the anti-Hillary threads make me cry

this careless strewing around of litter is despoiling our beautiful DU.

is causing the despoiling. Differences of opinion.

to be fair she's "thinking about it". Hopefully that means she'll remain a powerful senator instead of a weak presidential candidate.

it's just the same old shit over and over again. Rusty tin cans, potato chip wrappers, etc.

Since Hillary is not a corporate conservative and the OP did not mention one.

She supports "free trade," "bankrupsy reform," and a host of other issues that benefit only big business. She sure as hell isn't a populist.

Personally, populists are no more than naive libertarians. Progressives and liberals should shun them.

See how easy it is to fling around meaningless labels?

since you can't acknowLedge that hiLLary is very much so.

And provide just as much proof as the post I responded to.

which is why i dismissed you in the same fLippant manner you dismissed him.

:sarcasm:

There should be no reason to fear voices in the debate. I think that is how BEST for Democrats to make their decisions.

If we don't HEAR what they say and propose, and watch how they handle themselves during the debates against the argument of others, then how can our preferred candidate show that they have what it takes for the long haul of the general?

what I fear is the inevitable media circus around Hilary that will drown those other voices out. You think any other candidate will be given more or equal free media "speculation"?

And that is usually how it's always been for Democrats.

where within 3 minutes he basically asked Sharpton and Kucinich why they were even still in the race when the polls had them impossible to win and showed them the same respect (none) for the remainder. The media will with all its might try to pick our candidate for us (again) and, I don't want to believe this either, but there are enough sheeple Dems to follow in lockstep with what the idiot box will tell them. Kerry wasn't the best choice out of those final four in 04 and Hilary won't be in 08.

constant bad spin they were putting on it started drying up his fundraising forcing him to mortgage his house to continue.

It's absurd to believe that corpmedia picked Kerry - he survived IN SPITE of their efforts to knock him out early.

Have you forgotten the jihad that corporate media had on Kerry from June 2003?



Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.
Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

nepotism.

The fact that presidents have to go to institutions that cost more to attend than the average person earns each year and need to have last names that are of English origin (with the occasional Dutch or Irish name tossed in)

There is so much racism and classism just in teh way we choose who can run for president. There are so many good, talented, intellegent people who would never be seriously considered because they don't come from the right background.
x(

Not nearly as much as the blood shed in the war she voted for and the occupation she supports.

Not the kind funded by corporatists with clearly biased intentions. The kind where a little voice can have a big impact. The Hillary question is looming. It must be answered. It is best that it is considered from all angles, even the painful and obvious. Senator Clinton, perhaps unfairly perhaps not, now serves as a lightening rod for a number of negatives--some real, some imagined. She knew well her choices--a continued, though volatile public persona or a shift to the background of the political fabric. The Lady made her choice.

Hillary is mostly just getting trashed in a repetitive fashion.

There is an equal "love Hillary" thread.

But they still have to be debated. Would you prefer blind obedience and unwavering support? If so, then who gets to dictate who gets that obedience and support?

and wavering support? In politics, question everything. Question EVERYONE'S motive. Leave NOTHING to chance.

unmercifully. I am a Hillary Clinton supporter but I have yet to trash any other Democrat thinking of running for president or who previously ran for president. They are all good people in my opinion. I will support the person who is nominated.

...the respect of calling her Senator Clinton.

NGU.

I will indeed shake her hand and say it is an honor to meet you Senator. This is a webboard. Step away from the AP style book.

...the viral RW talking points.

NGU.

I must have missed it.

hillary is not everyones cup of tea. her stand on the war and her overall hawkishness doesnt sit well with some of us. (duers)
the republicans hate her like poison and for what I dont know because she is not some super liberal.
i think of her and bill like moderate republicans used to be before the madness took them. ie pre nixon.
they are very middle of the road and really attempt to work for concensus.
they are truly uniters.
for myself, i dream of someone more kucinich or feingold like but i think hillary would do a decent job similar to her husband.

since they are two peas in a pod. Hillary would govern just as Bill did--minus his charisma.

don't like her for many of the same reasons we didn't like Bill. To the extent that they support the same causes and issues, we didn't like him either. Some of us don't get into blind hero-worship. We actually look at the policies people support.

Hillary has made overtures to the anti-choice people
She has supported making it harder for people to declare bankrupsy
She's done nothing to cut corporate welfare
She supports free trade, and ignores all the damage that comes with it.

I can also say from personal experience that she's the only politician I've ever written to who doesn't bother to respond to letters. Not even a form letter response. Nothing, except a pile of fund raising letters once she has your address.

Or is that just an inane, pointless comment? :eyes:

positions on the issues even are. You don't "actually look at the policies people support". If you did, you wouldn't make posts like the one you just made, declaring things like -

"Hillary has made overtures to the anti-choice people"

Hillary Clinton has a 100% NARAL rating. Here is a link to her voting record on this issue

http://vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=WNY99268&type=category&category=Abortion%2BIssues&go.x=7&go.y=11

"She has supported making it harder for people to declare bankrupsy"

HRC did not cast a vote on the bankruptcy bill. I don't know what her position on this issue is. And neither do you. However, she did make a statement at the time of the vote that leads one to believe she would have voted against it. The statement is here - you might want to read it, since I would hope that you want to base your opinions on fact and not "blind hero worship". Or it's opposite.

http://vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=83566&keyword=&phrase=&contain=

"She's done nothing to cut corporate welfare."

What, exactly, are you expecting her to do? Especially considering she was a junior Democratic Senator in a Republican controlled Senate. This seems a particularly unfair accusation on your part.

"She supports free trade, and ignores all the damage that comes with it."

HRC voted against the most recent free trade agreement to come before Congress, known as CAFTA. This would indicate to me, at least, that she recognizes the damage free trade agreements like NAFTA have wrought.

I'm in her district, get her mass-mailings, work across the street from her NYC office and see her come and periodically. I read all the progressive news magazines and numerous discussion boards and news sites online. I don't need you telling me what I do or don't know. Just because you don't read doesn't mean that's true of the rest of us.

Given her influence within the party, she's not just a junior senator, and it's disingenuous of you to use that line.

And given her influence within the party, what she says is just as influential as how she votes.

the best you can reply is "B.S."?

I'm not telling you what you need to know or not know.... I'm providing you with FACTS.

Her actual


VOTING RECORD


A record that REFUTES your comments.

That the best you can muster up in response is a personal attack on my reading habits says a lot about the strength of your debating skills.

The ignore button is your friend.

The metaphor of DU being the rolling green fields and criticism of Hillary being trash thrown into those fields is...a poor one.

I'm evenly balanced between finding it ludicrously funny and offensive. It's equable to the "You make the baby Jesus cry every time you..."

PB

I find the Crying Indian to be inherently funny. Did you know he was actually Italian?

...weirder things said seriously on DU.

PB

I wasn't being ironic, I really do feel that the anti-Hillary threads are kind of like litter. The use of the late Mr. Espera DeCorti was over-the-top on purpose.

Cherokee. He died in 1997 (I think). Belittling this man is not a good idea, either...

I'm not belittling him. I like the Crying Indian, and I think it's cool he's actually Italian.

http://www.mail-archive.com/nativenews@mlists.net/msg01286.html

<snip>

>But Iron Eyes, supposedly of Cherokee/Cree descent, is actually a
>second-generation Italian-American from Louisiana. His true heritage lies
>within the state's southwestern parish of Vermilion and its records of
>probates, deeds and baptisms.
>
>Today, Iron Eyes speaks of how his mother was a Cree Indian who married
>his Cherokee father and raised the children in Oklahoma. He recently
>suffered a stroke and still lives in the same modest home in Los Angeles
>that he purchased in 1936. His living room is a museum of his own photos
>and trophies, and his Hollywood memorabilia clutters the tables and
>chairs.
>
>In a telephone conversation last year, Iron Eyes denied his Louisiana
>origins. "You can't prove it," he said. Instead, he gave his own
>explanation: "All I know is that I'm just another Indian." But Iron Eyes'
>Indian guise, his Hollywood fame, was an escape from an early life of
>hardship and despair. Ultimately, he created his own Native American
>identity.
>
>May Abshire, 80, is half sister to Iron Eyes Cody. She explains that their
>mother was Francesca Salpietra, a short woman with long black hair and
>dark skin who grew up in Sicily among a family of winegrowers. Her
>traditional parents arranged her marriage to Antonio DeCorti, an Italian

more...

you of "belittling". And as far as MR. Cody's origins go, I'll simply take his word for it...

they comprise maybe 5% of the stuff that gets posted about her here.

The rest, like you say, is garbage.



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



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btt-FGjUk_4

Many of us here do not want her in the race for the same reason we don't want Obama in the race. Both will polarize the campaign as a mere popularity contest and not what it should be, a campaign built on the premise that issues and answers should be discussed intelligently and cogently.

It's not that I dislike Hillary, or Barack. It's that I despise what they have come to represent, the continuing of the dumbing down of politics, where rock star status becomes the most important aspect. No, I do not think that either one of them are ignorant, or incapable. But there's not been one word spoken by the media of their issue positions. It's all rock star status, 24/7.

I fear that the solution to the problem may lie with the candidates themselves. The extent to which they willingly abide by the media's portrayals, and the extent to which they are not speaking out against those portrayals, is the extent to which I do not want either one of these perceived candidates in the campaign. So far, I am not optimistic that either Clinton or Obama will step up to this challenge. Instead, we're going to hear the same orchestrated, middle-of-the-road, leaderless spew.

We need somebody who is bold, who is not afraid to stir the pot a bit. We need leadership, not manipulated sound-bites. Unfortunately, leadership may be the one attribute we're not going to see in 2008.

My hopes reside with Al Gore, who alone seems to understand clearly what is needed.

They're still in the "george-bush*-sits-with-god" phase. The days of freeper relevancy ended with Clinton and the blue dress.

Last time I checked, they could still vote and 54 million of them put * back in the White House two years ago.

And no, they did not put bush* back into 1600. Election fraud and voter suppression did. That is becoming more apparent each day. And gone are the days when bush* and his ilk could supposedly command that voting bloc at will. That particular voting bloc is shattering. There's been a tad too many looks behind the curtain. You have a Christian symbol in your avatar. More and more Christians of various denominations are realizing that money and power are not the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. More and more Christians are listening to their hearts and realizing that is much more important to walk the walk than just talk. And all ANY Christian has to do is ask themselves if bush* and his cronies are doing the Lord's work. I think not.

My comment was geared to the poster that said the "freepers"--and I'm taking that to mean the more reactionary freerepublic.com crowd--are having a field day. No one with any political cred these days reads that tripe except to guage the fringe outrage. Look at the ratings of the shrieking heads--hannity, limpballs and o'lielly. This ratings are going down. Their pontifications are prosaic and obvious. The freeper blogospere has proven to be ever bit the harlot as the main stream media--biased and slanted. Their time has come... and gone.

if we all don't jump on the HC band wagon people will be upset. It is kinda like that stages of grief.

First it was shock/denial: How could you NOT vote for a Clinton? (with feigned indignation)

Then came the fear: If you dont support Hillary the right wing will blah, blah, blah

Then came the bargaining: Look, if you vote for Hillary, maybe she will blah blah blah.

Then came the anger: If you don't vote for Hillary you are a misogynist, not a true american, blah blah blah

Now, finally, they are getting it and respond with appropriate sadness that their choice is not every one's choice.

That is America.

:)

My gut feeling about our gal, Hil, is that if she runs, she WILL NOT WIN. I don't think I could endure the mud flinging contest, the Neocons will decimate her personally, professionally, spiritually, morally, mentally, emotionally, physically, financially, maritally, and it would make the whole party weep with exhaustion. Plus, she is a DLC'er and that does spell corporate whore. Check out the contributors and you will find oil companies, and probably the RNC. I'm not ready for Republican light. And being a moderate will not make disgruntled Republics vote for her. Republicans' are so far right now that they think McCain, is a left-winger. She does not speak her truth. That comes through to everyone. Us and 'them'. The RW radio nuts all hate her with a passion and decry every conservative move she makes as a gesture of hiding who she really is and that if she were to be elected she will show her liberal colors. I feel that way, too, that she is more liberal that what she votes, speaks, or does. She should be the liberal that she truly is. Then maybe she would not seem like such a fraud. I still love Bill. But we can't have him back by means of putting his wife out on strings as his puppet. I'm sick of ass-puppets. I want a real person who speaks their truth. ie When Howard Dean speaks his truth it rings true to me therefore he does speak for me. I think Al Gore is our best chance. My 'gut' tells me he WILL win. Also, the big, fat, gross, elephants, can't wait to hold Kindasleezy Rice, up as her competition. If you don't want that fake, glossy, cardboard, facade for a president, we better advise Senator Clinton, to do the most good she can form behind the scenes. She would make a magnificent Secretary of State or some other cabinet adviser.

when Billy had his boytoy..she is above any kind of garbage that could be flung at her..Enough of male dominance..Either Hillary or Minnie Mouse...Any female, please..These idiots that like gunflingin' cowboys and little tin soldiers need to be Retired and retread.

I would pick Cynthia McKinney.

She was right. And she got fired.

So would you vote for Condoleza Rice over a male democratic candidate? :eyes:

But yes, the Anti-Hillary tirades have JUST begun. Years to go! OH boy Howdy..so much fun! I think the pro-Hil crowd needs to buy some Kimberly Clark stock. I prefer the softest tissues myself, which I will certainly NEED if she becomes the nominee.

Hillary has done nothing but drag the democratic party further to the right while catering to the evil corporate bastards which does NOT help the majority of people who live in this country who are middle class, working class, working poor and poor. But of course, those who have it "all" want Hillary...to protect their own interests. Like in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2809825

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

hoLa - you stiLL crack me up

I would like a president who is against the war in Iraq.
And I think we've had enough of Bushes and Clintons.

I will not support her during the primaries. We should be able to do better than the DLC. I'd much rather see Barbara Boxer run for the WH.

And the answer is no. I find it suspicious that she felt the need to spend 30 million on a campaign where she was already a shoo-in for office. That's more than double what any other candidate spent. Not exactly fiscally responsible.

As far as "despoiling our beautiful DU" well I don't come here to be agreed with every time I post. If I wanted to march in lock step with everyone else I'd be a freeper.

The misogyny on this board can be ignored if that what helps you sleep at night, but the truth is that you would never read such venomous remarks about any male Democrat regardless of how similar their beliefs are to Hillary's. She shares the views of most of the mainstream Democratic Party.

And if she had run in 2004, there is no way she would have been as inarticulate, uncharismatic and detached as John Kerry. A vacuum cleaner could have beaten Bush.

John Kerry was an embarrassing and ridiculous choice for the nomination in 2004. You can blame HIM for every stupid thing Bush has done since that date. And yet you don't see the venom directed at HIM. There are actually people on this board who would support that idiot again!!! It's flabbergasting!

I also think it's important to remember that DU does NOT represent most Democrats in this country. I don't know any Democrats in my day to day life who have ever even heard of this website and the beliefs expressed here, as a rule, are much more extreme Left than the views of most Democrats.

I think that Hillary would be much better at firing back at Swift-Boat style attacks. A lot of the reason for this is that she's had just about every possible attack thrown at her, yet she's managed to come out strong. I think she would be able to effectively respond to any future attacks.

You're right about DU not representing most Democrats. I'm often very surprised by things I read here, because many of the views here are quite different from the views of the Democrats I know personally. But I do like hearing other viewpoints, especially if they're well thought-out.

But that's a classic photo.