Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Yawn, Hillary's In

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 04:46 PM
Original message
Yawn, Hillary's In
Edited on Sun Jan-21-07 04:47 PM by ProSense
Saturday, January 20, 2007

Yawn, Hillary's In

Snip...

Let's see.

Only 72 percent of Americans will vote for a woman.

Hilary Clinton is the most detested politician outside of the Bush Administration.
So detested, her name is a punchline in most of America

She can't campaign for Dems outside the Far West and Northeast.

She has zero legislative accomplishments.

She supported the Iraq war

She has no national security experience

She has no defining political philosophy.

I think the Clinton campaign is a house of cards. When she is pressed hard and expected to actually take controversal stands, she is going to falter. She is a cautious politician, who despite all of her experiences, does not gauge the antipathy she faces on the left and the middle.

There isn't a chance in hell I would support Clinton, or to be honest, Obama, in a primary at this point. Neither has done more than talk and that will not cut it when we have to salvage our reputation and foreign policy.


Check out the 192 comments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. no yawn for me
I'm beyond excited!! Go Hillary Clinton!!!

I sent an email telling her she has my support 100%!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BayCityProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. This is such crap
I am supporting someone anti-war in the primary but she could easily win the White House. Your list is absurd:

Only 72 percent of Americans will vote for a woman. (have you seen the approval ratings for the other Dems? They are all about 50/50 and Gore is liked less than Hillary..yet everyone here wants him in the race!)

Hilary Clinton is the most detested politician outside of the Bush Administration.
So detested, her name is a punchline in most of America ( That's news to me)

She can't campaign for Dems outside the Far West and Northeast. (she came to MI and people loved her. If you are looking for a Dem that can win the deep south, maybe you should go with Zell Miller)

She has zero legislative accomplishments. ( Are you really serious?)

She supported the Iraq war (So did most of the other candidates)

She has no national security experience ( She is from NY and is on the armed services comm. Are we even talking about the same woman?)

She has no defining political philosophy. ( Yes she does...she is a Democrat)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. The list is accurate.
Armed service committee isn't Foreign Relations, it is just the committee for those who want to look like hawks. Oh, and she is detested. Complete strangers shudder at her picture and the mention of her name. That is bad. I have had people tell me they would consider voting for a Democrat- but not Hillary Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElizabethDC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. Well
I've had a staunch Republican female friend tell me that Hillary Clinton is the only Democrat she'd ever vote for. So you never know about people . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian_rd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
39. Yawn here too
Only 72 percent of Americans will vote for a woman. (have you seen the approval ratings for the other Dems? They are all about 50/50 and Gore is liked less than Hillary..yet everyone here wants him in the race!) He is not "liked" less, it's his polls on a 2008 run that are less. And Gore's numbers are lower because he may not even run. It's like comparing Clinton's 2008 poll numbers to Harry Reid's.

Hilary Clinton is the most detested politician outside of the Bush Administration.
So detested, her name is a punchline in most of America ( That's news to me)If that's news to you, then you have missed a LOT in the last 14 years. She has been equated with the earthly incarnation of Satan by half of all America's media since 1992.

She can't campaign for Dems outside the Far West and Northeast. (she came to MI and people loved her. If you are looking for a Dem that can win the deep south, maybe you should go with Zell Miller) Plenty of Democrats won in red districts in November. And the OP is correct, she could never get majorities in most places because of the previous point.

She supported the Iraq war (So did most of the other candidates)And she only began to oppose it when it became fashionable, like many Republicans.

She has no national security experience ( She is from NY and is on the armed services comm. Are we even talking about the same woman?)Being from NY and on the Armed Services Committee is not national security experience.

She has no defining political philosophy. ( Yes she does...she is a Democrat)Like the OP said - no defining political philosophy. But really - simply being a registered Democrat does not give her a political philosophy. She is little more than the perfect stereotype of a politician who will only have an opinion on any given subject after it is focus-tested and polled for months and then after a careful calculation of how to triangulate with the right-wing nutcases. Hillary Clinton is the establishment candidate of the corporate DLC professional losers club. Make no mistake - there is nothing the Republican Party wants more than for Hillary to be the Dem candidate for 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. I sent her an e-mail telling her I would never vote for her.
Hell would freeze over first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ripple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
31. Wow. Just wow. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #31
37. breathtaking, isn't it?
yikes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yawn...Steve Hates Hillary...nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k_jerome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
3. yet another whiner. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Island Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
5. A monarchy shared between two powerful families
fails to excite me as well. Terrify? Yes. Excite? Oh hell no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BayCityProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. the thing is
Most people here would have support RFK and JFK and support Ted in the senate and the million other Kennedy's that have run for office. How is this different?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Island Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. I'm not sure that I would have supported both of them -
I never had to make that choice. I have no problems with Teddy being in the Senate just like I have no problems with Hillary being in the Senate. All I know is that since I've been eligible to vote in Presidential elections (in 1984), there has been either a Bush or a Clinton somewhere on every single ballot. (As VP or President - beginning in 1980.) Who's next? Jeb, then Chelsea, the Preston Bush (or whatever the hell his name is). It just doesn't sit right with me. I suppose others aren't bothered by it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal renegade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
7. She's got one thing none of the other candidates have
and thats the big dog in her corner. I'm not keen on Hillary but she seems unbeatable. I want Big Dog back in the WH and we'd be wise to get her elected. Hillary/Obama would be unstoppable, JMO..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. The "Big Dawg" helped pave the way for the RW corporate media machine
He's also big on the "Globalization" hoax that has damn near destroyed the middle class in this country, and will privatize every resource on the globe for the benefit of a few.

But it's OK....he's a rock star.:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. You are absolutely right! He was and is as bad as Bush when it comes to the media.
History will eventually expose the Clinton's and the Bush's for who they really are and what they have done to this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porkrind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Thank you.
If I could mod up your comment, I would.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Byron Donating Member (293 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
27. Amen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Dunham Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. Abc's new poll shows Hillary at 54% approval and ahead of McCain
Edited on Sun Jan-21-07 05:05 PM by David Dunham
Steve Gilliard is a putz, as Al D'Amato would say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Then she has nothing to worry about!
Lieberman was the leader in the early goings of the 2004 campaign. Let's hope Clinton can do better.

Gilliard's obviously not excited.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. Oh, and polls can't be manipulated! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #17
42. Poll showing her leading = bogus. Poll showing her unelectabiity = infalliable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
11. Good post and right on the money. All hype and name recognition- her husbands. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
14. it's on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faryn Balyncd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
18. amen . ProSense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
20. Yawn, are you going to be so disappointed in when she wins the primary!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
21. In the end: YOU will be in a voting booth in Nov 2008
You going to do something in that booth ....

Nuff said ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #21
32. Yep if need be I will write in Kucinich or Conyers or Woolsey
Edited on Sun Jan-21-07 11:33 PM by truedelphi
I will NOT VOTE FOR fascism lite
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. Isnt freedom wonderful ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #21
41. Or I might consider writing in the following Oct 02 Senators who voted agasint the IWR
Edited on Mon Jan-22-07 01:44 PM by truedelphi
Boxer is awesome because she went on to be the Senator allowing for recording the House resolution against certifying the stolen 2004 election results in the Senate. (January 05) She fully understands the issue of the election machineries and processes needing a complete overhaul.

Feingold also awesome. He speaks out against the funding of the "Surge" and it is not just a building block for a bid for the Presidency - he means it.

Wellstone would even be a consideration - rather vote for a dead (Murdered) statesman than a living politician.

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Bob Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
22. Wake up and smile. This means RFK, Jr. will run...
for Hillary's senatorial seat!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miss Chybil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
23. Yep, let's help the Republicans beat up our candidates every chance we get.
I mean, what else would we do? /sarcasm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. This is a good opportunity to prove Gilliard wrong.
He made seven points, these can be debunked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #24
43. How can an opinion be proved wrong?
All you can prove is the author is biased and full of it.

"Only 72 percent of Americans will vote for a woman."

Here's a poll cited with not attribution. Considering the doznes of polls out on this issue this is a follish assumption.

"Hilary Clinton is the most detested politician outside of the Bush Administration.
So detested, her name is a punchline in most of America"

Wow detested by freepers. What a horrid burden to bear!

"She can't campaign for Dems outside the Far West and Northeast."

Based on what?

"She has zero legislative accomplishments."

Accomplishments? As the junior Senator in the minority party until now? Here's a sampling of what she has proposed/sponsored/championed etc.

http://clinton.senate.gov/about/biography/index.cfm

"She supported the Iraq war"

She no longer does.

"She has no national security experience"

Yeah that seat on the Armed Forces Committee can be easily ignored. Also her countless trips abroad both as a Senator and First Lady.

"She has no defining political philosophy."

She has a centrist Democrat philosophy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
26. I don't want her to get the nomination
even though I like her ok, but I will vote for her if she gets the nom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stranger Donating Member (128 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #26
38. a wise repsonse
I feel the same way tavalon!

we got to support the nominee-even if its her.

remember the 80,000 idiots who voted for nader in fla, and gave us BUSH!!

thats what all this "take my marbles and go home" BS did for us before.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bling bling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
28. Nice source.
It is quite typically wrong on just about every accusation.

I say typically because the anti-Hillary talking points and "sources" used by DU'ers who start anti-Hillary threads are always wrong. And I do mean always.

If I ever see an anti-Hillary thread that uses credible sources and factual points that show regard for perspective (ie. the argument about Hillary and the flag burning amendment almost never considers the perspective in which that amendment was written) I'll be highly impressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Nothing wrong with the source. It's an opinion on a blog.
Care to debunk what he said?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bling bling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. You know what would be nice? If I didn't always HAVE to debunk this garbage.
Edited on Mon Jan-22-07 12:30 AM by bling bling
It's not written as opinion. It's written as though it's information you can take to the bank. And it would be nice if the anti-hillary posts would just either use credible information or just state up front that it's a bunch of crap that some yahoo blogger may very well have just pulled out of their butthole.

It would be nice if the OP's of this crapola would check the information THEMSELVES before they post it so that the rest of us could read the threads here with a peaceful sense of knowing that if we read it on DU and it's posted by long time or relatively well known DU'ers, then it is most likely credible.

I really resent that I just spent (probably wasted) 25-30 minutes of my time doing the research that I feel you should do. After this, Im going to simply start noting who authors irresponsible threads such as these and Im not going to be the one proving that the b.s. accusations are untrue. Thats the kind of game the Republicans play and it infuriates me (accusing the Dems of this or that and then putting us on the defense when the original accusation is complete bullshit).

Really as a community we ought to expect more from each other. We ought to be able to rely on one another to make sure that we all are as informed of the facts as possible. But day after day I look through these threads at some of the accusations against Clinton and the other Dems and I pity how absolutely uninformed my fellow Democratic party members are here. And I don't respect those who cause this kind of disinformation. So the source of this crappy article is as bad as a Republican in my POV.

*******

Only 72 percent of Americans will vote for a woman.

I found between 81-86%.

Eighty-six percent of Americans say that they, personally, would vote for a qualified woman for president.

http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/Facts/Elections/Gallup_Nearly_Half_of_Americans.pdf

A nationwide poll from Hearst Newspapers and Siena College says 81 percent of registered voters would vote for a woman for president of the United States.
"The results are fascinating and very encouraging for women - and all Americans who want the nation's highest office held by the best people, regardless of their gender," said Dr. Douglas Lonnstrom, director of the Siena Research Institute.
http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2005/02/21/daily12.html


Hilary Clinton is the most detested politician outside of the Bush Administration.
So detested, her name is a punchline in most of America


There arent any polls regarding the most detested politician, this is one of those facts that was apparently pulled out of the bloggers butthole. Considering she polls higher than quite a few of the other Dem Presidential condenders, Id say its not unreasonable to call that statement a big fat lie.


She can't campaign for Dems outside the Far West and Northeast.

Let me try to understand this by repeating it. She cant campaign for Dems outside the Far West and Northeast. I dont even know what the heck this is supposed to mean. She cant campaign for who? Herself? Other Dems running for President? The fact is that she can campaign for Dems outside of the coasts and she HAS. Unless I've misunderstood it, this is got to be the dumbest thing Ive read in a long time.


"She has zero legislative accomplishments.

No she doesnt. Shes authored, sponsored, and co-sponsored legislation over the years. Do remember that she is a junior senator. They dont get the cream of the crop. Secondly, she has been in the minority party which has made it difficult for ANY Dem Senators to get any legislation passed. Heres a few links for you to prove shes not just sitting around. You can find a lot more information if youre really interested but Im not going to spend the time doing it because Ive already wasted my time and I just know it and its pissing me off right now that I even bothered doing this much. I have 15,000 other things I should have spent this time doing but here I am sifting through Google to debunk baseless accusations that nobody is going to read. Im such a sucker.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

On June 16, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) delivered the opening address of the ACS 2006 National Convention with a major policy address on privacy in which she announced new proposed legislation to address the security of private information. Declaring privacy to be "synonymous with liberty," Senator Clinton called for greater federal protection for personal data from theft or misuse by private commericial actors, as well as greater Congressional and judicial oversight over domestic surveillance and data-mining programs unilaterally crafted by the executive branch.

http://www.acslaw.org/node/2967

Count Every Vote Act 2005

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, along with others, recently unveiled a sweeping federal election reform bill, the Count Every Vote Act of 2005.

The Count Every Vote Act addresses an impressive number of the problems that Election Protection volunteers documented in 2004, and there's good reason for that. People For the American Way and the Election Protection coalition advised the bill's authors after spending weeks and months poring over the incident reports and voter testimonials which EP volunteers helped gather.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=18049

Link to committees she serves on.
http://clinton.senate.gov/senate/committees/index.cfm


Click the various icons to see where Clinton stands on the issues what what legislation she has authored or co sponsored and what passed.
http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/


She supported the Iraq war

Im not going there. So did Kerry. This argument has been beaten to death and Im over it.


She has no national security experience

Shes the Senator from New York so shes done a lot to pro-actively protect her state from further attacks. Besides that shes on the Senate Armed Services committee. It simply cannot be stated that she has no national security experience. She can hold her own on this topic now. And might I add, its pretty funny for a liberal blogger to use this against her when its the liberal blogger-types that have done absolutely nothing but criticize Hillary at every possible turn and in every possible way anytime she has done anything to bolster this experience for her record. So typical.


She has no defining political philosophy.

Come on now. She has a website that anyone can read that shows her voting record. Shes pro choice, pro universal health care, pro taking care of veterans and a whole lotta other things that she has consistently proven to be her philosophy based on her voting record. People who are simply too lazy to look at her voting record before casting out accusations are becoming a huge pet peeve of mine.
http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/


I think the Clinton campaign is a house of cards. When she is pressed hard and expected to actually take controversal stands, she is going to falter. She is a cautious politician, who despite all of her experiences, does not gauge the antipathy she faces on the left and the middle.

Being that this statement begins with I think. It is obviously an opinion that I do not need to debunk. This is the only statement of them all that appears to be an opinion and is not stated as fact, by the way.


There isn't a chance in hell I would support Clinton, or to be honest, Obama, in a primary at this point. Neither has done more than talk and that will not cut it when we have to salvage our reputation and foreign policy.

Bullshit 2-fer-one statement ("neither has done more than talk"). He smeared Clinton AND Obama with not facts but one big swipe of poo-poo from the limitless supply of crap he apparently luvs pulling from his ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. "She has zero legislative accomplishments." "No she doesnt. "
I think that's what he meant. There still is no demonstrated experience on national security or in foreign policy. The polls are about a woman and are not specific to Hillary Clinton. In three years, she hasn't made a single trip to Iowa. She is being criticized for her position on Iraq because she refuses to support a definite withdrawal date and a binding resolution to prohibit the surge. Gilliard made some good points when you consider the field of candidates.

Still, you made a case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unbowed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
30. Yawn is right.
This was expected, wasn't it?

The media wants her to run. They've been itching for this moment for a long time. Too bad. We can do better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
35. Watch GOP msm promote Hillary and continue to put down Obama!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YOY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
40. Could someone link me up to wherever the 72% figure was gained?
Edited on Mon Jan-22-07 09:53 AM by YOY
I'm not buying it until I see it from a reputable source.

I just don't see where the hawk magically jumped in the minds and hearts of so many Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 21st 2024, 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC