The Hillary Clinton doctrine

[welshTerrier2]

ask yourself this: if Hillary had not had years of publicity as the First Lady, would her political career and Senate record have rewarded her with front-runner status? has she distinguished herself by rising head and antlers above her colleagues in the Senate? can Americans, especially Democrats, articulate her vision on domestic policy? how about foreign policy? it's all hype; it's all advertising; it's all name recognition ... it's not that her views on issues are so horrible but she has not "earned" her status ... sorry, but there's just no there, there ...

we need to do better than Hillary ...

[bigdarryl]

1. my choice would be Gov. Richardson or Gen. Clark who both have a ton of experience...

in fact a Richardson/Clark ticket doesn't sound bad

[durrrty libby]

2. She will be a fantastic president

[Toots]

3. Wasn't she re-elected with one of the highest percentages in the Senate?

Someone thought she was a good Senator...She got overwhelming approval from even the Republican areas of New York...Much higher percentage than Schumar the senior Senator from New York...Every time I hear her speak I like what I hear... Sorry you don't like what she says or does. I have no clue who I will support or vote for but I certainly do not rule her out...

[AlGore-08.com]

116. Actually Schumer got a higher percentage of votes in 2004 than HRC got in 2006

eom

[L84TEA]

4. Hillary isn't a bad choice

I am an Edwards fan, but there are things about Hillary that would make her a good candidate. For one
thing... her cards are on the table, we know a lot about Hillary. They aren't going to say anything that is going to make her stand out in a smear... her news is old news.
She is a smart woman, really... I was happy when her husband was in office and I think potentially it will be the same.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Can Anyone Name A Time When Mrs. Clinton Risked Anything?

When she was out front on an issue?

The only two I can think of are:

- 13 years ago, she pushed for "no-insurance-CEO-left-behind" healthcare

- She was the sole sponsor of a bill to criminalize flag burning.

Anything else that anyone can think of?

[flpoljunkie]

6. Good question, Manny. No leadership from HRC.

[oasis]

7. In 2002, Hill stood up in the senate and hoisted a news headline that proclaimed "Bush Knew".

Not a soul backed her up as she questioned Bush's foreknowledge of events surrounding 9/11.

Risky business in those days, just ask Cynthia McKinney who lost her seat in congress for asking essentially the same questions on the floor of the House.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Link Please? n/t

[welshTerrier2]

9. link?

what exactly did she say regarding "bush knew"?

are you suggesting that she stood on the Senate floor and accused bush of LIHOP or even MIHOP? are you suggesting had she really challenged bush's prior knowledge that there would not have been a storm of reaction from republicans that would have been carried in the press?

i think the assertion is absurd.

[oasis]

16. May 16, 2002: "I am simply here today on the floor of this hallowed chamber to seek

answers to the questions asked by my constituents".

"The president knew what?....about the (9/11) warning he recieved".

MIHOP no, LIHOP no. That's why she's a viable candidate for president.

[welshTerrier2]

17. "why she's a viable candidate"

she's a viable candidate because she has massive corporate funding

[oasis]

20. I never made the claim that Hillary was the second coming of Abe Lincoln. (eom)

[welshTerrier2]

22. no, that's true

but please address the key point of the OP ...

i maintain that Hillary's popularity is marketing and not substance ... she's the overwhelming front-runner right now and i don't think it's based on merit ... i think it's all hype and name recognition and mega-money and i think the times we're living in and the situation we face in the world demand something more than that ...

try this very basic question: do you believe most Americans could name even a single thing that Hillary has led on in the last few years? even one single thing?

[oasis]

24. "Most Americans" aren't informed enough to name "a single thing" that

any current Democratic candidate has led on. Why make that a requirement for Hillary's candidacy?

When you get your "dream" candidate up to the line, then maybe we can make comparisons. Right now, I don't see you offering up any alternatives.

[welshTerrier2]

26. so you agree

that Hillary's front-runner status is based on an un-informed public ...

no we're getting somewhere ...

[oasis]

27. Hillary's "front runner status" is based on her hard work as senator, her two

best selling books and the energy that she has put into her campaign.

[welshTerrier2]

29. ah, now voters are familiar with her record

i thought you said voters weren't knowledgeable ...

now they've read Hillary's two best selling books and are familiar with her record because of the energy she's put into her campaign ...

which is it? are voters knowledgeable about her record or aren't they? what single issue would they point to that Hillary has shown leadership on?

[oasis]

33. Add the fact that Hillary's a powerful role model for women to the rest

of her accomplishments and you have your answer.

[blm]

30. She voted for filibuster but didn't take on task to LEAD it or to persuade fellow

senators.

She said Rumsfeld should be fired ONLY after the 2004 election when the Dem nominee called THREE times for Rumsfeld to go and received NO BACKUP from bigname Dems like Hillary at that time.

She LED the Dem call against Kerry by joining Bush and McCain in condemning Kerry's insult to the troops as inapproptiate when she knew he only dropped a pronoun from a joke.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. Yes, She Did Lead on Criticizing Kerry n/t

[oasis]

36. Did Hillary seek out a mike to "condemn" Kerry or was a mike thrust in her face?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Btw, "Insult to the troops" were those her words?

[SaveElmer]

37. Notice how we never hear any condemnation of the netroots favorites...

For making the same criticisms...Jon Tester made the same criticism of Kerry, yet he somehow slides by...


Numerous Democrats criticized Kerry, yet we never hear their names...wonder why that is?

[SaveElmer]

38. Jon Tester on Kerry's joke...

Sen. Kerry's remarks were poorly worded and just plain stupid," said Montana Senate President Jon Tester, a Democrat trying to unseat GOP Sen. Conrad Burns. "He owes our troops and their families an apology."

One of many...google almost any Democrat running in 2006 and you hear the same criticism...

[oasis]

40. John "Windsock" Tester. Dems should've run Micheal Moore against him in the primary.

;-)

[blm]

41. Tester wasn't familiar with Rove's tactics - Hillary was and she didn't need to err on the side of

caution to protect her race in NY as Tester chose.

Tester was unfamiliar with Kerry's LENGTHY record of ADVOCATING for the troops and their families for DECADES in the senate and out. Hillary knew it and still attacked Kerry without defending his longtime advocacy for troops. Kerry would never have done that to her, and in fact, defended Bill many times in PUBLIC ways whenever his loyalty to the military was challenged. And you KNOW it was challenged many times.

Ever hear or read Olbermann's take on what happened or Tom Friedman's? Bush did it because he believes the American people are STUPID and the media would help him make sure the lie would hurt Kerry - Hillary did the same.

Hillary did the same. For only ONE Reason - to hurt Kerry.

[SaveElmer]

48. You have got to be kidding...

Jon Tester was the President of the Montana State Senate...

Are you seriously telling me Tester was unaware of Roves tactics for the previous 6 years...are you saying he was asleep for the entire 2004 campaign...

You are making assertions for which you have ZERO evidence!!!

In fact Hillary's statement was much more benign than Tester's...

And of course Tester was not the only one...numerous Democrats made comments, many much harsher than Hillary made...

[blm]

51. Never on national stage. Why don't you defend the HONESTY of the condemnation from Hillary?

Did she believe Kerry insulted the troops and she just happened to forget his thirty five year public record of advocating for the troops and their families?

If Hillary didn't realize that Rove and McCain were LYING about Kerry's remarks than how on earth will she recognize their lies in a 2008 campaign?

Not that I expect any REAL answer to any of the above, because you and Hillary know DAMN WELL that her ONLY intention was to undermine Kerry when she made that remark.

She KNEW Bush was lying and supported that LIE.

[SaveElmer]

53. Because it is a ridiculous criticism...

Singling out one person when literally dozens made the same comment...

Just another bash Hillary thread...

[blm]

56. Was Hillary HONEST in her condemnation? Did she really believe Kerry insulted the troops?

Did she really believe Bush and McCain were truthful and Kerry was wrong?

If she believed Bush on something so BLATANTLY FALSE than how can we trust her judgement to recognize campaign attacks from them the next two years?

[SaveElmer]

113. This is just pathetic...

You are so desperate for a line of attack that all you can come up with is that she said Kerry's joke was inappropriate...and asked if Kerry should apologize, she responded that she heard he already had...

Where is your condemnation of Jim Webb for his comments...how can we trust him to hold Bush's feet to the fire on Iraq when he can't recognize Bush lies...how can we trust Jon Tester as a U.S. Senator when he can't see the lies...

Just pathetic!!!

[oasis]

57. Tester's no dummy, he knew of Rove's influence on the media.n/t

[blm]

59. And Hillary WAS a dummy and honestly didn't realize it was a Rove lie?

Or did she KNOW damn wel it was a lie but decided that it was in her interest to PRETEND that Bush and McCain were right and Kerry deserved a scolding from her for insulting the troops?

Face it - Either way it was MONSTROUSLY wrong of Hillary to do what she did. You all know it, because you are decent human beings - and probably wish Hillary HAD NOT sided with Bush's lie against a great advocate for troops like Kerry has been and is very much still today.

[oasis]

60. Kerry graciously cancelled campaign events with candidates so the media would not

focus on his flub. He knew it was a problem and I doubt if he's blaming Hillary for his misfortune as you are doing.

[blm]

67. You know she LIED - she didn't believe for a second that Kerry insulted the troops.

It all would have been different if BIGNAME Dems supported Kerry for a change, instead of BushInc.

But old habits are hard to break, aren't they?

Wouldnt support him on IranContra for a full year till the story broke through the media.

Wouldn't support him on BCCI - complained some of their friends were being hurt because of their TERRORIST BANK conections.

Wouldn't support him when he argued gays should be allowed to serve in the military.

Wouldn't support him on CIA drugrunning and in fact, sided with Poppy Bush....again.

Wouldn't support him onpublic financing of campaigns.

Wouldn't support him on Tora Bora - sided with Bush's decisions there. Wouldn't support him on Rumsfeld's firing (even after Abu Ghraib).

Wouldn't publicall support him against the swiftliars.

Wouldn't support him on Downing Street Memos investigation.

Wouldn't support him on Alito filibuster - spread the meme that Kerry was making an ass out of himself by filibustering.

Wouldn't support him on Iraq withdrawal - even as they all knew Iraq was in civil war and had been for many months.

But, WOULD JUMP to support Bush and scold Kerry to validate Bush's lie against him.

[SOS]

69. "front runner"

Not in Iowa.

Latest poll shows her in fourth place with 15%, behind Edwards, Obama and Vilsack.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16818190/

[vssmith]

105. If Gore is to be considered a candidate; I think Americans

know what he has worked hard for the last years.

[AJH032]

79. what kind of comment is that?

Could most Americans name a single thing that ANY senator has specifically done? Don't hold it against Hillary.

Secondly, a political "risk" was just pointed out to you by oasis. Yet, your response was that despite that (and you do assert its truth), the main reason for her popularity is her name recognition. Fine, I agree. However, that should not negate what oasis said, just because its effects may dominate. Imagine what Hillary would have to do to make her actions speak louder than her name (which is already one of the most recognized names in the world): she would most likely have to do something like call for the death of the president (or something totally out there) for such attention. That's ridiculous, and unfair.

[blm]

10. And then she failed to press that point in any way, afterwards. Did she show up on TV

and MAKE a lawyer's case against Bush at the time? Or did she just do it and let it sit without any further discussion?

Like when Bill said to an ALTERNATIVE press audience he believed that Kerry probably did win Ohio after reading RFK's article - but then he never spoke it again publically or to ANY Mainstream media. Gee - - wonder why a high profile ex-PRESIDENT wouldn't speak to a great concern like election fraud if he believed it occurred?

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Poppy Bush Gave Him One of Those Looks...

that made Bill think that, unless he cooled it, he might no longer be welcome at Poppy Bush's table.

[oasis]

14. She got it on record in the senate. Any crusade which might have began from

her senate address that day, was doomed for general lack of interest.

Did I sufficiently answer the OP's question?

Yes.

[welshTerrier2]

15. here were the questions from the OP

"if Hillary had not had years of publicity as the First Lady, would her political career and Senate record have rewarded her with front-runner status? has she distinguished herself by rising head and antlers above her colleagues in the Senate? can Americans, especially Democrats, articulate her vision on domestic policy? how about foreign policy?"

no, you not only didn't answer these questions, you didn't even address them.

[oasis]

19. " distinguised herself by rising head and antlers above her colleagues"

I answered that one. If you're interested in here entire bio I suggest:

www.HillaryClinton.com

edit: I erred when I responded to blm about OP, actually my original reply was to post #5. at any rate, both questions were answered sufficiently.

[SaveElmer]

12. Rather than put up clever(if innacurate) graphics...

And whine that she hasn't articulated her positions to you...why not do yourself a favor and do a bit of research...google is your friend...some very enlightening articles on Hillary and her record out there...one posted very recently in "The Atlantic" if you'd like to get started

I suspect you are really not interested in what her record is, what she has done in the Senate, or why New Yorkers overwhelmingly believe she is a very effective Senator...because it is alot more fun to kibitz from the sidelines...

[welshTerrier2]

13. you are free to make a case for Hillary

you still have not

[SaveElmer]

18. I have on many occasions...

Not really my job to do everyone's research for them however...if you really want to know you will look...if you don't you will continue to complain...

[welshTerrier2]

21. my statement stands

Your argument only strengthens the point i made in the OP. The American people could not name a single thing Hillary has led on. What legislation do you think Americans would point to that she has garnered support for? Answer: ZILCH ... what strong guidance has she provided on foreign policy that Americans would label the Hillary Clinton doctrine? Answer: ZILCH ...

Do you want to address this point or just tell me to use Google? deal with it: Hillary is an empty package being marketed to Americans. She's shown no leadership whatsoever ... but you don't want to address that reality here; you just want to help this post by kicking it over and over so that the truth of the Hillary doctrine, a great big wind sock blowing in the breeze, can be seen by more and more people ...

well, i guess i shouldn't complain about that ...

[SaveElmer]

23. Hmmm...interesting standard...

The American people have to be fully knowledgeable about a candidate two years before the election...I guess the campaign means nothing....

The fact that you, as someone apparently interested in politics, will not lift a finger to check into her record yourself is proof positive that you have ZERO interest in finding out what that record really is...and yet you expect the American people to have that knowledge already...

You are a Hillary opponent, have entrenched in your mind the meme you have developed for yourself, and your fear obviously is, that this kind of research will force you to reevaluate your opinion.

[welshTerrier2]

25. ah, finally the ad hominem argument

i don't waste my time responding to those.

if you would like to answer this question, i'd be happy to continue this discourse.

the question is: is Hillary's front-runner status based on hype or on merit? i maintain most people could not name a single issue Hillary has led on over the last few years. if that's true, then her status is marketing, money and hype ...

btw, i made no mention whatsoever that "The American people have to be fully knowledgeable about a candidate". fully knowledgeable? i maintain they couldn't name a single thing she's accomplished ... do you think they could? what accomplishment would they name? just one ... not fully ... just one little old accomplishment ... which one would they name?

[SaveElmer]

28. Merit...

Evidenced by her receiving 63% of the vote from those that know her best...her New York constituents...including an overwhelming majority of Independents, and a large chunk of Republicans...

Many Americans could probably recite her efforts following 9/11, efforts which by all accounts was exceptional for a freshman Senator...in fact so exceptional, that virtually every police and fire union that had previously opposed her, turned around and heartily endorsed her in her reelection bid, citing her unwavering support for them and their efforts....

