I Will Stand In Support of Hillary Clinton.

She is not my first choice nor second for 2008. But if it is decided in the Democratic primary that she is the nominee, I will quit my job and work for her campaign.

I just re-read Joe Conason's "The Hunting of the President" and I am shaking from the rage that is still so easily invoked recalling what the rightwing did to the Clintons.

I must say I find it exquisitely distasteful to come her to DU and read the garbage thrown at her. It is a gratuitous bashing that she doesn't deserve, hell nobody deserves. And the crystal ball predictions of her loss are simply ludicrous. I guess in volume it seems less so to some.

I have nothing but contempt for those that have predetermined they will not vote for her if she is the Democratic candidate but rather sit home or vote third party. Participating in another Republican ascending to power is despicable.

I thought this was DEMOCRATIC Underground, not a group of people so scattered and short-sighted they are rendering themselves politically impotent.

if her candidacy would be decided by the voters of the Democratic party, rather than by the corporate donors to the Democratic Party, the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire and being annointed by the press as the inevitable front-runner.

1) Each corporate donor is entitled to one vote, just like us, in the primary.
2) Howard Dean is working on changing the primary process.
3) The press dubs Hillary the front-runner because she is, by virtue of placing 40+% in the polls consistently.
4) And until campaign finance reform truly reforms the process, I would say it's a damn good thing a candidate can raise the $ to go toe-to-toe with the Republicans.

written on it. Since she supports the Iraq war so much, she should lead by example and ship her daughter off to boot camp and then Iraq.

Do some reading, study the candidates, don't let the medial tell you how to vote.

Make up your own mind!!

Hillary is not my first choice, but I can accept her. No matter who wins the primaries, I will vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election! If you can't, well it wouldn't bother me if you stayed home that day.

However in the last primary, Kerry won Iowa, won New Hampshire, and won on Super Tuesday and everyone annointed him and started jumping on the bandwagon and it was over way before I got any say in the matter.

Why would you want any registered Democrat to stay home. Maybe I will vote socialist workers party instead of for one of the two Republican Presidential candidates. That is the way I saw it in 1992, there were three Republicans running Bush, Clinton, and Perot. I despise Nader, but he at least should have shown the DLC that they had better not take the progressive wing for granted.

Hillary, or any Dem for that matter, is not going to win in my red state anyway, although Gore did win in my congressional district in 2000. However, there are still Congress critters to vote for, state legislators, governors, state school boards, state AGs, etc., etc. The Presidency is not everything.

you how to vote.

What I did mention is that if you want another person with an R after their name in the White House, I would just as soon you stay home on election day.

The only perfect candidate is ourself, everyone else is a compromise.

Was that the far left is fickle, unreliable, and wont to run off on a wild goose chase rather than support a viable candidate. If you choose to justify your actions by calling a Democrat a Republican, or by thinking of black as white and stop as go, well then by all means do so. But don't be surprised if you end up getting trampled at a zebra crossing.

:eyes:

Jesus, you people can't even use the term "far left" correctly.

This is a meme of the rw, and for Dems to misrepresent the truth like this is maddening.

...don't even know the true definition of "far left" recognized worldwide.

Hint: it AIN'T "far left" to want to hold corporations accountable for their crimes, or to protect workers and civil rights, or to call for universal health care instead of for-profit sickness-based "health care", or to end the illegal war in Iraq, or...

Nader showed that America is free. He had a right to vote. If he didn't run, then the terrorist would have won.

of difference between Republicans and Democrats.

we won't get a progressive.

Other than Arnold, and his prospects for re-election aren't too great at present.

in sheep's clothing.

Nader is a Repuke fraud. He has always been a Repuke fraud. I fucking knew that in fucking 1980. I have no idea why anyone ever thought any different. Back in the 1970's, the guy was defrauding and exploiting his workers, illegally breaking strikes, skimming the top and all of that other shit before anyone ever heard of Ken Lay.

He is a C-N-N corporate whore propaganda liar, like his bosses. Always was, always will be.

what the hell do you base THAT on?

And why is it that Clinton loyalists can't accept that their hero helped create the Nader candidacies by making it agonizing for progressives to stay loyal to the Democrats?

A lot of Nader people came back, but you won't be able to hold on to them if you keep on with
talk like this. And Democrats will never win the White House again if they drive progressives away again, and treat those progressives who stay like scum(as the Clintons did in the '90's).

Time to face reality, folks. Democrats NEED left-wing voters.

I am certainly not a supporter for Hillary for the nomination. I am definitely not a sympathizer with the DLC. But, down here on planet earth let's look at her record compared to both a "moderate" Republicans; John McCain and a "conservative" Republican; George Allen:


This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________


2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.
_________________________________


2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Peace Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Peace Action 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.
______________________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
__________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95
percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 15 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 17 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Education Association 25 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 13 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 7 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 92 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 56 percent in 2003-2004

____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.

NT!

I agree. But anticipate a great deal of bashing.

Were you here for the primary wars? It got so poisonous that I had to take a break.

DU is wonderful for me most of the time. It keeps me sane to know that there are many people who think like I do. It makes me laugh that people who know me face-to-face think I am a leftist radical, but at DU I am a mousy moderate. Or, maybe I am a freeper. I have been called that.

I am amazed by the number of new resources DU has shown me. DU keeps me informed, and helps me express my own views more articulately.

I am sure there are others here who like Hillary, but they may be afraid to say it. There are many DUers who will support her even if she is not their first choice, just as Kerry was not my first choice.

I am glad people here have strong opinions. We need that kind of passion if we are going to keep the kind of country I grew up in. But I hope you have a thick skin.

Think about it. Just as they do now, they will listen to the corporate agenda. Worried more about money for the next election than representing truly populist positions. They will not represent us properly.

Our world is not that black and white. I assure you most here feel the DLC has no credibility, yet others are convinced they are the boogeyman. Scale back the rhetoric and you'll move closer to the reality of the status quo.

DLC is our ruling class. No non-dlc dem will ever get nominated / elected.

please prove that Dean was on the rols of DLC/NDOL.

I've looked....he wasn't.

Was not that they are exactly the same as Neo Cons... But they play a similar role and are our analogous group. They will cater to big business and fight against true reform.

As for Hillary, it is obvious to me that she feels she has to "play the game" and cannot break the mold. And even more so than previous candidates we have had. We need forthright leadership and need to BREAK the pattern of corruption and the money machine that has brought it about in Washington. And make no mistake about it, pandering to money and business in other countries and proposing legislation for the purpose of manipulating voters is corruption of our Democracy.

Hillary will be a ***step back***

You really need to study her history. It's difficult to have patience with people that throw out non sequiturs that have no basis in fact or reality. Your wild predictions do not an argument make.

Please share with us what are Hillary's thoughts on the NYC transit workers strike?

What we don't have, at the moment, is a good reason to TRUST Hillary.

Why should we look favorably on someone who still thinks that Democrats need to bash their own most loyal supporters to win?

Why should we accept the premise that progressives, liberals, whatever you call them, are to blame for all past Democratic troubles?

Why should we support a politician who demands not only support in exchange for nothing(as she and Bill both did and do)but support when that support becomes masochistic(demanding support from labor after NAFTA, from feminists after the squeal rule and the refusal to challenge the demonization of poor women by welfare-bashing Republicans, and from human rights supporters after Bill sent the Haitian refugees back to be beaten to a pulp by the Tonton Macoute{at a time when there was no need for such a craven concession to South Florida racists})?

