I Will Not Support Hillary Clinton for President

From the great Molly Ivins, and more relevant than ever:

Do you think we haven't seen this or something?

and I am glad to have read it just now. I concur with Molly.

:toast:

Julie

And just becuase something has been posted in the past doesn't mean it loses all relevance. Maybe the rest of us would like to see it. I know I would.

Molly speaks for me. I'll never vote for her.

Wouldn't you be better off just starting the Anti-Hillary Underground? Maybe you could pal up with Rush and Hannity. They hate her almost as much as you do.

hahaha
*snort*

You know she'd bring back all the Nineties crazies and you know they'd make sure she lost.
Why put us all through that again?

(BTW, great showing by Duckworth there...sure proved Rahm was right to jump in with both feet on that one...):sarcasm:

They will be in for a rude awakening.

Jim Carville has been infused with some of his wife's former employer knack for obfuscation and mendacity.

You can't name a single good reason she should be nominated.

We want a Democratic president. What the hell do you people want?

Hillary may very well sit this one out and be nominated by a Dem president as a Supreme Court Justice.

I imagine she'd still be Justice Clinton, since that is now her legal last name, even if officially she would be Justice Rodham (which I'm not sure of).

Why is her name -- maiden versus married -- important enough to you to make an issue of it?

Jeez, am I the only one with a memory up in here?

When Bill Clinton was first running, his wife was Hillary RODHAM. Not Hillary Clinton, not Hillary Rodham Clinton. She was Hillary Rodham.

She only bowed to the "Mrs. Clinton" theme after she got ragged about it, shortly before the baking cookies/Tammy Wynette business.

Hillary would be better in a non-electoral setting. She'd be decent in a situation where she had no reason to triangulate.

(Although, for the record, Hillary changed her last name in the early 80's, when Bill was trying to regain the governorship after having lost it in the Reagan landslide. It was used with incredible viciousness against her.

I think that both of them were permanently scarred by the 1980 defeat, and it led them to abandon their principles and settle for power in name only out of pure desperation. Unfortunately, they never realized that the rest of the country didn't demand what Arkansas demanded.)

It's a job with clout and legacy, AND....it would piss off the right wing.

She's healthy, too, so she'd be in the chair for awhile.

n/t

She has a lifetime 95% ADA rating, which makes her one of the most liberal members of the Senate, not to mention being solidly in the "Democratic" column... The question, in light of these FACTS, should rather be - What the hell do you, Mr. Burch, want?

Isn't it amazing how much time one has to waste correcting all these myths about certain candidates that only exist in the minds of people who happen not to like them?

who doesn't treat workers, the poor and activists like they're the scum of the earth, while fawning over big donors.

I want somebody who has no luxury boxes at the next convention, because it is obscene to have rich people eating caviar at a Democratic gathering.

I want to win, not just nominate somebody who gets big donations while losing.

We need a populist, not a corporate elitist.

We need somebody who is moved to tears and rage by poverty, not somebody who applauds as a bill that punishes the poor is signed.

I want a Democrat and I want to win. And I want a party run by activists and idealists, not big donors who hate most Democratic voters. People who write big checks don't care about Democratic values.

Is that too much to ask.

you want things...

and you don't want Hillary.

That's ok. I support a person's right to dislike a candidate.

What I don't support is someone running around a message board posting things about that candidate that aren't true.

And you've been doing a lot of that.

Cynthia McKinney, Dennis Kucinich

Let Diane Feinstein continue to party with the George Schultzes'

Let Hillary hang out with Lieberman and Poppy Bush

But if you want me to vote Democratic in 2008, don't make me gag with a Republican Lite

She's never taken a risk for any liberal position.

She's never supported an unpopular liberal position when her vote was the difference between victory and defeat.

And she's constantly talked about how the party needs to "appeal to the center, appeal to the center, appeal to the center". You know as well as I do that this means "if elected, I'll be just like Bill". Centrism means leaving the poor, the workers, gays and lesbians, and women out in the cold. It means putting big donors and CEO's first. It means conventions with luxury boxes while peaceful protesters are arrested in the streets outside.

Hillary would have voted for the Gulf of Tonkin amendment and then probably been a proud Humphrey delegate if she'd been in the Senate in the 60's.

That you would even use such an empty argument shows that you lack credibility and really have nothing to add to this conversation.

As for the Clinton presidency, which, in your view, just wasn't quite good enough -

here are some of the Clinton administration's achievements -

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm


-------------------------------


re: your Humphrey comment. HRC worked for the George McGovern campaign in '72, so I seriously doubt that your speculation has any merit.

Rush and Hannity WANT Hillary to be our candidate, the OP doesn't.

Julie

We oppose because we have principles. Don't try and conflate those who arrive at their positions honestly with contemptable types like Limbaugh and Hannity. If we're going to play that game, I can say that you support child labor and sweatshops. Wal-Mart, remember, is a bigtime supporter of Hillary.

maybe you can start a club with them or something.

If I see another copy of these whiny, " I r not liking Hillary! LOLZ, " threads I think I'll implode.

Why object to that?

Gods know we won't be defeated if it's a Clinton/Obama ticket. And when that time comes think of me.

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

I guess we know how this person will be voting in November 2008.

Please tell me why you're so adamant about nominating an arrogant loser?

We want a Democrat to win. What the hell do YOU want?

She terrifies the Republicans and one of the people they don't want to run against, that's why I support her.

And the Republicans WANT us to nominate her, they don't fear her, they DREAM of her running!

A Hillary nomination means all the Nineties crazies go back and we have to hear Whitewater, Vince Foster, Monica Monica Monica et al., and, since Hillary has no charisma, it has to work this time.

Why put us through all that shit again?

This time, we need to nominate a REAL Democrat who will actually DEFEND progressive Democratic values. That is the only way to win.

History has proved triangulation will never work again. You get the center by looking principled and strong in your beliefs, not by dumping on the left.

Conviction, not triangulation.

she is running against a republic candidate in the general. It wouldn't be the first time I wasted a vote on a futile candidate. I voted for Mondale in 1984 and Dukakis in 88.

I will do all I can to see a Gore/Clark ticket. That is a ticket I would be excited about.

I think she is their choice for our candidate, and they are pushing her, and pushing her - she is as polarizing to the RW as * is to us, although in her case, it hasn't been earned.

Much of what we see making Hillary the "frontrunner" comes from the repugs - she's their DREAM candidate for us. She would be the best "get-out-the-vote" candidate for repugs. It's really not fair to Hillary, but it's true that she is demonized by the right.

I don't dislike Hillary, really - she's my senator, but I don't see ANYTHING she's ever done as being enough to make her a presidential candidate, much less a "front-runner". She's married to Bill, so she has name recognition, and that's it.

I agree with Molly - although I will vote for whoever the dem nominee is, I don't want it to be Hillary. I don't want it to be someone who panders as much as she does. We need a strong, principled person who knows which party they belong to.

Most of all, I don't want the repugs choosing our candidate for us, and that's what they're trying to do, by pretending they're "terrified" of her. That's bullshit - they're not in the least bit scared of her.

