A Few Horrible Stances Hillary Takes

[mr715]

Abortion:

**Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)

**Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)

**Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women. (Apr 2001)

**Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record

**Supports embryonic stem cell research

Conclusion - She is clearly a corporate whore who is only interested in the Christian fundementalists as a voting block and does not care about hard working women like herself.

Civil Rights:

**Gay soldiers need to shoot straight, not be straight. (Nov 2003)

**Apologize for slavery, but concentrate on civil rights now. (Oct 2000)

**Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits. (Feb 2000)

**Crack down on sex trafficking of women and girls. (Jan 2000)

**Human rights are women’s rights. (Jan 2000)

**Women’s rights are human rights. (Dec 1999)

**Military service based on conduct, not sexual orientation.

Conclusion - she's running for President because she is only supporting the obviously extremely popular civil rights and pro-domestic partnership agenda in the United States. What a opportunist.

Environmentalism:

** 89% LCV Record

**Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)

Conclusion - she's such a conservative. But not as bad as that bastard moderate John Kerry with his 100% LCV record. They both can't wait to rape the Earth!

*************************

Hillary is not a "Democrat In Name Only"
She is not a corporate whore.
She is not her husband.
She is not a bad person.
She was not involved in Kerry's loss.

Why do you people laud members of the DLC (like Dean) for being un-DLC and then vilify people who are NOT members of the DLC (like H. Clinton)

Further - have you people ever considered that she actually BELIEVES in some things, like, oh lets say her religion?

I'm agnostic, but I accept the fact that most of America is not, and that Clinton may actually be a religious person. Her support of faith based programs may be a result of that. MAYBE she puts her personal feelings ABOVE politics. MAYBE she thinks that the democratic party shouldnt be the party perceived as godless heathens.

Oh... and you know what? Kucinich does the same thing. He supports whata she supports.

Stop slanadering one of the best democrats in the Senate.

If you people had any education in the voting record, you would know she is the 14th most liberal member of the Senate. Kerry was 10.

She is MORE liberal than Feingold. She is more liberal than Dean. She is more liberal than Gephardt, Kucinich, and Lieberman.

She is a blessing to our party.


M

[Lydia Leftcoast]

1. If you disregard little things like the Iraq War and think that

liberalism encompasses mostly personal behavior issues, well, then you have a point.

But unless liberalism goes beyond personal behavior issues and identity politics and concentrates on policies that benefit everyone in the society, the Republicanites are going to be able to continue using their current tactics successfully.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Iraq and blind support for Israel's occupation of Palestine give Hillary

a big fat "F."

Would Hillary be preferable to a Republican in the White House? You bet she is! But that's not the real issue in here.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[GreenArrow]

43. got

Genocide? Yeah, kill those subhuman cockroaches, those vermin, those useless eaters.

[MsMagnificent]

55. Sieg Heil! Thanks for your Final Solution!

[Andromeda]

40. I've heard Hillary say that she

supports a two-state solution to the I/P crisis.

She believes the Palestinians need to have their own state and I've never heard her advocate for Israel to the detriment of the Palestinians.

I've always thought she was reasonable on this and doesn't just have a one-sided viewpoint.

[suziedemocrat]

32. Wow - Good Point! n/t

[mr715]

2. And by the way....

You are severly limiting yerself if you only consider

(a) IWR Vote
(b) USA PATRIOT Act
(c) Certifying the electoral vote totals


There are 100s of great democrats out there. Just because they disagree with you on one (albeit major) issue, is no reason to turn the rest of their record to crap.

You ignore the nasty little spots on yer candidates record as evidence of their virtue, but use them as deathblows to your opponents.

We are ONE party. There is only one democrat in name only. His name is Zell Miller.

If you vote with the democrats more than 50% of the time, you are a democrat. Like Jeffords. Like Chafee. Like Snowe.

M

[BlueEyedSon]

3. The faith-based BS has got to go.

She will still never be president, too contoversial.

[mr715]

7. Your right

She will never be President.

But her support of faith based initiatives doesnt make her evil incarnate.

She might believe in them.

And I'm gonna say somethin else that'll get me crucified by you all - the "accepting and open minded people" of the liberal wing of politics.

Just cause Bush supports something doesnt mean its BAD. Just cause Bush supports faith based initiatives doesnt mean Hillary is supporting the President and is therefore evil.

Bush wants to diminish the wall of seperation as set up in Engel v. Vitale - I'm willing to wager Clinton doesnt.

[BlueEyedSon]

8. I don't care if she "believes" in them, they're unconstitutional. nt

[mr715]

11. No they arent

The stance of the Supreme Court is that government cannot make a person be in a situation where religion is forced upon them, either explicitly or implicitly.

The religious centers do not receive money for Bibles - they receive money for social services.

I believe as you, and potentially more. I think religion is stupid, a mental illness needing correction, and that people who worship should really get laid more. BUT it doesnt diminish the fact that I accept that our government ALREADY provides money to religious institutions.

Why the hell should we needlessly cripple our party by making religion our enemy? Hillary is in a picture with black religious leaders, and shes a DINO?

NO. Shes trying to make the Democratic party inclusive.

You want a pure party? Form a party of one, with all the people that agree with everything you say. We'll see when you get a member elected to ANY office besides President of your Bathroom.


M

[BlueEyedSon]

19. Good for you for defending Hill! Since she is a poor choice for POTUS

the point is moot. Thanks for playing.

[mr715]

23. Wait...

So I can't support my Senator who is being slandered?

I dont think she wants to be Prez. I think she wants to be Senate Majority Leader.

But I'll vote for her no matter what.

Shes smart. Shes beaautiful. Shes savvy. Shes passionate. Shes articulate. Shes the best debater I've ever seen. She rocks!


M

[NYC]

14. It's not supposed to be "what she believes in".

She is supposed to represent her constituents.

[mr715]

17. Two theories of representation

We elect people as both trustees (we trust our elected leaders)

We elect people as representatives

It is fairly clear that since she wasnt a NYer she wasnt elected as a represenative. I think its evident shes a trustee, as a liberal leader, elected to be a trustee for liberal NY

[NYC]

22. Liberal leader?

Maybe elsewhere she qualifies as liberal.

[mr715]

24. Shes liberal.

Are you debating that!?

[justiceischeap]

54. Hillary's Faith

Indeed, Hillary, it could be argued, is a more traditional Methodist even than George W. Bush, whose own southern-inflected Methodism—as he never fails to remind us—is more evangelical and personal. To the extent that faith informs Hillary's politics at all, it is in her very Methodist belief in the perfectability of the world. This strain of optimism is traceable to 19th-century Protestant reformers and their belief that the great engines of social policy can be set in motion to scrub society clean.

This isn't, of course, what Americans recognize as faith-based politics. Hillary has never cited Jesus as her favorite political philosopher, and she doesn't suggest her positions on healthcare, welfare, or kids' rights come from Scripture. In her Senate campaign, her positions were standard New Democrat fare: a tax credit here, a training program there. There's nothing that speaks of her mainline liberal Protestant background there.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/49/story_4918_2.html

I think Hillary has always held religious conviction and her work with "Faith-Based Initiatives" has more to do with helping underpriviledged children than anything else.

She, like all other politicians has positions not everyone will agree with. Yes, she voted for the Patriot Act (as well as everyone else in the Senate save a handful), yes she voted for Iraq (as well as everyone else in the Senate save a handful). Politicians are people and people make mistakes. Hers are just more public than yours.

[BlueEyedSon]

60. That's all just wonderful. I'm talking about GOVERNMENT SPONSORED

FAITH BASED PROGRAMS.

1. Unconstitutional.

2. Impossible to administer fairly (across all "faiths").

Her religious beliefs are her personal business. They should not intrude into our government, and how MY tax dollars are spent.

Since the whole faith based issue has not surfaced before in her politics, I assume that this is cynical vote-grubbing (GW-inspired) posturing.

[Dookus]

4. I agree entirely

but good luck convincing anybody here.

[justy329]

5. EXCELLENT POST n/t

[BamaLefty]

6. A Blessing Indeed

But she could not win the Presidency.

[robbedvoter]

9. Certifying the theft= killing democracy. IWR - blood on her hands

Faith based thingy= killing the Constitution + political suicide - as those taxpayer money buy GOP influence with the fundies.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. You neglected to mention that she supports the slaughter in Iraq.

I know, I know, it's just one little point.

Tell it to the dead.

[justy329]

12. She did not vote for the war

She voted for authorization to go to war AS A LAST RESORT IN ORDER TO CONVINCE SADDAM TO LET THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS IN. Don't let the RW tell you that the senators whom voted for the war resolution actually voted for the war itself. They were misled by the president who said he only issued the resolution in order to show Saddam that he was serious about him listening to the UN.

Also, Hillary did not know that they would wage such an incompetent war filled with torture and high US casualities. She probably thought that they would use the Powell doctrine and wait for wide support of the American people and use a big, big build-up to overwhelm the enemy. She didn't realize that Bush would listen to the neocons who rushed us into a war without preparing for the aftermath of the invasion.

I know many, many rank-and-file Dems (many of whom are liberal) who initially supported the war. They felt that because Saddam was not listening to the UN, he needed to be stopped. Many thought the invasion would go well as it did under Bush I because Bush I planned for the war and knew where to draw the line. In hindsight, knowing that the Bush Administration would screw up the war and torture prisoners in the process, we now would not have supported the war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Ah yes, the "Duh, I didn't think Bush would go to war" defense.

What did she think all those troops were doing in Kuwait? Improving their tans?

If she's that stupid, unlike most of the rest of the world, do you really think she should be a senator?

The same spin that wanted us to believe that Kerry is an ignoramus.

[SOS]

41. 23 Senators voted against the war

77 voted FOR it. There's no way around it.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to -
strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

And what did Bush do at the UN? We all remember that circus side show.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to -
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

This opens the door wide. Anyone who read this in October 2002 and didn't think Bush would use it has no excuse. It was a vote for war.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that -
reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. -- ooops! wrong country

Byrd and Kennedy were not mislead. Why were Clinton and Kerry so gullible?

[mr715]

15. Ah yes.

Iraq.

That old chestnut.

WHATS DONE IS DONE GUYS. Its all been said. If she believed the President, and was lied to, she did the right thing.

If she didnt believe the President, then she voted her conscience.

I do not believe the woman wants the blood of children on her hands.

But our Senators have a job. To protect the USA. Not Iraq.

She was wrong, but she did what she thought was right. If she knew then what she knows now, she woulda never voted for the war.

You dont believe me? Fine. Go join the Kucinich Peace Cult.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. I certainly don't believe you...or her.

"She did what she thought was right..." Bwahahahaha.

The "peace cult"? What is that supposed to be? A slur to those that believe that war is immoral?

So what does that make you? A member of the Hillary/Bush Death Cult?

[mr715]

35. Immorality

War is not immoral.

War is an action, and actions without qualifiers possess neither good nor evil.

The Iraq war was immoral because it was unnecessary, poorly managed, and did more harm than good.

WW2 was moral war. Kosovo was moral war.

Peace can be just as insideous and damaging as war. How many cultures have caused death by their rejection of righteous war?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. War is immoral.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

I stand by my statement. The "qualifiers" you speak of are merely rationalizations for murder.

[AntiCoup2K4]

57. Damn, did From increase the steroids in your diet or what?

Seems this year's group of DLC interns is much more belligerent than last year's class.

[Warpy]

13. She's better than most pugs

and her record on choice is stellar.

However, on economic issues, she's DLC, all the way.

I think she's wonderful exactly where she is, in the Senate. However, I can't support her for the next higher office simply because she won't embrace the sort of economic populism the party needs to embrace in order to start winning elections.

Her husband was correct about that.

[wyldwolf]

16. an important nit-pic in an otherwise great post

Hillary IS a member of the DLC.

I find it curious that people deny DLC membership when it comes to those they like.

Someone here spent a great amount of time trying to prove Kerry and Edwards weren't DLC.

[Cell Whitman]

18. I hate seeing the lie/view

that if you are against financing religion with tens of billions of dollars means you're against religion.

You seem to be playing their game on this, like she has chosen to do.
There is much more to the FBI than just giving some cash to your political comrades to buy votes.

No one is saying she isn't better than Bush.

Just me, but when one fights for so many issues and then one supports this additional theocratization plan, you are wasting your time on the other issues. Why not just head to the beach?

She's seen the writing on the wall and instead for fighting she is going along, she would only slow our demise.

did you read LaTimes article? They can't even keep track of the money. And they won't EVER know how it is spent when start giving it to any org that can fill out the forms.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-faith18jan18,0,2826429.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Supporting the FBI has NOTHING to do with a politicinn being religious, nothing. It means you see the horror down the road, something too many democrats are blind to, for some reason.

(edit to put Latimes link in)

[Cell Whitman]

25. I mean, I know that other democrats support it too

and I am sure she can articulate a plan that will be better than Bush's and sound soo much better. Then what happens when the next theofascist is elected? You aren't on a slippery slope here, you're jumping off the high dive. imho. This is a bigger "wedge" issue than any of them, or can be. That picture of her with the preachers pushing her fbi credentials was crying uncle.

It isn't that I don't like her, I don't like what she is showing she'll do for votes or she really stands for ... This is not a road to travel. If it continues we will all be wasting our time voting.

She shows she knows, thanks to a lot of rightwing propaganda, that she HAS to move right to create the impression or get the pundits to say she can garner "conservative" votes. She's rehabilitating her image, sad that lies and BS created the image but she at least sees it and her answer by this is to jump in bed with the preachers let them know she may have the purse strings some day, that she will help theocratize the nation.

The FBI is insane policy in a democracy. You are paying people like Moon to recruit. You are paying all these freaks to grab more minds. That does NOT mean I am against "religion" it means I don't want to unleash more scoundrels. Catholic Charities has been able to do it but this plan won't be remotely like that when all the politicains and theocrats get done.

Our time would be better spent thinking of a nifty new name for the nation formally known as the USA. How about the Theocratic Fascist States of America? That would have more truth in advertising.
Turning the other direction is the only way you'll save it. imho. But I see this is likely not going to happen, it will be easy and easier for them it looks like.

I guess I am to the point where it's like, I want one candidate that speaks the truth and tells the people the deal as we all know it, if the country says no to that then so be it, we all go to hell.

btw, I don't normally get into these kind of threads, but this is an issue in which I do draw a line even if I may be the last one left seeing it should be drawn.

The FBI is the marriage of church and state and yes I know we give money to some now, but we are talking tens of billions here, that is what they want.

Maybe it is because I know who has been behind our nation's move right and yes, theocratic. Our nation is doing things no one would have dreamed of 30 years ago, there is a reason for that, I believe.



Can you say, "natural subjugation?" http://cellwhitman.blogspot.com/

[marcologico]

20. If only the "he voted for the IWR" Kerry-bashers were so forgiving. n/t

[robbedvoter]

21. We weren't. But voted for him anyway - so, stop this.

It's frustrating enough that we rallied to the common cause only to be betrayed after the win and now browbeaten by you&your little friends.

[marcologico]

42. Dean supported Gulf War I, Hillary voted for this one, but don't let me

get in the way of your spin.

[zulchzulu]

29. She does have a very good record in most cases, but...

...she has to overcome high negatives in polls in both Democratic and Repuglican quarters.

Here are some links:

Negative ratings in NY for her job performance in 2004

Polls conducted by Zogby International and Marist College of Poughkeepsie, N.Y., show Clinton with high negative job ratings. In the Marist poll, 47 percent considered Clinton's job performance either excellent or good. Forty-nine percent rated it either fair or poor. The Zogby poll measured the same overall favorable rating, 47 percent, but revealed that 51 percent considered Clinton to have done either a fair or poor job as senator.

"Generally in New York, she remains fairly polarizing," Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College Poll told CNSNews.com. "Her approval ratings remained pretty constant over the last year or so. The group that likes her is pretty close to the group that dislikes her in size."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5C%5CPolitics%5C%5Carchive%5C%5C200305%5C%5CPOL20030506a.html

Negative poll numbers with Democrats

Mrs. Clinton's popularity largely is limited to Democrats, and is countered, and exceeded in intensity, by her unpopularity among Republicans. Sixty percent of all Republicans, and 71 percent of conservative Republicans, view her strongly unfavorably. By contrast, just 32 percent of all Democrats, and 42 percent of liberal Democrats, view her strongly favorably. (Moreover, conservative Republicans outnumber liberal Democrats by 2-1.)

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/2020/hillary030607_poll.html

More about her negative polling

Nationally, her standing is worse, even as her aides prepare for what is emerging as a possible bid for president in 2008. Roughly 4 of 10 Americans disapprove of her, according to a recent poll by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/politics/05hillary.html?ex=1259902800&en=09aebba6cc9c9c9a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

OK, so polls don't matter?

Anyway, the fact that she has high negatives within her own party is nothing compared to the poll numbers for Repugs and the RNC. They would have the best way to get people out to mobilize and vote against her...this is the dangerous part.

Imagine a Jeb vs. Hillary race.

Despite the fact that another Bush might get in, the mobilized forces of moderates, independents and obviously theocons and rabid conservatives would have a Clinton to run against. Bill would be back in the headlines and be another divisive force to add to the mix.

2008 is too much of a risk to bet on a tarnished horse in the race. She'd make a great cabinet member..and not a VP candidate either.

Not that I want to cut and paste the comparisons, but Hillary's record is about the same as Lieberman's.

[jonnyblitz]

30. Dean is a member of the DLC? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

31. Dean did not endorse the DLC's crypto-Nazi imperialist philosophy

that is advocated by its CEO, Al From, and parroted by morons like Rahm Emanuel.

[mr715]

36. Ah yes

The DLC is crypto-nazis.

Well, doesnt change the fact that Dean was a member.

The DLC produces losers, and it also produces champion populists

[mr715]

37. Yes

Dean was a founding member of the DLC, bring "moderation" to the liberal democratic party.

[jonnyblitz]

39. didn't they turn against him when he ran in the primaries?

I could have sworn they made snarky comments about him and the anti-war people. :shrug:

[Guaranteed]

49. Yes, this is one of the disingenuous things the pro-DLCers like to

say.

Oh, and did you hear that Hillary ISN'T a part of the DLC? LOL

[lojasmo]

58. Dean is not a member of the DLC.

He has never been associated with it. Please stop spreading the fucking lies.

[Tinoire]

74. And not just a member but a FOUNDING member?!!!

Sheesh! What crash course did you take?

Dean? A "founding member" of the DLC?

Kerry. Clinton. Lieberman. Gore (who has since distanced himself from it after its founding.

Where, oh where did you get that one? That's just plain silly.

[lojasmo]

61. No, never has been...some people here lie. Hillary is, though.

evidence

[marcologico]

62. Well, the DLC considers him a centrist just like them, because he is:

11.4.96- The DLC posts a memo on their website praising Dean as a Centrist, popular Democratic Governor, and predicts he will win re-election easily.

"Democrats in state politics, regardless of their background, tend to be New Democrats by instinct, in part because they are responsible for making public institutions actually work to help citizens solve their most immediate problems. Incumbent centrist Democratic Governors Howard Dean of Vermont... popular and heavily favored for re-election."

That's the word according to the DLC. Source: "The Dean Nation."

http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2003/05/will-real-dlc-please-stand-up.html

[lojasmo]

63. Phew, a nine year old article....your reasearch skills are impeccable.

Of course you're trying to obscure the lies of the OP.

[lojasmo]

64. Don't forget, though Dean isn't DLC, Hillar is, in fact, a member. N/T

[jonnyblitz]

65. yet they TRASH him and his supporters in the primaries.

I am so confused. :crazy:

[marcologico]

68. Who says they did? n/t

[jonnyblitz]

71. people posted links from the DLC site with the comments

I remember them...

[jonnyblitz]

66. ha. surprise, surprise.

not. :hi:

[Zenlitened]

33. Thank you for your post.

Of course Hillary isn't perfect, but what politician is? I think she's a strong, articulate, savvy woman, and I count myself among her supporters, even though I disagree with her on some issues. The faith-based garbage doesn't sit well with me at all, and she's going to have to work that much harder to retain my support as we move forward. But, hey, I'm willing to wait and see what comes next.

When I saw the title of your thread, I was bracing for the worst, of course. The constant Hillary-bashing is a repuke meme, and it gets awfully tiresome -- particularly when it shows up on DU. No, she shouldn't be immune to criticism. But I find the mean-spiritedness of some of the posts about her (and other Democrats) awfully suspicious.

I mean, we're not in a primary race or anything. Can't people just voice their criticisms about Democrats without ripping them to shreds, without pouring out such hatred? The vitriol may be temporarily therapeutic for the individual poster, but it doesn't do our cause any good, it seems to me.

[digno dave]

44. Those hell bent on a Utopian Democrat are what re-elects people like GW

Get off the good ship lollypop and get a clue about real life in a real America. Sorry, but Dennis Kucinich(and his ilk) never will(nor never should) be elected President.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. That's funny, the Repugs seem to be able to elect a "purist".

Perhaps, it's because they present a clear (tho' disgusting) message, unlike the Democrats.

[justy329]

46. not in 2000.

Bush was seen as too liberal by much of the GOP. They felt that as Governor, he worked too closely with Dems (which he actually did). They felt that his plans for education spending were too costly.

It was not until McCain starting gaining momentum that he started to be a conservative.

Recall that Buchanan ran against him as the reform nominee because the Religious Right didn't think he was nuts enough.

[AntiCoup2K4]

51. Really now?

Seems to me that George Bush was "re-elected" (or at least it was close enough for him to steal) because the party bosses (mostly DLC) forced upon us a waffling wishy washy candidate who changed his positions more often than most people change socks.

[digno dave]

73. Well, remember it was "us" who nominated him, not the DLC

The people of Iowa and New Hampshire elected us a NE liberal was only wishy washy because we wouldn't elect anyone unless they were a registered pacifists.

[fujiyama]

47. How about

the bankruptcy "reform" bill which her husband VETOED just months before she got into the senate.

What about the recent budget?

She's just another "go get along" mediocre senator. I will not vote for her in the primaries. She'd be lucky to get my vote in a general election.

[Guaranteed]

48. ROFL!!

**Apologize for slavery, but concentrate on civil rights now. (Oct 2000)
**Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits. (Feb 2000)

**Crack down on sex trafficking of women and girls. (Jan 2000)

**Human rights are women’s rights. (Jan 2000)

**Women’s rights are human rights. (Dec 1999)

Do you think that TODAY- if you asked her about these things- she'd still say the same thing? GAY RIGHTS??? YEAH, RIGHT.

Things have changed, my friend. She wants faith-based programs- and, sorry, but they sure aren't very tolerant of abortions.

[Democrat Dragon]

50. Thank you for pointing that out!

A few days ago she announced that she's for faith-based organizations.

[American Tragedy]

52. More liberal than Feingold? Absolute bullshit.

I don't know how you even drew that conclusion.

[mr715]

77. Guns?

Feingold is pro-gun. There is not one issue with Feingold is to the left of Clinton.

Theres a Harvard database in many university politics depts which lists the political stance of members. Feingold is more conservative than Clinton based on all floor votes.

[American Tragedy]

79. He appears to have a fairly typical Dem record on firearms

I don't really think of gun control as a major liberal cause so much as an issue of individual states.

Feingold:
Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

Actually, arguing over who is more liberal is pointless, since you and I may well define that term differently according to our own ideology - I lean far more libertarian than many leftists. Nevertheless, here are some of Hillary's stances that have bothered me.

Keep Cuban embargo. (Oct 2000) - I hate Castro, but the embargo has been vastly ineffective.
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Fine of $3000 for every underage smoker. (Apr 2000) - Excessively punitive.
US should have vetoed biased anti-Israel UN resolution. (Oct 2000)
Voted YES on $86.5 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)

Don't get me wrong mr715, I don't reject a politician because of a few votes with which I disagree; I recognize that Congress must compromise in order to accomplish anything. I am more pleased with Hillary's voting record than with the overwhelming majority of Senators. I just dispute whether she is the most liberal member of that body.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[bobwhite]

56. All the people that harp on her now

Are the same people who harped on clinton prior to '92 - and then came around to loving him.

[justy329]

59. good stuff n/t

[muse]

67. Great post!! Good work.

I wear my Marc Jacobs Hillary t-shirt with pride. I wish yall could see me in it. I'm sure it would piss most of you off. I feel very sure it irritates the many, many republicans here in Sugar Land, TX (DeLay town) where I live. Strange isn't it how Hillary makes Du-ers and DeLay supporters equally rabidly angry?

[American Tragedy]

80. I'll bet it cost a pretty penny, too.

You can spend your money however you like, but I would think that one could create a nearly identical Hillary shirt, for considerably less than Marc Jacobs charges.

Piss us off? You might be surprised. I think most of us are fairly pleased with Hillary as a Senator, relatively speaking. Some of us do question her viability as a presidential candidate.

[Shanty Oilish]

69. When Hillary becomes president...

we won't be getting into foreign adventures. She'll concentrate on health care, labor, the economy, education. But people say they won't vote for her because of her Iraq vote. How self-spiting is that? I mean, IF it's the real reason.

[IndianaGreen]

70. Hillary voted for Condi Rice, the war criminal

while Kerry and Boxer voted against Rice. I think that puts Kerry and Boxer a notch above Hillary, and that's just for starters.

[Radical Activist]

72. Hillary goes to new age spiritualist communes in New Mexico like Kucinich?

Wow, that's news!
I was with you until you claimed that she's more liberal than Kucinich and Feingold. She's not horrible, but she isn't as liberal as they are. I would suspect she would admit that.

[Tinoire]

76. Not yet but she suddenly starting invoking God in her speeches

Addressing a crowd of more than 500, including many religious leaders, at Boston's Fairmont Copley Plaza, Clinton invoked God more than half a dozen times, at one point declaring, "I've always been a praying person."

She said there must be room for religious people to "live out their faith in the public square."


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/01/20/sen_clinton_urges_use_of_faith_based_initiatives?mode=PF

SO NOW IT'S GOD, WAR AND APPLE PIE?

I hope in all those prayers, there's even a brief mention for little girls like this:

[mr715]

78. Hey

Communes make you spiritual, they dont make you liberal.

I think Kucinich is a lunatic. I dont think hes liberal. Hes anti-choice, anti-speech, and an authoritarian.

Hillary is a populist liberal.

[Tinoire]

75. Well sheesh . Consider me unworthy of such a great blessing

I'll have to regretfully pass on such a great blessing thank you.

We're talking about the same Hillary Clinton right?

The one who has now TWICE failed to stand up for our votes?

The Hillary who voted for both the Patriot Act & giving that PNAC cabal unlimited power in invading Iraq?

The same one in love with the Defense of Marriage Act?

The same Hillary Clinton who supported Bush's revamping of the nation's welfare laws and voted with conservatives FOR making it more difficult for ordinary people to declare personal bankruptcy because she was taking contributions from MBNA?

The Hillary Clinton who said NOTHING about the GOP screwing with the African-Americans' votes?

The same one who says not a peep about the oppression of the Palestinians and signed the "we stand behind and love Sharon" letter. The same one who just came out with that swill about Bush-like "faith-based initiatives" now that the DLC & PPI have signed Ralph Reed's right hand PNAC-signing, Christian Coalition neo-con Mashall Wittman on as a high-level spokesman/advisor? THAT Hillary Clinton right?

Let's not kid ourselves about Hillary.

Now that the the DLC has brought the Christian Coalition on board, Hillary suddenly PRAYS several times a day. LMAO!

Blessings to our party don't babble about Bush's "faith based initiatives"; they bank a little less on faith and a lot more on initiative in representing the people on those unimportant issues like, you know, the war.

I'll tell you what. You're going to have to do it the 21st century way and at least pretend to build a grass-roots movement for her. Never mind that the DLC is going to be pulling all the strings but at least pretend and then we can all have a lot of fun. You can have fun creating a facade that she has a huge grass-roots movement. And we can have fun poking holes at it. Fun and games for all :)

P.S. Are the Mark Warner folks right behind you now that Zell Miller has endorsed him as a "swell" candidate for the 2008 run?

[justy329]

82. are you talking about the same Hillary?

Hillary was actually one of only a handful of Democratic Senators with the spine to speak about voting fraud during the debate over whether to reject Ohio's electoral vote.

Hillary, along with Boxer and Grahm, introduced legislation in order to eliminate BBV.

You criticize Hillary for 1)voting for patriot act and 2) voting against the rejection of Ohio's electoral votes.
If you dislike Dems who did both of the previous two: GUESS WHAT YOU WILL HAVE NO DEMOCRATS TO SUPPORT BECAUSE NOT ONE SENATOR WILL MEET BOTH YOU STANDARDS. Boxer was the only who voted for rejection of the electoral votes and Feingold was the only one who voted against the Patriot Act.

So, according to your standards, there are democrats that we should support.

[Tinoire]

83. Thank God my reasoning isn't as simplistic as that logic

otherwise you'd be right...

Thank you for your kind concern, but have no fears, I still find plenty of Dems who speak enough for me to vote for. We're not all as rigid as the DLC when it comes to acceptable candidates.

[Still_Loves_John]

81. ...

And Wilson was a racist who started the first Red Scare, Andrew Jackson was responsible for the trail of tears, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.

No politician will ever be perfect. We need to stop blacklisting our Representatives because of a few bad stances they take. I'm no Hillary '08 supporter, but I hate this general trend on DU of holding all of our candidates to bizarre litmus tests.