When do progressives stop being the whipping boys 'n grrls in this party?

I want the DUers that have their own candidate(s) to post them so that I may deride and sully them. :sarcasm:

I dare say that if Bill were to run now for the first time (this time without Monica) there would be more than a fair bit of Bill Bashing going down. I don't get it. Bring up your points but the endless Kill Kerry and Hit Hillary has me believing if DU is a political mind quagmire rather than an open forum of positive ideas.

By the way, I support the General but any worthy Dem will do.

wasn't thrilled with Kerry but worked my ass for him.

the Bilderbergers, the Carlyle(s) and their corporatist, fascist ilk. The corporatists who actually pull the strings. Unfortunately, so far as I can tell, Hillary ... just as Repub-lite Bill did - nibble at the trough. I can just imagine some of the corporatists hanging out in a plush conference room commenting upon how the sheeple will be pleased.... getting what they perceive to be a change (e.g., from BushCo. to Clinton Cadre, for example) but when in actuality Pink Floyd's line describes the change best.... Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss.
And of course The Who's:
We know what you dreamed... we told you what to dream....

Nobody, nobody who would really upset the apple cart will ever be elected the way our poor republic is now. And I want the Apple Cart overturned.

Pink Floyd from Welcome To The Machine.

Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
Where have you been?
It's alright we know where you've been.
You've been in the pipeline, filling in time,
Provided with toys and 'Scouting for Boys'.
You bought a guitar to punish your ma,
And you didn't like school, and you
know you're nobody's fool,
So welcome to the machine.

Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
What did you dream?
It's alright we told you what to dream.
You dreamed of a big star,
He played a mean guitar,
He always ate in the Steak Bar.
He loved to drive in his Jaguar.
So welcome to the Machine.

It's the last line of "Won't Get Fooled Again."

Just making a positive correction. :hi:

Peace and low stress!

I saw her on TV just today and was admiring her, just as a person. But she has made a lot of bad calls, a lot of things that are off from her base. So we, her base, are bitching loud and clear about them. If she gets the nomination, yes, I'll work for her. But were going to bitch if she does things we don't like. I for one do it because I really think she could be doing better.

which is why I won't vote for her in the primary.

on this board...garbage that is just as much false and viscious as the crap that comes from the right wing.

It's isn't garbage to say that Hillary is still fighting to demonize and silence the progressive wing of the party. Why should we support her when she fights against everything we want? Why should we accept the arguement that the Democratic candidate HAS to attack the Democratic base?

It's time for the Hillary loyalists to actually start making a case FOR her, rather than just telling the rest of us we're obligated to settle for her.

Simply put she is a panderer. If she is elected we would have more of the same, with a few biscuits thrown our way, but no real change. She is highly supportive of the outsourcing agenda, and just co-authored a flag law. And we all know why politicians go after the flag as an issue. It is the typical politician crap.

I almost think it would be better to have another Republican than her, so people will finally get fed up enough not to go with the same old corporate whores. And believe me I do not say that lightly.

We need truly reformed candidates who are brave and recognize that if they stand out and strong they will win.

That's what you get here: a lot of opinions amongst a lot of facts, analysis, commentary.

but don't disregard nor demean the fact that there are many who don't agree with you; in fact, I can safely say you are in the minority. I know that doesn't seem so here at DU, but the representative margin of your point of view is more here than "out there." Those who harbor your opinion are more inclined to bitch and moan and come here and to other internet communities to express your opinion.

people who come here are the far better informed ones. That makes their "opinions" based on much better information, and therefore more valid. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. If the facts don't support your "opinion," then your opinions aren't worth much, and IMO, the facts don't support a pro-Hillary position for anyone who considers him or herself a real Democrat (as opposed to a fake Democrat like the Blue Dogs, DLCers and such).

Those how come here are also increasingly less likely to "settle" for crap representation, and other Neoliberal shit like we've seen too much of from ole Hillary.

YMMV, of course.

But you want me to respect a pro-Hillary opinion? Nah, sorry. For my money, that's the less well-informed, naive, enabling (quisling) point of view. There's too much at stake as the nation slips into full-blown fascism for us to tolerate elected officials who not only don't get it, but are part of the fucking problem and happily so.

As I said, YMMV.

I'm not pro-Hillary. That is not the gist of my post. Did you read the thread?
If you had you would realize you're tilting at windmills.

Bashing: "I hate Hillary, she's just a stupid bitch."

NON-Bashing: "I hate Hillary's stances on the war, "free" trade, the Patriot Act, and cannot vote for her for those right-trending stances."

Really, really easy to tell the difference between bashing and criticism, if one is honest and not devoted to a cult of personality.

Great point about the differences Zhade. I tried to make the point about "cult of personality" before with another candidate, and your framing is much more costructive. I appreciate her achievements, she's suffered alot of slime slung at her from the right. Which is why it's important for her critics to be clear in how they attack her policies and stances.

I'm all for criticism.

For example, Kucinich - who I voted for in the California primary - once held reprehensible stances on flag burning and choice. He deserved all the criticism he got for those stances, and he's changed them.

I would have had, and have, no problem with people mentioning those past stances. Calling him names, though, is just pointless bashing.

Same for Clinton. I make no comments on her as a person, just on her stances. And since I disagree heartily with some of them, and see her use falsehoods in some cases to push them (such as the bullshit she speaks about Iraq), I will not vote for her, and reserve every right to criticize her.

If partisans blinded with hero-worship don't like that, tough.

I realize it fits your talking points, but I have seen no evidence of hero-worship of Hillary Clinton here at DU.

You really view your world in black and white. It's hard to reason with someone like you who seems incapable of grasping the nuances of politics.

...who can't even use the term "far left" as it's actually defined.

Thanks for your observations, but I think I'll manage without your, er, insights.

and really immature.

Anyone that thinks Hillary is our only "winning" choice is engaged in hero worship.

For chrissake, have you read this thread? Most - including me - has said we won't vote for her in the primary. If you equate that with hero-worship, your idea of a "hero" is lacking.

...and I am shaking from the rage that is still so easily invoked recalling what the rightwing did to the Clintons.

What's truly sad is the leftwing would do just as much damage to the Clintons if they had a few bucks to do so.

That isn't a critisism or a smear... I support what Conoson is trying to do actually because there is a vast right wing conspiracy, and Clinton could use all the help she can get to fight back..

but that doesn't mean *we* should be confused by Conoson's propaganda... (!)

Read his and Lyon's book, for chrissake. Propaganda?

You have no frame of reference for this argument without actually reading the source material. And if you have read it and still consider the meticulous documentation of facts, dates, names, etc., propaganda, I believe they have an opening for you on Faux News because that level of denial is just what they are looking for.

Like the far right, the far left seldom has any proof of their assertions.

The Conason/Lyons book was a cornucopia of dates, names, etc.

I said the far left would do just as bad to the Clintons if they had the money to do so.

RadioForProgressives chimes in and says the Conason book is just "propaganda." Imagine what he/she would do if she had some money to spread his/her claims that it's just propoganda. But still, he/she won't defend or prove the claim.

sadly, I agree. Feeding on our own.

with a repuke columnist who wrote a smear book on HRC - I can't think of his name, I think that might have been Joe Klein (?) but I can't be positive, this was several months ago.

But please don't take my word for it...

continue drinking from the same well that proclaim the Clinton's are our saviors, they have nothing but *your* best interest at heart, and people like Ed Schultz and Al Franken are always providing you with honest, objective truth. Oh yea, and that includes Howard Fineman, Atrios, Joe Conoson, and all the others inside Washington who make regular appearances on their shows, but NEVER EVER mention the MASS VOTING MACHINES FRAUD in 2004, VERIFIED by the GAO Report, just released a couple of months ago, and that was perpretrated upon YOU and ME and at least 60 Million other Americans, clearly indicating that Kerry WON the election in 2004.

Instead, let's just keep bullshitting with the theme that the Dems lost because of whatever the meme is of the day like Christian Values, the and oh yea, and it's all Nader's fault too.

we will all stand beside and behind her (if she wins)... with the exception of a chosen few who for some reason can't stand her. The fact that you support a person doesn't mean that you can't criticize her. I know there is excessive bitching about hillary on the forum, however, I think it should be a given that if she wins the nomination, most of DU will be working for her or supporting her. We are the DEMOCRATIC Underground.

I don't know where this "we" and "all" stuff comes from. :eyes:

I have no patience for those who say they won't vote for the Democrat. I'd even vote for Lieberman. I think. I voted for, supported and miss Bill Clinton, but Jimmy Breslin called him a Republican and a half in '92 and he had a point in those days. Now the Republican party has become a party of radicals so that no longer applies to the Clintons, but I still have real concerns.

I don't think there's anything wrong with using this forum to debate the merits of potential candidates. My belief is that there is no reason for Hillary Clinton to be the candidate beyond name recognition and lots of reasons not to nominate her. Chief among them is that she will not get one red state. I think we need a southern candidate, regardless of whether the southerner is my personal favorite or not.

But then you will notice that nearly every Democrat singled out for abuse around here is:
--up for re-election in 2006; and
--beating his or her Republican opponent like a rented mule.

republican instead of Hillary?

It will once again be a miserable choice. Don't put us through the Humphrey-Nixon race again, for God's sake.

She will be the nominee and I will support her to the best of my ability. They got a raw deal and I, too, am ashamed of some of the remarks around here.

Free speech is the cornerstone of our democracy - at least for now! - and I think it's important for all voices to be heard, even if they want to call me an "intellectually dishonest sheep."

I disagree with her war on video games. But I will still support her if she wins the nomination.

She will turn Iraq into a Democratic war.

She will keep Bush's gulag in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

She will not stop rendition and torture.

She will continue Bush's anti-labour policies, eg., FTAA, CAFTA, NAFTA, WTO, etc.

She will continue with Plan Colombia and the School of the Assassins.

She will try to topple Chavez in Venezuela and Morales in Bolivia.

She will keep the status quo in regards to the Palestinian question.

She will keep the embargo on Cuba.

She will push for censorship of video games, films, etc.

She will criminalize several First Amendment activities, such as flag burning.

She will keep Bush's First Amendment Zones.

Hillary ain't gonna change as President. She will be another useful tool in the hands of the ruling classes, which by then will be desperate to save capitalism from being blamed for the crimes of the Bush dictatorship.

Your impression is peppered with the poorly thought-out slogans of the disgruntled third-party types that will NEVER vote Democratic and would rather see an election go to the Republicans than participate in preventing that from happening.

Ps: I desperately want the introduction of a third, fourth, etc. party system in American politics, but this is not the time to shoot for the top job. We've seen the damage inflicted. And, again, I'm sorry you can't discern the difference between Dems and Repubs, but I don't think you want to.

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

And I don't think you can possibly claim to actually know what's in IG's mind or what IG's motives are.

Ms. Green called me a Hillary partisan, wrongly assessing my motivation. In my OP I CLEARLY stated I would not vote for Hillary in the primary.

You argue like a Republican.

IG assuming your motivation was as wrong as you assuming IG's.

either. When somebody posts with a certain viewpoint and they're predictable in what they say in that their responses follow along an "anti-this, or anti-that", motives aren't hard to guess.

Certain posters who don't like Hillary will never, NEVER say a kind word about her EVEN if she was an incarnation of the Virgin Mary.

AK wasn't trying to be snarky, she pretty much hit the nail on the head IMHO. My POV and AKs are pretty much in sync.

Even IF your conclusion is that IG is inherently biased against Clinton, it is IG's right to express an opinion without his/her motives being questioned (since you can't know the motivation; no matter what you might suspect, you're not in IG's head).

It's quite possible that some people have seen nothing worth complimenting Clinton on. I mean, this is a political board, and a lot of us don't do the cult of personality, pay-more-attention-to-the-politician-than-the-issues thing, and may not have much good to say about the issues Clinton supports.

Without asking the person, without rancor, it's hard to know the totality of their feelings on the matter.

You both seem clearly pissed off that most of us don't hate the Clintons with the passion you do. And IGREEN was overtly hostile to me, calling me a Hillary apologist, which is absurd because I have made it abundantly clear I'm not particularly thrilled with her and won't vote for her in the primary.

Admittedly both of you got on my last nerve and I ultimately responded with no patience, and for that I apologize because I despise arguing with people that are SUPPOSED to be on the same side.

Most of us at least try approaching politics with some semblance of reason and sanity. Both you and IGREEN have quoted Republican talking points which are absurd and entirely over-the-top. I, for one, reject that attempt at manipulation, especially here at DU.

You are adamant about your opinion but seem incapable of tolerating others. You pepper your posts with sarcasm and ridicule, but it's not going to work. I will not be bullied. And if I had my way, I would want you to stop bullying others here that are afraid to speak up for fear of being stomped on by people like you.

NT!

when she chided John Murtha for saying publicly that the war in Iraq was essentially over and that the troops needed to come home.

You seem to ignore Hillary's own positions on the issues of war and peace, we surely ain't gonna let her slide to the nomination unscathed. Anyone that supports the war is a war monger and an enabler of war crimes. Hillary falls in that category. She is as much a Bush shill on the Iraq war as Colin Powell is.

Hillary used "Third Way" to describe her views on Iraq, interestingly enough, while "Third Way" was used by Bill Clinton, it was also used by the US to prop up a pro-American government in Vietnam to replace the French in 1954.

The "Third Way" is the "No Way" road to perdition!

Mark my words, Hillary will turn Iraq into a Democratic War and people like you will be attacking the peace movement for not supporting her occupation policies.



A lot of people have died for nothing in Iraq. It is time to end this war now, today if at all possible. Hillary's triangulating on the lives of our troops and the Iraqi people is the biggest moral failure by a Democratic leader since the Democratic Party stood silent on segregation during the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations.

It is her job as a Senator to brainstorm strategies to end this debacle. She is not pro-war. That is utter nonsense. She is hardly a Bush shill.

Your hatred for Hillary distorts your view of reality.

I've got an idea. Instead of spending all your energy inaccurately representing someone's record - after all, isn't that the Republicans' job? - why don't you find your candidate of choice for the 2008 election and try to convince us to support that person?

Trash-talking the opposition particularly (and allegedly) within one's own party is destructive and just plain unpleasant. Honest debate is one thing, and I really suggest you explore the truth meaning of that, your M.O. is oh so Republican.

A simple Yes or No will do.

It is her job to figure this out. Just because she offered a solution YOU don't like doesn't qualify her for your diatribe of abuse, accusations, and wild predictions.

You are completely inflexible and intolerant of ANYONE who deviates from YOUR train of thought. And your assessment of Hillary is inaccurate and unfair. I realize that works for you and your narrow agenda, but I'm calling bullshit on it.

Because that is really what is at stake here, isn't it? Under Murtha we would have far less names of the fallen on a future Iraq War Memorial than we would under Hillary or Bush.

You can't blame Hillary based on rhetoric. Maybe her solution would mean less lives lost in the end. You don't know the ultimate cost either way; nobody does.

I certainly understand your agitation and anger. But you need to turn that to the REAL opposition - the Republicans and this administration. You are dumping all over some of the Dems. Admittedly their anemic efficacy to date has been frustrating. But you make no effort to be fair or even honest in your campaign against them.

and a day in which a greater number of Iraqi civilians are killed or wounded.

The war is not a political science term paper for many of us!

You really have a lot of nerve saying some of things you do to people here!

Your pointless, self-serving, assaultive in a passive-aggressive way rhetoric is beneath you and the rest of us here.

Grow up.

Atomic,
You really should calm your rhetoric. You have been all over this board, 44 out of the 149 posts at this time. Yet you are acussing others of being overly zealous?

I ***Loved*** the Clintons and fought for them when they were in office. But a lot has changed since then and has become clear... Hillary is the one playing by the Republican book. Maybe she and her followers think she will change tactics if she gets in office.. But surely everyone on this board understands that is just not the way things work.

The new president will need to come to office with a tide of support that is energised and wants change badly. And this is possible now (barring a terrorist incident that puts everyone in fear).

Ultimately the Republicans are not the real problem in Washington, they are just a symptom of the corrupt system of money for access that is destroying our Democracy. Hillary may appear a little different from the Republicans, but she has fairly obviously bought into the same structure and will not be a real force for change. And if she does make sweeping changes I just can't trust her because she is showing she is willing to dirty herself for the power to do so.

Atomic,
You really should calm your rhetoric. You have been all over this board, 44 out of the 149 posts at this time. Yet you are acussing others of being overly zealous?

I ***Loved*** the Clintons and fought for them when they were in office. But a lot has changed since then and has become clear... Hillary is the one playing by the Republican book. Maybe she and her followers think she will change tactics if she gets in office.. But surely everyone on this board understands that is just not the way things work.

The new president will need to come to office with a tide of support that is energised and wants change badly. And this is possible now (barring a terrorist incident that puts everyone in fear).

Ultimately the Republicans are not the real problem in Washington, they are just a symptom of the corrupt system of money for access that is destroying our Democracy. Hillary may appear a little different from the Republicans, but she has fairly obviously bought into the same structure and will not be a real force for change. And if she does make sweeping changes I just can't trust her because she is showing she is willing to dirty herself for the power to do so.

Atomic,
You really should calm your rhetoric. You have been all over this board, 44 out of the 149 posts at this time. Yet you are acusing others of being overly zealous?

I ***Loved*** the Clintons and fought for them when they were in office. But a lot has changed since then and has become clear... Hillary is the one playing by the Republican book. Maybe she and her followers think she will change tactics if she gets in office.. But surely everyone on this board understands that is just not the way things work.

The new president will need to come to office with a tide of support that is energised and wants change badly. And this is possible now (barring a terrorist incident that puts everyone in fear).

Ultimately the Republicans are not the real problem in Washington, they are just a symptom of the corrupt system of money for access that is destroying our Democracy. Hillary may appear a little different from the Republicans, but she has fairly obviously bought into the same structure and will not be a real force for change. And if she does make sweeping changes I just can't trust her because she is showing she is willing to dirty herself for the power to do so.

in the hands of the ruling classes, which by then will be desperate to save capitalism" ?

And I think there is a strategy involved here of some sort. As in life, we can't agree with people 100% of the time on every issue. That's what makes life spicy.

But I don't let a few issues cloud my judgement.

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

regarding childish attacks.

And I will not summon my friends to come post here complaining that so-and-so is being mean to me. I can hold my own against the rude, presumptuous attacks made on me for my audacity in posting my OP.

Pointing out much of IGreen's opinion is based on wild predictions isn't childish or an attack, it's right-on and the reason there is such discord in the ranks.

intellectual dishonesty, and sheep like willingness to follow the pablum and edicts amplified by the right wing "noise machine" ..


I have a question for all your HRC supporters:

What are your thoughts about another 8 years of a Bush Presidency (vis a vis Jeb Bush) following another 4/8 years of a Clinton Presidency?

just curious if anyone of you see anything problematic about these mulberry bush dynasty style administrations in what is touted as "the best democracy in the world!" ???

This screed demonstrates an amazing depth of intellectual dishonesty, and sheep like willingness to follow the pablum and edicts amplified by the right wing "noise machine."

Others have contacted me privately with exactly the opposite perception.

I guess that's called an opinion.

And so there's no misunderstanding, I think Bill Clinton did a brilliant job as a president IN SPITE OF the jihad against him. He was a centrist which I realize is construed as being "republican lite" by those that consider themselves progressives.

But as a centrist he represented a majority of folks in this country of all political persuasions. He clearly did not represent you, but that doesn't mean he didn't do a good although certainly not perfect job.

A man more interested in getting fellatio from a young woman in his employ than he was about LGBT rights.

Add to that Hillary's pulling the rug from under John Murtha's call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

The Clintons are not the answer to Bush's dictatorship!

You have no knowledge of what Bill Clinton is interested in, much less "more" interested in. And the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was a decent compromise under the circumstances.

You clearly have no room in your brain for more than one train of thought. I want to hear different voices within the Democratic party and can listen to them without condemning all that don't align completely with mine. Have you ever considered the idea that your narrow agenda might not be the right road? Our world is much too complex to shut out other ideas.

And, again, read my OP. You have hijacked this thread to spew from your soapbox. We get it. You don't like the Clintons. Whatever.

I will reiterate that Hillary isn't my choice for Dem nominee in 2008; that point seems to not fit your talking points.

My point, again, is that I will support the 2008 Democratic nominee. Period.

as apparently they are to some self-described liberals.

You have no right to speak for others. And life for LGBT folks was much better and freer under Clinton. You can't deny that (but no doubt you will try). There is just so much on the table right now that it may SEEM to you LGBT rights are being shoved to the back burner.

whom doesn't fit that description? LOL -

ps- I won't bash Hillary. :~)

Go to the LGBT Forum and ask anyone there how they feel about Clinton's DOMA and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"!

and mesmerize the DUers that post there with a thread lauding Clinton's DOMA and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

:popcorn:

Regarding President Clinton:

link:

http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?blog_id=155

snip: "Some 66 percent of gays voted in '96 for Bill Clinton, whose enthusiasm among gay voters waned some after he signed the Defense of Marriage Act and agreed to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays in the military. In 1996, 23 percent voted for Republican Bob Dole, the same percentage as went for Bush in 2000 and this year.