"Oh, please throw me into that briar patch" candidate. And some people on this board are falling for it.

I just don't want to see John McCain, who many not-so-well informed people still see as a moderate, or any other republican in the White House.

Hillary has practically been coronated by the "Republican Noise Machine", but thankfully there's a lot of time between now and the election, and I do think the repugs are losing their hold on the media. It might take a while, but hopefully, a strong candidate will come out, who the DEMS have chosen.

Felt just the same way about Reagan in 1979....

"Be careful what you wish forL you just might get it."

hoped fervently that the Republicans would nominate knee-jerk anti-tax gadfly Bill Sizemore as their gubernatorial candidate. The Republicans obliged, and incumbent Democratic governor John Kitzhaber went on to defeat him 2 to 1.

Union members and other Democrats hated Bill Sizemore with a vehemence that matched what the typical DUer feels about George W. Bush, and they were extremely motivated to keep him out of the governor's mansion.

It can work either way.

"The future is hard to predict, on account of it ain't happened yet."

Hillary's fine. Lots of votes I agree with, some I don't agree with but who expects to agree with elected officials all of the time?

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c001041/key-votes/

Isn't Hillary's liberal rating fairly high? I know John Kerry's is 93% but I can't find the link where I found that.

Why post this old artcle anyway. The only idiot who preaches "staying the course" is monkeyboy.

stay the course :bounce: stay the course :bounce: stay the course :bounce: stay the course :bounce: stay the course

Ridiculous isn't it?

Even if you prefer someone else to be the nominee... Hillary would be a fine President.

McCarthy would skip out on Congressional hearings early just to get free press time. I guess doing your job isn't as important as facing the camera.

McCarthy was also notorious for telling people to "look at my record" over and over and over when asked about pressing issues. There's a reason this guy lost.

I don't support Hillary Clinton for the nomination, but Molly Ivins could use a good fact-checker next time she writes an article.

it must be said that Gene had the courage to challenge LBJ when Bobby was still too scared to do it.

One reason Gene McCarthy's campaign stayed alive was that Bobby got in AFTER Gene had taken the risk of entering the New Hampshire primary, and after Bobby had promised not to run. If Bobby had kept his word on that, Gene would have swept the primaries and, with the likely result being a deadlock between McCarthy and Humphrey, McCarthy would probably have withdrawn in favor of a post-primary "draft Bobby" movement.

McCarthy's campaign fizzled out, as it should have, when he failed to make a compelling case for why RFK's delegates should instead turn to him.

Yes, McCarthy was the only one who ran against LBJ in New Hampshire. For that I credit him. However, it could've been anyone else in his place painting themselves as "anti-war" who would've caused an upset. McCarthy was the guy who forced LBJ to see that he simply wasn't popular enough, particularly after the Tet Offensive, to get re-elected. A presidential primary winner he was not; his performance at the convention is proof enough.

"If Bobby had kept his word on that, Gene would have swept the primaries and, with the likely result being a deadlock between McCarthy and Humphrey, McCarthy would probably have withdrawn in favor of a post-primary "draft Bobby" movement."

You don't know that. All these "if"s and "probably"s are just pure idle speculation. Humphrey had the party machine Johnson set up for him on his side, and in 1968, particularly in Daley's Chicago, that still meant a great deal. The primaries were simply not as influential in 1968, and indeed one of the main results of 1968 is that the convention and party rules were changed to place more emphasis in primaries and caucuses. Personally I think it's more likely RFK would've deadlocked or beaten Humphrey at the convention had he survived, but that is speculation as well; I concede that I don't have any way of knowing what really would've happened.

All I know is, RFK was a hell of a better candidate for president than McCarthy, the proof bring in the primary results.

(and the polls throughout the summer of '68 showed that McCarthy, had he been nominated, would have run far more strongly than Humphrey).

I was simply referring the question of who showed more courage.

If it had been left to Bobby, NO ONE would have challenged LBJ. Would THAT have been better?

Bobby was the only one with a ghost of a chance of stopping Humphrey. We can speculate with what-ifs and everything you seem to be doing, but I think it's equally likely people would've written in another choice, absent McCarthy - if not in New Hampshire (where Henry Cabot Lodge won such a write-in campaign in 1964), then likely in other states with primaries. LBJ's popularity tanked after Tet.

The power of LBJ within the party. The suicidal decision of many "regular" Democratic delagates that staying in the war was worth guaranteeing the election of Nixon. The refusal of Teddy Kennedy to state either that he would accept a draft or that he absolutely wouldn't until it was too late to matter(I think that Teddy, at this point, had decided that HE would rather see Nixon elected rather than let McCarthy be nominated, for some twisted reason, even though McCarthy had nothing whatsoever to do with Bobby's death).

I was just pointing out that McCarthy would have been a stronger candidate than Humphrey. And, given that Humphrey somehow nearly fought Nixon to a deat heat in the end, it would have been the difference between victory and defeat.

Of course Bobby would have been the best choice had he lived. I'd never dispute that.
But it wasn't McCarthy's own fault that LBJ rigged the convention.
(In fact, from what I've read and heard, Johnson didn't actually WANT Humphrey to be elected. He just wanted him nominated so that the doves could be kicked in the teeth both figuratively and literally. This is the only possible explanation for Johnson's insistence that Humphrey's position on Vietnam be stridently and arrogantly prowar.)

Honestly, in 1968, when social upheaval was at a high, the war in Vietnam reached a turning point, and American heroes are being assassinated, the last thing I'd expect a politician to say is "look at my record".

McCarthy did just that, so often that at one of his rallies a college student famously yelled "Record, hell! Tell us how you feel."

Yes, the convention was rigged. McCarthy would've been preferable to Johnson or Humphrey. However we can't say he would've been a stronger candidate, as Nixon could've used his "look at my record" line against him ad nauseum. After all, McCarthy did initially vote for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. We'll never know.

And yes, Johnson famously pressured Humphrey to be more pro-war than HHH would've liked. As the pro-war canididate, Humphrey had things thrown at him, shouted at protestors, and had piss-poor poll numbers and reactions to his campaign appearances.

After Humphrey bought some TV air time where he said "I would withdraw our troops from Vietnam and bring an end to the war" (a speech that Johnson remarked would cause Humphrey to be "screwed"), the protests stopped, the tomato-throwing was no more, people listened to his speeches, and the day after, a sign in the crowd he spoke to said "If you're serious, we're with you".

From what I've read, if the election was 8 hours later, Humphrey would've won. As it was, it was a squeaker. Then again, had Nixon, Kissinger and Anna Chenault not sabotaged the peace process, Humphrey probably would've won as well. Maybe if he'd given that speech a day earlier...

Was that Johnson and Humphrey both had PROOF of it in the last week of the campaign, AND REFUSED TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT. Vanity Fair had an article a couple of years ago documenting this.

(As to my feelings that, absent RFK, McCarthy would've been a stronger candidate in the fall, this also derives from the probability that, had McCarthy been nominated and the peace plank approved, there would have been NO protesters being violently subdued by the cops in the streets of Chicago. This, by itself, would have been enough to make McCarthy much stronger, as he would have gone into the fall facing none of the well-deserved bitterness aimed at Humphrey.

