Left concern about HRC is NOT "hatred"...it's about what we stand for as a party and a country

[Ken Burch]

Opposition to HRC's candidacies for the president, among Democrats and progressives, has NEVER been about personal hatred for her.

It is, plainly and simply, about her militaristic views on foreign policy, her unquestioning support for whatever corporate power wants on economic policy(including a CONTINUING record of unqualified support for all "free trade" pacts any Democratic or Republican president will ever propose), her dismissive hostility to the protest/activist sector of American politics(the only sector that has EVER caused any meaningful social or political changes to happen in this country), and, more recently, her unqualified support for Netanyahu's slaughter campaign in Gaza.

Any white male Democratic frontrunner espousing the exact same views would get the exact same treatment...as would any male Democratic frontrunner of any other race...and any other female Democratic frontrunner).

Those who insist on dismissing anti-HRC progressive opinion as "hatred" are saying, essentially, that the sincere and deeply held-principles of tens of millions of people across this country, female as well as male, LGBTQ-American as well as hetero-American working-class and middle-class, white as well as African-American, Latino-American, First-American or Asian-American(that list not in any order of preference or predecence)trans-American as well as cis-American, are not real, are not deserving of any respect, and are not of any importance.

And it will be crucial to HRC's chances to engage these concerns and these tens of millions of people, because, with her recent swing further to the right on foreign and economic policy issues(and, since foreign and economic policies are more important than any others in terms of what actually shapes our lives, effectively on ALL issues)the size of her opposition within the party and within progressive independents whose support she will have to have in order to win(since no one to the right of the Obama administration will ever vote Democratic again)is certain to grow.

HRC's supporters need to respond with respect and attentiveness to what is being said now, if they don't want to doom her chances of winning(assuming she's still going to be nominated at all)in 2016. The days when they can simply DEMAND that all progressives support someone like her are gone, and gone forever.

Nobody here HATES HRC as a person. Nobody here ONLY opposes her because she's a woman. It's about her positions on the issues. That's really all it is. OK?

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. OH "concern" is that what the kids are calling it today?

I would love to see that word used in some of the postings!!!


Bravo though......you found a word to make it sound all squishy!

squeeee!

[backwoodsbob]

5. concern

id that so many want to elect a repuke with a (D) next to her name

[VanillaRhapsody]

49. well she does have 2 million facebook supporters...there is that...

just for starters....but do go on....

[Ken Burch]

58. A meaningless statement.

There are cartoon characters who have 2 million facebook fans.

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. did I or did I not say "just for starters"

do try to keep up!

How many Politicians have 2 million? That sort of narrows down the field considerably.....or should we also compare Hillary to Kim Kardashian on Facebook too?

[Voice for Peace]

179. I think it's not a question of whether she could win, or how many people love her.

Can you address the points in the OP? These are also my
concerns, re Hillary. Monsanto, Netanyahu, speaking
against Obama, etc.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

277. Legitimate concerns to be sure; in response, all you hear are crickets.

[VanillaRhapsody]

284. So its not a question about the fact that she can beat every known Republican potential...

that means NOTHING to you....as long as you get to hang on to your "virtual ethical standards and high and mighty moral values" that in the end....you will kick to the damn curb and vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is...even if it is the one you personally trashed for days weeks and months on end... right overboard those "standards" go.

You see no ethical dilemma about that at all of course!

[Fuddnik]

321. A Republican in disguise can beat a genuine Republican.

Such a deal.

[Voice for Peace]

328. I have never done that, voted for a candidate I did not trust.

[BlueCaliDem]

379. I have. Because I understand that the world doesn't revolve around me.

The bigger picture is, get another Democrat in the White House because of possible three vacancies in the U.S. Supreme Court. The destruction of this country, women's rights, civil rights, LGBT rights, immigrant rights, EPA standards, educational standards, etc., will be complete should a Republican win in 2016. That's my concern, and it should be yours, too.

Oh. And with a Republican in the White House, you'll have no voice for peace. There'll be perpetual war when they resume what they'd started under Duhbya.

[Voice for Peace]

388. Thanks, I appreciate your point of view.

I confess that I recoil when people use the word "should"
in regards to my life; however I do understand what you
are saying and don't disagree.

Still, no matter who wins or loses elections, comes
in and out of power, I will have a voice for peace as
long as I have breath. It's the one thing that can not
be lost.

There can never be peace on earth until there is peace
in the hearts of human beings. That is you and me.
I can't say what you should do. But the pursuit
of peace, inside and out, is not to be missed. And I
personally believe it is the shortest route to the solution
of most problems on the planet.

That is my biggest should in life, if anything is.
I should and I must, while I am alive, be the most human
I can be. Because it is beautiful, and right. Because it is
real, and steady. Peace is the reason I even have a voice.

In general I'll vote for those I view as moving and/or
inspiring the country in that direction. (They tend to
be Democrats.)

[Ken Burch]

338. By itself, beating the Republicans isn't anything.

Beating the Republicans is NEVER worth nominating someone who will promise to be more like the Republicans than different from them. It's NEVER worth nominating someone who runs against workers, activists and the poor.

In the Nineties, it ended up being worse than NOT beating them at all.

And since HRC's recent stands on Israel/Palestine, the other Middle East wars she wants us to join, and her demands for a more hawkish foreign policy in general mean that she will be fighting against the interests of women, children and the poor around the world and have no resources to do anything progressive at home(it isn't possible to be a progressive AND have tight budgets at the same time)why would electing her be worth anything at all? She isn't DIFFERENT than Chris Christie.

And HRC has no special claim to electability beyond anyone else who might run. She's just not THAT special in electoral terms.

Getting two Supreme Court justices could never outweigh starting more wars.

[BlueCaliDem]

381. I deeply dislike and distrust HRC's hawkish stance on foreign policy. I really, really do.

But I loathe and fear the perpetual war plans by Republicans, and you can take it to the bank that the moment there is a Republican president, we're definitely going to war.

So I'll vote for the lesser of two evils, just like I have to do each and every election, be it local, State, or Federal in order to keep a Republican - and by proxy, the Koch Bros - from winning even more power.

[Ken Burch]

389. I will, too.

I was just saying that having "a Democratic president" by itself, isn't enough.

[hifiguy]

62. John Cena - the wrestler - has nearly 19 million

facebook followers. I don't want him to be president either. Your point?

[VanillaRhapsody]

66. Is John Cena running for President?

first I heard of it!

so what's your point?

[hifiguy]

72. Facebook is meaningless

was perhaps my only point.

[VanillaRhapsody]

73. I KNOOOOOW that is why I said..."just for starters"

which means....at a minimum!

Do try to keep up!

[Vincardog]

99. OK lets get past starters. What else you got?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

102. And the answer is...

**crickets**

[truedelphi]

173. ^^^^^^^^^ That summed it up nicely! n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

109. that was just the jumping off point....

Just 2 million individual facebook supporters...what have YOU got? What candidate do you have that can beat that first?

ball in your court....

[Vincardog]

111. You keep harping on "just for starters" what else you got to support HRC?

Facebook is mot relevant.

Don't try to sidetrack the conversation.

WHAT ELSE YOU GOT?

[VanillaRhapsody]

114. Who do YOU have first?

go big or go home! What else have YOU got? So far you only have a goose egg!

[Vincardog]

122. I stand with the well written OP. You oppose it. Answer WHY of get

ignored as some kind of BOT.

[VanillaRhapsody]

151. because you didn't answer my return lobby

I hit the ball back into your court....you have to counter...so far...goose egg!

[Vincardog]

158. You are a waste of time /ignore

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

279. Just like Hillary, no substance, all fluff.

[Ken Burch]

128. That isn't the point at this stage. n/t.

If Facebook had existed in 1970, Ed Muskie would have had 2 million supporters there.

[Voice for Peace]

213. If Sarah decides to run, by that measure, Hillary doesn't stand a chance.

4,324,343 current Facebook likes, for starters.

[Veilex]

331. Wait.... umm, huh?

So, someone says facebook is meaningless, and you say you know...
then someone asks what else you've got, and then you come back to the supposed 2 mil on facebook?

So then, all you've got is something meaningless? It seems to me, the ball never left your court.

[rhett o rick]

234. She's got nothing but harassment for those of us that won't side with Goldman-Sachs and the

big money of Wall Street. She's made her choice and she aint on the side of the masses.

[VanillaRhapsody]

289. NO see that is not how it works....as I stated before....unless YOU have something that beats that

it stands...I don't have to show you the rest of my hand....

So you next!...What you holding?

[Veilex]

332. No...thats not how this works...

You've already agreed that facebook is worthless...so you've got nothing.

Ball's still in your court.

[pangaia]

141. Can't you just allow the idea that many people support

Hillary Clinton, and many do not support her?
I mean what's the big deal? I do not support many of her stances.
I live in New York so if she is the candidate I don't have to hold my nose and vote for her. If I lived in a 'swing state,' I would hold my nose and vote for her.

[VanillaRhapsody]

291. I can't push back when they trash her so vilely? With such disgust and disdain?

which is their own version of voter suppression, by the way, by trashing the one candidate we have that does win against ALL Republicans.....you are trashing our "star player" if you are a Katt Williams fan. Unless you produce a candidate that can do that......then what right do they have to so disgustingly trash that person. I half expect to see them accuse her of actually killing Vince Foster at any moment now....

[LondonReign2]

366. So the candidates' policies and positions do not matter to you?

The only thing that matters in your opinion is that the person with the D behind his or her name wins? And you don't care what policies they support?

[Plucketeer]

287. Well - if in essence the "just for starters" meant nothing

then why mention it at all? I have thousands of freckles, but they're inconsequential as to how well I'm received by others.

[Logical]

327. Maybe next time don't lead with facebook! LOL, Nt

[roguevalley]

129. giiven tptb have crowned her has she said anything

About Ferguson yet

I would think she would as heir apparent unless having a position and standing by it isn't too much to ask.

[Luminous Animal]

210. Could you provide a link to her page? Because I can't find the one with 2 million fans.

[Veilex]

335. More to the point...

VanillaRhapsody has already agreed that facebook fans are meaningless.

[Luminous Animal]

336. So, she lied?

[Veilex]

343. Looks like I spoke a little too soon...

She's about 20 thousand short of 2 million "likes".

https://www.facebook.com/ReadyForHillary

[Luminous Animal]

211. Mitt Romney has over 11 million.

[japple]

282. And Paul Ryan has 5+ million supporters...

[Logical]

326. I am starting to think YOU are Hillary! lol! nt

[nxylas]

6. Well, that didn't take long

Pssst...you forgot to mention "President Palin".

[Ken Burch]

7. "the kids"?

Why do you assume you are the grown-up and progressives aren't?

And again, when you know it's about the issues, and nothing BUT the issues, why insist on dismissing legitimate expressions of honorable and high-minded dissent as "hatred"?

You know perfectly well that any OTHER candidate taking the exact same positions would get the exact same reactions.

What do you have to lose from ceasing to be so blithely dismissive?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

39. It's one of the favorite ad hom attacks of the centrist crowd.

They love to talk about 'being the only adult in the room' or 'the kids' or use various other infantilizations about people with whom they disagree or who don't sufficiently adore their preferred candidates or the policy choices they make, especially when those choices negatively impact most regular Americans. Somehow it's 'adult' to suck up to banks, corporations, the wealthy, and to leave the rest of America to 'pull itself up by its bootstraps'.

Casting any opposition as 'hatred' is simply another facet of the infantilization, proclaiming that any opposition comes from emotion rather than thought, and has the added bonus of often letting them proclaim opposition is tied to bigotry of one kind or another - racism, misogyny, homophobia, religious intolerance, whatever fits the current protected candidate, since hatred of 'x' is a defining part of those things.

The good thing is, whenever you see someone tossing around those 'hatred' or 'adult' dogwhistles out there, you know immediately that they don't have valid arguments, only tired old ad homs, and you can know they're not worth arguing with. (Unless you're completely bored, and can't think of anything better to do at the moment.)

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. calling other Democrats "Centrists" seems to be the favorite of ad hom of the

Far Left...Libertarians or Anarchists crowd too...

[Ken Burch]

55. it IS "centrist" to say the least, to argue that we have no choice

but to nominate the most conservative candidate that could possibly run. And many HRC supporters call THEMSELVES "centrists", so I'm not sure why the term bothers you.

It goes without saying that backing HRC in the primaries can't be progressive.

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. OHHH so now YOU are the arbiteur of what is or isn't Progressive too....

thanks for letting us know....

Do you call Elizabeth Warren "Progressive" or "Centrist"?

Because I do believe I remember her signing a letter of support of Hillary Clinton's campaign!

[Ken Burch]

61. Not me by myself.

A lot of people agree with me...I'm speaking solely as myself, but you know I'm far from alone.

HRC only has progressive policies on trivial side issues that don't threaten the 1%. She still thinks Glass-Steagall repeal and Bill's signing of the hate-based "welfare reform" bill were great ideas. What does THAT tell you.

She is silent about Ferguson(which is no different than defending the cops). What does THAT tell you?

And Elizabeth Warren isn't the first politician to temporarily back someone sharply to her right out of a misguided sense of "pragmatism". Up until early 1968, Bobby Kennedy was prepared to campaign for LBJ's re-election.

[VanillaRhapsody]

63. Meaningless statement....Alot does not necessarily mean "most" does it?

[Ken Burch]

68. It doesn't have to be "most". It's enough that the number is growing.

You are being presumptuous in assuming that YOU represent most Democrats. You, like me, represent only yourself. You are not above anyone here, and you aren't entitle to be dismissive of anyone here. Arrogance is a right-wing value.

[VanillaRhapsody]

70. NO I would say YOU are the one being presumptious in thinking that YOU might

be in the majority because you feel like a big fish in a small pond!

I happen to be a realist...

[A Simple Game]

93. We do know one thing, if you supported Hillary in '08 you were in the minority.

By the way, who did you support in '08?

[VanillaRhapsody]

108. I voted for the winner of the Democratic Primary....yes before that I supported Hillary Clinton

BECAUSE she was and is to the Left of him! I supported her slightly over him for the simple fact she was closer to Universal Single Payer than he was...

BUT when my fellow Democrats selected the more (using words YOU understand) Centrist candidate...so adjusted right away...because I am a loyal Democrat and a realist....I was never a PUMA.

So you were saying?

[A Simple Game]

127. You can really say that Hillary is to the left of President Obama? I notice you can't

seem to say his name, that's odd.

Militarily Hillary is far to the right of the President and has publicly stated so. Economically she is also slightly to the right. Socially I call it a draw.

That's what I say. That and if you supported either Hillary or President Obama in the primaries you are no liberal.

[VanillaRhapsody]

183. Yes I can....and I can prove it!

Hillary Clinton

http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm




Barack Obama

http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm

[JaydenD]

270. Oh dear, that is precious

and hilarious. This is your proof that Hillary is to the left of the President - some anonymous dot on whogivespoop.com? I feel slightly bad for laughing at this foolishness so heartily.

The woman who believed George Dumya and his war, the woman who not even got to first base with health care reform - she didn't even reach the bat, the woman who takes blood money from the Wall Streeters - money they robbed from average Americans. This person is to the Left of President Obama because some silly chart says so? I would hazard a guess and that site, where that chart was yanked out of, is most likely funded and ran by some Clinton Oathkeeper Loyalist.

[VanillaRhapsody]

271. No YOU don't give a poop....that is painfully obvious....

some "anonymous" really? And you know this how? Have you done any research at all....or is the poop what you are supplying?


They have been doing this since 1999....very anonymous of them huh?

[JaydenD]

276. I'm sorry but believing that Hillary is to the Left of the President

is like asking me to believe in Sasquatch. It's ridiculous that some dot maker has convinced you so thoroughly.

[Ken Burch]

134. She forfeited any right to ever claim to be to the left of Obama

when she ran as a defender of the Iraq war. That position MAKES you a right-winger.

[VanillaRhapsody]

184. one hit wonder are ya....

can we judge your entire career based on one decision you made too? Oh yeah and can WE decide which decision you made is the one we want to judge you on overall too?

[JaydenD]

196. That wrong headed decison got a lot of people killed.

I don't know how anyone can dismiss the suffering and heartaches of thousands so lightly.

[VanillaRhapsody]

236. and didn't she say so?

[Ken Burch]

334. Not really. And her support for MORE futile militarism in the Middle East

means she hasn't learned the lesson of Iraq: The United States can't ever do ANYTHING of value in that region through the use of force.

[Voice for Peace]

214. can you please address specifically the other points of the OP?

It seems you're avoiding this, but I don't know why.

Monsanto, corporatism, militarism, arrogant criticism
of the sitting President (which energized the Republicans)
and so on. There are many on Facebook with more
likes than Hillary. Why won't you assist those of us here
who would actually like to know where you stand,
as a Hillary supporter, in regard to these authentic
and extremely common concerns?

[JDPriestly]

218. Hillary supports trade agreements that only benefit Wall Street.

Hillary supports fracking it appears. She tried to sell it in other countries according to an article in the September Mother Jones (not yet on line).

Hillary supports current banking regulations that are hurting the country.

Hillary supports one war after the other, the most foolish being the Iraq War.

Hillary's positions on so many issues do not support a better life for Americans. It's just sad that people are bit questioning her candidacy more. It's sort of the old-fashioned bandwagon effect. Well, the big honchos in the Democratic Party like Hillary, so she must be OK.

The reason that so many of us on DU don't want her to be our candidate is that we spend a lot of time considering political issues, and based on our knowledge about those issues and Hillary, we don't think she is a good choice.

I have a friend in his late 50s who lost his job about two years ago. His marriage fell apart soon after that. Now he is losing his home. What hope does Hillary offer to that man. There are so many Americans in his shoes, so many that lost their jobs, homes and even marriages or small businesses to the crash of 2008. Bill Clinton's signing (gleeful signing judging from the pictures) of the law that repealed Glass-Steagall is one of the major causes of that break-down in our economy. The banks are still "too big to fail." Ordinary Americans are still not important enough to save. And Hillary, as Bill Clinton's wife, will do nothing to correct that injustice.

Hillary Clinton should not run. She really does have too much baggage. I know you make it your business to ridicule me for saying that, but Hillary Clinton simply does have too much baggage to run. We need a candidate who will conduct a campaign that focuses on the future and on solutions to America's problems, some of which were caused during the Bill Clinton administration, most of which go back a lot further than that. Hillary is part of the past, should take her place there with dignity and not run. We don't need her. We need a candidate who is not so worn and tattered, someone who has not been through the ringer so many times. Someone with fresh ideas.

The president does not pass law. But a really good president can inspire good laws. A really good president can shame Congress and work with Congress to get good laws passed. Obama is a wonderful president when it comes to foreign policy. He has the patience of Job when dealing with capricious foreign leaders. But he has not been able to lead Congress, to shame them into enacting laws that will help the American people. I support Elizabeth Warren and then Bernie Sanders if Elizabeth Warren won't run. Elizabeth Warren knows what changes need to be made to make our economy fairer for everyone. She has the exceptionally strong character and moral fervor that we need in the White House. People will listen to her. I don't think that Republicans in particular will ever listen to or work with Hillary Clinton. Too much water under the bridge for Hillary to succeed in the White House.

[Ken Burch]

233. In the last ten years, NOTHING mattered more than the Iraq War. Nothing.

It's not trivial. And it's not possible to both back that war AND be open to any real non-Republican ideas on domestic issues, because backing that war means you want most of the country's resources to be spent on death instead of life.

And, by 2008, there weren't ANY blocs of voters who still backed the war AND had progressive views on anything else. Polling at the time proved this.

Support or opposition the Bush foreign policy defines whether or not you are a decent, moral human being. If you are ok with soaking the streets if Bagdad and Fallujah with blood, you HAVE no humane values. NOTHING outweighs that. Just as, for example, nothing outweighed Johnson's insistence on escalating in Vietnam even though he knew, from the start, that the war was unwinnable. Sometimes, a single issue really IS that important.

If I ever seek the presidency, or any other office(which I won't)I would do so in the expectation that people are allowed to vote for or against me based on whatever matters most to them.

[Voice for Peace]

182. I believe you would earnestly like to influence those of us who have concerns.

Then why not make an effort to address the points raised in the OP?
Being dismissive and supercilious is damaging to your cause.

Do you support her because nobody else would be a strong enough
candidate to win? Or do you wholeheartedly support her and
what she says and stands for? If so, can you not defend your
point of view, for the benefit of us all?

How do you view the OP's "concerns" -- I'd really like to know.

because the OP represents less of a minority than you seem to
think. Almost every progressive liberal I know has the same
concerns, and that's a lot of people, if I were to do a survey,
I think it would be about 75% have those concerns, 25 are
blindly loyal to Hillary, or scared of a Republican.

[VanillaRhapsody]

185. as I have said...on DU...its much more than "concern"

well in a manner of speaking it is....some are the proverbial "concern trolls" too!

[Voice for Peace]

197. I would welcome a thoughtful, substantive response to my post

when you have a chance.

[VanillaRhapsody]

207. Did I stutter? Am I known for pulling my punches? no.....

I am quite succinct and to the point..

[Voice for Peace]

212. I don't know you or your views, or what you're known for.

Forgive me if I have no idea what your thoughts are in
regard to the concerns of the OP and myself and many
others. This is not intended to be antagonistic. Frankly I
would love to be talked into loving Hillary. I think she
would stand up for women worldwide and this matters to
me. But everything else at this point to me is questionable
and at a gut level.

So I'd appreciate the simple respect of a legitimate
response. You may presume I am not politically wise,
and that my views are fluid. Instead of alienating people
here you would do well to persuade, if you really want
Hillary elected.

If you don't, then you're probably doing a bang-up job
of alienating progressives.

[Ken Burch]

344. You avoid the point and simply go straight to disrespect and abuse.

You aren't doing anything helpful for your candidate by using right-wing talk-radio style tactics.

[Ken Burch]

342. None of it is hatred and none of it is sexism.

You know perfectly well that any man taking the exact same positions would get the exact same response. Why pretend otherwise?

[Ken Burch]

100. I don't feel like a big fish in a small pond. I try to avoid feeling like a fish, if possible.

It's just that I think that I have as much right to express my views as anyone else. This has never been about MY ego, or anyone else's ego. Some people post here simply because this is a place where people get to post and where at least some degree of free speech occurs. For some reason, the idea that a person could express their views without any desire to advance their prospects in life, that some could speak simply out out of sincere convictions about the issues of the day, without any hidden agenda of self-promotion appears to be ether unimaginable or even threatening to you. Why is that?

Are you saying that starting threads here should be considered a privilege? That only a tiny few should be able to make their voices heard? That the ability to speak out has to be earned, rather than simply existing as a natural right shared by all as a natural right?

It's puzzling that you seem to feel so obsessed with dismissing and silencing those you agree with. That feeling can't possibly help your candidate, who will have to have massive progressive support, if she is nominated, to have any chance of winning at all(since she can't be elected on middle-of-the-road votes, since we live in a country where the middle-of-the-road no longer really exists).

And I'm not sure what you mean when you state that you are "a realist". Please elaborate. Why should support for the most conservative candidate we could possibly nominate in 2016 be considered any more "realistic" than anything else?

Final point...in 1970(the analogous moment to this)Ed Muskie was considered "inevitable". In 1986, Mario Cuomo was considered inevitable. Inevitability ain't what it used to be.

[VanillaRhapsody]

112. but at DU...that is all you are...

the sooner you accept that....the sooner you join the ranks of the reality based electorate!

[Ken Burch]

121. I don't think of myself as ANYTHING special at DU. Just another poster.

And you have no exclusive claim to represent "realism" any more than anyone else does.

I'm just somebody who posts sometimes. Never claimed to be a damn prophet. Or a saint.

Do you assume that EVERYONE who posts here in opposition to whatever you support does so out of delusions of grandeur?

And, again, why are you so obsessed with telling people here they don't matter? Why should anyone ever say that to another member of the human race.

We are ALL members of the "reality-based community". It's just that YOU don't represent the only reality.

[VanillaRhapsody]

186. there are idealists....you are one...and there are those that know the true makeup of the Democratic

Party...based on historical and electoral factors....

Please proceed.

[Ken Burch]

230. The true makeup of the party is NOT sharply to my right.

The majority of the party is not naturally miltarist on foreign policy(there's no such thing as Truman Democrats on the local level anymore)
nor is it pro-globalization(as you can find out by visiting any union hall)nor obsessed with tight budgets over meeting domestic needs, NOR naturally deferential to what corporations want.

You have no legitimate claim to speak for "the true makeup", you are just one person defending one set of Beltway insider ideas.

[Voice for Peace]

194. I am concerned that you have created a fantasy world, in which few progressives have

concerns about a Hillary candidacy.

Hillary must know she can not be elected in a fantasy world.
Imaginary democratic electorates can't vote.

[pangaia]

148. You are wasting your time with VR.

[VanillaRhapsody]

168. awwww.....

Idealists just cannot handle it when the realists come to town!

[dflprincess]

283. If it wasn't for idealists, no progress would ever be made

It was idealists that supported votes for women, civil rights, protections for workers, Social Security and Medicare, etc., etc and it was always realists who stood in the way. Even today it's the realists that are trying to roll back all the progress made in the last 100 years.

[JaydenD]

192. May I suggest some debate tutoring?

You probably don't mean to do it, but your tone is extremely off putting.

[U4ikLefty]

224. that's their role on DU's cheerleader squad

[VanillaRhapsody]

258. Oh I am suppose to hold your hand while I vigorously disagree with you?

would that help?

[Ken Burch]

375. NO...but you are supposed to treat everyone here with respect.

And you're not ever supposed to presume to be ABOVE the rest of us. You're just one voice, like everybody else. Accept that as being enough.

[Marr]

296. Oddly, the self-proclaimed "adults" around here are also the

the most childish and petulant.

[JDPriestly]

208. The fact that so many people do not want Hillary Clinton to run

will, I hope discourage her from running.

I cannot think of any other potential Democratic presidential candidate who already has so much grassroots opposition in the party.

She is a controversial potential candidate. That in and of itself should give her pause and help her decide to avoid splitting the party. Her run will mean that I, for the first time in my life, do not vote for a Democrat in a presidential election.

It isn't Hillary as a person although I do not think she makes a good candidate. It is her positions on most issues that will cause me to vote for any Democrat but Hillary.

Her vote on the Iraq War was not a mistake. It was proof that she does not doe her homework, research issues thoroughly before making decisions. She takes the easy way out.

Where does she, for example, stand on fracking.

She always takes an easy point of view, the one that is favored by the big money like Wall Street and big business. We have a number of potential candidates in the Democratic Party who do ask questions, who do think for themselves, who don't just follow the money and who would be better candidates and better presidents than Hillary.

I would like to see a primary campaign in which various Democrats participate and challenge each other. I think that would be good for the country and good for the Democratic Party. We need to invigorate the Party with new ideas. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would do well to challenge Hillary.

To allow Hillary to go into the 2016 November election without strong challenges in the primaries would be a great disservice to American voters.

I believe that Elizabeth Warren would make the best president we could get in the US in 2016. She has and excellent character and the knowledge and understanding of the economic issues that are weakening our country. Hillary's background just does not give her that insight. And it is that insight on economics that we need for 2016.

Our country is approaching bankruptcy not because we are overspending but rather because our industry, the work of our American scientists and inventors has literally been shipped overseas due to our trade agreements. We need to revitalize our industry, encourage those among us who are problem-solvers and inventors. NAFTA is one of the most detrimental laws/agreements that we have entered into in a long time. Bill Clinton was responsible for it. Hillary was responsible for the State Department during the negotiation of a number of trade and other agreements that are going to seriously hurt working people in our country.

Hillary should not be the next president. She is simply not qualified to deal with the challenges the people, the ordinary people of the US are facing and will face in coming years.

We need a new candidate with new ideas who is not in too much political debt to the current powers that be on Wall Street, in the military-industrial complex and overseas. Hillary is not that candidate. She is no doubt a nice lady and certainly has lots of friends and admirers, but she is not right for the country for 2016.

[Voice for Peace]

216. very good post, thank you.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

77. Didn't know it was an ad hom. What word do you use to describe

democrats on the right end of the democratic spectrum? Those who are, as most people would say 'in the center' of the overall political spectrum? They're not liberal, they're ......?

[VanillaRhapsody]

83. Yeah but see....you decide WHERE the line is on "Centrists"

this is NOT the republican Party....everyone that is not quite as far left as you...is not Center....understand? We live in the party of many colors....not one of JUST Black and White!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

86. Well, personally, I consider them DINOs, but that's an ad hom, so I didn't use it.

And I don't call everyone not quite as far left of me a centrist. I'm a socialist. If given magical powers, I'd have 'confiscatory' marginal tax rates on high earners, would nationalize many banks, utilities, and the health system, would institute a national income and single payer healthcare. So there are plenty of progressives to the right of me too. Centrists are just what I call the people to the right of them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

95. I note that HRC is a "centrist" when it's convenient for her supporters here

See the comments to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025372249

[VanillaRhapsody]

187. huh? what does that even mean?

[VanillaRhapsody]

118. so anyone not as Left as you are is a Dino?

purge much? Just like a Teabagger does!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

145. No, you didn't read what I said as I meant it.

I said there are progressives, centrists, and dinos. The people who think I'm ad hom'ing them by calling them centrists are probably the dinos. They're the ones who are ecstatic when we pass 20 year old republican legislation and consider it a great win for democrats.

The Democratic party has grown on the right by absorbing disaffected Republicans from prior decades, many of whom have not evolved on their positions, but are simply ashamed to be associated with a Republican party controlled by outright nuts. I welcome former Republicans who actually evolve and embrace the Democratic Party Platform. I'm less thrilled about the ones who merely place a (D) behind their names and then continue to push things like pro-corporation 'healthcare reform' or economic policies that funnel wealth up to the top.

[VanillaRhapsody]

147. I find some on the very far left are also DINO....

don't you? Just like the Libertarians on the right think any moderate Republican is a RINO ....when they are truly the RINO's!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

150. I dunno, give me some examples?

(Remembering that I'm not a good example, since I'm not even actually a Democrat any more.)

What policies on the very far left do you find DINOish?

[VanillaRhapsody]

152. Well it seems even Ronald Reagan would be called one by the current Teabaggers.....get it?

they are certainly not exactly the party of Walter Mondale are they?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

161. Wouldn't Reagan be a RINO, not a DINO?

So no, I don't get it.

What actual policies on the far left would you consider evidence of DINOism, not RINOism?

[wyldwolf]

167. here's one right off the top of my head

There's a term called 'Liberal Internationalism.' It was basically a Woodrow Wilson policy and has been the root of Democratic foreign policy for over 100 years. Still is.

Liberal internationalism is a foreign policy doctrine that argues that liberal states should intervene in other sovereign states in order to pursue liberal objectives. Such intervention can include both military invasion and humanitarian aid. This view is contrasted to isolationist, realist, or non-interventionist foreign policy doctrines

Wilson. Roosevelt. Truman. Kennedy. Johnson. Carter. Clinton. Obama. All adherants to this very Democratic Party policy. Yet, 'progressives' oppose it. Now Progressives may be right in their opposition. That's another discussion. But their opposition runs counter to established Democratic foreign policy.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

171. see my comment below about 'liberal objectives'. nt

[wyldwolf]

156. anyone who claims someone isn't a 'real Democrat' is very likely a DINO

They're usually self-described "progressives" with a deep misunderstanding of the true nature - past and present - of the Democratic Party.

[VanillaRhapsody]

157. EXACTLY!

and they think we won't notice the hijacking attempt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

163. That is a convenient definition.

At least as far as people who are actually DINOs are concerned. It conveniently lets them continue to pretend to be Democrats while booting people even farther to the left out of the tent.

[wyldwolf]

164. What, exactly, does "actually DINOs" mean.

At least as far as people who are actually DINOs are concerned. It conveniently lets them continue to pretend to be Democrats while booting people even farther to the left out of the tent.

And what of those who seek to boot people further right out of the tent? Like we see DAILY here?

Let me give you an example. There's a term called 'Liberal Internationalism.' It was basically a Woodrow Wilson policy and has been the root of Democratic foreign policy for over 100 years.

Liberal internationalism is a foreign policy doctrine that argues that liberal states should intervene in other sovereign states in order to pursue liberal objectives. Such intervention can include both military invasion and humanitarian aid. This view is contrasted to isolationist, realist, or non-interventionist foreign policy doctrines

Wilson. Roosevelt. Truman. Kennedy. Johnson. Carter. Clinton. Obama. All adherants to this very Democratic Party policy. Yet, 'progressives' oppose it. Who are the DINOs?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

170. 'in order to pursue liberal objectives'.

What realistic 'liberal objectives' have we been pursuing? I was vocal in my support of the Libyan intervention, for instance, because it prevented a massacre. I agreed that intervention was needed to prevent a massacre of Yazidis. Those struck me as 'liberal objectives'.

I don't, however, see how upping the number of drone strikes in places like Yemen or Pakistan are doing anything more than creating ever more terrorists than we actually kill. Or what 'liberal objective' is associated with them.

We certainly can't consider objectives that took us into Iraq or Afghanistan in the first place 'liberal', since those were both done by chickenhawks of the Bush administration.

And spying on our closest allies like Germany certainly doesn't strike me as being on behalf of any liberal policy.

So exactly what 'liberal objectives' are you associating with most of what is being done by the MIC and the intelligence community?

[wyldwolf]

177. You want to debate the policy.

That isn't the point. The point is what is and isn't Democratic policy. Our contention has been anyone who opposes Democratic principles is a DINO. As we can plainly see, DINOS can be on the left, too.

Another example - free trade. A solid Democratic policy from WAY back. Progressives oppose it. Maybe rightly so. But it's still a tradition Democratic Party policy. DINOs from the left.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

189. If free trade is solid Dem policy, then Dems are solidly wrong on that one.

Fair trade yes, free trade no. As we can see, 'free trade' simply means 'freedom for corporations to destroy labour' and exploit oppressed people the world over. Sherrod Brown gets it. He wrote the book on it - "Myths of Free Trade: Why American Trade Policy Has Failed ".

At 'on the issues', it says "Trade is Brown's signature issue. He has voted against trade deal after trade deal--with South Korea, Panama, Colombia, Central America, Mexico and Canada and, most importantly here, China."

Are you calling Sherrod Brown a DINO from the left when he opposes such "Solid Democratic policies"?

[wyldwolf]

193. Maybe so, but again, you want to debate the policy

Dogs bark. If I don't think they should, I can't say with a straight face that they're Dogs In Name Only.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

198. I'm not sure why you think policy doesn't matter.

To me, it's the very heart of whether someone really is a Democrat or not.

Do they support policies that improve the lives of everyday human beings? That's what 'Being a Democrat' always boiled down to in my lifetime. Democrats supported the average guy on the street, Republicans supported corporations, religions and the wealthy at the expense of the average guy or gal.

What you want to say is 'Whatever the politicians who call themselves Democrats do, that's what defines the Democratic Party.'

That's a tautology. It's saying 'They're all Democrats, because they say they are, so whatever they do, is what Democrats do.'

And it's that very attitude that caused me to drop off the rolls as a Democrat, and change over to Democratic Socialist.

I don't give a damn about voting blindly for a group simply because of a letter. People are worth voting for in direct correlation to the policies they support that help the poor, the dispossessed, the workers and people who want to work. If the Democratic Party doesn't want to do that any more, then fine, they can continue to drive people away from the party. Fewer and fewer people will vote, and among those that do, more and more will vote for other candidates.

[woo me with science]

200. Beautiful post.

Spot on.

[wyldwolf]

203. Who decides which policies matter?

You? Me? The Democratic electorate? Policy does matter but saying that someone who adheres to traditional Democratic policies is a DINO reveals a gross misunderstanding of the history of the party.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

205. You, me, and everyone else.

When you vote, you decide exactly how much policies matter to you. They're important to me, so I keep that in mind when I select who I'm voting for, and who I refuse to vote for. If you're saying the Party I believed in for four decades wasn't really the party I thought it was, then maybe I voted for too many Dems over the years, and that was my mistake.

[nilesobek]

292. As a man who has worked my whole life

for low wages and has spent the entirety battling large wolves at my door, I thank you for opening my eyes about this. I remember the old chant now, "NAFTA, we don't HAFTA!" I have to be a prime example of what these policies did to the average Joe, or "loser," as Republicans call me.

[VanillaRhapsody]

188. who gets to decide WHAT is the Liberal objective?

whose yardstick are YOU using?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

195. Let's hash it out.

Not neoliberal, but liberal.


I think stopping massacres is 'liberal'. Do you agree or disagree?

I think starting illegal wars of aggression like Iraq is not 'liberal'. Do you agree or disagree?

I think killing US citizens without due process using drones is not 'liberal'. Do you agree or disagree?

I think wiretapping the heads of state of our closest allies in 'not liberal'. Do you agree or disagree?

I think making a mockery of the 4th amendment in the name of 'security' is 'not liberal'. Do you agree or disagree?

(And if you disagree, why do you disagree in each case?)

[VanillaRhapsody]

190. who's booting who here? Who is doing the purging here

I think you have that entirely backwards!

[Voice for Peace]

220. I fear you are cementing my distaste for Ms. Clinton.

I loathe arrogance, and it seems that's all you're offering here.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

356. I'm no Clinton booster, but remember that the supporters are not the person.

Each and every candidate of any party will have supporters that act in such ways. Keep your vote choice focused on what the actual candidates do and say, not what people in blogs say while supposedly trying to 'support' them.

[Voice for Peace]

365. Thanks for the reminder.

Nevertheless they might want to take some responsibility,
if they really want her.

Piling on negative associations to the reputation of Mz Clinton
isn't going to help her PR.

Ridiculing progressives with legitimate questions reminds
me of Rahm Emanuel. bleh

[Ken Burch]

116. Nobody is demanding absolute uniformity.

It's just that some of us aren't willing to check our souls at the door. And history proves that increments and half-loaves just vanish without a trace in the process of change.

You keep trying to shut people up, while at the same time claiming that any dissent from YOUR views is unfair, unjust, and even a form of persecution.

At some point, you might actually consider debate, rather than disrespect.

[VanillaRhapsody]

155. Oh no?

I find that a hilarious statement! Oh the irony it burns!

[Ken Burch]

377. No irony at all.

It's not intolerant simply to defend your own convictions in an assertive, yet respectful tone. That's all I try to do. Why are you so fixated on shouting people like me down? We don't do any harm.

[wyldwolf]

165. LOL. Sure, Ken.

Progressive hostage taking is what it is. Do as we say or we'll try to burn the party down.

[VanillaRhapsody]

191. Yet on election day your "superior ethical standards and moral convictions" go out the door....

and you vote for the candidate that causes you to say such bile about them.

[Voice for Peace]

219. sad to report there are a lot of people who will never vote for Hillary.

ever. Idealists are essential for the health of humanity.

[VanillaRhapsody]

227. and then....they are no longer Democrats are they?

if they are not supporting whoever the rest of the Democrats decided on in the Primary.....they are not really Democrats anymore they are Independents....by definition aren't they? So why should Democrats be forced to listen to THEM exactly?

[Voice for Peace]

240. Let's call them the voiceless ones.

[VanillaRhapsody]

243. hahahahaha right....

let's not and say we did.....

[rhett o rick]

241. Democrats are people that uphold Democratic Principles. H. Clinton is a Democrat only in name.

Anyone can call themselves a Democrat and apparently that's good enough for you. No further brain power needed.

Why would you so strongly support a DINO when there are real Democrats that uphold Democratic values? Maybe you support the values of Wall Street and Goldman-Sachs.

[VanillaRhapsody]

256. Actually no....Democrats hold Primaries and they decide amongst themselves

which candidate they support.....Democrats vote for whomever they decide to vote for....that's kinda how it all works understand? Those that are not committed to that should not be proclaiming themselves the "true Democrats" or trying to forward their positions.....when they don't respect the decisions of their fellow Democrats!

[rhett o rick]

261. Keep up the rationalizations, it must make you feel better about supporting

a Corporate Candidate that calls herself a Democrat while ignoring Democratic values. You apparently don't care if the middle class dies as long as a Democrat is in charge.

The lower classes are in severe trouble and yet you wish to ignore that and support Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street.

[VanillaRhapsody]

262. Yes....its the rational position....

It's kinda how this whole Democracy thing works?

[rhett o rick]

247. I am a registered DEmocrat and will once again be on the phones GOTV as

I always do. I will continue to support Democrats and will not support Republicans. However, I do not support people that call themselves Democrats but follow conservative values. I have voted for the lesser of evils and probably will again, but I will never vote for H. Clinton. That's where I draw the line. If you want a Democrat to win in 2016, DO NOT NOMINATE H. CLINTON-SACHS.

[VanillaRhapsody]

263. Are you going to work the phones for Hillary Clinton?

[rhett o rick]

266. H. Clinton stabbed me in the back. She let those of us that were against

killing innocent Iraqi children down. George Bush was a little Hitler and she couldn't wait to give him authority to kill and torture Iraqi people. She had a responsibility to do the right thing but failed. I will never forgive the Bush Administration and those calling themselves Democrats that chose oil profits over human lives. Not only did they ruin Iraq, they ruined America. And I don't have any respect for those here that can be critical of Bush out of one side of their faces and support H. Clinton out of the other side of their faces.

I will not ever support H. Clinton.

If you support H. Clinton you are on the wrong side of this class war.

[VanillaRhapsody]

269. thaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttsssssss what I thought....

exactly!

Changes nothing.....still an Independent if you are not respecting your FELLOW Democrats decision. Simple as that....

[rhett o rick]

272. I will support Democrats, not all Democrats like some corporate sell-outs, but I will always support

Democrats. You seem to not care that the big money has bought out some people calling themselves Democrats. I will not vote third party but I also won't vote for DINO's.

[VanillaRhapsody]

274. doesn't work like that....its called Democracy....

it means you can't always get what you want.....but if you try some time......you get what you need.....

Mick Jagger.

If you are not respectful of the fellow members of the party...then are you really a member?

[rhett o rick]

280. H. Clinton was not respectful of the Democratic Party when she gave her

allegiance to George Bush.

There are two factions in the Democratic Party and you choose the Big Money faction.

I want freedom from Corporate domination. I may not get what I want but I am sure not going to bow down to them.

You feel superior because you've chosen the side of the Aristocracy. Well, your side may have all the money, but I don't think the masses are going to give in easily.

The Aristocracy sides with the police in Ferguson. Maybe you should think about which side you choose.

[Ken Burch]

226. OK, I have voted "lesser evil" and will do so again. So what?

Doesn't mean I have to be silent ABOUT the evil.

[VanillaRhapsody]

229. so you are not really a Democrat...you are an Independent who happens to vote Democrat....

that officially means you are not so significant to the Democrat electorate...it is THEY who decide who is going to win the Primary....not the Independents....it is not the Independents that should go around calling themselves the "true Democrats" and demanding party "purity" now should they?

[Ken Burch]

231. I am a registered Democrat.

Have been for most of my life. You don't have to grant the party leadership papal infallibility to be a true Dem. You are not entitled to call my political identity into question. BTW, do you ever talk to DLC/Third Way/Democrats for Nixon types like this? Unlike them, I usually VOTE for the Democratic presidential candidate.

The majority of the Dem electorate want cuts in the war budget...want single-payer healthcare...and want corporate power reined in...ALL positions HRC opposes.

[VanillaRhapsody]

259. that doesn't matter...IF you are not committed to supporting the nominee the other Democrats

elected....you are by definition an Independent.
At the very least its hypocrisy to wag your finger at other Democrats if this is your position!

[Ken Burch]

330. I wasn't even discussing supporting the nominee here.

HRC may or may not be the nominee. All we are talking about at THIS point is the process OF nominating someone-you can't assume HRC will be the nominee.

And I didn't say I wouldn't support her if she's nominated. What I'm saying is that it's on her to engage the huge number of Dems who are offended by the right-wing positions she takes on economics, trade, and foreign policy(all of which affect most ordinary Americans far more than the tiny number of side issues she is slightly progressive on, all calibrated not ever to offend the 1%).

BTW, do you take this tone with DLC-Third Way(I.E. The Democrats for Nixon and Reagan Alumni Association)types? THEY are the ones who keep refusing to support the ticket unless the party promises to keep everyone even a millimeter to their left totally out in the cold.

[cascadiance]

255. So... Is it any coincidence that the KOCH BROTHERS supported the DLC?

The group that President Clinton was president of at one point? Why would big corporate lobbyist spenders like the Kochs support that organization if it and the "Centrist" Dems are what DEFINES the Democratic Party, and not those that the Koch brothers along with the DLC and many here that claim the "far left" do not have "Democratic principles" in their hearts? Maybe you could argue that today the party's "principles" are now not as far left as they TRADITIONALLY have been, when older Democrats advocated the tax rates that we used to have and protecting fundamental pillars like social security. Hell, even Republicans like Eisenhower would be too "far left" for many here to consider as Democrats in this party of today that corruption money from the likes of the Koch brothers have COOPTED the party from the rest of us.

We don't need any more DINOs like the Rahm Emmanuels that have literally dismissed us in the past in public. There's a movement that will rid of us the cancerous elements like them soon, when many of us wake up to the corporate takeover that is taking place and demand change. Even many Republicans are echoing our concerns of why our own party in chief of the executive functions in this government isn't prosecuting the many CRIMINALS on Wall Street that have so destroyed this country's well being and its middle class over the last decade or so.

[wyldwolf]

297. ... and the DBC and damn near every Democrat since 2001 who accepted DNC funds?

Koch Industries was one of 28 corporations that donated to the DLC. Not coincidentally, these same corporations were found on a DBC list (you are familiar with the DBC, right? 'Democratic Business Council,') under the umbrella of the DNC and still thriving last I checked. They originated the organized practice of contributions from corporations a half decade before the DLC ever had their first pow wow. If anyone 'progressive' in the Senate or House received campaign funding from the national party in the last 30 years, chances are it came from these evil corporations, including the Kochs.

[VanillaRhapsody]

361. Exactly....these Far Lefties want to hold to their high and mighty ethics.....over the Democratic

Party heads......Yet they have no funding source of their own.....they have no candidates of their own....they piss and moan about the way things are......and then they end up like vampires voting for and accepting the rewards of the Democrats that DO get that job done.

When are those on the Far Left going to find a way to completely self fund a winning candidate? They want permission to complain about the Democratic Party at every turn...cut to shreds any success they make as still NOT GOOD ENOUGH...making the good the enemy of the perfect....yet in the end...like a big hypocrite....will end up voting for the very candidates they trash the entire election cycle. They admit to it constantly...YET even with their "superior moral convictions".....never seem to detect the ethical dilemma that THAT poses. Never understand that what they are participating in is....voter suppression themselves! They go around all election season trying to turn other voters away from the very candidates that they themselves admit that they will in the end vote for....

And they think none of us can see through that ruse!

[Ken Burch]

345. I am willing to vote lesser-evil in the fall.

It wouldn't matter, however, in a race between HRC and Chris Christie, since they basically agree on everything.

[Marr]

299. This should make it easy for you:

When was the last time you criticized a Democrat to your RIGHT?

[NanceGreggs]

347. When was the last time ...

... certain posters on this board criticized anyone other than a Democrat?

[NorthCarolina]

175. "they're..." REPUBLICANS!!!

At the very least they serve to facilitate The GOP Wall Street agenda at the detriment of America's dwindling middle class. The destruction of the middle class likely is the crowning achievement of "centrist Democrats".

[NorthCarolina]

166. Correct! They should really be referred to as displaced Republicans,

or GOP infiltrators. Your choice, either would suffice.

[Pholus]

172. Strange you'd take offence at that rather than "sucking up to the banks"

but I guess there are some wings of the party that keep that as a priority.

[Marr]

221. Now you can't even be called a CENTRIST without whining?

Jesus.

[JDPriestly]

206. Thank you.

[nilesobek]

275. ^^^Excellent analysis.

[Chakab]

11. I'm "concerned" alright. Concerned about the fact that she still thinks it's a good idea to campaign

as some sort of RW war monger after what happened last time around. That either means that she's totally inept politically or she's a true believer when it comes to that imperialist bullshit.


BTW has anybody noticed that she's nowhere to be found since this Ferguson story blew up?

Talk about fucking craven.

Same goes for Bubba. So much for the "first black president."

[truedelphi]

176. Bu t it is a proven fact that whoever the Powers that Be want to win the election

Will obtain the nation's Highest Office.

It happened in 1992 that the Clintons got the WH. So I guess it could happen again.

Despite what she campaigns on.

[Enthusiast]

14. I have concerns about the candidacy of HRC.

[JaydenD]

22. Wait, what the heck was that all about?

Clinton giving that cretin advice? what the hell... They sure do sound chummy and buddy like...

Not really surprised tho, Bill is known for being a backstabbing asshole like when he supported Junior's Slaughter Adventure in IraQ.

[Stellar]

32. Is that for real!?

[Enthusiast]

37. It is for real.

I believe Bill Clinton (and HRC) favor vouchers for Medicare which would result in privatization.

We should be expanding the role of Medicare not contracting it.

Every Democratic candidate for office should be for a Medicare for all universal plan. They should be up front on their support for such a system.

[Stellar]

43. Agreed!

I am too through.

[A Simple Game]

97. Not surprising, the Clintons have more in common with Ryan than they do with

the common folks like us on DU. The same goes for your Democratic and Republican Senators and Representatives.

Bill also pals around with Papa Bush.

Here's a great idea... lets have another one of them run for President, what could go wrong?

[woo me with science]

202. +1000000

Cannot be posted often enough.

[Scuba]

47. Again, you're hilarious ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5426616

VanillaRhapsody (11,633 posts)
8. Wow....the Hatred of Hillary runs deep....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5427687

VanillaRhapsody (11,633 posts)
40. No I have been reading your posts.....you are covering your hatred with words...

[rhett o rick]

232. Wow you got in as response number one. Best spot for a thread hijack. If you wish to convince

others to support H. Clinton-Sachs, you have a funny way of showing it. Do you really have an argument that Wall Street Bankers will help the lower classes? Or do you even wish to help the lower classes? You seem to stand with the Oligarchy.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

2. K&R. Off to the Greatest Page with ya! nt

[MannyGoldstein]

3. War and Wall Street 2016

Why would any real Democrat oppose that platform?

NO real Democrat would! Only infiltrators and misogynists would, of course.

Regards,

TWM

[rhett o rick]

250. Good for TWM. I was waiting for you to show up. Now if only the Stock Market would

crash in 2015 and the banksters need another bailout, everything will work out perfectly.

[4now]

4. You said it much better then I ever could

but I am taken aback by the anger and name calling that some Hillery supporters are already resorting to.
There is no hatred on my part. I am just looking for the best candidate. One who supports my idea of Democratic principles.
Being rude to people who are asking questions (even if you don't like the questions) will never win you new supporters or help you keep the ones that you already have.

[JaydenD]

199. 'and for what... an inadequate black male'...

Too many of these filthy fools still around.

[JDPriestly]

8. This is very true. I agree wholehearrtedly.

I very much like what Hillary Clinton is trying to do for women and children around the world. I do not want her to be the president. She and Bill represent and advocate for ideas that fit the 1990s. The problems we face now are very different from the problems we face now. And some of the worst problems we now face are due in great part to policies that were promoted, people who decided policies and laws and trade arrangements enacted or entered into during Bill Clinton's presidency.

I have often said that Hillary is politically tone-deaf at least when it comes to most Americans, Americans who are not part of the D.C. elite. She does not know what is going on out here. If she did, she would oppose fracking.

We need a candidate with ideas that will deal with the problems in 2016, not one that will deal with the problems or perceived problems of 1996.

[Enthusiast]

15. I suspect she knows what is going on out here, she simply does not care.

She is one of Them®.

[JaydenD]

20. Ask Hillary what she did for the women and children of Iraq, and Honduras.

It's all lip service, a pretend game about her supposed 'caring'. How can a person who jumps to support the slaughterer Netanyahu be a caring one - don't the Palestinian women and children count?, and who carelessly believed a dry drunk talking her into going to a shameful and tragic war and who thinks doing good business for her rich and famous friends in the likes of poor places like Haiti for slave labor and the Honduras for Lanny Davis' business interests, is okay.

She is no friend to anyone but herself and her oath signers.

[littlemissmartypants]

9. Timely. nt

[littlemissmartypants]

10. Kicking. Thank you, Ken Burch. nt

[Trust Buster]

12. I'm concerned, given the relative ages of the Justices, that choosing an unelectable

candidate in a national election could increase the likelihood of a Republican President in 2016. If that happens, then it won't matter what Democrats "stand for" because a 6 - 3 or 7 - 2 Right wing majority on the Court will change our daily lives immeasurably.

[Duppers]

13. Very well said indeed!

Thank you!

I like Hillary as a person but totally agree with you on her political stances.

[Enthusiast]

16. K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations!

HRC would result in disaster for the nation and for the party.

Haven't we been hurt enough?

We are in crisis on so many fronts.

HRC is the last person one would look to for making the changes necessary to pull us back from the brink of disaster.

A brink, I might add, created largely by legislation signed by her husband.

[w4rma]

17. Hillary's supporters will continue to try to misrepresent her opposition, because there are valid

very valid reasons as to why she doesn't need to be the Democratic nominee. Her coziness to Wall Street, her strong support of war and her consistent misrepresentation of progressive values are only three of these reasons.

We will not get any type of honest discussion of the issues if she is allowed to gain new power in the Democratic Party.

[silvershadow]

18. I had to log in just to comment & rec. She would be the second Walmart president.

Bill, the first. The Clintons are moderate Republicans as far as I am concerned.

[daleanime]

30. I kept saying that I would love to see her run...

as the republican candidate.

[MissDeeds]

19. Well said

K&R

[ReRe]

21. K&R

All you said, Ken Burch. All you said. Another thing I would like to add is this: If you've got a candidate who will win as many Republican votes as Democratic votes, then you know you've picked the wrong candidate. To genuine Third-Wayers, that is the MO. Beat Republicans at their own game. "Winning is all that matters," even if you sell your core Democratic values down the river?

It's not personal. I just don't buy it, that's all.

[GiveEmEnoughRope]

23. Under no circumstances will I vote for HRC for ANY elected Office

If the majority of the Democratic Party Thinks she should be the party leader, so be it, I will just leave the party.

In my opinion the Democratic party is too far to the right and needs to move to the left especially concerning economic policies.

The President said before he was elected that he admired that POS Reagan and sadly the president continued many of his destructive policies.

HRC is a Goldwater Girl, she only left the GOP because they became openly racist, her loyalty lies with the GOP and Wall Street always has.

But that is just the way I see things, your mileage may very.

[Tarheel_Dem]

24. HRC will have the Obama coalition to pick up your slack. The only thing preventing her from.....

winning would be if she decided not to run. There are no Barack Obama's waiting in the wings, our bench isn't that deep. Besides, Elizabeth Warren was an active Republican for a lot longer than Hillary was, EW was a Reagan Girl.

[rhett o rick]

253. Do not leave the party. Stay and fight. It doesn't mean you ever have to

vote for her. I won't.

[GiveEmEnoughRope]

348. Why would I want to remain a member of an organization that no longer reflects my values?

IMHO America has not has a real Democratic President since Carter Both Clinton and Obama do the bidding of Wall Street just like republicans do, HRC will be more of the same.

The, heck I don't know what to call them any more DLC, Third Way, DINOs, Moderate Centrists, Party members who IMHO are NOT Democrats but do a good job of fooling many or maybe the majority of the party finds settling for the lessor of 2 evils is acceptable.

I for one will no longer settle, starting this election cycle if the Dem does not reflect my values I will vote third party, from my POV a corporate Dem is the same as a tea hadist pub.

[rhett o rick]

360. There are still lots of good people in the Democratic Party.

We must stay and help them reclaim the Party. Leaving the Party is playing directly into the hands of the Conservatives. This doesn't mean you have to follow all Democrats lock-step like some here will have you believe. Do not support DINO's. Also, it does not stop you from working outside the Party with Progressive organizations that are working to elect progressive Democrats. Do not support the Democratic organizations like the DNC, DCCC, etc. They are tools of the Conservatives in our Party.

"I have chosen to stay and fight," Margret Cho.

[davidpdx]

25. Very well said

K & R

[grahamhgreen]

26. She's very charming! Her policies, not so much:)

[6000eliot]

27. It's hatred.

With a touch of misogyny.

[stillwaiting]

46. No. It's not. It's obnoxious and simple-minded to brush all critical opinion of HRC as such.

Not to mention HIGHLY annoying.

[mylye2222]

48. No.Not Hatred about her.

JUST a disdain for the pedantic opportunistic and Neocons sucker politician she has become. And yes...she sound very very very very full of herself.

[Ken Burch]

56. A man with the exact same policies would get the exact same response.

If Bill were able to run again, HE would get the exact same response. And you know it.

Gender isn't part of this at all.

[6000eliot]

137. Keep telling yourself that.

[Curmudgeoness]

76. It is not hatred, nor is it misogyny.

I am a woman, and I would love to see a woman in the White House before I die. But I want it to be the right woman, not just "a woman" (think Sarah Palin to understand why just any woman would not be acceptable). If that is misogyny, I guess that I just don't understand all the connotations of that word.

[6000eliot]

138. It is both. I don't care what your gender is.

[Ken Burch]

228. Everything that has been said about HRC has also been said about MEN with the same views.

There's no difference between the way HRC has been spoken of and the way Joe Lieberman has.

We aren't giving men a pass on any of the things we have issues with HRC about...and you know it.

If Bill were allowed to run again(and remember, voting HRC is a vote to go back to Bill's Nineties program as the Democratic platform, because her complete silence about that program about the time is an unqualified endorsement of all aspects of it)we'd be talking about him in exactly the same way.

It sounds like you think HRC's gender should get her off the hook for her militarism and her unquestioning support for corporate dominance.

[Curmudgeoness]

285. It is neither, no matter what you want to believe.

Not liking the positions or policies of an individual does not require a "hatred" of that person. Hatred is a really strong word to use. I cannot imagine hating anyone, especially someone I have never met. And people who use "misogyny" in this way are watering down the word. That word is being used so frequently that it loses all the force it should have.

It is a shame that people cannot separate the dislike of HRC's positions from the dislike of HRC.

[frylock]

80. Dr. Keith Ablow couldn't have diagnosed it any better.

[Maedhros]

81. Oh please.

/ignore list.

[wyldwolf]

88. yes it is.

[truedelphi]

178. I am a woman who hopes and prays HRC does not even run for the office.

I might be guilty of hating her, as I think she is a two faced, war mongering ass wipe, but it certainly is not misogyny.

Especially given that Elizabeth Warren would get my vote, should she decide to run, and then should she live to run for the office.

[Marrah_G]

374. Bullshit

[Smarmie Doofus]

28. Thank you. Thank you. Thank You. And also.....

Thank you.


K and R

[fredamae]

29. Well said!

If Only she were From, had a long and strong history to Support positions of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.
The reality is. She is Not that Candidate no matter how much we try to justify her positions, no matter what she says-her long history from her attorney days all the way through she has supported big business, wars etc.
Remember that part of the Dem Party that Chuck Schumer compared to the Tea Party-and that part of the Dem Party Rahm Emanuel calls "e'fn retarded"? She is part of their wall street club. We really, as a country do not need more of that, imo.
I will not trust any oral movement away from her "factual political foundation" for, imo-it is a façade to garner votes.
If others want to support her that's Fine-just make Sure you are being Honest with yourself about what her politics and policies really are based upon her real history-don't lie to yourself about the stuff you don't like and don't hear Only what you want to hear...

"Nobody here HATES HRC as a person. Nobody here ONLY opposes her because she's a woman. It's about her positions on the issues. That's really all it is. OK?"

You couldn't have laid it out any more clear than this.
Thank you

[Autumn]

31. I admire and respect Hillary deeply. Correct, it's her stand on the issues that

gives me deep concern in supporting her this time. I can't recommend this OP enough. You can already see the same ones attacking people up for opposing her, just like they did to the Hillary supporters in 2008.

[jwirr]

33. Exactly. I am concerned that she is not what everyone thinks she is. We are a party that has a

platform - how close to that is she?

[99Forever]

34. I cannot, in good conscience...

... support or vote for Clinton. She represents the problems in this nation, not the solution. It not about hate, it's about the future my kids and grandkids will have.

[SidDithers]

35. Some is...

And to pretend that all of the left's opposition to Clinton is informed "concern" is to demonstrate an astounding political naïveté.

Sid

[hootinholler]

38. I'm sorry Sid, I don't have your accumen when it comes to this stuff

Could you lay it out for me? I certainly don't want to run around all naive and shit.

You have the benefit of an outside observer who wasn't impacted by the cruel reforms enacted by her husband's DLC machine. It's funny that machine has rebranded itself as the turd way.

I'm sure you can explain it if only you would take a few minutes. Take your time, I won't be back until the morning.

[SidDithers]

40. You're right. You don't...nt

Sid

[Ken Burch]

67. Nobody on the left is opposed to the very idea of a woman as president. You know that. n/t.

[QC]

74. Sid, are you going to vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination? n/t

[A Simple Game]

113. So if you were on the left, and informed, would you be concerned about Clinton's positions?

Careful, more of us than you think actually know the answer to this question.

Then again maybe you don't have enough imagination to answer that question.

[HereSince1628]

252. I think there are many people like me, people can remember endorsing

a Democratic party as a force working for things such as social and economic justice for the masses. Things identified with Liberals and the Left.

Now the democrats weren't historically always deeply into social and economic justice for all, particularly in certain parts of the country.

So I know that the experience of the first 30 years of my life was rather unusual. But the issues that resonated with me, and were taken on by the democrats... promoting environment and workplace safety, civil rights (at that time largely ethnic and women's rights)/social justice, social supports for the poor and disabled...were the things that brought me into the Left, rather than my mother's Republican party.

It's not pleasing to see the issues I care for derided by pragmatic interests of triangulators for whom winning was and remains everything, and for whom serving the public interest is...well... basically unnecessary after election because people like me 'have no other place to go' and the real campaign money is in the hands of those who control America's corporate interest.

It's not pleasing. It's disappointing. My life was timed to link me to good results coming from the struggle for progress by the left. The pragmatism of the center-right seems like spinelessness and limp-wristedness. Its impossible to be enthusiastic about candidates I strongly associate with it.

[mylye2222]

36. Yes concern. bur not only.

I dont HATE her.
And Im not "mysoginist" ...im a woman! !!!
It just Dont LIKE her. I never liked utra ambitious persons thinking they have all the rights simply because they wear a fashion name. Even more when their polotical agenda include WallShit prones and warmongering.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

41. Entitlement.

It's not just HRC's problem, it's the problem with those who put party above all. They speak of 'vote withholding', because they simply assume every candidate who puts a (D) after their name is simply ENTITLED to our votes simply because of that D. They simply cannot see that claiming party identification does not 'entitle' you to a single vote. You have to earn votes. That's your only important job as a candidate. Earning more votes than your opponents. And you earn Democratic (or other lefty) votes by establishing a record of being on the left on issues from peace to climate to equal rights to social justice to the economy of the 99%.

[TheKentuckian]

42. Accusations of hate and misogyny are what folks are stuck with because other than lame warmed up

bottle of week old piss argument that "she is better than any Republican she will face" there is no argument that isn't laugh out loud worthy on policy and that one is garbage because so were the prior worst of the worst including Nixon, Reagan, and even Junior Bush from the same party and virtually every Democrat of the past 20 or 30 years including our favorites like Lieberman, Baucus, and Ben Nelson and completely discounts the likelihood that she will be able to advance the areas she is closer to agreement with them than us on further than the opposition could themselves despite seeing stalled TeaPubliKlan initiatives moved forward by Democrats.

Plus, she is a lackluster candidate who has never won a seriously contested election that will say ANY FUCKING THING in the moment even knowing full well it is going to be gnawing on her ass in days or moments.
Her poll numbers are largely fueled by recognition, familiarity, and nostalgia for the upside of bubbles that burst years ago under an administration that was not her's that her proponents want credit for but start whining about misogyny when blame for the downside comes her way and suddenly the association is sexism until they wish to use the nostalgia and forget they used being First Lady last go around as experience.
I guess since the resume is a little beefier now it isn't needed so it is now "misogyny".

If she had substantial electoral talent, combined with her and her husband's considerable influence, ties, control of the party apparatus, and Republican quality financing she would already be President but she doesn't. She is intelligent and is perhaps highly adept at working systems (though dubious considering the Waterloo of the caucuses) and building powerful connections of influence but that isn't the same as beating a candidate that can win, campaigning, and organizing.

I don't trust her to win in a competitive election. I don't agree with her on substance. She shares the broad outlines of the oppositions world view even if she strongly disagrees in critical areas.

And no I don't trust her to appoint judges or anything else. Her hiring decisions, people she surrounds herself with, and philosophies do not inspire confidence even here, in fact the opposite she definitely does not spring to mind as who should make such calls at all.

[woo me with science]

204. "And no I don't trust her to appoint judges or anything else."

And no I don't trust her to appoint judges or anything else. Her hiring decisions, people she surrounds herself with, and philosophies do not inspire confidence even here, in fact the opposite she definitely does not spring to mind as who should make such calls at all.

Amen.

I have always found that talking point to be just bizarre, given the people she surrounds herself with.

[Zorra]

44. She's socially liberal, so she'd be better than a republican.

So if she gets elected, there would at least be some happy consolation things to think about as the oligarchs of the MIC continue to hold us down and fuck us up the nose economically, while cluelessly continuing to destroy the planet.

[Orsino]

64. Yes. I don't think they've made a Democrat so corrupt...

...that I would vote for a Republican, and I'll be damned if I'll sit out the election. Clinton will have my vote if she runs, and she will.

I might support any other Dem in a primary, however.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

78. That's been pretty much the mantra of the Dem party for the last 20-30 years.

And yes, it's great that people on the margins of gender, race, and sexual orientation issues are finally getting some long overdue equality. But it would be better still if the equality they get is not just equality because the rest of us are being ground down to where they were, but because they were being lifted up with the rest of us, just a bit faster to play catch up.

[Maedhros]

82. How can anyone "socially liberal"

SIT ON THE BOARD OF WALMART and not insist on fundamental changes in how they run their business?

[MADem]

115. Go look and see what she did as the first female on that board, why don't you?

Or don't.

[NorthCarolina]

180. Yes, that's supposed to be "ENOUGH" for you....

never mind the Wall Street agenda, the militarized police forces, the wars, the trade agreements that benefit large corporations at the expense of American workers and their family's, just never mind all that because, hey, it's 2014 and Hillary is socially liberal....hooray!!!!

[MineralMan]

45. When Hillary Clinton announces her candidacy, sometime after the

November, 2014 election, it will be good to have a number of conversations on that candidacy. Right now, declarations of intent not to vote for her in 2016 don't really mean much. Beginning in 2015, candidates for the Democratic nomination will begin to declare their intent to run. Each declaration will help us all define the election and decide whom to support during the primary elections in 2016.

But, right now, with no declared candidates, the discussion doesn't make a lot of sense, really. Even if we assume that Hillary will declare and run, there are no other candidates who have declared their intent to run. There's no way to compare candidates, since there aren't any candidates.

Where there is, though, is a crucial Congressional election in every state. All 435 House seats are up in this election. About 1/3 of Senate seats are also on the line in November. That's the election that is going to make the difference in the last two years of President Obama's term. That's the election that will determine how any appointments to the federal court system will go in Congress. That's the election that will make all the difference in progressive goals in 2015 and 2016.

The primaries are mostly over for the 2014 election. The candidates are deep into their campaigning and ramping up their efforts to be elected. That is where our attention is needed. The 2016 election can be addressed beginning immediately after this November's election, and it will quickly become the major topic on DU.

Right now, more than halfway through August of 2014, it's time to ramp up our GOTV efforts in our own and neighboring districts. It's a chance to maintain and even possibly increase our majority in the Senate. It's an opportunity to regain majority control of the House. We can do that. But if we lose our focus on what matters right now in our zeal for an election that is more than two years from now, we risk a great deal.

In 2016, there will be a Democratic candidate for President. Right now, there are 435 Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives who need our strong support. Let's do that. Then, after the November election, we can begin the painful process of fighting over who will be the Democratic candidate in 2016.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[Ken Burch]

53. Nobody is saying that 2014 doesn't matter.

You're refuting an argument that isn't being made.

[Laelth]

51. Hear, hear! k&r n/t

-Laelth

[cantbeserious]

52. HRC - Too Supportive of Wall Street And The MIC - Too Old School - Not Progressive

eom

[hifiguy]

65. + 1 brazilian.

[cascadiance]

257. Yes someone explain to someone that supports these positions on H-1B is "Progressive"?

[GoCubsGo]

54. Along with the above, I'm not a fan of political dynasties.

We fought a revolution to stop that kind of thing. I like Hillary, and if she wins the nomination, I'll vote for her. But, I'd rather forgo the "political dyansty" stuff.

[hifiguy]

59. Exactly. This is 100% about policy

and corporatism. I can under no circumstances support neo-con foreign policy and worship of Wall $treet from ANY candidate.

Though I am mortally sick of Bushes and Clintons. Surely there must be some other families that can produce plausible presidential candidates in this vast country.

[kiva]

69. I agree that there are good reasons

to oppose Hillary as a candidate, just as there are good reasons to oppose all politicians - none of them are flawless and I've yet to find one who agrees with me on all of my positions.

However, as someone who has been here for awhile I disagree with your statement that no one here hates Hillary as a person, I've seen some very nasty comments about her looks, her pantsuits, her voice; the 2008 election had some of the nastiest sexist comments I've read here - and yes, that counts the porn threads and rape threads that have haunted us for the last year or so.

I accept that most people here criticize HRC because of policy disagreements, but don't discount the Clinton hatred and sexism that live everywhere, even on DU.

[saidsimplesimon]

71. Thanks Mr. Burch

I agree. This country deserves better than another Reagan or Bush.

[SomethingFishy]

75. There is a group of people who will never be convinced of that...

Even if you listed every policy you disagreed with, why you disagree and what you think she could do to make it better, there will still be those party loyalists who believe that, logic be damned, Democrats can do no wrong.

Take Harry Reid and his idiotic racist jokes yesterday(not to mention the ones about Obama in the past). Had a Republican said what he did there would be a dozen threads on page 1 of GD screaming about the racist Republican party..

[loyalsister]

79. Neither is questioning her political acumen

The things she has been saying have not reflected the measured caution of an effective politician. I have also questioned the practicality of her running at an age when our bodies typically have started to break down.
I will definitely vote for her if she is the nominee. I just thinking it my be more practical to have a younger candidate who hasn't recently made several statements that have potential to alienate needed allies.

[sadoldgirl]

84. Thank you for the op

You are totally right, of course, but I would like to look at this whole issue more closely in one point.

It seems to me those who glorify HRC cannot even stand the possibility of a decent primary. Any other candidate is immediately dismissed for one reason or another. Well, think of a primary involving Sen. S. Brown, Sen. E. Warren or Bernie Sanders, and there are others. If Hillary would be sooo great, then there should not be this fear of a competition to her.

Those, who have anointed her obviously fear that she might not do so well if confronted by a more left leaning Democrat. Otherwise I don't understand why they would resent any other candidate for a primary.

If so, then I cannot call their posts democratic.

[mylye2222]

85. K&R. for u

My thoughs too. Seems that any contenter too HRC has already been pushed back into the closet....even before primary season....

[JaydenD]

201. ''Those, who have anointed her obviously fear that she might not do so well if confronted

by a more left leaning Democrat.

That explains the panic attacks. I totally agree with this. If she were to debate the likes of Warren and Sanders, she'd be toast, and everyone knows that - especially the strongest supporters, who meanwhile praise her for her absolute brilliance and intelligence but fear an honest debate.

[wyldwolf]

87. But what you are essentially saying is...

Over 80% of Democrats (including a very substantial amount of 'progressives') are wrong. You're saying this itty bitty segment of the left who lives in a bubble, of which you are a part of. are more enlightened than the rest of us. You're saying 'progressives' have the answers and no one else does. You're saying you have some sort of monopoly on what the Democratic party should or shouldn't be.

You're arrogant.

Sure, Clinton supporters are confident in the way fans of a winning team are. But what YOU are is the snide and pretentious person who believes he's above the game. BUT YOU STILL WANT TO FIELD A TEAM!

HRC's supporters actually DO NOT need to "respond with respect and attentiveness." Why? Because we have. Yet we still get looked down on. There comes a point where a dog will eventually bite the hand that keeps hitting it. But then the owner of that hand expresses shock.

The owner of that hand is you.





Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a problem with liberals. Not hardly.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has said repeatedly that she won't run for president in 2016, and yet the idea persists: That Hillary Clinton could find herself vulnerable to a more liberal primary opponent.

The problem? Almost all of the most recent data suggests that Clinton doesn't have any real problems on her left flank. Indeed, she's actually stronger with liberals than she is with more moderate Democrats. And very, very few liberals have anything but nice things to say about her.

To wit:

* A new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that when voters are asked whether they would prefer Clinton, a more liberal alternative or a more conservative one, about twice as many non-Clinton voters say they prefer the more conservative one (20 percent) to the more liberal one (11 percent).

* A Washington Post/ABC News poll this month showed Clinton taking a bigger share of the vote in the 2016 primary among self-described liberals (72 percent) than among moderate and conservative Democrats (60 percent).

* The same poll shows 18 percent of moderate Democrats don't want Clinton to run. Just 6 percent of liberal Democrats agree.



* The WaPo-ABC poll also shows liberal Democrats approve of Clinton's tenure at the State Department by a margin of 96-1, while moderate Democrats approve of it 84-12. Sixty-seven percent of liberals strongly approve of Clinton's performance, nearly 9 in 10 say she is a strong leader, and only slightly fewer say she's honest and trustworthy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-doesnt-have-a-problem-with-liberals-not-hardly/

[SidDithers]

89. + a brazillion...nt

Sid

[wyldwolf]

96. Frankly, I've had it.

With over 80% of the left's support and a wide swath of the center, Hillary doesn't need the whiny internet progressive backing. Every time you try to be reasonable, they make shit up. They deny basic fundamental truths of the state of the Democratic party, past and present.

I recall a barnburner of a thread back in 2004 when the self-appointed arbiters of Democratic Party purity on DU where questioning whether JFK and Harry Truman were 'real' Democrats. This bullshit has continued since.

The Magistrate here on DU wrote a beautiful piece on it:

I think it is quite fair to say the Democratic Party is not an ideal medium for securing a variety of progressive and left-rooted measures, and I do not, personally, view it as such.

It is, however, and however unfortunately, and however imperfect an instrument for it, the only tool available at present, in our political system as it is actually constituted.

Accepting that there is an imperfect fit between the Democratic Party and the furthest aims of left and progressive people, several things must be acknowledged.

First, it has to be acknowledged that left and progressive people really do not have solid ground to proclaim they and only they are true Democrats, or are the real base of the Democratic Party, and that people who are left of center or center-left or even centerists are not really Democrats.

Second, left and progressive people need to consider whether the tactic of attacking people who are perhaps a bit to the right of them, though generally well to the left of a national average, or of the average in the locale where they reside, as rightists who do not belong in the Democratic Party, is likely to expand and increase their influence in the Democratic Party, and advance the prospects of actually getting laws and regulations they would like to see adopted come to pass.

Accepting these things would shift the focus of debate to pragmatic questions, and entails acknowledging facts of contingency. It highlights that the real debate is not so much over what should be done, as it is over what actually can be done, in present circumstances. Obviously, views will differ concerning what is or is not possible at present, over what a practical and achievable goal might be, and over what the best means of getting the best possible result would be. Put bluntly, it is here, and most particularly in the last of these things, that most of my disagreements with our President and our Party center: I would prefer a more combative attitude, prefer a staking out of initial positions much more in advance of what an acceptable final compromise would likely be, and suspect more could be got than Party leadership seems to suspect, or even seems in some cases to desire.

Argument by hyperbole is fun, and used sparingly, can be quite effective in getting someone to see, and take, a point. But taking argument by hyperbole for one's principal means is like serving a dinner composed of mounds of spice and little else; it will not be palatable and will not fulfill the purpose of a meal. People who habitually argue by hyperbole tend in time to lose consciousness they are employing a rhetorical device, and come to take what began as deliberate exaggerations for effect to be statements of fact, accurate descriptions of people and events. When they do, to put it bluntly, they come to appear as clowns at best and as demons at worst, and in either case, forfeit all credibility with people who do not already agree with them, and lose any ability to sway people to come to agreement with them from a neutral, or even a hostile, view.

[Number23]

268. This same statistically insignificant, hysterical component of the "left" has done the exact same

thing to Obama since 2008. I don't know why you think they'd leave Hillary alone.

[elehhhhna]

90. And? IMO she's a hawk who endorses an antiamerican trade policy

and I think she ran and lost already.

I've said from the start - America will elect a black man before they'll elect a woman, and voila.

Not backing her in the primaries. Nope.

[wyldwolf]

92. you're entitled to your opinion and ONE vote.

I really don't give a rat's ass whether you back her in the primaries. Remember that. It doesn't concern me ONE BIT.

Hillary supporters don't owe the small whiny progressives on the internet anything. Not respect. Not concern. We've tried that.

[sadoldgirl]

94. Okay, then why do these supporters

resent anyone else for a primary, during which other candidates could get equally well known.

All other candidates are almost immediately dismissed, WHY?

[wyldwolf]

98. show me examples of that.

[sadoldgirl]

101. Just think of how many times

it is claimed that E.W. could never win, neither Malloy, nor Brown.
I want a spirited debate during the primary, not just VP Biden or HRC.
So I want to hear different approaches, and I think the country would be well served by that.

Who is your possibility for that kind of debate?

[wyldwolf]

105. that isn't 'resentment' as you claim

It's an opinion based on political trends, polling and real election results over the last five or so decades.

It was MY opinion Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton or any number of candidates couldn't win a general election. I don't believe Warren or Sanders could win a general election in 2016.

I've never said, nor have I ever seen anyone say, there shouldn't be primaries. That is a strawman 'progressives' have built.

[sadoldgirl]

119. No strawman here.

Just give me a few candidates you would like to see debating the 2 main ones.

BTW, Obama was not very well known 2 years before the election, and he won. So that dog won't hunt.

Naturally any new candidate will need national exposure, so why not give that to some? Polls at this time don't mean a thing to me, but that is just me, and I cannot speak for anyone else.

I never claimed that you said "no primaries", so just give me a few names of candidates you would like to see in the debates.
That is all I am asking for.

[wyldwolf]

126. that isn't for me to decide

WE don't get to pick the candidates in the primaries. This would be like me complaining about the teams in a championship playoff. Only the teams can put themselves there. But I'm allowed an opinion on who I think will win and shouldn't be accused of wanting to cancel the playoffs or resenting the other teams in it.

I'd love to see Al Gore (the real one, not the progressive fantasy one that has arisen since 2001.) I'd love to see Wes Clark take 'progressves' to the woodshed on just why humanitarian military operations are essential.

But that isn't for me to decide. I pick the team that's actually in the game.

[woo me with science]

264. "Naturally any new candidate will need national exposure."

Yup. That's why I find the constant posting of what are essentially name recognition polls at this stage, and the use of them to try to suggest that Hillary is the strongest candidate, to be absolutely absurd.

[wyldwolf]

286. Sorry, that tired old 'it's just name recognition' canard doesn't fly

Hillary is a known commodity - in the world spotlight for over 20 years. Democrats know her, what she believes and what she stands for.

[woo me with science]

313. No, they don't. Not enough of them yet.

Most Americans don't understand clearly what has happened to the Democratic Party, and that's by design. They don't understand the extent to which it has been hijacked by predatory corporate interests, or to what extent Hillary Clinton is the poster child for those interests. Those who follow politics closely do, but not most Americans.

Barack Obama ran as a populist candidate of "Hope and Change." Until recently, Hillary painted herself primarily as a champion of women and progressive causes. The MSM lies incessantly about the positions of the parties. We are told that corporatist Barack Obama is a Marxist, for god's sake, and you hear whining about his "liberalism" on all mainstream media. The MSM is routinely filled with garbage comparing "liberal" Democrats with "conservative" Republicans, even though both parties are now owned by corporatists with virtually the same agenda on economics, war, and the police state. Even here at DU we are repeatedly insulted by absurd propaganda claiming that Hillary is a progressive or a liberal.

Third Way Democrats routinely lie their way through campaigns pretending to be traditional Democrats. That's how the infiltration was accomplished. You adopt a brand because it's popular, because of what people *expect* to see inside...but you change the contents without changing the label. The routine MO of this administration has been to give very public speeches extolling progressive positions, and then to turn around and do exactly the opposite. It's a midterm election year, so we're already being treated to multiple recent examples of that:

Lies upon lies upon lies
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5353985

Most Americans recognize her name, and they know she is a Democrat, and that's about it. They may remember years of carefully crafted speeches pretending to be liberal, focusing on social issues that people associate with Democrats. Ask a random sample of Americans about NAFTA or the TPP or the TISA, though, and you will get blank stares. They know something is terribly wrong with government right now, but they still trust Democrats a little more than they trust Republicans. They are angry at Democrats, too, but their anger is vague, because the MSM tells them that Democrats are still their champions for the people, and they are too busy working like dogs to survive in the new corporate economy to follow what the policies actually are. The vast majority of them have only recently begun to understand, if they have learned yet at all, what has really been done to our party, how thoroughly it has been done, and what she really represents.

It is only very recently that she's started to *publicly* associate herself with some of the Bush policies that she has relentlessly defended under this administration. Why she's starting to run rightward now is a curious development and an interesting topic all by itself, as we were discussing below. But at this point....her high marks are primarily name recognition as a Democrat.

[wyldwolf]

314. Another example of a 'proooogresssiiivvee" who thinks he/she's smarter than the rest of.

Thank JEEBUS we have the left to guide us.





Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a problem with liberals. Not hardly.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has said repeatedly that she won't run for president in 2016, and yet the idea persists: That Hillary Clinton could find herself vulnerable to a more liberal primary opponent.

The problem? Almost all of the most recent data suggests that Clinton doesn't have any real problems on her left flank. Indeed, she's actually stronger with liberals than she is with more moderate Democrats. And very, very few liberals have anything but nice things to say about her.

To wit:

* A new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that when voters are asked whether they would prefer Clinton, a more liberal alternative or a more conservative one, about twice as many non-Clinton voters say they prefer the more conservative one (20 percent) to the more liberal one (11 percent).

* A Washington Post/ABC News poll this month showed Clinton taking a bigger share of the vote in the 2016 primary among self-described liberals (72 percent) than among moderate and conservative Democrats (60 percent).

* The same poll shows 18 percent of moderate Democrats don't want Clinton to run. Just 6 percent of liberal Democrats agree.



* The WaPo-ABC poll also shows liberal Democrats approve of Clinton's tenure at the State Department by a margin of 96-1, while moderate Democrats approve of it 84-12. Sixty-seven percent of liberals strongly approve of Clinton's performance, nearly 9 in 10 say she is a strong leader, and only slightly fewer say she's honest and trustworthy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-doesnt-have-a-problem-with-liberals-not-hardly/

[woo me with science]

322. LOL. Yes, that's exactly what I was describing.

Very general, up-or-down ratings of the politician compared to other politicians, and the most familiar one (also the one constantly being mentioned in the MSM as "inevitable"!) wins. What a surprise...not.

No polling on or checking of awareness or understanding of the candidate's actual policies, and reliance on total self-report when it comes to the labels, "liberal" or "moderate" (which is *especially* funny since we see every day even here at DU how valid self-reported labels are, when we have incessant defenders of Bush policies routinely describing themselves as liberal Democrats!).

In other words....the most familiar Democrat wins.

And wyldwolf, even IF we WERE to grant you your IMO ridiculous contention that most American voters know Hillary's policies inside and out and understand *exactly* how corporatist and neocon she really is, the fact remains that they still *don't* know her potential challengers very well yet....so side-by-side comparisons by name at this point would remain largely meaningless.

I'm afraid that repeating the very stuff I was responding to and howling "proooogresssiiivvee" doesn't make your case any more convincing.

[wyldwolf]

354. Amazing the number of people anxious to vote for her - despite the dire warning of 'proogressiives"

[elehhhhna]

104. so you're going to go with the asshole thing, then? Got it.

[wyldwolf]

106. it seems to be the only language the 'more liberal than thou' progressives understand

[Ken Burch]

125. No. Progressives understand principle and what it is to fight for it.

Once you've compromised that, you can no longer be good for anything.

Bill Clinton did nothing but trim and trim and trim from 1978 on...and, as a result, he was indistinguishable from a Nixon Republican once elected...he never took a firm stand in defense of the Democratic base on ANY issue at all. And he never could have.

Eight years in which no one who voted for him was shown ANY loyalty at all. Other than the ceo's of course(who were the only people who ever benefited from Glass-Steagall Repeal, NAFTA and the welfare persecution bill.

[wyldwolf]

133. but you, alone, don't get to decide if your principles are right the whole party

And that's something you guys have never understood.

[Ken Burch]

239. None of us said we did...but we do have the right to keep fighting for what we stand for.

And you guys keep demanding that we give up, forever, and accept what you've given us...a party that is only barely different than the GOP at all, a party that doesn't care about workers and the poor, a party uninterested in peace, and a party that doesn't stand for a better world.

It was thanks to you guys that the Nineties were a dead zone.

[wyldwolf]

246. Your OP contradicts you.

"it's about what we stand for as a party and a country."

You've plainly said the progressive disdain for Hillary comes from what "we" stand for as a party and a country. You are, in affect, stating her policies contradict what the Democratic party stands for. Which is absurd.

[Ken Burch]

337. No, I said her policies contradict what progressives and, on some issues, the American majority,

stand for...as well as contradicting what tens of millions of people of conscience and good will see as basic human decency.

Progressive disdain for HRC comes from the following sincere convictions:

A. That Military intervention in the Middle East by the U.S. can never be beneficial to the people of the Middle East, cannot be pragmatic for any agenda other than an agenda of U.S. hegemony and dominance, cannot any longer be morally decent, and that military intervention by the U.S. in much of the rest of the world can no longer have any positive effects for anyone but right-wing politicians and the wealthy

B. That globalization and "free trade" have clearly shown themselves to cause nothing but greater concentrations of wealth at the top of the economic ladder and greater concentrations of fear, despair, and misery among the global majority at the bottom, a majority falling lower and lower all the time.

C. That "pro-business" economic policies are nothing but what FDR called "economic royalism", and that greater corporate profits do not and cannot ever trickle down to those at the bottom in our OWN society. A rising tide does NOT lift your boat if your boat has already been sunk.

D. That the massive cuts in social benefits that a supposedly "Democratic" president endorsed by signing a hate-based "welfare reform" bill(an act that gave that president no additional votes at all)in 1996, combined with the same president's insistence on fighting for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act less than two years later, showed that the DLC/Third Way wing of the Democratic Party is clearly on the side of those who OPPOSE a better life for the voters of the Democratic base.

You have the right to disagree...but you do not have the right to claim that it's somehow unfair to you for progressives to keep fighting for the people you and HRC fight against-the dispossessed American economic majority-and you have no legitimate case to make at all that your views should be given special deference within the Democratic Party, given your minority status within it.

[wyldwolf]

351. all those words you typed in reply on re-enforce the point - you think 'progressives' along speak...

... for the party - or should - since you're sooo much smarter than the rest of us.

[Ken Burch]

376. NO, I don't claim to be smarter...just as smart.

No one has to defer to you and the rest of the party's right-wing to prove they don't think they're above you.

And it's an inherent contradiction to claim to be treated unfairly and, at the same time, to demand, unfairly, that everyone to your left should be "kept in our place".

[wyldwolf]

378. actually you said "it's about what we stand for as **a party*** and a country

The Democratic party is progressive but the vast majority of us aren't netroots-style 'progressives.' What the party officially stands for is often in direct conflict with what YOU stand for.

[wyldwolf]

242. self delete

[Union Scribe]

298. Thank you for your brave struggles against the Left.

They need to be told daily that they are not and never will be listened to by party leaders so they need to eat their damn peas and fall in line, and if you weren't here doing it well then... there'd only be like twenty other people to do it. Nonetheless your valuable service is noted!

[wyldwolf]

300. you're quite welcome

I mean, after a long day of mainstream Democrats getting beat up by the left, sometimes it's nice to hit back and watch them pout and whine. If you keep pushing someone, eventually they push back.

[Union Scribe]

303. "mainstream Democrats getting beat up by the left"

Yes, FINALLY conser-, er, moder-, er, MAINSTREAM Democrats are pushing back against those bullies in the itty bitty Left! Please, tell me you have a radio show. We need someone like you battling the forces that would threaten to pull our party to the left. Say you at least have a blog!

[wyldwolf]

305. "mainstream Democrats getting beat up by the left"

Yes, finally, mainstream Democrats.





Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a problem with liberals. Not hardly.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has said repeatedly that she won't run for president in 2016, and yet the idea persists: That Hillary Clinton could find herself vulnerable to a more liberal primary opponent.

The problem? Almost all of the most recent data suggests that Clinton doesn't have any real problems on her left flank. Indeed, she's actually stronger with liberals than she is with more moderate Democrats. And very, very few liberals have anything but nice things to say about her.

To wit:

* A new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that when voters are asked whether they would prefer Clinton, a more liberal alternative or a more conservative one, about twice as many non-Clinton voters say they prefer the more conservative one (20 percent) to the more liberal one (11 percent).

* A Washington Post/ABC News poll this month showed Clinton taking a bigger share of the vote in the 2016 primary among self-described liberals (72 percent) than among moderate and conservative Democrats (60 percent).

* The same poll shows 18 percent of moderate Democrats don't want Clinton to run. Just 6 percent of liberal Democrats agree.



* The WaPo-ABC poll also shows liberal Democrats approve of Clinton's tenure at the State Department by a margin of 96-1, while moderate Democrats approve of it 84-12. Sixty-seven percent of liberals strongly approve of Clinton's performance, nearly 9 in 10 say she is a strong leader, and only slightly fewer say she's honest and trustworthy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-doesnt-have-a-problem-with-liberals-not-hardly/

[NanceGreggs]

209. Excellent post!!!

[MannyGoldstein]

267. The itty bitty segment of the Left

that regularly causes elections to be lost when they stay home in huge numbers?

[wyldwolf]

301. No, the itty bitty segment of the Left with delusions of grandeur.

[MisterP]

91. the Loyalists have never been right in 12 years, neither on what it takes to get into office

nor on what should be passed once in office, nor on what the party's problems are

they're either helplessly compulsive bootlickers and turd-polishers or just sincerely think Scoop Jackson and Theodore Bilbo were the party's high points and we just need to get back to that

[Cheviteau]

103. Ok.

So you don't like Hillary. Who's your candidate? I would think that anyone who would write this diatribe against our front runner would at least have the guts to name his/her candidate. When, and if, you do please bring forward someone who WILL condemn Israel for its latest foray into the OCCUPIED territories. Put up your candidate or shut up about Hillary. We left-winger always complain about the opposition offering nothing...in a sense you're no different.

[wyldwolf]

107. he doesn't have a candidate. No one is perfect enough for him.

[Ken Burch]

110. I'm open to Warren or Bernie...also possibly Feingold(if he were to run)and several others.

Not demanding perfection...just that the militarism and greed enabling be kept to a minimum.

We already know that U.S. military intervention can never have progressive or even humane results anywhere anymore. And we already know that trade globalization, Glass-Steagall repeal and the racist sexist "welfare reform" policies were solely beneficial to the 1%...that the "forgotten middle class" was victimized by all of those things.

There's no difference anymore between being a "pro-business Democrat" and just being a Republican. If you're on the Right on economics and foreign policy, you're on the Right on every issue that actually affects our lives.

[wyldwolf]

117. 'open to'

Sounds like you're building in an escape hatch for when one says something like:

"I think the vote was right, and I'll tell you why I think the vote was right," she said. "America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren't many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world... when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they're using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself,"

[Ken Burch]

124. Not building myself an escape hatch. Just saying there are several candidates I could back.

Am I obligated to be committed to one candidate without question? Having chosen one candidate, am I, or anyone else, barred from expressing any dissent at all?

[wyldwolf]

135. but why would you back them?

Ken, you may be idealistic but you're not stupid. Do you think Elizabeth Warren would (try) to roll back our free trade agreements? Even is she was really inclined to (which is doubtful) just how could she get it through congress?

Do you really believe Elizabeth Warren would alter the nature of our relationship with Israel? Of course she wouldn't.

[mylye2222]

132. Oh yes. According to Wyldwolf

Everyone has to bow before that Unique Cadidate Primary Joke? Heh.We do have candidates. Like Warren. Or Sanders. Its just that they dont have the change to have a soul entiteled to dirty tricks. Or that they dont bear THe Family Name! !!!!!!

[wyldwolf]

136. wtf are you talking about?

[mylye2222]

142. Oh. You cdrtainly know what Im talking about.

The dismissing of every possible challenger to the Clintons Unofficial United States' Royal Familly. ...

[wyldwolf]

144. no, I don't understand your gibberish.

It certainly isn't grounded in reality - based on the number of times you've been challenged to provide one ounce of evidence that you slinked away from.

[mylye2222]

146. There is not any need of évidence.

Its just enough to be more observant of what its happening. Hillary Clinton is using all the liberal mefia space. And everytime another voice tries to rise, its ridiculed and shutdowned with comments like "unexperienced candidate" and other unpleasant things.

[wyldwolf]

149. spoken like a true fundamentalist. You just have the squishy truthiness feeling inside.

[mylye2222]

154. Ah !!! Here comes the usual name-calling.

As when any Progressive speaks his heart out. He finds himself labelled and his statements reduced. Those kind of answers had already fleed away too much from some , luckily not all, Clinton supporters here at DU. Sad. Very very sad.

[wyldwolf]

160. What name calling? 'Fundamentalist' is a very accurate description of 'progressives'

fundamentalism
(fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uh m)

strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.

Huffington Post: How Left-Wing Fundamentalists Slow Down Progress

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-bederman/left-wing-fundamentalists_b_2848799.html

[JoeyT]

120. Well, they certainly can't defend her shitty positions.

So running around screaming about hatred and misogyny are pretty much all they've got.

You don't oppose endless war and criminal bankers! You just hate women! Deerrrrp!

[RufusTFirefly]

123. The country simply can't afford another Republican President -- from either party

That is why I strongly oppose HRC's candidacy.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

130. Well, some people here might hate HRC as a person. But that's really beside the point.

It seems the main selling point her supporters have to offer is that she's better than a Republican. Well, whoop-di-doo. Can't we strive for someone with a lot more than that to recommend them?

[woo me with science]

131. I think Savannahmann is on the right track re: what running Hillary will accomplish:

Savannahmann's post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5432518

You see Rand won't be running on the more war platform. He'll be running on the reduce the militarization of the police platform. He'll be running on the legalize Marijuana Platform. He'll be running on the reduce our military presence overseas platform. Those are the Libertarian Planks that his run will be based upon. So who would vote for him?

Well, Moderates who were shocked by the behavior of the Police at Ferguson. The stats here are interesting.While only 33% of whites think that the cops were not justified in shooting Michael Brown. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/new-poll-shows-sharp-racial-ideological-divisions-on-michael-brown/article_9334decb-3f97-5564-80b1-0bb11889beca.html It's important to note that at the moment, Rand Paul is on the populist side of the issue as far as Blacks are concerned.

Legalization of Marijuana. Rand is smart enough to make a campaign pledge to work for this goal. The people that are aware of what is going on in Colorado regarding the taxes collected will be on board. The law and order Rethugs won't, but they won't be happy about the previous position either.

He's been opposed to the NSA spying for a long time now. Do you think he will suddenly abandon that position now that the election is going to go national?

So our base will be made of Liberals, Defense Contractors who want the foreign wars to continue, and people who think the cops should have all that military gear. Oh, let's not forget the keep marijuana a crime group. All we need for the full spectrum is for Hillary to insult some minorities and we'll get the Klan vote too.

You guys are assuming that Rand is going to run a traditional Rethug campaign. He's never done that. He won't now. He's going to be the nominee, because with Perry out there isn't anyone left. Paul Ryan is a policy wonk and that won't fly with the Rethugs. Nobody is going to go Bush for the third time. Romney won't do it again. Nobody is left. It's Rand.

He's going to run on what works for him, what he's known for. He's going to run on Libertarian/Conservatism. He's going to blast the Government for bailing out GM, the Banks, and wall street. He's going to tap into the residual anger of many Americans. He's going to go out and talk about Government Health Care. He's a Doctor, so he is going to have a unique point of view.

Whoever decided to indict Perry is an idiot. Because the moron was a good front runner for the nomination now that he has glasses on that make him look smart, which we know from the debates for the 2012 nomination that he can't string a sentence together. The public already think that the prosecution is a political witch hunt. But no worries, because they'll never hear anything else about it, they don't go to LW sites.

Hillary is going to see that the left is well covered by Rand, and she'll do what she does best. She'll run to the right. That will lose the base, and she'll lose. Because she'll be running as a big government conservative Democrat. She'll be in favor of Obamacare, keeping the troops in the fight against ISIS. In favor of the NSA, and the spying they have to do to "keep us safe". Opposed to the legalization of Marijuana.

Now, who do you think will win that election?

My response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5432640

I think you are right.

I have been fascinated by the ostentatiousness of Hillary's Third Way, neocon campaign, by the trumpeting of her "gaffes" about being poor by the corporate media, and by the level of deliberate obnoxiousness of many of her mouthpieces online. It would hardly be possible to run a campaign better suited to alienating the Democratic base and voters generally.

I thought for a while that the plan was just to infuriate the base as much as possible so that when a fake stealth populist appeared late in the game, Democrats would rally around him or her mindlessly and without demanding any serious vetting.

But in watching the play, I have decided that it's more likely that the corporate PTB have decided that it's time for a Republican.

I agree with you that Rand Paul will run on all those things, appealing to the general mood of the country, which is sick and tired of war and the shredding of our Constitution.

I think Hillary will run ostentatiously to the right of him and is planned and expected to lose.

By then we will be embroiled in another war, and all promises of reining in the military or reducing the police state can be explained away as impossible for the time being, and we will instead receive more major privatization and gutting of social programs.

We are screwed no matter which is elected, because Hillary will have already run on all the things Rand Paul will end up actually doing.

The PTB have us by the throat, because they own both parties, and they will play us once again. If genuine, non-corporate, non-infiltrating Democrats had any power left in the party at all, Paul wouldn't have to be a problem. He wouldn't even have to be an afterthought.

People are drawn to these formerly fringe Libertarians and libertarian-style Republicans only because they say some of the right things re: reining in warmongering, curbing the drug wars, and stopping the outrageous surveillance state. Every poll shows that people across party lines despise their willingness to scrap social programs/gut Social Security. All Democrats would have to do to blow them away would be to re-embrace the principles and policies they were supposed to stand for all along but have abandoned since selling out to corporate interests: being the party that reins in Wall Street, ends the surveillance state and the police state, restores our Constitution, reduces inequality, ends the outrageous drug wars, and STRENGTHENS social safety nets.

But our party is purchased now by the same ones who own the Republicans, and that's not going to happen.

So corporate Democrats will threaten and bully that we must support Hillary in order to avoid Paul, and they will claim to be vindicated when Paul is a disaster for human beings. But the truth is that The PTB will pursue their agenda under either one of them. Hillary's ostentatiously Third Way/neocon/neolib campaign is designed and backed by corporatists to enable or even ensure the coming of Paul and the continuation of the corporate takeover of this nation.

[wyldwolf]

139. Rand Paul will never make it out of the Republican primaries. What a joke.

[woo me with science]

159. Oh, I disagree. I think that's not at all clear.

Have you noticed what is happening in the far right propaganda machine?

Rush Limbaugh Stands With Rand Paul: 'The Neocons Are Paranoid'
The most popular conservative demagogue in America signals that hawkish foreign-policy dogma may be losing its hold on the GOP.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/rush-limbaugh-stands-with-rand-paul-the-neocons-are-paranoid/273938/

Rand Paul isn't a Libertarian like his father. He is an ostensibly libertarian-leaning Republican, and now we see that the conservative brainwashing machine is starting to line up behind him.

I always find it interesting to watch the direction of the talking points online; that's perhaps the only positive thing about living in a propaganda state run by oligarchs. In addition to the strangeness I mentioned above - the weird behavior of the MSM, Hillary's supporters online, and Hillary herself in almost fervently alienating her from prospective voters - there's also been a very steady stream of hatred from that camp directed toward the Pauls and libertarianism in general. Odd, if he really is as irrelevant as you claim.

I find that fascinating, too.

[wyldwolf]

162. Let's make a friendly wager - $50 to each other's favorite charity

[woo me with science]

169. Well, like many others in this corporate-looted economy,

Last edited Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:40 PM - Edit history (8)

I don't have the luxury of betting that kind of money. Also, it's just a guess.

I think it's a good one, though.

The PTB have us pretty clearly by the throat, and the country is enraged about it. More importantly, there is a growing awareness and anger in the country that neither party has been working for the people, which is dangerous for them. It's not the time for a status quo candidate, and they know that.

IMO this would be very slick next stage of the con game to keep their agenda going.

It would give the illusion that something radically different was being offered. And it could dupe a lot of people into remaining passive about what is being done to us by making them believe, one more time, that merely voting is going to be enough.

[Maineman]

140. We should start by identifying the most fundamental problem, then look for the right candidate.

Starting with the candidates mostly just causes conflict.

I say the most fundamental problem for this country is that certain industry groups and big money control government.

Why does government not do what makes sense, what is good for the nation, what the citizens want, what will solve problems??? Because government does what is good for certain industry groups. Because lobbyists write legislation. Because big money owns politicians.

Why do good Democrats get elected only to be stymied and harassed and pushed until they act like pawns in the lobbyists' game of government manipulation? Because too many other Democrats and essentially all Republicans are owned by industry groups and big money.

Is there a more important, more fundamental problem than this?

[wyldwolf]

143. and when you "find" the "right candidate," what then? Beg that person to run?

PAY that person to run? Where would the ground work come from? Who would lay the campaign infrastructure?

[Thinkingabout]

153. HRC has a record of issues she has stood up for many years.

She fought for civil rights during her college years. I would ask for all to go to the following link to see her position on issues which may concern you, see her voting record. These are the facts and not always the information you read in opinion posts.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm#Welfare_+_Poverty

[Pholus]

174. Yup, but the unappealing neoconism is rather more recent.

I speak, of course, about the interview in The Atlantic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/?single_page=true

Pretty much what Rummy and Liz Cheney are saying.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/04/no_one_cares_what_rumsfelds_or_cheneys_think_about_syria/

And sorry, I am greatly disabused of thinking that Rummy has the right on any national security topic after 8 years of the Bushies.

[Thinkingabout]

181. Did you read her position on the issues or you going by one interview?

That interview hardly represents her record. I am not impressed with the Cheney or Romney reviews either, do you think for a moment any of them would back a Democrat for any office.

[Pholus]

310. You go with what major backers make the candidate says now, not the history.

I got burned by "let the record do the talking" when I expected then Senator Obama to vote against FISA based on his public statements.

Once bitten, twice shy.

Strange days. In 2008, I was in trouble for supporting Clinton.

Until her recent hawkishness, I was ready to get on board with her campaign wholeheartedly.

All her interview did was demonstrate convincingly that we need a real primary, not a coronation.

[Thinkingabout]

325. You are going on one interview, I prefer to take her record, I do not support candidates on a single

issue. I am open to a primary, this is the system we have in place. I do not know of a coronation except for some of the post in different sites which just may be opinions.

[Pholus]

349. We're only discussing opinions here.

If HRC gets the nomination, she gets my vote.

But...

While you might be willing to give a pass on that interview, it represents an underlined, bolded warning that HRC has always been something of a hawk (and that IS in the record). Given how bad hawks have been representing our interests in the Middle East over the past decade, I want to hear a LOT more at this point before giving my support in a primary.

That's how it is supposed to work, right? We get a primary! Well, maybe not when it comes down to it. When I refer to as a "coronation" it is a shorthand for inevitability and that isn't just a statistical analysis. Most primary slates are negotiated by the leadership in advance anyway. Let's be completely straightforward about this -- endorsements are essentially statements of surrender in an election and you can't vote for someone who isn't running. That makes an endorsement something with value, and anything with value can be bought for the right price.

So it is actually pointless for you to worry about it. Given the number major potential challengers who have all made their endorsements already, it appears certain that HRC will get the nomination, and based on the "lesser of two evils" approach to elections she will get my vote.

I'm cynical you say? Bill's biography was wonderful but it underlined the point that what we see from a candidate in the media is a "stage persona" and not the real deal. When the doors close, he said, everyone is a bit more serious. To hear Bill talk, it's all about deals and is a great bit less ideological than your typical DU'er would like to admit. My favorite bit in the book? Where the GOP leadership approached Governor Clinton with both a carrot and a stick: "We like you and we know you'll win. We want this election though. Don't run, we'll help you in next time and make your life easy. Run and we'll destroy you."

Had Governor Clinton simply issued an endorsement and waited his turn, think of the implications about how much different the 90's might have been.

But it does make my use of the word "coronation" one that is not random. It describes the parallel process that we tend to ignore.

[Thinkingabout]

359. When I read many post since the interview and excuses those writing the posts is HRC is too hawkish

too this or too that based on this interview I wonder why they give this interview as their reason not to support HRC. I do not like war, knew when GWB was hell bent on invading Iraq I knew this was going to open a can of worms which we are still working on today. Yes, HRC voted to give GWB to invade Iraq after all options was exhausted, he did not wait because the fact there wasn't any WMD's in Iraq.

The fact we have a great pool of Democrats which would get my support for different offices I just happen to think HRC has a great record of working for the rights of others, she was very active in the Civil Rights movements in the '60's, she has advocated for the rights of women and general fairness. She did a hell of a presentation of health care in the 90's, it didn't get past the GOP's but a very needed service. She has lots of foreign experience and is known worldwide.

Hopefully in the endeavor of many to have a "primary" Democrats will not shoot themselves in the foot doing the work we know the GOP is going to do on any candidate. I am a passionate Democrat, do not fall on the far left.

[wyldwolf]

217. Explain to us, please, what 'Neoconism' is. Impress us with your knowledge.

[Pholus]

306. Sorry, can't help you.

See, you'd have to read the two links. Since you couldn't demonstrate that, there is little else I can do for you.

[wyldwolf]

308. of course you can't since all you could do is parrot what you read on DU.

[Pholus]

311. At least I can fill in the message box below the title with an argument!

When you do the same, we might have a useful exchange of ideas.

[wyldwolf]

312. yeah, you do have that skill, lol.

[Pholus]

320. Just realized: if I'm a parrot, you're a pirate!

Cause in most pirate movies, the pirate is under the parrot.

Come on, give me an "ARRRRR" in your next Reply title! It would be more apropos than posts 308/312 for sure.

[wyldwolf]

355. Apparently you're confusing nouns and verbs. Perhaps a refresher in English is on your agenda.

I think you need it before you dip your toes in politics. You don't know much about either one.

[Pholus]

357. Oh the shame! Dissed by the legendary pirate "wyldwolf"

I simply don't know what to do! How will I EVER stand the rejection? Woe is me!

Oh yeah, that's right. This is the internet and you really ain't anyone that special. Whew! What a relief!

Based on how seriously you take yourself for a minute I was getting the impression that this actually matters.

Still doesn't change the FACTS showing HRC is way too far to the right in her foreign policy for MY comfort.

And that's an opinion you can take to the bank.

[wyldwolf]

358. Yes indeed

And you still have no idea what 'neoconisn' is other than what your idols on DU say.

[Pholus]

367. Hmmmm, the only thing left to say would seem to be "Arrrr!"

We could have discussed the topic, but straight from Post 217 you didn't want to discuss the specifics (because you'd lose -- my links showed very little daylight between quotes from Rummy and HRC on Syria). But for some reason you're obviously a bit emotional about this thread -- after all, someone doesn't make 49 of 366 posts on a thread without a wee bit of obsessive behavior being involved. But as you have also convincingly demonstrated, quantity of posts does not mean quality.

That's not to say I think poorly of you. I actually thought posts 150 and 255 made some good points that were only slightly diminished when you went on to call your opposite number a DINO. Too bad you can't stay calm like The Magistrate -- I actually appreciate her style and learn from it even when I consider her base position to be flawed -- and nobody can ever consider her to be impolite in any case agree or not.

In the end, we both realized I had this point from the get go and I figure that's why you went insulting. It's really disappointing your gambit hinged on pretending I didn't know what a neocon was. Dude, we were both on this forum in 2002 when the Project for the New American Century was pretty much THE hot topic. I know you were scraping for just SOME way to shut down the conversation, but I think you could have found a better one that didn't make you sound like you were just mailing it in.

In parting, some advice:

If you're going to dismiss the "irrelevant internet progressive fringe" start by not going all "crazy-eyed street preacher" nutty on them. If they're truly irrelevant, then perhaps the "ignore" feature of the site would work for you. Certainly, it would have you feeling a bit healthier and calmer.

Cheers and seriously take a breath once in a while. This is a discussion board, not reality.

[wyldwolf]

368. avoiding it to the end

"In parting.."

Really? You're departing? I'll wager you're not.

[Ken Burch]

238. She has said nothing about Ferguson and she endorsed what Netanyahu did to Gaza

That means she is no longer anti-racist and she' s not capable of working for peace on the I/P front. Coupled with her backing of the Iraq War, her insistence on pushing for a useless missile strike on Iran, her call for intervention in Syria despite the fact that this couldn't have any positive results(there are no GOOD armed factions in Syria and never were), she is not on the side of peace, justice and a decent world for all.

[wyldwolf]

244. as opposed to Warren who sent one solitary tweet on Fergusan and endorses what Netanyahu did to Gaza

Where's your poutrage?

[Ken Burch]

341. A tweet is at least something.

You know perfectly well HRC's silence means she doesn't care that the cops killed that kid.

And that's a stupid way for her to feel...since nobody in the whole country who's on the cop's side would ever vote for her. All of the defenders of that cop are total racist, sexist, homophobic, union-hating nut jobs. None of them combine defense of the cop with human views on anything else.

[wyldwolf]

350. It's a 'eh, I guess I'll say something.'

You know perfectly well Warrens silence means she doesn't care that the cops killed that kid.

And that's a stupid way for her to feel...since nobody in the whole country who's on the cop's side would ever vote for her. All of the defenders of that cop are total racist, sexist, homophobic, union-hating nut jobs. None of them combine defense of the cop with human views on anything else.

[Ken Burch]

371. The tweet means Warren wasn't silent. It's different from saying nothing at all.

HRC's COMPLETE silence proves she doesn't care that the kid was murdered. OR that she thinks it's worth it to try to appease "law and order" types...all of whom completely oppose everything the Democratic Party has stood for since 1932.

Warren is the progressive possibility. HRC is about going back to the past. There's nothing in the Nineties worth returning to.

[wyldwolf]

380. it means she took 3 seconds to tweet it and *poof!* all done and lost in the sea of tweets

Warren's cavalier approach proves she doesn't care that the kid was murdered. OR that she thinks it's worth it to try to appease "law and order" types...all of whom completely oppose everything the Democratic Party has stood for since 1932.

Warren isn't running. We can take solace in that. Whew!

[Thinkingabout]

249. Did you read her position on the issues? She voted yes on IRV with Bush using all options

Before he jumped the gun and invaded before the WMD's absence was determined. I do not like war but sometimes action needed to be taken. Why does HRC need yo speak out about Ferguson, we see what happened when she spoke about Syria, etc. It only results in more spinning.

[sorechasm]

307. HRC's votes against Big Oil and for Education are impressive but...

...why did she sponsor so few bills as a Senator? If she held as many liberal positions as the web link indicates, you'd think she would have sponsored more bills to support those positions.

The bigger question is why is her foreign policy to the right of Rand Paul's? If Rand Paul wins the center, democrats lose the election.

[Thinkingabout]

309. Because Rand Paul is to the left of Hillary, Libertarians doesnt believe in doing anything

In Foreign policy. Doesn't make her position incorrect.

[Ken Burch]

333. EVERYONE who voted for the IRV KNEW they were voting for war.

None of them thought Bush would ever stop short of that. None of them was bothered by the idea of going to war at all.

And there is NO comparison with speaking out about Ferguson(something you HAVE to do to prove you care about fighting racism) and speaking out about Syria-the problem with her Syria comments wasn't that she spoke out, but the position she took WHEN she spoke out..she took a right-wing militarist position that could ONLY lead to more deaths. There never were any humane, democratic armed groups in Syria...all of them were fighting only for power for power's sake, and it never mattered which militia "won&quot assuming victory in any Middle East military conflict can ever happen).

[polichick]

215. Well said. I'd love to be in a book club with HRC...

but we're not on the same page when it comes to what this country is supposed to be about.

[DFW]

222. Lots of unnecessary bile here. As long as it remains issue-based, we're all on safe ground

The moment it gets emotional, we're not.

The moment Netanyahu's military tactics in Gaza become a "slaughter campaign," for example, it already gets emotional. I really dislike Netanyahu, but if Belgium started sending rockets over the border to shell French civilians, I'd understand Hollande doing most anything necessary to stop it, even though I consider Hollande to be a full-blown ass (I'm in France once a week for work). Netanyahu could have a quarter million Gazans dead by tomorrow morning if he wanted to. THAT is a slaughter campaign.

Also, while the Iraq vote had catastrophic consequences, before the invasion, as I remember it, the vote authorized action in the case it proved absolutely necessary. It never did. Joschka Fischer, the Green foreign minister of Germany at the time, publicly told Rumsfeld that Germany would have no part of an invasion of Iraq unless Rumsfeld convinced him of the necessity of it. Fischer addressed Rumsfeld to his face in English, which he does not speak fluently, and said flat out, "You haven't convinced me." So I put the onus squarely on the back of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. They violated the language of the authorizing vote. The invasion was not necessary, and they knew it, while hiding and falsifying the evidence. It is for this reason I have always supported their being brought up on charges at The Hague, not Democrats who unwittingly enabled them.

For the record, I concur with Howard Dean's stance that "younger blood" needs to step up for the job of President. Howard will be 66 this November, and told me that he considers himself too old for the job. He said Obama was about the right age when he took office, and Obama wasn't even 50 then. Another friend of mine went out on a limb and implored Hillary not to run on the air during her show on MSNBC. Gutsy move, for which she caught quite a lot of flak from guess who. I'm not sure I would have said it that way on national television, but I stand behind her willingness to say it, as she stated her case in a calm rational manner. The clip was posted here on DU at the time, if I recall correctly.

On the other hand, if Hillary really does decide to go for it, I agree that she has a good chance at the nomination, and upon winning that, a good chance at the Oval Office. However: a presidential run these days is a demeaning, exhausting ordeal. I know Hillary wants to be president. I am not convinced she wants to be, one more time, a CANDIDATE for president. We do have other options (O'Malley is just one, Ohio's Brown is another), and the Republicans have only certifiable nut cases and a third Bush (so far--though don't expect it to remain that way if they feel they really have a chance).

So, support Hillary if you are so inclined, support someone else (and I consider "anyone else" to be a legitimate choice if rationally backed) if you are so inclined.

But going for each others' throats on a thread like this one, besides being incredibly premature, is really REALLY counter-productive, although that's just my personal view.

[KoKo]

369. I think some of the anger is

due to a split in the Dem Party over War Policies and Wall Street as Manny Goldstein said up thread. I'd add Trade Agreements negotiated and written in secret by Corporations, Wall Street and Think Tanks which Hillary says she supports.

Plus, anger that our Party hasn't allowed for the grooming of rising stars who would challenger her to the Left because "Third Way" is now the Dem Party and they don't want to hear anything else. They were too busy attacking the Left Dems starting with Rahm Emmanuel attacks on us shortly after Obama won the election and followed by others since. Those of us on the Left who voted for Obama for the "Change You Can Believe In" were "under the bus" shortly after. The Democratic Strategy was just to keep going after the Crazies on the Right and hammer them while ignoring what was falling apart in our own house.

There's a lot of anger that we are in this mess and the only choice we have is to go back to the Clinton Era (which we know involved a lot of putting the final touches on deregulation begun by Republicans) that helped put us in this mess in the first place.

I can't say that the Republicans are in any better shape with their crop of possible candidates, either, and there is bound to be anger down the road with whomever they choose.

[DFW]

370. But Clinton is NOT our only choice

So far, she hasn't even said Clinton is Clinton's choice. She'll be 69 in 2017, have accomplished a lot, is one of the most recognized women in the world with no financial worries and a new grandchild. She could just as easily say, "to hell with it, I'm chucking the frustration and the hate, and I'm gonna enjoy the last 15 active years of my life."

We have other choices, and she knows it. We can be in good hands without her leading us, and I think she'd be cool with that.

[DonCoquixote]

223. Yes

Even if she does not run...(though Frankly, I did not believe that in 2008, and I expect to be proven right again this time) she is influencing who does, and the fact that the liberals are the first to be ignored says that she is still dominating our party, offering shelter to the ex GOP, who will first demand that we throw the liberals out of the democratic lifeboat.

[hopemountain]

225. if hrc is the best we can do

the democratic party has already defeated itself.

nix to hrc. we will end up in another one or more wars, costing the american worker a price they can no longer afford - not in dollars, or jobs, or sons and daughters.

and, as a wall street supporter, the once shining amercan dream will become so faint a reality for so many, there will be no middle calss.

i don't understand how the recent vigorous grandstanding of her right wing alliances with warhawks and big money is going to get her elected demorcatic candidate for president.

[blkmusclmachine]

235. Hillary Clinton's <<POLICIES>> are NOT conducive to a healthy, winning DEM Party.

No way, no how.

[wyldwolf]

237. except...

Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a problem with liberals. Not hardly.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has said repeatedly that she won't run for president in 2016, and yet the idea persists: That Hillary Clinton could find herself vulnerable to a more liberal primary opponent.

The problem? Almost all of the most recent data suggests that Clinton doesn't have any real problems on her left flank. Indeed, she's actually stronger with liberals than she is with more moderate Democrats. And very, very few liberals have anything but nice things to say about her.

To wit:

* A new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that when voters are asked whether they would prefer Clinton, a more liberal alternative or a more conservative one, about twice as many non-Clinton voters say they prefer the more conservative one (20 percent) to the more liberal one (11 percent).

* A Washington Post/ABC News poll this month showed Clinton taking a bigger share of the vote in the 2016 primary among self-described liberals (72 percent) than among moderate and conservative Democrats (60 percent).

* The same poll shows 18 percent of moderate Democrats don't want Clinton to run. Just 6 percent of liberal Democrats agree.



* The WaPo-ABC poll also shows liberal Democrats approve of Clinton's tenure at the State Department by a margin of 96-1, while moderate Democrats approve of it 84-12. Sixty-seven percent of liberals strongly approve of Clinton's performance, nearly 9 in 10 say she is a strong leader, and only slightly fewer say she's honest and trustworthy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-doesnt-have-a-problem-with-liberals-not-hardly/

[cascadiance]

265. Yeah, she has a lot of name recognition, but notice that her support is FALLING over time!

And Elizabeth Warren is trending UP over time!

Yes, we were being told she had it locked up before 2008 and before Obama entered the race too. TYPICAL corporatist propaganda trying to make it sound like its wrapped up and that Republicans hate her so much to try and get some emotional Democrats to support her. The more people start thinking on issues and where she and other people running against her stand if they are to the left of her (which it shouldn't be too hard to do), the more she will lose support like she did in 2008.

Now all Obama conservative if you want. The better way of characterizing him in 2008 election was more "nebulous" in the detail of what "Hope and Change" meant, and people "hoped" that it was a more progressive agenda than they heard more explicitly from Clinton, and than what he actually carried out later. Some of us voted for Edwards even after he withdrew from the primaries, before of course the "news" came out on him, but we were being basically told to "screw the message" these people are giving out. Just vote for the party. Enough of us are sick of the results of that strategy that we're going to be a lot more demanding this time around..

And back in those days, when I created this photoshop during those primaries, I was already jaded by what I saw then too.

[wyldwolf]

288. Hillary is a known commodity, in the world spotlight for over 20 years.

Democrats know her, what she believes, what she represents. The whiny paranoid progressive left just isn't pouting enough I suppose.

[JaydenD]

318. Is Hillary like a Kardashian now?

This is what it is starting to sound like from a certain crowd - Hillary is known and popular, everybody in the world knows her! therefore let her be Prezzy! How ridiculous.

[cascadiance]

324. The only thing many people KNOW is that she's SLIGHTLY better than today's Republicans...

... who ARE far right. Yes, I'd vote for her over THEM, but if someone like Eisenhower were to run for the Republicans today, I think I might switch parties.

[wyldwolf]

352. a matter of perspective. What isn't a matter of perspective is the numbers anxious to vote for her

... but you and your stripe will be on the sidelines again sipping your green tea and ranting and raving.

[hay rick]

245. K&R

[yellowwoodII]

248. She Had Her Chance to Win My Vote

All she had to do was to vote against the invasion of Iraq. She failed my test. That's it

[Evergreen Emerald]

251. I find it bizarre

Every move she makes is dissected and judged and then given the ugliest slant possible, even if it means turning yourselves into pretzels to confirm that she becomes exactly how you define her.

No one else has been judged as harshly here as she has for similar votes, and similar statements and similar stances. Any liberal or progressive idea is discounted.

She has been dehumanized on this board. It is ugly and if not hatred, it sure looks like it.

[cascadiance]

260. Because frankly this country is SICK of how it's been destroyed by Republicans and these Democrats

that try to be Republican and use captured "CORPORATE MEDIA" to LABEL themselves falsely "progressive" to the rest of us that are just fed up with being fed BS!... And that corporate media could have been prevented if Mr. Clinton had listened to both the likes of John McCain and Russ Feingold to veto the Telecomm act that has so destroyed our media of today.

[wyldwolf]

290. except no one believe that hogwash except the 'more liberal than though' left

[cascadiance]

323. The only hogwash we have now is the so-called "liberal" media!

And if you believe that hogwash, you are a lost cause!

[wyldwolf]

353. blaming the media for the left's total lack of organization skills? LOL.

[cascadiance]

364. No blaming those that claim that "money is free speech" which is what CREATES this crap!

... along with what YOU claim is "lack of organizational skills" but is the crap that results when most of us are having our wealth STOLEN from us from the CORPORATE party that work together across party lines to do this to keep most of us at survival levels on Maslow's hierarchy now so we simply don't have time, money, or resources to work together, along with a system that has been bought off and keeps things like public campaign financing, instant runoff voting, and other mechanisms to allow other voices to be heard in this system. Of course there are many like you that won't want instant runoff voting, as it would take away the corporate power from the Democratic Party where they would have to start working for the people in all ways (not just social issues) or have other parties start to win where voters won't have to fear a Republican winning if their vote for a third party like the Greens fail.

This theft is shown in the following graphs:



And if you claim that the top 1% (IN TOTAL) deserves more money than the lower income classes (IN TOTAL) because they are contributing more to society at these percentage rates, then you either just don't GET that we are being stolen from, or you are part of the theft going on!

And if you don't think the consolidated media that IS SHOWN here has nothing to do with the corporatist message echoed by both parties, then again, you just DON'T GET IT, or you are a part of that problem too.

[woo me with science]

386. Hear, hear.

Excellent post.

[cantbeserious]

294. When One Defends The "War And Wall Street" Factions Of America - The Criticism Is Deserved

eom

[JaydenD]

319. No other candidate has ever said the stupid things she says. Except on the right.

Which should tell you something right there.

[Ken Burch]

373. It's not bizarre to treat her as every OTHER frontrunner is treated.

And a man with her views who was the frontrunner would get the exact same treatment.

[iamthebandfanman]

254. Primaries are where you

vote your heart and conscious as well as your brain.

if people cant deal with it, it has more to do with their insecurities than anything else...



ill vote for Hillary if shes our nominee...
but im definitely not going to in the primary..
if you have a problem with that... too bad.

[carolinayellowdog]

273. YIKES! 75% of the replies are on my ignore list-- as a DUer since 2002 this says something

about the incursion of centrist trolls- and I say this as a relentless defender of the Clintons in the 1990s. (on edit to be more precise 71.3%)

[cantbeserious]

293. So, A Relentless Defender Of The Clinton's Is A Centrist Troll - Would You Be On Your Own Ignore List

eom

[stranger81]

346. yeah, that 75% was "contributed" by just two posters.

Two very busy posters.

[treestar]

278. If we stood for anything as a party, we'd be talking only of 2014

and school board elections and local elections.

That's how the right wing got so much power.

Our insistence that the presidency means everything must end, or the right wing will put a drag weight on progress.

Progress will be made, as it is inevitable. But by thinking one Messiah in the form of a President will do it is delusional and pathetic. It takes more than that. Let's not make the right wing characterization of us as lazy true.

The right wing is not lazy. They work their butts off at 2014. We just sit there and cry we will lose and worry about what Messiah will save us as President in 2016.

We're letting them take the Senate too!

The President is one third of federal power and there is still state and local power. The president is only the most powerful being in the world as commander and chief of the military, which happens to be the most powerful in the world. That only applies to wars and is the reason Republicans only want them.

[Ken Burch]

372. Nobody is saying ignore 2014. But ignoring 2016 is giving up.

both matter. And those who are talking about 2016 are working just as hard for progressive politics as those who talk ONLY of 2014.

And I didn't say the presidency was everything. But the Nineties showed that an anti-progressive Democratic president can pretty much bring activism to an end.

[Doctor_J]

281. this will fall on deaf ears. Those of us who object to Arne Duncan "hate Obama"

Don't like mandatory for-profit health insurance? Hater!!!

Don't like banksters being left alone? Hater!!!

Don't like offshore drilling? Hater!!!

Don't like that the president wants to fast track TPP? Hater!!!

Don't like the fact that the president calls torturers "patriots" and anti-torture activists "sanctimonious"? Hater!!!

Now our probable nominee praises Israel, stays out of the Ferguson situation, worked for Walmart, has investment in TPP and the pipeline, favors elimination of public schools, and pals around with 1%ers, any any complaints are labelled as hatred. Whatever.

Our party is going to lose again this fall because the DC dems do not stand for the people they need to vote for them

[cantbeserious]

295. + 1,000

eom

[Welibs]

302. Why do people keep telling HRC to engage on particular issues? In one post last

week someone told her to stop doing things that turn off voters, in so many words. Her actions or lack of, speak volumes and let us know who she
really is. We've all been watching her and not very many of us like what we see. Shouldn't that be a big hint?

She's a Bilderberger to begin with, the main architect of the TPP & she and Bill have the Clinton Global Initiative, all connected to the rich banksters and
the corporations that caused this mess and are deliberately making it worse.

I believe now that Bill repealed Glass-Steagel intentionally to help the rich and corporate bring down the global
economy so they could get control. Bill claims he didn't know that Republicans and bankers would use it to bring down global markets. I call Bullshit on Bill,
he's just not that stupid.

We don't want HRC or anyone else getting behind issues that they don't give a flying shit about? If they don't give a shit.... I want to know it.

I not only dislike Hillary's policies, I dislike Hillary. She's a rich soulless Wall St 1%er and she is as corrupt and immoral as the rest.

She's another Margaret Thatcher and the world doesn't need that.

[wyldwolf]

304. "not very many of us like what we see."

Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a problem with liberals. Not hardly.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has said repeatedly that she won't run for president in 2016, and yet the idea persists: That Hillary Clinton could find herself vulnerable to a more liberal primary opponent.

The problem? Almost all of the most recent data suggests that Clinton doesn't have any real problems on her left flank. Indeed, she's actually stronger with liberals than she is with more moderate Democrats. And very, very few liberals have anything but nice things to say about her.

To wit:

* A new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that when voters are asked whether they would prefer Clinton, a more liberal alternative or a more conservative one, about twice as many non-Clinton voters say they prefer the more conservative one (20 percent) to the more liberal one (11 percent).

* A Washington Post/ABC News poll this month showed Clinton taking a bigger share of the vote in the 2016 primary among self-described liberals (72 percent) than among moderate and conservative Democrats (60 percent).

* The same poll shows 18 percent of moderate Democrats don't want Clinton to run. Just 6 percent of liberal Democrats agree.



* The WaPo-ABC poll also shows liberal Democrats approve of Clinton's tenure at the State Department by a margin of 96-1, while moderate Democrats approve of it 84-12. Sixty-seven percent of liberals strongly approve of Clinton's performance, nearly 9 in 10 say she is a strong leader, and only slightly fewer say she's honest and trustworthy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-doesnt-have-a-problem-with-liberals-not-hardly/

[JEB]

315. Fuck the war machine, fuck facebook and fuck politics as usual.

[4b5f940728b232b034e4]

316. Concern trolls

are defined as:

"A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending."

by http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll

They most certainly do hate.

[Union Scribe]

317. Subtle. nt

[Veilex]

329. "Left concern about HRC is NOT "hatred"..." - I must respectfully dissagree...

I hate greed... I hate corruption... and I hate that corporations and 1 percenters are satisfying their greed by continuing the corrupt our system of governance, to the detriment of the citizenry. I openly hate and oppose that... HRC has openly supported corporations and 1 percenters intent on continuing those things I hate... consequently, I WILL NOT support HRC... and no, I will not hold my nose and vote for her regardless of if she's supposedly the "most viable" candidate or not.



I will vote for someone who represents my beliefs and philosophies... period. Right now, that's Bernie Sanders. Of course, that'll bring out a bunch of "oh but he cant win" and "he's not a real contender" style comments... to which I say: neither was Barack Obama at the start.

[MellowDem]

362. Not only would she be yet another moderate conservative in the WH...

I think it's creepy to have political dynasties. I think it goes against everything a democracy stands for.

[cstanleytech]

363. She will be almost 70 years old by the 2016 elections though

so I just dont believe she will run for the office of president so neither she or her positions matter anymore imo.

[BlueCaliDem]

382. Having read just a handful of posts blasting HRC, I beg to disagree.

I'm no HRC fan, but I can't stomach the multitude of anti-Hillary posts infesting this site. The handful I've read definitely smacks of a deep hatred for her as a politician and for president.

There are even a few on Democratic Underground praising Rand Paul while excoriating HRC's stance on foreign policy in the same post - as if that proven plagiarist wouldn't buckle for the war hawks in this country should the American people be stupid enough to vote for him as president, which I doubt. I don't believe he's truthfully interested in becoming president. He's interested in running which is quite lucrative for politicians in the form of money, gifts, connections, and power.

[JCMach1]

384. I think after 6 years of President Obama we can safely say there actually was little or no

difference between them...

In some ways, I think Hillary may have stood up to the Republicans in a more profound way on the domestic front.

And yes, the Hillary bashing is completely out of hand.

[BlueCaliDem]

385. I agree. I doubt HRC would launch this country into unnecessary wars

just because the MIC tells her to - unlike a Republican president, and that includes Rand Paul.

Just like President Obama, she'll weigh the pros and cons and do what's best for this country and for people who need our help around the world. I'm certain she'll be tougher with congressional Republicans than President Obama has been willing to be, and unlike this president, she'll have Democrats in Congress backing her100%. I didn't and don't see much of that crucial backing for President Obama unless it's under duress or very, very reluctantly.

But the bashing of one of our strongest Democratic candidates for president around here is already out of hand, and she hasn't even declared herself as a presidential candidate!

[JCMach1]

387. +1000... part of the inevitability is historic I think...

Yes, it is a woman's turn in the White House...

I would also argue some of the bashing comes from resistance to that idea... consciously, or unconsciously...

[JCMach1]

383. and how has 'not' electing Hillary in '08 worked out on the militarism front?

Just saying... I don't thing there is a mm difference between Obama and Hillary on that point...

[Ken Burch]

390. At least...as of this point...we haven't bombed Iran yet. Or gone all-out in Syria.

The wars we are in are stupid and pointless, but being in MORE wars wouldn't be better(especially since being in wars with Syria and Iran would inevitably put us into a direct military conflict with Russia.

I'm not denying the last four years have been a massive disappointment on the war question, though.

[JCMach1]

391. Things which Sec. Clinton has not said she would do...

Obama is a good example of how when someone becomes CINC, the reality sometimes subsumes the ideals and rhetoric.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

392. Fine. Concerns duly noted

However, now what?

If there is going to be a viable challenger to HRC (assuming she announces), he/she ought to get busy with announcing and getting a campaign together soon if they want to stand a chance in the primary/general. I'm all for making the case that she might not be the best Democratic candidate but, that being said, we need an alternative. As we've seen with PBO, complaining about people and their policies might be engaging and/or cathartic but it is not productive unless some credible alternatives are presented......at some point.

[MohRokTah]

393. Concern noted.

Now, if the Left was SERIOUS, they'd field a viable candidate.

OF course, they can't, so they aren't.