CNN reported slightly different exit poll numbers in 2000, with 71 percent of gay votes for Gore, 24 percent for Bush, 4 percent for Nader and 0 percent for Buchanan."

" Among the 4 percent of all voters self-identifying as gay, lesbian or bisexual in the Post poll, 21 percent voted for Bush, 78 percent for Kerry and 2 percent for Nader"
_____________________

Regarding Sen. Clinton - voting record on GLBT issues:

This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________


2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
________________

It didn't bolster his arguments though!

This is what does count because it impacted the LGBT community directly:

Bill Clinton's support of DOMA and the idiotic "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Hillary Clinton's opposition to full rights for LGTBs, of which marriage rights are such a key component.

I extend to you an invitation to come down to the LGBT Forum and tell the good folks down there why there are so fortunate to have President Clinton sign DOMA and promulgate "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and should they be grateful that the Clintons oppose marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

but perhaps 66% to 78% of voters who are gay were thinking a bit more strategically when it came to general elections. I do hope there is a more progressive alternative than Hillary Clinton in 2008

If you can remember more than a decade ago when that policy was made, Clinton was in FAVOR of gays being open in the military. It was Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in congress who were against it, and forced Clinton to compromise on "don't ask, don't tell." Clinton wasn't a fucking king, he couldn't just make whatever he wanted into law. If you want to blame anyone for "don't ask, don't tell," then blame Newt Gingrich, not Bill Clinton.

The same arguments used against having gay people serve in the military are the same arguments that were used to keep the military segregated. Truman, a Missourian and a Southern Baptist, signed an executive order integrating the military. Truman was a great President, while Big Dog will go down into history as the man that pissed away an electoral mandate to get fellatio from a young female in his employ.

Yes, I blame Clinton for his inability to deal with the military, which was perhaps due to the fact that he never served a day in uniform. Former noncoms are not impressed by the brass!

Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" let to widespread witch hunts. Women were pressured to have sex, and many did for fear of being labeled as lesbians. Violence against GIs perceived as being gay is also part of Clinton's legacy. Add to that Clinton's signing of DOMA and his opposition to marriage rights for gays and lesbians, and you could say that Clinton is legitimately entitled to quite a bit of flak from the LGBT community.

direct your anger at Newt Gingrich, not Bill Clinton whose official position is in favor of military integration.

cater to the Republicans than to do what was right and what was in his power to do, permit LGBTs in the military, by executive order as commander-in-chief. Truman additionally told the Joint Chiefs of Staff that anyone who refused to carry out or criticized his integration order would be guilty of insubordination and would be court-martialed.

Clinton could have done precisely that. After a massive gasp of indignation, the Republicans, like all bullies, would have realized that Clinton was not a guy to be messed with.

Instead, his caving in on this issue and his craven attempts to placate the insurance industry about health care were taken not as signs of being a nice, conciliatory guy, but as being signs of weakness. He might as well have just gone around wearing a "kick me" sign after that.

i'm more concerned with the Clinton/Bush World Economic Policies they each have pursued, which i think should be fairly clear by now has had a very damaging impact on the poor and the working class in America, left, right and center.

NAFTA was developed and signed by Poppy Bush, but was unable to get Congress to agree. So what did Clinton do? - Clinton pushed that piece of crap on America by heavily lobbying Congress (who were NOT inclined) to sign on to that agreement... And anyone paying any attention has to know *that* was the pivotal moment when the working class had been sold out and began listening to Gingrich's Contract on America propaganda, where he tied in all these so called "family values" issues into his Contract On America "revolution".

The MSM began echoing Gingrich's meme, falsely attributing the success of the revolution to "family values" /contract on american bs, when actually the "turning" centered around the effects of NAFTA!

Imo, i think over the years, the case has been well made that NAFTA played a significant role in laying down the foundation for the most fascists governance we've had in our entire history, imo.

The Clinton/Bush NAFTA plan is tied up in hegemonic control and privatization of the worlds natural resources (such as water, crop seeds and fossil fuels) Muti Nationals exploitation of LABOR.

That's Bill Clinton's legacy - and that will be Hillary Clinton's primary agenda. I'll give you that their tactics and styles of Clinton and Bush are as different as night and day. That's absolutely true.

Clinton's are refreshingly intellectual, disarming, some might say seductive.

Bush/Cheney are moronic, arrogant, frightening, repulsive and dangerous.

But the swords each carry are equally as deadly as the other's, imo.

(from the point of view of the working class)

Those statistics are undeniable.

Clinton lifted millions out of poverty here in the US. Those statistics are undeniable.

Well, the myth of Clinton is just that, a myth!

Not only he stuck it to the poor, he also stuck it to the workers that saw their jobs go overseas all thanks to Clinton's NAFTA.

NOT centrist ones.

DUers have posted links to the polls - which I cannot search for, as I am not a donor, but I can point you toward bvar22 and LynnTheDem, who have posted extensive, corroborated evidence that what I stated is accurate.

In fact, I'll PM them, so they can enlighten you with that evidence.

a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman


Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml


The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html


Liberal values, which a majority of the electorate continues to embrace...
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/1995/11/yankel.html


The majority of Americans are more closely aligned with Democrats than they are with Republicans.
http://www.alternet.org/story/18786/

Polling Report.com;
http://www.pollingreport.com/



I'M NOT A LIBERAL, BUT...

Conservatives have, in recent years, been successful in giving the word "liberal" a pejorative meaning. Thus it is that polls show the public much more sympathetic to a number of liberal policy positions (notably on healthcare, education, the environment, social justice and decreasing corporate power) than to the label itself.
http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

I was familiar with the polls - but had trouble locating them.

--and I'm just trying to be a practical leftist

The trouble with the far-left, anti-establishment, anti-corporatist, anti-war, anti-two political party voter is that nothing pleases you about anyone who has ever held the office of the presidency or any other political office for that matter except maybe for a few Green party candidates who are now running for the local school board. Maybe there are a few obscure politicians you might have a modicum of respect for but unfortunately they haven't been born yet.

Nobody is idealogically pure enough for you. You have impossible expectations that no human being could ever live up to.

Nothing and nobody is good enough for you except maybe Dennis Kucinich who has zero chance of ever getting the nomination. I'm not knocking Dennis either. He's a very nice man who probably likes puppies and maybe owns a couple of cats.

Go out into the real word, Zhade, and you will learn that your views are NOT in the majority. Most people ARE centrists or moderates.

The trouble with the far-left, anti-establishment, anti-corporatist, anti-war, anti-two political party voter is that nothing pleases you about anyone who has ever held the office of the presidency or any other political office for that matter except maybe for a few Green party candidates who are now running for the local school board. Maybe there are a few obscure politicians you might have a modicum of respect for but unfortunately they haven't been born yet.

You, of course, know exactly zero about what I am. Far left is not one of those things (I don't care for Maoism or Stalinism, not really into communism at all), I have no idea what you mean by "anti-establishment", and I'm not a pacifist (I believe wars of legitimate self-defense are regrettably necessary). I am proudly anti-corporatist (what decent person isn't against corporate power holding sway over all our lives?) and definitely desire more than two parties, to allow for real representative democracy. I make no apologies for those stances, which of course aren't anywhere close to "far left" (Europe, for example, has multi-party systems which include parties ranging from the true left of communism and socialism to far right groups like in Germany and the Netherlands).

And you clearly have never bothered to ask me about any politicians, or you'd know that your blanket assumptions about how I feel about elected officials are far off the mark. Clinton, for example, did some great things while also doing some lousy things. But then, you'd have to drop your self-righteous, utterly misplaced anger in order to actually discuss the issue with me. Assuming what you think I think does not make you correct.


"Nobody is idealogically pure enough for you. You have impossible expectations that no human being could ever live up to."

Absolutely impossible for you to know that, though you will make that false claim. I mean, you DON'T know what's in my mind, and it's silly of you to think you do. You don't. Your statement is nonsensical.


"Nothing and nobody is good enough for you except maybe Dennis Kucinich who has zero chance of ever getting the nomination. I'm not knocking Dennis either. He's a very nice man who probably likes puppies and maybe owns a couple of cats."

Again, you are 100% wrong. But don't let the fact that you DON'T know me or my thoughts distract you from what must be an exhausting little tirade.

I have no idea on Kucinich's pet preferences, btw - I don't focus on the people, I focus on the issues, as noted elsewhere in the thread. So, once again, your point is irrelevant to me.


"Go out into the real word, Zhade, and you will learn that your views are NOT in the majority. Most people ARE centrists or moderates."

Been there, done that. Can't count how many times people agree with me but are surprised to learn I'm a liberal. They don't call themselves such, thanks in large part to the demonization of that word.

I have asked a couple of DUers far better at link organization to come onto the thread to help disabuse you of your incorrect notion that most Americans don't hold liberal views. They do, in fact, hold such views - such as support for universal health care, Social Security, and all those liberal things FDR helped put into place.

That a majority of Americans don't call themselves liberal is no longer a surprise to me. No seriously informed, intellectually honest person can deny that they hold liberal views as I've just described, however.

only decent way to be.

If you actually talk to them in depth, though, you find a lot of resentment against the way business is done these days with heartless corporate bean counters running the world and especially against the way health care is mismanaged. You'll have to go far to find someone who doesn't have a health care horror story.

Funny thing, in Europe and Japan, the center is somewhere in the Kucinich area of the spectrum.

the Dem nominee is. Hillary isn't my first choice either, but I'll support her if get gets the nomination.

I will not cast my vote for a third party candidate just to be snarky. Might as well vote for Jeb or John or whoever the Repug candidate is.

Mz Pip
:dem:

I will not vote for Hill in the primary, but that's the point of a democracy, to choose the candidate and then throw our collective energy behind him/her. Those that don't understand that and/or insist they will take their marbles and go home aren't interested in a genuine democratic election - insert fears of EVMs without a paper trail here, notwithstanding.

Thank you for your insight and your bravery in posting it. Some would call you an "intellectually dishonest sheep," but IMO you are capable of seeing the big picture. Kudos.

Back in 1980 I supported John Anderson for President. I wasn't that politically aware of what the consequences might be. Reagan might have won anyway without Anderson syphoning off 5% of the vote but to this day, after living through the "Reagan Revolution" I regret that vote. Won't get fooled again.

I know that I will never have the perfect candidate who I agree with on all the issues. But I will not do anything to hand over another victory to the Republicans ever again.

Mz Pip
:dem:

in 1980 I actually supported Barry Commoner of the Citizens Party--an early attempt to establish something akin to todays Green Party.

If progressives and liberals who were around at that time could have grasped how important it was to defeat Ronald Reagan and the first batch of new hard right senators and representatives --even though Jimmy Carter was a bit of a disappointment and not progressive on some issues--I wonder how much human suffering could have been avoided. I wonder how much better America and the world would be today.

I like many other progressives made that mistake in 1980. This was an error of catastrophic proportions.

No passion. No warmth. I hate how she is pandering to the right wing.I cannot see her exciting much of a base. I hate listening to her almost as much as shrub, but if she gets the nomination I will hold my nose and vote for her.

I wish you had seen her in tears talking about health care in 1993. You would view her quite differently.

But I embrace your willingness to participate in the process.

everything by trying to accommodate the insurance companies and coming up with a plan that was too complicated to sell effectively?

I first heard the term "managed care" that year. As we all know, we now have "managed care' in the private sector, which tells me that this part of the Clinton health plan was straight from the insurance companies.

As a self-employed person who struggles to pay for insurance premiums every month (which keep going up, even though I've never met my deductible), I'm real unhappy about the way the Clintons botched this effort so badly that it was easy for the Republicans to kibosh with the "Harry and Louise" ads.

I will not support this woman in any form whatsoever after the disaster she made of the American healthcare system with that "national healthcare plan" of hers.

Thanks to her we have a mess that I dont think will be sorted out in my lifetime, and lots of uninsured people are suffering with no healthcare.

Thanks for nothing, Mrs. Clinton!

I will be voting Green Party if she gets the nomination.

Hence,she does not have my vote.

and boolywoogers for you. Let's hope there are not a half million folks with your inflexibility that could swing an election to the Republicans.

I won't get fooled again.

And I will support the Democratic candidate.

Those of us that live from paycheck to paycheck and that must pray for good health can ill-afford to take off one day from work, much less 6 months.

No wonder Hillary doesn't resonate among our class!

I just have the luxury of an education that allows me to do different work in the middle of the night in a different capacity from my regular job to support myself and my son so I can do this.

I doubt that many people can have such choices.

Let's see how agreable you are to living under a Hillary dictatorship, it is no better than Bush's.

Why do you think the establishment in both parties don't want to get rid of the police state apparatus that Bush has established?

You do realize your opinion of Hillary for the most part is based on your predictions?

I assure you Hillary and all Democrats are staunch supporters of civil liberties.

She is nothing but Joe Lieberman in drag!

She called the SWAT team to remove antiwar demonstrators that had come to one of her New York offices to petition her to vote against IWR.

and I have real worries about her electability.

That said, if she wins the nomination, I will be first in line donating time, money and hard work.

And I don't share your belief that she would support a police state and see nothing factual to support that contention, indeed her political history shows tendencies and sympathies which are antithetical to the fascism the Bush's embrace.

activities are part of her Senatorial record. She won't be any different as President. I just want you to be aware that the peace movement will just as easily demonstrate against a President Hillary as it has against Bush.

The same people that today are saying they will support Hillary, will then be attacking us for opposing "a Democratic President" even though she will continue the war in Iraq and will use the military to impose neoliberal policies in Latin America.

I don't want to see the posting of Hillary apologias in 2009 defending her when she continues to spy on peace groups and uses "war on terra" as justification for the continuation of militarism and revanchism.

so obliviously in denial. :eyes:

I have stated my position regarding Hillary. What am I in denial about? You are projecting your hatred for Hillary on me when I stated quite clearly I would not vote for her in the primary.

to the BFEE. Unless she actually refuses to run, so they'll go with some other unacceptable choice.

and more predictions. Christ, I'm stunned at the closed minds here.

won't steal another election (we need to just beat "the margin of theft" which is finite)
:sarcasm:
Just keep in mind this scenario: once the primaries campaign starts - Hillary/other designated loser to BFEE will be written about in the MSM, polled against BFEE (fvorably) just as other Dems are totally ignored. That will go on until it leads to nomination - after which said designated loser will be relegated to only occasional negative coverage.
My mind "closed" in 2004 and further yet in the mayoral campaign NYC. The MO is identical, and open minded people like you fall for it without even knowing what hit them. Happy Hollidays to ya!