And, before anybody else says it, yes, it would have been the better part of valor for Peace Democrats to get behind Humphrey anyway. We'd at least have been spared Nixon. But Johnson went out of his way to make that choice as difficult as possible for the doves.)

You're right about McCarthy's "look at my record" meme. From what I've read, he did this not because he didn't want to answer the questions, but because he thought announcing what he'd done on each issue when speaking to various groups was pandering and a form of egotism.
He could be weird about seeking the support of voting blocs, refusing, for example, to allow any effort to specifically target Black or Latino voters or any other voters of color. This was in clear contrast to RFK, whose campaign is memorable in part because it was one of the first to specifically address what we now call "identity politics". McCarthy's approach also gave rise to the impression that McCarthy was indifferent to civil rights or social justice issues, when in fact his record and proposals were quite similar to Kennedy's, and, at times, to Kennedy's left.

McCarthy didn't understand that the questions on his record and views would arise because, prior to 1968, he was simply not a well-known figure to most Americans. He also didn't quite get it that it was Bobby Kennedy's sense of passion and outrage about injustice that engaged voters, and that his own, quieter approach conveyed, by contrast, an indifference McCarthy didn't actually feel.

I admired both of them, and wish they could have found some way to work together earlier in the process.

I'm convinced Kerry and Edwards made some kind of secret arrangement early on in the '04 campaign that the winner would put the loser on the ticket. The way they glanced at each other during debates, their vastly different backgrounds, and their mutual refusal to say anything negative about the other seems to be significant evidence that there was a kind of pact going on.

If only Kennedy and McCarthy had done something like this, I think they would've been far more likely to deadlock the convention and/or stop Humphrey altogether. I think labor unions and the like would've been far more likely to be drawn to RFK, the two men wouldn't have had to compete with each other as fiercely (and maybe RFK's death would've been avoided), and they wouldn't be tainted by connections with the Johnson administration.

I also think they would've made noise about the Nixon/Chenault peace sabotaging, and created a scandal on the Nixon side which would've caused him to go down in flames.

Don't waste time trying to get Molly Ivins' ONE vote.

:thumbsup:

Enough is enough. I'm tired of crony capitalism and two parties feeding out of the same trough.

:)

eom.

please provide a list...

I can give you a head start


http://vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

Thanks for letting Bush off the hook....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61040-2002Aug25?language=printer

in Iraq. I can see how she might have made that mistake. :eyes:

but I can't think of a more apt description . . .

which is so indicative of the sordid character that she is made of. The trip is more notable in that our old nemesis Joe Lieberman also traveled to Israel that same year. Here are the differences between Lieberman and Hillary:

1. Lieberman met with all sectors in Israel, including Palestinian representatives and Israelis opposed to occupation. He got kudos from me at the time, and I posted accordingly in the I/P forum.

2. Hillary only met with the most rightwing elements in Israel, shunning the peace movement and Palestinians altogether. She got my Pander Bear Award at the time in the I/P forum.

One can safely deduce that a President Hillary will allow the Israel-Palestinian problem to stagnate in the same way Bush has allowed to fester for the last 6 years. Peace in the Middle East requires risk-taking, something that is not part of Hillary's core values. I can think of several potential Democratic candidates that will at least make an effort that goes beyond sloganeering.

She can never deserve the Democratic nomination.

Hillary's race was a lock the whole time. If she gave a damn about the party, she'd have spent half the fall in Connecticut helping Ned. Instead, she helped the man who dissed Bill on the Senate floor. How can that even be sane?

I know he's not liberal enough, but I still like him.

:sarcasm:

...not after "don't ask, don't tell".

Not after slick told Kerry to "ditch the gays" in '04.

If they weren't on gay peoples' side then, they never WILL BE.

Hillary can never be good for gay people after all that. She can never be a worthwhile candidate for progressives. Why even bother defending her?

We need a DEMOCRAT in '08, not Hillary.

Big Dog was more interested in getting laid than he was in defending LGBT rights.

Do you even care what happens to gay people? You sound like a right-wing flake..."Big Dog was more interested in getting laid than he was in defending LGBT rights." Except, it should read, "Big Dog was more interested in getting laid than he was in defending (America)."

and how the rightwing was emboldened since it was signed into law.

Yes, the sob cared more about his dick than about my rights. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" opened the door to mass witch hunts in the military, it never was this bullshit you hear on TV about being only used when someone comes out. You bet I am bitter!

You remember it was a REPUBLICAN Congress that passed it!

As for "his dick," it wasn't his fascination with it, it was the other side! Dare to place blame where it is due!

Bitter? Bitter is watching gays support the "others" and pretending they are really liberal!

And he allowed the witch hunts to go on unrestricted. Clinton's anti-LGBT discrimination memo was PR bullshit and it was never enforced in the government, particularly in the Pentagon.

I can't support what Clinton did in regards to DADT. And, Bill and Hillary are not one in the same. Do not presume to tell me what I am capable of doing. I am not a single-issue voter. If anything, I am surprised at the number of gays that support anti-gay regimes over the US and other DEMOCRATIC countries! Supposed "gay rights" folks that will quote Buchanan when it comes to certain issues, but not when it comes to gay equality.

"How can it possibly be RATIONAL to support Hillary if you are LGBT, given that she's proved that she has no uncompromisable values whatsoever and can be sure to sell you down the river for three or four Red State electoral votes"?

Obviously I've long since learned that I can't tell YOU to do anything. The fact that you still defend Ehud Olmert and the Slaughter of South Lebanon while claimimg to be progressive tells me that.

Not only do you imply I am irrational, you also lie about my stance on the situation in Lebanon. You speculate with wide hyperbole and half-truths. Bill O'Reily would be proud!

At least you got one thing correct.

You've never criticized, to my knowledge, The Second Lebanon Invasion, or the abuse that regime visits on innocent Palestinians. You've never questioned the checkpoints that make it impossible for Palestinians to get to their jobs, the house demolitions(none of which have stopped a single terrorist act), the repeated cutoffs of the Palestinian water supply, and the senseless and completely unjustified destruction of Palestinian olive trees.

The Israeli regime is a government like any other. Why not hold it accountable as you would any other?
Why just dismiss any criticism by saying, in effect, "war is hell"? Why defend this state's policies when they clearly are against the humane traditions of Jewish morality and support for the oppressed?

From what I can see, and please refer me to any posts on your part that refute this, you think it's enough for Olmert to just keep repeating "Tehror, tehror, tehror" while jutting his jaw out. I doubt you'd even vote Labor, let alone Meretz or Hadash.

If I'm wrong on this, please point me to threads that show this. I'll read them.

You have made false accusations, one after another. You make numerous accusations, none of which you could substantiate, but I am used to it. You have a donor star, used the advanced search, put my name in as the author, and search to your heart's content. While I do spend most of my time defending Israel against bigots, liars, and propagandists, when they aren't present, I am actually able to comment on the situation in Israel without having to correct lies, bigotry, and propaganda.

There are other issues, too, or didn't you know that? BTW, her stands on gay rights are just fine for the most part, with the exception of the marriage issue, but maybe she'll come around on that one, too. None of the other big names are anything to write home about either, when it comes to that.


Oh baloney. You, I, and most people on this forum can only wish we were 1/10th the Democrat she is.

Anyone who triangulates is useless as a Democratic nominee. Repudiating liberalism doesn't gain us votes anymore, and neither does distancing yourself from whole sections of the Democratic base. Our strategy no longer needs to be based on the politics of surrender and repentance.

Hillary CAN'T be a Bobby Kennedy, she can't grow and develop fire, a soul or a heart. It's too late with her.

We need to nominate a Democrat who FIGHTS for our principles and defends them under Freeper attack.

Triangulation will NEVER work again. There's no reason to go there.

I don't totally agree with your summary of her, but I do like your philosophy. Maybe Obama could be that person who "FIGHTS for our principles and defends them under Freeper attack", along with uniting this country? What do you think of him?

:shrug:

"don't ask, don't tell" was a despicable surrender to bigotry and hatred. It didn't gain our party a single vote anywhere. And it destroyed the careers of thousands of courageous servicemembers whose only crime was to have been born gay.

Your post doesn't refute my points or anyone else's.

It's time to admit there isn't such a thing as a center ground on GLBT issues. There's pro-justice or pro-Phelps, pro-freedom or pro-hate and there's nothing else. You can be a Freedom Rider or a Klansman on this, and nothing in between.

at that time, and Don'T Ask, Don't Tell was all that Senate would go for.

Kerry took alot of heat and death threats for his advocacy stance, especially after he testified publically on Capitol Hill for full on gay rights in the military, when few lawmakers would.

"Don't ask, don't tell" was established in Pub. L. 103-160. The bill was originated from the House, and was designated H.R.2401. Here is a list of how each Senator voted on final passage of that bill:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00380

Gays and lesbians found Kerry's position disappointing in 2004, and trying to find the non-existent "middle way" on the gay marriage issue didn't gain him any votes from homophobes. It's an issue where triangulation is pointless.

they Hillary would be too.

It's time to switch to mobilization and persuasion, not triangulation. Hope, not fear. Confidence, not defeatism.

That's we we can't go with Hillary. She's against moving on and showing confidence in our ideals.

of his support of "Don't ask, don't tell?"

And no antigay voters voted for Kerry because he wasn't fully pro-gay.

I'm saying it just plain didn't work.

Sure he was nominated, but his basic pitch was "it doesn't matter that I don't stand for anything or sound coherent on the stump, I can win because I used to wear a uniform".

Fat lot of good that did.

It doesn't prove that it's the only alternative for Democrats to Kerry's approach.

There ISN'T a center ground on GLBT issues. There's just pro-justice or pro-fence nailing. There's nothing in between.

Just ask Bob Dole.

from gays and the poor. People who hated gays and welfare mothers never had any non-Republican views. It's not possible to be humane and a bigot at the same time.

:shrug:

what Bobby Kennedy properly called "the darker impulses of the American spirit".

it seems that people revise history to make their points.

Kerry had long been supportive of civil unions. Until the terms of 'marriage' is separated completely from church - state language, civil unions should be the order of the day from this nation - and ALL marriages should be instead labeled civil unions, and leave the 'sacrament of marriage' to the churches.

the open up military to gays position even reach a vote.

Why wouldn't Kerry vote for the ONLY thing that could even be considered a small step forward? Was he supposed to vote with the full-on antigay crowd who wanted to stick to kicking all gays out of the military?

as did Russ Feingold (two of my favorite, courageous politicians).

"Don't ask, don't tell was established in Pub. L. 103-160. The bill was originated from the House, and was designated H.R.2401. Here is a list of how each Senator voted on final passage of that bill:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00380

that Kerry voted against it.

This is the conference report you are listing here. There were a lot of things in it and it is difficult to know what were the motivations of this vote. However, Kerry testified against "Don't ask Don't tell" and voted against the amendment. Eventually, he thought the country needed a defense authorization Bill and voted for it. You may decide what is important or not, but I know most gayright organization credit him with this vote at the time, whatever his positions are today.

:shrug:

There was a lot more in this bill that "DADT".

Leave Teddy out of this.

on Capitol Hill to make the case.

Don'T Ask, Don't Tell is all they had to vote on - - BIG difference and it was all they could get at that point.

didn't go to Capitol Hill and advocate for gays to serve openly? Don't you remember that Nunn and Powell SETTLED on the DA-DT policy and Clinton sided with it which put Mitchell behind it, and Kerry's position was never even put to a vote as the senators hisd behind the DA-DT bill.

Why pretend DA-DT was Kerry's position when it was the only slightly postive position the Senate leadership allowed for a vote?

He said that was something he couldn't ever do.

law: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00380

http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/PressClips/04_0820_WashBlade.htm

make a slight positive move for gays or vote with the full-on antigay crowd. You know the picture is much fuller but choose to make the one vote your focal point, knowing well that Kerry was the top advocate for gays serving openly in the military. A little known General at the time was courageous enough to side with Kerry - Gen. Clark.

Don't you remember how ineffective Kerry's strategy on that issue WAS in '04?

He'd have done far better to just back gay marriage and try to mobilize a coalition for justice on the issue.

Kerry's position was the equivalent of trying to take a position on civil rights in the 60's that said "I think some Negroes should be allowed to sit in the MIDDLE of the bus, if it isn't too much trouble".

There IS no center ground on GLBT issues. There's pro-justice or pro-hatred, pro-equality or pro-fence nailing.

i am simply critiquing some of the arguments for the against the various candidates. I haven't made a choice yet as to who I will support.

Still, Kerry's situation isn't really relevant to this. And it isn't just about gay rights. It's about internal party democracy and trust.

?

People like Hillary don't grow or change. They just do what their biggest donors tell them to. A weasel is a weasel is a weasel. RFK was the last politician who got better with time. These days you can assume is a politician is a cynical worthless centrist at the start they'll STAY a cynical worthless centrist

There is no way you can seriously make the arguement that Hillary's our best choice.

And Hillary's Senate voting record is irrelevant. She cast those votes knowing the measures she was voting for wouldn't pass and that there was no risk to voting that way.

then why do you (and many others) care about her IWR vote, isn't it just part of an irrelevant record?

Oh, and its a good thing you can read her mind to know what she was thinking with each vote. That should come in handy.
Tell me, what is Hillary thinking about right....now?

Can you give me one good reason why we SHOULDN'T think the woman is an unprincipled cynic who'd abandon all of us in the name of personal power?

Can you even give us one good reason why we should ever TRUST another triangulator?

The Republicans got the center without bashing their base. Why can't we at least TRY doing the same for once?

and totally meaningless. The vote that really counted is the one that Hillary failed to cast! Hillary did not support Kerry's filibuster of the Alito nomination, and that was the vote that really counted.

Hillary also opposed the Kerry/Feingold troop withdrawal bill.

That her record is only meaningful if it provides you with a vote that you can hold against her? And any other "good" votes are meaningless?

If that's your assertion, it's ridiculous, and lacks any credibility.

?

hardly helps the defeatist pro-Hillary case.

The fact remains that nominating Hillary sends these messages:

"the Right will always be the majority."

"Progressive ideas can never win on the merits."

"All we can ever hope for is minescule tinkering around the edges. Domestic Reaganism and a Scoop Jackson-Paul Wolfowitz foreign policy have to be left cast in stone forever."

"Activists, workers, and the poor don't matter. Only the elite and big donors do."

"We have to settle for a cynical "pro-business"(I.e., antiworker)candidate who only cares about the big donors and uptight finicky suburbanites."

"We have to do this because we have no self-respect".

"We don't really WANT to win. We just want big checks".

It does not send the message that Democrats are strong, confident and have ideas that can gain majority support. It is the politics of defeatism even in victory.

...means that you haven't established it.

Hillary won't be an inch to the left of Bill in her campaign rhetoric, which means she won't be a half-inch to the left of Bill if elected (in fact, I can confidently predict she'll be two inches to the right and you and the rest of her groupies will be saying "don't protest, don't say anything. She'll be great in her second term."

Democrats aren't in the ideological minority anymore. We don't need to settle for another nominee that leaves most of us out in the cold. It can't be worth nominating someone whose effective motto will be "shut up and settle for the worst of the Nineties, peasant scum".

We don't need the candidate of big donors in luxury boxes over the convention hall. We don't need another convention that's a "politics-free zone". We need to move on and nominate a REAL Democrat.

What is it about the failed past that you're so in love with?

We will NEVER get out of Iraq. She would escalate the troop levels just to appear "tough".

The Minimum wage will continue to stagnate, along with our economy.

The Israel / Palestinian issue will fester and break out into more war.

Gays will continue to be at the back of the bus.

Pardons for Bush, Cheney and Rummy.

In other words, a continuation of the same shit we're seeing now. No change at all.

what about Hillary makes you think the minimum wage will "continue to stagnate"? Do you have any evidence?
Any evidence that she will give "pardons" to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld?
Any evidence that Israel/Palestine issue will worsen?
Any evidence that she will escalate troop levels?

Any evidence at all?

Or are you some powerful (mis)fortune teller that we should just trust?

Yours is just about the dumbest anti-Hillary post I've ever read, even dumber than any of Indiana the Green's, and that's saying something!

Now stop littering shit like that on my favorite message board.

If you don't like my opinion, move to China.

I support gay rights activism, and I also would support Hillary Clinton if she's our nominee in the general election.
Your theory is therefore invalid.

and repudiate all you believe in in the name of power in name, that's your call.

Why you support someone who isn't on your side is a bonafide mystery of Christ.

You don't have to settle for a mere "chance to be heard". Your position isn't THAT unpopular.

Because Hillary is not going to support a marriage amendment to the constitution. Honestly, at the least, she is simply going to keep her head out of this issue, which is better than having a Republican try to limit gay rights even more. Furthermore, I'm not a one-issue voter; if more conservative Republican judges are put on the supreme court after 2008 by another Republican president, at least the blood of our dying constitution will not be on my hands.

The issue of gay rights is simply a way to illustrate Hillary's approach to progressive issues of all sorts and progressive activists of all sorts. To her, we are irrelevant and unworthy of any respect. All that matters to her are the finicky uptight "centrists" and the big donors. Hillary cannot even envision the possibility that the country may no longer be conservative, and will govern, should she improbably be reelected, exactly as Bill did, that is as a junior partner in a center-right coalition.

Like Bill, she will accept a Republican takeover of Congress without doing anything to stop it or reverse it (There was no excuse for Bill's refusal to even once say the words "elect a Democratic Congress" in the '96 campaign. It wouldn't have cost him a single vote and it should have been his exclusive focus in the last two weeks of the campaign, when he knew his own reelection was a certainty. Instead, he just surrendered to Newt and the boys). And she will tell her advisors, over and over again, just like Bill, that "they(progressives)have nowhere else to go" and that it is thus perfectly alright to leave us out in the cold and be conservative on everything that matters, as Bill was.

We don't need another "Democrat" that sends black refugees back to a police state to be beaten by the secret police(as Bill did with the Haitians).

We don't need another "Democrat" who not only accepts the death penalty but also EXPANDS it.

We don't need another "Democrat" who repudiates workers by fighting for NAFTA like he never fought for health care.

We don't need another "Democrat" who betrays the poor by signing welfare legislation based on racist, right-wing lies.

None of the above "triangulations" gained the party any votes. And if they didn't then, they can't now.

We need to learn to fight for our principles and DEFEND them.

I'd vote for Hillary if nominated, but you and I both know she'd lose. And then progressives, gays, workers and the poor would be blamed for her loss.

We don't need to demonize the same people Republicans demonize.
We need to be the party of everyone the Republicans exclude. Because they exclude the majority.

Nominating Hillary is voting NOT to be the party of the excluded majority of America.

"Of course, there is a better answer to this dilemma. We could have the right kind of balanced budget with a new Congress. A Democratic Congress."
-Bill Clinton, Democratic National Convention Speech 1996.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/convention96/floor_speeches/clinton_8-29.html

I have to go now and do not have time to respond to your other accusations. Just know that Hillary is not Bill, as is evident in her NO vote on CAFTA, as one example. We were talking about Hillary.

?

is a pointless tactic.

It neither helps you and the DLC nor harms me and the progressive Real Democratic majority.

(And once again, nice showing by that Duckworth. Sure proved what a genius Rahm was about his own back yard.)

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

not trusted that Bush had classified information that she did not have on IWR-

and I wish she had more willing to put her marriage on the line when Bill said NO to single payer national health after she had advocated it in the period immediately prior to Bill announcing he was going to set up a task force. Indeed in this go round if she does not come out for single payer national health she loses my vote in the primary.

She showed a lot of political skill when she stopped the freight train that was about to pass a constitutional amendment about flag burning, using the idea of a simple Federal Law that had so many loopholes that no one would ever have been arrested. And I think she is correct that at this time civil unions is passable nationwide, but gay marriage is still a firestorm for at least 30 million evangelicals and that will not change for at least 10 years. Change in America comes in small steps, and she is making the right steps. Indeed my demanding single payer health plays more on what I know she wants than any belief that a simple Democratic majority in the House and Senate would be able to pass it in total - a Medicare extension to children with buy in for the 55 to 65 crowd would be a great start.

I like smarts, and I like political skill, and I like her being able to work the center since nothing gets done in America if the center is not brought along - so she has the lead for my vote in the primary.

by the left or the right. Her get out the vote in the primaries would be dismal. Her entire primary campaign will be her big money against the majority of the Democratic grassroots, who will also be providing the volunteers in the general election. It's those grassroots who vote in primaries.

She is going to get savaged like none other from nearly everyone, except big media - at least while the primary is taking place, who is active politics.

Besides. Who want's a "President Hillary" leading our armed forces? Noone even calls her by her last name (as I've tried to change people's habits on in the past, but have since given up as futile). That's just one more hint as to the disrespect that she has from people.

chair. And the DLC's strategy has been to promote people that push Wall Street's interests, which voters do not like, in general.

They've never been in charge of the election strategy at ANY level. However, the did develop the economic policies of the 90s that gave us the largest economic expansion in a generation and record employment numbers and record low poverty rates.

That fact aside, show me any indication that people didn't vote for Democrats in the last several election cycles based on some "corporate" misgivings.

and combined them with decent progressive tax policy from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The 'free' trade that the DLC shoved down our throats, with mostly Republican votes, in the early '90's has devistated America's economy, now. The future is that the wealthy will immigrate OUT of America and America will be left as a 3rd world country.

When DLCers/Clintonista Terry Mcauliffe ran the DNC he went after mostly big donors who wanted favors for their big buisesses. They ignored grassroots party building and **attacked** the grassroots when we tried to build.

Also, when the DLCers took control of the Democratic Party, and Clinton had won the election with a minority of the vote, the Democratic Party lost Congress for the first time since FDR in 1994. Blame that on the DLC/Wall Streeters.

Mainly because it will become a futile effort with me asking for verification and you either refusing or ignoring the request.

However, one thing I will correct you on is this:

Clinton had won the election with a minority of the vote, the Democratic Party lost Congress for the first time since FDR in 1994. Blame that on the DLC/Wall Streeters.

Actually, Democrats lost control of Congress during FDR/Truman's time. And, they lost control of the senate in 1982.

Those facts aside, there is no indication that the DLC caused the '94 losses. I have challenged many "progressives" to provide evidence of it and have yet to see any. Since the bulk of losses in '94 came from the south, and the south has been trending Republican on the Federal level since 1968, it's safe to say '94 was the year the GOP made it finally happen. Loads of stats of historians agree. Ask me.

Start here: http://www.amazon.com/emerging-Republican-majority-Kevin-Phillips/dp/0870000586

The author actually predicted the Republican takeover by 1992.

Clinton won in '92 even with a third party candidate drawing close to 20% of the vote.

You have yet to provide a sliver of evidence that '94 and ensuing election losses was the DLC's doing.

Spectacularly. The DLCers in Congress banded with most of the elected Republicans and passed NAFTA. The DLCers in control of the Democratic Party at the time, decided to run on a pro-gun control platform.

Now that we look back we see Hillary still derided over her failed push for healthcare, and it even hurt the fight for universal health care because the result of it all created HMOs who are now embedded in the system and lobbying to keep universal health care from replacing them.

'Free' trade was passed with no protections for workers on either side of the border and now America has very little industry inside the nation and all the skilled experts are being trained (or have been trained) in producer nations. The dollar rises and America's buying power drops. Our national debt skyrockets. Our trade deficit grows worse and worse.

And associating Democrats with gun control, in people's minds, just pissed people off more.

And let's not forget that Clinton did not go after President Bush I so now Bush II's administration is full of the same corrupt criminals that were in Bush I's (and Nixon's) and Bush II has been advised by them, very poorly. The merger-mania that occurred under Clinton gave America these huge media conglomerates who are all now working against Democrats. They could have reinstated the fairness doctrine but the DLC who was in the leadership positions of the Democratic Party refused to go after big business on any count, except the new money big business: Microsoft (which they failed at dealing with, also).

Three things caused the 1994 destruction of Democrats. Hillary failed at healthare spectacularly.

Yes it did. And this has what to do with the DLC?

The DLCers in Congress banded with most of the elected Republicans and passed NAFTA.

Really? How many DLCers? Do you have some evidence that people who normally voted Democrat in the South suddenly voted Republican because of NAFTA? And if NAFTA was such an unpopular bill, why was Clinton re-elected in an electoral landslide in 1996? Why did Dems pick up seats in '98? Four questions for you there.

The DLCers in control of the Democratic Party at the time, decided to run on a pro-gun control platform.

Again - DLCers were not in control of the Dem party. Never have been. But the gun control issue of the time was pushed by the liberal wing of the party and all the non-DLCers voted for it, too. Gun control has always been a "liberal" issue and various pre-DLC congresses have passed gun control laws. So while it contributed to the Democrat's loss in '94, it can in no way be laid exlusively at the feet of the DLC.

And let's not forget that Clinton did not go after President Bush I so now Bush II's administration is full of the same corrupt criminals that were in Bush I's (and Nixon's) and Bush II has been advised by them, very poorly.

What does that have to do with the DLC?

You have yet to show the DLC caused the '94 losses.

You missed the BIG BIG issues that historians contribute to the '94 losses - congressional corruption and southern political reallignment. All of this started PRE-DLC.

Your talking points are a creation of the "netroots." The Democratic party lost the swing vote and a whole slew of Dems left the party after the 1968 election.

The DLC's argument to the IRS to "prove" that they are bi/non-partisan was that they lobbied for NAFTA and it passed with a majority of Republican votes.

If the DLC wasn't in charge, then why does the DLC tout President Bill Clinton as their greatest electoral accomplishment? Are you saying that the DLC leadership has been lying?

If the progressive wing was in control of the Democratic Party then Iran Contra would have been investigated and the perpetrators would have been either imprisoned or shunned from politics. Instead the perpetrators got high-level, high-paying jobs in the Bush administration, Republican campaigns, talk shows and big businesses. And became more powerful.

That congressional corruption you refer to, that caused the 1994 sweep, IS the DLC.

Still refuses to recognize. He still thinks the party's attitude should be "stay the course" on the issues.

Why, no one can tell.

Delusions are stubborn things.

Show me:

WHEN the DNC ceded power to the DLC.

WHY people voted AGAINST the Democrats (and for Republicans) because the Democrats sided with Republicans on NAFTA.

The DLC claims Clinton as their "greatest electorial accomplishment" for the same reason Clinton does - because it is true. That doesn't mean the DLC "controlled" the Democratic party. It means Clinton took their policy positions, ran on them, and won.

If the progressive wing was in control of the Democratic Party then Iran Contra would have been investigated and the purpetrators would have been either imprisoned or shuned from politics.

I dunno - it all happened before Clinton's time and before the DLC had made any real headway in Congress. Congress was run by those who benefited from the McGovern Commission in the early 70s. In other words - "progressives."

That congressional corruption you refer to, that caused the 1994 sweep, IS the DLC.

Nope! Sorry. The House Banking Scandal that Gingrich campaigned on in '94 was not DLC. Further, the corruption of the Democratic congress extended back to the mid 60s - a full 20 years before the DLC was even formed.

Learn some party history and ditch the truthiness.

There was the House Banking Scandal that hardly touched members of the fledgling DLC.

Dan Rostenkowski, an FDR-era Democrat (NOT DLC) was indicted on corruption charges and later resigned his chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee. Five years earlier, House Speaker Jim Wright (NOT DLC) resigned in an ethics scandal. That same year, another powerful congressman, Tony Coehlo (NOT DLC) of California, resigned amid allegations that he received special treatment in a junk bond deal.

