Why the Hillary hatred?

No flaming please...just honest talk. If we are truthful with each other, neither Obama nor Clinton have done anything in this campaign that is deceitful, hateful or more wrong than the other. Sure, they have BOTH engaged in some mudslinging whether it was handshakegate or fairytalegate....and that is par for the course in any election.

I think if we're honest, we can all agree that both Obama an Clinton are pretty even when it comes to that kind of stuff.

But why the talk about Hillary the Bitch, Hillar the Snake, if Hillary is on the ballot, my vote goes elsewhere, etc.

I'm fairly new to DU, so someone clear this up for me. Is this an issue of maturity/age of posters or what on earth causes the visceral hatred? I think Obama has acted in an unfriendly/unfair way from time-to-time too, but I'm not ready to call him a bastard or an ass.....It's politics, people....

I'll vote for/support whomever gets the democratic nod.

So tell me...why the visceral rage?

Welcome to DU.

I'm sure if we were all in a room together discussing it over a beer instead of posting anonymously, you wouldn't see this kind of acrimony.

.

OK, you're probably right.






OK. You're right.




.

IMO, and mind you, this is just my opinion, they were brainwashed by the Right Wing Noise Machine during the Clinton years. I swear, these people think the Clintons are worse than Bush. I will never understand.

If this were a Republican site, I'd think it was misogyny, but who knows.

My best guess is brainwashing. Clinton and Obama have almost identical voting records.

Like I said, IMO.

I don't have a candidate now that Edwards has dropped out.

who here thinks Clinton was worse than Bush? if you are going to make such an accusation in an attempt to pain everyone that has a problem with HRC as brainwashed the least you could do is name some names. There are very valid reasons not to like HRC, none of them have anything to do with right wing talking points or brainwashing. You are trying to claim the high road while posting crap like this?

Threads calling Clinton a bitch, calling her a corporate whore, calling her a warmonger, calling her the reason for the Iraq war. Threads calling her and Bill racists, calling them scum, slime, and every name in the book. Threads commenting on Clinton's looks, threads recommending Mo Dowds vile personal attacks against her and Bill.

Threads likening her to a republican, threads posting out and out already rebunked lies about her positions and policies. Threads blaming the Clintons for a lot of the policies from the 90's that they worked their asses off under and out of control Right wing Republican congress to get as moderate as they were. If the Clinton's did not fight them, that Republican congress under Fucking Tom Delay would have dismantled many programs completely. They did the best they could. Hell, the Democrats supposedly control Congress now and can't get a damned thing passed.

When irrational hatred takes the place of facts, I think it's brainwashing. What else is it? I call it stupidity when Republicans do it.

I can read and it's not a strawman. There are more threads attacking Clinton on this board than there are calling Bush out on his policies.

And thanks to your tone and your personal attack, you are now on my ignore list. It has grown quite large lately -- with *both* Clinton and Obama supporters posting over the top personal attacks.

The vile, steaming hatred of Senator Clinton comes from someplace personal. That kind of hatred for someone who has almost the same record as their own candidate leads me to logically believe it is brainwashing.

The media HATES Clinton. People under 25 or so have heard from the time they first started watching TV just how horrible the Clintons are. Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster - these people who grew up with Fox on the TV in their parents' homes heard day after day after day how evil the Clintons are. You don't think that had an effect?

People berate Clinton for Doma. Well, lessee, Doma stopped the Republicans from trying to get a Constitutional amendment passed that would have codified discrimination into the constitution - which the courts cannot overturn. They are pilloried for Don't Ask Don't Tell - which while not perfect, is a hell of a lot better than the old policy which was to pursue and to jail homosexual service members.

They're ripped on for Welfare "reform" --- do you know what the republicans were actually trying to do to welfare? They were trying to GUT it with no safety net. Welfare reform was a compromise.

I'm not a fan of the Clintons because I am a radical socialist, but I get pissed as hell when these untruths are posted. They are not even close to Republicans on any major issues. They compromise too much for my tastes, but maybe they are more realistic than I am.

great way to go about your life. You must be a happy person in your small little world.

I did not attack you personally anywhere in that post. Everything you said above can apply to Hillary supporters too. You have been blinded by partisanship if you do not see or understand that.

With the nastiness is to not read it. I've seen it all before. I use DU as an aggregate news site - it's the best place to find out what's going on in the world. I see stuff here I would completely miss if I just used traditional news outlets.

I don't want to see the personal attacks or the candidate wars. And I dont' want to listen to the people who perpetrate them.

My choice on how to use this board.

I tend to stay away from sites like Yahoo and Huffpo and Slate and places that tear down any of the Democratic candidates. I come not to read attacks, but as a safe place.

You use DU the way you want and I'll use it the way I want.

but you are the one that decided to reply. When I disagreed with you and challanged you on it you decided to put me on ignore instead addressing my simple point.

You have a right to do whatever you want, but I simply don't understand it. Again, I never attacked you personally.

:thumbsup:

gaspee has a right to speak his/her mind and spoke politely.

for so long that it has become a cultural phenom and perhaps has permeated into societal consciousness.

and some of them like to congregate at DU.
Yes it is an issue of maturity, among other things.
It's also an issue of a lot of politicos approaching politics the same way sports fans approach sports.

but I guess never say never. I do not know why they permit the Hillary hatred unless it's because she is indeed a powerful woman.

I believe you are correct.

You were here during 2004. Hell, you've been here almost as long as I have, so you remember 2002 and the IWR.

Hillary was never that popular here, anyway, and since the IWR it's only gotten worse.

During 2004, it was dog eat dog, day in day out. All the hope for Gore running, the vitriol against Lieberman (fully justified, IMHO), the Gephardt/Kerry (supposed) "dirty" ads against Dean.

Don't you remember?

It's not just a RW meme. Some people don't like Hillary. End of story. It has nothing to do with her being a powerful woman. Christ on a pogo stick, you should meet my mother! Or my wife, for that matter. They both have bigger "balls" than I do.

Sorry to say, I don't like her. It's a gut reaction. Her "persona" rubs me the wrong way. I'll vote for her in the GE, because no matter how much I don't like her, she's better than the alternative.

Lets just please stop with the "Hillary hatred" and "powerful woman" bullshit. Some of us just don't like her.

I can only speak for my self. This really has nothing to do with hatred. She is a good senator. But given the 2 choices left I don't see how any liberal could possibly support her over Obama. She has been wrong on Iraq, while Obama was right. This should be a nail in her coffin right there. She supports the censorship of video games. The comments she made about how healthcare should be mendatory for all americans (healthcare we have to pay for).

I could go on but I have to get to work. But can you explain to me why you support her over Obama?

The votes he was in the Senate for supported the war effort.

His votes are 90% identical to Hillary's. Vote as you choose, but please get better information.

I never said he was in the senate at the time. But the fact is he was strongly against this war. He was out on the streets protesting against it.

Why do you participate in this dishonesty? Obama should be praised for his stance against the war. Voting for funding has nothing to do with his original, correct, and unpopular opposition to the war.

He made that speech because David Axelrod wrote it and told him to give it.

why do you people spread this bullshit? Really? Are you paid to do this? Do you have no regrets about dragging a fellow democrat through the mud?

He was against the war while most of america was for it. Period. None of this bullshit you assholes continue to repeat will change that. I try to be clam in these situations, but people like you that are so fucking blinded by all this partisan bullshit should have no right to participate in our politics. You are destroying this party.

I guess we have to give some credit to RW conspirators who could pick out Obama 15 years ago, feed him some anti-war speeches, and voila here he is running for president. ;)

I would suggest some research on your part.

then in another thread you talk about how stupid Obama supporters are because they are destroying this country.

My eyes are wide open. I'm not perfect at political discussions nor do I know everything that I should probably know. But at least I can see through your bullshit.

You people have absolutely no problem taking the party down with you if your candidate doesn't win.

The two candidates remaining have nearly identical records and nearly identical platforms. The only differences are their experiences and their styles.

Other than that, they could be the same candidate.

please tell me that avatar is a joke. Or is that someone that just looks like lieberman?

and you've got a guy from a semi-funny cartoon. What do yo think?

Easy now...

BTW. You have no signature. ;)

However, there are lots trust me.

All these negative adjectives used for her.
I cannot stand.

Hertopos

sure, there are hillary haters. But haters is a dumb word that doesn't mean anything. It tries to make any dislike of HRC seem irrational, when the reasons behind the dislike are very rational. Some people around here have become so polarized (on both sides) that they don't seem to understand this.

She screwed it up for a generation. My ex wife had some serious health (and hence insurance) issues at the time (as I did later), and have several friends who are docs.

She in secrecy that Cheney would admire (and use as a precedent) devised the worst possible plan for patients and health care providers, setting back the cause of universal health care for over a decade and a half.

Now in her knew iteration she thinks she will solve the problem by being a bought and paid for shill of the insurance industry and big pharma.

She is tone deaf politically and a policy illiterate despite her claims to the contrary.

If she is president, she will set back health care reform for half a century.

Unlike Cheney, when she was pressed Hillary did indeed open the meetings of the Health Care task force. Furthermore, her plan was never even implemented. The whole thing went down in flames because belicose RWers made damn sure it would.

The main reason it went down in flames was that it was a terrible, terrible plan. If it had been a great plan, easy for the public to understand, with broad popular support, the ravings of the right wingers would have been ineffective. But it was a horrible plan so neither the patient nor health care provider community/lobby came to her assistance (policy illiteracy).

The second reason was that by trying to create the plan in secret with a few health insurance industry insiders, instead of through a broad public participation in debate, fact finding, and idea competition, no one other hand Hillary had a stake in the plan, or in defending it. Her entire attitude was, "on health care I'm the smartest person in the world so accept my plan even if you don't understand it," rather than "let's build a new health care system together and then battle together to get it passed" (politically tone deaf).

Tragically, in these two ways she has not changed one bit.

people like you are part of the reason people don't like HRC. You are not doing your candidate any favors. Grow up.

who argue the issue.

if you dint think so, maybe you are just blind to it.

"grow up" is a thoroughly infantile argument.

:eyes:

I can claim that most Obama "haters" don't like him because he's black. This is a stupid immature argument without any proof, you should know better.

just yesterday there was a whoel thread about how she is a bitch

are there people that hate her because she's a woman? Sure. Are there people that hate Obama because he is black? Sure.

But it is dishonest to try to take that based on a few idiots and apply it accross the board. You know this. And I would ask of you and everyone else, wether you are an obama or HRC supporter, to cut this bullshit out. All it does is hurt us in the general election, whoever happens to be the nominee.

..it's because she's the consumate politician, cold, calculating and NEVER genuine about a damned thing...

She's a phoney and a corporate-paid schill...

She represents this "third-way" middle-of-the-road centrist horsehit that helped get us where we are today...

One Clinton in the HW is enough thank you very much...

I'd rather have LIBERAL DEMOCRAT in the WH thank you very much...and she ain't either..

.

And as I said above Obama made the right judgement before the Iraq war. Their current positions might be similar. But if this country faces anything similar in the future I want a president that will do the right thing, not the politically popular thing.

Hard to carry on a discussion, when it comes down to this. :argh:

but i hardly find people on du w.legit policy reason to post hatred.

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

:eyes:

What a wanker...

...eom

I still find it hard to imagine it's really coming from Democrats, but we can't have THAT many freeper trolls here.

I merely don't like her and never will. My perogative.

Or is that somewhere you just can't go?

"just silly", but I'll do it anyway. I am a young widow. Hillary voted to make so many young men and women widow/ers and then did not have the balls to say it was insider politics at work. No, she was "duped". She believed. Even as I sat crying when that vote came down. Even when my husband came home in utter disbelief that "our" party had turned on us. I would respect her if she would admit that. Other than that, she's a run of the mill, say anything to make myself look good, idiot...er politician. It is a sad day when a woman who once worked the polls opts out of Election day.

This is incredible. If we are females and not Hillary supporters, we have "issues?"

Hell yeah we have issues. But they aren't the Dr. Phil ones you seem to imply.

:applause:

I also love the way the poster just walked away from my response.

Funny how they just can't answer when confronted about what they posted.

Mostly, I see people having problems with her policies and Senate voting record.

are not Democrats.

Also, many of the Obama supporters are engaged in the political process or will be voting for the first time. They are not interested in a viable Democratic party into the future (including the general election) or honest candidate evaluation and discussion. They seem to see the political process of choosing a nominee as an all out battle with no view to the war.

Oh, one other thing, many people don't recognize the underlying sexist and ageist attitude that resides underneath their assertions.

.

Kyl-Lieberman

"Charming and charismatic"

Censorship of flag burning, video games.

Nepotism.

Too many policy decisions were the result of triangulation and polling.

Wefare reform, nothing liberal about the kind of reform Bill signed into law.

NAFTA, nothing is more pro-corporate and anti-average American than that GOP treaty that Bill ramrodded through Congress.

The anti-average American bankruptcy legislation Bill was at first supporting in 1998 before changing his mind due to the triangulation polling that showed it was a loser politically.
(Rssurected by Hillary herself in Congress in 2001, only to die later.)

The large loss of Democrats around the country the entire Democratic Party suffered with a "popular" Democratic President who had no coattails to extend in support of his own Party.

Want more?

..

tactics she and Bill are using.

instead of the perp.

This clip begs to differ. Yep. Kerry insulted the troops. :sarcasm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg


Instead of saying "no comment" or "I will not comment" and talking up a his experience with helping millitary families, and veterans, she decides to say the word "inappropriate."

And many like my mom cringed when Bill referred to Obama as a "kid" and their race-baiting tactics. She is sick of the Clintons and no longer cares for Hillary. She likes Obama's message.

Repuke message.

I have a good friend, a Democrat, who is not online yet and watches all the political shows. She bashes Hillary non-stop.

There are most likely some Repuke infiltrators who lead the pack.

If you support Hillary, you can only see the hatred against her.

But I remember from when I was uncommitted that it was on both sides.

I thought the reason the left hated Hillary was because she was too conservative.

Your reasoning is kind of odd....

Hi, I like your alias.

I am also a working mother. I am also sick of the way some of post describe Hillary. I think it is for two reason.

1. Now internet fights are flooded by young first time voters, who actually influenced by RW talking points. ( They heard them first before they form real individual opinion.)
2. Everyone become more emotional because 'gender and race' is a fair game in this.

I can relate to some of Hillary supporters outburst since it does look like typical scenario. A woman executive worked hard for all years. When she thought its her turn, some estranged son of CEO returned and took the position. However, the adjective for Hillary is much worse than ones for Obama.

By now, both sides have done enough amount of nasty Internet fight.
However, as far as negative adjectives are involved, Obama supporter did much worse.

I actually feel like someone yelling at me since I am in her position in very miniature scale.

Hertopos

I know Hillary fans will tell me she can and will win in the GE, but I don't see it. Her issue has always been that people either love her or hate her and there really isn't much of a middle ground. At least with her husband, people can look past his flaws and they generally liked his personality. When it comes to Clinton, though, it's different.

I just don't want to see her win the nomination, only to go down in flames in the general election. To me, Clinton is to the Democrats as McCain is the Republicans -- someone who is very divisive.

And I hate that it's ok to call her a bitch. I find that really offensive.

From years of listening to her try to explain why she has repeatedly done one wrong thing or another.

IWR
Kly/Lieberman
Her easy willingness to throw issues/individuals under the bus to further her political career.
Her triangulation.
Her Maggie Thatcher chest thumping.
Her willingness to sell out the American people for a little taste of the corporate tit.
The choice of Mark Penn as her highest campaign advisor.
The thought of Bill Clinton in the WH again and holding my breath until the first bimbo erruption.

Uh, I could go on, but I think you get the picture...

On edit:

"Free" trade
Her handout to the insurance industr...oops..."universal health care" plan.

to many of us.

her historic bid for president is tarnished by the fact that she is the spouse of someone who did harm to the democratic party and this nation, first by lying under oath (I could care less about the blow job stuff), and then by not resigning so that Gore could have easily taken the election in 2000. Of course, if we could rewind history, I wish someone could put tape over Bill's mouth and just give him a sign that said, "My dick is none of your business." But he didn't, and so here we are.

I don't think some in the democratic party can understand that "the big dog" is not adored by all. He is her baggage in that respect, but I also doubt she would be where she is now without her role as first lady.

Yes, the right wing attack machine had an impact, but again, Bushvp, Bush, Clinton, Clinton Bush Bush... Clinton? Is it really so difficult to understand why this candidacy is less than inspiring?

I don't think he should have lied either, but....1. it has nothing to do with Hillary and 2. ummmm...are you actually blaming Hillary Clinton about Gore? That is ridiculous. Blame Florida, Blame Jeb, Blame Bush...but not Hillary for Pete's sake.

Bill made it about Bill last week... talking about himself all the time... if you are trying to claim that he will not be a force in a Hillary pres... that's just silly to me.

I see the Clintons as a political apparatus. As Bill himself noted, when you voted for him you got two for one with his politically involved wife.

And, tho you seem to not want to acknowledge this, Hillary Clinton IS totally associated with her husband's presidency too. To claim otherwise is denying reality for most americans.

So, no, I'm not blaming Hillary for Bill not resigning. I am saying he will, no doubt, advise her in her campaign and presidency. I am saying that her presence is a reminder of the past, not a future.

But MOST OF ALL I'm saying that her presidency is a continuation of the same dynastic politics of the last twenty years and I, for one, am tired of it. (I feel this same way about the Kennedy dynasty. The reason Caroline's endorsement has impact for me is because she is the most apolitical of all the Kennedy's now in public life. Teddy's endorsement? Eh.

And now, when it comes down to two candidates...and since Hillary supporters claim her voting record is 90% the same as Obama's... why would I support someone with her negatives in the public memory. You cannot pretend that Bill's terms did not have an impact on people's perception of Hillary. She has benefitted as well, not just suffered. Can you imagine that she would have had the public eye and would have won her NY senate seat without her visibility as first lady?

I mean, is she a feminist's choice because she gained public notice because she was the wife of someone important? Or is she the feminist choice because she didn't tell Bill to go fuck himself? (or, conversely, does she appear to be politically calculating because she didn't leave?) I really don't get how she is the feminist choice simply because of her gender. As I've noted before, I wouldn't vote for Jeanne Kirkpatrick for prez, even tho she is a female, so why should I automatically support Hillary?

You cannot separate her candidacy from her past history. That's just the way it is.

Is that what what you're saying? :shrug: Sounds like it! And I don't like the sound of it. All I can say is thank goodness most of America doesn't read hateful blogs and are too busy earning a living to read the crap posted on DU.

you just go right ahead and twist my remarks.

yes, being married to a politician is the equivalent of being married to a murderer.

you said it, not me.

Again, after posting on this thread, to see the b.s. coming from Hillary supporters, I don't even want to vote for her at all! I will, if she's the democratic nominee, but that doesn't mean I support her or that I think she's a good thing for this country, because I don't.

You all seem to want to ignore what I have said, over and over is THE big issue here... and that is dynastic politics. That has nothing to do with gender or what side of the political aisle you are on.

but you prefer to engage is disingenuous "understandings" of what I have said. I am not hateful. I was expressing my problem with support for Hillary. Why try to twist that as hate? Because you don't like what I said.

so, instead of my honest opinion, if you don't like it, I'm just a hater. I've stayed out of this forum most of the time because of the ridiculous posts made by supporters of one candidate or another. you personify this repulsion with the bullshit in this forum.

Yes, thank goodness most of America doesn't have a clue about what's going on in their own names... first time I've ever heard a candidate's supporter say they're grateful the American public is clueless.

anyway, I'm out of here. If you want people to support Hillary, you should stop trying to damage anyone who doesn't think like you do. because you know the effect of your post? It makes me want to go out and tell everyone what a disaster Hillary would be... simply based upon her rabid support.

kiss off.

I am sorry but I cannot forgive or forget what the Clintons have done to us over the years. They ahve helped the GOP ruin America.

NAFTA and neo-liberal corporate "Free trade," endorsing the right-wing economics of Alan Greenspan, selling out the poor with welfare reform, walking away from the need for universal health care, turning the media over to the corporate monopolies, making Wall St. the only source of economic input....

So much more, and so many specifics and general reasons.

A REELECTION OF THE CLINTONS WILL BE A DISASTER.

The Centrist Clinton administration

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/71


Obama more likely to care about the working class than Hillary
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/70

Hillary fights dishonestly to keep $110,000 workers from a tax increase
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/65

Why I opposed Clinton in 1992
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4198872


I have not called her any names though, except DINO or PINO.

It's why I am with Hillary. To do my part - that I failed to do in the 90s

For all our disdain of the MSM, we tend to let them influence us anyway.

For the record, I've never referred to her as as "Hillary the Bitch, Hillar the Snake".

DLC is a subversive organization that wants to undermine the party. One of the founders was a PNAC signator. But don't just take my word for it. Here's what others have to say about DLC:

This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0727-32.htm

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_DLC_agenda_undistinguishable_from_Neocon_0813.html

Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

These DLC types are amazing, they really are. Their pathology is unique; they all secretly worship the guilt-by-association tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, but unlike those two, not one of them has enough balls to take being thought of as the bad guy by the general public.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11275627/the_low_post_democrats_walk_themselves_to_the_gallows

http://dlcwatch.blogspot.com/

Great post!!

:applause:

I hate those DLC bastards!!! :grr:

what I hear from the MSM. Hating Hillary has become an American habit. We'd be better off directing our negative emotions towards the republican candidates. They are far more deserving of it.

"Spade work"

the primary season.

What bothers me most is that a lot of it is based on things that aren't even true about HRC. There's a lot of ignorance, perhaps willful, about what her actual political positions are. Many don't like her because of percieved personality issues - yet a lot of those same people will accept the notion that the MSM screwed John Edwards, for instance. Like their perception of Hillary Clinton as seen through those same news sources might not be skewed?

I don't know that I'd call it hatred. There are those of us who notice a striking resemblance between Hillary and a whole lot of stuff we've already been sold.

i responded to a post last night with this...



how do you undo something that pretty much became part of the shared consciousness of the general public in this country? there may very well be a a majority of people in this country for whom this is not an issue, but i'm not one of them. i can't go from loathing her before she ever set foot in office to actually supporting her and voting for her. there's no switch i can flip.

It was mostly coming from the republican side but since Hillary became a Senator, some Democrats have joined in the fray. Another reason is that a lot of it has to do with her husband. He is very hated among republicans out there and a lot of trolls have infected this board posing as a supporter of Obama, Edwards or any of the other candidates...mostly Obama though. I don't know why that is. It gives them the release to say whatever they please about her because she is a Clinton. I guess you may want to know why I think republicans are here on DU. Well, back when Clinton was President, I used to post on the now defunct CNN message boards which had Democrats, Republicans and everything else. The same right wing terms, phrases and talking points I heard back then has been said on democraticunderground. I never forgot them.

Obama clearly is a better choice on many levels. We've seen the Clinton movie before.

support of corporate interest over those of the people.

*It's her vote for IWR and Kyl Lieberman

*It's Hillary triangulation such as Rural Americans for Hillary fundraiser at a DC Monsanto Lobby: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/yee-haw.html

*It's her support by the biggest lobbyists:
Lobbyists -Hillary # 1

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008

Oil & Gas _Hillary # 4 (although TOP DEM)

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=E01

Pharm/Health Products-Hillary # 3 (TOP DEM)

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04

*It's the DLC ties to past elections:

I am convinced that the failure of the DLC to acknowledge Gore's win in 2000 (in fact they blame his "loss" on breaking with the DLC and becoming a populist-i'll post a link below) and their active role in keeping Kerry from challenging Ohio in 2004(thanks to Clinton ally James Carville (also posted below) was calculated as to allow a HRC run in '08. If either would have taken the office they won, then HRC and her corporate cronies would not have had a chance in 2008. Also look how they try to undermine Howard Dean. Anyway, here are some links:

FIRST..GORE BROKE WITH THE DLC TO BECOME A POPULIST:

Published on Sunday, August 20. 2000 in the Boston Globe
Thank You, Al Gore
by Robert Kuttner
A funny thing happened to Al Gore on the way to his surprisingly effective acceptance speech. He became a liberal.

The speech was as liberal as anything FDR or LBJ or Jesse Jackson or one of the Kennedys might have delivered. It was built around a commitment to fight for ordinary people, against large and powerful interests. This, of course, is precisely what made it effective.

The emotional heart of the speech, Gore's honoring of four ordinary American lives, did not just salute the struggles of workaday families, the way Ronald Reagan often did. It identified who was dishonoring their struggles - corporations. He singled out heartless HMOs who pressure a family to sacrifice a child; drug companies that force a pensioner to choose between food and medicine; corporate polluters; corporations that pay workers inadequate wages.

And he identified the solution: strong, reliable public Social Security; better Medicare; welfare reform that rewards work rather than punishing the needy; higher minimum wages; and more investment in public - not voucher - schools, so that working families don't have to send kids to crumbling classrooms.

What is the evil? Corporate power. What is the remedy? Effective government.

-snip
http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm

SECOND, AFTER GORE'S WIN THEY BLAME HIS 'LOSS' ON BREAKING WITH THE DLC:

Strange Theory on Why Gore Lost



The so-called Democratic Leadership Council has decided that Al Gore should have acted more like a Republican in order to win the 2000 presidential electoral college vote in addition to his nationwide popular vote victory. This strange finding has drawn some attention, including coverage by the Associated Press and the Environmental News Service -- we have a few excerpts from their reports for you here.
Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm

AND FINALLY, CLINTON ALLY JAMES CARVILLE'S ROLE IN THE QUICK KERRY CONCESSION:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

RESEARCH THIS FOR YOURSELVES, BEFORE YOU CAST A VOTE FOR ANY DLC CANDIDATE!

I've got things to do but here are some informative article:

The Trouble with the DLC
Posted August 13, 2007 | 01:14 PM (EST)


Why are Harold Ford and others from the more paternalistic and condescending quarters of the Democratic Party so keen on discrediting the rising progressive movement? What have been the consequences of their obsession with "the middle"? Most importantly, how have the Tory Democrats managed to bury the expression of deep progressive values, and what should the progressive movement do about it?

For three decades, advocates of "centrism" have used their money to monopolize the Democratic message and leave the progressive base out in the cold, not spoken to. Since its founding in 1985, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has been leading this effort. How did they pull this off? Before we get into that, let's call them what they are. "Centrist" implies conciliation, moderation, compromise. It reinforces the mistaken idea that our political life falls along a neat, linear scale from left to right. That metaphor makes the center a pretty good and safe place to be. And that it certainly is not.

The plutocratic Democrats should be referred to not as centrists, but as industrial authoritarians. Their movement was born after the Nixon re-election in 1972. They blamed that landslide on Democratic Party rules changes that audaciously sought to include Americans formerly excluded from the back rooms of power. They fronted for older corporate interests -- oil and gas, finance, insurance. The are really 19th-Century paternalists who would save us from ourselves by keeping us far from the plantation's Big House.

-snip

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-w-smith/the-trouble-with-the-dlc_b_60210.html



David Sirota on the DLC:

-snip

It was the DLC’s president, Al From, who in 2001 said that his goal was to give Democrats “a game plan to try to contain the populism.” Populism, you may recall, is defined as “supporting the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite.” Al From has made that vision a reality. The DLC—which has been funded by the likes of Chevron, Enron, Merck and Philip Morris—has, until recently, been extremely effective at pressuring Democrats to ignore the will of the public and capitulate to big business’s demands. The DLC has also made a public spectacle of itself by berating Democratic candidates who actually stand up for ordinary people.

PUTTING THE “MOCK” IN DEMOCRACY—To be sure, the DLC never openly admits its objectives, or even its funding sources. Instead, it bills itself as quasi grassroots, holding so-called “national conversations” in an effort to create the impression that its corporate-written agenda has some semblance of public support.

Yet the media coverage of its most recent such “conversation,” in Denver this past July, tells the real story. The New York Sun noted that the meeting focused on pondering “how to counter the netroots”—i.e., how to counter the millions of grassroots Democratic Party voters who use the Internet to advocate for a more democratic political system. Perhaps most telling of all was the Rocky Mountain News’s note that the DLC’s supposed “national conversation” at the Hyatt Regency Hotel was, in fact, “not open to the public.”

In an August Rolling Stone column, reporter Matt Taibbi recounted his interview with one DLC leader, who called anti-war activists “narrow dogmatists.” Taibbi pointed out that recent Gallup polls have shown that fully 91 percent of Democrats support a withdrawal from Iraq, and he asked the DLC leader to explain this contradiction. “So these hundreds of thousands of Democrats who are against the war are narrow dogmatists?” Taibbi asked. “We have thirty corporate-funded spokesmen telling hundreds of thousands of actual voters that they’re narrow dogmatists?”

-snip

http://www.davidsirota.com/index.php/big-money-vs-grassroots/



The Democrats 2008 Choice: Sell Out & Lose, Or Stand Up & Win
Posted July 26, 2005 | 03:42 PM (EST)




The 2008 Democratic presidential candidates this week are busy genuflecting at Corporate America's altar -- otherwise known as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Now, it's true -- the DLC is really just a group of Beltway-insulated corporate-funded hacks who have spent the better part of the last decade trying to undermine the Democratic Party's traditional working class base -- a base that had kept Democrats in power for 40 years and now, thanks to the DLC, has been forfeited to the Republicans. Even so, the fact that these presidential candidates feel the need to bow down to the DLC is a troubling sign about whether the Democratic Party is really serious about regaining power in America.

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda.

Now, you could make a credible argument that the DLC's corporatization/Republicanization of the Democratic Party was justified, had it led to electoral success for Democrats. Few would argue that today's split-the-difference Democratic Party hasn't followed the DLC's policy direction over the last 10 years. That means the last 10 years of elections really have been a referendum on whether the DLC's model -- regardless of any moral judgements about it -- actually wins at the polls.

And that's when we get to the real problem with the DLC -- its policies are BOTH morally bankrupt, and politically disastrous. The rise of the DLC within the Democratic Party has coincided almost perfectly with the decline of the Democratic Party's power in American politics -- a decline that took Democrats from seemingly permanent majority status to permanent minority status. In this last election, just think of Democrats' troubles in Ohio as a perfect example of this. Here was a state ravaged by massive job loss due to corporate-written "free" trade deals -- yet Democrats were unable to capitalize on that issue and thus couldn't win the state because the DLC had long ago made sure the party helped pass the very trade policies (NAFTA, China PNTR) that sold out those jobs.

-SNIP

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-democrats-2008-choice_b_4729.html

Here is a portion of activist/mother, Terri Swearingen's acceptance speech for the Goldman Environmental Prize, given April 14, 1997:



I am not a scientist or a Ph.D. I am a nurse and a housewife, but my most important credential is that I am a mother. In 1982, I was pregnant with our one and only child. That's when I first learned of plans to build one of the world's largest toxic waste incinerators in my community. When they began site preparation to begin building the incinerator in 1990, my life changed forever. I'd like to share with you some of the lessons I have learned from my experiences over the past seven years.

One of the main lessons I have learned from the WTI experience is that we are losing our democracy. How have I come to this sad realization? Democracy is defined by Merriam Webster as "government by the people, especially rule of the majority," and "the common people constituting the source of political authority." The definition of democracy no longer fits with the reality of what is happening in East Liverpool, Ohio. For one thing, it is on the record that the majority of people in the Ohio Valley do not want the WTI hazardous waste incinerator in their area, and they have been opposed to the project from its inception. Some of our elected officials have tried to help us, but the forces arrayed against us have been stronger than we or they had imagined. Public concerns and protests have been smothered with meaningless public hearings, voodoo risk assessment and slick legal maneuvering.

Government agencies that were set up to protect public health and the environment only do their job if it does not conflict with corporate interests. Our current reality is that we live in a "wealthocracy" big money simply gets what it wants. In this wealthocracy, we see three dynamics at play: corporations versus the planet, the government versus the people, and corporate consultants or "experts" versus common sense. In the case of WTI, we have seen all three.

The second lesson I have learned ties directly to the first, and that is that corporations can control the highest office in the land. When Bill Clinton and Al Gore came to the Ohio Valley, they called the siting of the WTI hazardous waste incinerator next door to a 400 student elementary school, in the middle of an impoverished Appalachian neighborhood, immediately on the bank of the Ohio River in a flood plain an "UNBELIEVABLE IDEA." They said we ought to have control over where these things are located. They even went so far as to say they would stop it. But then they didn't! What has been revealed in all this is that there are forces running this country that are far more powerful than the President and the Vice President. This country trumpets to the world how democratic it is, but it's funny that I come from a community that our President dare not visit because he cannot witness first hand the injustice which he has allowed in the interest of a multinational corporation, Von Roll of Switzerland. And the Union Bank of Switzerland. And Jackson Stephens, a private investment banker from Arkansas. These forces are far more relevant to our little town than the President of the United States! And he is the one who made it that way. He has chosen that path. We didn't choose it for him. We begged him to come to East Liverpool, but he refused. We begged the head of EPA to come, but she refused. She hides behind the clever maneuvering of lawyers and consultants who obscure the dangers of the reckless siting of this facility with theoretical risk assessments.

-snip

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/wti/et0897s17.html




There has always been something incongruous about Stephens Inc. Despite the Little rock firm's attempts to portray itself as a small- city operation that closes for the duck season and got fabulously lucky on a couple of down-home deals like Wal-Mart, it was, at the incinerator's inception, the ninth-largest investment bank in the country. Since it is not headquartered in New York, its dealings are local news, little noticed by the national press, even when they have national implications. And, as a source close to the company once remarked, "The farther you get from Arkansas, the better it looks."

Stephens Inc. was founded by Witt Stephens, a state legislator's son who parlayed a Depression-era belt-buckle, Bible, and municipal-bond business into an immense personal fortune. After his retirement in 1973, the company was run by his shy younger brother, Jackson (a classmate of Jimmy Carter's at the Naval Academy). Witt Stephens and Stephens Inc. did much to create the economic paradox that is modern Arkansas: a desperately poor state with a scant 2.3 million inhabitants that is nonetheless home to a number of wealthy companies. Without the financial assistance of the Stephens brothers, Sam Walton might have ended his days as the most innovative merchant in Bentonville. Stephens money was also important to the fortunes of enterprises as various as Tyson Foods and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, the television producer and reigning First Friend. Stephens Inc. is an important client of the Rose law firm, whose chairman, C. Joseph Giroir, made Hillary Rodham Clinton a partner. And back in 1977, Stephens assisted BCCI's infiltration of the American banking system by brokering the latter's purchase of National Bank of Georgia stock held by Bert Lance, former President Jimmy Carter's friend and disgraced budget director.

Jackson Stephens (who turned over the reins to his son, Warren, in the late eighties) and his firm were both substantial contributors to the campaigns of Presidents Reagan and Bush (to the tune of at least $100,000 in 1980 and 1989), but they have been closer still to Bill Clinton (whom Witt Stephens had been known to call "that boy").

On two occasions, once when Clinton was running for reelection in Arkansas in 1990 and again in March 1992, when his battered presidential campaign was broke, the Stephens family saved Clinton's bacon with an infusion of money. Indeed, it may not be too much to say that their Worthen Bank's emergency $3.5 million line of credit saved the presidential campaign from extinction. --L.J.D.

-snip

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1993/11/davis.html





Who is the octopussy that might be lurking in the Ohio River Valley? Perhaps we should start by asking shy Arkansas billionaire Jackson T. Stephens. After all, Stephens introduced BCCI from Pakistan to the United States and the WTI waste incinerator to East Liverpool, Ohio. Stephens would be a good sketch artist because he's seen some monstrous scandals in his day. Stephens' family firm is the largest privately owned investment bank outside Wall Street. In September 1977, President Jimmy Carter's Budget Director Burt Lance was forced to resign amid allegations about his bank dealings with Stephens (Stephens and Carter were classmates at the Naval Academy). In 1978, Stephens, Lance and BCCI were charged with violating U.S. security laws. The charges were dropped after the defendants promised not to violate security laws in the future, even though they admitted no guilt.

The New York Post reported in February 1992 that it was Stephens who enabled BCCI to gain a foothold in the U.S. and helped the fraud-plagued bank secretly acquire U.S. banks. In Peter Truell and Larry Gurwin's book, False Profits, perhaps the best account of the BCCI scandal, the authors outlined how opium revenue from Afghanistan Mujahedin fighting the Soviets ended up in the accounts of BCCI, founded by Agha Hasan Abedi. The Post reported that Stephens allegedly introduced Abedi to Lance shortly after Lance resigned.

In 1991, Lance testified that he urged Abedi to acquire a Washington bank holding company, but he denied any knowledge of BCCI's subsequent secret ownership of First American Bankshares. The Post reported that Securities and Exchange Commission documents from 1977 substantiate that the idea originated with Stephens.

During Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential run, Stephens and his son Warren boasted of raising more than $100,000 for the campaign. The Stephens family also owned a 38 percent share in Worthen National Bank that extended a crucial $2 million line of credit to Clinton in January 1992.

-snip

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/wti/bob.html



Waste Technologies Industry, Inc. (WTI)


WTI has also gained significant political support, as one of the original partners in the corporation was Jackson Stephens. Stephens, an Arkansas investor, was known as a significant contributor to Reagan, Bush, and Clinton campaigns.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA has been accused of having bias in favor of WTI and carrying out decision-making activities without required public participation. The agency also violated rules established in RCRA during the WTI permit application process. EPA admitted such wrong-doing at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee's subcommitteeon Administrative Law and Government Relations, as well as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/mcormick.html#Key%20Actors




Washington, D.C. - The League of Conservation Voters (LCV), the self-described political arm of the environmental movement, has given President Clinton a middling grade of "C-plus" overall for "not working up to potential" during his first year in office.

In particular, the League criticized the Clinton Administration for failing to halt Waste Technologies Industries' controversial hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio.

-snip

http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_fewer_onsite_hazwaste/


I BELIEVE THEY WORK HARD FOR THE POWERFUL OF THE PEOPLE. I BELIEVE SHE IS WILLING TO PROMISE ANYTHING TO WIN. I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR ANY DLCER (I'll write in a progressive Dem)!

abuse of earmarks to private corporations and defense contractors.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/hillary-clinton-earmarks

Hillary Clinton Lands Earmarks For Campaign Contributions

LA Times | Tom Hamburger and Dan Morain | December 10, 2007 08:55 AM
Read More: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Charles Schumer, Chris Dodd, Clinton, Democratic Primary, Earmarks, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton Earmarks, Joe Biden, John McCain

It's a real estate developer's sugar-plum dream: a mega-shopping mall complete with 10 Broadway-style theaters, an indoor river, a Tuscan village and a 39-story luxury hotel sheathed in green solar panels shaped like giant blades of grass. Plus as much as $1 billion in government-backed financing, thanks in part to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton....

... Since taking office in 2001, Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefited 59 corporations. About 64% of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists, a review by the Los Angeles Times shows.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-can-boast-wealth-of-earmarks-2007-06-13.html

Clinton can boast wealth of earmarks
By Roxana Tiron and Ilan Wurman
Posted: 06/13/07 07:39 PM
Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has secured more earmarks in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill than any other Democrat except for panel Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/pastor_got_15_million_in_clinton_earmarks_before_endorsement/

Pastor Got $1.5 Million in Clinton Earmarks Before Endorsement
By Kathy Miller | The Hillary Project


By: Fred Lucas

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) secured more than $1 million in federal funding last year for a Harlem-based non-profit whose leader gave her presidential campaign a major endorsement last weekend.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-earmarks10dec10,1,6056064.story

Clinton rolls a sizable pork barrel
template_bas
template_bas
The senator embraces 'earmarks' as a way to help N.Y. She's received campaign funds from project beneficiaries.
By Tom Hamburger and Dan Morain, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
December 10, 2007
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — It's a real estate developer's sugar-plum dream: a mega-shopping mall complete with 10 Broadway-style theaters, an indoor river, a Tuscan village and a 39-story luxury hotel sheathed in green solar panels shaped like giant blades of grass. Plus as much as $1 billion in government-backed financing, thanks in part to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton...

...
Her record stands in contrast with others in the Senate seeking the presidency, particularly John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.). McCain, who has long opposed earmarks, does not write them. Obama has used the device, but now declines to earmark funds for private companies; he uses earmarks only to secure funds for government projects such as road building and hospital construction. Other senators seeking the presidency provide earmarks to home-state constituents and collect donations from recipients of the federal largesse. But The Times review found that Clinton does it on a different scale.

For example, in the appropriations bills that have passed the Senate so far this year, Clinton earmarked 216 separate projects for a total of $236.6 million. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) secured $112.8 million; Obama earmarked $90.4 million, and Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) earmarked projects totaling $70.8 million.

Since Clinton arrived in the Senate, she has collected in excess of $1 million from earmark beneficiaries and their associates.

"This pattern shows that Clinton has made aggressive use of the pay-to-play earmark game," said Keith Ashdown, research director for the Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/04/whats_new_5.html

What's new: Clinton's "pork-barrel" strategy; low interest in public financing

Some of the top political news in newspapers and on websites this morning

• The Washington Post -- Part of Clinton's campaign strategy is to focus on "small-scale initiatives:" As she campaigns nationally for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton still carves out time for "constituent services and pork-barrel politics." For the New York lawmaker, "keeping her plate full at the Senate is ... part of Clinton's campaign strategy, a real-time illustration that she is a workhorse with a practical view of government." (Earlier this month, USA TODAY traveled with Clinton during one of her swings through central New York state -- a trip that "underscored her dual role these days as a Democratic senator from New York and a presidential candidate seeking to be the nation's first female commander in chief.")

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3276646

McCain Says He'll Fight Clinton's 'Pork'
McCain Says He Will Try to Squash Clinton's 'Pork' Projects in Defense Spending Bill

By MICHAEL R. BLOOD AP Political Writer
LOS ANGELES Jun 14, 2007 (AP)

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Wednesday he will try to squash nearly $150 million in proposed defense spending backed by Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, calling the projects wasteful and unneeded by the military.

Speaking to reporters outside a downtown fundraiser, the Arizona senator said Clinton larded a Senate bill with a lineup of "pork-barrel" proposals that would drain funds needed to shore up armed forces arrayed around the globe.
Top Politics stories

McCain plans to offer amendments or join with other members on the Senate floor to "eliminate these earmarks and pork-barrel spending projects, which the Pentagon had no request for and had no need for."

Thanks

"Neither Obama nor Clinton have done anything in this campaign that is deceitful, hateful or more wrong than the other."

This statement alone speaks volumes about what is wrong with the Clinton machine. After all the dirty, under-handed, despicable actions on their part they think they can play the "who me" card "I didn't do anything the other side didn't." Do they really think we are that stupid?

The Clintons only care about the Clintons. To hell with the country or the Democratic Party.

I use to have a lingering doubt on whether she voted for the war for political expediency. I no longer have any doubts.

that people just treat politics like it's the super bowl instead of the election of the president. much of this is Bush's fault, with his "with us or against us" attitude.

I also think some of it is a desire to put an end to the bitterness that has characterized the political landscape since the early 90s at least.

And part of it is misogyny.

Oh and I should say that when candidates are basically the same on issues, as Clinton and Sen Obama are, one looks for anything to differentiate them. Sen Clinton's brittleness is part of her narrative--one that has undoubtedly some root in the truth and some root in the the misogynistic imaginary. So these personality attributes are simply one way to differentiate the "likable" Sen Obama from the "unlikeable" Clinton. In fact, Sen Obama has played this masterfully by repeating the "do anything to win" charges against the Clintons that took root in the 90s.

Recall the attacks against Bill with the Jennifer Flowers BS- that, then allowed BushcoSr. to get out and preach against scandalous campaigning and pretend to take the high road. Then Junior, with his push-poll slander against johnny Mac in SC?

Of course, the whole RW machine was mobilized to over throw an elected Pres.

You are correct, this seems to go back to the early 90's before that- it was just lame operatives doing break-ins and stealing psych records- hey! Wait, this is a pattern!

Why does any criticism of Hillary seem like hatred or misogyny to some of her supporters?

Because I see through her fake persona which reminds me of a used car salesman. Every time I see someone like her trying to put on an act mimicking the persona of folks she's speaking to instead of just being her normal self it displays to me how fake she is.

When I see someone (like Hillary Clinton) who's not black, or not brown, or not poor, or not the hard working class, etc., trying to mimic these folks when she's speaking to them its not a complainant, its actually more like mocking. But of course I know its not her intent to mock anyone, but nevertheless, its a perfect example of a display someone puts up when they know they are trying to sale that someone a bill of goods. If she's sincere then why not just be herself? So there's one problem I see with her - her actions brings to question her trustworthiness.

Secondly, who do you think she's really for? You and me the working class? Or the corporate interests and war profiteers? Well here's a hint.....who's received more campaign money from the military industrial complex than all other candidates combined? Who's spoken out both sides of their mouth with respect to Iraq? Who's stated position in the debates is consistent with the traditionally un-American Bushco doctrine of preemptive attack with respect to Iran? Who's employment history protected the American job destroyer WalMart company? Hillary is the candidate for corporate interests and war profiteers before she's for the poor and working class, and, just like her husband when it comes down to choosing sides she'll choose the corporate side, ie signing NAFTA, threating to fire striking American Airline pilots and threatening to fire striking American Airline stewardesses.

Actions speak louder than words, and her actions and her money trail and her fake persona clearly shows me who she is and I refuse to be a blind participant by giving her any consideration for my vote even if she's the one nominated.

Why do some people who are Obama supporters post strong language against Hillary? Well since I am not an Obama supporter and can't speak for other people, I would however speculate that its probably just an example of "what comes around goes around" since Hillary is the one who started this exchange of mud slinging. She can try and deny it all she wants by saying its not coming from her (how convenient), but, nobody is being fooled. Using "proxy" mudslingers just displays she possesses the "snake in the grass" type character too which is also consistent of a used car salesman type.

No thanks Hillary I know what you're about and its not good for Americans who work hard for a living.

but i spelled out my feelings here


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4288944&mesg_id=4288944


there is another purely strategic point and that is in any election the person with the highest negatives almost always loses this is simply because negatives are shown to be a much deeper feeling on part of the respondent and therefore harder to change than a positive which could mean "I absolutely love this candidate" or "He/she is OK".

In this case there is the added Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton scenario which if Hillary went 2 terms would mean 28 years (more than 10% of our country's history tied up in the drama of two families. There is something third worldish about it.

I believe that the Republicans are going to make that the main feature of the GE campaign, and that it will give them a door to not only run against Hillary but also George Bush. George Bush said one intelligent thing when he was first running for president and that was having a father as president "meant that he picked up all of his enemies and half of his friends".

This will be true with Hillary. She will pick up all of Bill's enemies and half of his friends.

"The 90s are going to make the 80s look like the 60s made the 50s."

That line from a movie summed up a lot of our feelings in 1992. Even Conservatives knew that was the pulse of the nation. That is why they went bat-shit crazy over the Clintons.

Only it did not happen. Instead of reversing Reagan and starting this country forward again, Clinton just slowed down the move backwards.

Given that Bill was a life-long Democrat (albeit a fairly conservative one) while Hillary only switched to the Democratic Party because the campaign she worked on lost in the '68 Republican presidential race, I rather doubt Hillary will do better. Unlike so many people on here, I do *not* believe Hillary triangulates. I believe she is an honest to Gods, middle of the road, independant swing voter.

And I see this election as another opportunity for a liberal Democrat to turn things around. Heck, Genghis Khan could probably win the general election were he the Democratic nominee this year as badly as the Republics have f'ed things up.

disportionate amount of threads which attack her.

Obama and Hillary supporters are pretty well-balanced in their trashing of one-another.

Progressives have not forgotten how right-wing the Clinton regime was!