Clinton: Wicked Witch of the latte-sipping liberal cultural elite

[Alcibiades]

The right in this country is fueled by hate. They have built up an imaginary class of liberals who support mandatory abortion, communism, illegal immigration, the destruction of all Christianity, obligatory homosexuality and socialized medicine. This class of liberals are cultural elitists who drink Starbucks all day and chardonnay all night.

The leader of this pointy-headed commie clique? Senator Clinton.

In reality, of course, Hillary Clinton is a rightist DLC Democrat. Paradoxically, lots of Democrats support Clinton because of this, not because they are themselves right-wing Democrats, but because they think Senator Clinton's credentials as a moderate will help her win the general election. That's not a silly position to take. The median voter of the general election is well to the right of the median voter in the Democratic primary, so it is not unreasonable to say that a Democrat on the right wing of the party might be more electable than someone like Dennis Kucinich.

There are a couple of problems with this, however, the first of which is unique to Senator Clinton. Fox News has crowned her the Wicked Witch of the latte-sipping liberal cultural elite, and the same people who believed the swift boat liars believe them. She will not only mobilize the far right: she will also alienate many moderates at the same time, the very same people her actual moderate policy stances are suppose to attract to the party. The net effect of this will be to make victory less likely. Even if she does win, we will then have to endure four or eight years of a highly mobilized right wing that will block all progress.

The second problem is one for liberal Democrats: we don't like Senator Clinton because she's not liberal enough for us. This is an honest position, honestly held, but we cannot come out and say it too loudly. Nonetheless, it is us, the liberal Democrats in the party, who are going to be giving our time, money and sweat to the nominee. Why should we feel particularly motivated to to so for a nominee who's not terribly different from Rudy Giuliani or Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Nominating Hillary Clinton has all the drawbacks of nominating Kucinich, with none of the benefits.

[denem]

1. 1. I am not going to let the right wing choose my candidate.

2. Kucinich's proposal to ban private health insurance outright would put him up against say $10 billion of HMO money in the general. If your going to put someone out of business, it's SO smart to telegraph your punches.

[earthlover]

27. Damn the icebergs....straight ahead! Let's not let icebergs get in the way of the Tiitanic!

It's not that the Reps are going to vote for Dems. It is that, with Hillary, more of them are going to vote at all.

While, at the same time, Dems will be less enthusiastic.

What bothers me is that when it is pointed out that Hillary has the highest negatives....and that she is not likely to win over many "cross-over Republicans" what we hear is that we shouldn't let the right wing choose our candidate. Bunk! Without some people who voted for Bush voting for our candidate, we will not do any better in 08 than in 04. Hillary cannot deliver! It is the independents who are the key, and Hillary comes up short.

[Prophet 451]

34. 1. Admirable

2. And? They're going to effectively put a contract out on anyone who threatens to take a cent from their (obscene) profits.

[annie1]

37. Didn't Hillary used to have to wear a bullet proof vest during her health care campaign during ...

the 90's? i dont' know why i remember that. not sure if it's correct, but i remember something to that effect.

[Prophet 451]

40. I wouldn't be at all surprised

I don't remember if that's true or not but it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

That said, such is the right's hatred for Hillary that if she was nominated or elected, I'd suggest she wear a bullet-proof vest for every public appearence.

[annie1]

44. here, she's wearing a vest here in this speech..

on health care. getting her ass booooo'd for trying to talk about universal health insurance and health care reform. wow. they knew there was gonna be some angry people there.

"If congress can figure out a way to fund health care for themselves, don't you think they could find a way to get health care for you and your children?"
60 years ago it was social security - president rosevelt said: when you work hard for a living you should not be in poverty in your older years. and he fought hard for social security, and the very people who were against ss are against health care reform"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8RYoKjbOZA



wow. she's got balls. and i bet if she had a less grating voice, people would like her better. that was balls to walls of her to try take on health care in the 90's.

and in comments on the other you tube video of the protest against her health care reforms:

"Lookin for a grassy knoll....."
MidstreamHorse (4 days ago)

"kill the message, not the messenger...cause she can be easily replaced"

[Andromeda]

43. I heard that she did wear a vest,

but I don't know it as a fact.

[Joe Bacon]

53. Why?

She made sure that the pimps running the "insurance racket" would still call the shots!

[annie1]

54. because people want to hate her. can't you tell that just by reading this site?...

she has similar plans to others on the dem ticket, but i don't hear anyone accusing them of being sell outs.

and so here she is wearing the vest. trying to explain to people, but as you can see, people don't care about the details, they just know things are going to change, and they dont' like it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8RYoKjbOZA
getting her ass booooo'd for trying to talk about universal health insurance and health care reform. wow. they knew there was gonna be some angry people there.

"If congress can figure out a way to fund health care for themselves, don't you think they could find a way to get health care for you and your children?"
60 years ago it was social security - president rosevelt said: when you work hard for a living you should not be in poverty in your older years. and he fought hard for social security, and the very people who were against ss are against health care reform"

[Joe Bacon]

66. You expect her to take the pimps out of health insurance.

Please.

Neither Moe Edwards, Larry Obama or Curly Clinton will do anything that would stop the pimps running the insurance racket. All three of them sell us out.

Only Kucinich stands for Single Payer which takes the pimps and their hundred million dollar salaries out of their racket.

Kucinich gets my vote because he is a Real Democrat. Moe, Larry and Curly are all DLC (Democrats Loving Corporations).

[annie1]

67. gotcha. : ). no, i don't expect her to take it out. just saying that...

the other don't either. DK, yes.

[Alcibiades]

57. please don't slander people in the sex industry

by comparing them to insurance executives.

[BeyondGeography]

2. They think she's a socialist, we think she's a sellout

I say we nominate her anyway, just to see how bad it turns out.

[rodeodance]

4. please do not include me in your 'we'! thanks

[Missy M]

12. This "we" doesn't think she's a sellout.

[KaptBunnyPants]

30. We can't win with Hillary.

If she does win the election, she's unlikely to roll back the corporatist agenda because the Clintons agree with so much of it. They might think that our nobility should operate with a greater sense of largesse, but they fundamentally believe that a certain class of people are superior to others and should reign over the broader society. But even with her right wing tendencies, she has a left wing image due to the 15 year effort of the fox news crowd to demonize her as the standard bearer of the Communist brigade. So we gain nothing in terms of convincing the broader electorate of her moderate nature while also losing out on the possibility of real change in a more democratic direction if she does win. But theres no point in arguing by now; the dye will soon be cast in Iowa, and hopefully we'll end up with a candidate interested in pursuing a broad progressive agenda.

[Evergreen Emerald]

31. I think you are totally wrong.

Obama: cannot win the general election. He is an empty suit
Edwards: has completely reversed himself on EVERY issue. He will be such political fodder--there is no way he can win.

Clinton is our hope to change the direction Bush is heading.

[KaptBunnyPants]

33. Any of our candidates should win the general election.

It shouldn't be too hard in this political climate to get people to vote against the Republican candidate. Even if Obama was an empty suit, which is not true, exactly how would that hurt him? Who of the Republicans running is not an empty suit? Why do you think Americans won't vote for someone for superficial reasons anyway? Noone has ever accused us of being a politically mature and sensible people. Obama is handsome, charasmatic, and running as a change candidate, which sounds exactly like the formula that elected Bill in the first place. Edwards has "flip-flopped" on one issue, which is Iraq, and thank God for that. No sensible person would run in support of that travesty, which is why even Clinton has rhetorically divorced herself ("flip-flopped", if you will) from that war. I doubt Americans will care what our candidates positions were on that war 5 years ago, which is lucky for us as only two of our candidates got it right, and only one of them stands a chance of actually being the candidate. People want the war over now, and the Republican candidate will be forced to run on the idea of sustaining our commitment there. Any Democratic candidate should be able to find a clear political advantage on that issue, flip flop or not.

As far as Clinton goes, I believe she could win the general. I doubt she'd have an easier time of it than any other candidate, but she clearly has Big Business on her side and all of the old Clinton team. They've always been good at pushing the candidate at the expense of the cause, so I'm sure she'd find a way to triangulate herself past the finish line. But there's more to this than who could win the election. If Hillary wins, it will be due to the support of her wealthy backers. She's already promised them that she's not going to "rock the boat", and I'd expect her to deliver. Obama seems to believe that he's such a nice guy that Republicans will suddenly reform their ways and act in good faith to help the country, an idea I don't buy for a second. Edwards is the only leading candidate who's running on the promise of actively combating the Republicans on populist grounds. This is the best strategy for political success and a necessary strategy to reform the corruption imposed on the system by the sustained aristocratic influence peddling that's occurred over the last 40 years. I hope we choose well.

[Alcibiades]

46. So do I

And if Senator Clinton is our nominee, I wish her well, and will work just as hard as otherwise.

In a fair world, any Dem could win. All that needs to be done is to tie the Republican nominee to Bush's failures. Point out that they were for Bush's policies before even Bush was. And, just as in 1992, the economy will be a bigger issue by next November than most people think it will be today. Whoever the nominee is, they need to point out that the Republicans own this recession, just as they own Iraq.

I had thought in 2000 that there was no way Bush could win because, even though there are a lot of stupid people out there, there are not so many that Bush could possibly win. In 2004, I had thought that, despite the legions of stupid people, surely this time everyone would see that Bush was the worst president ever. I misunderestimated both times. I won't actually say who I think has a good chance, because the last two elections appear to have been settled more by shenanigans than votes. This time, we all have to work even harder, especially those who worked so hard last time, on the principle that, if you want something done, ask a busy person to do it.

[Yael]

72. From South to Southwest?

[K Gardner]

74. Good response :-)

[Prophet 451]

36. Thet think anyone to the left of Genghis Khan is a Socialist

If there's one thing that the American electorate could do with having slapped out of them, it's this ridiculius assertion that there are no options except totally unregulated robber-baron capitalism on one hand and full-blown socialism on the other.

(I know that most of DU understands this, I'm just venting)

[Marrah_G]

41. You mean YOU think she is a sell out

[Andromeda]

42. Don't include me in that "we."

You don't speak for me and I disagree with your characterization of Hillary as a sellout.

[bunnies]

3. Ive had this conversation more times than I can count.

I think you're right on the money.

[Perry Logan]

5. Someone posted a survey here that showed Republicans do NOT say they'll be energized by Hillary.

I don't think anything will energize the poor dears at this point.

[earthlover]

28. Dream on, Perry...but next time post a link!

[niceypoo]

6. The sky is falling

better duck fast!

[annie1]

10. lol

[TreasonousBastard]

7. There are benefits to nominating Kucinich?

[Alcibiades]

56. Har har.

He is--I think--the consensus choice as the most liberal candidate. I think a lot of folks would support him, if he magically gained 20 points in the polls and suddenly seemed more electable.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Rudi Giuliani Said He Would Appoint Supreme Court Justices In The Mold Of Scalia And Thomas...

He thinks the current health care system is the best in the world...

I think more energetic DUers can come up with other differences...

[Alcibiades]

58. Hyperbole

Of course she's not as bad as any Republican of national stature. I would hope, at a minimum, we could expect better Supreme Court nominees than Scalia or Thomas out of any of the Democratic contenders.

[annie1]

9. So fox hates strong women and we should fear that? They go after gore...

for "inventing the internet", and although he was no wicked witch, he wasn't President for the last 8 years. Neither was Kerry. Neither will Kuncinich or Richardson were he to win the nomination. Nor dodd, nor gravel.

And in what way is she alienating moderates? It sounds like the right wing and the liberal "dems" are the ones who paint her as the witch and the demon. it is they who are convincing moderates she's so evil, even though she is the one who serves moderates the most.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. She Will Win The Election Handily

A plurality of voters will see her as the bright, earnest, and hard working public servant that she is...

I find it laughable that people think only Clinton will come under attack...

[annie1]

24. She's gonna need a lot of help though. Because even though she's...

hard working, been serving the public since she entered law school, made changes for women and children and families, even our friends here at DU want so desperately to paint her as a demon they forget her excellent record as a democrat. I think ultimately they will continue to spread hil hate.

[Alcibiades]

48. I hope you're wrong on that last point

Though I disagree with your assessment of her record, I do think we will all get behind her.

That being said, if ever there was a time we could win with a non-triangulated democrat, this is it. If we have to spend the next four to eight years defending the democratic incumbent from charges of being a liberal, we might as well have one who actually enacts liberal policies.

Who knows, maybe it might even be Senator Clinton. Maybe she and her husband really are liberal Democrats rather than representatives of the Lieberman wing. What's a little troubling to be is that candidates tend to appeal more to the base in the primary, yet Clinton's triangulating already. Quite frankly, I don't want to have to pound the pavement in 100 degree heat next summer for our nominee, only to find that they wind up governing to the right of the Clinton administration.

[Alcibiades]

62. Here's a link to some info from a Time CNN Poll

which I readily admit is an old one, that nonetheless points out how it is that Senator Clinton manages to convince Democrats she's a centrist, REpublicans she's a liberal and gets independents to think--well, they don't really know what to think (these are the people, after all, who don't even know whether they are Democrats or Republicans), but they are not too sure about Senator Clinton:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1229053,00.html


snip

"Partisan divisions even color views of her partisanship. Democrats mostly think she's a moderate (67% ); Republicans think she a liberal (62% ). Hillary proponents have a small reed of hope to grasp in the 60% of independents that agree with Democrats that politically she's "somewhere in between" liberal and conservative. But a look at how independents rate those other descriptive terms suggests that her support among swing voters is lukewarm at best. True, they don't think as negatively of her as Republicans do. Only 35% of independents (versus 60% of Republicans) think she "puts her own political interests ahead of what she really believes," and only 32% (versus 52% ) think she is a "divider, not a uniter". But independents also don't think of her as positively as Democrats do: 46% (versus the 77% of Democrats) see her as a "strong leader," and while 61% of Democrats think she's "likable," just 34% of independents do."

[mod mom]

11. Clinton's support is higher among women WITHOUT a college degree:

Upscale Liberal Women Continue To Resist Hillary
Los Angeles Times | Robin Abcarian | December 7, 2007 07:53 PM


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/07/upscale-liberal-women-con_n_75897.html



A Boston Globe poll this month of likely primary voters in New Hampshire suggested that Clinton has higher support among Democratic women without a college degree than among better-educated women. Several national polls have shown the same trend.

-snip

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/24/blue_collar_women_see_hope_in_clinton/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. He's Referring To The Stereotype

Who cares...

The last election the Clintons lost was in 1980...

[mod mom]

17. Folks are better informed now due to the internet and populism is pushing

the corporatists out-Thank goodness!

My point is the stereotype is wrong, better educated women are rejecting Clinton.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. I Guess HRC Is Stuck With The Votes Of Idiots

~

[KaptBunnyPants]

29. Less informed, not idiots.

There is a difference, you know.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Some Folks Are Too Busy

Some folks are too busy raising their families, paying their bills, avoiding foreclosure to ponder which candidate is corporatist and which candidate isn't...To them Clinton represents a steadiness of purpose and a reminder of an era when life was more more peaceful and prosperous...

A struggling homeowner is concerned about making his next mortgage payment and paying for his kid's braces... He's not reading the latest issue of The Nation or Mother Jones...Hillary's appeal is to bread and butter issues... We will learn if it's successful or not...

[KaptBunnyPants]

38. Exactly.

The Bush administration has a way of making everyone nostalgic for better days. Hillary is not the best candidate we have, in my opinion, but I certainly understand why so many people are eager to turn the clock back to the Clinton era. Life was just better then, and you don't need to be a political junkie to know that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Ahhhh

I keep hearing people want change...And to literally believe you can go back to a more idyllic time is fanciful...But I talk with a lot of people; on the left and on the right, not ideologues, and they remember the nineties as a happier, less complicated time...I think there is a subliminal argument from Hillary that we can go back and a desire by many to do so...Hillary gets pilloried here because she's believed to be a corporatist or lacking progressive creds...I don't think your average Joe and Jane think like that...They just remember we were at peace, gas was a $1.00 a gallon , and they weren't in danger of being foreclosed on...

[Alcibiades]

55. That's a good point

Clinton brand = economic growth, rising wages, lower national debt. Easy to understand the mass appeal. Of course, for the most part, these are also not the people who will have to go canvassing in 100 degree heat all summer for the nominee. Which I will do, even if it's senator Clinton. Thanks for the lesson in how to sell her! :hi:

Thanks also for understanding that much of what I wrote was a distillation of what the anti-Clinton Republican talking points will be if she's our nominee, and not my own opinion, or something I think is true. The fact that none of that has any bearing on reality should shock no one. Republicans probably actually drink more Chardonnay and Starbucks than Democrats on a per capita basis. The selling of the story of liberals as defined by expensive tastes in wine and caffeinated beverages is one of the greatest big lies of our times.

[Andromeda]

45. So that makes "upscale liberal women"

better than women who have lived real life, had real problems to solve and who had to work to support themselves and their children? Some had to put themselves through school (like me) and face the kinds of situation that "upscale" liberal women never had to face.

I don't think the upscale liberal women who discount Hillary are very smart then. Being "upscale" obviously doesn't improve the critical thinking process.

[mod mom]

52. Upscale was the title's term. I do not mean to imply better, only perhaps better informed

because they have more time on their hands to read or get involved.


BTW Clinton's policy of free trade is not helping blue collar folks-their jobs are being outsourced so that corporate profit's grow. Free trade has seriously hurt the middle class. Those who benefit from it are the investor class.

[truedelphi]

13. The OP States: That's not a silly position to take.

Well, if you believe the MSM about everything,it might not be a bad idea to take to heart the notion that Hillary (and only Hillary) can win.

But the actual facts, which MSM hopes you never uncover is closer to something that the Pew Research study found:

28% of all voting AMericans consider themselves to be Republicans
33% consider themselves to be Democrats

And <drumroll> a whopping 39% of us consider ourselves to be Independents.

This is good news for Kucinich, and Edwards.
And it means that the MSM has to continue to invalidate these two candidates so we don't catch on to the fact that numerically they have a very good chance.

[Alcibiades]

59. I only wrote that because many here would dismiss it

out of hand. It does make sense according to theories of elections based on some understanding of the the need to appeal to the median voter. A moderate (read: from the right wing of our party) Democrat should, in theory, appeal to more of those Independents than a true liberal.

Unless it's Senator Clinton. My main problem with her is that we get all the drawbacks associated with having a genuinely liberal nominee, but few of the policy benefits. Assuming she does not have some sort of change of heart and becomes a liberal once elected.

[Arugula Latte]

16. Hey, I know! Let's nominate someone that both sides hate!

Great idea!

[annie1]

18. Better idea, let's nominate Kerry, oh wait, that didn't work out. Dukakis? oh....

that didn't work out either. Mondale! shoot. that didn't either.

[Alcibiades]

65. So we can only nominate Clintons from now on?

I don't think any of the candidates you mention had negatives as high as Senator Clinton, which should be sobering, if she is to be our nominee.

[annie1]

83. not saying no one but the clintons but i'm saying...

everyone's talking about the others like they are the one and onlys, but they weren't b/c they didn't get to do anything, they lost. So as great as "liberals" think they are, they didn't really get anywhere.

[Alcibiades]

63. That's pretty much what Tom Tomorrow wrote

in last week's This Modern World, which is here if you haven't seen it yet:

http://action.credomobile.com/comics/2007/12/the_trouble_with_hillary.html

I nearly spewed my Venti Gingerbread Cappuccino when I read it!

[Arugula Latte]

80. Hah!

I love that guy! He is always right on the mark. :thumbsup:

[Joanne98]

19. That's true. Hil supporters need to smell the coffee and come over

to the Edwards campaign!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. He's My Second Choice...

Almost 1 B but as a Floridian I have little say in the nominating process...

[Alcibiades]

68. Never happen, she's inevitable

Some people love her, bless their hearts, for some reason I don't quite understand.

What needs to happen is for Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and all the others' supporters to unite to stop Senator Clinton's nomination. That seems more likely, from what I've seen here, than for Clinton supporters to get behind another Democrat.

[kenfrequed]

85. Quite the contrary

Actually she isn't a second choice for many, with the possible exception of Biden's supporters. But since Biden isn't dropping, she won't be scooping any of them.

These are generalizations of course...

I suspect that Dodd and Richardson are probably the first that will fold. Their followers will divide their votes between Edwards and Obama. Biden and Kucinich might pick up small bumps and the media will play up to Biden (who is the "underdog" that they are busy building up). Hillary will get very little of either Dodd or Richardson supporters.

After the media sees Dodd and Richardson drop they will use it as an excuse to ignore Kucinich even more. They won't even risk having him on the air to ask him if he intends to drop or if he will run as a third party candidate. Debates hosted by MSNBC or CNN will just exclude him. This will finally consign him to being a non-factor (and as a side benefit piss off a lot of democratic party activists and progressives).

At this time the pundit poltroons will pop up and start talking the "lets get serious" schtick. They will pooh-pooh Edwards as combative and write him off and they only way they will talk about Kucinich will be to suggest Edwards, like Kucinich, isn't a serious candidate.

Biden will be continue to be granted the honorable Patrician crap since the media has been giving him a kind of deferance completely out of step with his polling numbers for months now. Obama and Clinton wil both suffer flagging numbers onless one or both can capitalize on the drop outs. Obama might, but since they are both destined to underperform in Iowa and NH it might become a battle of who is the shortest loser.

Edwards will surge in Iowa and flag a bit in NH and the media will then remind us how unimportant Iowa is generally (or was in electing Clinton). The Clinton folks will trumpet the triumph of having a Clinton at bat getting such outrageous numbers compared to when her husband had to go through. This will lead baloon as pundits will point out that Richardson, Biden, and others (Kucinich-they won't be mentioning him by name) are polling at the single digits her husband "enjoyed" in Iowa in 1992.

Eventually my favorite candidate (Kucinich) will get the hint and make some kind of deal with leadership in congress, hopefully one that involves actual impeachment investigations but Hoyer and Emmanuel will of course sabotauge this. I really hope it ends better than this for him (and us) but I doubt it.

Hillary and Obama are going to start bleeding a lot by this point as Biden and Edwards rise a bit. Obama will at this point decide to try to peel back some of the progressive votes as he will start to realize the self-same hard core liberal-progressives really aren't analogous with the Hollywood crowd and that the Hollywood sorts really never have gotten anyone elected.

So with the help of the media outlets it'll be Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and Biden. The attacks on Edwards will magnify and Obama will end up with whatever fragments of the progressive left are remaining unless Biden goes hard against the war. Most of the progs will run off or drop out of the presidential thing until september when a few of us grudgingly return to trudge about with lead in our hearts and canvass for whatever overhyped, corporate friendly candidate remains.

If we win, the DLC will take the credit for Hillary, and claim to be vindicated in how their vision matches up with Americas. If one of the other Dem's wins, they will claim that their long strategy is working and that the moderates are on board because of them. If somehow Edwards manages to win they will hamstring him before he walks into office.

If we lose, the DLC will blame the left. They will say that the irrealistic support for "Candidates like Kucinich" cost us a lot of good unification time. Of course they will be talking about a few candidates, but they will throw out a few names that they think will have impact. If Bloomberg is a factor, they will blame "turncoat Naderites" or some such nonsense for defecting and costing the Dem's the election again. Actually even if Bloomberg turns out to be a non-starter (as I suspect he will be) then they will lie and rant about 'Dino.' (and yes they absolutely WILL turn that word around and use it to describe those archaic parts of the Democratic party that "cost them the election")

[Vektor]

20. Starbucks and Chardonnay?

Eeeeeew.

Maybe Peet's and Chianti.

Now that I can get behind.

Edited to add: In all seriousness, who gives a fuck what the delusional right think? If they are so ignorant as to believe that all Liberals fit that ludicrous stereotype, then they are beyond hope, and completely nuts.

[annie1]

22. awesome picture

[Vektor]

23. Thanks, Annie!

One of my faves. Can't remember where I found it...

:hi:

[Alcibiades]

69. Peets is unknown in flyover country

And chianti is only known from Hannibal Lecter's reference to it in tSotL.

It's not a question of what the delusional right think, but a question of people who are basically apolitical but who are somehow plugged in to the propaganda sources of the delusional right. They are not going to vote for our candidate, no matter who we nominate. I want them to stay at home. I don't want every freaky-ass preacher on the Tee-Vee ranting about Senator Clinton all the time so that the freaky-ass churches get all their people out to save the little pink babies from abortion by registering basically apolitical reactionaries as Republicans at rodeos, gun shows and trailer parks across this great land.

That's the only reason why it matters what they think. Other than that, fuck them.

[Vektor]

88. One small correction -

I doubt too many wacky fundie fruitcakes are hip to Hannibal Lector and Silence of the Lambs. The movie is way too intellectual for that ilk. ;-)

However, I do see your point. I do feel, though, that the frothing delusional right are actually NOT a large majority - just a loud, shrill, smallish faction that wish for others to believe that their numbers are larger than they are.

I think most apolitical/moderate types can recognize that they are complete nut-cases. Anyone likely to buy into the RW propaganda is probably already a fundie wack-a-doo. I suspect "apoliticals" don't even pay attention to the rhetoric. The ones I know stay out of the process because they are turned off by all the bickering, and/or choose to remain blissfully ignorant to the state of the world, and refuse to get involved because they simply aren't motivated to do so. They just don't care.

Which in itself is sad, really.

Edited to add - the Repukes I know and work with drink just as many frou-frou coffee drinks and wine as the lefties. I think love of those things is pretty bi-partisan. :-)

[Beam Me Up]

26. yep but nobody cares what we think so . . .

on and on it goes.

more lies more death more state sponsored terror masquerading as a war on the very thing it produces more wealth for the few more grief for the rest of us and fewer and fewer rights under the constitution

blech

[Armstead]

32. I agree with your post, but we liberals should say it clearly

Hillary is NOT liberal enough on the core issues of money and power to be the Democratic nominee.

[Alcibiades]

50. Thank you!

In 2000, we nominated a centrist Southerner. In 2004, we nominated a war hero. I think some of us were motivated by who we thought could win. Maybe this time we could just nominate the Democrat we think best reflects what we think this country should be, one who expresses a progressive, populist vision for the land and the party of Jefferson and FDR.

If Senator Clinton ever gets around to doing that, no one will be happier than me.

[mtnsnake]

47. You sound more like my paranoid right wing neighbor than you do a liberal. nt

[Alcibiades]

49. Really?

You'da thunk that "The right in this country is fueled by hate" might have tipped you off that that's not the case. Oh, sorry, that was just the opening line. I suppose you skimmed over that one. You must have gone to grad school.

The opinions that sound like they might come from your paranoid right-wing neighbor are ascribed to people exactly like your paranoid right-wing neighbor. If they sound like dead-on imitations of actual right-wing rantings, it is all thanks to having listened to what seems like millions of redneck morans repeating the same right-wing talking points they have gotten from their favorite propaganda sources. I'm sure your right-wing neighbor's an asshole, and I'm sorry you have to put up with him/her. Multiply that by several million times and you'll know what it's like in the south.

I'm sure I'm not quite like the liberals you've met, or anyone else you know, but you are right about one thing: after two stolen elections and nearly two full terms of Bush, I am quite paranoid, though of course it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

I think Senator Clinton's too conservative, and would prefer we nominate Edwards, Kucinich or any of the others rather than another Clinton. If you really think she's the most liberal candidate out there, make your case. You can even call me names, I don't care, I'd just like to see the case made.

[IndianaJones]

51. the far right and left meet at the far end of the circle..at the point of irrelevance. nt.

[Alcibiades]

61. It's not a circle, It's a line.

As far as what constitutes far left or far right, if it is a circle, there is no left or right.

Not that I even think anyone here at DU is actually from either the far left or the far right. Making that kind of accusation is itself immoderate.

[rucky]

60. Why does FOX hate lattes so much?

and what the hell do they drink in the green room?

I know what Bill-o's drinking, and I suspect Alan Colmes chokes down his own vomit, but what's wrong with a latte every once in awhile?

[FlyingSquirrel]

64. I remember once a long time ago O'Reilly really flamed on lattes...

I think it was in 2000 or so. He was saying what a huge waste of money they are and how he couldn't understand why anyone would pay $3 for a cup of coffee. ($3 is pretty cheap now! lol) But anyway, point being that I think many Repugs like to show their disdain for lattes while pushing their chest out to show what great conservatives they are, that they are against any kind of money-wasting including that of buying a latte.

[rucky]

75. I get my coffee on the inside...

stovetop espresso maker: $14.00
Cafe Bustelo: $4.00/can (2-week's supply)

saying F-U to Starbucks: Priceless

[FlyingSquirrel]

87. My wife is real big on the granita type drinks... so i went to

Cash & Carry where a lot of the smaller espresso stands get their supplies from and bought a big bag of the mix, nice good blender and some flavored syrups.. The blender has paid for itself many times over by now.

[Alcibiades]

70. Hypocrites

They go in for the venti, with extra cream and sugar, and a danish, and the Starbucks house CD. All of which they get at the drive through, because they feel disdain for those people sitting around Starbucks, drinking their coffee and --horror-- reading.

Most never met a form of conspicuous consumption they didn't like.

[IronLionZion]

84. I've suspected as much. I don't care for coffee or coffee shops

but the people I know who do are Republicans with money to waste. Similarly, it's so obvious that sexual perversion runs rampant throughout the family values party. Red states have higher divorce rates. Red states also take in a hell of a lot more federal tax dollars than they send out. Abstinence-only education produces more teen pregnancies. Abortion rates went up after Bush took office. Government got ridiculously bigger and into our personal lives when small-government Republicans took office. Competition is suppressed with no-bid contracts and consolidation under the free-market Republicans.

It's so Orwellian. And so sickening. Latte Republican is more like it. I like to use the term corporate conservative.

[Downtown Hound]

76. The people who work at Fox News

are far more likely to drink Starbucks than any of the so-called "communists" they're always ranting about. Most of those people wouldn't touch Starbucks with a ten foot pole.

[Beacool]

71. Only the right???? There's enough hate for her right here in this so called Democratic board.

She may not be liberal enough for some of you, but so what? The party as a whole is much more to the center than to the left.

[Alcibiades]

78. That's absolutely true

And if she's the nominee, I expect to see a whole bunch of moderate and centrist Democrats out canvassing every day. Middle of the road Democrats should be excited about the inevitable nomination of Senator Clinton!

It would actually be nice to see. I'm actually to the right of most of my fellow Democratic activists here, so I'd welcome some centrist Democratic activists. I just don't think it's going to happen.

Prove me wrong. Calling all moderates: go out with a bunch of impassioned moderates and work hard pounding the pavement for Senator Clinton this year. That would really show me and all the other liberals where the center of our party is.

[yellowcanine]

73. No matter how we feel about HRC, we should not repeat Republican talking points about her, imo.

"Clinton: Wicked Witch of the latte-sipping liberal cultural elite"

How does using this as an OP title help Democrats, whether HRC wins or loses the nomination? I fail to see the necessity of this. It is kind of like decrying a viscious rumor after first repeating it loudly for everyone to hear. And it is downright Nixonian - Dick Nixon used to be fond of repeating rumors about opposition candidates by saying "It would be wrong to say ........"

[Alcibiades]

79. I had thought it was too laughable to actually use

It was an intentional exaggeration of the sort of things they can and do say about Senator Clinton.

It helps democrats because it's a warning against being lulled by the siren song of Senator Clinton's inevitability. No matter what we say here, though, I think Senator Clinton's negatives are not going to go away. Which is a shame, because she might be the nominee. She is just too inviting a target: the right knows how to fight the Clintons. They have ammo saved up from the Clinton administration. There would be no honeymoon, no first 100 days, just the politics of personal destruction from day 1.

I don't think we need to worry about watching what we say here because the Freepers might get ahold of it. They have folks already on the payroll doing real opposition research. Suffice it to say, lots of Democrats think Senator Clinton's negative ratings are too high to be our nominee, and many also disagree with her on matters of policy.

[yellowcanine]

81. Not a tactical point. In principle we should not repeat Pubbie memes about Dems.

And I have said this before and will say it again. Anyone who thinks the Republicans will hold off on swift boating the Dem candidate should it not be Clinton is seriously deluding themselves. As far as the pubbies are concerned it will be the politics of personal destruction regardless. Have we not learned anything from the experiences of Al Gore, Max Cleland, and John Kerry?

[Jai4WKC08]

77. You're right but it doesn't matter

The Repub noise machine (to include Fox) has in fact branded Hillary as a far-left liberal and a LOT of people believe them. But the fact is also, if Obama or Edwards (or anyone else) wins the nomination, they will quickly brand them the same way and the same people will believe it.

Look at Kerry fer gods' sake. He was about as moderate a Democrat as they come, a veteran with an honorable and even heroic war record. The GOP convinced the American public he was "so far out of the mainstream, he wasn't even in the water" and of course you know the swiftboat story.

What we need is someone who can work the media and turn the attacks around. Otherwise we're screwed.

[mzmolly]

82. I tend to agree which is why I support Edwards.

Well said.

[wyldwolf]

86. Ridiculous

You've described the classic problem centrists Democrats have always faced - being attacked from both sides for mostly exaggerated reasons. Both sides believe they're correct in their "analysis." Read any biography on FDR or JFK, just as examples. They were hated by the left and the right during their time.

Lots of Democrats support Clinton because they agree with her. Keep in mind that politicians are not appointed. They're voted in.