To those of you who want "Hillary-bashers" to STFU

[Atman]

Has any of it sunk in yet? Whether I love Hillary or you love Hillary, or we all love/hate Hillary...the FACT is -- and I emphasize that word FACT -- Hillary Clinton is so polarizing that she even handily splits our own party. Now, you can try to shout down the Hillary detractors here on DU, but what the hell are we going to do in 2008 when there is a national election? If a considerable, measurable portion of our own party doesn't like her, what on earth is to be gained by ramming her through and forcing everyone to accept her as the nominee? Especially now, in what will be arguably the most important election in our nation's history?

We already know that only the crunchiest of cons would give even a nano-second of consideration to a Hillary vote, so don't count on wooing too many republicans. And she's got her own party polarized. Maybe it's time to concede that now is just not Hillary's time.

She's still a relatively young woman, in Statesman Years. Maybe we need to allow some of the post-Clinton wounds to heal just a bit longer before we attempt to elevate her to the historic position of First Female U.S. President? Or are we somehow afraid the GOP will beat us to it with Condi, and in doing, shit on our party's long held rep on equal rights?

Seriously...if we cannot find more than a modicum of unified support for Hillary here in the über-Dem realms of DU, how the hell do we expect America in general to turn out to vote for her? That was the point of my earlier post, which caused so much consternation. Not that I wouldn't vote for her if she was the nominee, or that she is somehow a demon. My only point is/was the undeniable fact that she is simply too polarizing a figure to either unite the democrats or the country. Period. Deny it all you want, but you're just denying reality.

If you haven't asked yourself why the GOP has such a hard-on for Hillary to be our nominee, you're doing yourself and your party a disservice. THEY know that she'll split the dem ticket, and also help bring out the shallowest and lowest of the GOP -- those still obsessed with Clinton's dick -- to cast their votes for Anyone But Clinton. Please, stop taking crit of a Hillary candidacy so personally. I'm only addressing it from a marketing standpoint, after 25 years in the field, working with some of the nation's largest corporations...if it were my assignment to sell Hillary to America, I'd be very, very concerned. I'd probably advise my clients that maybe their product isn't properly refined enough yet to bring to market. Nothing personal, just doing the numbers.

It's not "bashing" to lay the cards on the table and face the cold hard truth.

[LaurenG]

1. Good argument

I agree we MUST have an electable candidate.

[Daphne08]

2. "Hillary Clinton is so polarizing that she even handily

splits our own party."

Wisest thing I've read today.

She does indeed polarize even the Democrats, which is probably the reason the Republicans have already decided to nominate her!

[dehaiti]

130. Hillary

Hillary is a candidate made for the Repubs. You ever notice they mention her more than anyone else?
I consider myself an average voter and when I think about her I wonder about her courage.
Let's face it, Bill got caught with his penis in a place it shouldn't have been. Bad enough Hillary knew this kinda thing had been going on for a while but when it became public? If I'd been her I'd have said, "Get yourself and your penis outta my life." People would have respected her for that but the fact that she didn't do that makes her look like a person who cannot stand on her own feet. Not to mention the fact it makes her look foolish.
If Dems allow the Repubs to make Hillary the centerpiece of the party the Dems deserve to lose as they are playing right into their hands.

[proud2BlibKansan]

131. It isn't our business

to mind Hillary's business. And we have no idea what she did or did not say to her husband. That is clearly not our concern. It also says nothing about her skills as a politician.

I am not a huge Hillary for prez fan but I admire the way she handled his adultery. She kept it private. That's a class act by a classy lady.

[AtomicKitten]

3. I don't agree with your assessment.

Your premise is based on predictions that are completely subjective and really is, in fact, opinion.

I won't vote for Hillary in the primary, but the manipulation from your camp to try to bitchslap her to the curb is actually causing people like me to stand up and defend her as a fellow Democrat.

I'll let the primary process sort this out. May the best man/woman win. (that would be Al Gore)

[Atman]

5. You obviously just didn't understand my post

"...the manipulation from your camp to try to bitchslap her to the curb..."

Please point out anywhere in my post where I "bitchslap" anyone. There are no "predictions" involved, only observations and FACT. You can call them "opinion" if you'd like, but perhaps you need to go back to the lobby and count the anti-Hillary threads. Those aren't my "opinion." Those are the icy cold facts right in front of every one of us.

Believe me, I have no "camp" except that which wants to kick the BFEE's ass out of American politics forever.

[AtomicKitten]

8. people intent in sinking her hypothetical candidacy

that aren't Republicans

Ps: Counting the anti-Hillary threads on DU means there are some REALLY intent on sinking her hypothetical candidacy. DU is NOT a microcosm of the Democratic Party in toto.

[havocmom]

15. But there are people promoting her candidacy who are.

Think about that. Why is MSM pushing her as front runner and almost naming her as nominee at this point? The GOP KNOWS she hasn't got a chance to win. They want a cake walk.

The OP is pointing out what is very clear to anyone looking past their own personal feelings for one candidate or another and looking at REACTIONS to candidates. Your own reaction to a candidate is not the issue. The issue is THE NATION'S reaction to Senator Clinton as a Presidential Candidate.

Fact is, there is a very large part of the population that let personality get in the way of issues. It doesn't help us win elections to put forth a candidate who polarizes voters to the great extent that Clinton does.

She is a great lady, wise and dedicated. But she is a divisive personality. NOT the ticket to the White House.

[AtomicKitten]

16. you give our media way too much credit

They are parrots of the GOP plus they LUV controversy. Hillary has been set up as the straw-woman for the GOP to rail against and to raise money. And, for dog's sake, I wish people would quit stating with such certainty what other people think. That's called guessing.

Here's what I think in a nutshell. I think those that want to tank the GOP should stop worrying about Hillary. Let Hillary be the lightening rod for the Republicans; that can't be a stretch because she already is. If you really don't think she's got what it takes, what are you worried about? If you are worried that Democrats may choose her as the Dem nominee, I would suggest you step back a moment and contemplate the meaning of democracy. If the majority of my fellow Democrats want Hillary as the nominee (that will be determined in the primary), so be it. In the meantime, rather than participating in the gang-bang of a fellow Democrat, I would like to think people would channel their energies into growing the party (instead of demanding that we purge conservative and moderate Democrats), helping Howard Dean rebuild the infrastructure in your state, and ultimately working your arse off for your candidate of choice.

I'm sick to death of ugliness in politics. I say we leave that to the Republicans.

[Atman]

18. That's all very touchy-feely and nice

But please tell me how it changes anything? The republicans will not stop, and many democrats DO despise her. No one is calling for the suspension of primaries or anything like that. She can run anywhere anytime she wants. I made no demands to purge anyone from anything. I asked DU'ers to step back, exactly as you've asked us. Step back, look at the big picture. There are still a lot of old Clinton wounds out there, not all limited to the GOP. Combined with our society's general mysogynistic attitude, and the fact that a Hillary candidacy just present the GOP with a golden opportunity to make the candidate the issue, even more so than they did with Kerry, and her candidacy just doesn't make much sense if we're serious about advancing a true democratic agenda and having it heard. With Hillary as our candidate, no one in America will hear anything about the democrats' platform, but they'll hear plenty about Whitewater, Vince Foster and Bill's pecker.

Is that really going to fire up the voters? The GOP's, maybe, but sure as hell not ours.

[havocmom]

21. Atman, we tried. But reality is not something everyone can face.

You gave it one hell of a shot though. Prolly reached more than you know. Good work. but we can't win them all over to critical evaluation. Some people are just adverse to success.

[AtomicKitten]

25. You mean your version of reality?

We heard much about "aversion to success" from the 2.5% that voted for Nader. That worked out quite nicely, didn't it? No doubt you'll have some takers here at DU though.

Nope, we'll just agree to disagree.

[Atman]

28. So now we're Nader-ites!

Now here's a poster who truly doesn't get it, and illustrates my argument for us perfectly...if we don't toe the line for Hillary, the name calling starts from within our own party.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN A NATIONAL FORUM IF WE CANNOT EVEN GET DEMOCRATS TO UNITE BEHIND HER?

Jesus, is this so hard to grasp? Hello...is this thing on?

[AtomicKitten]

31. no, you are the minority .

[Atman]

32. Even if that is the case, it still does NOTHING to detract from my point

We may be only 30% of the dems. I'm making up a figure for purposes of illustration. But subtract that 30% from 100% of our voters, and we've only got 70% willing to support her.

But you can be damned sure the lock-steppers on the right would vote for Satan himself if the party told them to. I'm terrible at math, but I do know that their 100% will beat our 70% every time. Especially when you throw in the Diebold factor.

Again, what is so hard to understand about what I am saying? I went to great pains to make my initial post non-flamatory, even-tempered, well reasoned...about MARKETING A CANDIDATE. That's all it's about. You're on something else, and apparently just don't want to even try to understand what I'm saying. I'm sorry I haven't been able to do a better job of making my point clear enough.

[FredStembottom]

37. Atman, your Big Picture analysis is understood

This is not the time to innovate or give a pass to anyone. We need a slam-dunk candidate. Nothing less. Not this time. No Michael Dukakis, No Walter Mondale, No Hillary Clinton.

[Blue_In_AK]

126. I don't think so...

My husband is Democratic to the core, but he will NEVER vote for Hillary. I would, but not happily. The OP is absolutely correct ... she is much too polarizing, and the Reps know it, that's why they're pushing her candidacy.

[Lefty48197]

94. I support Hillary

you are the one dis-uniting the party. Sounds like a little self-prophecy in action.

[havocmom]

59. LOL

bub bye

[AtomicKitten]

23. Yeah, that crap worked so well in the 1990s.

Bill Clinton's approval rating was 70% on the day he was impeached by the House.

Sorry, Altman. We don't see eye to eye on this issue. Best of luck selling reality as you see it. That's what discussion boards are for.

[Atman]

24. Bill Clinton ain't running, dude

Hillary is no Bill, believe me. If she was, none of us would be having this discussion.

[AtomicKitten]

26. So why'd you mention Whitewater and Bill's pecker, dude?

[Atman]

27. Maybe you should read my post

I think it's pretty obvious why. I know the point you're trying to make, but it isn't a valid point and you know it.

[AtomicKitten]

29. Oh, okay.

Your own words:

"With Hillary as our candidate, no one in America will hear anything about the democrats' platform, but they'll hear plenty about Whitewater, Vince Foster and Bill's pecker."


Peace out. The last word is yours.

[Atman]

30. Hey thanks! I'd almost forgotten what I'd typed five minutes ago!

:eyes:

[laugle]

106. I totally agree with Atomic Kitten! And with Hillary

you get 2 for the price of one. If Hillary is so "polarizing" why does she poll so high?

Having both of them back would be great for the country. Bill could be a special envoy to the middle east and continue his peaceful solution to the Israeli/palestinian conflict.

The Clintons would be respected by other nations unlike this current moron we have in office. We cannot continue this go-it-alone foreign policy.

I feel better knowing that we would have two very intelligent and capable people to deal with the complexities and horrendous screw-ups of the Bush administration.

Although I feel Hillary would do better as VP, I don't think that she should be counted out as the presidential nominee at this time.

I certainly think she could beat Bill FrisK!

I hope you will give equal time to talking down McCain and Frisk.

[Clark2008]

109. She polls high because, let's face it, there are Dems

in our midst who have no clue to the issues and/or reality. They know her name.

When I have solid Dems telling me they won't vote for that "man-hating bitch," then it's a lost cause. I totally understand what Atman is saying. I don't hate Hillary. I think she's great... for New York. But she won't make a dent in fly-over country and that's where we need to make gains. We HAVE to flip some of those purplish states!

[laugle]

124. Yeah, anyone that disagrees with you has no clue, right....

You just insulted alot of people!

Can you make a point without insults?

[Greyhound]

110. And the Iraqis will greet us with cheering throng in the streets to

welcome their liberators with open arms! You can say it as many times as you like, it doesn't make it true. Step out of the echo chamber.

[laugle]

121. Echo chamber.....what are you talking about?!

Surely you are not replying to my post.

I think we have a disconnect somewhere?

[Greyhound]

134. Yes, it was in reply to this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2506303&mesg_id=2509730

The echo chamber I refer to is the phenomenon we get from talking to each other in here and begin to assume that that's how it is IRL. Since I live in an extra-red area of a red state, I am reminded every day that the cabal in DC still has support from people that really do count more than you and I. They have the ear of officials at the highest level, and thousands upon thousands of employees that can be propagandized, or even threatened daily @ work.
If we were to, in fact, nominate Clinton the result would be a galvanized re:puke: voting block and a split in the Democratic Party, leading to another re:puke: occupant of the whitehouse.
The best thing Clinton could do, and BTW restore my faith in her intentions, would be to drop out, or not run for the good of the country.

[Imagevision]

129. Who needs/wants Hillary when Feingold is avaliable??!!

[papau]

13. Well said :-) Hill does not split Dem's more than usual, but she does

rally the GOP base. But they are lockstep robots of late as our media makes fun of any Dem, so the increase in GOP votes will be near nil.

In any case, the 08 Dem primary will be interesting.

[mtnsnake]

40. "May the best man/woman win. (that would be Al Gore)"

You won't get any argument from me, Kitten. Only thing is, Gore said he wouldn't run, although we all know how quickly things can change. I think if Gore does change his mind and enter the competition, he'll handily win the primaries.

As far as Hillary, one of the reaons she's as polarizing as she is is because she's got such a supposed stronghold on being the top contender in the primaries, so everyone eles's supporters are a little bit upset over that to say the least.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

63. If only that would change

Gore's seasoned and he's got the base mobilized, but he doesn't want to step into the ring. It's frustrating, but it doesn't seem he wants to change the decision. A damn shame, since as President (not just as candidate), Gore would be the salve our country needs. He's pro-technology and pro-environment, and smart as a whip-- Gore is one of the few people who could save the US from the fiscal and social fiasco that awaits us. Maybe Clark or Warner too, I don't know yet, but Gore would be one of the best if he were to occupy the Oval Office.

[Clark2008]

111. I'm obviously not a supporter of Hillary's in the primary

but the fact that she's straw polling higher isn't what upsets me. I'm upset because, once again, the Dems are planning - judging from these polls - to pick another loser.

I want to win, damnit, and Hillary can't. Believe me. I actually talk to REAL people who Will. Not. Vote. For. Her even though they hate the Republicans.

[Turn CO Blue]

61. She is not my choice by far, but I will work my fingers to the bone

for her if she becomes the Dem candidate.

I just love that pic of Tipper and Big Al! The smiles are genuine. I gotta learn how to post pics someday!

Like you, I have a feeling that Al Gore's time is just about here. Can you imagine Tipper Gore as First Lady compared to Laura Medicated Bush?

[havocmom]

4. Amen! We have to win elections in the real world

As bright and energetic as she is, she lacks the appeal to win over the majority of the nation. She is, indeed, polarizing. And with her as nominee, there would be even less chance of spending time getting any messages about issues out there! We would be dealing with all-personality ALL the time.

Of course the GOP wants her to be the nominee. They have no fear of losing to her. She's too easy of a target for their pundits and hate radio flunkies. Shit, they've been conditioning people for over a decade to believe she is the anti-christ.

[Guaranteed]

7. That's right. We've got to shed that skin. nt

[Nye Bevan]

6. She's not my favorite candidate.... but let's keep an open mind

I remember in 1991 the conventional wisdom was that a small-state governor with a history of sex scandals stood no chance whatsoever against the mastermind of the Gulf War I Victory, George HW Bush Sr. And we ended up with the best president of recent times.

Hillary cannot be "rammed through". She will be the nominee if and only if she receives more primary votes than anyone else. Primary voters are generally motivated, well-informed people and if it is obvious that Hillary cannot win against the GOP, they will not nominate her.

Hillary knows how to win elections. As well as her experience with Bill, she ran an absolutely flawless Senate campaign in New York. I know people who (in 2000) voted for chimpy for prez and Hillary for senate.

Let's give her a chance. There is plenty of time before 2008.

[Gman]

9. Oh Boy!!

Maybe we can all start having primary candidate avatars now, two years early, and use 'em like gang colors and start big fights like we did in early 04! Maybe we can all start getting time-outs again!

[xultar]

10. Blah blah blah blah blah

[Atman]

11. You just proved my point!

Thanks.

We can't even unite behind her on DU. How will unite America behind her? Blah blah blah all you want. Facts is facts.

[xultar]

19. You've posted 3 threads today already on how you can't stand HC

don't want her to run

blah blah blah enough already. Beat a different drumb.

[Atman]

22. No, I haven't.

I posted one thread which caught fire with flames so fast, skinner locked it as I typed a clarification. That clarification was the second post, and absolutely did not in any wasy say that I can't stand Hillary. You're either lying just for impact, or you don't actually recall my post.

I come back hours later, and there is a thread directly addressing mine, essentially saying that Hillary bashers should STFU. It was about the umpteenth one today, yet I don't see your posts among them, saying "blah blah blah" to those repetitive threads, do I?

I guess everybody has a position, and is free to express it, eh? Sorry you just want people who disagree with you to STFU.

[xultar]

34. No when we get 100000 threads in the same day trying to prove the

same effin point I get pissed. This is DemocraticUnderground not tear democrats to the ground.com

Simple.

[Atman]

35. Javohl!

Vee vill do azz ve are tolt! Hillary it izz!

[zulchzulu]

12. I think it will all be decided in the primaries...Hillary will drop out...

..by February, 2008.

Let whoever wants her to be the nominee go through the process. Table on the streets...campaign for her...whatever...she ain't gonna make it past the first third of the primaries.

[Mist]

14. Well said, Atman! You said everything I'd like to say, and said it

perfectly. Sen. Clinton is a polarizer. If the Repubs. want her to run, we'd do well to find someone else!

[IsItJustMe]

17. STFU = RW Repukes

If you use their tacktics, you become them.

[Atman]

20. I don't necessarily agree. But then...

I'm not even sure to whom your post was directed. I hope you don't think my post was telling anyone to STFU!

[SaveElmer]

33. And of course...you will back up the FACTS...

With some kind of evidence...

And this statement is laughable...

"Seriously...if we cannot find more than a modicum of unified support for Hillary here in the über-Dem realms of DU..."

The realm of uber-Dems where George Bush is going to be impeached and people wonder how Dennis Kucinich didn't get the 2004 Presidential nomination.

[Atman]

36. The "facts" can be seen with a quick gander at subject lines

Or maybe you can discern what I'm talking about by a looking at http://pollingreport.com/2008.htm

But there really is no need. I can see by your smart-ass comments that you simply didn't understand my initial post. Are you denying that there are a lot of democrats on DU? What party to you think most of us belong to? I'm sorry, I was under the impression that our votes counted, too, not just those of the DLC wing.

Please re-read my initial post and try to grasp what I'm saying; Hillary is a very polarizing figure. That is a fact which cannot be credibly denied. And if we cannot even unite our own party behind her, how can we hope that America as a whole is going to be any more united? Or do you want to deny history, too?

[SaveElmer]

38. Yes she is polarizing...on DU...

DU is hardly representative of Democrats in general...this is the land where Dennis Kucinich actually has a chance to be nominated...where 30% of DU'ers believe Bill Clinton is a war criminal, and where the DLC is enemy number one...

And since when are polls facts...you seriously are using polling numbers 2.5 years out from the election as fact....By that logic we never would have nominated Bill Clinton who was down in the polls by about the same margin on the eve of the 1992 Democratic convention...

But if you want to play on that ground...these polls of Democrats ought to convince you that she is the favorite among Democrats!!

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

[Atman]

39. Oh, for Christ's sake, Elmer! Now you're just playing games!

I'm not seriously using anything for anything, okay? I hadn't even seen the goddam polling report before I wrote my initial post. But for some reason, when you asked me for something to back up my claims, I thought you were serious, so I found something...which you immediately pooh-pooh as not good enough for you (although it WAS good enough for you to post a link from the same place). What the fuck, man? I thought you were being serious, not just trying to bust balls for fun and profit.

DU may not be the Democratic Party, but DU is full of Democratic voters, and dammit, if you cannot see that Hillary raises the hackles on many dems, it is only because you don't want to.

[ruggerson]

42. Atman

DU is also full of a lot of people who live on a planet where they think Barbara Boxer could be elected President.

While I'd be a happy camper with Barbara Boxer as President, my eyes are open enough to know that will never happen in my lifetime.

So, if we are serious about electing Presidents, we have to choose from those that are electable.

My problem with Hillary is that she has the personality (on camera) of a haddock. She may be the warmest thing since sliced bread in person, but as a public figure, she comes across as cold, robotic and insincere.

Having said that, should she win the nomination (and I hope she doesn't), I will not only vote for her, but I will work my ass off for her.

[Atman]

45. "should she win the nomination...), I will not only vote for her..."

And you know what? I'll be right there with you. It is just a shame that even if one posts a generic, non-Hillary-bashing post (my initial post is not bashing...it is entirely about electability from a marketing standpoint), one has to spend the rest of his/her time fighting off the DLC-wing, who seem to think that just shouting down detractors will somehow make for big wins at the polls. It does, I guess, if you're a republican. They do seem to control everything.

BTW, I'm not one of the extreme-lefties of which you speak. Barbara Boxer? Love her speeches! She's even kinda hot, in a milfy sort of way! But president? Come on! I may be a democrat, but I'm still a realist.

[laugle]

122. And just who do you believe is ELECTABLE? I'm curious to know! n/t

[SaveElmer]

43. What I see...

Is someone who states something as FACT...but cannot back it up with evidence. And then busts me for demanding evidence to back up the FACT.

What I see is that Hillary raises the hackles of people on DU...though I am seeing more pushback from Hillary supporters here...which I view as a good thing.

[mtnsnake]

44. And don't you just love it

how some people are so incredibly worried about her that they go on PR campaigns to try to convince people not to like her?

[SaveElmer]

46. It's been goin on for quite some time...

Seems more people are fed up with it than before!

[Atman]

48. That is a lie, or a mis-read of my initial post.

Where did I say anyone shouldn't like her. I SPOKE ONLY OF HER ELECTABILITY FROM A MARKETING STANDPOINT. Liking her never entered into my post. You're making stuff up.

[Atman]

47. If it is NOT A FACT that Hillary is polarizing, show me your evidence

I've shown you all the proof anyone should need. You want to deny, but refuse to back up your claims that Hillary is not polarizing. Put up or shut up. Show me YOUR proof that Hillary is NOT polarizing.

(This oughta be good!)

[SaveElmer]

50. Typical tactic...

Trying to force someone to prove a negative...typical debate tactic of one with no evidence to back up their claim.

You are making the claim that Hillary is a polarizing figure. I have conceded she is polarizing on DU...

If you're only claim is that she is polarizing on DU, then we are in agreement. If you are claiming she is polarizing among Democrats in general, you need to provide proof of that. You are making the argument, you provide the evidence.

I don't have any evidence she is not polarizing...I have an opinion that she is not. If you want to revise your statement to take it from fact to opinion I will accept that as a prefectly legitimate opinion and we can move on.

[Atman]

51. "Typical Tactic" is a typical tactic.

Press that middle valve down, and the music goes round and round...





...and it comes out here.



You asked me to back up my assertion, so I offered something, and then you changed your terms because you apparently didn't think I'd come up with anything. Talk about typical tactics! I've seen Hannity do that to his guests a hundred times.

.

[SaveElmer]

53. You came up with something...

That is not the standard of evidence...Polling data two and a half years out is not evidence of fact, it is evidence of opinion...

There is no evidence one way or the other as to whether Hillary is polarizing, it is a subjective opinion reached based on impressions one gets from the media, interaction with others, from DU, from wherever a person gets their information...your impression from these sources is that she is too polarizing to get elected...my reading is different.

2000 and 2004 ought to have convinced you of the flaw in using polls as evidence.

[file83]

69. Wait a minute....whose side are you on, YOURS or Atman's?

SaveElmer, YOU are the one that is DEMANDING evidence that backs up Atman's argument that Hillary is polarizing.

But then you say it yourself:

"There is no evidence one way or the other as to whether Hillary is polarizing, it is a subjective opinion reached based on impressions one gets from the media, interaction with others, from DU, from wherever a person gets their information...your impression from these sources is that she is too polarizing to get elected...my reading is different."

So what you are saying here, essentially, is that SaveElmer's (YOUR) "DEMANDS" are completely and utterly preposterous, right?

So then, why don't you inform SaveElmer (YOURSELF) of this insight instead of ridiculing Atman for trying to appease SaveElmer (YOU) with this ridiulous DEMAND?

[SaveElmer]

71. Yes I am...

Atman's original post, if you read it, claims as FACT that Hillary is apolarizing figure among Democrats. I don't think there is any way to prove that assertion, or the obverse. I wanted him to admit that it is his opinion and not some piece of settled fact that leads him to this conclusion.

[file83]

72. So, are you claiming that you and Atman disagreeing about

the merits of the idea of a "Hillary in 2008" isn't polarizing? You are on one end, Atman is on the other. That is polarizing. That is a FACT. But he wasn't talking about that, Atman was talking about the DU and America in general.

Atman was stating the obvious point that Democrats are fractured on numerous faults with regard to Hillary. On some issues most Democrats are unified in support of her. On other issues AND concerning the idea of "Hillary in 2008" they are split (polarized). If you need "evidence" for this FACT (rhetorical statement - "FACT" here is a paraphrase for "obvious reality"), then you have not been paying attention to or have chosen to disregard the mainstream political discourse over the last 2 years.

Then you change your position and claim that it is impossible to "prove" that Hillary is polarizing. How convenient. Isn't that called "railroading" the discussion?

If you are so convinced that it is "impossible" to prove that Hillary (or anyone for that matter) is polarizing, then prove it. (your own medicine - now swallow!)

[SaveElmer]

73. Again as you will see..

I conceded Hillary was polarizing on DU...anyone with eyes can see that...

I dispute that DU is in any way representative of the Democratic Party as a whole, or that DU represents mainstream discourse. My interactions, my reading of polls, my discussions with others leads me to believe the "Hillary cannot win" meme is just that...and that she is very likely far more popular than most here are willing to concede.

And who is changing the terms of the debate...you are now changing the definition of the word FACT. And now you are asking my to prove that it is impossible to prove something...

[file83]

74. Yes, it's called "SaveElmer's own medicine". Tastes awful, don't it?

:puke:

[SaveElmer]

75. Buruther...

You know what...this whole conversation has turned into a useless rhetorical exercise.

Here is my bottom line, and I will leave it at this:

1. In my OPINION Hillary is not the unpopular polarizing figure portrayed in this thread...

2. In my OPINION it is impossible to make that assertion as settled FACT...

3. In my OPINION it is EQUALLY impossible to prove the obverse...

4. In my OPINION she will overwhelmingly win the nomination of our party in 2008...

5. In my OPINION she will be elected the next President of the United States...

[laugle]

123. Your points are well thought out.....the only time

I hear about "Hillary being too polarizing" is in the right-wing echo machine or at DU.

One thing the regressives are good at is spin.....

I think Bill Fist is polarizing!!! I also think that McCain is polarizing to the the Christian wacko's, so why don't we point that out??

[mtnsnake]

54. You've "seen Hannity do that to his guests a hundred times"?

No wonder you're having all kinds of trouble coming up with some evidence to back up any of your claims.

[Atman]

56. I think elmer is capable of coming up with his own fudd

Give it a rest. If you'd like to point out the fallacies in my post, or discuss what you disagree with and why, lets go. Otherwise, you're doing nothing but dogging me now. Goodnight.

[mtnsnake]

57. Practice what you preach. You just butted in on xultar in another thread

Are you always this hypocritical?

[SaveElmer]

58. Disagreement aside...that was a pretty funny subject line...nt

[file83]

68. Atman's request wasn't requiring you to "prove a negative"...

...ALL YOU HAVE TO DO is provide some "evidence" or "facts" that back up YOUR ASSERTION that she has UNIFYING support from a vast majority of Democrats.

That's all you have to do. Go find a poll, any poll will do. Go find an article about a poll. Go do some research or something.

For you to be demanding "evidence" to back up "facts" from Atman all the time, you sure put little effort into actually doing so yourself. So prove Atman wrong by actually opening up another web browser window, going to Google, and typing in a few search terms. Otherwise, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing (AFTSOA).

[SaveElmer]

70. If you read the post...

And subsequent posts...you will see two things...

1. I did provide a long list of such polls

and

2. I do not view opinion polls as evidence of fact, which I made very clear in his initial response and in the subsequent communication.

[Clark2008]

113. She's polarizing in real life, my dear.

Solid Dems have told me they wouldn't vote for the man-hating bitch. My New England liberal husband thinks she's a jerk. My mother - who would slit her wrists before voting for a Republican - thinks Hillary's "just awful." My friends at work, who are apolitical, say she couldn't win outside New York. NONE of these people visit DU.

Come ON! What does it take to prove to you that SHE CANNOT WIN?

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

64. Elmer, I recall

that you were one of the STFU types who shouted down those of us who, early on, were raising reasoned, nuance objections to Hillary's stands and wanted her to change them, especially on issues like the Iraq War and her stands on Syria, Iran and permanent bases in the region (let alone the flag-burning thing). Many of us were willing to go back in the Hillary-supportive fold, but your arrogance has driven us away for good. We will not support her for President in 2008, period.

Oh, and another thing-- indeed, DU is not representative of Dems in the country in general when it comes to Hillary. There's *more* support for her than among the rank and file. Scratch away the name recognition factor, and an enormous amount of discontent comes welling up as a result. The message here is Elementary Politics 101: You can't win important elections when you enrage your own base.

[SaveElmer]

77. Yeah you are wrong actually...

I don't believe I have ever told anyone to STFU...and if I was presented with nuance argument I tried to resond in kind.

I do not recall ever debating Syria, Iran or anything to do with permanent bases. I did have some discussions on flag-burning.

If I was arrogant in response to reasoned nuance argument, then I apologize, but to tell you the truth, I think you got the wrong guy. If you can find the threads where you believe I was out of line, please send the link to my inbox and I can address them in more detail. (If you link them in a thread they will get deleted by the mods)

As to your last point I could not disagree more. I find it pretty amazing that you think Hillary has greater name recognition than say our last Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominee, both of whom she trounces in every poll I have seen.

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

Note: I do not think polls are particularly reliable in this regard, but my experience where I live (purple area of a red state), gives me great hope about Hillary's prospects.

As to your comment that the arrogance of a poster here at DU is the cause of your renewed dislike for Hillary...well I don't know what to say...I would hope you are basing your decisions on more than that.

[file83]

67. Don't you hate dealing with an AFTSOA?

...people like Elmer whine "I want facts! I want evidence!", which despite the ridiculousness of the request (demanding facts for an opinion) you supply ANYWAY. Then they claim that the fact you presented isn't enough or doesn't apply to the discussion.

These kinds of people I call AFTSOA's (Arguing For The Sake Of Arguing). It's pervasive here on the DU and we need to give a name to it. It's OBVIOUS when you see it, no matter what side of a debate you are on.

Just call them an AFTSOA and move on. Let them figure it out what it means!

[laugle]

128. Where have you been? When people post

Kerry threads there are plenty of detractors.

I'm beginning to think that you really do have it in for Hillary!

Many people who support Hillary including myself, just don't have the time or inclination to get into flame wars over any possible presidential candidate for 2008.

It's way to premature right now and most of us are focused on the 2006 election.

If and when Hillary decides to run we will all have plenty to say then. Until that time, negative opinion threads on any candidates that don't provide any real info are just not useful, IMO.

[mtnsnake]

41. You've gotta be joking if you think DU represents "America in general"

"Seriously...if we cannot find more than a modicum of unified support for Hillary here in the über-Dem realms of DU, how the hell do we expect America in general to turn out to vote for her?"

LMAO! That's your reason for being paranoid about Hillary's chances of winning the primaries? Because DU doesn't agree on her it means America surely won't either? That is way too funny!! Now I'm starting to think she DOES have a chance of pulling it all off after reading that.

[Atman]

49. You combined two seperate thoughts and created something I didn't say

Maybe you should stop spending so much time laughing your ass off, and actually read what is being posted.

Please, maybe you need to read it slower...IF people on "DEMOCRATIC Underground" are divided about Hillary, what about America in general? That does not say DU REPRESENTS AMERICA IN GENERAL, does it?

If you want to fight me with my own words, you'd better make sure actually know what the hell I said.

[mtnsnake]

52. No. What happened is I hit the nail right on the friggin head

and you know it.

Nice try at spinning your way out of it, though.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted sub-thread

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

[election_2004]

60. Atman, the Hillaristas are masochists.....

Their prime motivation in pumping up Hillary as the *inevitable* next president seems to be the gratification of wanting to "make the right-wingers' heads explode."

Never mind how coronating Senator Clinton as the Democratic nominee will cause terrible downticket losses for Democratic candidates who run for lower offices in Middle America. The "Rah-Rah-Hillary" cheerleaders don't seem to understand the long-term necessity of electing a healthy Democratic majority in Congress alongside a Democratic president in 2008. For them, they think "Hillary and Hillary alone" will do the trick.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

62. Many of us former-Hillary supporters raised concerns about her stands

back in 2002, when HRC began flapping her hawk wings and advocating for war in Iraq before we'd actually discussed the sensibility of doing so. Many people don't remember, but back in 2002 there was considerable opposition to the Iraq War at the outset even among many Republicans, and this was the time to ask hard questions and make sure that we got the intelligence right.

This was where Hillary needed to demonstrate leadership, not pandering. Someone of Hillary's stature and name recognition in the Senate could easily have changed the course of history here by standing up against Bush, when his plans for Iraq were already being doubted even by his own party, and demand that Bush's intelligence and his plans be laid out in plain view, while asking hard questions in the process. Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold, for example, did indeed do just that. Instead of providing a crucial voice in favor of this, however, Hillary went into pandering mode and started spouting out the various evils of Saddam Hussein (unconnected to the WMD accusations, let alone the mythical connection to al-Qaeda), and thus contributed significantly to the headlong march to war in Iraq in 2003. This war, as has become obvious now, has been catastrophic to our country, pushing us to the brink of bankruptcy ($2 trillion is the latest estimate for the costs, and growing), turning us into an international pariah, and fostering a sort of anti-US coalition even among our former strongest allies in Europe. (If you think that at least Britain is pro-American, think again-- while Blair is on board with us, the British people are consistently among the most angry at the US of all European countries.)

Many of us who'd supported Hillary before were incensed at this, but we didn't abandon Hillary at that point. We raised questions about her stand on the imminent Iraq war, on DU and other forums, hoping to at least be engaged in a reasoned debate. Instead, we got shouted down. "Shut up! She's our nominee for 2008, so all you issue-people, just shut up and don't get out of line." Hillary and our supporters seemed unwilling to countenance the idea that longtime loyal Democrats (many of whom had worked for her in 2000) might think her stand on the Iraq War questionable on a crucial issue.

Not even this led us to jump ship, but then Hillary started baying for the blood of Syrians and encouraging sanctions and even a war against Syria. Excuse me, but WTF does a war with Syria have to do with our national interests? They're not a threat, they stay within their borders, the government is secular Baathist (would probably be replaced by Islamic fundamentalists if we ousted Bashar Assad)-- yet another stupid, poorly considered war policy stand by Hillary Clinton. Now comes the warmongering rhetoric against Iran, despite the fact that even generous intelligence estimates indicate that Iran would be a decade away from a nuke at least. Then Hillary goes off on some intense campaign to, uh, combat violence in video games (even as she advocates violence against innocents in the Middle East), and to top it off, Hillary goes sponsoring an anti-flag burning amendment.

A friend of mine who worked for Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign, now says she regrets doing so and considers it the worst mistake of her career as a Dem supporter. The reason should be obvious: A large majority of us Dems have become so enraged at Bush and his neocons because we disapprove of their corporatist, warmongering philosophy. So why, then, would we support a Democrat who's clearly enamored of much the same policy, and even worse on some issues (such as the flag-burning thing)? I think Hillary's intelligent and capable enough that she could have a fine Senate career, but she'd throw it all away and drag down the Democratic Party if we were to nominate her for the Presidential election in 2008. We have to look elsewhere. Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold have been strong voices from the outset, and Wes Clark and Mark Warner have been building up a solid record of achievement that's attracted voters from both sides among the electorate.

[RhodaGrits]

80. Clinton is my Senator -

I am a small business owner with 18 employees. I am a progressive social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I am a registered Democrat and, as far back as I can remember, have voted in every election. I consider myself to be a feminist and I'm not ashamed to say so. I voted for Clinton for Senator. I would not do so again if given a lesser evil candidate of any party. I will not support her for President EVER because of her warmongering before Iraq. The current situation was predictable, was predicted and she failed to do the right thing and oppose it - IMO for political expediency. Putting Clinton up in 2008 would be committing political suicide - the Dems might as well just tape a sign to their backs saying "Kick Me".

[Stephanie]

83. Here is your lesser evil senate candidate >

http://www.tasinifornewyork.org/

[FrenchieCat]

65. Republican sticker as seen on cars when Hillary runs.....

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton? Just say "NO" to dynasties!

[file83]

66. It makes perfect common sense=We need a candidate that will UNITE us.

Like her or not, the proof is in the pudding, Hillary has not united the party. She needs to work on this little issue.

[MrBenchley]

76. LOL! Another amazing "fact"

that turns out to be hot air.

"here in the über-Dem realms"
Where pretty much every Democrat you've ever heard of is under attack daily.....

[Atman]

79. *sigh*

:eyes:

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[Pachamama]

78. I don't want anyone named "Bush" or "Clinton" on the '08 ticket!

America needs a fresh start after this nightmare and while I miss the ole' dawg, I seriously think that Hilary Clinton is so polarizing, especially on the right, that I think she would be a guaranteed loss for the Democratic ticket. Perhaps that is why Karl Rove is obsessed with her (literally)...I think that they have been purposely trying to push the Hilary '08 idea to make heads spin on the right. That's not what this country needs. We need a unifying force, not a polarizing and separating force. Sadly, that is all Hilary will do in an election. I'm even a big sponsor and donor to her and everytime she has been in SF, I attend her appearances. I have stated this opinion on multiple occasions to her staff directly and on donations for her Senate campaign that the money is for her Senate position and that is where we need her. I think she's an amazing woman, incredibly intelligent, but I don't want her to be the candidate. Period. Would I vote for her if she was on the ticket? Ofcourse...But its not the winning ticket....

[file83]

82. 80-88 Bush VP, 88-92 Bush Prez, 92-00 Clinton Prez, 00-08 Bush Prez

I agree, I don't want 08-?? Clinton. Not again. No more. Aren't there more than TWO FUCKING FAMILIES that can lead this country? Ridiculous.

[election_2004]

84. That's the problem with the Dem establishment

They assume that because she has the "Clinton" namesake attached to her public image, she will be a quick fix as president when confronting all the shit Bush/Cheney & Friends have created for us.

But there are no "quick fixes." They have yet to explain what accomplishments would make Hillary a superior problem-solver compared to the rest of the Democratic potentials.

[Keseys Ghost]

81. Excellent post, Atman!

In my business, criminal defense law, we live by a rule of thumb: "If the prosecutor wants it, you don't"

Hillary is the Republican dream candidate.

Plain and simple.

[xiamiam]

88. EXACTLY....thats right dems, play right into their hands...ghheezh..nt

[Miss Chybil]

86. Vote for who you want and let the chips fall where they may.

No need to bash any Democrats in the process. (Unless it's Zell Miller, of course.)

[AtomicKitten]

87. you are precisely correct

[crispini]

89. "über-Dem realms of DU,"

:rofl:

People who think DU is consistent with the majority opinion of the average Democrat need to get off line and go do some activism in their local party for a change.

There are a LOT of Dems who are NOT on DU. A LOT. DU opinion is WAY lefter than the average Democratic voter. Who, if I am remembering recent polling correctly, is favoring Hilary.

[Atman]

96. How does "über" equate to "average?"

You are not the first to post a smiley about this line of mine, "über-Dems on DU." I stand by my words...the people that take the time to immerse themselves in REAL DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND VALUES spend a LOT of time here. My mom is an "average" democrat...she doesn't actually have much of a clue what his going on in America beyond the news, and that she dislikes Bush with a passion. She's an "average" Democrat, not an "über" Democrat. Crispini, and the others who think it is so "rofl" that I call DU posters "über-Dems" obviously don't understand who is posting here and why.

We are the über Democrats. Supreme examples of "DEMOCRATS," in my reading, means DEMOCRATS, people who are fighting for DEMOCRATIC principles, not people who get their "democraticness" based upon ten minutes of nightly news.

[crispini]

97. And that's exactly why Hilary's got a good chance.

We're a minority within the Democratic party. You may dislike it, but we are. I'm laughing because your point, unless I misunderstand it, is, "How can Hilary have a chance if she can't even unite DU" and my point is, "we're a minority. Hilary's not appealing to us."

I've seen it happen over and over again in local politics-- IN THE PRIMARIES. The uber-Dems, the activists, solidify around Candidate X and work hard for him, endorse him, etc. Candidate Y skips right over the activists and takes his message directly to the voters via direct mail or some other method. Candidate Y wins.

My point is that you don't always need the netroots activists. We are not as important as we like to think we are.

edited for clarity

[Atman]

99. Yes, you do misunderstand it

What exactly would YOU call the Hillary stuff going on, not just here, but on other boards, on the talking heads shows? Unity? Party Unity IS NOT 50% support, which is all Hillary garners in nearly any polling data you can find (and I know someone will find one that shows 52% or 57% and say "GOTCHA!" but that would no more make Hillary a unifying force than another proclamation of support from Tweety).

I just don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. I really don't. IF HILLARY IS NOT POLARIZING, what is you're definition of "polarizing?" She is like the text-book definition. And you and other posters seem to conveniently leave out the "AMERICA" part of my quote...Hillary doesn't have to just unite Dems on DU, or even just Dems across America. She needs to unite AMERICANS.

I know many people who still think Hillary is nothing short of the anit-Christ. Mention anything wrong in the world today, and it goes back to Hillary Care, and Bill's blow job. I'm not talking about talking heads, I'm talking about REAL PEOPLE. They may still be stuck on stupid, but they're still Americans and still voters. Hillary is incapable of uniting these Americans in the way the country needs to be united, NOT BECAUSE HILLARY IS INCAPABLE AS A PERSON, but because America is simply capable of being united by a Clinton right now.

Maybe a better example will help out...

Yankees and Red Sox.

Did the Red Sox World Series Win finally make Yankees fans wake up and say, "Oh! I'll stop hating the Red Sox now!"? No. There is a cultural hatred which has become virtually part of the game itself. The Clintons and Bush's are a classic American rivalry. When the World Series of Politics comes in 2008, people will take sides, vehemently. Even if the don't really like or want the "other candidate," they'll suck it up and vote for him/her simply because Hillary is the opponent. Or they'll stay away in droves.

Going further, say Hillary IS elected, do you really, honestly think she'll be able to unite anyone in Washington who isn't already behind her? Is another four/eight years of this tit-for-tat, vitriolic hatred among our legistlators really going to help America?

The candidate I want to see run isn't out there yet. There are several candidates I could vote for as alternatives to my dream candidate which hasn't materialized yet. And I will vote for and support Hillary if she is on the ticket, because it is important to America to remove the republicans from power. But that still does not mean Hillary is a unifying candidate.

[crispini]

100. Ok, sorry, I thought you were talking about the primaries.

I agree with your analysis that Hillary, if the nominee, will bring out the GOP base in droves. Yup. No argument with you there.

But I guess MY point is that if you want to fight Hilary as the nominee, the internet is not the place to do it. I think a lot of people confuse the netroots with the Democratic base. That is a false assumption. The netroots is a small subset of people who make up the Democratic primary voter base. There are a lot of people who are Democratic Primary voters who are not online. And it's my impression from getting out to local Dem meetings and talking to these people that a lot of them are for Hilary.

If she DOES run, there will need to be a dramatically better candidate on offer to oppose her, or she will win.

[xkenx]

90. You are right on the mark here. People should remember that

HILLARY IS NOT BILL. One of the most telling notes about Hillary was an interview with Chelsea during Bill's first term. The interviewer asked Chelsea whom she would call if she had an emergency at school. Chelsea replied "I'D CALL MY DAD." Not the so-called "nurturing mother", but her father, possibly the busiest person in the world. Why? Because Bill has the heart in the family. Hillary can't be sold to the american people; she just doesn't come across as an empathetic figure.

[AtomicKitten]

92. ah, come on

A girl is always daddy's little princess, particularly an only child.

You must not have children.

Nice try, though.

[Clark2008]

115. I'm an only child and a girl and I called my mother in emergencies.

Nice try, yourself.

Oh, and I was a Daddy's Girl, too, but I still called my Mom in emergencies.

[AtomicKitten]

116. "daddy's girl" is more prevalent

in the scheme of families, just as sons tend to bond more with mothers in their formative years.

I don't think Chelsea's response was at all unusual or any kind of indication that Hillary is unreliable or unsympathetic.

The "nice try" was in reference to eeking out anything by which to launch an anti-Hillary sentiment.

Nice try back at ya (whatever that means).

[Clark2008]

119. But you still don't get the point of the OP

Daddy's Girls and shit, aside.

The OP is saying, point blank: DU is not representative of all Dem primary voters. Hillary can't unite even DUers, who keep up with politics. If Hillary can't unite even the most discerning voters, like those on DU, then she will not and cannot do it in a general election.

Simple philosophy.

[AtomicKitten]

120. oh, yeah, I get it

re-read the thread for my thoughts on the OP

[karynnj]

132. There might be a simple explanation

Hillary was a lawyer in a law firm, who could be in the office, in court, or with a client. Her dad was in the Governor's mansion - her home. I think it highly likely they had a housekeeper.

Under those circumstances - Bill makes far more sense to be the person called.

Chelsea seems a well adjusted, intelligent young woman - and a credit to both parents.

But this is not a reason to vote for (or against) her.

[Nutmegger]

91. I only have this to say

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[MODemocrat]

93. Let her wounds heal from what?

The Clintons were checked on, investigated by their very own republicans, and in the end, there was no grounds for any of the accusations; beyond Bill having a sleazy sexual encounter with a consenting adult. When I think of all the crap the republicans have put this country through with their lies, their wars, their killing of innocent people, bankrupting us, trying everything under their power to dismantle the very livelihood of the elderly, and poor families, trying to sell our ports to a foreign country,
Stealing Elections, letting both the president and vice president take over the presidency, even though they're both from Texas (which is not allowed by the constitution), giving millions of dollars to oil companies for non-bid contracts, etc., etc., I can't bring myself to see even a vague resemblance of
the corrupt Bush republicans and Hillary Clinton. She's a smart, articulate, strong, and not afraid of anyone-type woman, and I want her for my president. She's ahead of all other wannabees in the polls I've been tracking.. :toast: :toast:

[election_2004]

95. And she'll also.....

....turn out the Religious Right in droves, especially in counties and districts that lean red.

As a Missourian, you should be intimately familiar with this reality.

[MODemocrat]

98. I'm very familiar with Missouri's right wing leanings, been here 73 years

Still, that's no excuse for blaming Hillary for every blooming thing under the sun. She was booed at a rally, by jerks asking when she was going to send the troops home; Hello! The last time I heard, it was George Bush's bloody war, which even though he had approval from most of the congress, he wasn't supposed to start an un-provoked war, so consequently, he very successfully tied Sadam in with 9-11. Fair is fair, and I'm not even trying to say that Hillary (or any other democrat) is perfect, but for Crying out loud hasn't she been treated badly enough. I just hope she will kick some ass, unlike so many of the other mealy-mouths who are shakiing in their boots every time they look at Rove.
I'm a woman, and I'm tired of women being treated like second-class citizens by the out of hand fascists in the Republican party. There are many crooks here in Missouri, who need to resign from their plush jobs. :puke:

I had a political job right here in Platte County for years, so I'm no stranger to political tactics.
My loyalty is to the Democratic Party, no matter what. :dem: :thumbsup:

[election_2004]

118. Your post seems to be mainly based on emotion

Guess what? Hillary is not the only female candidate who could ascend to the presidency or vice-presidency in the near-future.

And if you're so loyal to the Democratic Party, you should be concerned about the damage that the RW's irrational hatred for Hillary will cause to other Democratic candidates who run for downticket offices in states such as your own.

[AtomicKitten]

101. thank you for a well thought-out post

I too find it difficult to comprehend the incessant bashing of certain Democrats when there is so much material on the other side of the aisle.

[MODemocrat]

114. Amen AtomicKitten, you are really reading my frustration

Thanks for your reply. Really, I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time here, but, as you say, there is so much more we could be saying about the other side.:hi: :thumbsup:

[Atman]

102. A nice post, but you're not responding to what I said...

This has been a pervasive problem here, especially in this thread. I really don't think I'm writing over anyone's head here on DU...we're a bunch of pretty bright people. But where did I say Hillary needed her wounds to heal? My exact line was...

"Maybe we need to allow some of the post-Clinton wounds to heal just a bit longer before we attempt to elevate her to the historic position of First Female U.S. President."

I think it is abundantly clear that I didn't say anything about Hillary's wounds. I spoke of the wounds the Clinton mess inflicted upon our national well-being. The purely partisan impeachment opened gaping wounds, and many are still festering today. For many, a Hillary run would be like rubbing salt on those as-yet-still-festering wounds. Hillary has to heal from nothing, as far as I'm concerned. America does. That was what I said.

[MODemocrat]

112. Atman, I didn't mean to misinterpret your true meaning of Clintons

for which I apologize, but for the life of me, I can't figure out the grand scale of put downs of both the Clintons, and especially Hillary. There were many "gates" such as Whitewater gate, file-gate, travel-gate, etc., that were constantly being touted on television, and talk radio; but it's as if the media just doesn't care a whit that Bush is doing so many monstrous and evil things in comparison. That's really all I'm trying to say.
The fact that George W. Bush or Dick Cheney never will testify under oath, and that is readily accepted. That's just proof of their deception, but, they are always given a pass. They were handed the presidency on a platter, and I'll never get over that. There is not one person out there Democrat or Republican who doesn't have some tarnish on their character and/or record, so, the fact is, we'll
never be satisfied with any of our candidates. Yes, I'm proud that you and I expect more from our democratic party, and truly believe that we're striving for the best. We all want to be proud of our president.

:thumbsup: :dem: :grouphug:

[Zhade]

103. The fact is, we don't HAVE to shut up.

The fact also is that legitimate criticism dos not equal bashing.

If Hillaryites can't take the heat, too fucking bad.

[election_2004]

117. Hillaristas want smooth sailing to the nomination

They don't want a rocky road for their princess in the Dem primaries, because they want her to be able to "take no prisoners" against McCainAllenFristBrownbackHuckabeeHagel.

[AtomicKitten]

125. I challenge you to find "Hillaristas" here on DU

Most people have made it perfectly clear they won't vote for her in the primary.

We just have a problem with people like you making derogatory comments (which are of the caliber of something coming out of Rush Limbaugh's pie hole) about our fellow Democrats, including Hillary.

[goreo8]

104. If there is any doubt that Hillary

is polarizing. Re read this thread again and again. You will see different opinions of her both positive and negative. IMO she is too polarizing and could tear the Dems further apart. She stirs up too many emotions for voters on both sides. We cannot afford to lose again in '08. We need to rally behind a candidate like Gore who can unite the party again.

[greenohio]

105. I agree. Hillary is not our best choice. nt

[oasis]

107. DU "Hillary Bashers" who are NOT Dems should STFU. (n/t)

[Minnesota Libra]

108. You have a good point but don't just single out Hillary......

.....she isn't the only one who would end up being very polarizing.

[paineinthearse]

127. 2008: Hillary for President?!!

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=642378&mesg_id=642378

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

133. I tend to agree with you.

I was the biggest fan of Hilary for a long time, but even I recognize that in order to unify liberals it would be disastrous to nominate Hilary as the Democratic candidate for president in 2008. You are absolutely right - she DOES have the ability to polarize even her own party and I think that unless she can fix that aspect... she'll never get enough votes to become president.

[The Magistrate]

135. Locking

This has become a flame-war, and could be regarded, strictly speaking, as continuing a flame-war from a previously locked topic.