P.S. I also read the Hunting of the President, was a Hillary admirer, voted for her enthusiastically in 2000.
Now, I will vote for any oponent of hers in the primary - for senate. As for POTUS - done voting for shills.

That will go on until it leads to nomination - after which said designated loser will be relegated to only occasional negative coverage.

I'm not "falling" for anything. I remain hopeful. Sue me.

As for "negative coverage" - no one on DU makes up shit. which you'll hear from MSM (Gore, the serial liar, swiftboated Kerry etc).
A lot of people here were disappointed in her complicity with W to start a war, especialli after what Bill Clinton had said in the summer of 2002:

-
And this is really where the question of Iraq comes in. There's a lot of
debate
about what
should we do with Iraq, and when. And you may want to ask
further questions, but
I will just
make one observation. Saddam Hussein presents no conventional
military threat
to us, and a
much smaller one to his allies than he did before the Gulf War.
His military
strength, it is
commonly conceded, is about 40 percent of what it was before
the Gulf War.
http://www.cfr.org/public/Clinton_6-17-02_Transcript.html

You see, I do understand political compromise. But when that involves life and death - my understanding stops. The blood of those people is on the hands of those who helped W get his way and have his war. I will never vote for anyone of them.
And that's not "negative coverage". That's standing on principles.

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

Glad you are not a name caller - or who knows what you might have called me.
:shrug:

LOL! Ask us in CA about that one! By the time the primaries get around to us we're stuck with whatever a few hundred well-placed DLC puppets in Iowa TELL us the nominee will be. Give me a break! You're either woefully naive and misinformed or you're being purposely obtuse. Either way, it all comes down to the same old bullshit argument: "Goose step to the party line or else." Goddess knows we've never heard THAT one before. :eyes:

I've said what I came to say, succinctly and heartfelt in my OP. Just what I wrote, nothing more, nothing less.

And to those that sent private messages of support, I beg you to pull up your socks and not be afraid to speak up and discuss your thoughts. I believe we all want a better America.

Happy holidays.

I too will support her should she be the nominee. I think it's stupid to be so stubborn as to only vote for someone if s/he agrees with you on every issue. Compromise is very important if anything is going to be accomplished, especially in politics, and compromising on Hillary is a hell of a lot better than letting another Republican occupy the White House.

and don't plan to support her for president. That doesn't mean I won't, it means if she wins the nomination, she won't automatically get my vote, but she will have to earn it in what she says. And I make no apologies.

distasteful that many here don't like her?

Reminds me of LBJ's line about anti-war protesters... while he was bombing Vietnam back to the Stone Age, he complained that the protesters were trampling on the flower beds in the parks. Mighty strange set of priorities, if you ask me.

Guess what? I think the "yes" Iraq vote was bullshit too. Which is, quite frankly, THE reason I won't vote for her in the primary. Did you read my OP? I don't think you did. It appears you wanted us all to know you don't like Hillary. OK, we get it. But your post is inappropriate in light of my OP.

Well said. It's so hard to believe that the beating Hillary takes around here is often worse than what comes from the rightwing. Really makes one wonder...

And you hit the nail on the head. I could check in with the freepers if I wanted to hear so much crap about Democrats. The problem is that some people want to reduce the size of the tent and are intolerant of other points of view. And I'm talking about the genuine Dem voters, not the ones who threaten to sit out the election or vote third party.

little early for those who want to run, for serious posturing. The results of the '06 mid-term election will have more to do with who runs than anything else that might happen. Living through the Candidate Wars has taught me a lot about how people feel and how easily we can refuse to accept that regardless of what we say here on DU, it is vastly more important to be out on the streets getting people to register and enlightening people to the fact that we, as Dem's, Liberals etc., are not the wimps and fools the RW portrays us as. Let us do what we can to re-establish control or the House and the Senate; then we move forward to '08/

My point is that oaths this premature are idiotic. I can't tell you how many of my Green friends breathed fire and then acquiesced in the end. It just saves a lot of hot air to have this out now instead of so much energy spent trying to convince people not to vote or to vote third party. That IMO is the epitome of ignorance at this point in our history. Not after what we have been through.

We have bigger fish to fry. My pet project is dealing with election fraud. And, as you said, organization is another, and registering voters, voter education, etc. require attention. There is so much to do already without having to put out fires.

I will always vote for a democratic presidential candidate. Hell, if I personally knew a republican presidential candidate, I'd still for the the big D!



And Hillary, if you are our candidate:


You go girl! :)

My vote is already reserved for another potential 2008 candidate (if he chooses to run); Senator Clinton has a re-election race to win in NY. I have faith she will win her re-election bid as she has been a good senator for NY.

And that's IF she continues to be pro-war and IF she comes to be the candidate?

If everyone who supports these pro-war dems would just quit their jobs NOW and enlist, it's possible we'd have a better situation on the ground there.

but I doubt that we will get an anti war dem.

The best we can hope for in an apologetic Edwards-like candidate. But, hell, you never know.

That's nonsense. I shake my head at the way some of you intrepret the status quo. It seems such an immature way to look at things.

Please give the man his credit. I don't think that it's fair to give Conanson all of the credit.

As far as Hillary, I just don't want the first woman President to get it because her husband was it before her. I think that is an insult to us woman.

I think that she's OK....but I just don't think she can win. Plus, when the media pushes someone in my face, I push back!
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Merry Holy-Days!

You are absolutely correct; no slight meant, just an abbreviation of the authors.

Hillary is Senator of NY and is quite accomplished; I don't think anyone is putting forward that she should be president because her husband was. Don't look for an insult to womankind in general when there is none!

And with electronic voting machine fraud, who the hell knows what will happen.

whatever.
If it is McCain v. Hillary, I am fine either way.
I contend that my blue state status allows me to vote progressive. I usually vote green or at least wfp, but I did vote for Kerry (on the wfp line).

and he made a comment toward the end of the show, "Then you could run for office?"

I don't want to quote Caroline...but surprisingly she said (and I paraphrase here) something like, 'Wouldn't that be great!' And she did NOT appear to be sarcastic in saying so. I was amazed at her immediate, unhesitating enthusiasm.

Of course she might mean something more like a local political office, but...she REALLY has developed such a "stature", is so bright, charasmatic, and clearly an over-achieving, "easy" multi-tasker.

She read a poem on Def Poetry. Really wonderful. She is a died-in-the-wool Democrat, old school.
My heart broke when JFK Jr died. He had such promise, a promise we were robbed of that will never be fulfilled.

I would LOVE fresh blood in the political arena. She would be brilliant. Sigh.

Thanks for posting this. It's a lovely Xmas gift for me!

but I know I don't want a choice of Hillary and whatever crap is nominated by the GOP. I do know this: if nominated, Hillary doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning my state so in that sense I will be free to vote for the candidate who actually speaks for me.
A big part of my decision in 2008 will be made for me next November. If the DNC blows it again by being Bush's shadow I will give very strong consideration to going Green.
I understand what you're saying in your post, AK, but as for myself, I feel we have gone as far as we can down the DLC road and now it's time for us to look for the men and women who share our ideas. If we all did that, we might see possibilities we never dreamed of. If we never do it, we'll just have to hope for the best.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman


Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml


The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

of whether it is my second or third choice.

2008 is too important to do antyhing else but give 110% support.

but even if she's dead last on my preference list, I'll support her if she's the nominee.
Which I very much doubt she will be, but carry on.

thanks.

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

I am certainly not a supporter for Hillary for the nomination. I am definitely not a sympathizer with the DLC. But, down here on planet earth let's look at her record compared to both a "moderate" Republicans; John McCain and a "conservative" Republican; George Allen:


This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________


2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.
_________________________________


2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Peace Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Peace Action 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.
______________________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
__________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95
percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 15 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 17 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Education Association 25 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 13 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 7 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 92 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 56 percent in 2003-2004

____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.

eom

Here is a list of some of Sen. Clinton's ACTUAL votes.




YES on:
6/28/05: This was the vote to pass HR 6, a sellout of the environment to the nuclear, coal-burning and automotive industries. The emphasis on nuclear and coal facilities could leave the United States a radioactive, mercury-ridden deserted land. A couple hundred million or more children and adults could be killed by nuclear meltdowns and/or mercury poisoning. The bill sells out to those who want to make inefficient cars and thereby will continue to subject millions of Americans to the risk of death and serious health conditions, aside from the risks of mercury-poisoning and radiation-poisoning..


YES on:
7/01/05: This was the vote on H.R. 2419. The last vote before passage was a vote to reject an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and instead utilize the amount to reduce the National Debt This has billions in funding for nuclear weapons activities. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a project designed to make California a radioactive wasteland, to irradiate the Colorado River and to make much of the nation's food supply dangerously radioactive. It also uses billions of taxpayers dollars to fund nuclear weapons activities. This is perhaps the coldest, most inhuman bill voted upon this year.


Yes on:
6/09/05A: This was the confirmation vote on Richard Griffin for a lifetime appointment to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Richard Griffin has a history of taking extreme positions harmful to the environment, civil rights and the rights of workers, strikers. and consumers.


Yes on:
6/09/05B: This was the confirmation vote on David McKeague for a lifetime appointment to the Sixth Circuit. McKeague has a judicial activist history of being a strong opponent of the environment and of privacy rights. The approval of both Griffin and McKeague places the future of the natural resources and the health of the residents of the area covered by the 6th Circuit in grave jeopardy.

YES on:
5/24/05: This was the cloture motion on Priscilla Owen for the 5th Circuit. Torture-proponent Alberto Gonzales even called Owen extreme. Her record shows that she is anti-environment, anti-employee, anti-civil rights, anti-human rights, pro-discrimination and pro-polluter. This was the critical vote - the confirmation vote was a sure thing once this passed.

YES on:
5/10/05: HR 1268/HR418 involved two bills re-combined in committee. Since these bills both are catastrophic to human rights and human life and were originally two separate bills, though they were voted on together following the conference report, each of the two bills is being counted here. HR 1268 is an appropriations bill which gives profits to contractors who benefit from wars and which acts as an excuse to continue the war and the killing in Iraq. HR 418 presumes to override Articles I,II and III of the U.S. Constitution and to give the power to commit acts of terrorism, murder, torture, etc. to Michael Chertoff, a man connected with individuals involved in financing 9/11. It also eliminates political asylum in the United States by requiring the victims of persecution to obtain written proof of the persecution from the governments that are persecuting them. It also sets up the basis for a Nazi-style national ID Card while making the highways more unsafe and terrorism more likely.


YES on:
4/21/05B: This was HR 1268, the appropriations bill which took funds away from veterans injured in Iraq and from education, heath care and services for children, the elderly and the needy in America and gave approximately $81 billion dollars to those who were profiting from death.


AWOL on:
3/10/05: This was the actual vote on the bankruptcy deform bill, guaranteeing that credit card issuers can now steal homes from veterans, laid-off workers and people with serious medical conditions.


YES on:
2/15/05: This was the vote to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture, an individual connected to the financing of 9/11 and the man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By confirming him the Senate, in effect, endorsed terrorist attacks on America, water-board torture and racism.


Refused to stand for:
1/06/05: This was the opportunity for Senators to stand up for democracy and honest elections


The above information was mined from The Patrick Henry Democratic Club
http://patrickhenrythinktank.org/sen-score5.html

This is only a look at the last 8 months, and this list ONLY looks at the votes where she abandoned the Democratic Party principles. In other votes, she voted with the Democratic values.

If you look at her overall performance, she generally supports the social values of the Democratic party, but not the economic values. She never votes against increasing Defense Appropriations, War Money, and seldom votes to limit the Power of BIG Corporations, or seldom opposes judges KNOWN to support Corporate Management over LABOR.

Senator Clinton DID vote against CAFTA which passed with the help of other DLC defectors from the Democratic Party. Since the Corporatists had already ensured they had the votes for passage, her vote AGAINST CAFTA is not really significant.

This is the reason that "looking a the voting record" can be misleading. Politicians "swap votes" every day. A vote against CAFTA (or whatever) was meaningless once the PTB had the necessary votes for passage. The Powers that buy votes don't demand that each bought politician vote "their way" every time. They ONLY demand that their anti-LABOR legislation PASS every time. After that point, "their people" are free to "Cover Their Asses".
The votes "in committee" and the positions advocated from "the floor" are more significant than a quick look at the voting record. Even mre important are the positions that they choose to REMAIN SILENT on (thereby giving tacit approval), though these are harder to document.

For comparison,
Patrick Henry rating for:
Senator Clinton= +32

Senator Kerry= +75

Senator Kennedy= +110

Senator Boxer= +130

Senator Lieberman= -235

:rofl:

thanks for the laugh!

http://www.dlc.org/
:rofl:

:silly:

I have no argument with you there at all.

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

our local Democratic office holders. A candidate that supports the war and globalization will not generate any support from people that oppose the war or have seen their plant shutdown and the jobs sent overseas. Working class people are beginning to realize that it is counterproductive to vote against their own economic interests. They know that both parties represent the same corporate interests that have hurt their pocketbooks, their jobs, their pensions, etc.

An Al From-type of Presidential nominee means that we have to work much harder to get workers to vote for our local candidates, our Democratic city council members, Congressperson, state legislators. We won't have time, or the inclination, to confuse the potential voter with calls for supporting someone that stands in opposition to their interests and beliefs.

We already have a plate full trying to protect workers' rights and LGBT rights, and some people in here want us to divert some of our time and efforts to promote a prowar, anti-labor nominee, I don't think so!

instead of spending so much energy saying crazy shit about those you don't. It's destructive and unpleasant within the ranks.

Positive energy = positive results.

I think Hillary is probably tough enough to take getting bashed on the DU. IF (big 'if')she wins the Democratic nomination, she had better be. 'Cause what is getting said here is NOTHING compared to what the GOP campaign machine will do to her.

She is not my top choice for candidate. I think her candidacy has some problems that would be tough to get around. If she wins the nomination, I will vote for her.

It is not 'ludicrous' to say she would lose. It is realistic. There is a chance that ANY of the people currently being mentioned to run in 2008 will lose. And many of those candidates have less baggage than Hillary.