The left's version of terra, terra, terra!!!

Watch out the evil DLC is gonna get ya if you don't watch out...

repetition, repetition, repetition...

She's against everything your hero stands for.

If she was nominated, she'd probably ban Feingold from speaking at the convention unless he robotically followed the party line, like the useless speeches everyone made at the 2004 convention.

it has nothing to do with how I feel about Hillary.

It's just the incessant anti-Hillary campaign I find to be such a bummer. Same with any campaign to sell me on someone or to trash someone else.

They think she is owed the nomination and that we peasants are obligated to bow down and surrender to her now.

They don't want a real debate and they don't want a meaningful convention that galvanizes the party to victory.

on the planet.

They (not you in particular) are also full of shit half the time, and they don't hesitate to bend and twist the truth, as has been proven many many times. Incredible group of babies.

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

Obama has been drifting rightward since entereing the Senate, and his lack of inexperience will work against him. He'll be a repeat of the role that Sen. John Edwards played in 2003-04. I expect Obama's interest in running for Prez in 2008 is more of a plan to build a national network for a post 2008 bid.

Then where the hell is this so called "majority," because when I woke up this morning Bush was still in power, and people were still content with Democrats saying his impeachment is off the table. At this point I am already so damned fed up with seeing 2008 threads on all of these forums that I'm getting to the point where I don't even care who runs anymore! It may be a shock to some people, but we have things to do NOW. The OBSESSION with presidential elections in this country especially considering how they are allowed to be stolen, is really curious to me. I sure wish people were that OBSESSED with eradicating poverty in this country, or REALLY taking action against global warming, or REALLY doing something about healthcare and our education system. But yet that "majority" sits waiting for someone to "save them" as we go deeper and deeper into the abyss.

...and that's just not enough to want her as our candidate.

She is a nobody and an egregious "tri-angulator". Can't speak forthrightly to save her life.

I'm sorry, too that these "I hate Hillary" threads keep coming up - but they will until our party steps away from the Hillary infatuation that seems solely based on her last name.

Hillary is out there now because the only thing she really has going for her now is name recognition. And a lot of that is negative name recognition which won't change. The corporations will like her being the Democratic nominee win or lose, because whether she wins or loses, if she's the nominee, they win. No public campaign financing (which Ms. Ivins very poignantly points out!), and many other reforms that the corporations don't like.

I'm sorry, but I'm getting VERY tired of people continuing to ram down my throat that we're going to have Hillary or Obama as our nominee. Let's let the next two years (which will actually be VERY important years) proceed and try to help get a new congress focused both on undoing the damage that has been done for so many years in congress and cleaning up this administration. We can talk a bit about presidential candidates, but let's not get too concerned about picking them and dismissing others just yet! At this point I'm still dubious about Obama, but if his voting record in the coming year or two shows good things, I might be persuaded otherwise. He seems too much of a stealth DLC candidate and therefore I'm still dubious yet about him.

We don't elect the president the electoral college does. I would have to say from the latest media frenzy that McCain has already been picked by the elite of society to be the next president. The whole executive branch is a hand me down or appointment not a actual democratic election. Even the primary's are a joke, sad to say...far from the democracy we so preach about!

I'll vote for her. I love Molly Ivins, and she's summed up the feelings of many on Hilary. She's not well liked on the left or on the right, so I don't see how she can win.

after that, if she wins the nomination.

Thank you.

Although I am currently in favor of Hillary in the primary, it isn't ironclad. I will gladly listen to the other candidates when they start trekking up to NH. But whoever (barring a nightmare scenario like Lieberman) wins the Democratic primary, I will support them.

I probably won't vote for Hillary in the primary election. If she makes it past that, well, I'll just have to see.

Kicking.

Did she get annointed or crowned? Last I checked, there is a primary process and this thing you may find inconvenient called Democracy. Until September of 2008, 22 months from now, the field is open. Maybe even your enemy Howard Dean could run again.

the nominee per some polls. I don't like beating up on candidates that only serves to make the candidate weaker in the final election vs the Republican candidate. HD well if he wins I'll certainly and most assuredly vote for him. I disagree with his strategy tho' as I believe appealing to the swing vote states seeing who is the most popular is a more successful strategy than going with someone who will alienate the majority of voters. As I believe don't think like Northeasterners and Californians, they have a vision in their heads of a jesus from the middle east with the light brown hair wavy, etc So that many of them won't have the capeability to connect with their brothers and sisters from other modern industrialized nations. In fact they will probably connect more easily with their televangelist of choice or some greedy conspicuous consumer famous white guy. Country music is very popular in the US. So if the Swing Vote States like 1 friggin' candidate over the 1 I most favor then Ok by me.

The only place I've heard ANY support for HC is here on this forum. I have yet to meet anyone out in the world that suppports her for Prez. I don't hate her, like many here would like to think. I honestly don't think she has a prayer to win. Remember, going into 04, Joementum was in the lead before the primaries.

The counts against her:
She supports a widely unpopular war and voted to give * the authority to wage it.
She is universally unpopular among Rethugs, even those that may vote for some other Democratic candidate.
She has not led any initiatives as a Senator. Unless you count her getting on her pulpit against video games. Now that's a real barn burner.
She is in bed with the DLC, meaning that she cares more about wealthy donors than working people.
She cares more about what AIPAC thinks than what WE THE PEOPLE think.
The punditocracy keeps pushing her down our throats. That smells extremely fishy to me.

There are many better candidates than her, ones without nearly the amount of baggage.

If anyone can come up with some real positives that would convince me that she would be the best chance at the presidency, I'm all ears.

She's pro-"free trade"
She voted for the 2001 bankruptcy bill.
etc.

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/37479/

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html
http://www.whereistand.com/HillaryClinton/16959
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200408/ai_n9414293

That's the deal killer for me (The IWR and Rupert Murdoch alliance were the others). As the examples show, she's pretty much following her "human windsock" persona on this one, not taking a strong stand either way.

Damn it, OFFSHORING ONLY BENEFITS THE RICH, NOT THE MIDDLE CLASS. We aren't creating better jobs for the displaced workers as a result of it. Lower prices don't matter when you can't buy anything and wages aren't keeping up with the cost of living and inflation.

Book after book after book provides more than enough real life examples of how this predatory and zero-sum practice is killing the livelihoods of everyday people, dismantling their hard work through no choice of their own. The Government and Corporate America does absolutely NOTHING to research, quell or cure this issue except brush off concerns and stunningly blame the WORKERS for their bad fortune.

Does this have to be shouted from the rooftops? Do people need to be dropped in Midwestern areas where job offshoring devastated whole communities (and continue to do so) to be convinced?

But, then, I grew up in Michigan and see the direct effects every time I go back.

I'd like to move back, actually, but the job market is comatose.

There are still a lot of votes in the Rust Belt. I don't think that anyone who supports job-sucking trade bills will be very popular. I think that getting the turnout in Ohio and Michigan, and possibly Missouri and Wisconsin, will be much more difficult in 2008 if the top of the ticket spouts the free trade line.

