Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton: I Have Best Chance Vs. GOP ("more Dem support from the so-called red states than anybody ")

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 06:10 PM
Original message
Clinton: I Have Best Chance Vs. GOP ("more Dem support from the so-called red states than anybody ")
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 06:11 PM by jefferson_dem
Clinton: I Have Best Chance Vs. GOP
By AMY LORENTZEN

PERRY, Iowa (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton maintained Sunday that she's the best candidate to win against Republicans, saying she has more experience battling the GOP than any other candidate in the Democratic field.

"I believe that I have a very good argument that I know more about beating Republicans than anybody else running. They've been after me for 15 years, and much to their dismay, I'm still standing," she said in answer to a woman's question about her electability. "I'm leading in all the polls, I'm beating them in state after state after state."

Clinton said she has lots of Democratic support around the country, including "more Democratic support from the so-called red states than anybody else running." She reminded the crowd of hundreds gathered at Perry High School that she has more U.S. senators supporting her than her rivals, as well as lawmakers from states that "Democrats have a hard time winning."

"I think they have looked at the field and figured out who can best beat the Republicans," she said.

Clinton added that when she ran for the Senate in 2000, a lot of people argued that she couldn't win.

"And I just got up every day, and I reached out to Republicans and Democrats and independents," she said, adding that her opponents outspent her 2-to-1 and said "all kinds of unpleasant things." She said voters didn't believe them, and she ended up with 55 percent of the vote. At the end of her first term, she said, her support at the polls climbed to 67 percent, and "a lot of people who voted for George Bush in 2004 voted for me."

<SNIP>

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hT7kZQ8IzddgLGXOMJZrKBKry2jwD8T4VCAG0
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. The headline statement is undeniably true
"more Democratic support from the so-called red states than anybody else running."

In light of all national polling, a straightforward conclusion.

I don't know that it MEANS much, but it is clearly factual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. Why did TeamClinton never show up to oppose Bush 2001 thru 2006, leaving every
Dem who did stick out to oppose BushInc with no back up from their wing of the Dem party.

In fact, most of them were publicly siding WITH Bush during that timeframe.

Anyone have a reasonable explanation why TeamClinton stood down for 7 years and would not back up those who backed them for all the years that they needed it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. yes, as I have shown repeatedly. Now, will you change the subject, move the goal posts, or both?
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 07:26 PM by wyldwolf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. No - you never did. And on the two biggest issues of 2002 and 2004 elections,
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 07:54 PM by blm
both Clintons sided more often and more publicly with Bush on his decisions on terrorism and Iraq war than they did with Democrats criticizing Bush on those decisions, especially John Kerry.

Even on Downing Street Memos and even as late as June 2006 the Clintons were speaking AGAINST Iraq withdrawal timetable - and then Joe Lieberman lost his primary race - and Clintons adjusted their own positions RHETORICALLY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. LOL! You just moved the goal posts! First you said 2001 thru 2006!
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 07:25 PM by wyldwolf
Now it's 2002 and 2004!

:rofl:

You should really get your thoughts in order!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. No, I didn't. I was using 2002 and 2004 elections as EXAMPLES. Downing Street Memos
and Iraq withdrawal timetable were 2005 and 2006.

LOL yourself - deliberate obtuseness isn't cute or funny to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. post #2: "2001 thru 2006" vs. post #4: "2002 and 2004."
Talk about deliberate obtuseness... :rofl:

Here's a reminded of your ORIGINAL pre-goal post moving assertion: "Why did TeamClinton never show up to oppose Bush 2001 thru 2006..?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Did you miss the SECOND paragraph about DSM in 2005 and Iraq timetable in 2006?
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 07:57 PM by blm
Or do you only reply to FIRST PARAGRAPHS?

You can keep pretending all you want - most here don't believe you even believe your own twistings much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. you first said 2001 - 2006, now you want to concentrate on just two events. Goal post moving
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Seems to me that you're being evasive and trying to change the subject. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. seems to me you're wrong. I want to stick to blm's orginial premise
Why did TeamClinton never show up to oppose Bush 2001 thru 2006, leaving every

Dem who did stick out to oppose BushInc with no back up from their wing of the Dem party.

