO anyway.

[Stephanie]

39. ME TOO!

Thanks Molly! Hillary will sink us.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Career Prole]

43. K & R, by God!

Love ya, Molly!

[realFedUp]

44. Of course this is Molly "George Bush isn't a mean man" Ivins

She wasn't exactly prescient about what an evil
man George W. Bush is. I'll reserve my opinion
until she decides to run.

[OzarkDem]

80. She said that about our current president? Got proof?

Sure this kind of talk makes inside the beltway Dems nervous, but that's ok. They need waking up.

[sendero]

81. She did say..

... that Bush "is not dumb and is not mean". (paraphrased, but very close) I'm still a big fan, I disagree with her on that point, but not on this one.

Enough of the fence-sitters. They are never going to win in this environment.

[long_green]

131. She has said that often

Personally, I think she was saying it because she was so sickened by the eight years of Clinton hunting that she didn't want to see it repeated.
She has seen the light.

[Uncle Joe]

46. Outstanding column!

Molly is on fire!

Kicked and nominated.

:kick:

[crispini]

49. Wow! What a great article!

Nail, meet hammer.

[Old Smokey]

50. Great Article.

I love Molly Ivins

[qanda]

51. Amen and pass the peas

[earth mom]

52. Love ya Molly!

You're SO right-Hillary is a DINO!

[OrwellwasRight]

53. Bravo. Thank you.

:thumbsup:

[Beelzebud]

55. I'm against Hillary in the same way I'm against royal families.

Bush/Clinton for 20 years?

No fucking thanks.

I want some new faces in there.

If the dems run Hillary as their candidate, I will do one of two things: Vote 3rd party, or not vote at all...

[elehhhhna]

59. Yep: No more political dynasty families. That ain't DEMOCRACY.

[oasis]

104. Roosevelt baaaaaad. Nader gooooood. (eom)

[bvar22]

56. Molly hits ANOTHER Home Run...knocks it out of the Park!

Thank. You. Molly!

This wasn't just about Hillary.
It was about the leadership of the Democratic Party!

"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?"

<snip>

"Do it all, go long, go for public campaign financing for Congress. I'm serious as a stroke about this -- that is the only reform that will work, and you know it, as well as everyone else who's ever studied this. Do all the goo-goo stuff everybody has made fun of all these years: embrace redistricting reform, electoral reform, House rules changes, the whole package. Put up, or shut up. Own this issue, or let Jack Abramoff politics continue to run your town."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/20/ivins.hillary/

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans,
family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."--- Senator Paul Wellstone

[UTUSN]

57. I'm with Molly. Until the nomination, then if HRC takes it, so be it. n/t

[leftyladyfrommo]

60. Now if we could just find someone with the balls to actually

get up and say what needs to be said.

I want Obama. I think he has the balls to actually do this.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. Someone like this, perhaps?

That's MY choice.

[bush_is_wacko]

93. Why the hell do Dem's keep trying to put forth candidates from the last

decade? Gore is a lost cause. I never liked him that much to begin with. Smart man but not really the best man for the job IMO.

This party is failing with those candidates. Why the hell isn't THIS party grooming and periodically presenting a few OUTSTANDING Dem's to the American public on a regular basis?

You know, I like Biden but I don't think I would want him as my candidate. He IS a blowhard. He talks too much about nothing. I like Obama, he seems to be a reasonable man with a commanding presence but MOST people have no clue who he is if they are not already involved in politics. I like Wes Clark, I think he'd be great for this country AND I think he has the military background to get us the hell out Iraq and KEEP us the hell out of Iran! But he hasn't had enough play time and AGAIN the average American has forgotten who he is IF they EVER knew who he was. I LOVE Kerry but apparently MOST Americans can't deal with an intellectual strength like him in office. Flip-flopping is a RIDICULOUS term for realizing you made a mistake, admitting it and CORRECTING it! That is what Kerry has done. I ALSO love Barbara Boxer but she is SURPRISINGLY, yet another Dem that the average regular American doesn't know. Freepers know EXACTLY who she is and those of us that have always been heavily involved in politics know who she is but NO ONE else does.

ARE THERE ANY CELEBRITIES WILLING TO RUN FOR OFFICE WITH AN ACTUAL POLITICIAN AS THEIR VP? Seems to me that is the only way MOST Americans recognize people any more. Maybe J Lo and Obama or Paula Abdul and Clark? :sarcasm:

Edited because I ACCIDENTLY left off a w and called Barbara a "ho". :wow:

[Warren DeMontague]

198. Well, I disagree with your rant, at least the parts I can make sense of.

You want a celebrity to run? Sure. Okay.

Sorry, Jack. I don't care about "old news". Al Gore is SMART, he's CAPABLE, he UNDERSTANDS that the number one issue facing the PLANET in the coming century is the ENVIRONMENT and our global petroleum addiction. He has spoken out PLAINLY and FORCEFULLY on the Iraq war... You think it's a bad idea for him to roll the stone away in '08, come out swinging like Lazarus back from the dead? Shit, man, I think it would be BEAUTIFUL. If it worked for a sweaty, antisocial goblin like Dick Nixon, it would sure as SHIT work for Al Gore. And you know what? He's EARNED it, and we NEED someone like that to SAVE our sorry asses after 8 years of Bush.

Old news my ass. And Comparing him to Biden? Biden is an black hole of egotism and attention whoredom. No thanks.

Edit: I think some folks, like the administration, are plainly terrified of Al Gore. And I'm SURE the GOP establishment would much rather run against Hillary.

[bush_is_wacko]

240. You really think this administration is afraid of Al Gore?

Lazarus from the dead? I don't think so.

You are right, Gore is SMART. But if you think the majority of America would vote for Gore because he is an environmentalist you must be living in a foreign country. His outspokenness on the Iraq war isn't going to get him anywhere in this country. EVERYONE is speaking out at this point. Kerry is SMART. Hillary is SMART (in her own weird way). Obama is SMART. Even Biden is SMART(still a blowhard, but smart).

The crap about the celebrities was :sarcasm: I was simply trying to make the point that MOST Americans are really out of touch with reality and politics. They seem to NEED a recognizable face and the don't give a shit what that face represents.

My fear is that if the party doesn't start exposing some real viable candidates right now the average American will not recognize them come election time. They must become "celebrities" to the idiot masses for them to vote for them.

[Usrename]

252. I'm not so sure that party is all that important right now.

Americans will support an alternative. Al Gore is that alternative. Hillary et al are just more of the same. It has very little to do with the divisiveness that is manufactured by the media. Talk to people, a pox on both their houses is the general feeling among the idiot masses.

[bush_is_wacko]

265. You are so right about the pox on both houses issue.

Why do you think Gore represents anything other than the same old Democratic pox to the idiot masses?

Party DOESN'T matter at this point. Americans want to see a RECOGNIZABLE face come election time that has had enough exposure in the media to sway them.

If a Republican candidate has enough exposure in the media and tells them what they want to hear they are just as likely to vote for him/her. That's EXACTLY what I am afraid of. The thugs have outwitted the masses up until now. If we don't get someone out there that can speak to them LOUDLY they will do it again!

[Warren DeMontague]

304. Yes, I do. They go batshit when anyone actually speaks the truth.

And as other posters here have pointed out, they will bend over backwards to marginalize those voices - they're much more comfortable to have opposition that is 'nuanced' and 'crafted', and 'conforms to the conventional wisdom'.

Remember, whatever Scotty M. says, just invert it. "We welcome Al Gore as the voice of National Security for the Democratic Party"... Bullshit. That means it's their worst fucking nightmare- someone who has opposed this bogus war from the start and isn't afraid to call a spade a spade. Ditto with Howard Dean- we were supposed to believe Karl Rove wanted to run against Dean, and was scared of Kerry the war hero. Baloney. They figured they could Slime Kerry, rhetorically photoshop him into a few pictures with Jane Fonda, and the REAL attacks on Bush where it counted - on the war - would be neutered because Kerry didn't have a clear moral position to operate from.

Same reason they want us to run another DLC approved "moderate" voice this coming time around. They are terrified of ANYONE who will stand up and say "Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11, or Al Qaeda, the President is BREAKING THE LAW, and by the way, the Emperor has no clothes".

I think, particularly after watching his last speech, Al Gore is that man.

[drfresh]

311. Hear Hear!

For me, its either Gore or Clark right now. I hope I get to see them both in the debates!

[flpoljunkie]

319. Gore "gets it" too. This is from his MLK day speech in Washington...

Gore obviously considers our corrupt campaign system a threat to our democracy as well.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/5/14301/6133

But whether you agree with his assessment or not, Senator Byrd's question is like the others that I have just posed here: he was saying, in effect, this is strange, isn't it? Aren't we supposed to have full and vigorous debates about questions as important as the choice between war and peace?

Those of us who have served in the Senate and watched it change over time, could volunteer an answer to Senator Byrd's two questions: the Senate was silent on the eve of war because Senators don't feel that what they say on the floor of the Senate really matters that much any more. And the chamber was empty because the Senators were somewhere else: they were in fundraisers collecting money from special interests in order to buy 30-second TVcommercials for their next re-election campaign.

[Booster]

61. Molly is as right as rain on this issue, but, if Hillary wins in the

primaries, I will have no choice but to support her. There are so many more people whom I would like to see in that position.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. Damn right, Molly! No more "politics as usual" by the bosses.

Of either party.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. She sounds just like someone I know...

Me.

[dzika]

65. Agreed. No support for Hillary here.

[mwb970]

68. I loved Bill, but...

I just can't get excited about Hillary. How about Wes Clark? He would have been my choice for '04. Don't tell me they would try to Swiftboat him!

[tenshi816]

111. They'd try to swiftboat him...

but I don't believe Wes Clark would lie down and take it.

[bush_is_wacko]

69. I'm in agreement with Molly...

For the first time in a LONG time Hillary finally decided to say something about this administration that I can ACTUALLY agree with but THAT isn't enough. Her record speaks loud and clear to me all the back to the Nixon administration. I have NO CLUE how Hillary got where she is today without more Americans discovering who she really is. Hillary Clinton has no political beliefs she ONLY has the uncanny ability to "fly under the radar" and "go with the flow." Even her failed attempt at health care reform was a ruse. She dropped the ball because it wasn't flying as well as she thought and pharmaceutical companies and Doctor's Associations quite sending her money.

