I'm Noticing A Lot of Anti-Hillary Sentiment Here On DU. I Hope...

if she wins the Dem Nomination in '08 that all at DU will rally around her and support her. If we become splintered we will play into the Repug's hands.

Any Comments?

:popcorn:

:popcorn: (Could you pass the salt please?)

Have a beer instead.
:beer:

:crazy:

Oh the agony of this debate.....

guy does! :beer: :popcorn:

:)

It's got lots of salt in it, but it's really, really good.:)

Also, I've got some flavoring powder...Cajun if anyone's interested!

:popcorn:

expect people to stand behind you. She's got an awfully big hole to dig herself out of.

she is walking, talking and acting like someone from the DLC.

;)

but not before casting my vote for Nader.

and give us another 4 years of Republican ruination?!?

between Nader and two STOLEN elections? Nader didn't steal them!

:silly:

You gotta cheat AROUND THE MARGINS of error. If GOP is 'polling' (and that is a separate issue, right there) at 48 percent, Dem is at 48 percent, and the third party clown is at four percent, and the margin is plus or minus three, all you have to do is plus up the GOP, minus the DEM, and shove any additional DEM votes that need to get lost over on the third party guy. They can bump that third party guy up well over his actual numbers and deprive the Democrats of those votes without anyone even noticing.

And anyone who doesn't think the entire Nader farce was a GOP show is smoking CRACK. Look at his biggest campaign contributors....they weren't the Birkenstock crowd, they were the COUNTRY CLUB crowd...laughing like hell through the whole process.

But hey, it is a free country, and people have every right to shoot themselves in the foot. I just wish the bullet didn't end up going through MY foot as well....

As the GOP lite platform.

The Democrats can do much better, like John Edwards and Governor Warren.

If you're ok with supporting that then go ahead and vote for her. I have liberal street cred you know, and as the founder and President of The Nader Boyz motorcycle gang, I have to say that a vote for Hillary is as good as a vote for Bush. They're pretty much the same thing. She's owned by the DLC and big bidness. She clubs young children with baseball bats. Her Iraq war vote makes her a killer and I could never vote for a killer. Plus, she's friends with John McCain and Lindsey Graham. She's a DINO. Frickin' D-I-N-O. So go ahead and vote for her, be a traitor.

Oh btw, I'm gonna vote for her if she gets the nomination. :)

if she's the nominee. The worst Democrat is better than any Republican.
I'm not quite sold on whether she can win the general election and I'm not sure who to support in the primaries, but I would support any Democrat wholeheartedly against McCain or any other Repug.

she'd have a lot of work to do to get my vote, however whomever gets the nomination, be it Hillary or someone else will get my vote. I was proud to vote for Kucinich in the primaries and Kerry in the GE last year and I'll be proud to do something similar again in '08. Our GE candidate isn't going to be perfect, but whoever it is will still be pretty damn good, a lot better than who the other side will be offering that's for sure.

I'd take Olympia Snow over Zell Miller ANY FREEKIN' DAY OF THE WEEK.

You HAVE to be more discriminating, folks...

Zell is not even a Dem in my book. Besides, I was meaning any Dem running for president.

I'd take McCain over Leiberman...

I cast my last vote for someone I don't support in 2004 to save SCOTUS. This is the last time.

Just checking...

I think hillary is back on the right track now she would get my vote.

in the primaries

but you'll not find a stronger supporter for the Dem ticket

I have actually heard the Devil has some good things to say though. He's big on the environment you know. :)

By the way, elsewhere you'll find a thread pointing out that she went to Kentucky and raised $600,000 for the Democratic party there (which had been hoping she could help them raise $250,000)...clearly she has the total destruction of the Democrats in mind </sarcasm>....

seems right up your alley, humor-wise. :)

I don't subscribe to the Left's version of "Hillary is the Devil." I find her pretty frustrating a lot of the time and would much prefer another candidate get the nomination, but she's a helluva woman, regardless. She does a lot of good for our party too, just like you just mentioned. She's not perfect by any means, but I like her. Don't plan on voting for her in the primaries, but she's still one of the good ones in my book.

being a friend of John McCain isn't a bad quality. Many liberals in congress see him as one of the few ways to get anything done. John McCain is a Republican that I simply 'disagree' with, not hate.

Since Dennis K (the only real anti-war candidate)
did not get the nod, I have to believe you
stayed home instead of pulling the lever for Kerry?

Or is it just a selective dislike of Hillary at work here?

did not get the nomination. I thought going in that he was not the right candidate ... but I was the first among my Dean friends in WA to support him. I spoke for him at DFA rally after it was obvious that he was going to be our guy. I supported him strongly
Unless Clinton gets off of her pro war stance - yes, I said :pro war"- then I will work even harder against her getting the nomination.

That is my right and duty as a democrat!

No, I will not support her.

of your warring ways" or we can stop you being prez right here in our caucuses.

All the DLC talk doesn't impact my thinking in her regard. I think she would sink many nominees of the party at many levels, and drag them down in defeat. She would lose terribly, and it would cripple the party.

We must run strong in all races, and she won't help that.

We need a consensus candidate. How does Gore sound?

He's like a changed man. It was great.

:)

anyone the pukes could run -- including mccain the hypocrite!

Something like Gore-Clark -- IT WOULD KILL!!!!!

Gore might be everyone's second choice, which may make him everyone's first choice. I think he'll run stronger than either Hillary or Kerry, and those are the frontrunners now.

why don't we support who we like and agree with, rather than look for who is electable?

I think "electable" really means non-electable.

As a true liberal, I never voted for Clinton, and the world didn't end. (I did vote for Kerry and Gore, fyi). I won't vote for Clinton's wife.

No one is stopping you from either running for president or backing whichever candidate you like. I don't like Hillary, but if the PARTY selects her - that's all of US - then I'm in for 2008.

Those who follow their own higher calling, like they did in 2000, can do likewise in 2008, but when the fascists start beating you to pulp at WTO conferences, don't come crying to the Democrats to save you.

And if we do not present a real alternative to the Republicans, we will continue to lose elections. Trying to out-Republican the Republicans has not worked and will not start working any time soon.

So support Hillary because she is "electable," and I predict we will have a repeat of 2004.

BTW, I hope you realize that all Gore needed to do was win his own state to take the 2000 election. Blame game Nader supporters all you want, but Gore never even tried to get their votes. He wrote them off, and they were entitled to vote their conscience.

Oh, and the shenanigans in Florida also had nothing to do with Gore's loss, right?

And I don't think that the Democratic party will ever show up to save people from beatings in the streets. That is not really the job of a political party.

But if they did, I doubt they would ask for proof of who you voted for before they came to your aid. I venture to say that most Democrats are more accepting of their fellow man than you are. That's what makes them Democrats.

But sure, win people over by threatening to leave them bleeding somewhere just because they don't vote for your preferred candidate. A totally effective strategy. OMG, I'm won over even now!

I think it's a little early to start with the lectures. Sigh...It's going to be a long 3 years.

"lectures"!

OT, but that's our Harry with all the teeth and hair?!! :D

... and should not over reach for the sake of the Dems nationally - no matter how worthy works and statements, she is a LOSER for us in '08 even if her money and ads garner her the primaries.

The repubs and the press are salivating over her on the ticket --- with good reason. All the Hillary Hatred Will overwhelm the airwaves and doom us regardless of their motives and merit. No amount of money in her warchest will change that.

I will NOT vote for her in the primaries, and just may ilimit my vote in '08 to senate, house, etc.

I firmly believe that being a Democrat is something that is about actual tangible principles, not titles or the colors or family. Hillary went against these principles when she backed the war and staying the course with the democratic majority was against it. Therefore she is not a Democrat. Being inclusive to her or backing her is useless unless she backs our principles, just like its useless for a company to try to get bigger by calling people who don't work for it its employees, or for a peace movement to try to grow by counting active mercenaries as its members.

The party belongs to all of us.

If you don't want to vote for her, say so. If you think she betrayed the principles you hold dear, say so. But stop with the nonsense that she's not a Democrat. You're one person in the party, and from your post, you don't sound like you're all that committed to the party. If you were, you'd vote the ticket.

I can't stand her, but if she gets the nomination, she gets my vote. If she gets the nomination, she IS the Democratic party for 2008.

Going for whoever is on the ticket is in with a spirit of compromise that has created problem after problem, and I think a lot of other democrats are ready for a change. Are we committed to the party? Yes, in meaning rather than name. If a "democrat" has republican causes we will not support her.
Its like being committed to merlot. if they start selling kool-aid in bottles marked 'merlot' we will stop drinking it, though not because we are uncommitted to merlot!

You guys are always going to stay at home or vote third party if you don't get your way.

She's a Democrat. Deal with it.

Some people pout out loud that they're not going to support actual Democrats..and then seem outraged and astonished that actual Democrats don't give much weight to what they say.

This experience with Bush and a Republican majority in both houses of Congress is the nightmare we imagined it would be. It's here, and it's bad. The Patriot Act, bought journalism, high crimes, social deconstruction - we're fighting for the soul of the country here, and it's not Hillary that threatens it.

I don't back the party because it's perfect. I back it because it's the ONLY alternative to fascist, rightwing rule that would trample American rights.

No party is perfect.

I don't back the party because it's perfect. I back it because it's the ONLY alternative to fascist, rightwing rule that would trample American rights.

Sure, that makes sense. But where is the alternative coming from Hillary in practice? Backing the Iraq war, backing the patriot act, etc. She isn't doing a lot fighting the things you bemoan from the Bush administration. We need people that are going to make a strong stand, and strong stands are not something we've seen from Hillary.

All I'm saying is that people are doing what's in their power to make sure Hillary doesn't get on the ticket. If she does, yes I will vote for her...It wouldn't be hard to get somebody better than Bush by picking random people on the street. But we can and should do better.

Those have been my exact words for the past 5 hideous years, Neil.

If we keep chewing on fellow Dems for insufficient ideological purity all we're going to get out of it is to be pushed ever further to the fringes ourselves. "Don't let the perfect drive out the good" -- can't remember who said that, but it works in the real world.

Liberals have certain basic principles -- "values" as the conservatives like to call them. The party is in the process of re-framing what those values are so we can communicate them better, and we should be part of that process.

Hillary Clinton is not what's wrong with the Democratic Party. She has a job to do as Senator from New York state, and I hope she keeps doing it for decades to come, because it sounds like her constituents think she's performing it well.

I don't fret over her qualifications for President for the same reason I never bothered to fret over Ted Kennedy's 30 years ago -- it ain't gonna happen. It doesn't matter how qualified she is (and she is certainly head and shoulders above the current occupant of the WH) Hillary Clinton is such a lightning rod for all the nastiness of the wingnuts that imho she is unelectable.

It's not even her fault. She was singled out by Limbaugh, Gingrich, and every other RW slimeball in creation, for being President Bill Clinton's wife and for having the nerveless gall to attempt to use her abundant talents and intelligence to work on national health care legislation. Before she became First Lady, Hillary Clinton was one of the foremost family-law attorneys in the country in the area of children's rights.

DUers pick on Laura Bush for her taste in pantsuits -- the RW slimed Hillary for having the brains, talent, and guts to be someone other than Bill's little wifey. I always figured that it said something positive about Bill that he chose a woman of Hillary's caliber to be his life's partner.

She still does, but those on the left who disagree with some of her decisions bitterly denounce her in terms that would do the right wing proud.

Way to go, guys.

Hekate

just vote for the democrat, then everything will change. Well during the last Clinton administration we managed to lose everything via triangulation, and voters no longer understand the difference between democrats and repubs. Can't wait to see how we'd thrive under a Clinton part deux. Oh right....all the materialists will be screaming how rich they've gotten.

Any Democrat no matter how rightwing is a strategy that only moves the political "center" further and further to the right.

A strategy in which I will not participate.

Hillary Clinton is the last person who should be considered for the nomination. Although I respect her in many ways, she is NOT the one to carry the democratic banner.

If the party continues to push her, she will have neither my support or money. She may have big money in her pocket but that won't give her the vote.

She needs to face the facts that the conservatives hate her with a histrionic rage while democrats think she is only a Bush lite.

I don't think she will get the nomination because she is too despised in the party. She has completely turned off the left of the party, and the true right of the party will never accept her.

histrionic...coincidentally, I was just reading about histrionic personality earlier tonight, but I had to look it up in this context to make sure I knew what it meant.

Main Entry: his·tri·on·ic
Pronunciation: "his-trE-'ä-nik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin histrionicus, from Latin histrion-, histrio actor
1 : deliberately affected : THEATRICAL
2 : of or relating to actors, acting, or the theater
synonym see DRAMATIC
- his·tri·on·i·cal·ly /-ni-k(&-)lE/ adverb

wow...thinking about republican comments on hillary now...I think you're right!

A very significant portion of the rank and file are strongly anti-war and cannot see any light between her lips and Bushes tail on this issue. We will lose a large enough voting bloc that democratic solutions to problem solving will be dead in the US.

The democratic wing of the Democratic party is sick of betrayal and quislings.

But don't forget that this is not the only issue. She is right on so many other things ... things that are core dem/proggresive/ liberal/moral values.

If you vote for a Republican (ie., Nader or anybody else who would stand in the way of a Democratic win) you get war AND:

more professional Christians like Dobson and Falwell,
low minimum wage,
no healthcare,
medicare which is shot to hell and confusing as hell to seniors,
more enviornmental degradation ....

if you can live with that I pity you.

If Hillary is the nominee, we will lose anyway.
We still get all the stuff you ennumerated.

If she becomes our candidate, then our party is a ASS!
(To paraphrase Mr. Bumble)...

Or how about the tried true: "lets cross that bridge when we come to it"

If the DLC and the party bosses and the big money get thier candidate over a unprcedented groundswell of popular support then I think its time a lot of us questions our party loyalties.

That's a big if. I'm focused on 2006 now anyway.

I have to say, that right now, I cannot support her based on that criteria.

I ALWAYS vote Democratic.

I do have a conscience and I don't believe that I should always be in lock-step with the Democrats. But casting one's vote is where the rubber hits the road, and voting for a third party, or not voting at all, is a vote for the Republics. So I will vote for Sen. Clinton or whoever else gets the nomination.

it won't be a problem for the general election season. A poster can offer constructive critism, but not work for our candidate's defeat. That should tone things down a lot IMO.

From the rules page:


Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

When I was coming up in the party, the duty to hang with the party through thick and thin was stressed and considered important. If you even talked of not supporting the ticket, you wouldn't get any important job to do.

One side of the party or the other is always having to make compromises. But you have to be like a family and say we're not splitting this thing up.

When they say my country right or wrong? when they say dissent is treason? when the Repubs in Congress vote whatever Bush wants like lemmings going over a cliff?

It is mindless, blind devotion, and to what? Especially when that "what" no longer stands for what made you join the party in the first place?

To insult people by saying "you guys" are voting "Republican" if you don't vote for the latest Repub-lite put up for election is bullying and anti-democratic (small d on purpose).

True democracy means accepting ALL views. That is why the ACLU defends to right of neo-Nazis to march even though the rest of us find the prospect nauseating.

Essentially this argument always boils down to pragmatism (any Dem no matter how crappy) versus idealism (voting conscience, even if that means Kucinich, Nader, whatever).

You have a right to choose pragmatism, but to insult people who choose idealism by saying "You guys are always going to stay at home or vote third party if you don't get your way," is to insult MLK, Gandhi, and every idealist who actually changed the world.

Somebody has as a sig line that famous quote about how only the unreasonable person changes the world, so perhaps we are not as worthless as you might think.

You can rationalize the purity of your actions, but it's just an excuse. That's the kind of thinking that got us a government run by Republicans at every level. Nobody gets everything they want, and some years, you get a lot less than that.

The battle is fought widescale, not merely issue to issue, personality to personality.

The fact is, if you take everyone who says they're not going to support the party if Hillary gets the nod, and you flush all those people, it won't even be noticed. No one who is anyone in the party thinks that way. Nada. Not one person. Even saying it is like saying "I don't do anything important during elections."

But politics is not a zero-sum game. Gains are to be found everywhere. How do you think the Democratic party adopted a pro-union, pro-old age pension stance? Only because of the popularity of the Socialist and related left-wing parties during the 20s and 30s. FDR didn't make up Social Security out of thin air, he adopted it because of the popularity of the idea among the working class agitators who held rallies and got the attention of the workers themselves.

To insulate the party and say "we can think whatever we want--even if it is anti-worker--and the workers will still vote for us" is the kiss of death of the Dems. And it is WHY we have been failing for the past 20 years because those at the top are too dismissive of the left. We lost Congress in 1994 (under DLC leadership) and the DLC has not won it back for us yet.

I am not arguing "personality." And to say that I am is ridiculous. I don't even "get" the charisma that Clinton and Bush allegedly have and that Gore allegedly doesn't. I vote issues and principles, Neil.

And if you say that people who have principles and stick by them "could all be flushed and no one would notice," I feel sorry for you. Why don't you save your venom and insults for the Repubs??

I do do important hings during elections: I host fund raising parties, I give money, I go to rallies, I vote, I blog, I register voters, the list goes on. And none of that is negated by the fact that I won't betray my principles. Visionaries do not sell out workers to multi-national corporations, they do not sell out teens who need abortions, they do not sell our universal healthcare to insurance companies, they do not sell out our soldiers to look tough on defense by supporting the Iraq war.

Your last post, talking about "flushing" me and and everyone else who won't support Hillary made me despair that this conversation could end productively.

But maybe you will at least think about the fact that third parties have been necessary and beneficial to this country and to the Democratic party. To deny it, and to say we must follow one party blindly is to be a-historical. And it is wrong.

Peace.

... but we're not talking about the Depression Era, we're talking about this era.

I personally don't care what you do, but if you're going to say you're a Democrat, do the things that go with the territory, including helping the party when you don't get your way.

Everyone is entitled to take their vote and go, but it's a self-defeating thing to do. Thank all the people in 2000 who thought like that. They gave you a war in Iraq and a Patriot Act. That's right, blame the quislings from 2000 who abandoned the party to vote for Nader. They're as bad as the worst Bush voter, and just as culpable.

Sen. Clinton voted for the IWR, and supports continuing the Iraq mission today. She also voted for the Patriot Act. So, really now: who's "THEY"? Is Sen. Clinton not responsible for votes she casts, it's really all the fault of those darn Naderites for helping to elect Bush? She was forced to cast those votes by Naderites, and is being forced by them to take the stance she does today on Iraq?

I know, I know -- Bush TRICKED Democrats like Sen. Clinton into voting for IWR! Umm, yeah, sure, let's stick with that one and say no more.

And now that we're quagmired there in Iraq, well, naturally we HAVE to stay and make the mission a success: create a friendly, stable Iraqi government with a US-trained military which can maintain its own domestic security! Except that it ain't happening that way, and isn't likely to anytime soon, if ever.

As for the Patriot Act, well, hell, maybe Bush tricked her on that too.

I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for Sen. Clinton if she got the nomination. I probably will if it comes to that. Forbid it, Lord.

Aaaargh! is my favorite yell!
Oh yeah, good post!

You truly are a master of debate!

Freshman history, eh? Boy you really put me in my place and made me feel small and uneducated. Um, not.

Yes we are talking about this era, and you have not refuted one of my points (which covered the Civil Rights Movement and the quest for Indian independence as well as the Great Depression, btw). I, and other liberals who feel similarly, are trying to improve our party, NOW, by forcing it to take a stand for the people and stop sniffing after the Republican-corporate gravy train picking up scraps. As I said, and you did not even try to deny, you cannot improve the party by accepting any old position or candidate, and if you think the best this party can do is to promote sell-out DINOs, then you go ahead and support them, and see how well that works out. That is your right.

You are the one who is crying about "not getting your way."

YOUR way is to require all of us to vote for YOUR preferred candidate, and if not, we are quislings. I suppose Diebold, Katherine Harris, Black Box voting, the Supreme Court, and Gore's inability to win his own state (um, that was Tennessee, btw) had nothing to do with the results of the 2000 election, right?

To be a Democrat is to stand up for the democratic rights of all of us, and that includes voting for candidates YOU don't support. Even when it does not please YOU.

Instead of insulting those who vote their conscience, why don't you spend some trying trying to think how the Dems can attract their votes (because name-calling, blame-gaming, and bullying are not going to work).

:toast:

:blush:

The left has done more damage than good over the past few years because they've been openly dismissive and contemptuous of the average American. And as election time grows near, if they've got any strategy on Iraq besides a childish "Nya-ya, told you so!" I've yet to hear it.

"Your last post, talking about "flushing" me and and everyone else who won't support Hillary"
Actually, it's those folks who are stomping around telling us here they won't support the Democrats. And his point was that even if we flushed you, it would be inconsequential in the bigger picture.

Anyone who deals with any endeavor by saying "when I don't get my way, I'm outta here," is not in for the long haul.

You're right about what I was saying about the impact, or lack thereof. It is true that there are people who come and go from election to election, based upon the candidate. But the party apparatus, the delegates, the people who show up every year, they understand that it is a battle in which we all have to subjugate the purity our of political desires in order to take the best deal we can get in a given year.

I analogize it to raising a family. When you have a family, you don't have the luxury of saying your job has to be everything you want it to be, or you'll walk. That is an attitude one can have if one only has to worry about oneself.

Cui bono? Cui malo? Who benefits from these juvenile tantrums and attacks on other Democrats, and who is hurt?

I sure don't see the Party is getting a lot out of this sort of thing.

Not even Al From can hire enough interns to replace the number of people on this board who can't stand the thought of that absolutely UNQUALIFIED NEOCON SUCKUP being forced on us as a nominee.

is fun to specualate - and it does no harm.

Should we think as individual Americans or as DUers? I believe it's bad to encourage 'groupthink' on such an important issue. Mrs. Clinton should win or lose on the quality of her ideas...not simply because she's a Democrat and the only choice.

It's especially funny to see people claim that Hillary is a DINO...how far out of touch with reality ARE some people?

This video game violence issue might have some importance if we didn't have a mess of an elective war, serious ecomonic issues for ordinary people and a healthcare crisis.

I will oppose Hillary for the nomination. If she wins it, I'll vote for her. How much support she gets from me depends on what she's willing to talk about by then.

Are you really trying to pretend ordinary people aren't concerned about violent video games?

"serious ecomonic issues for ordinary people"
Geeze, maybe you ought to look at how many jobs she's helped bring to New York state sometime.

"and a healthcare crisis"
Yeah, she's never tried to do anything about that...</sarcasm>

which Hillary supports.

I want a real Democrat in '08, not some mealy-mouthed weasel who supports Bush and this bullshit war when it's convenient.

...such as "opposition" pols who their bidding.

If we become splintered we will play into the Repug's hands.

Heh.

Guess you missed the part where the Democrats laid down for Bushism. Lucky you; the rest of us had to suffer through a stolen election, Patriot Act, war, and numerous repulsive appointees. And you know what?

Never again: I'm never voting for spineless sell-outs again. Lotsa luck with the Hillary bandwagon!

and that's the point

it is

Guess what camp Hillary falls into.

Hillary is only where she is today because she "stood by her man." :puke:

She's a player, nothing more.

... a vomit smilie.

I don't care for her, either.

Unfortunately, everyone seems to be trying to turn that into a self-fulfilling prophecy...including the MSM whores.

Both those who support Sen. Clinton as well as those who oppose her....seem to be suggesting: not *IF* Hillary wins the nomination, but *WHEN* she wins it...

Sorry, but Clark, Feingold, and Warner would be a lot stronger nationally, and would also give more viable coattails to other Democratic candidates downticket than Senator Clinton would.

...carefully managed to present the illusion of choice, when, in fact, the DLC/DNC candidate is all but a foregone conclusion.

Sure, Feingold or Clark would be better. Anyone would be better than Hillary. That would make a good 2008 slogan, in fact: ABH.

Only vigorous activism will stop the party from further Hillaryization. I doubt it's in the cards, though: the hacks want her, the uncritical nostalgists will think she's the Second Coming of Bill, and more importantly the corporate money will want her.

But what will shoo her in easiest of all is the vast disaffection with duopoly politics. Many progressives are too disaffected with the party to care which soulless pro-corporate, pro-war robot it puts forward. We know they're as bad for us as Bush.

Just what this country needed most: a neoliberal, globalist, imperialist, war mongering woman President with a husband taking care of the White House interns.

...won't happen as long as people continue to spout (and buy into) the mantra of: "Focus on 2006 now, wait until after the midterms to worry about 2008."

By then it will be too late.

:-)

:)

desire I used to have to like and to support her. But, would she cooperate, nooooooooooooooooooooo. :)

... but now she's trying to be all things to all people, I'm afraid.

I don't feel like she stands for ANYTHING, except ELECT ME IN 2008!

It's sure not the DLC members stomping up and down and pouting that they're not going to support Hillary.

It's the DLC establishment regurgitating the mantra of: "Hillary's the one to beat in 2008"...or..."It will be impossible for any other Democrat to take down Hillary in the primaries"

That's why we have primaries and the Iowa caucus.

I don't see anyone in the DLC pouting that they won't vote or will quit the party if she isn't the candidate.

Instead, they're trying to use the MSM to handicap the entire process before anyone can even declare their candidacy.

Yeah, that's the way to promote democracy... :eyes:

So because they have a viable candidate with an alreaady large following that they're proud of, they're splintering the party?

"Yeah, that's the way to promote democracy"
Yeah, it is.

Not when the following is based on the (perceived) candidate's media-constructed celebrity status.

So because Hillary is well-known, and your candidate is such a nonentity that you don't even feel he or she's worth mentioning yourself, the DLC is doing something unfair?

I suggest you go sulk about it to somebody who gives a shit.

I'm looking at a number of potential Dem candidates right now. My top several choices for the nomination probably won't run, so I'm also watching the more realistic potentials further down on my list, such as Clark, Feingold, and Warner.

By contrast, the "We-Must-Have-Hillary-in-2008-Or-The-Democratic-Party-Is-Doomed" crowd is using the fact that Senator Clinton is well-known as THE de facto rationale for why she's supposedly "the most qualified" out of all the potentials.

and have a good argument as to why they picked her.....although they have every right to do both.

But I haven't heard anything compelling.

The only mantras that Hillary's supporters manage to dredge up are empty statements such as, "She's tough as nails" or "She's had everything but the kitchen sink thrown at her but none of it's stuck" or "She appealed to Republicans in upstate New York" or "All she needs are the blue states plus Florida or Ohio to win the Electoral College"....statements that fail to take into account the greater ramifications of a national race.

And the attempt to annoint her by promoting the myth that her nomination is "inevitable" continues. Could that be because her supporters have no real substantive reasons to support their claim that she actually offers anything that would make her a better president than anyone else?

(snicker)

But when people try to sell me kool-aid, I'm going to call bullshit on that.

Any strong arguments in favor of your candidate, other than your standard "Everybody already knows her" speech?

that bunch of really silly people are sniveling about.

And what are the reasons you believe your candidate is viable?

You're clearly not open to anything but this aimless sniveling: "It's so unfair to hear about Hillary."

Because obviously the best way to help Senator Clinton secure her presidential nomination is by sitting at the computer trading barbs with a bunch of "nobodies" at DemocraticUnderground. :shrug:

Ri-i-i-i-i-ight.

Remind us again where you earned your Master's degree from?....

I keep seeing it in the polls, but, guess what, I don't see it in real life at all. None. I know of NO ONE who will support her in the primaries. NO ONE.

running around here that's all up for it.

"I know of NO ONE who will support her in the primaries."
Now you do. And I'm hardly alone.

I was speaking of real life.

And, I'm not pouting. I'm just aware that, in a general election, she won't flip one red state and she'll probably lose a couple of blue ones.

That would be real life where polls mean something...except when somebody doesn't like them, I guess.

"she won't flip one red state and she'll probably lose a couple of blue ones."
She's pretty popular in Arkansas, except among the last gasps of Jim Crow. And which blue state is she going to lose? New York? New Jersey?

States with tons of gun-owning hunters who, for whatever reason, believe Hillary is the biggest anti-gun proponent out there.

Oh - and that's what my complaint was, initially. I keep seeing these polls that say she's the most popular, but I don't know anyone who supports her. I don't know who the pollsters are interviewing, but I can tell you it's none of the thousands of Democrats I know.

P.S. She won't turn Arkansas blue, either. Just a hint for you. My choice of candidates might (he'd have a better shot), but not Hillary. And, if we're still at war, the mushy middle will NOT vote for a woman, no matter who it is.

The NRA has screamed that every Democrat is "the biggest anti-gun proponent out there" and poured millions into both states in 2000 and 2004....and both Gore and Kerry won handily in both states. The gun people are nutless weenies who shriek in panic that everybody's going to take their little metal penises, and most sane voters ignore them.

"She won't turn Arkansas blue, either"
Sez you.

and some who just live here but aren't from here (like my fiance who thinks Hillary would be the worst choice for the Dems and he's from New England).

And, I hardly think that the "biggest anti-gun proponent" meme would stick too well on my candidate of choice. So there.

Because so far you been damn short of anything remotely resembling a fact, to be charitable.

"I hardly think that the "biggest anti-gun proponent" meme would stick too well on my candidate of choice."
Big fucking deal. John Kerry was a war hero and a hunter, and the nutless NRA crowd still spent the 2004 season screaming that meme.

Which swing states do you believe Hillary Clinton would carry (aside from the blue states)...and which states do you believe the Random_Republican who'd be running against her would carry?

wait right there.

I don't know a single dem who wants Hillary as our nom.

those EVIL video games. :sarcasm:

Who the fuck thinks a disgraceful melange of racism, violence and mindlessness is such hot shit, beyond the few teens obsessed with them?

Surely you jest, MrBenchley. There are a ton of DUers ready to take Hillary down for her attacks on their precious video games.

I doubt grown-ups are.

But any grownup with even a microscopic amount of sense knows a couple things:
1. It is not healthy for kids to play games where they shoot cops and brown skinned people or watch cannibals eat human brains. It is also not healthy to sit and vegitate in front of a TV playing video games for hours and hours every day.
2. Only the non thinkers among us make their voting choices based on ONE issue. This is a tactic of the Christian right.

Meanwhile it's amazing to see the mental hoops they leap through trying to justify this or that outrage.

I think what I find funniest is the mindless claim often expressed here that Hillary is a Republican in disguise or a DINO. Last week I had somebody actually say out loud that because she wasn't a Democrat at age 17, nothing in the intervening years mattered.

She wouldn't be my first choice, but I would definitely support her. I like the fact that she actually wants to protect our kids. That is a Democratic value, IMO.

BUT I hope she isn't the candidate. The rw will crucify her. If we thought what they did to Kerry was nasty, wait till Hillary runs.

and America's already heard so much horseshit about Hillary that actually turned out to be horseshit that it may come across like "Wolf!"

(Remember when Dan Burton edited "evidence" to make it seem as if she was guilty of something by leaving out words like "not"?)

I haven't made up my mind...but I wouldn't rule her out.

After what the Swift-Boaters did, what makes you so certain that Americans WON'T believe whatever they try to smear Hillary with. And they WILL pull out all the stops.

It's all they got.

"what makes you so certain that Americans WON'T believe whatever they try to smear Hillary with"
Because Americans have already heard 90% of it and found it to be horseshit.

Because Americans have already heard 90% of it and found it to be horseshit.

This is news to me? When has Hillary Clinton run as a candidate in a coast-to-coast office previously, to actually test that assumption?

"This is news to me?"
Guess you lived in a shoebox during the 1990s, when the Republicans made a little fuss about Hillary in public (snicker)....

First Lady is not an elected position.

Americans have already heard almost everything they're going to throw at her and they know its horseshit. Trying to pretend that the horseshit is somehow made true (or didn't happen) because this time she'll be a candidate is mendacious to the point of ridiculousness.

That when the Republicans go running around the swing/battleground states chanting, "Hillary Clinton and the Democrats voted for partial-birth abortion"....you would have us believe that it WON'T hurt the Democratic ticket? (particularly candidates who are running for seats further down the ticket in those states)

Are you for real?

"the Democrats voted for partial-birth abortion"
You mean if only we don't nominate Hillary, they're going to refrain from saying that out of their innate decency and desire for fair play?

There mioght have been a sillier argument on DU, but I'm hard put to remember one in this league.

"Are you for real?" asks the person who pretended above he had no idea that the Republicans had ever said anything uncomplimentary about Hillary.

But it will be harder for them to convince American voters that their lies have merit if the Democratic Party nominates a less-controversial candidate, vs. nominating Senator Clinton.

Who exactly that candidate might be remains to be seen. But you've hardly provided any evidence that Hillary Clinton would be Superwoman as the Dem nominee.

"But you've hardly provided any evidence that Hillary Clinton would be Superwoman as the Dem nominee."
And all you've done is look foolish trying to pretend there was something unfair about anyone preferring her as nominee.

And all you've done is look foolish trying to pretend there was something unfair about anyone preferring her as nominee.

It's fine to prefer someone as the nominee. It's a whole other ball of wax to just sit back and allow the media to coronate someone based on empty reasoning.

Unless, of course, they happen to be promoting *YOUR* preferred candidate... ;)

"It's a whole other ball of wax to just sit back and allow the media to coronate someone based on empty reasoning."
Yeah, you're just the person to lecture others on THEIR empty reasoning.

...you reject the notion that Senator Clinton is the mainstream media's top choice for the Democratic presidential nomination, right now?

I love DU and I respect the opinions of about 99% of the folks that post here. But I'm not worried about DU "Doom & Gloom" over Hillary.

I'm not much of a fan of hers either but I'm behind her 100% if she gets the nomination. But I learned a valuable lesson back during primary season 2004.

We are not the majority of democratic voters. In fact if you round up all the democrats who have participated in any of the online democratic movements we still are woefully a very small percentage of the block of democrats who vote.

I realized this when I was so fricking sure that Howard Dean was going to win the nomination. He just seemed so damn popular everywhere I read online. And yet Kerry got the nomination - Deans online popularity through DU, Move-On, Meet-up(which was real-life meetings organized through the internet) just didnn't give him the votes to win.

It did; however, give him the DNC chair because even though we're woefully in the minority we are a growing sector of the democratic voting population. So we are making a difference.

But ultimately the presidental decision will be decided by people who really don't use their computers to make decisions on how they want to vote.

that if the people who are huffing and puffing that they wont vote don't vote, they've nobody but themselves to blame when we people who DO vote have a bigger say in how the party is run.

And for all the wailing about the "e-e-e-evil DLC", you'll notice nobody there is threatening not to vote for a Democratic candidate.

They already are convinced they're going to get their candidate of choice, so they see no need to make threats.

So because they don't sit around attacking other Democrats and pissing all over the party, they suspect they're going to get the support of Democrats....

Funny how that works.

...that their arrogant potshots are going to endear them to the average voter, as they go around the neighborhood canvassing for Queen Hillary in October 2008.

Funny. :eyes:

I can't get enthusiastic about someone who supports our continued occupation of Iraq. She's irritated me on other issues, including her periodic brown nosing *, but the war really puts a damper on my interest in her candidacy.

but settled for Kerry. Was he my choice....no BUT he was the only Dem or Independent that stood a chance of beating *. Only fools stayed home or voted for a third party. Nader voters might as well as pulled the * lever for all the good their votes did. Maybe that's why King Ralph accepted Repuke ads. (just maybe...ya think? )

The bigger question is, will her nomination play into the Repug's hands.

electoral victory. I hate her stance on Iraq, but I'm a realist and when push comes to shove will vote for even a DLCer before any repuke. However, where the hell are her electoral votes going to come from, particularly in the age of Diebold when, if its close enough to steal, the repukes win every time.

The Dems need a candidate who can unite the party and convince enough independents and moderate repukes in swing states to come aboard so that it's not close enough to steal. Hillary is too polarizing and carries too much baggage. We'd be inviting disaster and guaranteeing four more years of repuke ruin.

:toast:

but if she is, there would be no choice in the matter. Four or eight more years of neo-con madness? No thanks.

like Kerry in '04...it's almost as though she's being forced upon us, knowing she's un-electable. But WHO would do such a thing, and WHY? Oh, yeah..

forgone conclusion that she will be nominated. The corporate media whores have jumped aboard that train also. It seems that the only ones who don't want to see Hillary nominated are the people who should have the most say - Democratic primary voters.

Of course the media was touting Lieberman as the 2004 front-runner also, and look at what a joke that was. I have hope that an electable front-runner will emerge and Hillary will not run at all.

"It seems that the only ones who don't want to see Hillary nominated are the people who should have the most say - Democratic primary voters."
Which primaries did she lose, exactly?

But those of us who point it out are just told to shut up by the Dem establishment and the media (who are the ones doing the actual touting of Hillary in the first place).

I can't tell if she's talking and walking the repug line in order to win in '08 but is really a liberal. Or is she's really repug lite. If we can't front a strong progressive canidate, then I'll seriously consider voting green.

i'll vote dem everything else -- and leave that blank.

i'm not voting for one more anti-gay -- pro-doma democrat.

and since i have the good sense to live in norcali -- i don't have to.

Democrats should be trying to unite our party, not make it easier for the likes of Bush to fall into the highest office of the land. The Bushes and plenty of others are just waiting in line for us to do their dirty work for them. :puke:
No one could even begin to do the hatchet job such as bush has done.
Our country is suffering under his "rule".

Certain people seem to think that the most expedient way to "unite the Democratic Party" is to tell everyone to shut up and get behind Hillary.

Hillary is not my first choice either, but she is certainly far above anything the republicans have to offer. Uniting the democratic party does not mean for everyone to shut up and get behind Hillary. That's rediculous to think I'm pushing for that. For heaven's sake, I'm a life
long Liberal-anti-republican and unwilling to help them with their agenda of bashing democrats. :shrug: :shrug:

Members of the DLC-leaning Democratic establishment (along with the media whores) are.

Show us please....

http://www.dlc.org/

It will be very telling which person Al From, Donna Brazile, and their ilk will be dropping the name of over the next several months.

Dollars to donuts that person's initials will be HRC.

"It will be very telling which person Al From, Donna Brazile, and their ilk"
Namely, Democrats....

"will be dropping the name of over the next several months."
No! The bastards! (snicker)

I'm not going to keep a mass media log to record how many times Hillary's name is mentioned every time I turn on the TV news, just to offer you some form of quantitative "proof." One, I can't watch all of the cable/national news broadcasts 24 hours a day 7 days a week, as much as I'd like to <note my heavy sarcasm>. Two, there is already a general consensus that the pundits won't shut up about her. They find excuses to drag her name into the limelight for whatever reason.

When the media whores start ringing the 2008 bell at their little roundtables three years ahead of time, they interview Democratic lawmakers and "strategists," to inquire who *The_Frontrunner* in their party is.

Instead of being honest and saying, "We don't know who the Democratic presidential candidates are going to be yet"...what name do members of the establishment bat around? HILLARY! (who, by the way, has indicated that she doesn't even know if she's going to run yet). As though she's some miraculous deity who will be able to somehow vaporize every Republican from the face of the planet.

You contend that Senator Clinton would have a good shot at carrying Arkansas in a General Election, but you have no way to "prove" that either. And I'm not going to ask you to. But that still doesn't explain the supposition that she would somehow be the *BEST* candidate.

"You contend that Senator Clinton would have a good shot at carrying Arkansas in a General Election, but you have no way to "prove" that either."
Yeah, but I didn't claim the DLC had said that. Nor did my claim turn out to be horseshit.

But that still doesn't explain the supposition that she would somehow be the *BEST* candidate."
If there's a case to be made for one, feel free to make it. But it's hilarious to hear you pout about other people's preference when you don't even have a preference.

I wasn't aware that we all had to commit to someone (despite the fact that we don't know who's running) before the new year... :eyes:

So you want to pretend everybody else should be forbidden from expressing a preference because you don't have one.....

But if you don't back it up with convincing rationale, you're going to look like a fool.

Again, you're proving my point, MrBenchley. Thanks for volunteering to be Exibit A. ;)

"you're going to look like a fool"
Says the guy who claimed to have no idea that Republicans had ever said anything dishonest about Hillary Clinton.

Show me.

You are doing more to turn people against HRC than anyone I've ever come across!

What an advocate! With friends like you, she doesn't NEED a primary opponent. Dems will just STAY HOME!

when confronted by the risible....like hypocritical concern for Hillary Clinton.

listen to her concession speech? I won't be, but I will be on here to say "I told you so.".

It seems the DLC is always on the opposite side of the fence. Why do we even need them? :dilemma:

I support some Democrats who happen to be members of the DLC. I pick-and-choose those who I believe will best serve the interests of our country's future.

.

the best we got, then we are in trouble.

and folks (mostly) got behind Kerry - and I venture that most folks would have gotten behind any other candidate had he won the primary. Don't think that it would be any different in 08.

I will vote green.

You can beat the drums of political tribalism all you want, but there are millions of Americans out there that will never vote for a prowar candidate, no matter what letter follows his/her name.

ABB left a bitter taste in my mouth in 2004, and I am sure I am not alone in saying that many of us ABBers will be very hesitant to bent over again!

but if she does, i'll vote for her. what choice to any of us have? i'd rather shoot my dog than vote republican.

It seems to me she spent most of her time pandering to special interest groups.

winning.

What's the point of winning if you have to completely compromise your beliefs?

No thanks. And if it happens,and I get kicked off DU for not supporting a terrible candidate who does not represent America's best interests, than so be it.

:shrug:

But I'll try to shut the f*ck up about it during the general, if that's what you mean.

any vote for a DLC Candidate (as is she) will be as good as voting for a Republican, anyway. No matter who wins, in that case, the poor, minorities, women and family farmers lose... and Corporate America wins.


TC

Checking in with myself, I find that I have a lot of anti-candidate sentiment. There are almost no candidates promoted at DU that I'm really interested in supporting.

Asking myself why, I begin to wonder...is it the candidates themselves, or the way they are promoted?

I find that it really pisses me off that Democratic voters can't seem to see beyond the status quo. That it's always the same handful of names that are pushed ad nauseum. I feel like seeing Hillary, Clark, Kerry, Dean, Edwards, etc. pushed 3 years before the primary gets here puts voters into a mindset that there aren't other worthy Democratic possibilities out there. It pisses me off, and when I feel them pushed at me, I push back. I don't do the herd thing too well.

I'm willing to consider supporting a wide range of possible candidates in the primaries. If I don't see that happening; if I see the same small group shoved at me in the primaries, and don't see a big welcome mat for other Democrats, my interest in participation shrinks.

How far it will have shrunk by '08 is something I really can't predict at this point. There are another 3 years of action/non-action/spin by Democrats, and lawsuits, corruption, conviction, spin, and injustice by Republicans, to experience.

I don't dislike Hillary. I don't agree with her political choices in many cases, so I wouldn't choose her to represent me in the WH. Whether or not I "rally 'round" anyone in '08 really depends on the choices my party makes between now and then. No matter how someone tries to spin it differently, for me, it's the issues. That's it, plain and simple. It's not the names, the parties, or polarized party warfare. It's the issues. I want a candidate who will take decisive action on the issues that benefit the planet and her people. I want a candidate whose record reflects that work.

But if she becomes the nominee of course I'll support her.

In my book, even Bush Lite is better than Bush Extra Crispy.

those seeking investigations on DSM's, those wanting the presidential votes counted in 2004, those protesting this horridly immoral and illegal war, those needing protection from corporate America, and of course those saying NOT to stay the course. :evilgrin:

Hillary has some serious work to do to gain the trust of liberals.

a fock about us..she's going for the "swing voters" or the middle of the roaders..somewhere around there.

she would not actively court liberal votes. Thus, Liberals would be free to vote for the candidates that support progressive causes. Hillary will be so pleased...

Or she wouldn't be where she is today. :puke:

She's a great role-model for all the little girls in America who want to be President someday. :puke:

Hillary needs to stand for ending the occupation of Iraq, support civil liberties, support the investigation into abuse of "intelligence" to justify the invasion of Iraq.

It is her move, and so far, she has shown little inclination to do the right thing.

I don't really like her very much but I'd vote for her and I'd try to sell her to anyone who doesn't pay attention to politics.

Gore lost my state - his home state - by less than 3 percent; Kerry lost it by 14 percent and Hillary would lose it by 20 percent. My piddly vote for someone I wouldn't want, anyway, would be nulled.

Oh - and this board is for all progressives, not just those who call themselves "Democrats," so there are a fair number of posters here who wouldn't vote for her without it harming their conscious.

At this point in time, I DO NOT want her as a nominee! Furthermore, I don't expect that she can do very much to change my mind!

Since I live down here in Florida I sometimes wonder whether my vote even got counted the last 2 times out!!!

This will be a very very very problematic decision for me!

The BEST I can hope for is that she will SEE that so many here don't really want her and will simply NOT GO THERE!!!

I just had to say that.

It's not her, it's the principle of staying with the nominee because there is an implicit agreement among those who participate in the process that as our candidate loses, we find a new one to back in the party.

Every now and then, isn't a little mutiny healthy? I mean, sort of like a facial scrub?

lol

Edit: The mutiny thing.