Families of National Guard members serving in Iraq might want to relate to you her efforts on their behalf, which includes securing the same health benefits enjoyed by regular army soldiers...

But of course this, and much more is easily available to you on google...

Now I am certain we will be seeing similar posts to this about Barack Obama, and John Edwards, and some of the other candidates...and I am sure they will include some clever, snarky graphic to illustrate your point...I dare say the American people know as little or less about their accomplishments than Hillary's

[welshTerrier2]

31. you keep bringing up Google

so i googled ...

here's the first thing i learned ... allow me to share ...

Hillary made a strong speech on the Senate floor opposing the use of torture ... the Geneva Conventions prohibit the use of torture ... no exceptions ... it's a crime ... bush should be impeached for using it ...

but wait ... is that a gust of wind ... uh oh, the big wind sock is pointing a different direction today ... Hillary followed up her "torture is wrong" speech with this gem on torture: "I have said that those are very rare but if they occur there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing that," she responded."

Lawful authority for torture? it's prohibited by the Geneva Conventions ... but Mrs. Wind Sock had to "find the center" ...

thanks so much for the Google tip ... I'll try to post more about "Mrs. I don't need no stinking public finance funds" as soon as I learn more ...

oh, here's a link to the quote i cited: http://blogs.nydailynews.com/dailypolitics/archives/2006/10/clinton_on_tort.php

[SaveElmer]

34. Your response of course reveals the true intent of your post...

Not to discuss why she might have the popularity she does, but as another method of criticism...

That article you cite characterized her position inaccurately...conflating torture techniques with the "ticking bomb scenario." That they have done this is evidenced by their inability to quote her to make the point...

Not surprising that you would go off topic...well actually criticism of her is your topic...no matter how you would like to say otherwise...

[welshTerrier2]

43. wait, there's more ...

i can't thank you enough for this Google business ... look, i found more info about Clinton's "vision" on Iraq ...

Ted Kennedy said his vote against the IWR was the best vote he cast during his entire time in the Senate. But there are all sorts of interpretations about what those who voted for the IWR, as Clinton did, actually intended.

So, let's not dwell on the IWR vote. Let's look at what I believe was Clinton's first public statement on Iraq after the war began. Let's look for her counsel and her insights and her vision about what the prosecution of the war might lead to. I assume you agree that Iraq has been catastrophic for the US. Or do you?

Putting aside all the usual arguments about WMD and bad intelligence and the rest of it, and just focussing on the war itself, some understood that there was "no plan to win the peace" ... some understood that toppling Saddam, regardless of how evil he was, would create a huge power vacuum in the Middle East that could cost the US TRILLIONS in terms of blood and treasure ... some understood that invading Iraq would lead to a quagmire ...

and perhaps most importantly, many of us knew that bush was doing all he could to conflate the invasion of Iraq with 9/11 and "the war on terror". we understood that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and the "war on terror". but not Mrs. C ... she did all she could to conflate the two issues ... "we are fighting a two-front war" Mrs. Clinton proclaimed ... her implication, of course, was that Iraq and the war on terror were two fronts of the SAME war ... Iraq was the offense part and homeland security was the defense part. thanks for seeing things just the way bush wanted you to ... also, again, notice the absolute lack of understanding of what our involvement in Iraq would lead to ...

with that said, let's look at the insights on the war Mrs. Clinton shared on the war ...

source: http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2003/03/2003324759.html

"Right now our focus has to be on what is going on in Iraq and we have to stand united and provide every possible resource. I have a slightly different issue though that I think the American public needs to address. While we are providing every support we know is needed for our men and women in military uniforms, we're not doing what we need to do here at home to protect our homeland. This is something that I've been talking about since November 2001 and have introduced legislation on.

"I know that probably tomorrow the President is going to send up a supplemental to fund the war in Iraq, I'm sure we'll have overwhelming support. But, there must be within that supplemental for our military, significant funding for our men and women on the front lines here at home -- our firefighters, our police officers our emergency responders our doctors and nurses and our emergency rooms. I hope it will at least spend ten percent of whatever the amount for the war supplemental, on homeland security.

"We are in a two-front war. We are offense in Iraq and we have to finish the job, and we have to do it as smartly and effectively with minimal loss of life as possible. But also, we need our defense here at home

[SaveElmer]

47. Avoiding the question I see...

Pathetic...

You are criticizing her for these comments four days after the war started...I daresay you would find similar comments from most Democrats...even those who opposed the IWR...

Maybe such as these:

"Tonight American troops have been called to action in Iraq. I am confident in their abilities, and I hope for a swift victory and for their safe and quick return.

I wonder what the reaction would have been if she started trashing the war as the soldiers were in the middle of the fight...?

And the fact that this is easily located on her website...in fact she has an entire section devoted to her Iraq statements simply shows she has nothing to hide....

I guess you have abandoned any pretense about your OP being about an exploration of why she is popular.

Not surprising

[welshTerrier2]

55. well, let's look at Mrs. Clinton's statements on the war

there was plenty of room, contrary to your argument, for her to "support the troops" without conflating the invasion of Iraq with the war on terror. is there a record of other Democrats falling so badly for bush's propaganda campaign?

and as for "abandoning any pretense in the OP", pas du tout ... the fact that I criticize Clinton's position on terrorism and on the war in Iraq in no way detracts from my assertion that her current popularity is not based on merit. by what logic can those two points not co-exist?

you seem to enjoy going way over the top to misstate my position. it's really a very weak way to argue a point. did i say that she should "start trashing the war as soldiers were in the middle of the fight?" did i say that? i don't think so ... what i did say was that her statement showed no insight into the long road we are now stuck on and it conflated the invasion of Iraq with the war on terror exactly the way the bush propaganda machine wanted us to ...

of course, the time to provide meaningful counsel and leadership was before the war even began ... that was the time to caution about the dangers that creating a power vacuum in Iraq would lead to ... i'll keep googling on Mrs. Clinton's pre-war advice ... so far, haven't found anything about how the invasion would result in a quagmire of catastrophic proportions ... is it just possible Mrs. Clinton had nothing to say on the subject and google won't find anything meaningful from her?

[SaveElmer]

111. You have aabandoned any pretense...

Of seeking the answer to your query "Why is Hillary Clinton so popular" as you originally claimed

Merely another subterfuge on your part to criticize her...at least have the honesty to do so without some ridiculous cover of seeking a legitimate debate...

You have no interest whatsoever in learning why she is popular, only in finding new and different ways to be critical....

Fact is, she took the same position on the war as many other Democrats...a perfectly reasonable position to take at the time...I know hindsight is the mothers milk of Hillary haters, because looking at issues in context may not provide such a black and white answer...

[welshTerrier2]

61. Mrs. Clinton's judgment on the war

i read Mrs. Clinton's full statement on her IWR vote ... it contained absolutely ZERO references to the quagmire we now face ... ZERO ... i guess google doesn't make up things if they don't actually exist ...

Mrs. Clinton's statement did contain this gem, though: "I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible." ... she trusted bush? she took him at his word? she wanted to show America was united behind bush?

nice, huh?

[SaveElmer]

112. I urge you...

Though I know you will not, to read the statements of the other Democratic Senators on this topic...

Virtually all used the same reasoning...and of course as I noted in my other post, hindsight is the mothers milk of Hillary haters...in fact not even opponents of the IWR saw through the intelligence lies as everyone cited Saddam as dangerous and possessing WMD's...

And of course you also left out her warning against invasion and preemptive war...but that wouldn't serve to make your point so wasn't important

[oasis]

39. If you're going to question her motives for each accomplishment, I suggest

you do your own research and then write an essay to put it in your journal for DUers to read? :think:

[Zodiak]

42. To me...

the moment that best sums up Hillary's performance as a Senator is right at the beginning of the 109th congress when Barbara Boxer backed up the CBC and the certification of the Ohio vote went up for debate.

Hillary gave a speech about voting rights and how important it was to count every vote....she was one of a handful of senators that did (Obama was another).

Then she voted to certify the Ohio vote.

I score her as a 50% senator progressive-wise, which I consider barely tolerable, but tolerable. That is her record. We've been over before on DU.

Here are her "bad" votes (some may diagree with me):

1. She voted for Condi
2. She voted for cloture on the bankruptcy bill
3. She voted to confirm Negroponte
4. She voted for the Cheney energy bill
5. She voted for the tax-relief act (a Bush tax plan)
6. She voted to protect tax cuts again
7. She voted for the Patriot act extension
8. She voted for the US-Oman Free trade agreement
9. She voted to confirm Robert Gates
10. She voted for atomic cooperation with India
11. She vote for the border fence
12. She voted for the pension protection act (although I admit why I forgot why that bill was bad)
13. She voted for the Gulf of MExico Energy Security Act

That's it. If one can live with it, great. If not, then at least you have her record. On every other bill and nomination, she voted Democratic and progressive. Like I said...she is 50%/50%. There are a LOT of senators below her...too many. When you discuss Hillary, you discuss the exact center of the party. She is the median.

It is also worthy to note that I did not score stance on the war, video games, or flag burning since none of those issues became bills for passageor nomination.

[welshTerrier2]

44. thanks. this is good info but ...

the question being asked is "where is Hillary's leadership"?? it's more than her voting record ... i did NOT take issue with her voting record in the OP ...

in fact, the OP stated "it's not that her views on issues are so horrible" ...

Clinton's record is not a distinguished record of leadership ... her current popularity is NOT based on substance ...

[SaveElmer]

49. Was she not also one of only 2 Senators to vote against HAVA...

Which I see roundly criticized here!

[Tellurian]

52. Hillary's accomplishments have been stellar

considering she is but a Junior Senator.

Is WT2 aware of the difference between a JR & SR senator?

[blm]

74. Jr Senator uncovered IranContra, submitted first gay protection bill, uncovered illegal wars in

Central America, and began a five year investigation into BCCI which closed down the grand-daddy of all terrorist banks.


http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0511-29.htm

[AtomicKitten]

77. and I'll bet his poo doesn't stink either

You win the prize for turning people against the object of your adoration by virtue of gross exaggerations repeated over and over and over again. I almost feel sorry for you that you have no insight into that.

[blm]

78. Attack me all you want - that doesn't change the facts in the historic record.

Your little "I'm popular, you're not" postings have no effect on the historic record.

So who gives a shit about your powerless attacks - they don't advance any truth that matters to this nation.

[AtomicKitten]

80. I'm sorry the truth hurts.

But when you post the same things over and over again on these message boards, the thrust of your agenda ceases to be a secret.

And I'm sure the Kerry folks will continue their PM sabotage of certain DU'ers; I've had copies of that campaign forwarded to me. A really lame effort to sabotage people you and yours don't agree with, but that too is not a secret anymore.

The bitterness in your posts has to be debilitating to your wellbeing. It would be to yours and all of DU's benefit if you toned down the venom.

[blm]

81. Physician heal thyself. Sorry, but I never heard of this situation you claim

so I don't necessarily believe one exists.

So move on with your petty criticisms. You didn't come to DU last year just to follow me around and attack me did you...so just move on. We get it - you're bored with real history and how it effects everything happening today and besides, it gets in the way of all that fun horserace stuff. We get it - move on.

[AtomicKitten]

83. Again, you clearly have no insight.

Your post that people are stalking you to attack you is paranoid ideation, pure and simple.

And to state with such certainty that you have the true grasp of history in light of some of the insidious propaganda you post here is, well, ludicrous.

Your obsession with Kerry is loud and clear, but you need to get over the fact he is not running for president - and that others are. Your nonstop efforts to hamstring the Democratic candidates out of bitterness or other emotional fuel de jour is meant to hamstring honest discussion about the candidates, and some of us are simply not going to allow it to go unchecked anymore.

Sorry that offends your delicate sensibilities.

[blm]

85. Parry tells the truth. You PRETEND Clinton had good reason to protect Poppy Bush

for all those crimes he committed against this nation and against the world.

You bemoan the IWR as if it was the biggest criminal act in history and post repeatedly about it, and yet have no sense of the fact that IWR had almost nothing to do with this war at all, because this war is the RESULT of a few decades of Bush crimes. Crimes that were covered up by Bill Clinton, whether naively or cunningly makes no matter, the RESULT is the same.

If you want to make a case that this Iraq war and 9-11 had no roots in IranContra and BCCI than try and make it.

[AtomicKitten]

87. rage on blindly ... nt

[blm]

88. History has EYES.

.

[AtomicKitten]

35. Not your usual thoughtful post, wt2.

Saying a politician is:



... is as cliche as:

[Tellurian]

46. Agreed, WT2 exhibiting signs of Kerry withdrawal..

and lashing out at a prime target, Hillary.
.
Actually, I believe his disappointment is aimed at Kerry for not meeting his expectations.

You have to remember, it's not about you, wT2!

Kerry did what is right for himself and his family.

You can't fault the man for that. Lashing out at other Dem candidates is really déclassé-









great site for disappointment/anger management control and fun too.

http://www.do-not-zzz.com/

.
.
.
.
.

[welshTerrier2]

50. "it's not about you, wT2!"

thanks for personalizing the discussion ...

i can't tell you how glad i am now that i didn't join your little secret club. sometimes my instincts are right.

let's stay focussed on the candidates and the issues, shall we?

[Tellurian]

58. We're against Dem bashing..

so carry on dear sir...

and we'll be here to guide you through the mind fields of disappointment
until you grasp the fact a Democratic President is what we need now, no matter the nominee.

Rather than planting DEM candidate disinformation as FREE fodder for republican mining.

[wisteria]

64. Sometimes it is better to not get what you wish for for the better of our country

and the party in the long run.

[Tellurian]

71. And what empirical evidence is that advise founded on? nm

[wisteria]

66. Oh, like other Dem's have not stabbed and bashed Kerry- please.n/t

[blm]

75. heh - you don't know the 1st thing about welsh. He's been tough on Kerry in SUBSTANTIVE ways not

the junior high hatefests that display little working knowledge of actual history and governance.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0511-29.htm

[wisteria]

63. As a Kerry supporter, I have never known WT2 to be anything but fair and balanced

when critiquing a candidate. Senator Kerry has been the target of WT2 pointed remarks in the past. I happen to agree this time with the assessment as I have on some of the points brought up about Kerry in the past.

[Tellurian]

68. And WT2 posts have been reasonable and well written..

Yes, he was pointing out to you Kerry needs a NEW major issue to be put on the table as part of his campaign.
Remembering, wT2's sincerity was remarkable. And the Kerry campers were oblivious to his questions and failed miserably in even addressing what could be a new and bold issue for Kerry to bring to the table. All you people did was refresh all Kerry's accomplishments to the point of ad nauseum. I suppose, it's never occurred to you, your method of supporting your candidate did nothing to encourage Kerry's presidential ambitions. When your primary plank for his candidacy was based on the prosecution of two past presidents..

Where were you with any ideas for the vision of the future for People?

[blm]

76. Open government IS a new, fresh idea that hasn't been done before. You secrecy and privilege

protectors don't WANT it to happen.

[Tellurian]

90. A fresh idea would be you taking responsibility for Kerry's opting out of the race..

You and yours have continued on an ill thought out strategy to garner support for Kerry.
Are you really Ken Star posing as a Kerry supporter who has effectively torpedoed his presidential aspirations?

[blm]

91. Move on from your petty insults that have no basis in reality.

DU is a discussion board. Funny how no one has interviewed me as the person who sunk Kerry for 2008 - seems to me that he dropped out to do everything he can to stop a war that he sees is about to widen.

Typical of his selflessness and commitment to the troops and the injustice of unjust wars. But some people will never get that about Kerry because they don't want to.

[Tellurian]

92. It's your turn to take the Blame...your message STUNK!....no Vision

for the future of Americans..

No wonder he failed to garner support. All you care about is PROSECUTING when this country is falling apart
and soldiers are dying at an astounding rate.. You consistently physically blocked any discussion of ideas for consideration for his candidacy's platform. The ad nauseum, prosecution of past presidents has sunk his ship as sure as throwing him an anvil as he was drowning in a river. Thanks...for nothing. Kerry was a good man..you saw to it in your blind hatred and revenge to deal the man out of the game... Thanks for ruining a great candidate!

[blm]

93. What a load of hogwash. The day this country ever discusses years of coverups

THEN you can blame the anti-corruption, open government crowd for that remarkable occurrence. But, I doubt the power elite who own most broadcast media will ever allow that to happen.

Until then, enjoy your quite successful coverup wing of the Democratic Party. I know it's the easy route, but I have no stomach for that level of treason.

I'll stay on the side of the anti-corruption, open government Democrats.

[Tellurian]

94. Thats about all you've ever done is promote HOGWASH by innuendo..

in complete disregard for your candidate Kerry's presidential aspirations.

I'm hoping he doesn't sue you for ruining his chances by your repeating unproven facts to the detriment of his candidacy.. Trashing the Clintons, O Bama.. etc.. all via 3rd party information.

I'm sure if John Kerry thought the timing was right for any prosecutions, he's smart enough to make the case himself. But why think of him as the expert? When you never saw a soap box you didn't like!

Thanks for your hospitality on the Kerry sites.. not!

[blm]

95. Parry and Webb are NEWSMEN. You are a Clinton fan/apologist. Move on.

You have no credibility on matters of corruption and open government. Neither does Bill Clinton, where in his OWN WORDS he says he COULD have pursued some of the matters but chose to let Poppy Bush have a 'peaceful retirement' for all his service to this country.

YOU and Bill can enjoy that decision - it's a perk of all that secrecy and privilege that historians will be writing about someday.

You can yuk it up with some of the 9-11 families who are well aware that 9-11 happened because of events and matters that Clinton chose to move away from when he took office.

I loathe the secrecy and privilege wing of the Democratic party.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[blm]

97. I'd say there are at least 3 other candidates' supporters who would disagree with your

smear against me.

And I don't recant a word I ever said about a great, honest man like John Kerry. And the historic record points to the truth of his work.

[Tellurian]

98. Here are 72 posters who disagree with your Machiavellian tactics

and they are the tip of the iceberg:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3081321#3081865

Don't flatter yourself with being smeared.. Smears apply to innocent people. You do not qualify!

You've been called out many times for the Lies and Smears against other Democratic Candidates.

[blm]

114. I never lied about or smeared ANY Dem candidate. You think truth IS a smear.

You also insisted I was a Green anarchist. YOU are the one who attacks people FALSELY and smesars them just because we wanted the books opened on BushInc for many years and noticed that Bill Clinton wouldn't do it.

Now, why do you have so much trouble with that OBVIOUS FACT? Do you want to pretend Cl;inton did everything he could? OK....tshow us all how Clinton cleaned up all the outstanding matters he inherited - show us his actions, because many of us missed it - give us information.

Then answer: How is it that many of the criminals from Bush1 were able to get back into power in 2001 after Clinton dealt with their misdeeds when he took office?

You HAVE no answer. Clinton didn't lift a finger to expose their misdeeds, but lent BushInc one helluva hand in covering up - the 1996 CIA drugrunning case proved that definitively.

[wisteria]

100. LOL, you give us way to much credit. Don't quite get the idea that

we are so influential. We just supported and continue to support a good man and one that would of made an excellent president in 2004 or for that matter anytime if he ever choose to run again.

[Tellurian]

103. If the shoe fits...negativity never won a race..

and an improvement, you admit who you are and the intent of your destructive agenda.

[wisteria]

99. Obviously, you never listened or read anything Senator Kerry ever said or wrote.

Look, you want to talk substance and honesty. You want to talk integrity and honor. You want to talk passion for this country and real policies, Kerry offers these. Senator Clinton is nothing but a manufactured primped and rehearsed shell of a person. Her record in the Senate lacks anything of substance and it was kept that way on purpose. This run of hers has been in the works for years.
Come back and offer me comparisons to Senator Kerry when you can offer up a candidate that really is a leader with the record and idea kerry offers to back up the shell.

Senator Clinton is the epitome of ambition and nothing much else. She is the wrong candidate for his country at this time. We need fresh ideas and leadership, not a continuation of the previous Clinton White House or the Bush White House either.
Hey, the Clinton's had there time in the limelight. It is time for them to move along now.

[Tellurian]

102. Kerry is not in the race..

You and your misguided leader made sure of that!

Try taking responsibility for the conversion of not a single poster to Kerry's campaign.
After all, you went in with all of us voting for him in the last election.

Basically, you people behave like a woman scorned. If we can't have HIM...then no one will, have a Dem candidate to assail the Republican hold on the country. You will try to work diligently as you have with Senator Kerry to denigrate and degrade the strongest Democratic candidate to survive the campaign process.. Notice, I said, TRY!

[AtomicKitten]

73. the fact that

you and other Kerry supporters would rate for greatest page a (hypothetical) thread entitled, "Kerry Clears His Throat" at the same time posting prolifically anti-HRC rhetoric (and having pledged within a select group elsewhere on these message boards your intention to sabotage her candidacy) regardless of the thread being unfocused and virtually substance-free doesn't lend much credence to your declaration here, but I'm certain the OP appreciates your efforts in a kindred spirit sort of way, my disappointment with that revelation notwithstanding.

[wisteria]

101. nonsense, but now that you mentioned it, he does clear his throat in a unique and

Presidential way.

Now, Clinton gets bashed for being Clinton. She purposely stabbed Kerry in the back to prove her worth and has consistently not taking leadership rolls. The criticisms directed toward her in many cases is warranted. In many cases, the criticism of kerry was not. For instance, that stupid skull and bones baloney. Or how about him not really wanting to win.

[AtomicKitten]

104. hmmmm

What's nonsense? That you folks vote to the Greatest Page the most insipid of Kerry rah-rah threads or that you post vile recriminations about HRC on a regular basis?

In your own words:

Hell will freeze over before I will ever vote for Hillary!

She has no integrety or class ... She is a lousy unloyal POS.

Screw her. This women does not deserve to be president.

I despise her, loath her and hope she rots in hell.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2920815#top

[fuzzyball]

45. Hillary rocks!!! Cant wait to hear "madam president"

[Generator]

54. She married her ticket to the white house

and now "deserves" it for putting up with years of infedility. She's the pity candidate. I know that's ironic considering how tough she it. But I have heard FOR YEARS that her ambitions were to be president. When she was running for senate-the unspoken thought behind it all was exactly that, you owe me Bill, first the senate, then the presidency. I never thought she would acutally run because I thought she realized there were things more important than one's own ambitions. (see John Kerry) Especially during the nightmare years. (Bush/Cheney) She's throwing away a powerful senate seat for her own ambitions. Putting herself first. Because she suffered for years. If she really wants to do something for people, why not stay in the senate and at least ride that to fruition and actually accomplish something? It's all prelude to a presidency.

I suppose you could say the same for Edwards but he didn't marry his way into the white house and expect it as his due. The EXPECTATION and the arrogance of that have me really pissed at her.

[paulk]

62. You can't just dismiss her years in the White House

as "publicity". They are part of her political record, along with her years as a governor's wife. It's accepted knowledge that Hillary's role in decision making was far above that of other first ladies, and that has to be included as part of the reason for her front runner status.

Many people are assuming that her views on domestic and foreign policy are basically those of the '92 - 2000 Clinton administration. If that is not an accurate assessment, then she has two years to change the public's perception.

[wisteria]

65. I disagree, I think her front runner status is based on her husband and

his power within the party and out to influence the electorate. I personally never afforded her any credit for working along side President Clinton.

[paulk]

70. it's true that some of her status comes from her husband

but not all.

I doubt very much that, say, Nancy Reagan or Barbara Bush, if they had decided to get into politics, would have enjoyed the status that HRC does solely based on their husband's tenure in the White House.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

72. agree

hype, advertising, and name recognition..

[election_2004]

82. Nita Lowey probably would have run for Moynihan's U.S. Senate seat....

...had the NY Dem power brokers not "cleared the field" in Hillary Clinton's favor so she could run for the U.S. Senate, as a way to pad her resumee for the presidency in 2008.

Make no mistake: this is a snow job on the American people that has been eight years in the making!

[Auntie Bush]

84. How about Clark?

Great meaningful photo.

[welshTerrier2]

86. Clark

i have enormous respect for General Clark and many of his knowledgeable and articulate DU supporters ... but i strongly disagree with Clark when he calls for the continued occupation of Iraq regardless of the other excellent components of his Middle East strategy ...

for an excellent discussion between myself and one of DU's most articulate Clark supporters, check out this link ...

[kimsterdemster]

89. It' the war stupid...

just watch the rerun of the march, like she said no do-over's.


bush, clinton, bush, clinton, to me THAT SAYS no do-over's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Count]

106. Actually her record is mixed. She did some good for my state - after 9.11

for one. I will not say she was ineffective in the senate.
Unfortunatelly, her IWR vote overwhelms all the good she did - so, in the end, you're right - we can easily do better.

[Clarkie1]

107. In answer to your questions: no, no, no, and....no. nt

[welshTerrier2]

108. ya know ...

you start a thread, ask a bunch of questions, and people talk about all sort of things but they often would rather attack the questions (or the questioner) than answer them ...

so, thanks, Clarkie1 ... asked and answered!!

[AtomicKitten]

109. that's what happens when you ask a series of broad -

bordering on rhetorical - questions as a springboard to launch what you really wanted to say - punctuated by the windsock - that you think she has no substance - which becomes red meat, just as you knew it would, for yet another anti-HRC thread.

I do believe you've officially gotten the hang of it. Mozel Tov!

[Bryn]

110. I'd support Hillary

n/t

[populistdriven]

115. she backed big business interests with her healthcare reform - that is why it failed