The leftwing "Stop Hillary" Movement has become what the GOP was in 1998

[wyldwolf]

From the often painfully inaccurate and DLC-itis infected OpEd News:

Her enabling of the Iraq war disaster, and her subsequent refusal to apologize for it, has by far been the left's biggest gripe the presidential candidate, and understandably so. ... Her role in enabling this painfully misguided war is a stain on her record, and on this country.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_michael__070227_the_other_reason_to_.htm

I'm starting to detect a sexual thrill from these wild-ass accusers.
Do you think this Corcoran guy is typing with one hand?

Ask yourself how stupid it would sound to say,

Cleland's enabling of the Iraq war disaster,
Biden's enabling of the Iraq war disaster,
Harken's enabling of the Iraq war disaster,
Kerry's enabling of the Iraq war disaster,
Schumers enabling of the Iraq war disaster,

You see? It's no fun to hold Cleland or Harken responsible for BUSH's disaster. But the freshman senator from New York, SHE's responsible for BUSH's disaster all on her own. It was HER vote that killed 3200 soldiers and Cleland, Kerry and Edwards had NOTHING to do with it.

Yep, we're clearing dealing with sex on some level.

If this Corcoran guy isn't playing with himself, maybe he just hates women? What else drives a man crazy and makes him ooze hate with every word?

But her view on Iraq, however unforgivable, only represents part of the reason why progressives should oppose a Clinton candidacy with vigor. And even if she were to get down on her knees and beg us to accept her apology to authorize Bush to go to war, it would be a huge mistake to support her...

Fine, so why do you BEG for that apology each and every day?

Yep, we're clearly dealing with sex on some level. For some reason, Democrats can't say, "I prefer Edwards or Obama." No, that won't do - that would take a measure of adulthood.

This fever reminds me of the GOP's impeachment fever back in 1998. Bill's impeachment was like a rape.

NOTHING was going to stop that impeachment because they had the fever. The GOP was "caught up" with impeachment fever - that's all they could see or hear. Bill's approval rating was in the 70s - and voters clearly didn't want him to be impeached, but like the rapist who can't stop until he climaxes, it was GOING to happen.

Hell, the GOP lost seats in November of 1998 - but that didn't matter to them. NOTHING was going to stop that impeachment because they had the fever. They lived and breathed impeachment the way some people are now living and breathing "Stop her!"

If you, the reader, like another candidate better than Hillary, vote for him or her. But when you get the fever the way this Corcoran guy's got it, that tells me something.

And you, "I'll vote Republican before I'll vote for Her," Democrats need to worry because your "Stop her!" fever is turning you into what the GOP was in 1998.

- - - - By Bartcop


http://www.bartcop.com/

[johncoby2]

1. Amen Brother!

[Miss Chybil]

2. K & R nt

[rinsd]

3. Wow.

[havocmom]

4. ah, no. Some of us just want a better candidate

who does not polarize voters to the extent that Senator Clinton does.

[catnhatnh]

6. Bingo...

the last REAL Democratic President was Mr. Carter, who was hosed by the crooked dealings of St. Ronnie and the cabal.....Both Clintons are way too corporate for my vote....

[jobycom]

9. You won't find one

Anybody who emerges as a serious threat will polarize voters. Edwards, Clark, Biden, Kucinich--pick your own. The moment they become the front runner, they will be portrayed as divisive, an enabler to some group, whatever.

You may find a candidate you like better, or who will do a better job--I haven't decided who I like, yet, and I've got as many issues with Clinton as with any other candidate--but you won't find a candidate who does not polarize voters to the extent that Senator Clinton does. The Right Wing, and unfortunately the Left Wing, will be sure of that.

[Vincardog]

19. Well I will take a candidate who is less corporate friendly and who does not unify the right as Hill

[jobycom]

36. YOu won't find one who will win, then.

But go for it.

[FiveGoodMen]

53. Hillary won't win.

[jobycom]

56. Yes she will.

We can do this all day.

[LiberalUprising]

62. So are you saying

the Dems are the same as the Repubs, one just as beholding to corporate as the other?

Then why vote for either?

[jobycom]

72. I'm saying

that a candidate LESS corporate friendly than Hillary won't win. She's a long way from being equal to the Republicans in corporate friendliness.

I'm also saying that any candidate you find who is capable of winning is going to be shredded like Hillary has been, and any candidate who is not attacked like that won't have the stature to win. No one is bothering to attack Kucinich, they are going after Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.

[JNelson6563]

27. You overlook a difference

There is no other on that list that there has been a serious hate-campaign waged against in the reich-wing media for 12+ years. When it comes to the power of polaraization Hillary is the queen. Hell she's even polarized our own party.

Julie

[jobycom]

48. No other person has been in position to be attacked for 12 years.

Hillary has faced these attacks the longest only because she's been there and successful the longest. They did it to Kerry in a much shorter time period, they'll do it to whomever we run.

Not saying Hillary has to be or should be the candidate, I'm just saying that the opinion that she is polarizing and that another candidate would therefore be better gravely underestimates the Republican ability to smear, slander, and lie. These people made Gore look like a liar and Kerry like an opportunistic poser. They'll tear down anyone. NONE of our candidates will look any better come election time. We have to prepare for that.

And remember, the Republicans since Gingrich in 96 have made it their goal to destroy our candidates from within as well as without, so half of what we hear about how "conservative" our candidates are come from them, too. Hillary's "support of the war," for instance, or John Edwards' house, or Al Gore's electric bill. These were all started to split our side over our own candidates. They'll do that to whomever you think is above those attacks.

[JNelson6563]

58. Yes, all will be attacked

but none like Hillary.

Julie

[Tellurian]

63. None are better equipped to fight back..

better than Hillary!

[JNelson6563]

69. I hope to see evidence of that soon!

What a refreshing change that would be! :toast:

Peace,
Julie

[jobycom]

75. She's still standing

How has she not fought back? She's won two senate races and is polling as high as anyone (with variations amongst polls, obviously) in the presidential race so far. That's pretty good for someone who has faced 12 years of constant attacks.

I'm not saying she's our best candidate-- I haven't decided who I will support yet. I'm just saying that arguments which start "She can't win because she's so polarizing" don't understand the Republican strategy, and are ignoring the obvious. She HAS won even though she is so polarizing. Of all the candidates, she's the only one who has shown she CAN handle the attacks and win. Maybe the others can, maybe they can't, but she's proven it.

[JNelson6563]

95. Isn't New York blue?

Let's keep some perspective....it's not like she swooped in and turned a red state blue or anything. If she'd have chosen Texas or a similar state to adopt and run in and gone on to win, well then I'd be jumping on this bandwagon you are tirelessly dragging about the board.

BTW, I don't say "Hillary can't win because she is so polarizing", my assertion is that her as our candidate will make the race harder and closer.

Julie

FYI this is my last kick to this silly thread.

[jobycom]

97. Pataki, Guiliani... New York wasn't a given.

And watch the personal attacks. The only bandwagon I've seen on DU is the "Bash Hillary" bandwagon. I'm not supporting her, I'm opposing mindless Freeper-esque and Freeper-inspired bashing. I'd do the same thing for any other candidate being swiftboated. It's my way of fighting the Republicans. Who do you think you are fighting for?

[Tellurian]

80. Yes, Julie..

If only the Left, Liberals and Progressives could see clearly how involved this fight really is..

Peace! :toast:

[jobycom]

66. You missed what I said, then, and you are gravely underestimating the Republicans.

Anyone we run will be attacked just as fiercely as Hillary. The only difference is that she's faced that slander machine and won two elections AFTER facing it. So we know she can stand up to it. We don't know yet whether the others can.

[havocmom]

30. Don't know about your theory, considering how hard EVERYBODY in power

and media worked to misrepresent Howard Dean and force him out of the running.

And we need to leave DEM Senators IN THE SENATE. Run somebody besides a senator. They are too easy to beat up by taking their voting record out of context. They have to spend too much time trying to straighten THAT out to get any real clear agenda offered.

[jobycom]

52. Well, if you believe that about Howard Dean

then you see what I'm saying. They will do that to anyone we run.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

47. Whoever runs, the slime machine will be used to polarize and demonize

The GOP will tell two lies or sets of lies, the socially acceptable lie(s), like "Kerry is a flip-flopper" and the under the table, vile lie(s), like the Kerry being some kind of traitor, when he has a chestfull of medals.

During the campaign, the GOP candidate's official campaign will tell the acceptable lie.

Third parties tied to the GOP will tell the lies that are too vile and nasty for the candidate to tell. There won't be a word of protest from the GOP candidate regarding the lies, but he won't be directly involved either.

That's just how these scuzballs operate. Truth be damned, it's all about getting, holding and abusing power.

[jobycom]

55. And then there are the email campaigns

and the whisper campaigns, and the facts that everyone "just knows" about our candidate without knowing how they know it. When W ran against Ann Richards in Texas, everyone "just heard" that Ann Richards and Sarah Weddington were lesbian lovers. That tied homophobia to anti-abortion zeal. Everyone in the South "just knew" that Al Gore was planning a bill to take away everyone's guns. Everyone in Texas "just knew" that senatorial candidate Ron Kirk was going to legalize "gay marriage."

These stories start at churches and clubs, where a couple of well-placed comments from RNC operatives--often invited to speak at a function--make the listeners feel they've heard some secret truths not everyone is privy to. "The media is afraid to tell you this," they say. Soon "everyone knows."

The worst thing in a case like that is an unknown candidate, because people have no other info to put in place of the slander. With better known candidates it gets harder to slander them.

[BoneDaddy]

84. How can you possibly say that

Clinton is less devisive than ANY other candidate the Democrats are producing. If that is not Bush-speak (denial of the obvious) I do not know what is. This is what bothers me about the pro-Hillary crowd. They blatantly ignore the fact that a very large percentage of the Democratic constituency cannot stomach her, yet they have some incredible loyalty to a person who simply does not deserve it.

[jobycom]

96. I don't know what you read, but what I said was:

"You won't find a candidate who does not polarize voters to the extent that Senator Clinton does. The Right Wing, and unfortunately the Left Wing, will be sure of that."

Exactly how you arrived at me saying Clinton is "less divisive," I can't say. The rest of my point was clearly spelled out, so I won't rehash it.

As for "a very large percentage of the Democratic constituency" not being able to "stomach" her, that's clearly NOT what the polls say. She's one of the front-runners in the polls, and has been since the polls have started including her.

[skipos]

10. Yup.

She has the best name recognition of the bunch, but still gets thumped by Dame Rudy and Weathervane McCain in blue states like NJ and PA (and in national polls too).

I don't like much of her voting record. I don't like many of her stances. I don't think she would be as good as a President as some of our other Dem candidates. Why should I support her?

[Tellurian]

71. Puuuuuleeze. Hung up about the Iraq vote, are ya?

You should be concerned who is best prepared to fight the RW off to get into the White House.
Have you forgotten, they have stolen two elections from us? Remember, Gore and Kerry?

[Learn2Swim]

73. is it your job

to tell people what their opinions are? You like Hillary, we get it. Unfortunately for you, many of us don't and won't.

And yes. The Iraq clusterfuck is, in fact, a part of her voting record. A shining example of what type of leadership we could expect.

[Tellurian]

76. No, you don't get it..

If she had voted NO...It wouldn't have stopped Bush from going to War!!!

Get it! She was never even close to being the deciding vote!

[Learn2Swim]

79. no,

I'm afriad it is you that doesn't get it. She voted yes. No iffs. Every vote matters on every issue. Especially when it involves the sacrifice of American soldiers in what was a stupid war to begin with.

It most definitely matters to many of us.

[Tellurian]

82. Let me tell you something..

before the year is out, you're going to see Obama fold his tent.
The man has enough character to realize, he is vastly ill equipped to fight the VRW..

and he will eventually support Hillary!

[Learn2Swim]

86. lol

wow. We'll see.

[Tellurian]

91. Food for thought..nm

[Learn2Swim]

40. exactly..

and some of us just want someone(anyone) else.

Time for new leadership, time for change. Change involving someone other than someone who enabled the current catastrofuck in the ME.

And won't admit HER mistake. Her vote. Her mistake.

[havocmom]

42. Hey, there Learn2Swim, welcome to DU?

:hi:

[job777]

51. Shazaam

You hit the nail right on the head. great job.

[Tellurian]

65. You had your wish with Kerry..

just goes to show you how shallow your judgment was in underestimating the opposition!

[havocmom]

68. LOL Kerry won.

My judgement is fine, thank you very much.

[Tellurian]

78. You're judgment is flawed..

You're supposed to be well informed on the veracity, no holds barred, get into the WH, VRW..

Study up! Obama can't make it! Hillary can!

[jobycom]

5. Yep. K&R.

[neuvocat]

7. "enabling" is the correct word for it.

Just like any abusive relationship, the abuse of the country will continue as long it is tolerated and/or rationalized ad nauseam. Just to paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt here, no one can walk all over you without your permission.

[jobycom]

11. I'm confused

Are you saying that about Clinton or the Clinton bashers?

[Dr Fate]

85. What if I "bash" Clinton only in areas where she agreed with Bush?

Does that make me a Clinton basher, a Bush basher, or a Bush/Clinton basher? ;)

[jobycom]

98. That's not bashing, that's legite criticism

:)

Bashing is when facts are ignored and a feeding frenzy ensues. You've been around here a while, Dr., you remember when we went through this with Gore, and Kerry.

[Why Syzygy]

8. Are any of those named

running for president? Nope. She is. Big difference. I do not see this as sexist at all.
Red Herring alert.

[wyldwolf]

12. yes.

[jobycom]

67. Biden and Edwards aren't running? When did they drop out?

[SoFlaJet]

13. Ever consider...

that maybe a LOT of us democrats don't like her for no other reason than we just don't like her? I don't know what it is about her but she kinda makes my skin crawl-her voice is like fingernails on a blackboard to this loyal-with no-agenda-democrat...I yhave received no memos or take-action alerts from anyone about Mrs. Clinton from anybody,I just won't vote for her.

[caledesi]

61. Amen! Her voice...for starters. nt

[Norquist Nemesis]

14. I'm not sure about the sex angle, but I have to agree on the methods

She seems to have as many from the Left side of the spectrum attacking her as she does from the opposition. It's not enough to say "Edwards/Obama/Richardson/fill-in-your choice has the best ideas on handling this. He says..." And the ummm...problem I see with the approach of keeping it solely on the attack against a candidate (Hillary or otherwise), is that it misses an opportunity to promote and educate others about the candidate of your choice. :shrug:

[Breeze54]

15. Baloney!

She's the front runner for the Democratic presidential election.

What did you expect? A pass for her IWR vote?

She will be held accountable, as have many others!

Why do you support dynasties in the USA? :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

18. was that a reference to the clenis?

[Tellurian]

16. Meanwhile, Hillary is EXPOSING the VRW - again!

Clinton: Vast right-wing conspiracy is back

Cites anti-voter actions, phone jamming and intimidating phone calls

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

Kevin Glackmeyer / AP

Presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., has resurrected her claim of a 'vast, right-wing conspiracy'.


WASHINGTON - The "vast, right-wing conspiracy" is back, presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is warning, using a phrase she once coined to describe partisan plotting.

Once derided for her use of the phrase, Clinton is now trying to turn the imagery to her advantage.

Speaking Tuesday to Democratic municipal officials, the New York senator used the term to hammer Republicans on election irregularities.


She also used the phrase similarly during a campaign appearance over the weekend in New Hampshire.

Conspiracy alive and well.

Clinton was first lady when she famously charged allegations of an affair between her then-president husband Bill Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky were the result of a conservative conspiracy.

As evidence of the affair eventually came to light, the comment was ridiculed. But many Democrats have since insisted that Clinton was correct, pointing to the well-documented efforts by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife to fund a network of anti-Clinton investigations.

On Tuesday, she asserted the conspiracy is alive and well, and cited as proof the Election Day 2002 case of phone jamming in New Hampshire, a case in which two Republican operatives pleaded guilty to criminal charges, and a third was convicted.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17593375/

...much more at link...scroll down..

[JNelson6563]

25. Sadly she thinks it begins and ends with Clintons

This became evident to me with her IWR vote. She seems to think her hubby sparked the VRWC movement and it's continued for her sake.

It's not to conquer the Clintons Hillary, sorry to break the news that there is actually something more important, it's to take over the frickin' world.

Talk about clueless! Dare I even add "self-absorbed"??

Julie

[Tellurian]

49. Well, who in the world do you think is capable of stopping them

They have already taken over the world..duh! They fear Hillary in the WH because they know the jig is up. And she is the only one they fear!

[zulchzulu]

17. Let's not discuss the obvious issues that would be brought up in the race

Put on your blinders. Put duct tape over your ears...and mouth. Don't discuss these issues because, frankly it makes Jiminy Le Turncoat Carville upset. And we wouldn't want that. What else would he share with his wife?

Just call people that question Senator Clinton's candidacy "Hillary Haters", "Freeper Helpers" or the "Left Wing Stop Hillary Movement". Yeah, I get it now....

[Tellurian]

21. Your obsession is duly noted..

you and a few of your counterparts would prefer to see our country go down in flames, then to just SHUT IT and move on!

Hillary is going to be the First (female) President. Get used to hearing the words, Madam President!

[Breeze54]

22. So is yours!

[zulchzulu]

26. I know you're kidding...

Work for your candidate. I'll work for mine.

:hi:

[Tellurian]

74. I know zulchie..

you can be a sweetheart, when you wanna be.. but you're such a kidder! :hi:

[Norquist Nemesis]

24. Well, here's a suggestion

Let's hear more about who you're supporting and why. :shrug:

[zulchzulu]

29. Here's a start...

www.barackobama.com

Look around. See if you disagree with any of his issues. Besides agreeing with Senator Obama on 95% of all issues, I also think he would be a better candidate to run against the Republicans...and even with Nader and/or Hagel in the mix.

I respect Senator Clinton on many issues and have some great problems with other issues. I'm open to debate without being called a "Hillary Hater" or whatever ad hominum nonsense that's thrown at me.

[Norquist Nemesis]

34. And there you go!

Nicely done. :) :) :)

Obama's my Senator, so I can safely say I'm pretty well acquainted. I still am looking at everyone in the field. *sigh* Primaries seems like eons away. *sigh*

[Tellurian]

87. We like Obama..his likability is not a bone of contention..

Can he Win the White House IS!

Remember the senator from Massachusetts? And the former VP, Al Gore?
They both won the elections but couldn't hold on to the WIN because the VRW snatched it away!

Do you think for a moment Hill and Bill are going to let them get away with that BS again? After all they've been through with the PNAC NeoCons.. ha! It will be a cold day in hell before they let them get away with another theft!

You can take that to the Bank, dear-heart!

[zulchzulu]

115. Funny you mentioned Kerry...

Perhaps you know about (as written on ppgs 343-346 in "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward) James Carville, otherwise more accurately termed Jiminy Le Turncoat Carville, and how he whispered Kerry campaign secrets on Election night to his lovely wife...who then alerted the Bush/Cheney campaign who then alerted Blackwell in Ohio...who then changed the provisional ballot numbers fron a very winnable 250,000 to 180,000... of course, Carville is on Senator Clinton's payroll and has not addressed what Woodward documented.

So actually, as many believe, Kerry DID win in 2004...but it sure wasn't people like Carville who were willing to be actual Democrats.

As much as you might believe that Senator Clinton can mobilize Democrats to vote for her in 2008 if she is the nominee, you certainly have to look at just how mobilizing it would be for the "Right" to mobilize against her...and especially her and the former President Clinton.

She'll make a fantastic Sec. of Health/ Human Services in the Obama administration.

:D

[havocmom]

20. Branding us as such is sorta like bushco saying anit-war protesters

are helping terrorists, hate the troops, hate America and all that crap.

Borrow GOP ploys to use against those of us who happen to believe we can do better than a polarizing candidate while saying WE are adopting GOP tactics... Don't know whether to laugh or cry!

Crap. Pure crap.

[madfloridian]

23. Could it be...

because of her remarks that there were others to vote for if we did not like her stance about her Iraq vote? That she dismissed so many of us as unimportant when she made her statement about that?

Could be. Could it be she knows our votes don't really matter anyway, and that those of us who were honest and sincere and fearful about this war are not important to her?

We are laughed at here and called names here by her supporters. It happens every day here now. We are called names by many in our party now. In fact it is the new meme...the new talking points that the Democrat party is being run by the fringe lunatics...or as Obey called us "idiot liberals."

Could it be because we are looked down because we don't think our soldiers should be left in Iraq for more to die, and that they should not have been there in the first place?

It is not all about Hillary, you know. It is about dying soldiers, dying Iraqis. About those of us who were put down by her because we were against the war.

That said, right now I am a Democrat who is not sure about 08. Perhaps those who push her cause here would do well to quit name calling and insults in her name.

[wyldwolf]

28. I doubt it

The Hate Hillary Obsession was going on way before then.

"We" are laughed at here and called names here by her supporters... "we" are called names by many in our party now... Perhaps those who push her cause here would do well to quit name calling and insults in her name.

As I have pointed out to you many times - it was the leftwing of the party who started the name calling, and do it on DU by a huge disproportionate amount. It appears "we" can dish it out but can't take it.

[madfloridian]

31. Prove it.

Prove who started it...quotes, everything. You never back up what you say, you just say things and never back it up. Prove it.

The people who support Edwards here are kind people. I don't see them attacking anyone. I don't see Obama's supporters calling names.

Perhaps some of you need to look in the mirror and contemplate.

[wyldwolf]

35. Again? Everytime you ask me that, I do, then you never reappear...

Look, I know you've only been involved in politics since 2003, but surely you've heard of the attacks Jesses Jackson leveled at centrists and DLC members back in the 80s... ya know... what sparked this whole thing?

[madfloridian]

39. I am quite aware of them. You are talking down to me again.

You act as though all of us are clueless.

My dear wyldwolf...guess who was right about the war. We were...the so-called fringe. We were right, the centrists were wrong.

They were either drawn in by lies, or they went along. We were right, they were wrong....

I may have just become activist in 2003, but I was far more right and honest than the Democrats who voted for the war.

[wyldwolf]

43. IRAQnophobia - the condition where one will divert a discussion to the Iraq war...

...very much like the rightwing's Clintonpenisphobia.

I mean, we were discussing "name calling" and who did it first and most, right?

[Dr Fate]

94. Perfect point- the DLC was 100% wrong on Iraq- anti-war Moderates & Liberals were 100% right.

And the DLC still joined the GOP/media in calling us "wackos" and such.

It's a point that the DLCers would love to talk over, around or forget completely...

And yet they wonder why no one trusts their judgement on these things...

[wyldwolf]

105. but... again... irrelevant to what was being discussed. Dinner table conversations must be a hoot..

... at the Dr. Fate and Madfloridian households...

"I don't like this chicken... it's a little dry..."

"Well at least the chicken wasn't for the Iraq war!!!"

[madfloridian]

107. You are getting desperate....calling out two of us now.

But it's ok. After I was called traitor the other day, and the person got away with it...I realized the battle was on.

One called me traitor, you chimed in with simplistic.

But we were right, Hillary and others were wrong. That is the bottom line, that is history.

Making fun of us for being right is going to be disastrous for the party, I fear.

[wyldwolf]

109. two of you are in the conversation... and trying to divert from it.

[zulchzulu]

60. So does the "leftwing of the party " equal "Hillary Haters"?

Are there any other candidates running for President in 2008? It sure seems like that's not the case, even though the primary/caucus season is about 300 days away...

The "leftwing of the party"... gimme a friggin' break. Do you mean the "base"?

People who might support Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich or Richardson are nuttin' but the "leftwing of the party"...

[Dr Fate]

90. Plenty of plain old Moderates like myself dont care for her either.

See, to a DLCer, anyone who wasnt 100% wrong on Iraq and not idiot enough to trust Bush and support the war like they did is "far left."

It's funny how both Rush Limbaugh as well as the DLC call anyone who doesnt trust Bush "crazy" or "far left."

[Czolgosz]

32. On the one hand, I will support Hillary if she's the nominee despite the fact that

she's not on of my top five choices. I have personally taken issue with the "I'll vote Repub/Nader before I'll vote Hillary" nonsense.

On the other hand, I think it misses the point to characterize the "stop Hillary" movement as "left wing." There are people on the left of the Democratic Party, on the right of the Democratic Party, and in the center of the Democratic Party who are not sanguine about about Hillary's candidacy.

Likewise, I don't think it is fully accurate to equate Max Cleland's support for the war with Hillary's. Hillary has done a bit more cheer-leading than Cleland, Harkin, or Kerry, for example. It was Hillary, and not Cleland, who said, "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price." It was Hillary, and not Harkin, who said, "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." It was Hillary, and not Kerry, who said, "There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I’ve followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming... I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way part of this decision."

I agree with your rejection of the "Repubs before Hillary" nonsense, but you set your own argument back by characterizing those who prefer another candidate over Hillary as a vast left-wing conspiracy which acts with the moral fecklessness of the Repubs.

[SOS]

33. The leftwing "Stop Hillary" movement...a short chapter history

A blogger named Michael Corcoran posts an article on his blog:
http://michaelcorcoran.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html
Article is unread and receives zero comments.

Article is reposted at opednews.com, where it receives 37 comments.

Bartcop now comments on the original blog article...

"sexual thrill"
"wild-ass accusers"
"typing with one hand?"
"we're clearing dealing with sex"
"like a rape"
"like the rapist who can't stop"
"he just hates women"
"ooze(s) hate with every word"
"crazy"

Reading the original blog article and the Bartcop response, it is self-evident who's "crazy", and it isn't Michael Corcoran.

[philly_bob]

41. Bartcop's OP was "over the top," embarassing, too much.

Everybody should be allowed to post, and I've seen some good Bartcop stuff in the past. But Bartcop, on this one, please adjust your rhetoric more towards tolerance of different opinions.

[lojasmo]

37. Yawn...How did things work out with your last DLC drone?

Oh yeah....Bush is president.

You looking forward to a Guilianni white house, Wyldewolf?

[wyldwolf]

46. how did things work out for ANY leftwing drone?

[Dr Fate]

88. Pretty well- the public knows they were 100% right on the war.

And the public also knows that Bush and his supporters were 100% wrong on the war- including the "Conservative" Democrats.

[wyldwolf]

99. Completely irrelevant to the conversation. The topic was presidential candidates

[Dr Fate]

100. Most people find the Iraq War pretty relevant as to the topic of Prez. candidates.

Some candidates were 100% right on Iraq, some were 100% wrong like the DLC and Bush was.

[wyldwolf]

103. but not in context of past successful presidential candidates, which is the topic

[Dr Fate]

108. It wasnt the 1st time, and it wont be the last time the DLC was 100% wrong about something important

Sorry, I'm relating all this to current events as well- forgive me If that seems like changing the subject of this thread to you.

[wyldwolf]

110. in your opinion. But it is factual a DLC candidate has "won" the last 4 presidential elections IF..

....we are to agree that 2000 was definitely stolen and 2004 probably was.

When was the last time a leftwing candidate won a presidential election? Answer: Never.

[Dr Fate]

117. The DLC was 100% wrong on Iraq- the Liberal & Moderate anti-war people were 100% right on Iraq.

That is not an opinion- unless you all still swallow all the WMD or "Saddam caused 9/11" crap like you did before.

And I never said we need a Leftwing candidate- I like Obama, Gore, Clark- even Edwards.

Are they "Leftwing" compared to Hillary?

[LittleClarkie]

101. Yeah, I'd say that was pretty successful

Fate 1
Wyld 0

[wyldwolf]

106. but the discussion is on the success of presidential candidates...

Hey, but I can enter irrelevant point into the conversation, too.

Titanic is the #1 movie of all time!

Wyldwolf 1
Dr. Fate 0

[Radical Activist]

112. Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote.

Deal with it.

[wyldwolf]

114. but he won the electoral college both times, and all evidence says Perot was no factor. ha ha!

Deal with it.

[Dr Fate]

113. Only to a Hillary or Lieberman supporter could THE IRAQ WAR be an "irrelevant" topic.

But I can see why they would rather talk about the DLC's past of 10-15 years ago as opposed what is happening now.

[wyldwolf]

116. of past presidential elections, the war only figures into one. So, irrelevant to the discussion

[Dr Fate]

118. So Hillary should just talk about past elections instead of Iraq- good plan.

;)

[Radical Activist]

102. Johnson and FDR did great.

Its time to stop holding ourselves hostage over what happened over 20 years ago. The political climate has changed since the 80's. The DLC is still responding to Dukakis and Mondale losses but that's yesterday's paradigm.

[wyldwolf]

104. both elected as moderates.

"radical activists" deplored both.

[Radical Activist]

111. oh bullshit

Yes, radicals didn't like either one but calling LBJ and FDR moderates is complete horseshit. LBJ campaigned on the great society program. FDR campaign on the New Deal. There was nothing moderate about either one getting elected. Are you even serious? Maybe you're only joking around.

And yes, Clinton was elected as a populist progressive in '92. Universal Health Care, and raising taxes on the wealthy while cutting them for the poor are progressive stances.

[xultar]

38. Call it for what is is!!! AMEN!

[dflprincess]

44. I'll say it about Biden and I'll hang the bankruptcy bill around his neck as well

And, I had problems with Kerry in 2004.

I wasn't aware that Kerry, Cleland, Harken, or Schumer were running for president this time around. If any of them decide to jump in, I'll say the same about them - especially if they were to try and run that "I was misled" crap past us as an excuse.

[Lone_Wolf]

45. There are a few reason I don't like her...

As a former supporter of hers, it took me about 6 years to come to the point where I wouldn't support her. My main reasons are:

1. It is apparent that she is pandering to those with money like Rupert Murdoch. Her close corporate ties make me uneasy.
2. Her vote on the Iraq war
3. As a NY'er, it is apparent to me that a good part of her motivation of becoming one of our Senators wasn't to help NY out. It was done for the Clinton's to consolidate political for her 2008 Presidential run. I am fed up with political dynasties that seek to perpetuate themselves instead of the people they claim to "serve."

4. To date, she has not done much for NY let alone fulfilled her campaign promises. She will tell people what they want to hear, but that is about it.
5. When she was campaigning in NY for her first Senate run, I went to go so her speak in Hornell. As a supporter, I was able to see her speak. Sign carrying non-supporters were turned away by the Secret Service. I value free speech and the right to protest. It is wrong when Bush does it, and it is wrong when one of our own does it.
6. Her refusal to debate Jonathon Tasini in the 2006 Primaries.

If I had to put in in a nutshell, her actions tell me she is a believer in top-down democracy instead of democracy from the bottom-up. She is an Elitist who will continue with status quo neo-lib policies.

[PATRICK]

50. If it were only the one meme

like the one remark by Sen. Allen, it does not merit this Morality discussion from whoever has the highest horse or is the biggest a$$. if that was simply to tag her for the crusher in the dump it would be to ignore the whole entwined reality for which the war vote and "trusting of Powell" was only symbolic.

But ALL of the ideological and pragmatic or progressive debate aside on the issues, this distracts from the even larger reality. That EVERY group has a particular symbolic beef with Hillary that sticks, has been made to stick and will suppress the vote, the progressivism of the party and hope itself along with a margin needed for the people to gain majority rule in this nation. She could be innocent of anything and right and upright in all her thoughts and actions and still not be the ideal candidate in this time of crisis to get us the most with the best. To single out one issue- with one group the MSM MUST continue to try to marginalize- is to distract from other groups and larger realities. So clear are the oppositions that sharing wildly different memes seems the only uniting force behind her campaign. Her consolation is that she thinks she has no where to go from there but up- and that is not unreasonable, just a rather grim scenario for a resurgent NEW party.

The MSM continues to ignore the hatred for her it helped create as it disingenuously notes her appeal to long denied women voters. A broad but shallow and limited appeal because of her image destruction by the same media now sanctimoniously marginalizing her "critics".

I will be charitable, respectful, sympathetic. I will shed a tear if she bows out even if she remains stoic. I will be angry that the lies, not the truth put her down. But either on the issue of governance probabilities or vote getting she falls crucially short. That was not true of Kerry who had at least not been a main prime target until he actually secured the primaries. Had she run in 2004 she would have been beaten badly in the primaries or general election. This time he has good reason to believe she can at least squeak through both- without changing her liabilities at all. But that would not be best for nation or party and the party general electorate knows it, whether it rallies behind someone else or not.

We have not the choice between "evils" but imperfect candidates- real humans and decent servants all told. But then we have to take on evil and we know what it is like for the good to be beaten and robbed(and vice versa). Thanks to the frontloading of the primaries who knows? Hero worship or denigration of OUR candidates is not the wisest frame at all.

[endarkenment]

54. I missing the part where if I oppose candidate x I hate candidate x.

Other than that you have simply reposted a ridiculous rant, a rant we have heard in various forms over and over again.

I oppose senator clinton on the issues. My like or dislike for her as a person has little to do with it.

Why not try telling us why we should support your candidate of choice, rather than attempting to portray all opposition to your candidate as wrong headed?

[jobycom]

64. I'm missing the part where the OP said what you said it said.

It said there was a "stop Hillary" movement as aggressive as the anti-Clinton movement in the 90s. It didn't say that everyone who didn't support Hillary was part of it. Opposing her on the issues is one thing. It's pointing out the lies and misinformation of those who are claiming she "enabled" the war, that she's been a Bush supporter, and all that. There are many people who have specific complaints about Hillary, and even some of them know the facts instead of the Swiftboating rumors. That's not what the OP is talking about.

[SaveElmer]

57. Hear, hear...I have always contended...and have seen nothing

To make me think otherwise....in style and method the far left and far right are two sides of the same coin...

[smoogatz]

59. What a crock.

Edwards, Kerry et al DID enable the current disaster, just as Hillary did. They ARE responsible, just as she is, and all the mea culpas in the world won't change that. Everyone who voted for this mess demonstrated a tragic lapse in judgment, at best. Obviously. If Bartcop doesn't hear people saying that, he's got some pretty selective listening going on. Would I vote Republican before I'd vote for Hillary? Of course not, and I don't know a single progressive who would. But if Hillary winds the nom (and I don't think she will) I would certainly wish for and work towards a nominating process that was more responsive to the will of the electorate and less driven by money, money, money.

[ecstatic]

70. I know Clinton or Obama, if elected, would be ripped to shreds daily

By all sides. They won't get the same passes that white men get. I don't like Clinton's IWR vote but dammit she was not alone in that vote.

[Learn2Swim]

77. perhaps...

but she made herself alone on the vote, by not admitting her obvious mistake, then by misplacing blame. Gotta love those headstrong types that won't admit mistakes and that point fingers, don't you? Reminds me of, shrub.

[Dr Fate]

81. So we are saying that Hillary always opposed the war, and fought Bush on it the whole way?

Er- no, that is not what anyone is saying-at least not anyone who posseses a decent memory and the ability to be honest..

If Hillary was against the invasion, then why didnt she say "I am against this invasion" or "we shouldnt go over there" or "this is a mistake" before we went over there? Why not? Because she supported it.

Hillary supported the war up until just a few months ago. It's a fact.

[Learn2Swim]

83. Indeed sir

[Forkboy]

89. Waaaaaaaaaaah

[vssmith]

92. I do not want anyone who voted for the IWR to be President

Anyone who thought Bush was not going to use the authority to go to war is naive. The way things are we certainly don't need a naive president.

[Dr Fate]

93. She knew Bush was going to war after that vote- just like every American watching knew.

DLCers want you to beleive that everyone in the entire U.S. of A. knew that the yes or no vote was about going to war-everyone except poor old Hillary, of course- who was "fooled" by Bush the "slick" used car salesman into saying "yes" instead of "no"...

[mvd]

119. Locking

Please do not use negative, broad brush characterizations.

mvd
DU Moderator