It sounds to me as if she is really going to make a bid for the WH in 06. She already has a HUGE amount of money set aside for this purpose. I sincerely hope she can swallow her considerable ego and donate that money to a candidate that is worthy of the Democratic party vote!

[flpoljunkie]

325. Have read HRC's goal is to raise $100 million for her Senate campaign.

That's why we have received so many letters from "Friends of Hillary" and even Bill himself. Why does Hillary need to raise $100 million for a Senate re-election campaign, when she really has no credible opposition?

[Fovea]

70. Molly Ivins ---

You are da bomb!

I am right there with you, Grrl!

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

71. I can't see a "Hillary wins the election" scenario.

So the question is "Do we want to take back the White House in 2008" or "Do we want Hillary to be our candidate?"

I vote "yes" on the first question and "no" on the second.

[DinahMoeHum]

72. Sorry, Hillary, you may be my junior senator. . .but you're not Bill

and this is no longer 1992. And that also goes for the DLC people too.

The DLC folks had damn well better stop being afraid of the GOP, and start being afraid of the PDA/DFA/Howard Dean/BandofBrothers2006 types. We're taking over this ship from them.

:kick:

[WhereThereIsFire]

86. Hillary will never be Bill (and I seriously miss Bill Clinton!)

:cry: :dem:

[leftofthedial]

73. molly nails it again.

as usual

[KyuzoGator]

74. Hillary simply can't win.

And depending on her opponent, I can't guarantee I'd vote for her either.

[mtnsnake]

76. So if she wins the primaries you might vote for her Repuke opponent

Just great. Makes a lot of sense to vote for a Repuke instead of a bonified true blue Democrat like Hillary, who just happens to have one of the best progressive track records when it comes to senators voting on all the issues.

Wonderful!!

[SaveElmer]

97. Mtnsnake...

Facts matter little to the DU Hillary Haters club...

[KyuzoGator]

212. There are some Democrats who are just as guilty of polarization as the GOP

"If you're not with us, you're against us."

I vote for the candidate, not the party. Every time I've voted, the better candidate has been the Democrat.

[mtnsnake]

237. That is ever so true!

I just love it when the far leftist (or whatever the hell they are) Hillary haters brand her as a "neocon" or a "right wing panderer". Whenever they do, I ask them to prove she's anything close to that, and somehow they can never come up with any proof. They simply go silent because it's hard for them to counter the fact that she's the 9th most progressive voting senator in Congress.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

75. Molly's 100% correct.

[Tactical Progressive]

82. Molly sounds like the one cowering

Afraid we can't defend Hillary from the mean old Republicans and their corrupt mainstream media megaphone.

We can, Molly.

With or without you.

[Skidmore]

84. You can,

but some of us don't want to.

[mtnsnake]

85. Amen! It's amazing how many DU'ers are ready to go belly-up

if Hillary wins the nomination. No wonder our party is considered the party of wimps.

[Tactical Progressive]

92. And their dislike is so mindless

besides being so whiny.

One side of their mouth speaks in terror about Republicans mauling Hillary while out of the other side they're all rough 'n tough about how we got the power and we ain't afraid a' no Republicans so let's nominate Noam Chomsky fur true progressive values.

They want 'leadership' but they'll scream and sneer at anyone who doesn't do exactly what they say.

They're tired of 'Republican-lite' as they shriek in pain in the very midst of a full dose of Republican-heavy that got dumped on them as a direct result of their last effort to stand against 'Republican-lite'.

Absolutely mindless. It's a mishmash of childish emotion against Hillary from the left at this point in the process. As with children I suppose our responsibility at this stage is to make sure they don't hurt themselves. Later, we can teach them about how grown-up politics works.

[samhsarah]

112. hmm, let's see, 2000, voted for gore, 2004, voted for kerry

both times we got bush. that was my big effort to stand against the republican lite. WTF are you talking about? people like you have been the ones running this party for the last few years. and where has that gotten us? both times we got bush. we have lost the senate, the house, and in a few weeks the supreme court should be taken over by the flying monkey right. (and make no mistake about it, if there is no filibuster, it will be because the dems wanted to play your kind of "grown up" spineless politics) i'm mindless and childish because i don't like hillary clinton? i don't like the candidate you like so you're gonna call me and half the other people here names and tell them they're childish? well i have a 4 year old that could tell you that just because someone doesn't like the same things you like, it's no reason to call them names. your "grown-up" politics have gotten us REAL far. half the people in this country don't think there's a difference between republicans and democrats and its because of your "grown-up" politics. So really, take your "grown-up" politics, and, well you know the rest. oh yeah, and don't hurt yourself, ok?

[Zodiak]

120. perhaps treating those who disagree like they...

are children is why they are so pissed off.

Too many establishment Dems act like they are the only holders of political wisdom. What a great way to start a friendship...being treated like a child!

[bettyellen]

122. i know- that was a brilliant tactical move, huh?

and par for the course, really. at least he's saying what others are just thinking.

[SaveElmer]

139. If the intolerant left...

Didn't impute dark and sinister motivations on everyone who disagrees with their position, perhaps they would be treated to a more serious and fruitful dialogue.

[Zodiak]

146. go play with someone who doesn't think you are a tool

I'm through talking to those who make excuses for right-wing decisions by Democrats and paste their "divine wisdom" to us "uinwashed lefties" 30+ times on a single thread. If you were more tolerant, you might not feel the motivation to plaster yourself all over the place and flood us with your self-important opinions.

How is that for "intolerant"?

And yeah, like most other people here, I am pissed off. Rather than belittle people for it, perhaps you should try to understand it rather than accuse everyone of ignorance.

[SaveElmer]

153. I understand ignorance very well...

And I recognize thin skinned intolerants who refuse to look beyond their own anger to engage in useful discussion...

Sorry to inerrupt your Hilalry hater love fest...I know how contrary opinion is painful to you folks...feel free to put me on ignore

[Zodiak]

160. Spare me the martyrdom

Anyone who has been here for any length of time knows that your modus operandi is to plaster yourself all over these threads and treat your opponents like they have no sense. You are joined by a few others with the same MO, and they are well-known here, as well.

If you want a "useful discussion" not based on ignorance, then address my post below where I actually put up the portions of Hillary's Bush-enabling votes. The left is not ignorant....just sick and tired of waiting for our leaders to represent us.

[SaveElmer]

172. So...

Of the dozens of Hillary bashers in these threads, of which we are treated to many a night...there are a handful of us who take an opposing view. Are you saying we are not supposed to express that view?

I do apologize if I have treated you disrespectfully, I really am not upset by people being oppsoed to Hillary. What I do not understand is the venemous hatred that is spewed by many...just looking at this thread you can see her called "Hitlery" and "Shrillery" among other names. Others accuse her and other Demcrats of encouraging the slaughter of innocents for purposes of their own advancement, with no actual evidence of this.

Also, there is no doudt that on DU Hillary supporters are a minority, so I suppose we may get defensive at times. I didn't see your other post. I will read it and respond only on the issues if you want to discuss them.

[Zodiak]

Believe it or not, I would vote for Hillary

if she were nominated. However, my objection is primarily the accusation that people on the left are ignorant and base their anger at select Dems over nothing. Not only is this a poor tack to take in defense of Hillary, but it further divides us.

The times are getting really rough and the stakes are getting really high. Naturally, people's emotions are going to run just as high.

I am sorry that there are dozens and dozens of people who come in to Hillary bash without presenting facts to go along with it. I have looked at the facts enough to now that they are right in some respects and wrong in others. However, it is just as wrong to present her as a 95% Progressive when her voting record clearly shows that she is not. She is 65% (according to mycalculations)...acceptable by my standards, but it may not be by others.

I am sorry for the tool comment...that is rather uncharacteristic of me. Forgive me that my emotions were partially inflamed by the post that began this whole thing (the "the left are children" one).

If you would like, I can describe what I do not like about hating targeted Dems for suporting Bush.....we target the wrong ones. That is why I starting scoring Senators in the first place. The worst of our Senators are hardly ever discussed on DU, and it is they who are the most responsible for making the Dems look "ununified". Hillary is not too bad in this respect, but did you know there are nine senators WORSE than Leiberman?

Cantwell (Washington) - DLC 42.9
Johnson (South Dakota) - DLC 42.9
Kohl (Wisconsin) - DLC 42.9
Baucus (Montana) - DLC 39.3
Conrad (North Dakota) - DLC 39.3
Feinstein (California) 39.3
Leiberman (Connecticut) - DLC 35.7
Carper (Deleware) - DLC 28.6
Lincoln (Arkansas) - DLC 21.4
Nelson (Florida) - DLC 21.4
Salazar (Colorado) - DLC 21.4
Pryor (Arkansas) - DLC 17.9
Landrieu (Louisianna) - DLC 14.3
Nelson (Nebraska) - DLC 0.0
I am glad that we are starting to talk about Nelson, though....that is indeed an improvement.

Nope, no Hillary listed there. There is no John Kerry, there, either. In fact, Kerry is one of our best senators (top ten).

Harkin (Iowa) 89.2
Boxer (California) 85.7
Lautenberg (New Jersey) 85.7
Akaka (Hawaii) 78.6
Durbin (Illinois) 78.6
Kennedy (Massacheusetts) 78.6
Kerry (Massacheusetts) - DLC 78.6
Corzine (New Jersey) 71.4
Dayton (Minnesota) 71.4
Feingold (Wisconsin) 71.4
Levin (Michigan) 71.4
Mikulski (Maryland) 71.4
Reed (Rhode Island) 71.4
Sarbanes (Maryland) 71.4
Obama (Illinois) 67.9

These Senators should have the full-support of all but the most leftie of lefties.

[SaveElmer]

189. You are right...

About that characterization. I do not think those on the left are childish by any means. Believe it or not I consider myself left. I have never voted for a Republican in my life (I'd probably break out in a rash if I did). I voted for Jesse Jackson in the 88 primary. I really do admire people like Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer and others, even if I don't agree with them all of the time. And though I would probably not support them in the primary, it would be for reasons of electibility (another debate), not their stands on the issues.

I look at Hillary's record and I see a solid liberal. I see the Congressional Quarterly notes she votes the Democratic position 95% or the time. I see a woman who has been villified by the right wing for 13 years now, with insinuations that she is a murderer and a lesbian (not that I would care about that), that she has had affairs with other men, and stays with Bill out of political expediency. And yet she has had the savvy and political skill to beat all that back and improbably become a highly respected and popular senator from New York.

I also see she gets high ratingsrom environmental, labor and women's groups. ANd I see the reaction to her on MLK day.

Could you tell me what goes into your calculations of her relative "liberalness" I would really be interested.

[Zodiak]

202. certainly

I do this primarily for my own edification, but I post the numbers each time I recalculate them (in case a person or two cares). I had seen ADA ratings used here a few times, and was curious as to their method. They pick 20 issues in a meeting of trustees once a year and score the senators in five point increments for each issue in which the Senator votes with progressive ideals. Sounds good.

Until I looked at the issues, which were a loose collection of amendments to greater bills. It is true that the amendments do reflect progressive ideals, but they were not bill passages or appointments. In other words, many of these votes are meaningless because they do not affect the American people directly. Any senator can vote safely for these non-starters, but what matters to me, and to many DUers is voting when it REALLY matters.

You may have already read my comment on what else aroused my suspicion. Boxer was listed as 95%, but Feinstein was 100% on her ADA rating. That did not jibe at ALL with what I knew about their ostensible political ideologies. There are more discrepancies...but it was also noted that their distribution was far more bimodal (two peaks) than political reality is, as well.

Another problem I had was 20 issues. Why not 10? Why not 100? I thought that they picked 20 just to make their jobs a little easier, calculation-wise. I think that the number of issues that should be scored is exactly equal to the number of issues that match the investigator's criteria. A full-sampling beats a hand-picked sampling in most cases.

I wrote to ADA about my objections...no response at all to my concerns.

So I devised my own methodology based on my objections to ADA's method. I only score Senators on bill passage and political appointmnts. In this manner, I could track how "anti-Bush" each of our Senators are. I also threw in a couple of more issues that Duers, in general, would consider to be "conscience" issues (like standing up for Ohio voting rights...an important issue here). (by the way, Hillary got points for this, as did all of the senators that spoke that day, but I only awarded ten points to Boxer, who actually voted to not certifiy the election).

Also, for the sake of parsimony, I omitted any bill passage that had no opposition. A 98-0 vote does not serve to separate the scores between any senators.


These scores are all percentages of a total possible score of 140 (so far, in this session, there have been 14 controversial bills and confirmations). A senator gets a score of "10" for voting against Bush's agenda on an issue, a "5" for abstaining, and a "0" for voting with the Republicans.

Here are the fourteen issues:

1. Rice confirmation (inept) 2.7
2. Gonzales confirmation (torturer) 8.3
3. Class action lawsuit bill 5.91
4. Bankruptcy bill 5.7
5. Negroponte confirmation (criminal and murderer) (0.5)
6. Cheney's Energy Bill (1.6)
7. CAFTA I (7.8)
8. CAFTA II (two votes for it (votes changed), + important issue) (7.5)
9. Election Reform (object to Ohio vote, 5 pts for speaking out, 10 for voting with a conscious) (0.6)
10. Confirmation of radical RW judges (0 pts for voting for one of the three judges, 5 pts for being one of the 7 senators in the compromise, -10 pts for voting for TWO of these judges) (8.5)
11. Firearm manufacturer immunity from legal liability (6.7)
12. Cutting Medicaid (6.7)
13. More tax cuts for the rich (9.4)
14. Roberts Confirmation (5)

The number that follows the issue is an indication of how much the Democratic Senate as a whole agrees with liberal bloggers, basically. A 10 is total Democratic unity. A lower number indicates disunity.

I flagged the DLC members because it clearly shows that there are a few DLCers who are "okay", but the majority of them are the worst betrayers of the party. It is not the organization that is of issue...it is the idea that this organization should be allowed THIS MUCH power in the partythat bother me.

Here is the full list of senators.

DEMOCRATIC SENATOR LIBERAL INDEX
-------------------------------------------
Harkin (Iowa) 89.2
Boxer (California) 85.7
Lautenberg (New Jersey) 85.7
Akaka (Hawaii) 78.6
Durbin (Illinois) 78.6
Kennedy (Massacheusetts) 78.6
Kerry (Massacheusetts) - DLC 78.6
Corzine (New Jersey) 71.4
Dayton (Minnesota) 71.4
Feingold (Wisconsin) 71.4
Levin (Michigan) 71.4
Mikulski (Maryland) 71.4
Reed (Rhode Island) 71.4
Sarbanes (Maryland) 71.4
Obama (Illinois) 67.9
Dodd (Connecticut) - DLC 64.3
Leahy (Vermont) 64.3
Shumer (New York) 64.3
Wyden (Oregon) 64.3
Bayh (Indiana) - DLC 64.3
Biden (Deleware) 64.3
Clinton (New York) - DLC 60.7
Dorgan (North Dakota) - DLC 57.1
Stabenow (Michigan) - DLC 57.1
Inouye (Hawaii) 57.1
Reid (Nevada) 57.1
Byrd (West Virginia) 50
Murray (Washington) 50
Rockefeller (West Virgnia) 50
Bingaman (New Mexico) 42.9
Cantwell (Washington) - DLC 42.9
Johnson (South Dakota) - DLC 42.9
Kohl (Wisconsin) - DLC 42.9
Baucus (Montana) - DLC 39.3
Conrad (North Dakota) - DLC 39.3
Feinstein (California) 39.3
Leiberman (Connecticut) - DLC 35.7
Carper (Deleware) - DLC 28.6
Lincoln (Arkansas) - DLC 21.4
Nelson (Florida) - DLC 21.4
Salazar (Colorado) - DLC 21.4
Pryor (Arkansas) - DLC 17.9
Landrieu (Louisianna) - DLC 14.3
Nelson (Nebraska) - DLC 0.0

And the Republicans (anyone not listed is zero)

chafee 40/140 = 28.5%
snowe 30/140 = 21.4%
deWine 30/140 = 21.4%
voinovich 20/140 = 14.4%
sununu 20/140 = 14.4%
colins 20/140 = 14.4%
craig 20/140 = 14.4%
kyl 10/140 = 7.3%
mccain 10/140 = 7.3%
martinez 10/140 = 7.3%
gregg 10/140 = 7.3%
burr 10/140 = 7.3%
Murkowski 10/140 = 7.3%
frist 10/140 = 7.3%
hagel 10/140 = 7.3%

You can find my methodology and the scores at my seldom-used kos diary.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/18/19162/775

I took a lambasting when I posted the latest numbers, but it led to a lively discussion. The numbers I use are my own, but I at least post my method freely and you can talk to me and criticize the method (and even get me to change it a bit if you argue well-enough). The only thing I cannot do is devote a ton of time to this...I am in school. I update the numbers every three months.

By the way, rub people's faces in th fact that Hillary is one of our higher-scoring Democrats. It is a true statement, as far as I am concerned. What concerns me is that she was 65% on my scale three months ago. Voting for those tax cuts hurt her.

We shall see if she continues with the Harlem speech Hillary...I like that Hillary better.

[SaveElmer]

249. Very cool...

You have clearly done alot of work on this...and it does effectively give a good snapshot of how each Senator does against prevailing liberal thought. How often do you update the votes you use?

I know this is not intended to give a complete overview of a persons views, as there is no way to control the timing of when votes are taken etc. I can see where it might be somewhat misleading in that for example a staunchly anti-choice Democrat may look more liberal simply because there were no votes on the issue. COnversely, a liberal may look more conservative becasue there is one issue on which they usually disagree (like when Kucinich was pro-life, or Mark Dayton who supports a flag burning amendment).

Very useful though...thanks for posting it, I may use it when talking about my support for Hillary with others...even though her rating goes up and down, still will complete the picture!

[Tactical Progressive]

263. I like what you've done here

It's a very methodical ranking of the things we all look at and assess very non-methodically. Scientific method applied to politics. Very well done.

On the other hand, mtnsnake has been showing Hillary's votes for months now and it hasn't had much effect on the anti-Hillary crowd. Elmer is doing a great job here too, and your breakdown certainly helps make the point of where Hillary really is, but I doubt the anti-Hills care.

Hillary is roughly at the center of the Democratic party according to your breakdown - the center of the left half of the political spectrum. She should be moving towards the center of the entire political spectrum in 2006 and 2007, so I suppose the anti-Hill whining won't be getting any more astute as we go along. She should probably settle in at 2/3 of the way down, that is, centered politically, on your list. That's what I'm hoping anyway. It will be hard to watch sometimes, but then since when is politics easy?

[Tactical Progressive]

228. Nice lists

I don't know how you 'scored' the Senators, but they run pretty true to my own sense of them. I'd guess that we're pretty close politically whatever metrics you employed.

However, on the flip side, your excuse for emotional inflamation was bogus. I'm assuming that "the left are children" was a reference to me. It's false on multiple levels, which is quite a feat for just one phrase. First off it shouldn't be double-quotes. That's just dishonest. Second and more fundamentally, the left wasn't described as children, the Hillary-haters on the left were being addressed, which is clear from context. There are plenty of us on the left that aren't approaching this like children. You put words in my mouth, you mischaracterize them, then you put them in double quotes.

And lastly, Hillary haters should stop pretending that someone just came in and hurt their feelings. They've been ratcheting up the anger and dishonesty towards her in multiple threads every day. Every once in a while someone shoves back... And then they whine about it. Ttreat others with respect you might get some back. Until then, stop being like the robber whose victim shoots back and then they claim that they were assaulted, like it came out of thin air and they have been so wronged.

At this point I don't even know if that was you, Zo, but you seem to have responded to me personally over my general response to the ridiculousness of some of the anti-Hillary sentiment. Like I can't say that alot of the blatant childishness is childish without you taking personal offense. Buck up. Make a list of all of the ridiculous characterizations of Hillary and then score them on childishness. I bet our metrics will be similar again.

[Zodiak]

329. What am I supposed to do with this comment?

a. It is considered the height of rudeness on DU to point out someone's grammatical mistakes or inappropriate usage of punctuation to score a debate point. Many here would agree that taking such a tack represents a paucity of salient points on the part of the criticizer.

b. Your comment was "Hillary bashing from the left is childish". You mentioned the left and generalized their behavior as childish. That is a base insult, and it demeans the work of lefties WHO ARE YOUR POLITICAL ALLIES. Perhaps you are the one taking all of this personally.

c. Watch using words such as "whine", "haters", "childish".....none of which will endear yourself with your audience.

d. I call 'em like I see 'em. I am NOT acting like this criticism (about your use of language) comes out of the blue, but I have read this sort of political discourse on DU for far too long, and I am calling it out for the divisive type of post it is.

e. Please understand that "hillary-haters" (as you characterize them) are insulting Hillary. You, on the other hand, are insulting DUers.

f. I find it interesting that one who accuses others of childishness resorts to grammar criticim and sarcasm in their political writings. I get emotional at times, which is why I do not act like I am the only "grown-up" amongst children.

g. As I stated previously, I only have time to score Senators, not DUers. Since you have a vested interest in proving your points, I would suggest that you develop the methodology and score your fellow DUers on their straying from the party line. If not, then your point is simply empty....I am not your monkey (to quote John Stewart).

h. I am sorry I had to bump this thread to state the obvious.

[Tactical Progressive]

348. I'm not pointing out grammar mistakes

Your grammar is fine. I'm saying don't put quotes in my mouth. And don't pretend you don't understand the difference. That is rude.

I'm not bashing "the left". I am "the left". "Hillary bashing from the left is childish" breaks down like this: (Hillary bashing from the left) (is childish), not (Hillary bashing from) (the left is childish). You know that too.

Your debate technique appears to be putting words in my mouth, then as if that's not bad enough putting them in quotes. Well, don't expect that I won't at least point it out, in case you might have made a mistake.

I'm not going to go all into the hurt feelings about DUers being insulted and who resorts to what. Suffice it to say that these Hill-hater threads start daily now and have alot of rancid, unfair, dishonest crap in them, as has been pointed out by many people. A charge of childishness, which is mild in comparison, sure seems to be getting the Hill-hater's panties in a bunch. In terms of quantity, offensiveness, dishonesty, frequency, ratio-between and who-initiaties the conflicts over Hillary, the haters have it like 50 to 1 over those of us who throw any of it back. I don't see you taking anyone to task over the much more aggressive and vindictive name-calling of Hillary or the DLC. Why is that, if you're so concerned over etiquette? It takes alot of gall to attack the 1 as if the 50 never existed. I've mentioned this a bunch of times - about who's acting and who's reacting - but of course no one wants to address that. No surprise there.

So really, if Hill-haters can't even be honest about who starts these things, then I have no sympathy. They appear to believe that there is unlimited leeway for Hill-hater and DLC assaults and zero tolerance for rebukes.

Lastly, the methodological Hillary-hater study was tongue in cheek. I still like your political breakdown efforts. It was kind of my way of saying look at the statistical realities of who's throwing out the demeaning rhetoric.

[bettyellen]

121. wow, now i know why some people think the tent isn't big enough.

make sure people don't hurt themselves? did you notice that you're actually worked up in a big nasty lather, all by your lonesome.
good luck finding people interested in your reeducation program. :rofl:
i know all i needs to about hillary, but really thanks for the offer.

[K-W]

140. People who don't agree with me are so stupid.

Opinions I don't agree with are so whiny.

Some of these people even like Noam Chomsky (OH MY GOD NO!)

They say they want leadership but don't accept me telling them what to do.

It is all their fault that republicans win, because they should be like us, not us like them.

They are stupid. The left is so childish. I need to be the lefts parent because I'm so smart and mature that I should get to tell other people what to do.

How dare people think for themselves when Hillary Clinton can think for them. Jerks.

You sure are a tactical progressive.

[AgadorSparticus]

342. ROFLMAO!!!! You hit just about every one of them.

:thumbsup:

[Elidor]

206. Mr. Wittman? Is that you?

I had no idea you posted here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

90. Why would we want to defend her?

She useless as an alleged Democrat.

[SaveElmer]

98. It is astounding how the fear of Republican reaction...

Drives so many in their opinion as to who our nominee should be.

[stickdog]

99. Yes, we fear Clinton's Republican reactions ...

[SaveElmer]

100. Spoken as one...

Who has not bothered to look at Hillary's voting record!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

102. Check out her "courageous" vote to back Bush's war.

[SaveElmer]

103. Have you looked at her floor speech?

Announcing her support for the IWR? Read it and come back.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

107. Yes. The usual political CYA.

By a pro-war VichyDem who sold out.

[SaveElmer]

109. Very articulate answer...

And typical of the intolerant left, who like their doppelgangers on the far right, impute the darkest of motives on anyone who disagrees with them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

115. Oh, so you believe she voted for the war out of...what? Humanitarianism?

Damn right I'm "intolerant" of those who advance their political ambitions by voting to have people killed.

[SaveElmer]

128. So I take it then...

You believe Hillary Clinton likes to have people killed? Is that your position?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

145. Likes to? Not what I said.

I said that she has no qualms about people being killed to further her political ambitions.

[SaveElmer]

147. Just as bad...

And sad that you believe that...do you believe the same of every other Democrat who voted that way?

I take it you declined to vote for Kerry in 2004?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

150. I do believe it of every Dem who voted for the slaughter.

I did, to my regret, vote for Kerry.

[tabasco]

269. Both of my senators voted against the Iraq war resolution.

So you don't have to bother with reading their floor speeches.

[SaveElmer]

270. If you view the issue in black and white...

What you are saying is true...however...I do believe it is helpful to look at a persons motivation for the decisions they make...

I am also not arrogant enough to believe I have all the answers. DO politicians always do what I want them too...no. I look back into history and I cannot find any that haven't done something I disapprove of. I like to look at the whole person.

[stickdog]

245. YES on bankruptcy restrictions.

What's your explanation for this travesty?

[SaveElmer]

258. None...I disagree with her on this one...

And others...but if I look back into history I cannot think of one President, or politician even, with whom I have agreed on everything...

I agree with her on the vast majority of issues. I respect her enough to believe she is doing what she thinks is best for the country, and I am not arrogant enough to believe I am right all of the time.

[Tactical Progressive]

110. They're only afraid of Repub reaction against Hillary

They ain't afraid a' no Repubs when their dream candidate comes around.

Then their dream candidate will ride in out of the mist on his white stallion - or I guess white unicorn in keeping with the level of political fantasy we are dealing with at this stage - and slay the lying Repub hydra with one quick smite of his quick-response media team. And all of my fellow progressives jeer at the apoplectic right-wing smear machine as it writhes and howls in agony on its political deathbed.

And tens of millions of greedy, bigoted, apathetic voters say yes, mr/s left-wing progressive, you were right all along, he's our hero too!

[SaveElmer]

113. Beautiful...funny...

And deadly accurate!!!

[jsamuel]

169. Not afraid to defend anyone from Republicans, if the DESERVE my defense

which Hillary doesn't.

[Hubert Flottz]

83. I vote for Molly!

Bye Golly!

[merkins]

87. Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She?

You better believe your Sweet Bippy she can!

Kicked & Recommended

[samhsarah]

101. couldn't have possibly been said any better

way to go molly!:kick: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :applause:

[mnhtnbb]

105. Yeah for Molly!

All the damn fundraising letters from Hillary have been going in my trash.

[coldiggs]

116. Yay Molly

[Cleita]

117. If Molly says so, she has really good, solid reasons for it.

:yourock: Molly.

I've been a fan of hers for more than fifteen years.

[long_green]

124. Once again, Molly has written the column of her life.

Left up to her, this country can be saved. Left up to the DLC, those of us left alive will be tepidly supporting Jeb Bush's latest war.
Dump the DINOS.

[SaveElmer]

148. Right up there with her column declaring her intention to vote for Nader..

Very politically astute...

[K-W]

152. Right, because democracy is about being on the bandwagon. EOM

[SaveElmer]

157. It's about governing...

It involves compromise...being able to see the forest, and not just the tree most important to you. Yes I think a vote for Nader is a surrender to the right wing...and I'm sorry she did it. For me it also calls into question her political instincts.

Course I still love her, and love to read her columns.

[K-W]

163. You can throw around truisims all day, they dont prove your point.

other people arent obligated to vote for your candidate because she is the frontrunner. You can sit around and say you are right and imply that people who disagree with you are stupid, it doesnt prove a damn thing.

For me it also calls into question her political instincts.

You do realize that her state was solidly Bush, so it doesnt call anything of the sort into question. She voted for the candidate who best represented her rather than the one you wish she voted for. SHOCKING

Course I still love her, and love to read her columns.

You shouldnt smear people you love.

[SaveElmer]

166. Not smearing anyone...

Like many are fond of saying in opposing the war, it is not a smear to simply disagree. I believe Molly is wrong, and she was wrong to support Nader. I did not attack her personally like so many do of Hillary, I did not compare her to Hitler as some have done of Hillary as well...I simply stated where I think she was wrong...nothing more.

She may live in Texas, but her column is national.

I am not asking anyone to vote for Hillary because she is the front runner, I am merely asking why they feel the way they do about her. Invariably, with some exception, people decline to do that.

[K-W]

199. Well I havent really said anything about Hillary.

But I do feel you are showing a remarkable lack of tolerance for people with different opinions than you and people who make different political choices than you.

[SaveElmer]

214. Sorry if it appears that way...

It does get my blood aboilin when I see people refer to her as Hitlery or Shillery or worse words that I prefer not to use.

I do actually prefer a more sane two way dialogue...

[KnowerOfLogic]

187. and * is governing. maybe i should just become a repuke, then i'll be on

the winning side. What it is about, is governing *with principles,* and it is you who can not see the forest for the trees. You are so focussed on the short term win that you can't see the cost to the country that results in the long term. AND, by sacrificing principle the party looks weak, ends up losing, and lays the foundation for further erosion of popular support and further losses.

[SaveElmer]

194. Please take a look at the totality of Hillary's record...

Not just what garners headlines...and really take a look at her statements on the war. Look at her floor speech announcing her support for the IWR, and her criticisms of the wars conduct. My reading is that she is a solid liberal, voting with the party 95% of the time according to Congressional Quarterly. She gets high ratings from environmental, women's, minority and labor organizations.

I understand that the war has really polarized people, and the tendency is to think that anyone who voted for the IWR is doing it for nefarious purposes...and with the crowd in the White House I believe that too. But I truly believe that she thinks she did the right thing at the time, and was not supportive of the immediate rush to war that we saw.

[lfairban]

225. Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

You should give a link:

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

(Saddam Hussein) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

[SaveElmer]

227. Thanks...

You're right...just bookmarked it for the future!!!

[KnowerOfLogic]

323. It's called CYA. The vote is the only thing that matters. How naive

can some people be? She stuck her finger to the wind and made a (very bad) guess that the war would turn out to be successful, and therefore decided for political purposes to vote yes. At the same time, she issues a mealy mouthed, ass-covering statement containing all kinds of conditions and caveats that she can fall back on if things go sour. Honey, it's a political tactic that's as old as stuffing ballot boxes and bribing office-holders.

[SaveElmer]

334. You have evidence of this of course...

You talked to her, or someone who knows her to understand her motivations. Or did you divine it through mental powers.

You are implying that Hillary Clinton, in order to advance her own political agenda, was willing to condone the slaughter of 10's of thousands of people. Is that your assertion?

Do you believe the same of all Democrats that voted for the IWR? And did you vote for John Kerry in 2004?

[KnowerOfLogic]

354. Yes. No. And my evidence is that i have been let down a few times too many

by democrats, ever since the 2000 election. Sure, you can choose to believe what Hillary and other dems say about their Yes votes on IWR; i suppose it would be hard to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they made cold, calculated political decisions to support the war. But let's face it, these are smart people; they had to have known, or *should* have known what millions of other people knew about the bogus case being made for the war by the bush administration. And yes, i believe they made calculated political decisions to get people killed unnecessarily; however, i think that they probably didn't know the war would go this bad. That fact suggests that they really didn't do their homework before voting yes, and that is also inexcusable.

[Tactical Progressive]

205. Governing with principles?

WTF are you talking about? Did I just wake up and it's January? 2008?

Did I miss an entire election or did you?

You don't get elected and you won't be governing *with principles* or without them. You seem to be the one focused in the wrong direction.

[KnowerOfLogic]

324. First you have some principles, then you fight for them, *then* you get el

elected. Sorry, i'm not voting for someone on the hopes that *after* they get elected they will develop some principles and a backbone, and i suspect that a lot of other people won't either.

[long_green]

173. she was wrong, and I'm sure she'd admit it

she could be wrong here if any of the people she names in her column (starting w/HRC) would show some leadership. If that happened, she'd be thrilled to be wrong.

[SaveElmer]

177. Well I haven't seen her admit to making a mistake...

In voting for Nader...but perhaps she has and I haven't seen it. I disagree with you on Hillary's leadership qualities...but that is ok. I don't mind if Molly doesn't support Hillary, I just disagree with her that's all.

[LiberalAndProud]

127. Exactly!

LEAD OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!

[truebrit71]

129. MOLLY ABSOLUTELY NAILS IT!!!!

PAY ATTENTION ELECTED DEMS!!!

THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TLAKING ABOUT!!

[Zodiak]

134. OK...HERE is why people on DU think Clinton is a repub lite

She voted FOR the war
She voted FOR Negroponte
She voted FOR the bankruptcy bill
She voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill
She voted FOR the tax cuts that recently passed (you know...for the rich)
She voted FOR Condi as Secretary of State

People that do not like Hillary have reasons that go far beyond her stance on a flag burning amendment or her position on video games. I have made it my personal crusade to look these Senator's records up, so I do not want to hear any hoidy-toity accusations that I haven't looked her record up from establishment Democrats.

As I have been tracking votes, Hillary has gone from a 65% on my scale to a 60% in the last three moneths. In other words, she is becoming more "right-wing".

And please do not try to counter this with ADA ratings. ADA is good only for telling Repubs from Democrats, but it is piss-poor in comparing Democrats to each other. Besides, who cares about the vote of a senator on a little-known (and never passed) amendment when Bush is barrelling his agenda right in our faces. Until these archaic "scoring" systems get with the times and start scoring according to how our senators fight the Bush agenda, these ratings only serve to shore up support with Democrats who rightfully question these senator's intentions. The ADA may be a good organization, but they score senators like crap, in my opinion.

And if you don't believe me, then look up Feinstein's ADA ratings....she is ranked five points higher than Boxer. Tell me if that matches reality as we know it.

[jsamuel]

158. good points

[robbedvoter]

137. Uh, Molly, did she ask? Is she running? You just play in their hands

as you hype a theoretical race - which they wave as red meat to their contributors. I only know Hillary is running for Senate in NY. I may vote for a primary challenger if there is one.
But your column is helping THEM more than us.

[stevietheman]

143. BRAVO MOLLY!!! n/t

n/t

[BuyingThyme]

144. Cheers Molly!!

:toast:

[robcon]

149. I enthusiasticall support Hillary!

She will be our next president.

[jsamuel]

156. Cult of Pesonality

watch out for yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

[HootieMcBoob]

168. Still the idiots on the TV news shows and the other idiots

who run the Democratic Party will continue to blather away about Hillary being the front runner to become the nominee in '08. In the meantime those of us among the grassroots will continue to back people like Wes Clark and Russ Feingold until we're blue in the face. How many times do these two have to win straw polls on the blogs before the talking head jackasses begin to take notice and stop masturbating to the idea of a Hillary and Condoleeza race?

Oh, and Molly Ivins ROCKS!:yourock:

[NNadir]

170. If Hillary's the nominee, I guess Ivens supports Ralph Nader again.

I note that Ms. Ivens made a LOT of money by supporting Ralph Nader in 2000 under the banner "Bush is the same as Gore."

Although I don't support the nomination of Hillary Clinton, I don't give a rat's ass what Molly Ivens thinks either. Molly Ivens could have done a far better job in 2000 by not quibbling over Al Gore, who was one of the finest men ever to run for President while she supported the Repuke freak Ralph Nader. Ms. Ivens has NO credibility whatsoever with me. She clearly is lacking judgment.

[Tactical Progressive]

174. Thanks for pointing out how Molly Ivins

who helped get us into this mess, has no credibility on the politics of getting us out of this mess. It's her mess and she doesn't even realize that much.

[Bake]

180. How is it Molly's mess?

All she does is speak the truth. HRC *has* been an equivocator. She HAS tried to have it both ways. Some days she sounds like a real Dem (recent comments about the * misAdmin), but that's not quite enough for me.

Oh, I'll bet your talking about Molly's voting for Nader. Remember why? Because she was in TEXAS, which was going to go for * ANYWAY!

How often did we hear, right here on DU, "vote for Nader IF you're in a solid red state -- it'll get the attention of the Democratic Party and make them move to the left." Hell, losing elections, or allowing them to be stolen, hasn't gotten the attention of the party, so why should we think a single columnist will get the attention of the party?

But now all this is Molly's fault? What national policy has SHE instituted? What nation did SHE invade and occupy?

Bake

[Tactical Progressive]

186. OK, red state

that's fair enough. Solid red or blue. It wouldn't get her off the hook if she was spouting 'not a dimes worth of difference' in her syndicated columns, but I don't recall that, so a vote for Nader out of Texas is fine with me. I'll take that back.

But Hillary? Hillary is supposed to try to have it both ways. She's running for President! Do you understand anything about politics?

[NNadir]

217. So the claim is that Ms Ivens only speaks for Texas?

Ms. Ivens campaign for the Repuke paranoid nutcase Nader in 2000 was not limited merely to Texas. I was aware of it in New Jersey.

Ms. Ivens made her claim to fame on understanding who George W. Bush was. If that was the case and she still did not everything in her power to oppose him when he threatened not only Texas but the entire United States, she betrayed not just Texas, but her entire country.

I am sorry, but she lacks credibility.

[Beelzebud]

256. Had Gore carried his own home state we wouldn't be in this mess.

You can blame it on a 3rd party all you want, but at the end of the day, Gore didn't care is home state, and if he had, the results in Florida wouldn't have mattered!

[flpoljunkie]

218. Altho she voted for Nader IN TEXAS, she told others NOT TO VOTE FOR HIM

unless Bush was ahead by a mile in their state. It was Nader breaking his promise not to go to close states like Florida right before the election that made Florida close enough for Bush to steal.

Molly Ivins wanted to send the Democratic leadership a message--not an easy task. She is a national treasure.

[NNadir]

221. Whatever. She attacked Al Gore nonetheless.

She is morally culpable for what is happening today.

Al Gore would have been a very fine President if he were seated in the office to which he was elected. Damning with faint praise, especially given what has happened, was simply unconscionable.

I note that Ms. Ivens career might not have done as well had Gore been elected.

Basically she sucks.

[robbedvoter]

226. Bingo. She was part of the pack in 2000 when it all started.

Like Maureen Dowd and the rest of them. She played for thhe BFEE - unwittingly or not.
By attacking Hillary's candidacy (which is pure speculation at the present), she is being a tool again.

[stickdog]

247. Sure. Molly sucks and Hil's a Goddess.

Whatever floats your boat.

Molly floats mine.

[SaveElmer]

271. The second is correct...

;-)...but I still like Molly even when she is wrong!

[NNadir]

274. I didn't say that "Hil's a Goddess." I simply said Ivens sucks.

I wept the other night when watching Al Gore's speech, OK?

He should have served as President of the United States.

Ivens didn't get it. She has no judgement. She was more concerned with her Repuke propagandist buddy Ralph Nader. She sucks.

Al Gore does not suck.

[radio4progressives]

306. You think Molly "Sucks" ?

So you dislike her writings, you don't agree with her political perspectives on the issues?

mind you, i'm not asking about personalities that she's voted for or didn't vote for,

I'm asking do you disagree with her about the issues she writes about?

[NNadir]

341. I don't bother to read Molly Ivens. 2000 told me all I need to know about

her. The position in 2000 is a convenient shorthand for putting aside "thinkers." I read a tremendous amount and have, at best, only limited time to spend at it. Ivens would therefore be a waste of time.

What I now know of what she writes, just as I know of what Bill O'Reilly says, through Osmosis.

Basically I am not interested in those who make the perfect the enemy of the good, especially as we are living, as a result of this misguided search for perfection, in unmitigated evil.

For the record, I don't regard Ralph Nader as even being "good." He is a detestable fraud and represents the worst in American politics, Bushian in his nuttiness and doublespeak. That Ms. Ivens - after claiming to know all about George W. Bush - chose Mr. Nader - who had no chance whatsoever to keep Mr. Bush out of the White House, makes her, in my estimation, detestable as well.

[radio4progressives]

345. I see...

It's unfortunate to see Principles (of issue) simply disregarded as inconvenient at best (or worse, meaningless), in so far as you are concerned.

Fighting for Single Payer Health Care is not important to you, or you disagree with.

Clean Air and Clean Water, not important to you or you disagree with.
Accountability and transparency in Business and Open Government, not important to you, or you disagree with.

Fighting for the rights of the working class and Unions, not important to you, or you disagree with.

I can go on with this list, and i've omitted many many many important issues which Molly Ivins have written eloquently and passionately over the years, but apparently these matters are of little or no concern to you, or you disagree with them.

Well these are principles that so many have long struggled for, because though these are not important to you, they are very important to millions of other Americans, as evidenced by the polling.

Molly Ivins is on the list of true patriots in my book, and so is Ralph Nader for all his important work, as an advocate for citizens and consumers. You may not know about his life's work, considering that you just regarded him as "Republican".

Apparently, you are unaware that Republicans have been no friend to Ralph Nader during his entire career as a consumer advocate, indeed they did what you are engaging in now.

[NNadir]

349. This is complete nonsense in my book.

First of all the belief that in order to fight for anything listed in this incredible post, one must admire the fraud Ralph Nader, is simply ridiculous.

First off, the potential for Ralph Nader to effect any of these things is zero. Rather than support someone who had the political skill to negotiate important changes, he chose to elevate his entirely unjustifiable egotism above the practical interests of his country and his planet.

Secondly Ralph Nader's claims for his motives are very different from his actual behavior, just as George W. Bush's actions are very different from his words.

Third Ralph Nader appeals to ignorance. He is not qualified to speak on most of the shit on which he speaks, including NBA officiating, issues in energy, and public safety, even though he, and the credulous media that, being Republican, still advertises him as a consumer activist rather than failed third tier conservative politician.

Ralph Nader IS a Republican. His carreer has even included the creation of illegal sweatshop working conditions, and union busting through the application of corporate law. He is a fraud.

I cite as evidence for his moral fraudulence the fact that while a bloody war is going on the issue for which he currently has the most prominence is the contract dispute between fellow millionaire Terrell Owens and the Philadelphia Eagles.

Ralph Nader is one of the most prominent advocates of the Republican PROPGANDA that most of our modern difficulties can be traced to the "Evil Democratic Party." In his 2004 crusade for the Republicans he had almost no criticisms of his fellow Repukes but railed continuously against the Democrats.

I note that Mr. Nader's background is as a corporate lawyer. The concept that he stands in resistence to corporate hegemony is on its face ridiculous. It is tiresome, dull, niave and/or disingenous to see these absurd lists of "single payer medical insurance," "clean air blah, blah blah..." platitudes associated with the Ivens-Nader axis. The fact is that there is not one Naderite who has even the faintest fucking clue about how to get these things enacted. They stand in the comfortable position of being able to criticize everyone else because they will never be in the postion to do the difficult practical work of setting workable systems up. It is an intellectual and moral dodge that is and should be beneath contempt. In fact these people have gone out of their way to create conditions where everyone of these issues are getting worse, not better.

And now I will cite one of Ralphie Baby's fellow Republicans, albeit a historical Republican, Theodore Roosevelt:

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."


"Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/quotes.htm

I cannot think of a more accurate and cutting description of what the whole Nader crybaby routine represents. They are, in the end, the critics who don't count.

The one thing I notice consistently, and have noticed for my entire political life, is how very much self-identified "progressives" resist and impede progress. As is the case in the Bush administration, the Nader supported group that calls selling national forests to logging interests "healthy forests," the horror squad for which the Nader group propagandized claiming that Bush was as moderate as Gore, it is all doublespeak.

I am not interested in big (duplicitious and stupid) words. I am interested in ACTION. Nader, and his credulous supporters, weak thinkers all, impede ACTION.

[radio4progressives]

356. Speaking of Action, and Weak Thinkers..

This post is going to require considerable time to fact check every assertion you've made here. In my book, based on this responses, it's as if you and i live in entirely different universes, which you are likely to agree.

Peace is war, freedom is slavery, and so on.

To assert that progressives "impede" progress, requires a bit of backing up, particularly since the few who hold office in Congress are hardly impeding progress as evidenced by the enourmous work that the progressives in Congress have been doing behind the scenes and in the basements of Congress because they can't even get the party leadership to kick up enough dust and demand and end to recess and convene post haste on the urgent matters concerning the business of America, unlike Representive Conyers who has charged ahead to conduct these vital hearings. So much "Action" from the anti-progressives in the party.

Who is impedeing progress?

And before you leap in here to remind me that it is the Republicans who are in power, who calls the shots, and heads the committees and schedules the hearings and so - only the politically impaired, the weak thinkers, and inept would willingly bend over and oblige these fascists reichbot Drug Lords who rule the House in true machivelian fashion, with only a hint of whimper from our party leaders, now and then.

Talking about ACTION, where is the fucking ACTION, sir?

Indeed they should be storming the Castles, committing civil disobedience if need be! They are after all, the "elected" representatives after all, and Sir, we are in a fucking crises.

Do you not at least agree to that fact, or are we truly in a much diffeent universe?

[NNadir]

362. Whatever.

Your post is filled with slogans.

Saying the words, fascists (sic) reichbot Drug Lords" is not a program of providing for health care, it is not a program for justice, nor does saying these things produce clean air, clean water or peace. There is no possibility for "progress" in any of this, and history will come to bear on the question of whether the possibility for progress was irreversibly destroyed when Al Gore was denied the White House.

I really don't give a rat's ass about Molly Ivens. I think she is culpable for the climate of destruction that now pervades the United States, and I note that her history is the history of a hypocrite.

Nor do I give a rat's ass about the universe of Iven's-Nader apologists either. These people are indifferent thinkers, investors in the proposition that high sounding words are the same thing as positive actions. It is the universe of evanescent dreams of perfection, where perfection is self defined by some overtly imperfect and frankly, pixilated, individuals. That is a universe I hold in contempt, since I am fully aware of the crisis at hand.

The crisis at hand has been exacerbated beyond words by the bizarre agency of George W. Bush. Anyone who claimed to have understood who George W. Bush - and I am speaking of a semi-literate columnist in Texas in this case - and didn't do everything possible to arrest his acession is either a fraud or liar.

[Tactical Progressive]

229. I give Nader voters in solid blue and red states

plenty of not only leeway, but credit as well for voting far left where it could be heard without damaging the country.

No problem from me there on Molly's account if it is true that she wasn't advocating 'not a dimes worth of difference' across her column, and as I said before, I don't remember that and I probably would have. So that's fine.

But she really doesn't do us any good, nor did she make a compelling political case for abandoning Hillary. That's because there isn't one, at least not at this stage.

Molly's great for characterizing Republicans in that good ole' hometown way. But political strategy? Nuh-uh.

[flpoljunkie]

268. Dems' problem may well be paying too much attention to strategy, and not

enough to standing up for core Democratic party principles--standing up for American workers against the special interests, i,e., banks and credit card companies.

Molly is right. Democrats cannot win by being Republican lite anymore, but I am not at all sure our timid leadership has figured that out.

[Tactical Progressive]

289. Maybe

I tend to agree, especially about standing against the large-scale corrupt economic interests like CC and insurance companies.

At least you understand that there are both strategy and principles, and that they need to be balanced. That puts you worlds ahead of the centrist-Dem hater mentality.

[radio4progressives]

339. You misunderstand. You Don't "Balance" with Principles, you stick to them

You balance compromize with Strategy, Tactics, Method, but never compromize on PRINCIPLES.

[radio4progressives]

308. I agree, pay attention to Principles people, nevermind the strategies

:toast:

[madmunchie]

171. WHO HOO(?)!!!!!!! You go Molly

"and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief."


The great point of it all and E X A C T L Y why Hillary just won't do.

[kpete]

178. excellent!!!!

[Snivi Yllom]

181. yee haaawwwww nt

[Pastiche423]

200. Why am I not surprised at your enthusiasm about Molly?

Kudos to Molly!

[KnowerOfLogic]

182. Hear, hear. nt

[Bake]

183. Elmer and TP wish to put the burden of proof on us

You keep challenging everyone to mention specifics about HRC's voting record, as if the burden of proof is on us -- i.e., HRC is ENTITLED to our vote and support and if we don't then we're just stupid. Well, people did exactly that -- they mentioned issue after issue, and vote after vote.

Your silence in response was deafening.

The difference between the Big Dog and HRC is simple: while Bill did triangulate (hell, he was the MASTER of it), plain and simple, he was/is a LEADER. Hillary, so far, hasn't shown me a single shred of real leadership. Molly nailed it: politics as usual won't get it this time. What part of that don't you understand?

Bake

[lfairban]

188. Speaking of Twain

Bush, Cheney and Co. will continue to play the patriotic bully card just as long as you let them. I've said it before: War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that dachshunds were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds. The MINUTE someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means. That, or you could just piss on them elegantly, as Rep. John Murtha did. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark Twain on the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless "string of bad news."

I looked up Twain on Google:
The War Prayer, by Mark Twain

[Tactical Progressive]

193. Oh boo-hoo. It's a parade of crybabies

I set this out at general response so that no individual would have to pull a tantrum at having their feelings hurt by my characterizing much if not most of the anti-Hillary sentiment on this board as childish.

"Hitlery" haters stomp their feet and accuse her of everything from being a Republican to killing people to advance herself.

Then when someone calls it for the childishness that it is the Hillary haters get all indignant about not being treated with respect. Sorry, but you don't deserve respect. You give respect you get respect. We don't start these threads, you do. We don't pour bile into our charactizations, you do. Over and over again. Your hurt feelings here sound like nothing so much as a Republican who spews their venom out of every orifice, then when called on it instantaneously becomes the victim of meanness.

If you want to parade your "Hitlery" hatred around and threaten the party every chance you get with another back-stabbing like in 2000 that led us here, then expect to get hit back. If you don't like it, then don't start it. Let's don't pretend that anybody but you started this, like you do every day in as many threads as you can. Expect more people to respond to you as we progress into an election season, and expect your fragile little feelings to get hurt more and more as your disingenuous, dishonest slams against candidates you don't like get met with more and more seriousness.

Don't like being called 'childish' - then don't call people "Hitlery" and don't accuse Demcrats of killing people in a sociopathic plan to advance themselves. Otherwise "childish" is about the nicest thing you're going to be met with.

[rman]

201. "stomp their feet" LOL - you sure have a lot of imagination.

I suppose that's because you're the only one here who's mature.

[rman]

203. "stomp their feet" LOL - you sure have a lot of imagination.

I suppose that's because you're the only one here who's mature.

[jsamuel]

209. You can't defend Hillary, so you attack those who don't like her?

People are "childish" about Bush on this board too. I don't see you criticising those people. But when someone criticises Hillary in a "childish" manor, you go apeshit.

I haven't attacked Hillary in a "childish" manor, but have many good reasons to NOT support her.

Vote for "anyone but Hillary" in the primaries if we have to.

[Tactical Progressive]

243. Well, I don't like seeing Hillary being

treated like Bush. Neither should you. Is that so hard to understand?

If someone wants to treat Hillary like Bush they should expect a DU'er to hit them back. So far nobody is doing that, notwithstanding gentle rebukes of childishness, which are apparently already too harsh for them to handle without whining about it.

[rman]

327. says the fringe center

[lfairban]

210. Several Questions come to mind about Hillary's support of the war:

Did she vote to authorize military force in Iraq because:

1. Because she wanted us to invade Iraq whether or not there were WMDs.

2. Because it was politically expedient.

3. Because she thought the Bush administration would honestly uphold the inspection prerequisites in the resolution and use force only as a last resort when it had become obviously necessary.

I can't think of any other reasons why she might have voted for the resolution. I would hope that it would not be the first reason, as that would make he a fascist. If it was the second, she would be an opportunist unable to do the right thing when most necessary. If it was the third, then she would be a fool.

So, in conclusion, I ask your opinion. Why did Hillary vote for the Iraq resolution?

[SaveElmer]

232. Here is her floor speech on the issue...take a look

ANd let us know what you think!

Here is a snippet


Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

....



http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[lfairban]

281. I read that part.

I also read this part:

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

Now, who was president in 1998? Yes, the policy of regime change in Iraq was initiated by Bill Clinton. I don't see anything that indicated that she thought we should have changed it back to respecting Iraq's national sovereignty. How were they planning on effecting this policy? Covert action? Supporting dissidents? Wishing and hoping that it would come true? Or military action?

It looks to me like reason number 1. may be closer to the truth than any of us would like to admit.


Then there is this part:

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Wow! I think we may have a winner! The words of her speech support most directly reason number 3. You know what that means. Now, why was it you wanted us to vote for her?

[SaveElmer]

285. Her words indicate a support for non-military means...

Of removing Saddam Hussein...hardly a controversial opinion.


Your second point only works if you ignore some of the words in the statement you quoted:

"President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."

I can also point to this:

"Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. "


I opposed getting into this war in the first place...and I think the trust placed in Bush by Hillary and others was misplaced. I accept that criticism of her. What I reject is the characterization of her by many...with many examples in this thread...of her as some kind of war-monger out to attack Iraq to help herself politically. Her comments throughout this statement clearly show her desire was to avoid war, and if war..as the last resort became necessary, it would need to be done with real international cooperation.

[lfairban]

294. Let me say this about that

Maybe they thought she was a war-monger out to attack Iraq because she said:

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

In the speech, Hillary makes it clear that she still supports regime change even if SH is no longer a threat. Why?

Hillary, like Bill and to some extent Al, are enormously preferable to Bush or anyone the Rep. are likely to send after him. They are not what we, as progressives want. We will support them if we are forced to settle for them.

[SaveElmer]

298. I believe you (and they) are misreading that statement...

At this time, that Saddam had or was acquiring WMD's was widely believed. Hell I believed it, though I still opposed going in. Her point was that if war did become necessary, an international response was required...not the type of war Bush eventually led us in to.

Though of course there was debate on this point, it was not an unreasonable position to have at that time.

[lfairban]

300. They could have taken the position Roosevelt took.

That we are a pacifist nation and we are not going to attack first. Roosevelt knew we were going to be attacked, or thought it highly likely. He no doubt thought it would be in the Philippians.

Sometimes the middle road is safest, sometimes it is the worst of both worlds.

Politicians are like tea, the luke warm variety does not provide a pleasant experience.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

254. Only one poster on this thread has used the term "Hitlery", and it's not

the OP who you are replying to.

[MoonRiver]

207. GO MOLLY GO!!

You speak the truth, and nothing but the truth! :yourock:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

211. Molly speaks for me!

[mzmolly]

213. I agree with Molly. Unless Hilary wins the nomination - then she's

got my vote/support.

[Swamp Rat]

224. Yaay Molly!!!

:bounce:

[MODemocrat]

230. Molly Ivins voted for Ralph Nadar, I wouldn't vote for her

She's supposed to be a liberal of some kind. Surely, she would rather support someone who would garner more than three to four percent of the popular vote. Democrats eat their own.
I've been reading her book "Shrub", and it doesn't sound as if she likes Bush too well. But it's obvious she did help him when she voted for Nader. :think: :boring:

[SaveElmer]

231. Well her vote didn't help him really...she's from TX...but

Her advocacy of Nader in her column which is published nationwide may have. She was wrong in that case. Not sure what she has ahd to say about that decision since. She is still Molly though, and I will continue to read he columns. Everyone is wrong once in a while !!!

[EFerrari]

261. Psssssssssssst, MoDemocrat. Gore won.

Nader has nothing to do with this. And no matter how many votes he earned, Gore won.

You can be proud of that.

Molly is supposed to be a liberal of some kind?

lol

[MODemocrat]

350. Sfexpat2000, thanks for reminding me

..."Molly is supposed to be a liberal of some kind?" is strange, and I tried to correct my errror and made it worse, oh well, what can you expect from some old coot like myself? I try very hard, and that's the best I can do. I'm hardly in my youth at 73 years of age. It's not cool to make fun of your elders. :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush:

[EFerrari]

352. I humbly apologize.

:)

[MODemocrat]

364. Thanks sfexpat2000 apology accepted

I love this board too much to offend anyone; it saves the day for me so many times, especially right after the Fox news etc, has been on, when I can come here to hear the truth. Sometimes the news just makes me feel so hopeless, and yet, I know most of it is just a lot of spin; and a coverup for Bush.

:thumbsup: DU

[Martin Eden]

250. WOW ... just ... WOW

Molly has really got her dander up, and she has ...

SOUNDED THE CALL TO ARMS !!!

I've never been more proud of her, or agreed more wholeheartedly.

[mike_c]

253. Molly Ivans '08-- I'm ABH-- Anyone But Hillary...

eom

[CrackpotAmerica]

257. CrackpotAmerica Not Backing Hillary!

:)

Sorry, Hillary fans.. Still love you though!

[tabasco]

260. Well said, Molly !

We need politicians with the courage of their convictions!

NOT sellouts like HRC.

[timtom]

280. Nathan Hale

Not. Backing. Hillary.

Truth to tell, I'm a Kucinich kinda guy. Anything short of DK's no bullshit stance on illegal invasions fails. Any "stay the course," "finish the job," "withdrawal plan" bullshit -- fails!

Exit strategy # 27: "The Vietnam Solution" -- get the hell on those helicopters and get the hell out of Iraq. Period.

And don't EVEN start with that shit about Iran.

God Almighty!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

282. After reading this tread I know one thing

The 2008 primaries are going to to be painful around this place.

It's good to see so many thoughtful people wishing to see Hillary stay in the Senate and not venture into areas where she can do more harm than good.

[AuntiBush]

284. Gore

I can't back Hillary. It's a sure lose for Dems.

Gore/Fill-in the blank

Edwards...
Clark...
Whatever, but not Hillary.

[Nothing Without Hope]

287. I totally agree about Hillary Clinton, a side-of-the-mouth-talking POL

The GOPs seem to want her as the Dem presidential candidate. I've seen so many corporate media articles that imply or state outright that the Dem Presidential candidacy is hers to lose. McCain vs Clinton, it's all set, you see. I do suspect that McCain will be the GOP candidate; the media campaign to portray him as the wise, masterful Mr. Clean has already been going for months in preparation.

But Hillary?

We cannot allow the DLC to saddle us with this woman. It would be a total disaster. I do not trust her at all and believe that whatever integrity she may have takes an insignificant backseat to her ambitions and habits of backroom politics as usual. As a separate issue, I also believe that the Bushies have a dossier of some great Clinton scandal material stored away and ready to go in either defeating her or controlling her by blackmail. All that NSA spying and years of Bushies in charge of the FBI - you KNOW they have dossiers. (I also wonder what they have on Joementum.)

As a proud native Texan, I am glad to see Molly show what a REAL Texan is like. And yes, both she and I see Bush's Texas Mafia as very untypical. Here she is on Tom DeLay:

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=18735

Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate
03.17.05

The stench of rotting ethics

Only Tom DeLay's removal can freshen our nation's capitol

AUSTIN, Texas -- The John Wesley Hardin Died for You Society has a theme song that goes: "He wasn't really bad. He was just a victim of his times." I sometimes find this useful in trying to explain Texas political ethics to outsiders.

My theory is that few Texas pols are actual crooks, they just have an overdeveloped sense of the extenuating circumstance. Woodrow Wilson Bean once warned himself that he was skatin' close to the thin edge of ethics. After a moment, he concluded, "Woodrow Wilson Bean, ethics is for young lawyers."

(snip)

I grant you a certain resemblance to some of our more notorious standards: "Everybody does it" and "They did it first" are actually considered excuses here. But I categorically reject cultural responsibility for Tom DeLay. Real Texas politicians are neither hypocritical nor sanctimonious. A pol does what he must -- fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly -- but no pol of the Old School, when DeLay served in the Lege, would add self-righteousness to shady dealing.

(snip)

Another quality that makes DeLay an un-Texas pol is that he's mean. By and large, Texas pols are an agreeable set of less-than-perfect humans and quite often well-intentioned. As Carl Parker of Port Arthur used to observe, if you took all the fools out of the Lege, it would not be a representative body any longer. The old sense of collegiality was strong, and vindictive behavior -- punishing pols for partisan reasons -- was simply not done. But those are Tom DeLay's specialties, his trademarks. The Hammer is not only genuinely feared in Washington, he is, I'm sorry to say, hated.

(snip - much more at link)

[Nothing Without Hope]

288. ***A 2nd PERMALINK for the article in case the CNN one ever evaporates:

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=20250

In my experience, the posted articles at Working For Change remain available long-term, and it's a great site to support anyway. They've carried Molly Ivins for a long time, and it's a credit to both her and them that they have done so.

[leesa]

292. Me. Either.

[Nothing Without Hope]

293. ***DLC has named Hillary Clinton to lead Dem agendas for 2006-8:

If we don't speak up loudly and fight vigorously, we are going to have Hillary Clinton shoved down our throats by the DLC. And Molly Ivins is dead-on right about her.

Here's an excerpt I posted around here some months ago, and it bears repeating and remembering:

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Looks like the DLC is going to try to force Hillary down our throats, why else would they hand her this position? :( The GOP are doubtless delighted, as she's the candidate they most want a chance to defeat, and Hillary is unlikely to come up with platforms that truly threaten them. IMO, this move signals that the DLC still intends to push the policies of the past and appease the GOP rather than going to the public with the truth and aggressively moving FORWARD. And we're supposed to fall all over ourselves with joy.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-dlc26jul26,1,7724361.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
July 26, 2005 latimes.com - THE NATION

Clinton's New Job: Defining the Center

Party moderates pick the New York senator to draft a plan to craft the Democrats' agenda.

By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of influential party moderates, on Monday named Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to direct a new initiative to define a party agenda for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

The appointment solidified the identification of Clinton — once considered a champion of the party's left — with the centrist movement that helped propel her husband to the White House in 1992. It also continued her effort, which has accelerated in recent months, to present herself as a moderate on issues such as national security, immigration and abortion.

In her speech at the group's annual summer meeting, Clinton signaled a desire to retain her independence from any party faction. She called for a truce between the DLC and liberal elements of the party, which have engaged in a ferocious war of words over the Democrats' direction since President Bush won reelection last year.

"Now, I know the DLC has taken some shots from some within our party, and that it has returned fire too," she told the gathering in Columbus. "Well, I think it's high time for a cease-fire — time for all Democrats to work together based on the fundamental values we all share."

(snip)

[lfairban]

299. Let me C . . .

Is, draft a plan to craft the agenda, anything like endeavor to persevere?

[radio4progressives]

335. It's the 'shut up and fall in line' edict that really gets my crawl

"Now, I know the DLC has taken some shots from some within our party, and that it has returned fire too," she told the gathering in Columbus. "Well, I think it's high time for a cease-fire — time for all Democrats to work together based on the fundamental values we all share."

ok.. this is the opening salvo from the dlc and HRC -

I don't think so Hillary, not this time. Been there, done that.

[Nothing Without Hope]

353. Yes, I too see it as a kind of threat: "we will not win unless we do it

the DLC way"...again. "Compromise" means exactly that: they will give lip service to the issues we consider so vitally important, but unless forced to it by expectation of being kicked out of office, they will never take action. It's all politics as usual for them. Promise whatever is necessary to sway the stupid sheeple, then do what the hell you want.

As you say, not this time, Hillary.

[Spiffarino]

295. Molly cuts to the quick. The "moderates" better look out.

No more voting for equivocating Democrats. I want candidates that will take a stand and call out the thieving, lying bastards. It's long past time to clean house. The Clinton years were abundant, prosperous and helped everybody economically. They also spoiled pretty much everything the Democratic Party had spent 60 years achieving.

The Corporatocracy became supreme and today we reap the whirlwind.

Triangulation and calculation be damned. Principle will get my vote.

[KeepItReal]

296. Dare I say it? Molly Ivans is KEEPIN IT REAL! Thank you!

I had to clown my best friend about Hillary just yesterday.

I don't know what her problem is, but she is like the football team with a 6 point lead playing "prevent defense" and trying to run out the clock when the opponent has the ball and is marching down the field trying to score. Like they say, all the "prevent defense" does is prevent *you* from winning the game.

Wake up Sen. Clinton.

[XOKCowboy]

302. She's usually right and once again I agree

We don't need a moderate or middle of the road candidate. We had one of those. We need someone that shows the US voters that there is a real choice. Someone with convictions and who will fight back when attacked. A candidate that condemns this illegal and immoral war.

I don't think Hillary is that person.

[paineinthearse]

303. 93rd vote

I've never seen a post break 100!!!!

[radio4progressives]

309. wow! that is hot... . n/t

[paineinthearse]

347. 112 greatest votes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:bounce:

[radio4progressives]

305. Go Molly!

Shit man, maybe we should put Molly up for president !

[Kurovski]

307. Best Molly column ever.

She touches on a number of points, one by implication being that some Dems are chiefly there to serve small, wealthy special interests while they tell the majority of Americans to go soak our heads.

We have to (together) finance elections the way Enron and Oil interests, etc, have.

Howard Dean knows the way.

Thanks to Miss Molly for a fiery, balls-out column!

[lies and propaganda]

313. Molly and Ann Ricahrds...

an all female, Texan ticket i would adore backing.

[flpoljunkie]

314. Kick!

[Neshanic]

315. Shes' obviously a freeper, as are all of us that get called that here

when you get pissed at Reid's apologies, The DLC acrobatics, the mound of Jello our leaders seem to hop from one to another when it helps them.

Yup, she's a Freeper. She better not post here. She will get Freepboated.

[SaveElmer]

317. She's not a freeper...she's just wrong...

Just as she was when she endorsed ralph Nader...even the best go wayward sometimes.

[flpoljunkie]

316. Molly gets it! "If Democrats in Washington haven't got enough sense to OWN

the issue of political reform, I give up on them entirely."

Listen to Molly, Democratic leadership. Take the lead and actually try to clean up the "culture of corruption" that you so often decry these days. This is a golden opportunity to do what is right for the American people. Do you really want to just pretend to reform the system? That's the Republicans' game plan.

[iconoclastNYC]

321. 104 votes! Wow DU really loves Hillary.

[norml]

326. I just added vote #110.

Thanks Molly!

[acmavm]

332. Who do you think Nebraska dems would go for? I don't think

they'd give Hillary the time of day. I know I wouldn't.

What do you think?

[norml]

351. One: Hillary isn't and never has ran for the Presidency.

Two: My threads on the propaganda mileage the right wing media whores get out of saying she's running are many.

With it they paint her as power mad and detract from her accomplishments.

Three: Nebraska Democrats will add their votes to the popular vote for the Democratic Presidential Candidate whoever they are, however I wouldn't expect much enthusiasm for some phony candidate selected by the right wing media for their propaganda value, in which case I would expect some Ne. Dems throwing away their addition to the popular vote by going third party, the bastards!

Four: Have you heard my show on KZUM?

[acmavm]

365. KZUM? Where is that on the dial (so to speak)? When?

No, I haven't but I am intrigued.

[norml]

366. Here's the info and a link from another thread.

Put me in coach, I'm ready to play. (I already do on KZUM)

I do a great (if I do say so myself) one hour show, two am to three am, Friday morning.

I know how to make the case for public services protections benefits and rights.

I know how to make the case against the evil movement that calls itself conservative.

I've been on the air since August.

My show can be listened to online.

I'd be happy to host or co-host.

Please hire me.

http://www.kzum.org/

[acmavm]

368. Can't hook up to the station from the website. Says "invalid URL link

something something something". But at least now I know it's Lincoln.

[LincolnMcGrath]

330. K & R#111

[Fiendish Thingy]

338. making copies and enclosing in every Dem fundraiser I get in the mail

along with a copy of Crisis Paper's "Dear Howard- Why Bother?" article on electoral fraud- this is instead of a check. Instead I write a little note pledging to send $100 if the following actions occur:

1) Dems filibuster Alito
2) Dems, specifically Howard Dean and minority leaders (and those individual candidates who have sent me fundraisers) state unequivocally that a) the 2004 election was stolen, b) Bush should be impeached.

I'm not holding my breath, but will make good on my pledge; not just one pledge of $100, but a donation to each fundraiser I have received- DNC, DCCC, DSC, etc.

[radio4progressives]

359. Great idea...

this kind of action might get their attention... :shrug:

[AgadorSparticus]

344. well, miss molly is certainly not alone in her sentiments!!! GO MOLLY!

great article! Thanks for posting it.

[Heewack]

346. Nice rhetoric, but obviously clueless

The day Molly actually wins an election of her own maybe I'll consider her strategy.

What she wrote in this article though is nothing more than grandstanding. I always thought she was a little smarter than this.

[reprehensor]

355. Ivins/Hightower '08 - n/t

[kid a]

357. WOW . . . Go Molly . I agree

[Quixote1818]

360. I LOVE the last two pharagraphs

Bush, Cheney and Co. will continue to play the patriotic bully card just as long as you let them. I've said it before: War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that dachshunds were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds. The MINUTE someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means. That, or you could just piss on them elegantly, as Rep. John Murtha did. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark Twain on the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless "string of bad news."

Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can.


:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :applause: :applause: :applause: :woohoo: :woohoo: :applause: :applause: :toast: :toast: :toast: :woohoo: :woohoo: :applause: :applause: :woohoo:

[MN ChimpH8R]

361. Read Molly's entire opinion piece

She summarizes perfectly my reasons for avoiding HC. I had long distrusted her, but when she came out with her knickers all atwist about video games and flag-burning (wow, there's an out of control problem :sarcasm: ) she lost ANY credibility she might have had with me.

To waste one second worrying about such idiocy is spending time rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic. There are real problems, Hil - an illegal and immoral war killing thousands of Iraqis and Americans for no good reason, a tin-pot dictator who thinks he is above the law, the erosion of civil rights and liberties, the destruction of the environment, lunatics being nominated to federal courts all over the US, lack of health care, and the systemic destruction of this country's middle class. All of those are ONE HELL OF A LOT MORE IMPORTANT than flag burning or video games. Cat got your tongue about all THOSE issues, Hillary? Apparently so.

Stay in NY and keep the hell out of the presidential primaries.

Molly is as right as right can be. Now she's a woman who tells it like it is.

[XOKCowboy]

369. READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE!

Sorry just wanted to amplify what you said. Molly hit the nail right on the head. We need leadership not capitulation. A leader and not a politician. We don't need vacilation we need someone who will tackle the issues head on. Someone the public can trust. I'm sorry but Hillary just isn't that person.

[Skidmore]

363. Yes!

Molly, you are a goddess.

[nolabels]

367. Yea, enough strangulation already

All joking aside many here at DU are at least a light year ahead of any Hilary contemplations. It's nice to see it in print none the less.

[Wapsie B]

371. Way to go Molly!

Give me a REAL OPPOSITION PARTY. Give me a Dem who did not vote for Iraq. Give me a Dem who wants to drag the party kicking and screaming back to the LEFT where it belongs. Give me a Dem who'll look repugs in the eye and say kiss my ass.