Must get off my chest -- I'm very PO'd that Hiliary Inc. is running

[Armstead]

Sorry, but I must get this out of my system.

I was hoping against hope that Hilary would focus on being the best Senator she can be -- which could be a great Senator. I was hoping she would accept that as her destiny, instead of assuming she's entitled to be president because of who she is married to.

I hate -- hate -- the idea that the DLC/Democratic Elite/Media/Corporate Power structure is gong to foist her on us as the 08 nominee.

She represents the WORST of what the Democratic Party has become in the last 20 years. That is, a merger with the same power structire that runs the Republican Party and Corporate America.

Republicans are, at least, honest about who they are. They are conservatives who believe business should run America and the world. I don't like that, don't sgree with them -- but that's their philosophy and they're not bullshitters about that.

In order to balance that, America needs a Democratic Party that stands for the LIBERAL POPULIST PROGRESSIVE alternative. Contrary to the current conventional wisdom, that doesn't have to be a left-wing loony or raging socialist. Just someone who is in the TRUE center of the political spectrum, NOT the center of the corporate-conservative spectrum.

But thanks to the Clinton/DLC/Beltway/Corporate crowd, that alternative has become an endangered species. They have taken over the Democratic Party, and thus defused it as a force to represent THE PEOPLE. They have marginalized those who remain in the best Democratic LIBERAL POPULIST tradition, and forced progressives to be in opposition to their own party.

They are devious. They get away with it because on select narrow issues, they manage to be "liberal" enough to appear to be the "left" alternative to the right wing. But on the real issues of MONEY and POWER they are just like Republicans. They waffle and throw out a few phrases to sound "centrist" and mildly liberal but there's no beef there -- except corporate pork.

THAT is what Hilary represents. The Oligarchs are her constituency. If elected, she will not fight the Corporate Powers. She will spend her sumnmers in Martha's Vineyard with them.

I hope to God some other viable candidate emerges who will carry the torch for a return to Traditional Liberal Populism.

I fear, however, that fed by the money from the Corporate Tit, lining up the smug Beltway Insiders and the Media Presstitues, that Hilary Inc. will once again create a presidential election that is not a choice but an echo, yet again.

I hope I'm wrong. But it will be very depressing if 08 turns out to be another "Hold your nose" non-contest.

[CatWoman]

1. I'm going to pick up lunch

I'm responding to make it easier to see if this thread will still be here when I get back :)

[Rosemary2205]

33. You crack me up!

not just this post but quite a few. I love your sense of humor! :)

[CatWoman]

63. awwwwwww

thanks, Rosemary :hi:

[itsmesgd]

2. I agree completely but you better watch out

The Hill-hounds will be after you in a bit. I have encountered posts sayting that I shoudl leave if she wins the democratic nom and I don't support her. Here's a post from me from this AM that says a lot about our shared worries regarding Hillary.


Hillary Clinton partnered with Rupert Murdoch
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3069320&mesg_id=3069320

[jollyreaper2112]

5. I agree

If it's a choice between her and any other Puke, I'll take her. Hell, if it was Toenail Fungus (D) vs. any other Puke, I'd pick the fungus. But that doesn't mean the fungus would be a good choice and Hillary isn't, either. She's part of the Carville crowd. I can't stand that alien-faced bastard. Dean was the man with the plan for 2006 and that bastard is trying to cut him off at the knees for it. DLC = Vichy Dems. Give us some real dems for a change.

[itsmesgd]

19. we need to let everyone know that we're not going to hold our noses again

It doesnt look like the "hold your nose vote" worked too well for us so far.
I'm not going to hold my nose and vote again. Also, I am not going to hold my nose and volunteer, make get out the vote calls, or display signs of nose-holding support.

oops I've got to go watch the news, we've had another deadly day in Iraq. How are the dems doing with their stopping the surge? Oh wait, we've already surged.

[diane in sf]

202. I agree with you eom

[TahitiNut]

20. Here... passing the popcorn in the "amen corner."

:popcorn:

[Blue_In_AK]

79. Thanks, TahitiNut

I'll take some of that popcorn. :)

[Armstead]

135. Popcorn and politics go together like....

Ah well, I have my popcorn-proof suit on.

[cool user name]

177. I wrote this in another thread (forgot which) but it's safe to say that I agree:

If Clinton gets elected, most of the population will revert back to apathy and complacence. She'll enact her third way, DLC type policies further widening the gap between rich and poor, further exploiting labor of poor under developed nations that do not have the leverage to tell her to fuck off. She'll continue this while the right continues to villify her as a "liberal" while we are stuck between both corporate parties taking jabs at each other so as to deflect our attention away from real issues.

The time now is ripe for a new genuine position, a transformation in the way people think about our government, about what it can do to help us - not continue to bend us over and have us say "thank you." It is now that a true progressive can tell this nation the truth about their circumstances instead of reverting to the same old ways pre-Bush.

You may want to elect the same representative from the corporate wing of the party that will further entrench themselves so as to make the few richer - and throw us bones in order to placate us. I, myself, have had enough.

If she's nominated and/or elected, progressive causes will be relegated to the fringe of the party once again or will have to setup shop outside the Democratic caucus where we will remain on virtual ignore by the ruling elite/media.

Fuck that.

Clinton makes me puke. She should be called for what she is, a corporate sponsored candidate (the sweetheart, if you will). She voted for war with Iraq not because she thought they had WMDs or posed an imminent threat, but because she knew where the money was at, she knew that that was the best political thing to do, not the right thing to do.

Clinton is in it for herself. Fuck her and her little "chat with America." She had her chance, she failed. Time to elect a genuine progressive to lead us out of this hell hole.

[brg5001]

221. The Hillarities are having trouble colonizing DU

The Hillarites have already shown their hand -- TRIANGULATE by calling us bashers for pointing out the facts about her support for Bushco's policies in Iraq, then accuse us of breaking up the party and hurting her chances (as if she has any to begin with).

This may be the most important election in modern history. "Where were you when MSM, Faux News, and Buscho's minions were ginning up support for this invasion and occupation?" That's the key question. It is not acceptable to say that "we were all victims of Bush's lies". Because the truth was out there and being spoken by academics, war historians, in The Nation, Mother Jones, even The Washington Post.

A candidate will emerge who will appeal to half the Republicans, most of the Independents, and the vast majority of Democrats. It won't be Hillary.

[Bridget Burke]

230. As you pointed out in your thread....

That was locked as flame bait.

[brg5001]

231. Message heard: Don't criticize Hillary or her fervent supporters

I get the picture: I have obviously come way too close to the truth. I will not be silenced and neither will other members on this or any other issue. But that's the Hillary way: A nice controlled "conversation" in which she pretends to listen to a selected group of participants.

My other thread was indeed closed as flamebait. I'm sorry that so many complained rather than actually read the post. Pretty soon, threads like THIS one in which you've addressed me will be closed up as well. Then you won't have a place to state your opinion, either, unless it's been watered-down sufficiently. That's unfortunate, but that's the way it seems to be going.

I'm sick of the fawning over Hillary and the absurd indignation over anyone who dares to criticize her association with Bushco in perpetrating this conflict. I don't stick my finger in the air to determine how to post. If I violated any rules of the board, I'm sorry. The post was heartfelt and not sarcastic.

I'm flaming the war, and Hillary's been on the wrong side. The people with shattered jaws and parts of their brains blown out can't express their outrage. I can and will. If that's flamebait, you'll have to deal with it.

[Warpy]

3. She's running and Obama has been neutered

and the prospect of having working people turned of by another corporatist, screw the suckers who work for a living campaign is making me queasy.

It's making me queasy because if the party fucks up again, you all know we'll be saying "President Brownback" or worse.

[Armstead]

6. Or President Romney

A Clinton-Romney contest would be a Battle of the Corporate Titans, with the rest of America placed on the sidelines.

[hang a left]

12. A republic will not win the presidency in 08

But a DINO certainly will.

Just when I thought we might have some hope.

[Imagevision]

61. nah-nah-nah- Edwards or/and Obama will have no probs dealing with ole lady Clinton...

Fresh talent yessiree bob! - Hillary reminds me of McCain in Drag...

[here_is_to_hope]

65. Ouch! n/t

[MADem]

121. Wow, that's just...so...MATURE.... of you!!!!

What a commentary: nah-nah-nah- Edwards or/and Obama will have no probs dealing with ole lady Clinton... Fresh talent yessiree bob! - Hillary reminds me of McCain in Drag...

"Ole lady Clinton"

"McCain in drag"

Way to go, there--you've offended women, the elderly and transgendered people, all in a single post!!!

Pat yourself on the back, you've hit the trifecta!!!!!!

[Beam Me Up]

203. Just FYI, "Drag" does not translate as "transgendered"

"Drag" is cross dressing, usually (but not exclusively) men (gay or straight) wearing women's clothing. Had you said, "the elderly and cross dressing people," I would have not commented.

[MADem]

225. You're right

I'm terminologically impaired. I did figure out that people were being insulted, just categorized one group improperly!

[psychopomp]

209. Ah true!

Here is to fresh talent!

[Le Taz Hot]

213. "Ole lady Clinton?"

Look, I'm a long-time detractor of Hillary Clinton but tell me, sweet cheeks, when do women become "ole ladies?"

[Vincardog]

129. This is why we have to get paper ballots and random audits passed NOW

Then the real Democratic voters can have their votes counted and we can kick the DLC and Vichy Dems out of our party. They can join hands with the NeoConvicts and GTFO of our government. Or at lest sign up with the Corporatist and leave our party to work for the people and environment.

[MissWaverly]

154. there's a lot about the Bush/Clinton clique I don't understand

Bill is positively glued to Poppy Bush and that is not a good sign, I get a feeling that
Hillary will come in with a bushel of pardons for the underserving.

[Morgana LaFey]

162. I've wondered if The Carlyle Group has anything to do with that?

Lures or promises or... ?

[MissWaverly]

175. I don't know but it makes me uneasy

Clinton, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, said that despite their “many disagreements about many, many issues,” she has always had a good personal relationship with the president.

“He's been very willing to talk. He's been affable. He's been good company,” said Clinton, D-N.Y.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060509-1758-hillaryclinton-bush.html

[Morgana LaFey]

188. Oh, barf

There are millions of people in the U.S. who can't even watch or listen to him -- LITERALLY. It's not a choice not to watch him, it's a visceral and instinctive turning away from him. I'm one of them. And during my lurking days I was fascinated with the periodic comment or whole discussion of this phenomenon. I have concluded that this is because he' s a sociopath and what's happening is an inner guidance system trying to protect us from sheer evil.

How the hell does a supposedly savvy individual like Senator Clinton (or ANYone, for that matter) not have a similar reaction to him? Or at least SOME visceral negative reaction to him? I don't get it.

[MissWaverly]

222. Although the Office of the Presidency deserves respect

I feel that Congress is a watchdog of the people, they are supposed to provide oversight,
although she may have felt obligated for federal money after 9-11, her job was not to
suck up, what about the EPA saying the air was safe when it wasn't, what about things
donated to 9-11 victims that were taken by the contractor supposed to collect and resold
out of state, tell me - don't you feel she's a little too cozy with Team Bush?

[Just-plain-Kathy]

194. Oh boy, this conversation is making me dizzy...

...it looks like America is going nowhere fast. :(

[MADem]

223. No WAY. NO way whatsover. Presidents do their own pardoning.

Clinton and Marc Rich, for example. Poppy and Cap Weinberger. And they save them until the VERY end, the juicy ones, anyway, because the citizenry will have their asses if they get all imperial and crony-ish with their pardoning powers.

And pardons don't cross party lines, even when the players switch out (Ford and Nixon).

For Hillary to pull a Ford and pardon the Monkey would assure her a single term. And that's assuming that she IS the anointed candidate (which so many here seem to fear--I think she's a strong contender because of name recognition, but then again, so was Ed Muskie...and most people here will say "Who?" but that's a fact).

IF any pardoning needs to happen with BushCo, I see it going like Nizon-Ford. Bush pardons Cheney of everything and anything (and he CAN, he can pardon anyone for anything, it's like being a little king), then he resigns to escape any charges (assuming some are developed) and Cheney pardons him.

Quid pro quo--it's a BushCo favorite.

[crispini]

4. Okay. So instead of waiting for some other candidate to emerge,

I hope you're planning on picking your fave, contributing to them, perhaps doing some phonebanking, and planning a trip to Iowa / NH / Nevada / SC early next year? 'Cause, s'helpmeGawd, we had better plan on putting our backs into this one. She will be tough to beat. I hope over the next few months our support on the netroots starts to coalesce around a viable alternative grassroots candidate. Otherwise, there will be a fractured, divided field, and Hillary will do very well.

[Armstead]

13. I hope we can beat her back

It's possible if we all do our part, I'll agree with you on that.

But any Anti-Hillary candidate will be up against formidable opposition.

[halobeam]

52. Do you think Clark would win over her?

I do.

[adigal]

59. I think Clark or Gore might

Especially if they are all debating against her, and she is the only candidate who has not repudiated her Iraq War vote.

[Armstead]

136. If her were to get the right mix of backing he could

[ikojo]

174. I'll work for Kucinich as I did in 2004

If more people were serious about voting for a REAL populist, one who always walk the talk, then Dennis would be taken seriously as a candidate. No, even some progressive types are tied to the "I can't vote for him because he can't win" attitude, so he doesn't win primaries.


Go DENNIS!! Thank you for running!

[FredStembottom]

199. Thanks, Crispini! I think you've got it, there.

An early coalescing around a true grassroots candidate. That is what is needed. I agree with everything in the OP and I think millions of others do, too.

But now that She is in, we need to conduct ourselves like the emergency that this is.

We must make our choice much sooner than we might have wanted - and stick to that candidate with unwavering commitment.

:patriot:

And P.S. That man in your avatar works just fine for me!!!!!!!

[Dhalgren]

I hear you. I am not sure what my reaction will be if '08 turns out to

be a Hillary or nothing strong-arm fest. We have to pull this country out of its downward spiral and going the DLC route is not the way...

[blm]

7. The BFEE needs protection from the few trusted Democrats in their circle as well

as their trusted GOPs.

That is how they are able to SURVIVE and GROW. Replace the aggressive fascists with a kinder, gentler face when necessary.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[youthere]

8. Oh boy...

:popcorn:

[Demeter]

9. Look At It This Way....The Sooner She Declares, The Sooner She's Out

of the picture. I'm with you. Hillary hasn't got what it takes to be a successful, good-for-the-country President. She should aim for Senate Majority Leader, and then the Supreme Court, where she can split hairs to her heart's content while triangulating all over Corporate America.

[Lerkfish]

43. Oh, I think she's qualified, but I dont' think she's the best choice we have

and I especially do NOT want to have to be forced to have a DLC candidate or one that the media or republican pundits tell me is my candidate.

I do not want to choose ANYONE who does not have the best chance to win, because this next one is crucial.

I think Clinton supporters here and elsewhere are blinding themselves to the last midterm elections. And after this administration, I don't want ANYBODY that intentionally ignores the will of the people, be they democratic or not.

[TZ]

58. I agree

I hate to say this, but she gets attention because she is "different"- a woman. So as much as I am a feminist, I wouldn't vote for a woman just because she is a woman. Just like Obama is "black".
The right tends to crucify the different whatever their qualities while the left makes them into saints and makes them seem much more qualified than they might actually be. I am not saying either Hillary or Obama are wrong candidates because they are different but that doesn't make them more qualified either. (I actually think Obama may be the more electable of the two. He doesn't have Hillary's baggage)

[adigal]

60. You know, you're right. She would enjoy

being in the supreme court - she seems to have the patience and the brains and the temperment for it.

Maybe Gore/Clark can bribe her to get out of the race. :) With that as a carrot.

[hedgehog]

10. I agree with you whole heartedly.

Watch out for the invective to follow, though. I think many admire Hillary because they see her as the type of person they want to be; she represents a generation of women who fought to find a place in "male" professions and she is a bobo. That's not to be nasty, it's just to suggest why some people love her while others are irritated by her.




bobo (BOH.boh) n. A person who combines affluence and a successful career with a preference for countercultural ideas and artifacts.


Example Citation:
"Bobos talk like hippies but walk like yuppies, decrying materialism while indulging in all manner of luxuries."
—Victoria Loe Hicks, "Vision of the future," The Dallas Morning News, March 19, 2001


Notes:
This word is a blend of the phrase bourgeois bohemian, which has been in the language for a long time, although it has usually been wielded as a mild insult. The shortened form is the invention of journalist David Brooks, who described this species in a more positive (although still often comical) light in his book Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There (Simon & Schuster, May 2000). Brooks also used the term in an April 3, 2000 Newsweek article titled, "Why Bobos Rule."

This book received a decent amount of press when it was published, so I wondered if bobo would find a place in the lexicon and, if it did, how long it would take. So I went in search of articles that use bobo but don't mention either Brooks or his book. Well, I can report that bobo certainly has found a cozy little linguistic nook to curl up in because I easily found dozens of citations that use the word without reference to its origins. Surprisingly, the first ones began even before the book was published (the citation below is almost certainly a reference to Brooks' Newsweek article):



"Costanoa staffer Jeff Brown says a name has been coined for those who like to be outdoors but in luxurious surroundings. 'I read about them the other day. They are called "bobos," which stands for bourgeois bohemians. At first I didn't like the term because it sounded like clowns, but I know exactly the type. They have bohemian-style environmental tendencies but also successful careers.'"
—Jennifer Wolcott, "Luxury camping doesn't have to be an oxymoron," The Christian Science Monitor, April 25, 2000

[truedelphi]

125. In California especially in Bay Area

BoBo stands for the Bolinas area, or for those who live there.

Bolinas, a wayward, hard to find little place north of Stinson Beach and in some ways the last remaining vestige of the 1960's

[Morgana LaFey]

165. I think "cultural creatives" is more apt nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

210. BoBos sicken me. There is nothing creative about their self-serving, priggish communities

Of aging, embittered ex-hippies who repudiated progressive politics as the "politics of youth" and evicted all the artists and working class people from their well-groomed college towns only to turn around and offer their old pot-smoking buddies $100,000 contracts to vandalize their newly-constucted condominium housing for the rich with monstrous, derivative postmodern "public art walks" in communities with no culture and no history, whose residents pay immigrant nannies to keep their children from ever going outdoors lest they contract asthma from the SUVs planted with OBX stickers. I live in one of these places. You have no idea.

The Bobo community where I grew up is rife with Democratic Party operatives and wealthy professionals with $600,000 houses. One of these ex-radical types censured a local official for defending homeless people who were being attacked by police dogs, because in an effort to help the homeless people, the local official had worn a wire for the "hated" FBI, an organization that prominent local yuppies had hid from in the 60s before they became successful professionals. THE FBI had conducted a sting operation on the local cops for attacking the homeless, and the "ultra-liberals" censured this honest local official for assisting the FBI.

Creeps and assholes, many of whom followed the Mike Doonesbury model and went straight from being vanguardist leftists to neocons -- or at best, neoliberals who oppose Bush's actions only so long as it makes them feel superior.

[Clevenger]

11. I agree with you about Hillary...

...Frankly, I think her lust for power and money know no bounds. I hate to think it, but I get the feeling that she looks upon Bush's outrages against the Constitution as helpful hints.

[sufrommich]

139. ALL politic ions are drawn to power and ALL

chase the money needed to get them where they want to go.She's ambitious and trying to appeal to the largest majority of Democrats that she can.It's what all serious contenders will do.She won't get there by appealing only to the left,nor will anyone else.To say that she looks to Bush for"helpful hints" is over the top.She's no more boldly ambitious than anyone else running.She is being measured with a different yardstick because of her gender,whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.

[Ellen Forradalom]

14. The opening language gives me the willies

"....... I was hoping she would accept that as her destiny, instead of assuming she's entitled to be president because of who she is married to......."

To accept something as her destiny is a dubious honor traditionally reserved for women. And from where do you draw the idea of 'entitlement' and that that entitlement is because of her spouse? Should she have no ambitions of her own?

[Armstead]

168. She's welcome to her ambitions

But if she weren't Bill's wife, she,d merely be one of many ambitious women in the world.

She is no more entitled by her own achievements than anyone else. There are numerous women in the Senate and House and governorships who are equally or more qualified, but they don't get touted as an automatic nominee.

And "destiny" may have been the wrong word, I'll admit. But it certainly had nothing to do with gender.

[MADem]

224. She probably would have gone political much sooner. She wasn't just a private practice lawyer

She was on the Nixon impeachment staff, as an attorney, working for Pete Rodino. That was a LONG time ago. Who knows how her political career might have progressed had she not willingly taken the back seat to the one with the obvious charisma in the partnership???

[AndyA]

15. If Hillary wins the nomination, I will vote for her. Same for Barack.

I just hope the Democratic Party doesn't get sliced and diced like it's been run through a Veg-O-Matic. If they start snipping at each other, it's all over. We need to focus on the big picture: we must have a candidate who can beat the GOP.

And you know the GOP is going to relish our Dem candidates doing their dirty work for them. I hope Dean can rein in these candidates, and have them focus on the issues: Iraq, GOP fiscal irresponsibility, the lies, the corruption, the cronyism, lack of health care, high prescription costs, the Bush Energy Policy that led to high gas prices and huge oil company profits, the spying, the violation of laws, abuses against the Constitution, etc.

There are a lot of issues that voters understand, and if delivered properly, will impact the vote in 2008. But if the Dems start attacking each other, and allow the real issues to slide under the table, it's all over and we're looking at more abuse from the GOP after the election.

[Armstead]

23. You are correct but.....

That's the problem. All of those issues youi mentioned get buried -- or else turned into vanilla pudding -- in the DLC/Hilary style of politics.

IMO, a Paul Wellstone/Tom Harkin/Ted Kennedy/Bernie Sanders type of message is what we need to push this time around. In the hands of a good candidate, that would resonate in a winnable way, IMO.

[bonito]

16. This is the truth

And it won't matter to the neocons whether she wins or loses although the republican ticket will win in 08.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

17. I agree completely.

IMO, she is a politician in the worst sense of the word. She does not lead but is instead reactive. And I don't trust her to do the right thing when the chips are down.

In 2008 I will vote for a Democrat for Presdient -- it just will not be Hillary if she is the candidate.

[Morgana LaFey]

186. Reactive. Good word. I frankly think her whole annoucement fits

that characterization. Either that or "copycat." And I resent it, on two counts.

Seems she and her advisors learned the Howard Dean lesson very, very well, but superficially. She's got all the trappings, all the language. Someone told the press that they were getting 100 people a minute to sign up on their website. ALL the trappings. She and her advisors learned everything but authenticity.

I remember some weeks back when Joe Trippi was on Hardball, I think, and was asked something like what's it going to take to get elected and his answer was: authenticity.

So I came away from her announcement somewhat uncomfortable, for some vague reasons beyond the fact that I don't like her DLC self. And what became clearer and clearer as I thought about it was the attempt to merely manipulate us all again.

I don't think it will work. I HOPE Trippi is right because dear God could we use some old fashioned honesty and authenticity in the White House.

I believe we're about to find out the internet's hidden strength in Hillary's candidacy: if she continues trying to merely manipulate via her sparkling new internet tools, she's doomed, and that will be because you can't fool the (collective) netroots.

We'll see, won't we? In the meantime, color me turned off.

[OrwellwasRight]

205. Don't you know that the most "authentic" candidate is the one with the most

Money?

:sarcasm:

[emulatorloo]

18. Let 'em all run if they want to.

The more the merrier. We will see how Sen Clinton does in the debates.

[brg5001]

218. Exactly! Dems don't have a coronation process and never will.

Unlike the Repubs, we don't need to have a coronation. What we need is spirited, vigorous, active gutsy debate. People worry too much about "tearing each other to shreds". Have some faith in the voters this time! Let's see how Hillary actually performs during the debates, when she is questioned about her transparent weasel words and flip-flopping.

One thing's for sure -- she'g got a whole lotta 'splainin' to do. My feeling is that she is a servant of the military-industrial complex and a first-class PHONY. She also has the charm of a gnat.

Common sense says that you don't win by convincing Republicans that you're an extreme "leftist" while pissing off your liberal base by equivocating (or even supporting Bushco) on the most important issue of our time -- IRAQ. Hillary is an obstacle. Give us a candidate who showed bravery and leadership on Iraq and continues to speak the truth -- that there is no military solution. Hillary has done neither.

[JacksonWest]

21. Did you really think she wouldn't run?

She can probably pull it off to. Oh well. I think Gore could beat her. Let's see what he does.

[Clevenger]

26. I agree. Gore would crush her at the polls. n/t

[Armstead]

27. I was hoping she's recognize her real gifts

Hilary has the makings of a great legislator. I was hoping that instead of following the Peter Principle, she would actually be able to set her ego aside and recognize that she's better on a team than as a leadeer.

[JacksonWest]

35. No. She could actually win the Presidency, so she will run.

It doesn't matter if you can be a better legislator(which I'm not sure I agree with). She has the mechanisms and positioning to be the next President. Most candidates can't say that. But Hilary, in terms of experience-she's there. She knows the games, knows the players, and she could pull it off.

It would be a bland victory-but it would be better then anything else out there. I think Hilary will slam Obama for being inexperienced(run some ads showing Bush's face, with a tag line(Our last inexperienced President-or Our last inexperienced in Foreign Policy President).
Dennis Kucinich will not be nominated-sorry-. Richardson is interesting, but he's not a "name" at this point, and he would be fighting to get the same money that Hilary already has. Edwards couldn't carry his own state in the last election- I don't think he's going to pull off anything in the primary. He a champion for the poor and under privileged-it's a shame they don't vote. So, if Gore runs, He'll get the Howard Dean team behind him, and me, and we could have a real primary. I think that Hilary might win....but you never know. Obama will be a fun x factor. He'll stay positive the whole campaign, whereas Hilary will attack him if he starts eating her votes.

So, in the end, I see Gore and Hilary as the top two, with Obama thrown in as a variable.

That's just me.

Go Gore! Obama! Hilary.

[Armstead]

47. I wish Gore would get in -- He could actually unify Democrats, methinks

If the "new Gore" (not the old Gore) ran, I could see him getting both the nomination and the general election. I think his combination of political experience, and the life experiences he's gained in the last 6 years, could make him a formidable candidate -- and one that could be a unifier of Democrats.

[WinkyDink]

81. She is deluded. This is a pipe-dream. We are NOT going to elect a woman as President, and

if by weird chance we do, it sure won't be HILLARY.

And if I'm proven wrong, I still won't be tha-rilled. (Cf. Iraq Invasion.)

[JacksonWest]

90. In a country that re-elects Bush, anything is possible.

[Morgana LaFey]

163. Yeah, but you see, we DIDN'T re-elect Bush nt

[Cha]

184. But, we still got

him..so Anything is Possible. This time, "The Anything Is Possible" could be the other end of the spectrum. :)

[John Gauger]

22. I will only vote for her under one condition.

If she wins the nomination and promises to end the war. And I mean credibly promises. My mom's friend, a lifelong Republican, told me she will vote for Hillary if she ends the war. She is putting aside all of her other ideals to focus on what is most important. I have decided that there is no reason why I cannot do the same. Her son, a resident med student, said, "But they're (the Dems) supported by the trial lawyers." She told him, "you vote for who you have to vote for and I'll vote for who I have to vote for. That's how it works." And of course she meant not the candidate but the issues. Ending the war is more important to her than changing the malpractice system. And ending the war is more important to me than anything else as well. Her youngest son just joined the Army and we are all worried. He doesn't support the war, he doesn't support Bush, but he still wants to serve his country. I feel I have an obligation to him to end the war in any way I can. So, in that unlikely contingency, I shall vote for Hillary.

[jus_the_facts]

24. I totally agree...

...thanks for this post Berks!!! :hi: :loveya:

[Armstead]

137. Berks...A blast from the past

:hi: back atchya

[jus_the_facts]

147. I'll never forget it.....

...or YOU!!! :hug: :loveya:

[bullimiami]

25. i think you are wrong.

she is no nader or kucinich but there is also a wide gulf between her and the republicans.

i wont have any problem voting for hillary if she wins the primary.
of course i wont support her in the primary because my ideal is much further left.

i think she represents a somewhat balanced approach to economics and humanity. she is neither antagonistic nor overly friendly to business.
i think she is a realist. my main problem with her is her hawkishness.

i truly dont think there would be much difference in her policies from that of a kerry, obama, gore or most of the rest of the democratic field and practically speaking someone like kucinich isnt likely to get the nomination.

[Armstead]

138. I don;t think her approach is balanced.

She represents the say nothing and give it all away.

Although he'd never make it as a presiential candidate, the policies of someone like Kucinich are much more balanced than the DLC Corporate-enabling stance of Hilary.

Setting aside his New Age veneer, Kunich's positions on economics and power are basicall old-fashioned liberal populism of the blue collar sort.

[earthside]

28. Key Word: Oligarch

You wrote: " ... The Oligarchs are her constituency. If elected, she will not fight the Corporate Powers. She will spend her summers in Martha's Vineyard with them."

Well stated. In my opinion Hillary is the "governing class' ... oligrachy ... personified in the Democratic Party. I do not understand how a real progressive, liberal, 'power-to-the-people' person can support a DLC-version of corporate domination in this country.

Good for you for unabashedly sharing your concerns -- progressives need to make their thoughts known now!

[gratefultobelib]

29. I disagree. And I especially am offended by this sentence in your post:

"I was hoping she would accept that as her destiny, instead of assuming she's entitled to be president because of who she is married to."

I don't believe she feels "entitled" to be president. I believe she thinks she would be good for the country in that she is smart, tough, dedicated and a whole host of other positive adjectives! But I don't want to get into an argument. I agree with the previous poster--let's see how the primary debates go. I can certainly be persuaded to support another Democrat; I just don't think we're going to hell in a handbasket if Hillary is our candidate.

[adigal]

64. OH, I think she does feel entitled

It is payback time for staying with her philandering husband. He is now going to use his political genius to get her elected. But he had better not get caught philandering again, because it would be the end of her chances.

[UCLA Dem]

164. Not any more so than any other candidate, no matter how they present themselves.

They all wake up every morning and see the next president of the United States in the mirror.

Hillary is no different. She just gets more flack because of her gender.

Gore sure as hell felt entitled to the Presidency in 2000 after putting in 8 years as VP.

[MADem]

104. I thought it was just me, doing a bit of over-parsing

But that hideous sentence came across as more than a bit sexist to me, too. It might have been an accident, but it does not read that way, IMO.

How would people react if the SAME discouraging conceit, "accepting destiny," was applied to the candidacy of Barack Obama, the African-Caucasian American, or Bill Richardson, the Mexican-American, "...instead of assuming they're entitled to be President because there has never yet been a President of color?" The charges of racism would be flying thick and fast.

I, too, don't have a problem with people wanting to support another candidate, but I have yet to see a thread about the Senator that doesn't, often sooner rather than later, descend into that crappy sexist territory. And the bulk of the "anti" threads start out with a strong negative tone and descend into highly emotional reasoning by a small cadre of determined opponents.

I don't see many "Why I prefer Candidate X to Senator Clinton" threads, that discuss the stances of the candidates on the issues. People are getting way too personal, and I can't figure out why, but it's a bit troubling, frankly. Hardly seems like a liberal or progressive way to approach the matter of the Senator's candidacy, to my mind. People don't have to want to support her, but using veiled language isn't helpful, IMO.

I haven't made up my mind yet. She's got a large constituency, she can raise money, she has a good machine, and she is formidable. But I'm not making up my mind yet. I won't dismiss her, and I won't denigrate her either. I find that kind of behavior counterproductive to the Democratic cause in general. If I choose to support someone other than her, I hope I won't play that game. It's just not right.

[Armstead]

140. It's not sexist -- I'd say the same about GW Bush Jr.

In Hilary's case, marriage happens to be the cause of her sense of entitlement. But that's not sexist. I'df say the same about all the hooplah that got GW Bush into office because of his parentage.

Really. She's been a decent Senator, but so have numerous other Senators.

I would also not put it in the same class as Obama or Richardson. Those candidates have gotten attention solely due to their own accomplishments (Richardson) or personal charisma (Obama). Their ethnic origins factor in, but they are beside the point.

Hilary is no more or less accomplished than many other politicians. Her only reason for standing has been through her role in her marriage to Bill.

Honestly please tell me what has Hilary accomplished on her own that makes her more qualified to be president than Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein or any of the other women who have achieved elective office and prominence on their own merits?

[Matariki]

152. Answer to your last question -

She's been the Democratic Party's number one fund raiser for a while now. That counts for a lot in party politics.

[UCLA Dem]

167. I couldn't agree more. There seem to be sexist undertones all over this site in regard to Hillary.

Its been very disappointing. Just shows how rooted our gender roles still are in this society even among the most progressive.

[Armstead]

169. That's Bullshit. I wouldn;t say thgat about Barbara Boxer or

any one of a number of women who have achieved high ranking in politics. I also wouldn't say it about women who I don't agree with.

Sexism is a straw dog in this case. In fact it would be sexist to support Hilary simply because she is a woman.

[UCLA Dem]

178. Take a look at some of these posts!

If she was a man she wouldn't be getting any of the grief she getting now. "Power Hungry." "Entitlement."--I said this before and I'll say it again, every candidate gets up in the morning and sees a President looking back at them in the mirror.


Even Al Gore or John Kerry. Don't think there's any sense of entitlement there?? Especially Al Gore, after all he did put in 8 years as VP. I don't see them being held to the same standard of ridicule.


Furthermore, I don't believe for one minute that Boxer wouldn't torn apart as well if she ran.

It would just be along the line: "She can't win because she's from California and too liberal. She's not a viable candidate and is going to bring down the party with her."

Please.

[Armstead]

192. Any candidate is subject to this

If women are supposed to be immune from the same criticisms males receive, then it's certainly going to constrain debate.

I don't like Hilary. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman.

[Armstead]

141. My objection to Hil;ary is her position -- not personal

I just think what and who she represents is not what we need to turn this country around. She is just the same old,same old that has gotten us into tyhis mess.

[GreenArrow]

30. why limit it to Hillary?

It's not like the other choices are demonstrably different. As Boss tweed put it, "I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating." Boss Tweeds' still out there, folks. Anyone who stands a chance of getting elected is not going to alienate the status quo, will not agitate the powers that be. No one is going to fight the corporate powers. Take health insurance; if you want to fight the corporate powers, you propose a single payer system. Every candidate is going to jump on the Universal coverage bandwagon, but what they'll keep in the small print is that the coverage will be managed, as before, by for-profit companies, and the insurance will likely be mandated, creating yet another expense for the people who can barely afford insurance or who have already backed out of it.

There will be populist talk, sure, but it might be wise to balance a candidate's talk against his or her actions.

[oasis]

31. To hell with all corporatists. I long for the day when humans can return to thatched huts

and churn their own butter.:bounce:

[rman]

40. We could very well have corporations without them being virtual fascists

All it takes is proper regulation of what are among the most powerful economic entities in this world.

To suggest that the only choice is between a corporate ruled world and living in caves, is to present a false dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[oasis]

54. "All it takes is proper regulation". I agree and so does Hillary.(n/t)

[rman]

208. I and Hillary might disagree about what "proper" regulations are.

She likes NAFTA, doesn't she? I think NAFTA is very wrong.

[mdmc]

179. yes

[John Q. Citizen]

46. That won't be long, if the corporatist have their way. 'Course you will be paying for

patented cow.

[MADem]

77. Hitch up the plow, there, Oasis!!!! We gotta plow the field, plant the cornseed, and till the earth!

Then we can set down by the fire and pop us some popcorn to go under that butter!!!!

:popcorn:

[oasis]

93. Mmmmmm, popcorn.

:9 I hope it's prepared in the way that Squanto taught the pilgrims.

[Armstead]

142. Ther majority will be forced into that if the corporatists have their way

[shadowknows69]

32. Yeah what you said

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3176630> sorry I didn't see your thread first Armstead, kind of mirrored you in the thread above.

[Matariki]

34. Will you Clinton bashers PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE include facts with your rants?

Post after post of "Hillary is in bed with the Corporations" and NOT ONE FACT TO BACK IT UP. Not one link, nothing.

Give me some examples. Tell me how you've come to this opinion. Or you just repeating the 'I hate Hillary buzz'?

Prove you haven't been hypnotized by Rush Limbaugh.

[jus_the_facts]

39. you can google it yourself....hillary clinton+corporate ties...here's a sampling...

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0616-27.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0207-34.htm

[Matariki]

48. This is your idea of proof that Clinton is in bed with corporations?

The first link reads like politician's employees & consultant's resumes. Big deal - I've worked for Microsoft - if I go volunteer for Kucinich will that smear him in your eyes? There's little substance on that page. Might be a good starting point but nothing there that taints Hillary Clinton.

The second link - H. Clinton being on the board of Walmart has been addressed here so many times and for some reason THE FACTS JUST DON'T SINK IN. Walmart was an Arkansas company, she was on the board while Sam Walton was still alive and they were doing business much differently than they do now, AND she quit over policy changes they were making that she found objectionable. But I guess associating Clinton with Walmart without the actual facts is just more convenient if you hate her.

[jus_the_facts]

62. I SAID it was a sampling...I don't hate her...so don't ASSUME such....

....if the FACTS just don't sink in then that's your problem not mine.

[Matariki]

105. No really - that's quite lame. There's nothing there but innuendo, and only if you're looking for it

What you posted is a link to nothing more than a list consisting of a person's name, the corporation they have SOME connection with and a politician they have SOME connection with. You post this as if it were a SAMPLING of Clinton's wrongdoing?

example of your 'sampling':

Name: Howard Wolfson
Firm: Glover Park Group
Democratic connection: Former spokesperson for Hillary Clinton

And below that:

Name: Andrew Young
Firm: Goodworks International
Democratic connection: President Carter's ambassador to the United Nations



What does this prove? Do you think Carter is also a 'corporatist'? There's no information about what the person does at said corporation, why that corporation would be bad and how working for whichever politician has somehow benefited either their corporation or the politician in an unethical way.

Somehow though I don't think you're going to answer these questions. Easier to make vague innuendo isn't it? But I'm willing to listen to any valid point you might make - I'm certainly willing to consider facts. That's what I expect from the caliber of people on this board. If I wanted shrill emotional screed against Clinton I'd listen to Rush Limbaugh.

[adigal]

70. Why are we "ranting" and "bashers"?

You sound a lot more ranting than the opening statement or than I do. Just because we dislike your candidate, you call names - I bet Hillary will do the same thing.

[Matariki]

109. I wasn't replying to the OP

I was replying to post #31 - the subjuct line that begins 'To hell with all corporatists' and then goes on a lengthy and shrill rant against Hillary Clinton.

[Matariki]

145. nevermind. i was on crack when i wrote this post - sorry oasis :-(

I WAS referring to the OP - and I stick by what I said.

It's a rant full of shrill hate and NO facts. I think that's a valid definition of 'bashing'. It adds nothing to constructive discussions as to who will be the best Democratic candidate, and I'm gonna call it everytime I see it. I expect more out of people here.

[Matariki]

149. and BTW - Clinton isn't "my candidate".

She's not even 2nd on my list. I just want some intelligent discourse - not substanceless frothing at the mouth. Is that too much to ask? If you don't like Clinton - tell people WHY and back up that WHY with concrete examples and links if you have them.

[mdmc]

181. I think she might have been rather snugly with Wal Mart

no links, but full of factiness.

[Matariki]

200. Yep, this is relatively common knowledge.

She was the first woman on the board of Wal-mart from '86 to '92 - when they were a much smaller Arkansas company.

Good example of discussing a fact about a candidate. Does this automatically make her someone you wouldn't want to vote for? Do you know if she tried to get any progressive changes while on the board - health care for employees anything like that? Do you know why she quit? Do you know what corporate boards any of the other candidates may be on - or were on in the past?

I do know that she has returned campaign money from Wal-Mart, citing 'serious differences'.

[mdmc]

217. I live in NYS, so my electoral vote will go toward the (D).

I will most likely vote against the drug war. In NYS there are generally a couple candidates that publicly oppose the drug war.

[brg5001]

219. I'm ranting against the war -- sorry that Hillary is on the wrong side of the argument

Hillary's supporters are attempting to play out her campaign strategy right here on DU. As you can see, it's failing.

[Armstead]

193. Here's one example....

I realize you will jump on the source, but it is based on articles from the Financial Times and NY Times.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jul2006/clin-j13.shtml

Hilary Woos Wall Street

On July 10, the Financial Times of London, the authoritative voice of British finance capital, reported that “Hillary Clinton has been cosying up to Wall Street in recent weeks with a series of meetings with top executives that could help her follow the path blazed by her husband ahead of his first presidential run.”

The article, entitled “Hillary Clinton seeks to woo Wall Street,” notes that New York’s incumbent Democratic senator has become the beneficiary of millions of dollars in campaign fund donations from major Wall Street firms and financiers generally regarded as Republican.

Two days later, the New York Times carried a piece entitled, “Once an enemy, health industry warms to Clinton.” The article noted that Clinton has received $854,462 in campaign funding from the health care industry, the largest amount that the pharmaceutical giants, HMOs and hospital groups have doled out to any politician, with the exception of Senator Rick Santorum, the right-wing Republican from Pennsylvania.

The two reports are both based on a compilation of campaign contributions done by the Center for Responsive Politics, which reports that the New York Democrat has raised a whopping $27.5 million in the 2006 election cycle. Together, they provide a portrait of a politician who is thoroughly trusted and controlled by the biggest financial interests in the country, indistinguishable on all fundamental economic and social questions from the Republicans she claims to oppose. This is why money is pouring in to her campaign coffers, much of it aimed at buying influence prior to an anticipated run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

According to the Financial Times, one of her recent forays on Wall Street included a meeting at Morgan Stanley, hosted by its chief executive, John Mack, who gave $4,000 to her Senate campaign last year. It was the largest donation that Mack gave to any politician, with his only other donation to an individual candidate going to Senator Santorum. In 2004, when he was the co-CEO at Credit Suisse, Mack raised more than $200,000 for Bush’s reelection, earning him the title of “Ranger,” bestowed on the Republicans’ top big business donors.

Clinton is also planning meetings at Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse and other major finance houses. According to the Financial Times, part of the senator’s outreach to Wall Street is aimed at reassuring top financiers that she is committed to furthering their economic agenda and to calm any concerns raised by her right-wing nationalist attack on the Bush administration over the DP World of Dubai deal to purchase a company controlling operations at some US ports. According to the paper, she is swearing her allegiance to “free trade.”....MORE

[adigal]

67. NAFTA n/t

[MADem]

108. Ah, yes, the FIRST LADY took charge of that endeavor, eh?

Please. Facts were solicited, not guilt by association.

[Matariki]

110. Thank you.

This is going to be a long, long year.

[MADem]

115. It sure is.

And these discussions will be sort of a political IQ test. It's getting easier to separate the parroting from the actual knowledge and/or research.

And it's interesting, too, how some folks don't even realize how plainly they transmit their preconceptions and biases in the language they use.

Best bet is to see it for what it is, call it out when you care to, and most importantly, consider the source.

[hedgehog]

128. It seems that when Bill Clinton did something perceived as good,

Hillary gets credit for beint there. When he did something that is perceived as bad (ex - support NAFTA) all of a sudden she was just the First Lady.

[Matariki]

144. Hillary Clinton wasn't in office when NAFTA was being voted on

She did vote no on the two CAFTA Implementation votes in 2005 though.

[WinkyDink]

82. The Primaries will necessitate making a choice. To oppose one candidate is not to "bash" or "rant".

[Matariki]

98. No, I'm simply asking that people present some sound reasons for their opposition

this will elevate the conversation and we'll all be better informed when it comes time to make a decision.

If you don't really like a candidate for EMOTIONAL reasons - as I suspect is the case with Clinton for many people - then it would be better to focus on candidates one does support rather than make unsubstantiated blanket statements that amount to nothing more than "so and so sucks because i think they do". I suspect much sentiment about Hillary Clinton really has it's origins in right wing screed.

[MADem]

114. I agree with you. And if it is impossible for the 'anti' crowd to come up with real reasons

it would be nice, and I'd respect them more, if they were honest and ADMITTED that they disliked her because she "stayed with her philandering husband" or was married to him when HE pushed through NAFTA. Or perhaps they are sexists, and don't like strong women. Or ANY women in charge...or whatever. Maybe they don't like her somewhat stiff delivery, or the pitch of her voice, or they don't like her because she isn't Paris Hilton "hot." Who knows? At least we'd know what the real reasons were.

The assumption is made that she is cold and calculating, but no one ever allows her the possibility that perhaps she LOVES the man and forgave him his sins.

The sins of the husband are visited upon her time and again, and she is punished for not tossing him to the curb. She's punished for raising money. She's punished for being a smart politician--the same qualities that would raise a male on high in this society. And of course, her stance on the Iraq War is the icing on the cake--but males with the same or similar views don't get one-one hundredth of the grief she gets.

So it does make one wonder.

[GeorgeGist]

215. Hillary Clinton defends link with Murdoch

Hillary Clinton defended her warming relationship on Tuesday with Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media mogul. Commenting on Mr Murdoch's decision to host a fundraiser for her Senate-election campaign, Mrs Clinton said: "He's my constituent and I'm very gratified that he thinks I'm doing a good job."

Mr Murdoch's New York Post tabloid newspaper initially attacked the New York Democrat's decision to stand for the Senate, running front-page headlines pleading "Don't Run". Mrs Clinton is the leading Democratic candidate for president in 2008.

But one person involved in the event said Mr Murdoch's decision to support her reflected his opinion of her as a senator for New York rather than as a presidential candidate.

New York is expected to swing even further left in mid-term elections, with Eliot Spitzer, the Democratic state attorney-general, expected to secure the governorship. Mr Murdoch has usually acted as a political opportunist according to his business interests, switching from backing the Conservatives in the UK to supporting Tony Blair of the Labour party.

more...http://www.ft.com/cms/s/577ecd2e-dfc2-11da-afe4-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=80fdaff6-cbe5-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html

When power knocks ...

[MADem]

226. Murdoch goes with the flow. You actually think he gives a shit about political parties???

He is drawn to power. And he gets in there and uses his connections. Watch Faux trend left over the next two years. Why? Because that's where the money will be. This is a guy who rabble rouses with his news channel, and is a total lefty with his Simpsons, American Dad and other television programs....Murdoch is all about MONEY. And if Bozo the fucking clown was in power, Murdoch would be sucking up to Bozo, too....

He sucked up with the Tories when they had the lead role, and he sucks up to Labour when they have the power: http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/subframe1.html

He meets Tony Blair regularly, visiting Downing Street at least every 6 months. In June 1998 he said that in some of their policies the Labour Party were "more Thatcherite than the Tories. But they'd kill you if you said that". Tony Blair was a guest of honour at a huge News Corp corporate meeting in Australia, before the 1997 election when The Sun newspaper switched sides to support the Labour Party. Gordon Brown gave a speech at the next of these News Corp meetings at the Sun Valley ski resort in Idaho in 1998. After the 1997 election it was alleged that Blair had phoned the Italian Premier Romano Prodi to assist the expansion of Murdoch's media empire in Europe.



It has nothing to do with "politics"--he has no set views on anything, save his bank account!!!

[Armstead]

191. With me it has origins of....

years of listening to her and following her.

Plus the company she keeps.

[ms liberty]

112. I heard her speak on TV a few months ago...

And she spoke of a corporation in her state...she said "a corporation who is one of my constituents."

That was enough for me, when added to many of the other issues.

[quickesst]

36. I'm reading....

a bunch of gobbledegook, and a personal opinion. If you want people to listen to you seriously, then post something other than what millions of others have, an opinion. "AAAhhh, run for your lives, it's Clinton the Corporate Schill." Well, that ought to do it. She's out.:sarcasm: Seems the anti-Clinton people only get louder, and do it with less substance. If anything, when I read bullshit like this, it only re-enforces my opinion that she deserves a legitimate shot at the nomination. My first choice has always been Clark, but with your help, Clinton could gain my backing over all of them. Way to go. Thanks.
quickesst

[Armstead]

197. Um, this is a discussion board

I'm not writing an investigative report, or even and Op-Ed for the NY Times or anything like that.

Last I heard, discussion boards were for discussions. If you think my opinion is crap, that's fine. But I said in the very beginning that I was just getting it off my chest.

[Lawrence]

37. vvvv

does anyone else realize that if she was elected, it would mean a total of 24 years with either a bush or a clinton as president? Just a year shy of a quarter century.


I agree with you and my sincere hope is that she manages to go down gracefully without dragging Obama with her.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Perhaps you do not belong in the Democratic Party

You seem to have great antipathy toward someone who appears to have at least a decent shot at getting the Democratic Party's nomination. Perhaps most Democrats simply aren't as far to the left as you are.

[jus_the_facts]

41. That line is sooooooo tired and LAME...perhaps DINO's don't belong in our party...

:eyes:

[Freddie Stubbs]

68. I agree there are many DINO's who may not belong in the Party

Especially the ones whining how they will refuse to vote Democratic if certain candidates are nominated.

[MADem]

117. Touche!!!! NT

[shadowknows69]

42. Perhaps they should be more to the left

our country is in ruins. The status quo of the precious "middle" has brought us here.

[Freddie Stubbs]

100. If the party nominates some more to the left, Democrats should support him/her, and

if the party nominates a centrist, Democrats should support him/her.

[Lerkfish]

45. um...yeah, that's it. We're not democrats because we don't support your

choice.

:sarcasm:

[Freddie Stubbs]

73. Those who refuse to support the party's nominee are no better than Lieberman

[WinkyDink]

84. Is HRC now the de facto nominee? WTH?

[Freddie Stubbs]

89. Oh course not. But there are several DUers stating they will not vote for HRC if she is nominated

[Lerkfish]

107. I'm not one of them.

[Lerkfish]

106. have the primaries occurred while I was sleeping?

didn't think so, darlin

[Armstead]

49. I'm Center Left

I'm obviously a diehard liberal and progressive -- But I don't think my basic views are out of step with what at least half the country -- and probably a majority -- really wants or believes.

The problem is we haven't had real choices because of the political strategists, corporate money, media manipulation and other ways the system has been rigged.

[charlie]

55. Heh. C'mon Freddie

You know Armstead and you know tossing a "far to the left" charge at him is a canard.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

80. And your ad hominem attack somehow proves you do belong?

Debate what the poster said if you feel the need, but don't reduce the argument to ad hominem attacks.

[WinkyDink]

83. Don't bet on it. That's why FINALLY the Democrats were given the MAJORITY.

The rank-and-file are further to Hillary's left, I'd wager (cf. NAFTA, a Clinton "victory").

[PVnRT]

155. Oh, so we have to like those who have a shot at the nomination?

:eyes:

[cynatnite]

44. That's all fine and dandy...

but if she does get the nomination I would hope that any decent dem will help her to win so another repuke won't get in the WH.

Right now, it's a free for all. Support your favorite candidate and go for it. But the time will come when a dem nominee will be chosen and we must get behind him or her...no matter who that may be.

[Up2Late]

50. I wouldn't worry about it. What's happening now (candidates announcing now for 2008) is MSM B*llSh*t

:rant:This "...announcing now for the 2008 Presidential election..." now (in January 2007) B*llSh*t is just that, B*llSh*t!

This is all part of the so-called MSM non-News cycle. They are "reporting" this b*llsh*t, non-News so that they can distract all the lemmings in their target audience from the REAL and important actual News that they are NOT reporting, such as all the investigations and actual progress that the now Democratic controlled Congress is starting to make. It's very similar to what they did to President Clinton in the 1990's when they hyped all that Travelgate/Whitewater/Monicagate B*llSh*t.

By the time the real 2008 campaign cycle begins, 12 months from now, most Americans will be so sick of hearing about Hillery and Obama and all the other 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates that should have waited until January 2008 to "announce" that they will be struggling for anyone to still care about them in 2008, which is exactly the point of all this crap.

Don't fall for it. Keep your eye on what's important right now:

1) Fixing all the crap that Republicans screwed up over the last few years.

2) Investigating the criminals who are running our government currently.

3) Sending Republican criminals, who are still in our government and are under investigation to PRISON.

That is the news that the so-called MSM should be reporting, not this Hillery/Obama B*llSh*t. :grr: :rant:

[MADem]

126. Everyone is acting like these exploratory committees are happening EARLY

...but they aren't. It's common for candidates to get out there, test the waters, and then start raising money for a run. In order to do that, they have to file papers.

The big difference is that before 24 hour news, when there was only an hour a day devoted to news, at most, these things weren't all that newsy, and other issues were more important. So these sorts of things got a line or two in the nightly news, and that was that.

They have a whole day to fill with crap, now, and how long can you talk about Paris and Britney leaving their drawers at home?

The candidates know this, and they're using it to their advantage. It's FREE publicity.

Keep this in mind--neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama have formally declared that they are actually RUNNING. They've put out little announcements on the web touting their exploratory committees, indicating that they are INTERESTED in the job. They've applied, they haven't even reported to the personnel office yet!!!! Never mind get interviewed!!!

Of course, they aren't stupid--you put out a controlled announcement, and what does the media do? REPLAY IT, over and over and over. This is why they did it on the web, so THEY could control the imagery.

The actual announcements will be in front of screaming throngs of supporters--a different aura entirely. And absent any terrible newsworthy event, those announcements will be treated as BREAKING NEWS and probably covered LIVE!!!

[Az_lefty]

51. Hilary doesn't stand for anything but herself...

she is constantly redefining herself to fit the latest poll. That's not a leader. She didn't even speak out against the shrubs latest escalation until she was sure the public opposed it. She could be a decent Senator, but definitely not a president.

GORE 2008

[Tom Joad]

53. Everyone has the right to run. We have the right to organize against her.

[ecstatic]

56. It's my understanding that most middle class Dems are DLC

They like Bill Clinton... And appreciate that style of leadership. :shrug:

My only concern is her IWR vote, but it looks like all the candidates so far voted yes on it anyway.

[ikojo]

185. I don't think the formerly middle class union workers

who lost their jobs on account of NAFTA like the Clinton style of leadership.

I don't like the Clinton sytle of leadership that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

I don't like the Clinton style of leadership that says "don't ask, don't tell."

I don't like the Clinton style of leadership that when thousands were out in the streets of Seattle protesting the corporatocracy of the WTO, Bill Clinton was schmoozing his corporate masters instead of even considering some of the grievances of those in the streets.

[Armstead]

233. You got it in a nutshell

The "fringe" who opposed corporate globalization are being proven more correct every day.

We don't need a continuation of the policies that are gutting the middle classes by fattening the pockets of the oligarchs.

[NNN0LHI]

57. Yea it doesn't look good for the Republicans does it?

A Dem controlled Congress and a Dem president.

Shit man them Republican critters are nervous.

They had better be.

Don

[Jcrowley]

66. Hillary's friendly skies

Hillary’s Friendly Skies: Air Lockheed
Military-industrial complexities for senator.

By Geoffrey Gray


Has former lefty pinup Hillary Clinton become the senator from Lockheed Martin? According to the senator’s travel-expense forms, unearthed by the Center for Public Integrity, the senator and her aides have taken free rides on a Lockheed-owned private plane at least five times since 2001. The Lockheed jet isn’t exactly Air Force One, but it certainly has saved time and airfare costs during the Armed Services Committee member’s successful efforts to get Lockheed defense contracts, notably a $1.7 billion, 750-job deal to build presidential helicopters up in Owego (population 3,911), near Binghamton. Last year, Lockheed’s PAC gave Clinton the maximum $5,000 donation, a first since Clinton became senator, but its generosity didn’t start there. In July 2004, Clinton and her personal aide, Huma Abedin, boarded a Lockheed jet at Dulles and zipped up to Troy for the day with the Italian ambassador to the U.S., Sergio Vento, for the first-ever New York State Little Italy Heritage Tourism Conference. After the full-day affair, Clinton zipped back down to Teterboro, New Jersey, on Lockheed’s jet. The trip, labeled on disclosure forms as a “speaking engagement,” was paid for by Lockheed, even though Senate ethics rules mandate that a primary sponsor of the event pony up. Jennifer Hanley, a Clinton rep, insists no ethical breaches were made, explaining that Clinton and Lockheed share the same goal—bringing jobs upstate—and that Lockheed’s free lift to Troy was made in that spirit.

http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/17339/

[oasis]

72. "Clinton and Lockheed share the same goal--bringing jobs upstate".

IMO, "jobs" are a good thing.

[Jcrowley]

76. That's how it's spun

Sorry that's nonsense. The jobs we need are not military oriented and if you'll do some research on this you'll also find military programs for jobs are one of the worst allocation of resources possible. That is unless you are a military contractor or a Senator who sold out to The Pentagon long ago.

The jobs we need created are in all sorts of social areas, public infrastructure etc. and those cannot arise as long as our National Treasury is going to the war machine. In that regard Hillary isn't providing anything quite the opposite she is responsible for stealing from our communities by assisting in siphoning all the funds into the US Military.

But of course it's spun as "jobs" with no qualifications or analysis of what this means. Just blind acceptance. It's rubbish.

[oasis]

88. Hillary's strong on defense. That's also a good thing.

I'd like to poll Lockheed employees to see if they'd like to be characterized as supplying a "War machine or a "defense machine".

[Jcrowley]

94. Wrong group to poll

Poll all the people who can't get healthcare because of Ms. Clinton and her ilk and because our National Treasury is being looted by the War mongering folks at the pentagon and their enablers.

"Strong on defense" is just a meaningless meme to rationalize further military spending. It's laughable that anyone could fall for this when the US War Dept. has little to do with "defense" at all unless you consider 725military bases in 132 countries "defensive." Of course it has nothing to do with protecting "The Homeland" it is viciously offensive and serves as a resource protection racket for american corporations, particularly the energy consortiums.

Spending more than the rest of the world combines on guns, fighter jets and other weapons of mass destruction while your children can't get healthcare is okay?

You do know that the US military is also the worlds greatest contributor to greenhouse gasses.

So in supporting that be clear what one is supporting.

[GenDem]

96. Come up and visit central and western NY.

We are desperate to hang onto these jobs here. Senator Clinton's work here to save the manufacturing jobs that we have left, and innovative ideas to help create growth in new sectors; such as bio-fuel technology show that she is working hard to keep and create good paying jobs in New York State. I've seen first hand the work she's done for the people in NY. She's been an extremely hard working senator. If she has been able to keep Lockheed in Owego -- she's kept hard working people employed at living wage jobs.

[Jcrowley]

113. Um

That's where I live.

Hillary is an obstacle to creating a revitalized econmic structure that would renew and re-energize our communities. That's who she is, a hawkish corporatist. Her record speaks volumes.

The way the game is framed has people desperately clinging to the few bones thrown to them by the likes of Hillary instead of taking a step back to reconsider entirely different arrangements that are actually quite viable and in motion in other parts of the world.

[specimenfred1984]

69. Repukes are honest? lol

Repukes lie all day, everyday. They hide their plans/conspiracies because they know they're anti-American. They lie about torture, nuclear weapons, bigotry and every other thing that ever pops into their mind. They lie just for the fun of it.

They stay in the closet when gay, they lie about their life experiences, they lie to god, family and country and you have the gall to say "Republicans are, at least, honest about who they are."???

WTF?

[nealmhughes]

71. When she explains last year's Feinstein-Leahy Amendment "Nay" on the ban of

civilian use of cluster bombs, and then her holdup of Ryan White funding -- not to fight for full funding, rather for keeping NYC's nice huge chunk of the pie untouched-- then maybe I can hold my nose when Milady gets the nomination...
It is time for fewer lawyers and more thinkers in office, such as Sanders, Wellstone, and Clark. It's time for them all to re-read their Paine and Voltaire and ditch the Machiavelli and Rand.

[Individualist]

74. Hear, hear!

I won't hold my nose and vote ever again.

[MADem]

75. What a waste of energy. Rather than be PO'd, why not devote your "enthusiam"

TOWARDS your candidate of choice, rather than AGAINST those you don't like.

When you start your argument with "Candidate X sucks" it suggests a paucity of ideas, frankly and doesn't give anyone any reason to rally to the cause of those you do, in fact, support.

[WinkyDink]

78. Bill is her secret weapon. But ITA. Right now, e.g., she is parroting the

RW "Blame the Iraqis for Not Doing Enough" theme.

[BluePatriot]

85. My take

I am tired of them selling her too...I think the MSM and party at large is pretty out of touch if they think she can win many votes down here in the South. She is a very hard sell in Texas. Her getting the party nom would pretty much signify to me that the party has written off a good chunk of the country. No matter how historic this moment could be, we can't totally abandon the South's electoral votes, folks...However, she deserves her crack at the primaries and would maybe be good in the Cabinet (health care Czar?)

[halobeam]

97. Repubs (aka MSM, Corporate, fill in the blank), do NOT think

she will win. They want her to be the dem. nominee because their base will NEVER vote for her, and a moderate repub. would not either. Remember the long lines for "anybody but Bush"? it would pale in comparison to the lines the republicans would have voting against her. They wouldn't need to motivate voters. They'll be able to spend their energy on all other twisted voter irregularities/suppression, etc... MSM right now is dividing the democratic primary so that those of us, (who are MANY that don't want her as the nominee and they KNOW IT)... will vote for another Dem. running for the primary. Thus dividing our votes amongst the other primary candidates, giving Hillary the best chance of winning the nominee. They believe she won't win in "08.

[BluePatriot]

103. That is a good point (nt)

[WI_DEM]

86. not to defend Hillary, but most senators think they can be president

and she has as much right as any to run and has more experience than some.

[CatWoman]

87. Armstead

1. I'm pleasantly surprised that this thread hasn't been locked.

2. I agree with you 200 percent.

[Armstead]

198. Only 200 percent?

Gee I must be losing my touch.... :hi:

[MGKrebs]

91. That's crazy talk.

:-) Candidates (for the most part) do what they think they have to do to win. If the constituency isn't out there for a progressive candidate to win, we won't get many candidates and we won't get many winners. WE have to build the constituency. WE have to convince people that progressive is better. I think H. Dean is paving the road for us to do that.

[Armstead]

116. Not crazy talk -- It's realistic optimism

Who says the constituency isn;t out there for a progressive candidate to win?

If you look at most issues related to money and power, most people (at least half anyway) are very progressive in their actual beliefs. The idea that healthcare should be based on carinbg for people's health -- not just a corporate profit center -- is hardly radical or out of touch.

The experience of Howard Dean is a perfect example of how such positions are marginalized. Howard is basically a mainstream liberal with some conservative tendencies. But because he was somewhat to the "left" of the corporate centrists, he was portrayed as a wild man leftist loony.

Hillary is basically a Republican. If that's the best we can do as an alternative, we're in sorry shape. But it's not inevitable.

[bvar22]

158. Here's some numbers that support your position:

Here is what the MAJORITY of Americans (Democrats AND Republicans) want from OUR government!

In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."


http://alternet.org/wiretap/29788/

8. Over 63% oppose the War on the Iraqi People.

9. 92% of ALL Americans support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445

Where does Hillary stand on the above issues? :shrug:

I KNOW she is against violence in videogames, and believes that the she can compromise with the anti-choicers, but where does she stand on the obscene amount of our tax money thay goes to Defense?


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

160. Wow

That is eye opening. Thanks for posting that.

[minkyboodle]

92. I agree

but you better put on your flamesuit.... :)

[mzmolly]

95. I'm not thrilled about her either, but her voting record is impressive, sans the Iraq vote.

:hi:

[Lerkfish]

111. bankruptcy, trade, er...can you be more specific about what is impressive?

[mzmolly]

119. Sure.

Choice
Animal rights
The Arts
Budget issues
Civil rights
Education
Environment
Gender issues
Government reform
Health Care
Labor
Science
Senior/social security issues
Secular/social issues
Veterans issues
Welfare/poverty

Source > http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

[Lerkfish]

122. thanks.

[mzmolly]

124. Your welcome.

:hi:

[entanglement]

99. As the political spectrum shifts further and further right, the public faces

the death of REAL alternatives. One possible outcome is that the people eventually realize the game that's being played and there's a sudden, drastic course correction. The second, that there's apathy, and people withdraw from the political process entirely. I don't believe the latter is sustainable for any length of time because deteriorating socio-economic conditions will eventually compel them to respond in some way. The worst possibility, of course, is that the resentment and anger finds reactionary, extreme right-wing channels for release.

[TZ]

101. Does anybody think that a country

that reelects chimpy is going to elect Hilary. She has a lot of people who dislike her (me included) in her own party. You have to have SOME cross-over vote. And if the Republicans nominate some kind of "moderate" like Rudy Giuliani she will get killed. She is to the right, what chimpy is to democrats. I am going to be very nauseus if she gets the nomination because that will mean 4 more years of republicans in the white house. She is a very good Senator. She should stick with that.

[PATRICK]

102. Her run is inevitable

and legitimate from several points of view. Too tempting for anyone since she carries solid strengths going in in the base situation and the money and organization. It should all be dealt with openly, a chance for the party to sort itself out. By the same token, the negatives she brings to bear will probably doom her, namely her judgment and issue beliefs whether they are cynical or sincere. Those same things make her offering, as with Smoking Joe before her, inevitable. It think she might hold her own in the primary long enough for the illusion of being a major contender not to immediately wear off. The pain will be gradual, perhaps gentle. Any missteps will hasten her demise irrevocably and caution will guarantee defeat as well, because her status rests on thin ice in a very competitive field.

[mod mom]

118. Read this about the DLC connections to PNAC:

"A key factor in that defeat was Gore's peculiar decision to discard the New Democrat formula that had worked so well in 1992 and 1996."

-snip
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAr ...

This was written by Will Marshall. Who is Will Marshall?

Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement, which aims to steer the US Democratic Party toward a more right-wing orientation. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council. He recently served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a committee chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain designed to build bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion. Marshall signed a similar letter sent to President Bush put out by the Social Democrats USA on Feb. 25, 2003, just before the invasion. The SDUSA letter urged Bush to commit to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." He writes frequently on political and public policy matters, especially the "Politics of Ideas" column in Blueprint, the DLC's magazine. Notably, he is one of the co-authors of Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.

-snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

THAT'S RIGHT, THE GUY WHO SAID GORE LOST BECAUSE OF HIS DECISION TO ABANDON THE NEW DEMOCRAT MOVEMENT (IE THE DLC) WAS A SIGNER OF PNAC!

[mod mom]

123. and read Emit's excellent post here:

#29

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3163466#3164871

[truedelphi]

127. I'm appreciating this info you post. When Mark (hubby) was working

For Mondo 2000, he was hearing that the Clintons' were the alternate
CIA pick (If the public votes older and business attired, George Walker B* will get in;
more tie-dyed, and it's Bill and Hillary)

There were some things that Bill didn't deliver for them. Although he gave the go ahead for the
banking industry as New MAfia (a position Hillary embellishes when voting for bankruptcy and other banking laws) he disappointed by having a huge surplus (Huge Surplus can be bad for the inner banking crowd.)

After Armitage and Holbrook went over and talked to Milosevic in 1990-1991, Milosevic was assured of US backing (Much as Iraq, around the same time, was assured by Galespie that US would back Hussein in Iraq) Bill Clinton was not uneager to bomb Yugolsavia, even allowing for the Depleted Uranium munitions.

Bill was asked about handling a war in Iraq for PNAC - and he refused. Around that time Monica Lewinsky became headline news.

[mod mom]

151. I believe we need to get more folks aware of this, especially who is funding the DLC

Thanks to Emit for the informative post)> I can't believe so many folks here who complain about the brownshirt approach of the R's, turn around and denounce us who suggest blind loyalty to the party is wrong and we must ALL vote Democratic regardless of who the candidate is. Just saying...

[BuyingThyme]

120. kcik

[WHAT]

130. You spoke my misgivings...

truly.

Besides that, I can't get over her giggling when speaking with regards to "full spectrum dominance".

[bigluckyfeet]

131. Amen

I agree with every word you said,I will never hold my nose and vote again.

[Alamom]

132. The WAILING and GNASHING of teeth is deafening and over

something that most people have known would happen for years. I can't believe all of the people who feel the need to make posts a year before the primaries to express their displeasure to sheer hatred about something I thought we all knew.....for a long, long time.

Good Lord, if you didn't know, you must be devastated


Silly me, I guess only a few in this group knew (for sure) she would run....

I feel for you all. I HATE SURPRISES IN POLITICS, TOO. :eyes:



edsp

[phylny]

133. Sorry, you lost me at

"...assuming she's entitled to be president because of who she is married to."

[BooScout]

150. Me too....

....and I typed a lovely smartass post to respond to it and it got lost in cyberspace.

Suffice it to say it sounds like the OP has issues with women who aren't home cooking their hubby's dinner.:eyes:

[Armstead]

176. That';s bullshit.

It's sexist of you to assume that she is above criticism simply because she is a woman. Or that all criticism is based on gender.

I would be thrilled if Barbara Boxer or Jan Schiakovsky (sp?) or Barbara Leigh or any number of other progressive and accomplished women were to enter the primaries.

[Armstead]

173. And tell my why that is wrong?

Seriously. Would she have been called a front runner for so long if she were just Hilary Rodham or married to some non-entity?

[liberalhistorian]

134. I couldn't agree more, thanks for posting!

I was really hoping that she would NOT throw her hat in the ring, I've been extremely disgusted and disappointed with her these past few years. Not only that, but she has exactly zero chance of winning, if she can even get past the primaries to become the nominee, which I doubt. I have no intention of voting for her in the primaries although, frankly, since I'm in South Dakota, it'll likely be a moot point by the time our own primary rolls around.

She has insulated herself in her own little world where she thinks she's a super-popular queen adored by her subjects, which is absolutely not true. Much like Bush, she has surrounded herself with advisors who only tell her what she wants to hear in that regard, so she really doesn't understand that she is not at all that popular outside of New York and a few of the really liberal New England states. She's going to be in for a rude awakening, no question.

[Generator]

143. I agree with you

and waiting to see her trounced (please Jesus!) in the primaries is killing me. I wish it was '08 already. I feel more negative about her every minute.

I really really want a woman president. But I want a woman that does it on her own steam NOT because she was married to a former president. And yes I as many am sick of dynasties. I wish to heaven we could vote for no direct marriage or first link blood line to president. That is Bill Clinton's wife or daughter or any Bush wife or child does not get to be president. It's TOO much power in too few hands. And I know it's happened before with Dems but that's not the point. Imagine a fairer America. This one says "Yeah, Little one you can grow up to be president if your daddy was one or your husband was one." What a great Democracy.

Hillary has made her own legacy in the senate. Too bad she hasn't focused on accomplishing something there instead of the dream of power. She'd rather give the White House to Republicans for another eight damn years than be realistic. And that peeves me off. YEAH, she has a right to run for president, just like you and I do. However we weren't married to one. So I guess OUR chances aren't the same heh?

[RiverStone]

146. Yes! Not to mention HRC is yet to say...

...that "I WAS WRONG" to vote for the IWR.

With the MSM buy in, it is an uphill road for the other DEM Presidential hopefuls; Al Gore could totally knock her on her ass should he jump into the ring (???? - please Al).

At some point soon, all of us that are bummed by HRC's entrance, will need to focus on a more positive message to present to the voters about Obama (or who-ever) that transcends HRC media darling status.

Maybe a week or so more of whining....then lets hope/work for another viable candidate!

[HughBeaumont]

216. She's not exactly working real hard to end this war either.

A CAP? How about an "END"? How about cutting off funding?

[Orsino]

148. I'm just tired of people running for Senate...

...transparently as a stepping-stone to the Oval Office. If you don't want to serve in the Senate, and build a career there, please step aside and let more serious candidates step up.

I know, I know--it's one of the sure-fire ways to get famous, and presidential elections only come once ever four years. I get it. But God damn it, it sure cheapens (further) the office of Senator.

[StudentDUer]

153. She hasn't been a good Senator and if we work hard she'll lose the primary

There are good people in this primary who've done many decent things for us while she was campaigning against violent video games, flag-burning, and attacking Iraq.

[Pastiche423]

156. I'm glad you got that off of your chest, Armstead

It is discouraging to me that too many DUers, IMHO, that responded don't seem to understand where our country is now. Moreover they don't seem to understand what is desperately needed to guide our country away from the corporatists that are ruining our nation.

We need a drastic change, not a republican lite.

As someone mentioned up thread, the military is contributing a huge amount to greenhouse gases. For cripe's sake! We are in global warming. I want to help our planet, not contribute to its demise.

I fear Hillary "strong on defense" Clinton is not the person to lead us in saving our planet.

[Cocoa]

157. nothing stopping you from voting for Kucinich

[fooj]

159. Bush...Clinton Bush...perhaps another Clinton...

Haven't we had enough of this crap yet? Over 20 years of it? NO THANK YOU. I'm not buying.

[SaveElmer]

161. An excellent regurgitation of the standard complaints about Hillary...

You have internalized them very well!

Can probably do it in your sleep by now!!!

[Armstead]

171. Yep. I can.

[natrat]

166. hill is gross as a politician-basically a republican scumbag

maybe a nice person but thats niether here nor there

[ikojo]

170. Hillary is whatever she thinks will get her

elected.

She's no populist. Remember this is a woman who served on Wal-Mart's board. She started out a Goldwater girl and I don't think she's moved far from her corporate roots.

Her husband was no populist either. He pushed through NAFTA, GATT, DOMA, and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as well as welfare "reform." There was no need for a Republican president with the Democrats doing their bidding.

[cool user name]

172. "I feel your pain" n/t

[Infinite Hope]

180. Welcome to the debate, Hillary! n/t

[KamaAina]

182. But if she represents the worst of the Democratic Party, how could she be a great Senator?

The only way out of that one would be for her to (finally) stand up to the DLC. Why couldn't she do that as the nominee, and then as President?

[generaldemocrat]

189. Because her last name is Clinton. And winning big in NY means nothing on a national level. nt

[Geek_Girl]

183. If you don't like her then don't support her

But this is still a democracy and she has the right to run. If she represents the worse of the party then becomes the nominee then what does that say about the party or the country for that matter. Our elected officials are a reflection of who we are.


The best you can do to keep Hillary from winning the primary is get out there and work hard for your candidate, whoever he or she may be.

[thethinker]

187. Hilary is our weakest possible candidate

The republicans will have no trouble organizing their troops against her. There are a lot of people that have voted republican in the past that are ready to cross over and vote democratic next election - mostly to stop this war. They are mad about immigration, the war, the national debt, jobs going off shore, torture, etc. These cross over votes will never go to Hilary.

We have strong middle of the road potential candidates like Edwards or Gore that could carry the cross over votes. The republicans know this. So does the DLC crowd. So does the MSM. So, do the corporations. That is why they are pushing so hard to have Hilary as the democratic candidate.

I wish you folks would quit calling Hilary tough. She is not tough. Tough people take stands on issues. The tough people spoke out against the war before it was popular to do so. Hilary does not take a stand on anything, ever. She is a milk toast sort of candidate.

[Faryn Balyncd]

190. Which is why Rupert Murdock gives Financial Support.....HILLARY - The GOP's FAVORITE Democrat.....

(Lieberman is not a Democrat).

[brg5001]

220. You hit the nail on the head, thethinker!

When you follow her rhetoric, what you get is a defense of the invasion and our continued presence. She really is the weakest candidate, and I suspect that primary voters will see right through her. This is a pivotal time in history. We need someone who really isn't afraid to speak clearly and who sought out and spoke the truth from the beginning of the buildup to war. Her supporters are already losing on the DU boards and they're frustration is showing.

[unkachuck]

195. yep....

....the real primary, the Money Primary, has long been underway and Mrs. Clinton is in the lead even though she has some heavy baggage....apparently, her corporate friends don't mind, I wonder why?....

....but neither party has a tested guaranteed shoe-in candidate making 2008 an exceptionally good year for a 3rd party candidate....

....a situation I might like to see happen, if in the end, all we have to chose from, is corporatist-A or corporatist-B....

[OnionPatch]

196. Sigh.

I see your point, I really do. But in the end, if it's a choice between Hillary and some right-wing Republican, I will have to support her. The thought of another Republican in the White House sends a chill down my spine in a way Hillary never could.

My hopes are that Hillary will attract a lot of the attention and the smear campaigns while hopefully a better candidate can escape the bulk of the attack dogs and pull ahead. Am I thinking wishfully? I suppose. I am ever hopeful, though. :)

[alittlelark]

201. Your post expressed most of my fears succinctly.

Please, Sen. Clinton - don't do it!!!!

[mcranor]

204. Is this a fair litmus test?

It will take enormous will power to vote for Hilary if she is the nominee. I don't know that I could do it. For myself, I deplore the fact that the campaigns have already begun (it's just idiotic), and so much energy is being sucked into them, but in any case, no one who voted for the IWR is fit to be president. Really. There are only two possible explanations for those votes: bad judgment or weak character, neither of which will serve well in the White House -- we really need to do better.

But isn't it just DUMB to be talking about 2008? I'm embarrassed I even got sucked in, now that I think about it. Sheesh. Shouldn't we be doing something useful?

[OrwellwasRight]

206. Agreed, but you can't be surprised.

It's just good that she let Obama, Edwards, and others announce before she did.

This is going to get so ugly. :yoiks:


:popcorn:

[eridani]

207. You probaby don't know any real "left wing loonies"

I do, and they favor the election of Republicans on the grounds that incompetent imperialists will drive our imperial machine into the ground faster than possibly competent Democratic ones. The old "it has to get worse before it gets better" theory. I know it's bullshit, but there are still a few who buy it.

[Red Right and BLUE]

211. Can't say I'm P'O'ed, as I expected it,

but she sickens me.

I want Gore.

[cascadiance]

212. She just showed what she feels about the idea of public campaign financing!

Even though the current system is broken and not effective, she seems to eagerly have supported the "pay to play" system earlier than any other Dem has, and will probably already have infected even the Dem primary with blood money from the corporations!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/us/politics/23donate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

I've already said before this story came out that I will only support a candidate that's not bought and paid for by corporations/DLC, etc., and that will advocate true public campaign financing alternatives at a national level. She just showed me that if there is a candidate that is NOT that candidate, she certainly is it!

[ShortnFiery]

214. CSPAN has this former Moonie Times guy, Mike Allen, drooling

all over Hillary Clinton ... "Yes! Yes! She's very electable."

Wake up fellow democrats and SMELL the deception! :thumbsdown:

[MADem]

227. Work for your candidate, and don't tell others not to listen to her

I haven't made up my mind, and the more people tell me to not listen to her, the more I'm inclined TO want to hear what she says.

All of this "sky is falling" nonsense is just that--nonsense. I'm going to listen to every candidate, and I am not worried about any smell except the smell of stifling debate. That's an unacceptable stink to me.

[brg5001]

229. No, DO listen to her, but also listen to what she isn't saying

I see a very active debate, fortunately. What I also see it is that Hillary's supporters are trying out her campaign strategy (triangulation, accusations of radicalism) on this board, and it's not working, and they are becoming frustrated. And supporters of other candidates are, not surprisingly, very annoyed at all of this.

This notion that people are trying to prevent her message from getting out, or stifling debate, or telling people not to listen to her -- for the most part, I don't see that. They may feel like they can't believe her, or that we should focus on what's being left UNSAID. When someone says, "don't listen," I think what that person is trying to say is, "Don't believe what you hear."

I trust the board. They've set me straight when I supported Edwards, and I learned a lot. Though some of what we read here is recycled MSM pablum, what I love about this forum is that while there are some fierce and fiery arguments, one can find plenty of links to cold, hard facts to back them up. The war is the most important issue of our time. Clinton, Edwards and others who should have known better chose to ignore the real facts and believe (even promote) Bushco's fake facts. The truth was there. Kucinich, Feingold, Gore, Conyers et al showed guts and leadership when 70% of Americans were content to let Bushco spin this madness into reality.

I reject any process that leads to a coronation based on personality, and not voting history and stands on the issues. The Hillary Express isn't going to work, nor should it. We'll find our candidate in the end, and it may be Hillary, but she's going to have to earn that support with actions -- not just words. Being pro-war is bad, but being pro-war and not admitting it isn't going to cut it, and many of us feel that this is what she has been doing all along. We may only have one election to get this right.

[MADem]

232. Well, that's a limp strawman if I ever saw one. I am not one of her supporters, see.

I am just a person who objects to sexism disguised as other 'ideological' matters, and I am also one who dislikes bullies who try to tell people how to think, what to do, and who they can talk about. I find that unacceptable. And I see a lot of that scattered throughout these interminable "sky is falling" Hillary threads. I think it is childish, and stupid.

I also think that accusing people of being paid posters (someone did that to me) or a covert "supporter," just because I think that everyone should have an opportunity to be heard, from Dennis "Sixteen Tons" Kucinich to Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton to Chris Dodd, to Joe Biden, and on and on and on. I'm not neglecting Vilsack and the rest, but you get the idea....Saying things like that is a sneaky, sideways swipe, used when the arsenal is empty, and it cheapens the argument. It's also totally false, and suggests a higher than normal level of paranoia.

No one talks about what Senator Clinton is for, or against. When I asked, all I got was "NAFTA" (which I noted was surprising that this sort of thing was the purview of FIRST LADIES). When the subject is Clinton, all we hear is DLC, DLC, DLC....yet no one has a problem with New Democrats Gore or (co-founder) Edwards, who took DLC money hand over fist when it suited them.

I reject any process that won't let people participate because of who their husband happens to be. I reject any process that refuses to listen to someone who has earned the right to participate, with everyone else, by using bullshit excuses that because she's been in the public eye and is affiliated with a particular political subgroup, she can't have her say along with everyone else. It's just WRONG. It's the most UN-Democratic argument I've ever heard.

And for those who take issue with her stances, attempting to shout her down and prevent others from hearing what she has to say is the refuge of those with no constructive arguments of their own.

If her ideas are so fucking lousy, LET HER SPEAK, and let the paucity of her ideas hoist her on her own petard. Until then, if you can't make a case other than her war vote, while IGNORING the others who voted the same way (and some of whom participated in the CRAFTING of the resolution) then you may as well just save your energy, because it's coming across as lame as hell, and certainly agenda-driven, but not in a "Democratic" way at all.

[meow mix]

228. nothing against the idea and id like to see it happen..

but how? even in the most extreme repub-hating environment i dont see it happening.
definetly having some toast-fear on the hillary.

go clark :D