Why are we doing the GOPig's work for them?

[bluescribbler]

Could we please lay off bashing Democrats for a while? Since we know that Freepers troll this site, why do we need to give them more ammunition that they will be able to dig up by themselves?

For the record, I have yet to decide which candidate to support in 2008. I'm really keeping my options open. That said, I really don't think Sen. Clinton will be the best candidate for the Democrats, and some of today's threads only confirm this for me. For some reason, and I'm not quite sure why that is, she seems to bring out the worst in everyone. And I mean on both sides of the aisle. I've heard Rethugs call her a Marxist, a Stalinist, and mush worse. And now, on this site, I see threads where she is described as a Republican in Democrat's clothing. She can't possibly be both. I have said in the past that Senator Clinton will be the best fundraiser the GOPIgs ever had. Let's not make their jobs easier, please? Pretty please? Pretty please with sugar on top?:grouphug:

[John Q. Citizen]

1. If I say that Hillary is a war monger, how will that help the Repos who are saying she's

soft on defense?

What I'm saying isn't a Repo talking point, nor will it ever be.

What bugs me about Hillary, is she uses Repo talking points against Dems.

[Matariki]

14. to be fair, don't you have to call Edwards a 'war monger' too?

he also vote for the IWR.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. The difference between Edwards and Hillary, is that Hillary is still a strong

supporter of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. She just thinks bush handled it poorly, but she isn't opposed to the action in the slightest from a moral point of view or even from a national security point of view.

I believe Edwards is opposed to the whole thing at this point. Which is also why he apologised for his vote.

[Warpy]

2. I think the difference between criticism and bashing needs

to be explored in this forum.

"Hillary Clinton has fat ankles" is bashing.

"Hillary Clinton's continuing support of the Iraq war debacle is troubling, as is her mainly conservative economic stance on too many important issues," is criticism.

Thanks.

[RufusTFirefly]

11. What Warpy said

If we don't scrutinize the policies and practices of those running under the Democratic banner at this stage of the game, we wind up deferring to the narrative and spin of the MSM, which needless to say may not have our interest at heart.

A good candidate should be able to withstand withering criticism. Better sooner than later. And yes, as Warpy points out, that's quite different from bashing. We're not talking attack ads, after all. We're dealing with genuine concerns about problematic policies and practices.

Before Bill Clinton delivered an important policy address, he always compelled his aides to relentlessly probe his text for any weaknesses. He realized it was good to be aware of potential weaknesses sooner rather than later so he could adjust accordingly. The Dim Son, in contrast, surrounds himself with sycophants. I'd say the Big Dawg's approach is best. Let's thoroughly scrutinize each potential Democratic presidential candidate asap, not to attack him or her, but to make that candidate stronger for what will inevitably prove to be a brutal general election.

[Horse with no Name]

3. Personally if a candidate that I like is a pond sucking scumbag

I'd like to know about it before I donate time or money to their campaign.
This is the best place to learn and sometimes the truth is ugly.

[Toucano]

4. As long as it's real sugar and not high fructose corn syrup, then yes.

You make a good point.

[bluescribbler]

9. I don't do high fructose corn syrup

Nor do I do trans fats, decaf, light beer or skim milk.

[Toucano]

20. What time is brunch?

I'll be right over. :hi:

[Democrat 4 Ever]

5. Thank you for saying it. I've been reading DU all weekend and

there are countless threads knocking Hillary, Kerry, Obama, you name a candidate and I bet you will a thread complaining how so and so isn't pure enough for someone's vote. There are at least 50 threads declaring that Hillary can't win. I'll will make a decision on who I will vote for sometime in the future (right now I'm leaning Clark or Edwards or Richardson - two of which haven't even declared - see a problem here?). In the meantime I refuse to complain, knock or criticize anyone in the Democratic party that is willing to take on a thankless job trying to clear up Chucklenuts and The Cabal's mess.

The repugs can always count of the Dems to form a circle and start firing. I've said before and I'll say every dang chance I get between now and election day November 2008 - ANYBODY is better than a repug candidate. A.N.Y.B.O.D.Y!

[illinoisprogressive]

6. This is why they say she is polarizing. she iriatates.

she brings out the worst in people. when that happens i cannot see that person being good for the country. I think she really irriates people. ON both sides. I think a person should inspire or make people feel good about the candidate.
I, myself, like alot of the dem candidates except for Hillary who does bring out the pms in me.

[davidwparker]

10. from Illinois. Obama. That's all I'm saying.

she brings out the worst in people. when that happens i cannot see that person being good for the country. I think she really irriates people. ON both sides. I think a person should inspire or make people feel good about the candidate. I, myself, like alot of the dem candidates except for Hillary who does bring out the pms in me.

[Matariki]

17. I have to think that if someone like Nancy Pelosi had been in Clinton's position

married to the president, but bucking the typical role of First Lady - well she would also 'irritate' people now. Because she would have been the target of as much smearing as Hillary Clinton has been. I have yet to see you post ONE valid reason for not liking her other than your 'feelings' about her. She "irritates"? What sort of reason is that, apart from emotional?

Frankly I think Hillary Clinton has done a lot to further the acceptance of strong women in public positions - and she had to put a hell of a lot of crap to achieve that.

And I'm very sorry to the OP for bringing this crap to a thread where the topic was about NOT fighting over primary candidates. I haven't decided yet who I'll vote for and I feel that it's my OBLIGATION to look into all the candidates voting records, public statements, major endorsements, and campaign contributers before I make that decision. Not pick the person who's looks I like.

[Vexatious Ape]

7. Maybe we can start hammering

the msm, with both emails and phone calls, into doing stories on candidates other than Hillary and Obama. I know I will.

[davidwparker]

8. On this site, it's people supporting their personal preference for the

nominee and stomping on the other ones.

"For some reason, and I'm not quite sure why that is, she seems to bring out the worst in everyone." This is getting cliché.

There have been some things about Hillary that Hillary-supporters today have posted that showed I was wrong. Like you, I've not made up my mind. Whoever gets the nomination, I'm supporting.

Having fresh faces is more appealing to me than anything. Having the best candidate is the best approach, however. I'd rather see Hillary, with her NAFTA-signing husband, back in the WH than McCain especially or any republicon.

I want a Dem to win who will not sweep under the rug what * has done. The best way to keep the republicons out of office for the next several cycles is to expose what * and the republicons have done for the past 6 years. I wish the Dem leadership will embrace that idea.

[bluescribbler]

12. I agree

In Massachusetts we just elected out first Democratic Governor in 16 years. I had a chance to meet with two of the Democratic candidates before the primary. Most of the other questioners were asking about their own pet issues. You know, stuff like, "Do you support gay marriage?", "Should hookers have the right to unionize?, stuff like that."

When my turn came, I asked both men the same question. "I believe you are a good Democrat. I believe you would be a good Governor. But for the last four elections, we've nominated good Democrats who would have been good Governors. But they all had one problem. They couldn't get elected. for me, that's the bottom line. What makes you think you're different?"

I liked Deval Patrick's answer better, and I'm proud to have supported him.

[Greyhound]

13. and that is exactly the point. She will not expose the crimes of the last

six years mainly because they are extensions of the crimes committed during the previous eight, which were made possible by the crimes of the preceding twelve, which were only possible because of the...

You see the problem? We need to face the fact that we have been duped by the ruling class into focusing on the inconsequential and the extraordinary while shackling ourselves to their yoke. This is not our country, it is theirs and we are simply the engine which drives it where they want it to go, and when they are through with us they will discard us (although the us will most likely be your children). Blind obedience and/or the selection of the evil of two lessers is not going to bring the change that is needed.

Ask yourself this, is this what I want? Is this right? If your answer is no then you need to look beyond the false choices presented to you and think of an alternative.

[UCLA Dem]

15. I agree and I think we're totally missing the point.

This Party is making history. Our major candidates are a man of color and a woman!!

Its incredible. I don't see any other candidates who have the fire that they do.

Maybe instead of pulling down or candidates we need to not be so afraid of change.



Obama is an amazingly talented statesman who has garnered more respect in the Senate and around the country than most politicians can hope for in their entire careers. Whatever "it" is, this guy's got "it." Imagine him debating McCain (who looks like are mole on steroids) or Giulinai (who has more skeletons in his closet than a graveyard)! Think Nixon/Kennedy!!

Clinton has done more in American politics than any woman in history. She has worked in 2 branches of Government and is a highly popular senator. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton is not a war monger! George Bush is a war monger. Dick Cheney is a war monger. Karl Rove is a war monger! How can you put her in the same category as them!?!?


No other candidates have this buzz. This is historic. Take it in people.

[Matariki]

18. Very well said.

all the democratic candidates have merit. we should be proud.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Not a warmonger? Try this.

Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Clinton (D-NY), Yea