She works in DC. While she makes relative to the cost of living there, the job market down there is abundant. There'd be no way she'd have the kind of position up here in Ohio, much less make the kind of money she does. Those jobs are simply not up here. And if you're not a college graduate, that's yet another anchor the worker has to deal with in Ohio.

Ohio is SO important to the Democrats, Northeast/East Ohio in particular. These areas have been hit the ultimate hardest by factory/industry/manufacturing/automotive job losses these past three decades. We're not interested in hearing how "a rising tide lifts all boats" and other such "Economics 101" theoretical crap that falls painfully short in the real world. We want to hear what anyone is going to do to rebuild the economy (particularly our industrial and manufacturing sectors) and provide liveable wage jobs once again. If she expects to reach the ears of the workers, the whole "pandering to the center" motif ain't gonna accomplish that.

Coincidentally, I just moved back to D.C., although I don't expect to get a job as good as the one your sister has.

Lawyers trying to escape law are a dime a dozen down here.

Nontheless, there are more opportunities than there are in Michigan or would be in Ohio.

just sayin'

And her priorities are suspect. Both the Dem and GOP versions of the "Money Party" want her to be the "Dem" candidate, and for good reason.

Yep, Molly is right again. I can not support nor vote for Hillary for President.

Re-elect Al Gore. A man with vision and convictions and he's stood against this insane Bush co on all things: Iraq, torture, removal of civil liberties, etc.

Gore spoke out against these crimes as the dramas unfolded, not comfortably after the fact or after "enough" Americans voted as anti-bush voters.

I also do not want Obama to be the nominee. He's judgment is very questionable as here in Illinois we've seen some terrible errors in his judgment. Maybe Obama will be "ready" in another 6 years. Read up on Obama and his recent real estate deals in the Chicago newspaper's websites. Not a good picture of judgment nor a good sense of how to handle the press once the story broke. Very troubling signs.

And, yes, I am a big fan of Molly Ivins.

Let's all let the chips fall where they may in the primaries, OK?

And so did the Dems in '68. And '72. And in every election where national security was a big issue since. Maybe there was a connection there?

were deliberately told to fuck off and die, in effect, by LBJ and Daley with the ludicrously hardline way they ran the Chicago conventino, and the sickening treatment they gave to the idealists and activists who worked so hard for peace. The McCarthy and Kennedy people and their ideas should have been embraced at Chicago, not driven away by force. Softness on "security" had nothing whatsoever to do with the election of Nixon, who, if you don't recall, refused to say what he'd do about Vietnam. If the country had known that the Big Dick's "secret plan to end the war" meant NOT ending the war for another four years, there's no way in hell he would have even come close to the 43% vote that elected him.

McCarthy won the debate among the American people. He only "lost" because the Democratic regulars loved the war more than they cared about beating Nixon.

Unfortunately, it doesn't really address anything I said. McCarthy "won" the debate over Vietnam, but lost the election? Nixon won in '68 and, according to your version of history, if the public knew what he was going to do he wouldn't have ... yet he won in '72 by one of the biggest landslides in American politics, this after four years of delaying a withdrawal, and running against McCarthy's spiritual successor. Maybe you ought to write a book and title it Gene McCarthy: Winning By Losing. And Losing. And Losing. And Losing.

And after the China trip. Scoop Jackson would've lost 49 states against Nixon in '72 as well.

And you know it.

And neither do you, for that matter. What I, and you, do know is that McGovern, who ran on a "get out of Vietnam now" platform, was on the wrong end of the biggest political shellacking we've seen. Which, to steer this away from what people "know" and towards the actual discussion, rather puts the lie to the claim of the other guy who tried to pass his opinion off as facts. Or was that you? So many of you fiery folks sound alike, I can't keep you straight anymore. It's the left wing equivalent of dittoheadism.

We need a candidate to act "tough" and escalate and extend the war?
Well Dude, count me out of that bandwagon. Any candidate that doesn't advocate us getting out of Iraq NOW is a non-starter, period.
But don't let that get in the way of your trying to shove Hillary down our collective throats. "Hillary or the Highway" should be your new motto.

That's why I come here -- all the people with a creative concept of reading comprehension.

:puke:

Break the fucking cycle of Oligarchy already...can we try something new, puh-leeze? At least someone with a different family name?

What's next, are we going to start a "Royal Family" with Kings and Queens next?

We've got a democracy here, let's fucking use it, not abuse it.

:patriot:

Splendid point and I am glad to see another DUer using the term "oligarchy". I marvel at how many are completely unaware of this, being as it is the biggest of threats to the commoners.

Julie

I'm not buying it. END the dynasties already. America needs to get over it's addiction to non-change and familiarity.

It's also shitty enough when you realize that this leaves the potential for 32-36 YEARS (starting in 1980) of either a Bush or a Clinton occupying either VP or President.

As much as I admire Hillary, I think she would lose to either McCain or Guliani (the only viable Repugs I see at this point.)

The only way I see her winning is if the GOP goes nuts and nominates a Brownback/Santorum type. Then she'd walk all over them (but then so would Gore, Obama, even Vilsack, for God's sake.)



:thumbsdown:

(donning flame-retardent suit)

They would sit out the election first. The GOP can't win without the fundie zealot base.

...during the 2004 elections. There isn’t a BushCo criminal action that wasn’t known back in 2004. ...She could have been a patriot, (a Minute Man if you will) and exposed BushCo. We could have had a democratic President in the White House right now....But noooo...she sat and waited it out on the sidelines.

She didn’t speak out in 2004 because if she did, she would have had to wait until possibly 2012 before she had her chance at being president.

Many think she’s a corporate politician. Who knows? I do know she’s selfish.

And I'll say it again. The only people who really want to see Hillary run are the same people who wanted Lieberman to run. He's in their pocket; she'll never withstand the tidal wave of bullshit the repugs will throw at her. By the time they're done, the public will think she was part of a threesome with Bill & Monica. While Chelsea watched. Yes, she's smart, tough, etc., and I am really anxious for the smart people to be in charge again, but we may as well bend over for another 4 years of repug rule if the dems run her in '08. And if by some miracle she got in, they'd tie her up in knots. Look at what they did to Bill, even when they were the minority. And he's a man. I truly shudder to think of what they'd do to her. I'll bet the word "hysterical" would take the place of "terror" in their speeches.

However, I think she can do tremendous good in the Senate heading up a committee. She'll actually have some serious power, and will be able to achieve a lot.

that the Dem candidates won't have to worry.

Voted for the war. Supports NAFTA, the G7, GAAT protocols that amount to slave labor in the third world and bankruptcy at home. Her triangulation on abortion and AIDS issues is unnaceptable.

I just can't vote for her. Why not vote for a moderate Republican instead? That's what will happen come the November '08 election. The GOP will have to run a Potemkin candidate to have a chance after Bush and their candidate will appear to be to the left of Clinton from May to November. Remember "compassionate conservative?"

on Delaware being a slavery supporting state was too much to even stomach.

What a load.

:shrug: