Hillary Clinton is a Democrat

[LaydeeBug]

Just that.

It needed to be mentioned.

[hobbit709]

1. But what type.

Progressive, Blue Dog, Third Way, Centrist, or corporate?

[boston bean]

2. One too ugly to whack off to. per another du thread... see here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4219729

[hobbit709]

4. THAT merits a WTF on several levels.

[BlueCaliDem]

42. + 1000 eom

[NYC_SKP]

59. The jury system blew it again. Missed by not just one but by two votes.

Voted 4-2 to leave it.

It's fucked up, I wish they'd find a different way.

[boston bean]

60. Well take some solace in the fact that a post of mine in relation to that

was found to be just too much for DU, and was hidden.

Pointing out how bad it is, is worse than posting the crap.

At Tue Dec 24, 2013, 02:25 PM, an alert was sent on the following post:

Not being able to find a pic of Hillary in a swim suit
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024222500

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

No. This thread is about BB whining about DU again. Call out. Let's stop these threads this holiday season. Yesterday was enough.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Dec 24, 2013, 02:33 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: This should be in the lounge, or better yet in the Great Cosmic Vacuum of Nothingness
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: How is BB "whining about DU again" a TOS violation? If you don't like it leave the thread.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Tired of the subject. Plenty of threads discussing it already.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Really? Is this what some people take their time and trouble to post? Obvious troll post.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: One poster should not dictate what people think, post or respond to. We are humans.

CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DECISION

You will no longer be able to participate in this discussion thread, and you will not be able to start a new discussion thread in this forum until 3:33 PM. This hidden post has been added to your <a href="/?com=profile&uid=173223&sub=trans">Transparency page</a>.

[NYC_SKP]

62. This proves that the jury system doesn't work. And you know how the hosting system works.

And I'm engaged in trying to convince GD hosts that the offensive OP is against the SOP, which forbids whining.

I've made the case that an OP created to bash another DU group's posts is whining about DU.

I'm not winning. You can read the thread yourself, your a host.

Sorry.

[boston bean]

63. I've seen it. To me the system is broke,

I really don't participate in it any longer, except for the groups I host. I might chime in now and again, but really the admin have made very clear they see no issue and things are working fine.

[Warpy]

105. Well, that isn't quite what he said.

He just said there were no swimsuit photos of her. Fully dressed women don't work for his particular flavor of kink, I guess.

Hillary Clinton is a Democrat mostly because she married one. Her daddy was a Republican so that's what she was until she married.

She's still too conservative to merit my support, as was her husband. Oh, I'll hold my nose and vote for whatever third way stiff the party presents us with, the other party is just plain barking mad, but don't expect any enthusiasm for them in the primaries.

[Whisp]

144. That was a repulsive OP

but if anyone tries to milk sympathy or support for Hillary because of that hateful post, you got another thunk coming.

[spin]

153. The comment was over the top and unnecessary. It should have been hidden. (n/t)

[LaydeeBug]

10. are those the TYPES? nt

[hobbit709]

17. I'm getting increasingly disgusted by the fact I have to hold my nose

and carry a barf bag when I vote. One thing Hillary is NOT is liberal/progressive except maybe in comparison to the Republicans.

[PowerToThePeople]

18. you are not alone

[Vashta Nerada]

33. +1000

[okaawhatever]

46. That is exactly why there aren't liberal/progressive candidates (Republicans). The country

is farther right than it's been in decades. The corporate sponsored elections, laws allowing charitable church groups to receive government funding making them much larger in size and scope, and constant right wing messaging in the media has pulled the American public farther right than ever. The Democrats that are getting elected in hybrid states are the more centrist Democrats. They have to get more of the independent and Republican vote than ever before. Why do you think the progressive congress people are from strong democratic states? They can be progressive and win. I think it will be a gradual shift back to the left, but I'd welcome a strong progressive candidate if they could actually win the 2016 election.
If we want to get back to a progressive or liberal country we're going to have to seen campaign finance and media reform. If the American voter isn't getting the message it doesn't matter much what the message is.

[Alittleliberal]

51. The country really isn't

I would say the majority of citizens are progressive. Not enough people vote. Too many progressives are disenfranchised. And there's too much gerrymandering!

[BlueCaliDem]

57. ^^^This!^^^ Excellent analysis, Alittleliberal.

And since the Citizens United ruling, Corporatists with bundles of cash are buying up our government and our country. CU must be overturned and eviscerated forever and Section 4 of the VRA must be restored.

We can't do that with a Republican in the WH. We need to vote for the Democratic candidate who terrifies the AlwaysWrongRight and their moneyed Libertarian masters the most - and that's Hillary Rodham-Clinton. They just don't have any candidate who can beat her.

Although she's not my ideal candidate (Elizabeth Warren is my dream candidate, but she's said, emphatically, that she's not running), I believe it's best to have one bird in the hand rather than two in the bush and Hillary is all but assured to win from any prominent, well-funded Republican.

I and my group will be donating, campaigning, and enthusiastically voting for Hillary Rodham-Clinton come 2016.

[okaawhatever]

66. Cool. I understand Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal will both be in the running for

the Republican nomination. That either of them are considered candidates is scary. Walker did nothing for his state, is 47th in job creation and has zero credentials. Jindal is running a third world state and hasn't made it much better. The fact that some people think they have done good things is a testament to how manipulated American people are by the media. I read somewhere recently that a poll on Hurricane Katrina showed almost 30% of folks in Louisiana blamed Obama for the problems. That is more than scary.

[Jamaal510]

71. So they must think

Obama was president in 2005, then. My God, that is some scary stuff.

[LaydeeBug]

82. Excellent post! nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

129. The type that can get elected

[grahamhgreen]

141. BS - How'd that work out last time, LOL. Lost to a more progressive candidate, HAHA!!!

[Sanity Claws]

3. A direct email to her would be a better way to remind her

She does forget, you know.

I know I'm going to get flamed but I would prefer a more progressive candidate in 2016. Her vote on the Iraq War sticks in my craw. If she couldn't stand up to the insanity of Bush, she will not be able to stand up to the insanity of the corporate powers that be.

[LaydeeBug]

7. It seems that it's some people HERE who need the reminder nt

[whatchamacallit]

61. An almost meaningless distinction at this point

War, plunder, and inequality still rule the day.

[Victor_c3]

64. I'm with you on most of that

I take her Iraq vote and her quote "I have nothing to apologize for" in regard to her Iraq vote very very personally.

[Scuba]

5. Coulda fooled me!

[LaydeeBug]

9. wow. nt

[monmouth3]

6. So she says....n/t

[LaydeeBug]

8. This is so telling. All the flippant, underhanded INSIDIOUS nt's

and it doesn't say something about **her**, either.

[Scuba]

12. OK, here ...

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/hillary-clinton-rakes-big-money-two-goldman-sachs-speeches-one-week

[LaydeeBug]

13. So?

You have to play the hand you're dealt, not the one you want.

It sucks that it happens to be where the money is, but…

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

[Scuba]

14. So this Country cannot survive another corporatist in the White House. That's what.

Your Dick Cheney response says it all: who cares what the People need or want.

[LaydeeBug]

15. The only one making a DICK CHENEY response is *YOU*. Spare your hysterics.

The country can't survive!!!! Oh nooooooooooooes!! You have to hate Hillary or our nation is doomed.

[Scuba]

16. I don't hate Hillary, in fact I admire her and think she did a bang up job as SOS.

But her policy positions are way, way too far right for me, and for the good of our Country.

[LaydeeBug]

73. HRC and BHO are practically identical. And she would be good for our country AND we'd certainly

SURVIVE. the idea that our nation would not is over the top, to say the very least.

[truebluegreen]

76. Yup. BHO is also way, way too far to the right.

If he weren't, we wouldn't still be in a stagnant "recovery" 5 years after the Great Recession.

But sure, he was and is better than the alternatives that were offered.

[Ken Burch]

132. How could it be good for the country to have ANOTHER warmonger as president?

There is simply no excuse for nominating somebody who refuses to even consider reducing our nuclear stockpile, who wants to maintain the status quo on our Cuba policy, and who STILL hasn't given up on the idea of bombing Iran(even though we all know that doing that could never possibly be justified).

It's time to move on from the Scoop Jackson thing. Voters who back a big war budget don't have any progressive views on anything and they're going to refuse to vote for ANY Democrat anyway.

War and feminism are totally opposed concepts these days. War can only be good for men now, and only white men at that.

[Whisp]

145. identical twins!

yeh, they are almost identical. Obama loves war and he is just stashing that corporate cash away in his private bank accounts that he gets from all the Richie Riches for doing his bidding like getting the ACA, DADT repealed, and the yards of other 'far right' catastrophic policies. Oh and he really really wanted war with Iraq, you know, that Dumb war Hillary didn't chomp at the bit to vote for?

lolz

[mstinamotorcity2]

158. +1 n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

19. You do not have to hate Hillary

I hate right wing politicians. Hillary just happens to be on that side much of the time. So, while she is on that side, she will see hate that is directed at the right. The hatred is not directed at the individual, but what the individual represents.

[LaydeeBug]

74. It doesn't matter whether you HAVE to hate HRC. With many here, it is a compulsion. nt

[SidDithers]

11. DU rec...nt

Sid

[liberal_at_heart]

20. you are free to vote for whomever you want. I will not vote for centrist democrats anymore.

I will no longer vote straight democrat. Democrats will have to earn my vote from now on. They will have to show that they represent the working people, not the corporations to get my vote.

[stevenleser]

21. When the Hillary haters get you down LaydeeBug, just remember this...

In about 32 months, we will be watching her accept the Democratic nomination, in 35 months we will be watching her win the election and in 37 months we will be watching her inauguration.

[hrmjustin]

37. +1

[BlueCaliDem]

45. + 2

I may not agree with 100% of her past decisions, but I disagree with 100% of Republican decisions.

People need to understand that they will never get that perfect candidate they're angling for. That's just how democracy works. If we want to change the corporatism infesting our government, we need to start in Congress not the White House. Congress is where all the are ails are and only there can we make the changes this country needs.

[Victor_c3]

65. If she makes it past the primaries, I'll be holding my nose while I vote for her.

I have a lot of problems with her history on the subject of Iraq. As a veteran of the war on Iraq, I take her saying "I have nothing to apologize for" very personally. Also, she is a corporatist. There is no denying that.

I will not support her during the primaries, but if she makes it past, I'll drop a vote for her.

[IMG][/IMG]

[closeupready]

99. That sums up my feelings precisely.

[Beacool]

159. +3

[hootinholler]

22. That other thread not working out? n/t

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024206779

[Bobbie Jo]

23. Thanks

Missed that one, just added my rec.

[SidDithers]

24. Me too...nt

Sid

[BlueCaliDem]

47. Thanks, hootinholler! Followed the link and I K&Red it.

[hootinholler]

50. You're very welcome!

I would expect no less.

[BlueCaliDem]

55. Yep! That's why this is the Democratic Underground!

Thanks again for the link. I would've otherwise missed it.

[Cali_Democrat]

70. Is there something wrong with recommending that thread?

What was bad about it?

Just curious...

[hootinholler]

79. Not at all

Why would you think that?

Just curious...

[Cali_Democrat]

100. "I would expect no less"

Don't be coy. Expand on what you meant.

Own it.

[hootinholler]

101. I'm not being coy

When I'm not surprised that BlueCaliDem or you or Sid Dithers would be found as people recommending that thread.

How is that being coy?

I'm not upset that your or they would either.

Do you think that there's some nefarious purpose here?

[LaydeeBug]

80. It's working out very, very well. Why did you insinuate it wasn't? nt

[hootinholler]

83. I don't think I insinuated that

My question was much more direct than what I would consider an insinuation.

I thought it odd you felt everyone needed a reminder that Hillary is a democrat outside of the context of that thread. So I asked.

Did I get the message of that thread wrong? That Hillary is a Democrat and thus she is worthy of the nomination? That's why we don't have to do anything at all to move the party into better alignment with those who we should be working for: The Poor, Labor, the middle class.

Did I misread that thread? Am I mistaken about Hillary being the turd way poster child?

[LaydeeBug]

84. Your question was NOT direct, but your post here asks the question directly so I will answer it...

Did I get the message of that thread wrong? That Hillary is a Democrat and thus she is worthy of the nomination?

Yes, you got it wrong.


While it isn't my favorite to see Hillary Clinton being referred to as a 'turd way poster child', haters are gonna hate, and there is no hatred more visceral than some here for that woman, who, btw, would not be my first choice for the nod.

The propose of this thread ---->>>> http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024206779 was pretty plain: we need to get the House back in 2014. If the Hillary Haters saw that as something to impugn, honestly, that's *their* problem, not mine.

The point of this thread is to remind people, who don't seem to think the rules apply to that DEMOCRAT, is that Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. And I am truly starting to think that "turd way" is the new "birther". Because, trust, they are even bit as vindictive. They are every bit as rabid.

And they are NOT ****HELPING**** to get us to a more progressive party at all.

Hillary's not my first choice, but I will be damned if I let DEMOCRATS throw her under the bus

[hootinholler]

88. I agree that the turd way

Is not helping us get our progressive mandate.

Do those DEMOCRAT (sic) rules also apply to Joe Lieberman? After all, Democrats are plug compatible, right?

But apparently you meant people who complain about the turd way, not the turd way itself. That by resisting the Koch fueled propaganda campaign that if wall st is doing well, all is good in the economy and we should cut programs that literally keep people from starving when those programs are being stressed more and more because the wall st recovery isn't working for main st, somehow that equates to being a birther?

If we seem every bit vindictive or rabid, maybe it has something to do with the turd way pissing on our heads for years whilst claiming it's raining gold.

Electing a bunch of turd way Democrats in 2014 will be disastrous for the 99% by further entrenching the corporatocracy.

[LaydeeBug]

94. My that's a slippery slope you have there. Hillary Clinton is by no means a Joe Lieberman

and you know it

[hootinholler]

96. It's not *my* slippery slope

I recognize the spectrum of Democratic thought. I asserted all who wear the big D on their chest are not equal.

The notion that Democrats are plug compatible is your assertion.

I'm simply switching plugs to see where it leads.

Actually, I suspect if we compare the voting records we won't find a whole lot of daylight between them. (this is in fact a guess on my part because I don't want to do the research right now)

[LaydeeBug]

108. actually, it wasn't. Someone else introduced that notion, and you are twisting my response. Really.

[hootinholler]

111. I introduced the phrase

When I said All D's are not plug compatable. You then started off on how that is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Then a little later you accuse me of Hillary hate veiled by DLC/Turd way hate and you started this thread 5 mins after you posted that.

But now *I'm* the one twisting responses.

[LaydeeBug]

113. No, I said that while not all D's a plug compatible, NO R's are. nt

[hootinholler]

115. Let's go to the replay shall we?

I said:

Sorry, all D's are not plug compatable



We need someone from the Democratic wing of the party who understands what has happened to the middle class and will champion our cause against the banksters.

Your reply was:

Sorry I won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good because EVERY LAST R is not plug compatible.

To which I observed (I admit with some snark) that you were implying that my perfect candidate is the enemy:

So you consider Howard and Liz the enemy

Good to know.

You came back a day later with

Not at all. I consider them contenders whom I would support for the nomination

I just don't need to veil Hillary-hate in a "third way meme" to try and bully other democrats.

Then you started this thread before I responded. Up until I replied to that, I hadn't mentioned the turd way at all.

So who is twisting what?

[L0oniX]

89. +1

[Doctor_J]

124. this poster has at least one vanity thread per day

Close to making my very short ignore list.

[B Calm]

25. In college she wasn't!

It needed to be mentioned.

[BlueCaliDem]

48. Neither was Elizabeth Warren. She was an R up until her 40's.

So she beat Hillary Rodham Clinton by nearly twenty years.

October 25, 2011, 06:00 pm
Liberal favorite Elizabeth Warren admits she was a Republican
By Daniel Strauss

Elizabeth Warren, a favorite of the left, admitted that she was once a Republican.

In an interview with The Daily Beast released on Tuesday, Warren, 62, who recently began a bid to unseat Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) admitted that up into her early 40s she was a Republican.

"I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore," Warren said. "I was a Republican at a time when I felt like there was a problem that the markets were under a lot more strain. It worried me whether or not the government played too activist a role."

Warren admitted though that she voted for both Democrats and Republicans.

“There should be some Republicans and some Democrats,” Warren said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/189657--liberal-favorite-elizabeth-warren-admits-she-was-a-republican

[Whisp]

146. Warren has not continued to be a Republican while carrying the Democrat name...

Hillary has done that, is doing that and will do that in the future.

no comparison, but I suppose the try had to be tried.

[BlueCaliDem]

163. Well, that's your opinion of Hillary. But that wasn't the discussion.

It was pointed out that Hillary Rodham was a Republican in college and I pointed out, so was Elizabeth Warren - and unlike Elizabeth Warren, Hillary became a Democrat pretty much right after while it took Elizabeth Warren another twenty years to see the light.

That said, I like Elizabeth Warren a lot. I like her tenacity and her wonderful progressive views. I know she would be an excellent president. But I'm telling all you Elizabeth-Warren-for-President hopefuls, if she decides to run - and she's already stated, again and again and again that she won't - she won't be the president. A Republican will. There are just too many wishy-washy Independents who are to the right of her.

Even Barack Obama had to go from the left to the center in order to win the primary and then the general election. You might believe that's a weakness, but politically speaking, it's a savvy move because the center is what ultimately wins enough votes and the White House.

[L0oniX]

91. Din't she and Bill sell weed in college?

[B Calm]

95. All I know is, she was the president of her chapter of Young Republicans!

She was also a corporate lawyer for Walmart's!

[pa28]

98. Yeah, as long as we're mentioning things we should add that fact.

I wonder when her "conversion" happened.

[B Calm]

117. After being a corporate lawyer for Walmart?

[Beacool]

160. She was raised in a Republican household.

She chose not to be a Republican while in college.

[RandiFan1290]

26. AKA a General

[Baitball Blogger]

27. Erm, just the fact that you have to mention it shows there's a problem.

[RC]

35. +10

And a real problem too. What part of 'Right of Center' means a Democrat?

[BlueCaliDem]

49. Yes, there is. For some on DU.

While Hillary Rodham was a Republican in college, Elizabeth Warren (who I admire deeply), has admitted that she was a Republican up until her early 40's.

This revelation in comparison to Elizabeth Warren shouldn't make Hillary look all too bad, does it?

[Alittleliberal]

54. Except we don't live in the world 20 years ago.

I don't care that either one of them WAS a republican. I care what they are doing now.

[BlueCaliDem]

58. You're 100% correct.

But when it comes to politics, I'd rather have one center-left Democrat in the hand than two Liberal Democrats in the bush.

The American electorate, although much more liberal than U.S. Corporate Media would like us to believe, are still not politically educated enough to vote for the best candidate for them and this country. Hillary Rodham-Clinton isn't perfect, but she's close enough, and more importantly, she's a sure thing.

[hrmjustin]

28. Well said!

[Proud Public Servant]

29. A Democrat who

supports a new Glass-Steagall?
supports criminal indictments for banksters?
supports strengthening unions?
supports reducing military spending?
supports closing Gitmo?
supports reining in the NSA?
supports taxing capital gains at the same rate as income?
supports raising the top marginal tax rates?
supports lifting the FICA cap?
Opposes TPP?
Opposes the Keystone pipeline?

No? Oh well, at least she's a Democrat, right?

[Broward]

32. Opposes unnecessary, disastrous military interventions?

[Proud Public Servant]

44. Ooo, forgot that one! (nt)

[L0oniX]

90. Makes ya wonder what the definition of Democrat is.

[Progressive dog]

30. Yes she is

Just that.

[MADem]

31. The incoming Mayor of NYC is very grateful for her help in getting him elected.

She's not just a Democrat, she's a GOOD Democrat.

When she was in the Senate, her HILLPAC helped a lot of Democrats (and one Independent from VT) get elected.

She has friends, because she's a good friend.

I'll vote for her.

[BlueCaliDem]

53. Not only that, but she helped get Barack Obama elected for president.

Despite the brutal primaries, Hillary Clinton showed what an incredibly loyal Democrat she is by putting past grievances and pettiness aside, and was on the stump for Senator Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton can't be defeated by any Republican, no matter how powerful or how much money the Koch Bros and Rupert Murdoch raise against her and Democrats. She'll unite the masses, all demographics; women, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Independents, and diehard Democrats, and make minced meat out of her Republican opponents in 2016.

I will definitely vote for her because I want another Democrat in the WH in January 2017 and for eight years beyond that. Considering that Scalia and Kennedy are ripe for retiring but won't just as long as a Democrat is in the WH, we'll just have to keep electing Democrats until they either say "uncle" or keel over in their posh seats.

We need to focus on neutering Koch Bros/Corporatists power in our SCOTUS, and I believe Hillary is the one to do it.

[MADem]

68. She has my support. I'll work hard for her--hell, I'll even travel! nt

[joeybee12]

34. For those of you saying she isn't, are you also saying Obama isn't?

I mean, what's the difference in many of their politics? Or is this still fighting the 2008 primary all over again?

[liberal_at_heart]

38. They are both centrist democrats. Some of us would like to see more left of center

candidates such as Warren or Sanders.

[joeybee12]

40. I agree...I'd rather someone farther left of center...but there's far too much

bashing of Hilary for things that some people bend over backwards to excuse Obama for...not everyone, but enough!

[RC]

41. Both are pretty much the same.

Look at posy#29 by Proud Public Servant and tell everyone how Hillary and Obama differ.
This has nothing to do with the 2008 primary.

[politichew]

36. I prefer Warren, but I can support Clinton without hesitation.

I am not an ideological person. I don't want anything to radically change in my lifetime and hope no one as far left as some of the liberal bloggers that criticize President Obama 24/7 ever make it to White House.

I just like things to get done and don't let the details bother me too much.

I'm usually the guy that is all too pleased with something a politician has done and assume everyone else is until reading the negative comments online.

[brooklynite]

39. I think about it this way....

17 million DEMOCRATS voted for Hillary Clinton in 2008.

A handful of DU posters say they won't vote for her ever.

I think she can handle the math.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. So am I. That doesn't mean I'll vote for her.

[winter is coming]

56. +1. n/t

[otherone]

52. Jerry Christmas LaydeeBug!

[tiredtoo]

69. Like many here

I do not hate Hillary, i will campaign and vote for her if she is the Democratic nominee. HOWEVER i would prefer someone to the left of her, what say you Jerry Brown?

[Jamaal510]

72. I'm no fan, but

it really wouldn't seem like she is as popular as she is if a person only gauges interest according to what they see online. Even I still find it hard to believe that she is polling as the overwhelming favorite over all other potential 2016 D candidates, and that really progressive voices in the media (like Ed Shultz) have been pushing her despite her centrist position on the spectrum.

Despite her faults, though, I think we can all agree that she undoubtedly is superior to anyone the other side has to offer for 2016.

[PaPaw_Mamaw]

75. We Stand With HRC

If HRC decides to run for President, WE will stand again with her, and proud of OUR decision. Get on board and ride the HRC train to 1600 Penn. Ave.

PaPaw&MaMaw

[99Forever]

77. I don't agree.

She is a DINO.

Convince me otherwise.

[marmar]

78. So is Max Baucus. So was Joe Lieberman at one time. So what.

Used to be that Democrats didn't support foolish wars of choice or disastrous "trade" agreements.

Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat, but is closer to traditional Democratic positions than most Democrats. The -D after a name means nothing when the policies you support are 80s-era Republican policies.

[L0oniX]

92. ...and Democrats were pro slave once upon a time and prohibitionists too.

Seems that the label has moved around a bit.

[Romulox]

81. "During her freshman year, she served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

[TheKentuckian]

118. I don't care about that old stuff other than that she how little she has moved since then.

This woman is a founding member of the DLC, I think what happened with her switch is a whole lot more about the Republicans going Southern Strategy, the stink of Watergate, and the Republican hunt for the religious wrong that caused conflict in women's issues where she is good and the ground less fertile to women in leadership with all the "the man is head of the household" type shit.

I don't think she has every had any kind of epiphany on the road to Damascus or anything but rather simply calculated at the time that the Republican party was not a great vehicle for her ambitions.

This is woman who associated herself with "The Family", that should be an automatic DQ, those are the "prosperity gospel" folks which is a great evil and a distortion of the Christian faith and sick in the fucking head where ever you come from.
This group also supported heinous treatment of gas folks in Uganda and represent much of what is vile and wrong in the world.

Here we are with a completely unapologetic supporter of the Iraq debacle, a great friend to the robberbaron class, point for awful trade agreements, an aggressive saber rattler and open hawk, can't stop trying to increase fat bottom lines to give a shit about our habitat and will ever de - prioritize the environment every time.

She is a no bones friend of the financial sector and in this time that is a certain recipe for bad governance, dangerous to democracy and broad prosperity stewardship, and damn suicidal management of resources.

[anti partisan]

120. Well said my friend (nt)

[Whisp]

147. meh, I consider that so small potatoes compared to her more recent rightish wing sins

hardly worth a mention or a bother, imho.

[Demo_Chris]

85. Yes. And that fact reveals the problem within our party. nt

[PeteSelman]

86. Yes, that's why this party has a credibility problem.

All the sucking up to Wall Street, voting for wars of choice and writing the TPP shit are why people think there is very little difference between the parties on key economic issues.

[L0oniX]

87. Great ...so was Joe Lieberman.

[Ken Burch]

93. That's her party registration. But she's part of the anti-Democratic wing of the party

She has never renounced the DLC/Third Way goal of turning the "Democratic" Party into nothing more than a slightly-less conservative version of the Republicans. Her wing of the party has never cared about poverty(their insistence on punishing single mothers in the 1990's proves this), they prefer economic imperialism(or, as they call it. "free trade&quot to working for a decent life for working people here and the rest of the world, and they accept the notion that the corporate sector and its wishes should matter more than the needs of most of the people who vote Democratic. The DLC caused the emergence of the Nader phenomenon(and, therefore, the Bush takeover in 2000) and they still refuse to admit it.

We no longer need to nominate presidential candidates who run AGAINST the Democratic Party's core values and work to ratify the larger policy goals of the corporate center-right. We can, at this point, win from below.

[One of the 99]

123. Part of the Democratic party's core values

is having a big tent that respects different points of view and not having a personal litmus test of what makes someone a member of the Democratic party.

[Ken Burch]

130. In 1992, we took that argument to its logical extreme and said

"We don't CARE what our nominee stands for anymore. All that matters is electing somebody who CALLS HIMSELF a Democrat. Principles no longer mean anything, even though our principles were never the cause of defeat".

Nominating Bill Clinton made the statement that we, as Democrats were ashamed of once having stood for the poor and the working class, of once having supported peace and civil rights. No party should ever embrace shame-based politics.

The result was an eight year dead zone. There were tiny bits of change, but none that anybody could even notice.

We can't EVER go back to that. Nothing is worth doing that to our party ever again.

If HRC is nominated in 2016, it will mean that our party will never nominate an actual progressive again. It will just be corporate centrist death penalty freaks who want to keep miitarily intervening in the Middle East. It will just be HRC clones forever, and time will stop in the party. No progressive will ever try to get nominated after that, because they'll all know it's pointless to run as a conviction candidate. That future will make our party worthless.

2000 proved that the voters don't trust a party that waters its values down to next to nothing. If the voters HAD liked that about us, we would have had a solid enough popular vote margin that it wouldn't have been possible to game the Electoral College.

We can only prosper by fighting for what we stand for and being proud of it. Nominating HRC(who would be, by contrast, an excellent Supreme Court justice)means Democrats will give up on doing that, like they all did in the Nineties.

If HRC wants to be a member of the party, fine. I'm not saying kick her out. Just don't nominate her for president. She doesn't have any more to offer on that score than anybody else.

[One of the 99]

134. One question

What color is the sky in your world?

[Ken Burch]

137. I live in Southeast Alaska, so it's often cloudy-gray, actually.

Beyond that, I live in the same world you do, it's just that we disagree.

[One of the 99]

138. No it is just that some see reality

and some refuse to take off their ideological blinders.

[Ken Burch]

139. I see reality.

Seeing reality doesn't require a progressive to accept the argument that our presidential nominee ever HAS to be the least-progressive candidate available.

1980, 1984 and 1988 were not the fault of the party's progressive wing, so we weren't obligated to accept the nomination of an anti--progressive candidate in 1992 as penance.

Can you just leave it at "this person simply doesn't agree with me"? I never attacked you on a personal level in this exchange. If I treat you with respect, you are obligated to do the same with me.

[One of the 99]

164. You just proved that you don't nt

[Ken Burch]

166. No, I did not.

"Seeing reality" doesn't obligate me to accept the idea that the Democratic presidential nominee HAS to be the most right-wing candidate in the field.

Anybody who ran against Clinton in the '92 primaries could have beaten "Number 41"-the voters weren't demanding that we choose a poorbashing death penalty freak.

[One of the 99]

167. Yes you did.

Too bad you refuse to take off your ideological blinders and see it.

[Ken Burch]

168. What ideological blinders?

The country wasn't THAT right-wing in 1992. And it turned out to be useless to elect a "Democratic" president who was more conservative THAN progressive and spent more time bashing the Democratic base than fighting the Right.

If you get right down to it, nothing would be worse for labor and the poor if Bush had been re-elected. We both know that.

And nominating HRC now means going ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1992. It means putting the DLC mindset back in permanent control of the party. And it means leaving the 99% permanently out in the cold.

Do you want the Democratic party to degenerate back to the early 1990's? That means giving up. And it means giving up forever.

HRC is incapable of caring about workers and the poor. And after the campaign she ran in West Virginia in 2008, she's incapable of being an anti-racist president.

If we choose HRC, we are saying that the ONLY people the Democratic party should care about are CEO's.

And the worst thing is, as an advocate of a permanent big defense budget and trade globalization, HRC CAN'T be a feminist president. War can't liberate women and neither can "free trade".

So...what's to like?

[One of the 99]

169. The more you rant

The more you prove me right. You just can't see beyond your ideology. How sad.

[Ken Burch]

172. I don't have an "ideology"

And you haven't actually made a case for ANY alternative strategy.

You haven't made ANY case for how the 99% could ever benefit from the Democratic Party nominating the candidate who gets more corporate donations than any other.

If you're backed by the 1%...it goes without saying that you can't give a damn about the 99%.

You should really change your posting name, since your position has nothing in common with the values of Occupy, or with the progressive, anti-corporate, small-d "democratic" values of the true American majority.

I agreed that HRC has the right to be a member of the Democratic party...i just don't want her as the nominee. There's nothing "ideological" in not deferring to her and the rest of the right wing of the party.

Why is it that you can't accept that a person can look at reality and simply, honestly disagree with YOUR conclusions? Do you believe yourself and your analysis to be infallible? Even the Pope only claims that on matters and faith and morals.

[One of the 99]

173. The first step in dealing with a problem

is admiting you have one. Until then there is no helping you. So sad!

[Iggo]

97. And so are all the people she'll be running against in the primaries.

Just that.

[BlueStreak]

102. Progress is NOT the natural order of things

Preservation of status quo, keeping power and wealth in the hands of the few, is the natural order of things.

Progress has always been difficult, not so much because of the other party, but because of the ones in our own party who pull in the other direction.

The biggest opponents to civil rights were the Southern DEMOCRATS, not Republicans. The Clintons and their ilk are today's version of the Southern Democrats. But instead of being driven by racism, they figured out that being a "new Democrat" means that when you sell out to the moneyed elite, you get a few tasty crumbs yourself.

[wildbilln864]

103. ahhhhh....

this needed to be mentioned also.

[Vattel]

104. Hillary Clinton has many virtues, but I am still

hoping that our next president will stand up to the MIC and defend constitutional rights.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

106. Yeah, right. And I'm the Pope.

[Beacool]

109. Wow, I didn't know that his Holiness posted on DU.

[Whisp]

150. Hi, Mr. Pope. Can you kiss the ring in my bathtub?

[polichick]

107. Only if you consider Third Way to be Democratic.

[LaydeeBug]

114. Is Barack Obama "third way"? nt

[anti partisan]

121. We hoped he wouldn't be

But his presidency has proven to be very Third Way. His full-on support for the TPP is all one needs to look at.

[Doctor_J]

125. He SAID he wouldn't be

I don't think that as many indies and new voters will be fooled this time. Going to be a tough fight.

[Ken Burch]

131. You don't have to make EVERYTHING a comparison with Obama.

Most HRC critics think Obama has been too far to the right as well.

Although it does go without saying that, even allowing for that, HRC would have been just as far right as Bill was if she'd been elected. We can assume she would have "ditched the gays" again on Bill's advice rather than breaking with DOMA and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", it's likely she would have fought harder for "free trade", and there's no reason to think she'd have been any better on healthcare.

[polichick]

133. Looks like it.

[Hippo_Tron]

143. Yup, he got the benefit of the doubt for opposing the Iraq War and basically having no record

But he's just as third way as Hillary would've been, if not more.

[Beacool]

110. Of course she is!!!!

Only on these types of sites would she be considered not to be one.

[hrmjustin]

112. I like her. I hope9e she wins.

[Nye Bevan]

116. But corporatist and Benghazi!

I'm pretty sure that out of all of the political discussion forums on the internet (including the RW ones) DU is the one where Hillary is attacked the most.

[anti partisan]

119. Most of us are Democrats due to philosophical beliefs

If someone doesn't support those beliefs, why should we let that slip because of the D next to their name which usually is preferable to someone with the R next to their name?

I mean, if Hillary does get the nomination, I'll nominally support her against whatever corporatist shill the GOP puts up, but why shouldn't we try to nominate someone who best would fight for our beliefs? Obviously this can be different for any one of us here.

Signed,
Proud '04/'08 Kucinich supporter

[Laelth]

128. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[Iris]

122. Thank you.

And even if Margaret Thatcher wasn't, there's still no need for that other thread.

[MannyGoldstein]

126. Democratic People's Republic of Korea

That's their official name. Seriously.

[djean111]

127. Which only shows that "Democrat" does not mean what it used to mean.

[Whisp]

135. Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller

more like that kind

and mentioned.

[LaydeeBug]

136. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight

[grahamhgreen]

140. and she believes the TPP is what? Good, bad, or evil?

[Whisp]

142. so was Zell Miller and Joe Slobberman. n/t

[hrmjustin]

155. Do you think she is like Zell?

[Whisp]

156. she is too sympathic to republicans, as Zell was.

I won't forget that she said that Shitstain McCain had better experience to be President that Barack Obama did. And I don't trust the close family ties the Clintons have with the warmongering criminals called the Bushes. Huggy Bear kind of close.

Nauseautingly too close but I guess their destruction of Iraq pulls them together as a family unit. The family that preys together, stays together.

From Seniors presidency and first Gulf war, to Bill continuing harming the Iraqi people throughout his two terms with killer sanctions, then The Younger comes in with his shiney sword as a final kill of the Iraqi people - thanks to the weakening and setting up that the prior two Presidents helped with.

[hrmjustin]

157. Wow! I did ask.

[Beacool]

162. No, she said that they both had experience.

Which was correct.

[William769]

148. Kick & recommended.

[TheKentuckian]

149. Ben Nelson is a Democrat so is Mary Landrieu. Hell, so was George Wallace.

[mike_c]

151. OK....

eom

[Shoulders of Giants]

152. Thankfully, Democrats don't have an equivalent of Reagan's 11th commandment.

[Beacool]

161. Thankfully, DU is not real life.

In the real world, Hillary is very popular with Democratic voters.

[Shoulders of Giants]

165. Not popular with me.

She was an Iraq War supporter, against gay marriage until the polls shifted, supports the drug war, and joined Lieberman's anti video game crusade. I guess I'd vote for her, if I were in a swing state and my vote might stop say Ted Cruz from being president. Unfortunately, I live in Illinois so my vote doesn't count. Might as well vote for someone I believe in. Either way, I'd rather see someone else on the Democratic ticket.

[Gothmog]

154. I am hoping that Sec. of State Clinton will be campaigning for Wendy Davis in Texas

Hillary Clinton is popular among women voters in Texas and we have heard that Sec. of State Clinton may be campaigning for Wendy Davis. Wendy Davis could use all of the help that she can get in this race.

[uppityperson]

171. Since President Obama already had 2 terms, he can't be elected again, did you know?

Welcome to Du