In fact, most of them were publicly siding WITH Bush during that timeframe.

Anyone have a reasonable explanation why TeamClinton stood down for 7 years and would not back up those who backed them for all the years that they needed it?


Now, unfortutely for blm (and those who jump to her defense) her original premise is wrong, she knows it's wrong, which is why everytime she presents it she immediately backtracks from it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #14
30. Unfortunately for you, people can READ and know I also point out 2005 and 2006
incidents as part of the EXAMPLE of how Clintons would not stand with Democrats opposing Bush.

What part of THE SECOND PARAGRAPH escaped your notice?

>>>>
Even on Downing Street Memos and even as late as June 2006 the Clintons were speaking AGAINST Iraq withdrawal timetable - and then Joe Lieberman lost his primary race - and Clintons adjusted their own positions RHETORICALLY.
>>>>

I can keep going on this all day today, wyld....and all you will be doing is proving that you will distort and twist even the simplest points to continue your game of pretend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. unfortunately for you, people can read and see how you continuously move the goal posts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #32
37. Unfortunately for you, most people can read TWO PARAGRAPHS at a time and
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 10:07 AM by blm
know that you are deliberately ignoring the second paragraph in an effort to continue your game of pretend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. the post of your I replied to (pre-goal post movement) didn't contain a single paragraph
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #41
44. But you said the post where I pointed to 2002-2004 elections was the move
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 10:28 AM by blm
when I CLEARLY included EXAMPLES of Clinton's failure to side with the left on Downing Street Memos in 2005 and on Iraq withdrawal timetable in 2006.

So, why do you hang your hat on fabrications, anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. I replied to your post #2, where you clearly gave no specific events and used a 7 year time table
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 10:29 AM by wyldwolf
:shrug:

You moved the goal posts (as I predicted) in your next replies. Here's a reminder of the FIRST POST of yours I replied to in this thread:

Why did TeamClinton never show up to oppose Bush 2001 thru 2006, leaving every

Dem who did stick out to oppose BushInc with no back up from their wing of the Dem party.

In fact, most of them were publicly siding WITH Bush during that timeframe.

Anyone have a reasonable explanation why TeamClinton stood down for 7 years and would not back up those who backed them for all the years that they needed it?


WHERE are the specific events? WHERE are the years 2002 and 2004 mentioned? It wasn't until I replied with...

yes, as I have shown repeatedly. Now, will you change the subject, move the goal posts, or both?


... that you redacted and moved the goal posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #32
49. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #11
29. You are deliberately misconstruing what I said - as is your way when you can't defend
the ACTUAL content of the post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. it's typed plainly for people to read. Too bad for you the editing period has expired
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Do you need everything in ONE PARAGRAPH, wyldwolf? Are 2 paragraphs too much for you
to deal with?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. the original post of yours I replied to didn't contain a paragraph.
It contained exactly three lines with breaks between each.

See? You're changing your story again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #38
42. You claim I only pointed to 2002, 2004 when I clearly included examples from 2005,6
in that EXACT SAME POST in the second paragraph.

You can deny the truth all you want, but most people can read TWO PARAGRAPHS, wyldwolf.

You can't seem to see that the second paragraph included EXAMPLES from 2005 and 2006?

Answer CLEARLY, wyldwolf - What part of the second paragraph that included examples from 2005 and 2006 were you unable to comprehend?

>>>>>
4. No - you never did. And on the two biggest issues of 2002 and 2004 elections,

Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 07:54 PM by blm
both Clintons sided more often and more publicly with Bush on his decisions on terrorism and Iraq war than they did with Democrats criticizing Bush on those decisions, especially John Kerry.

Even on Downing Street Memos and even as late as June 2006 the Clintons were speaking AGAINST Iraq withdrawal timetable - and then Joe Lieberman lost his primary race - and Clintons adjusted their own positions RHETORICALLY.
>>>>

I've got most of today open, wyldwolf, so you are welcome to keep pretending that I never pointed to examples from 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2006 as part of my criticisms of TeamClinton not backing up Democrats opposing Bush on these matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. in post #2, what events to 2002 and 2004 did you specify?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. The 2002 and 2004 elections where they sided with Bush more than the Dem left
and more than with Kerry on the two biggest issues of those elections, Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #46
48. you didn't specify ANYTHING in post #2. Read your own post again
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 10:32 AM by wyldwolf
:shrug:

You moved the goal posts (as I predicted) in your next replies. Here's a reminder of the FIRST POST of yours I replied to in this thread:

Why did TeamClinton never show up to oppose Bush 2001 thru 2006, leaving every

Dem who did stick out to oppose BushInc with no back up from their wing of the Dem party.

In fact, most of them were publicly siding WITH Bush during that timeframe.

Anyone have a reasonable explanation why TeamClinton stood down for 7 years and would not back up those who backed them for all the years that they needed it?


WHERE are the specific events? WHERE are the years 2002 and 2004 mentioned? It wasn't until I replied with...

yes, as I have shown repeatedly. Now, will you change the subject, move the goal posts, or both?


... that you redacted and moved the goal posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #48
52. I did not move any goalposts - you claim mentioning 2002-2004 moved the goalposts.
You clearly ignored the inclusion of examples of Clintons' failure to stand behind Dems on Downing Street Memos in 2005 and on Iraq withdrawal timetable in 2006 and my point that Clintons changed their rhetoric ONLY AFTER Jee Lieberman lost his primary race.

What you have against the simple facts in those observations is your problem, isn't it?

The Clintons and their team stood down on the major issues throughout George Bush's tenure and more of us are believing they DELIBEARTELY chose to not give back up to any Democratic leader who stuck their necks out to oppose Bush during that time.

Pretend all you want. I have a pretty open day today and have no problem repeating the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. it is goal post moving. Your post #2 specifies a 7 year period. Your words, not mine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #53
57. Hey - That Vanity Fair article last month where Gore's people say they were
undermined throughout 2000 campaign by TeamClinton didn't seem to register with you, either. It did with most people here who have been opening their eyes more to the selfishness and cravenness of TeamClinton.

When it came to giving back up and standing UP for other Democrats opposing BushInc, the Clintons chose to stand DOWN and would not expend themselves against BushInc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. well, you moved the goal posts immediately. Took you a while to change the subject
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #58
69. Clintons failed to stand with Dems opposing BushInc and you want to pretend they did
because that is all you CAN do.

You KNOW they didn't show up to provide back up to those Dems bearing the brunt of BushInc's attacks.

And, IN FACT, they were siding more with Bush on the two biggest issues of the 2002 and 2004 elections - his decisions on terrorism and Iraq war - than they did with Democrats opposing Bush, especially the 2004 nominee.

Clintons can be found voicing a small measure of disagreement with BushInc every now and then for partisan audiences, but the wall of noise they created in the mainstream media left no doubt that they both supported Bush on his terrorism and Iraq war decisions and they wanted other Democrats to support Bush on these decisions, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. still trying to change the subject. LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #70
74. Keep hanging your hat on fabricated claims.
The need to hide behind fabricated claims is ....... so....you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #74
79. hey, "2001 thru 2006" is a very specific statement. You made it, not me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #79
83. And I specifically gave EXAMPLES from that timeframe - something you distort
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 11:49 AM by blm
for your own need to feel like a dominant in this exchange.

Hahahaha.....as IF....

Your postings and two quaaludes wouldn't get you in that position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #83
84. but not in post #2, displaying your aptitude for goal post moving
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #84
85. Because I was being brief and NOT specific till YOU replied. Most DUers KNOW
the Clintons were AWOL in opposing BushInc during that time and don't need to challenge a general statement.

Contrary folks who like to play pretend, on the other hand......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #85
86. you were quite specific - 2001 thru 2006. That is real specific
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #86
91. And???? Twist and shout.....YOU are the goal-post changer who can't reconcile
the SOLID SUPPORT Clintons were giving Bush on his decisions on the two biggest issues from 2001 thru 2006 - terrorism and Iraq war decisions where they sided more with Bush than they did with those Dems sticking their necks out to OPPOSE Bush during that timeframe.

And, as far as backing up other Dems......
Do you think Gore, Cleland, Kerry and Murtha would agree with me that Clintons didn't give them back up WHEN they were under attack, or your belief that Clintons were always there to back up other Dems?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. hey, your post #2 said Team Clinton didn't oppose Bush 2001-2006, then you moved the goal posts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. No goalposts were moved - you're hanging your hat on a distortion - as usual.
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 12:17 PM by blm
Just so you can pretend to dominate an exchange where two quaaludes couldn't even help you become the 'master' at this point.

Hahahaha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. yep. When it was clear you were wrong about 2001-2006, you changed to 2002 and 2004
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. You need to PRETEND Downing Street Memos(2005) and Iraq timetable vote (2006) don't
appear anywhere in the exact same post that pointed to Clintons' curious inaction in 2002 and 2004 elections.

Twist and shout wolfie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. is that all that happened between 2001 and 2006?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #100
102. Nope - it was a general overview with a few EXAMPLES - I left out ToraBora and
the lack of support Kerry received on that battle and of course, Clintons' CURIOUS omission of all matters related to Kerry's many years leading on the issue of terrorism and their funding networks throughout his June 2004 book tour where he found the opportunity to support Bush on his dealings with terrorism.

You can pretend all you want that Clintons gave Kerry the serious support that any Dem nominee deserved from the last Dem president, but, it is obvious that Bush received more PUBLIC support on his terrorism and Iraq war decisions than Kerry received from Clinton who seemed to forget everything Kerry did to uncover the terror noetworks and their funding in his BCCI investigations.

In fact, Bill wouldn't even mention BCCI at all in his entire book - though he inherited the Dec 1992 BCCI report and ALL its MANY outstanding matters when he began transitioning into the WH then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. two events is a general overview? Sorry, you don't get to decide what is important for eveyone else
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
50. Not really butting in here, but isn't 2002 and 2004 in between
2001 and 2006?

Maybe I'm missing something.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #50
54. she specifically stated "seven year period," as in...
"Team Clinton didn't oppose Bush in that seven year period." As I've shown her in the past (using her definition of who/what "Team Clinton" is, that is clearly inaccurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #54
59. You never showed anything close to Clintons sticking their necks out to oppose Bush
and back up other Dems throughout that time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. yep I did, and with supportive links
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #60
94. Heheheh....twist and shout wolfie.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. heh! wading in denial river, moonie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #50
55. He made an inaccurate reply back at me, and instead of admitting it, he keeps
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 10:57 AM by blm
up a pretense that using examples from 2002,2004,2005,2006 somehow negates my point that Clintons stood down and wouldn't back up those Democrats who were sticking their necks out to oppose Bush on the big issues throughout that time.

It's the pretend game and calling him on it just gives me an opportunity to make sure the game is called exactly for what it is.

This is why other Dem candidates are so much more appealing - they don't need to drum up the drama and create conflict the way TeamClinton does. They find their conflict in Bush as they have for years, whereas TeamClinton has to find that conflict with OTHER DEMOCRATS because they don't seem to find any serious conflict with BushInc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #55
56. quote my inaccurate reply
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #56
63. You claim I said this just this.......
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 11:04 AM by blm

Response to Reply #4
5. LOL! You just moved the goal posts! First you said 2001 thru 2006!

Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 07:25 PM by wyldwolf
Now it's 2002 and 2004!
>>>>>>>>



When I ACTUALLY said this:

>>>>>
4. No - you never did. And on the two biggest issues of 2002 and 2004 elections,

Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 07:54 PM by blm
both Clintons sided more often and more publicly with Bush on his decisions on terrorism and Iraq war than they did with Democrats criticizing Bush on those decisions, especially John Kerry.

Even on Downing Street Memos and even as late as June 2006 the Clintons were speaking AGAINST Iraq withdrawal timetable - and then Joe Lieberman lost his primary race - and Clintons adjusted their own positions RHETORICALLY.
>>>>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #63
65. read your post #2.
Why did TeamClinton never show up to oppose Bush 2001 thru 2006

That is what you said in post #2. Now you're denying it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #65
73. I'm not denying it at all - but that wasn't the post being argued - you posted
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 11:16 AM by blm
that using 2002 and 2004 as examples moved a goalpost. It did not, but you seem to need to hang your hat on that claim - a claim that is a clear fabrication, as I also included DSM from 2005 and Iraq withdrawal vote in 2006.

And Clintons shifted themselves RHETORICALLY for their presidential primary audiences because Joe Lieberman lost his primary race based on their shared positions supporting Bush on his terroriam and Iraq war decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #73
80. from the very beginning I've been arguing post #2 (before you moved the goal posts)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #80
87. Twist and shout all you want..... most people know the difference between posts
that are general comments and overviews and posts that use examples in the reply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. right. They see in post #2 how you claim "TeamClinton" didn't oppose Bush 2001-2006 ...
..then when I call you on it, you move the goal posts and say 2002 and 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #88
92. They didn't show up to oppose Bush on those issues and I then posted examples
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 12:18 PM by blm
and used 2002 and 2004 elections, and also Downing Street Memos in 2005 and Iraq withdrawal timetable that Clinton oppesed in June 2006.

So - where is your controversy?

Twist and shout....wolfie. Twist. And. Shout.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #92
95. you listed no issues in post #2, then moved the goal posts when I called you on it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #95
104. No I didn't. You PRETEND that I did so you can argue. Guess what? I don't care
because you just out yourself as willing to say or do anything.

And THAT is all there is to this exchange. YOU. A wannabe emperor standing naked in his own room.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
8. Most polling would beg to differ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ilovesunshine Donating Member (289 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. You might not like it, but it's true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Your denial seems to indicate you won't like this:
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 08:43 PM by AtomicKitten
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. so, you like these poll results?
Clinton: 49% Giuliani: 44%
Obama: 41% Giuliani: 49%

advantage: Clinton

Clinton: 51% Romney: 42%
Obama: 45% Romney: 41%

advantage: Clinton

Clinton: 54% Huckabee: 37%
Obama: 48% Huckabeee: 38%

advantage: Clinton

Clinton: 46% McCain: 47%
Obama: 37% Mccain: 52%

advantage: Clinton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I suspect you won't like this:
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 08:45 PM by AtomicKitten
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_clinton_vs_giuliani_thompson

Election 2008: Clinton vs. Giuliani & Thompson
Clinton Trails Giuliani, Barely Leads Thompson
Friday, November 23, 2007

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) enjoying a modest four-point lead of 46% to 42% over Senator Hillary Clinton (D) (see crosstabs). That’s the second time in the last three Rasmussen Reports election polls that Giuliani has held the advantage over Clinton.

The survey also found Clinton with a very slight edge over former Senator Fred Thompson (R), 46% to 44%. Both Republicans are doing better against Clinton than they did in the previous Rasmussen Reports survey.

The former First Lady has recently been the subject of more sustained and concerted attacks from other Democratic candidates seeking their party’s nomination. In addition to losing ground in the national match-ups with Giuliani and Thompson, Clinton now trails four Republican hopefuls in the pivotal state of Florida.

Since April, Giuliani has led Clinton several times in Rasmussen Reports national polling, but usually by no more than three percentage points. In mid-August he led by seven, but by September he was trailing. On October 9 Giuliani trailed Clinton 41% to 48%. In the next poll he managed to edge out Clinton by two points, but on November 11 he was again trailing, by six (see history).

Individual polls can sometimes overstate volatility in a race, especially when the results carry a four percentage point margin of sampling error. One way of addressing this is to look at a rolling-average of three consecutive polls. Using this approach, Clinton and Giuliani have both been within two points of the 45% mark for thirteen consecutive polls dating back to May 1, 2007. The candidates have been within two points of each other on eight of those thirteen surveys.

Currently, the three-poll rolling average shows Clinton and Giuliani tied at 45%. Clinton had held the advantage in the last four updates of the three-poll rolling average. At the beginning of the campaign, Giuliani had the advantage--during the first eight sets of three-poll averages, Giuliani was “ahead” in seven and tied with Clinton in the eighth.

It’s worth noting that on individual polls with a four point margin of sampling error, Giuliani has been within four points of the 45% mark for fifteen consecutive surveys dating back to March. Clinton has been within four points of the 45% mark on nineteen of twenty surveys dating back to December.

Thompson too can be thankful for the new Rasmussen Reports survey. Since we started surveying the match-up in March, the actor-politician has led Clinton only twice, and by the skin of his teeth. Clinton's greater leads have usually been modest, although on October 9 she led Thompson by fifteen points, 52% to 37%. On October 23 Thompson lagged by just two points, then fell six points behind in early November. Now he again trails by just two points.

A look at the three-poll rolling average for this match-up shows Clinton at 45% or 46% in the early match-ups moving up to the 48% to 50% range for the last four sets of results. Thompson started out at 44% or 45% for the first sets of data and has been in the 40% to 43% range more recently.

Currently, in the three poll rolling average, Clinton leads Thompson 47% to 43%. That’s an improvement for Thompson who trailed by an average of eight in the previous three polls.

Clinton remains the frontrunner in the battle for the Democratic nomination with leads in the national polls, New Hampshire, Florida, and South Carolina. But, in the first state to vote, Iowa, the New York Senator is in a toss-up with Illinois Senator Barack Obama and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards. A Rasmussen Reports analysis of the race explored the importance of the Iowa caucuses.

Giuliani remains the GOP frontrunner in national polls, but trails in many early states. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney leads in Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney and Thompson are tied for the lead in South Carolina while Giuliani leads in the Florida Primary.

Clinton is now viewed favorably by 46% and unfavorably by 52% of voters nationwide. Forty percent (40%) offer Very Unfavorable opinion of the Democratic frontrunner.

Giuliani is viewed favorably by 50%, unfavorably by 46%. Thompson is viewed favorably by 40%, unfavorably by 45%, with 16% still uncertain of their view of him.

Forty-four percent (44%) of voters say they will definitely vote against Clinton if she is on the ballot in 2008. Forty percent (40%) say the same about Giuliani and Thompson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. ha ha. So you blew it on the first poll. But your next one says nothing of your candidate.
Without that info, you can't prove your point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. What's not funny but actually quite sad is how poorly Hillary's showing is against the GOP.
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 09:32 PM by AtomicKitten
That speaks volumes about the efficacy or lack thereof of your candidate.

I don't know about you but I want to win this go.

On edit: It is your candidate whose mouth is writing a check she can't cash; did you read the OP? Nice try moving the goal posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. but not according to the first poll you put your faith in, and the second poll doesn't show Obama's
That speaks volumes about the efficacy or lack thereof of your candidate.

I don't know about you but I want to win this go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. The OP is about Hillary claiming she can win when obviously she can't or barely.
Nice try moving the goal posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. No, it's about Hillary's chances vs. the rest of the Dem field...
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 09:37 PM by wyldwolf
... and you cited a poll proving the OP's point (by mistake, no doubt)......then cited one ONLY showing Hillary's numbers and no other Democrat's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. She obviously is wrong.
But you can cling to whatever poll makes you feel better as she continues her downhill slide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. not according to the two polls you posted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ilovesunshine Donating Member (289 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. The majority of polls show her doing better than Obama in a head to head match up.
One can't just count on Rasmussen when collecting data.

I really try to be objective when it comes to these things, and do hope that we can all support the nominee regardless of who she or he is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rAVES Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
17. Top Gear.. a british TV car show done a section in the US
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 08:53 PM by rAVES
where they had to paint stuff on each others cars and drive through a red state without being shot... Jeremy's car had "Hillary for president" wrote on it in big writing... they where ran out of the area chased by a group of "good ole boys" in a pickup truck after being pelted with rocks...

*edit*

here it is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW0ubzvxSlU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carrieyazel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
26. Hillary's assertion is laughable. She's got the worst chance.
And sorry, Hill, but NY is not the entire nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #26
39. yet, polling says you're wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenTea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 04:23 AM
Response to Original message
27. What bullshit...oh how she lies....she is the candidate with the highest negatives by far though!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #27
35. except the polls say differently
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 04:29 AM
Response to Original message
28. According to SurveyUSA's latest head-to-head match ups, Obama is the strongest GE candidate
In this month's SurveyUSA Election Poll of Iowans sponsored by KAAL-TV Rochester-Mason City-Austin, Barack Obama will fare significantly better than Hillary Clinton in the general election. Obama easily beats all of his Republican opponents (with 50% or more against each of them), while Clinton's margin is significantly slimmer against Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee, and she even loses to McCain.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=2d211d2a-ee13-40ab-8455-5a70b9b55bfe

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #28
34. According to this morning's gallup, Clinton is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
31. I am still standing?
I am not denying that she has been attacked, but I am not sure what "still standing" actually means. The attacks were mainly while she was first lady (and of course they are starting afresh now), when short of divorcing Bill, she had no choice but to "still stand". Also, showcasing her NY victories as proof of how well she "stands" to republicans is deceptive at best. Yes, republicans can win in NY. But it is a clearly blue state, and in both her runs she faced NOBODIES. If Giuliani had not bowed out of the race in 2000, that Senate race would have been a real race. I have no idea who would have won, but at least she would have had a chance to prove her chops in a real fight. The way it is, Clinron's "much to their dismay, I'm still standing" is mostly unsubstantiated bragging.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
40. She battles the GOP but she doesn't battle their backers
Blind partisanship seperated from the real core of issues is the basic problem with Hillary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
45. She has more Democratic support in red states.
That's telling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ishoutandscream2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
51. More red state support than other Dem candidates? Ummm
Of course, this is purely anecdotal, but everytime Hillary is mentioned to a Repig down here, the Repig starts to froth at the mouth. The hate toward her is incredibly hostile and it has nothing to do with her positions. It's "she's a bitch" and "thinks she's a man" mentality. Pure, irrational hatred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
61. OK, Clinton supporters,
exactly which red states do you anticipate her winning because I read from DUers in red states consistently saying Hillary will never with THEIR state. So I ask, exactly which red states will she win?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #61
62. so you're a big believer in anecdotal evidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #62
64. Answer the question, please.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. sure. Ohio, VA, New Mexico, Arkansas
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 11:07 AM by wyldwolf
I base this on polls, not anonymous DUers who claim to live there and say the state will never vote for Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #66
75. I don't consider
Ohio truly a red state as the only reason the Republicans "won" the last two elections was due to election fraud. I think whoever the Democratic candidate is would win Ohio in 2008.

My understanding of New Mexico is that it has been in transition from R to D for the last 8 years or so so again, I don't see Hillary, specifically "winning" over that state either.

Arkansas? You sure about that? Again, my understanding is that Arkansas is an extremely conservative, Bible Belt state and I remember that TN didn't even vote for their favorite son in 2000.

And yes, I believe anecdotal evidence is valuable as long as one does not rely solely on it as a source and I never claimed to do that. Nor do I believe relying SOLELY on poll data (how many times has it been wrong in the past?) is wise either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #75
78. so we're now basing "red states" on your opinion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ilovesunshine Donating Member (289 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #61
67. Nevada and Arizona.
I feel they will both go blue next election.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #67
71. That's only 15
AZ 10, NV 5. But thanks for answering the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #71
72. that's only 15 what? Did you ask which red states, specifically?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #72
76. Electoral college votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #76
77. so? You didn't ask how many EC votes, you asked how many red states
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #77
81. "Win" does refer
to electoral college votes. It's why Gore isn't president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #81
82. yes it does. So if she wins a red state, she wins their EC votes. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #82
89. This conversation is getting
weirder and weirder. I'm signing off.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. yes it is. Odd you jumped from one thing to another
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nedsdag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #67
105. Not if Hillary is the nominee. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeStateDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
68. Obviously, John Edwards would but the Clinton family is famous for lying
This lack of credibility will continue to dog them and should become a larger issue if they make it to the general election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
101. I'm sure Captain Smith said he was the best captain for the Titanic


We'd see the same results...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 11th 2024, 07:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC