How come almost everybody on here doesn't like Hillary?

[minivan2]

And they say they won't vote for her, but when compared to republican nominees they want her to win?

Discuss.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Some say because she's a Clinton, others because she's a hawk.

Me, I think she's insincere and calculating in contrast to being passionate about the people and equity, like Sanders and Warren seem to be.

[sabrina 1]

17. Nothing to do with her name. We need a real leader who doesn't have to consult the

corporate entities who fund them, to decide what they believe in.

The name isn't important at all.

[NYC_SKP]

19. In terms of recognition, the name is pretty important to some folks.

Not me, not you, but low information voters might love or hate her for just the name recognition, "Yeah, like Bill Clinton, I remember him".

This makes you and me cringe, why should anyone have an advantage just for the name???

It's not everything, but it's not "nothing".

And, I meant "because she's a Clinton" as an epithet, if you know what I mean and I think you do.

[sabrina 1]

27. Okay, I misunderstood. Sorry about that!

The problem is we know that no one who actually is free of the toxic influence of money will be allowed anywhere near the WH. That is why the people need to start focusing on Congress and their local politicians.

[VanillaRhapsody]

109. And who you going to vote for in the end.....

Why Hillary of course.....and everyone knows it....

[TheNutcracker]

49. Support for fracking and GMO's?

[NYC_SKP]

52. Neither are in my top five, but that certainly adds to the trough of despair.

I would say that her militarism, bent toward globalization, ambivalence toward strengthening the social services net, failure to call out corporate powers, and willingness to lie and not cop to it are among my top reasons not to support her, ever.

[leftstreet]

2. It's not her, it's her policies n/t

[GoneOffShore]

33. That's one reason I don't trust her.

[mylye2222]

114. Her policies and her links ti corporatists.

She seems far more close to the RW than Dems .

[JEB]

3. Here is a very good reason to loathe her.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/09/05/hillary_clinton_henry_kissinger_pals.html

[GoneOffShore]

34. And more reason's that she's not suitable.

[Arugula Latte]

4. Many reasons, but many remain pissed off about her '02 vote for that fucking Iraq invasion/slaughter

[Thinkingabout]

5. It's kinda like the people who does not like broccoli, they never tasted it but have been told

it doesn't taste good. It seems to be a some thinks she is too close to corporations but when the smoke clears many have connections and have accepted corporate donations to their campaigns. Yes, she is in demand for speaking to Wall Street companies but this isn't a bad thing. Some do not like her vote on the Iraq war though Bush lied and jumped to the invasion without exhausting all avenues.

She has experience in the Senate, she has served as SOS and she has fought many years for women's rights and civil rights.

[winter is coming]

24. Nope. The problem is that people *have* tasted Hillary. No more, please. n/t

[DonCoquixote]

26. some of us have had that broccoli shoved down our throats

In the form of Nafta (which made many Americans starve) h1b visas (which also do that) and for expanding wars (which take food from our wallet to buy guns)

Do not act like we are finicky kids that will not eat the broccoli that is so good for us. We are people whop are starving because Hillary lets the GOP steal our food!

[davidpdx]

69. Shoved down our throat, indeed. That's what they tried to do in 2007 & 2008

It's not about tasting, it's knowing what you are eating is going to leave you feeling empty inside.

If I wanted to feel that way, I'd just eat batteries.

[DonCoquixote]

100. Nice catch David

Though it goes beyond empty, it makes us sick. Whether Hillary's supporters realize it or not, there were things that Hillary supported and IS SUPPORTING that will KILL OR INJURE many of those on the left that are still expected to march into the booths and get "ready for Hillary." The poison that will spill from the Trans-Canada pipeline, the troops that will come back dead from Syria, the people hurt by slashing welfare, make no mistake, they will be hurt, if not killed.

And before some of her supporters take out the branding irons they used in 2008 "Sexist!/Anti-Semite/insert cheap insult here", and the war cries "Party Unity my Ass!", let me add this point: since Hillary has not yet decided if she is running (snicker) she is in that phase where she supposedly can define who she would run as; she is supposedly malleable. We, as the voters of the Democratic Party, have every right to say that we want to see certain things from her, and that we do NOT want to see certain from her. We have every right to say "If you want to pass through this gate, we need you to come in from the left." What is sad is that if Hillary wanted to be a liberal, she could.

Anything stopping her from denouncing the Keystone Pipeline, save for the fact her Hubby has already supported it, and already condemned Obama for not approving it pronto?

Anything stopping her from saying "If I were to become president, one thing I would COMMIT TO was to get rid of Nafta, at least as we know it."

Anything stopping her from saying "If I were to run, I would demand BiBi Netanyahu cease his course of action, and come with us to Oslo, where we can resume implementing the Oslo accords that everyone, Israel included, agree to when my Husband was President?"


Oh, but you cannot offend people in office. Ha, that sure as hell did not stop her from writing that book of "hard choices" and stabbing Obama in the back, knowing her words would be used by the GOP to apply pressure on him to do "Stupid Stuff." This was the unkindest cut of all. If Obama ran things like Hillary did, no one from the Clinton era would have been allowed in the cabinet, because he would have shown the vengeful spite the Clintons are known for. That would have meant Hillary would not be SoS, and Obama could have earned EASY praise.

The right wing would have praised him because it would have meant Hillary would have had a sad ride into the sunset. The left would have loved him because they hated Hillary the War Hawk. But no, despite the fact that leaving Hillary out would have been easy, he kept her on, and she repaid him by that damned book, which is a way of paving over Obama on her way to the White House she felt was hers.

[davidpdx]

112. I agree

I am really hoping she decides to duck out of this thing and not run. The open field is going to make it harder in the long run, but we will have much more in terms of choice and not being pressured to choose a specific person.

You listed many issues that should be important in the next election and that we should be drilling all the candidates on.

We have come a long way in 8 years, but it is hardly enough to clean up all the past mistakes over the four and a half decades. I think honestly we are looking at another 50 years to completely reverse course and get some good progressive ideas passed.

[DonCoquixote]

113. I will raise you one

"if the best candidate that the GOP puts in is Jeb Bush, that should be the time when we avoid playing it safe, because only a far right democrat could depress the base enough to lose to a Bush.

[sabrina 1]

29. No, it's more like people do not like the Bush Policies she supports. It's not that hard to figure

out really.

[arcane1]

101. The "Bush Lied" excuse is in itself a lie. We at DU all knew he was lying. So did the Senate n/t

[Scuba]

6. Pro war, pro Wall Street, pro TPP. Those policy positions are loathe to me.

[vt_native]

36. Don't forget!

Pro-Keystone XL

[Scuba]

41. Yep. Thanks.

[truedelphi]

99. I like Hillary

As far away from me as humanly possible...

(For all the reasons you state, plus her support of Henry Kissinger and Gm seeds, foods and crops.)

[upaloopa]

7. I think Hillary is a third way Democrat

I think she is center left or even center right I am not sure. She seems hawkish and if my guess is right most DUers would like a more progressive candidate. But she is less right than the rethug she may run against.

[nationalize the fed]

8. 2 reasons, among others

her "adviser" as SOS:


her helping to write and promote the TPP

I don't "Like" or "Hate" her because I don't know her.
I can't stand her policies.

[jwirr]

9. For me it is not a matter of dislike. I do not know what she stands for and thus IN THE PRIMARY

I will not vote for her if I can help it. In the general election I will vote for the Democratic candidate which may very well be Hillary.

In the mean time I am going to do what is most important right now: vote in as many Democrats as I can in 2014.

[Skidmore]

60. This is my problem with her as well.

She doesn't take a stand on anything. The only thing I think she can be associated solidly with are women's issues, which we do need right now. However, we need women's issues and.... from a candidate. Most importantly, I have no sense of where she stands when it comes to people who are poor. She never addresses the economic needs of the people in concrete terms to rally behind her on. I must confess also that some of her behavior during the 2008 campaign still bothers me.

[OilemFirchen]

10. Worth a caution:

Never confuse loudest with most.

[Demobrat]

11. She didn't have the guts to vote against the Iraq war

because she was afraid of being called unpatriotic. I don't want a POTUS who is afraid of being called names by Rush Limbaugh.

[sabrina 1]

31. She had the guts, but she actually AGREED with Bush as we have found out since then.

And that is WORSE than what we originally thought about her vote.

[KamaAina]

12. Because this is a progressive board?

And Hillary is a centrist Third Way type?

[GoneOffShore]

37. ^This^

Among other things.

[el_bryanto]

13. How did you come to the conclusion that almost everybody on here doesn't

like Hillary? Seems like she has plenty of defenders.

I don't lke her because she's another wall street democrat, but if she's the nominee I'll almost certainly vote for her.

Bryant

[hrmjustin]

14. Most members are to the left of her on issues.

In the end I think she will be the nominee and Democrats nationwide will support her.

I certainly will support her in the general and primary.

[sabrina 1]

38. No, they won't support her. If the party wants to LOSE, then she will be the nominee.

I sure hope no one blames the voters if the Party Leadership refuse to give their voters someone to vote FOR rather than 'the lesser of two evils' because they know how difficult it will be THIS TIME to get away with that. She cannot win without the Independent vote and as polls now show that is the biggest voting bloc with members of both parties dropping their party affiliations and registering as Independent.

[hrmjustin]

40. I am a bit confused, who are you saying won't support her if she wins the nomination?

[sabrina 1]

63. Well, let me put it this way. In the 2008 election I supported Obama once it came down to

Hillary and Obama. The reasons were, Obama had opposed the Iraq War, he opposed Mandated Insurance and he promised to close that blight on humanity, Guantanamo Bay. He also promised to protect SS from the usual suspects AND he opposed Torture.

Hillary was hesitant on torture, she supported the Heritage Foundation Mandated Ins, she had voted for the War in Iraq and wasn't too strong on SS.

There was no way I would ever support anyone, as I stated on the night of that vote, who supported Bush's War in Iraq.

But fortunately in 2008, we had a candidate who had opposed it.

I believe in the end most Dems got on board with Obama, eight years of Bush policies terrified people enough to set aside their differences and enough Independents got on board with Hillary supporters and of course those of us who supported Obama and voted for the Democrat.

Times have changed. But for those of us who refuse to ever support anyone who when they had the chance to cast a 'no' vote, chose not to, if Hillary is the candidate, we have no choice, unlike in 2008.

Independents, many of them former Dems, will not support Hillary just as they did not in 2008.

Hillary lost in 2008 because of her Iraq War Vote. People had a choice then. If she is the nominee, those same people will not have a choice and most Dems I know who refused and continue to refuse to support ANYONE who got it SO WRONG then, will never vote for her.

So, she lost in 2008. What makes you think she will win now? Do you really think that people will set aside their consciences for political purposes? Some may, but many won't.

I will be focusing on Congress if she is the nominee but I will never support anyone whose judgement was so bad and who has never even admitted it. Imo, anyone who made that disastrous decision doesn't have what it takes to be a leader.

I am hoping we will have a choice, but I hope the party is listening, enough people like me, who in the past, held their noses and voted for the Dem, won't be doing that anymore. In doing so we became part of the problem.

[hrmjustin]

64. I understand how you feel but i think she will win if she is the nominee.

I also think she will do just fine with Democratic party members.

[sabrina 1]

66. I do not. I think you are very wrong. I hope the Party understands this also and

starts listening to the people. If they do not, then they will be to blame if we end up with a Republican in the WH. No way will they be allowed to 'blame the voters'.

Republicans will never vote for Hillary, no matter how much she tries to win their votes. Left leaning Independents will not vote for her, as they did for Obama. And many Dems like me, will never vote for her. We are telling the party this now. No more 'hold your nose and vote'. If they ignore the warnings, then they, and they alone, will be responsible for the outcome.

You have to remember that people like me and those left leaning Independents, were willing to hold their noses and vote for the Dem in 2008. Without those voters, she doesn't have a chance.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

77. Pipe dream.

If she loses it, they'll just blame the left, like they do for pretty much every loss.

[wyldwolf]

15. oh, this is easy

But I'll let everyone hash it out... again. And then again tomorrow. And then again next week. Several times, probably. Next month...

[fadedrose]

16. She has too much baggage

especially if you include Bill, and I have tried to like them, but I can't seem to get over not trusting them to work for causes that made the Democratic party the party of poor and middle class...

[Maedhros]

18. I am in no position to like or dislike Hillary. I've never met her.

As for her policies, they are a continuation of the last 30 years of American policy and I think we've seen enough evidence that those policies are bad. Thus, I will not vote for Hillary.

[Kingofalldems]

20. I like her. I like all Democrats.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

54. Me too!

[PeteSelman]

21. Because we're Democrats. Liberal Democrats mostly.

And she, well she's a Republican in Democratic clothes.

[HereSince1628]

22. I dislike aspects of EVERYONE connected to the DLC, including Al Gore.

Personally, I don't see Hillary as interested in domestic social progress, which is my highest priority.

As a primary candidate she would be low, if not last, on my choices.

I resent being caged by the democratic elite, and the DNC, who repeatedly suggest that republican alternatives to internationalist, corporate democrats are worse.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. Me, too

While I agree that Al Gore was cheated out of the presidency, I disagree with the starry-eyed fans who are CERTAIN that Al Gore would never have gone into Iraq, considering that Bill Clinton bombed it and put sanctions on it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. 3rd Way Hawk. Next question?

[Egnever]

25. I would vote for her no problem

just not in the primarries. I dont doubt she would get the job done. I am fairly certain some of that job would not please me at all.

I want Dean to jump in and take another shot.

I would really love to see a woman as potus though.

[TygrBright]

28. I've only met her a couple of times. Can't say whether I like or dislike her.

I admire her intellect and drive.

I like some of her policy positions.

I think some of her policy positions are problematic.

I would like to know more about who she feels beholden to.

If she's the nominee I'll vote for her.

Why do I have to like or dislike her? She doesn't live next door or anything.

curiously,
Bright

[Kalidurga]

30. I don't dislike her. I want to see the other nominees before I settle on a candidate...

to vote for. I will not likely vote for her in the primaries though. But, I sure won't sit it out or vote for a Republican.

[still_one]

32. I don't buy your premise. Because the flame bait posts get the most attention, that might be why it

appears so

[TBF]

35. ...

[krawhitham]

39. Because she is a DINO?

Democrat
In
Name
Only

[wyldwolf]

48. that bullshit again? Get a new shtick.

[MannyGoldstein]

53. President Obama has called himself a 1980's Republican

Below:

Would you consider Hillary to be to the left of Obama? If so, on what issues?

[wyldwolf]

55. except he didn't

Do you want to quote what he said in it's context or should I?

Do you always purposely misquote people?

[MannyGoldstein]

57. Go for it.

I'd probably do something unfair.

[wyldwolf]

58. Gladly

Last edited Tue Sep 23, 2014, 07:47 AM - Edit history (1)

Manny: President Obama has called himself a 1980's Republican

Reality:

President Obama said his economic policies are "so mainstream" he'd be considered a moderate Republican in the 1980s.

In a Thursday interview with a Miami-based local television station, Obama said he thinks few people believe he wants to impose socialism on the country.

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican," he told Noticias Univision 23 in a White House interview.

"I mean, what I believe in is a tax system that is fair," he continued. "I don't think government can solve every problem. I think that we should make sure that we're helping young people go to school. We should make sure that our government is building good roads and bridges and hospitals and airports so that we have a good infrastructure.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s

He didn't call himself a 1980s Republican. Nor did he say he considered himself a 1980s Republican. He said he'd be considered a moderate Republican in the 1980s based on his belief in a fair taxes, his belief that government can't solve every problem, that young people need help going to school, that government is building good infrastructure.

I realize facts and meanings get lost in the black/white, "either this or that" world of 'progressives,' but anyone with half a brain would see Obama was pointing out the stupidity of Republicans calling him a socialist.

Now you can spin and twist it to match your original reply. In fact, I'm expecting it.

[MannyGoldstein]

62. OK, is this better? "President Obama says he has the same *policies* as..."

President Obama says he has the same policies as a 1980's Republican.

Would you consider Hillary's policies to be to the left of Obama's policies? If so, which specific policies?

[wyldwolf]

71. Actually, no, it's still dishonest

President Obama says he has the same policies as a 1980's Republican.

Nope - he said he'd be considered a moderate Republican in the 1980s based on his belief in a fair taxes, his belief that government can't solve every problem, that young people need help going to school, that government is building good infrastructure. His point was Republicans and Democrats shared many of the same goals.

[MannyGoldstein]

73. Here's the part that *you* bolded:

"if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican"

Now you want to strike that passage out?

I think it's pretty clear that the President is saying:

1. His policies are those of a 1980's Republican (I'd say 1990s or 1920s, but whatever)
2. Those are good policies because they/he believe in fair taxes, etc.

All that being said... are Hillary's would-be, er, will-be policies to the left of Obama's? Which ones?

[wyldwolf]

75. your protest makes no sense. You're still trying to twist this to match your belief

I think it's pretty clear that the President is saying:

1. His policies are those of a 1980's Republican (I'd say 1990s or 1920s, but whatever)

His policies on those specific issues are those of DEMOCRATS - but Republicans shared those beliefs.

2. Those are good policies because they/he believe in fair taxes, etc.

Then what's your problem?

[MannyGoldstein]

90. Your point is interesting.

What I think you're saying is that Obama's policies are at the thin intersection where Reagan Democrats and Republicans met? So that while Obama's policies are those of a Reagan Democrat, there were also Republicans who favored those policies too?

I think that's in the ballpark, although Obama's policies seems to be to the right of Reagan himself - austerity, war and so forth.

[wyldwolf]

91. See, here's your problem.

You state what you think others are saying then make a conclusion based on those thoughts. You did it with Obama's initial statements and now with mine: What I think you're saying is that Obama's policies are at the thin intersection where Reagan Democrats and Republicans met? (your thought on what I'm saying) So that while Obama's policies are those of a Reagan Democrat, there were also Republicans who favored those policies too? (your conclusion)

[MannyGoldstein]

94. Just trying to clarify

Do we agree that the Democrats whose policies mostly overlapped with those of Republicans of that era were Reagan Democrats?

[wyldwolf]

95. I was very clear. You're trying to parse another meaning from mine and the President's words.

[MannyGoldstein]

98. Well, first you highlight Obama saying his positions are those of a 1980's Republican

To show the part of the sentence that you believe to be most important, then you claim that this part of the sentence doesn't actually count, then you say that it kinda does but there's other information that one needs to know to interpret the thing, then you tell me "nevermind, you're bouncing around too much".

Okey-dokey then.

[Logical]

79. You are looking silly at this point! nt

[wyldwolf]

84. you're falling victim to the same pretzel logic

I mean, the words are RIGHT THERE in print.

[MannyGoldstein]

67. Still waiting for a response.

Perhaps in the morning.

[wyldwolf]

72. I have a life outside of DU

[Logical]

81. In other words "I give up"! Nt

[wyldwolf]

85. you give up? You just started.

[CK_John]

42. She was the behind the screen young lawyer that forced Nixon out

She was the legal eagle for the Watergate commission.

This is the GOP reason, why the DU hate without anyone else stepping up is perplexing.

I doubt their will even be a primary.

[hughee99]

44. It must be misogyny, because no DUer has ever clearly articulated

a policy disagreement with Sec. Clinton on any issue

[former9thward]

47. Ahh no, she did not force Nixon out.

She was a glorified intern who did banal research for the committee.

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

[rpannier]

68. Actually she helped research procedures and historical precedent for impeachment

She wasn't directly involved in pushing Nixon out

on edit: Nor was she some behind the scenes genius helping craft the Nixon impeachment

[yurbud]

43. Why don't some here believe in primaries?

[SheilaT]

45. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't like her

because I see almost no evidence that she actually supports Progressive ideas and policies or would do anything to help the struggling middle and lower classes. She has become ensconced in a world of privilege to the point where she honestly has no clue what ordinary mortal lives are about. She hangs out with the 1% and thinks they represent the best this country has to offer.

More to the point, I'm horrified by the idea that we'd nominate someone who is a creature of the past, when what we need is someone who looks forward. I'm stunned at the idea that there has been absolutely no new candidates for the highest office in more than twenty years. And it absurd that anyone says Oh, it's her time. Excuse me? We don't -- or at least we shouldn't -- select our Presidents based on some sort of seniority system. It is my opinion that her time is past. She is too old for the job of President. I'm less than a year younger than she is, and I still think she's too old.

[greatlaurel]

46. A lot of the shrillest HRC hatred comes from right wing dirty tricks and manipulation.

It is easy to harp about one or two policies or votes and ignore the decades of work HRC has done for the American people. There is no politician with whom I agree all the time. All politicians have to appease many different constituencies. HRC has stood with us far more than she has failed us. The platform she ran on in the primaries in 2008 was better than Barack Obama's, but her critics ignored her platform.

The Republican Party is absolutely terrified of her running. They are throwing everything plus the kitchen sink at her and none of it is working.

As members of the Democratic Party, we should concentrate our time on getting out the vote this November of 2014. All this hate is counterproductive and seems aimed to depress voter turnout this coming election.

GOTV 2014!

[MannyGoldstein]

56. In what ways would you consider her platform to have been

better than Obama's?

Thanks.

[tabasco]

50. Because republicans are scumbags.

HOPE IT HELPS!

[2banon]

51. this has been discussed for years and years....

there's nothing at all new to add.. so why did you bring it up again?

[underpants]

59. Too cool for school

[DRoseDARs]

61. You missed the DU Obama/Clinton Primary War of '08...

Stick around and you'll get to experience the sequel in '16.

[MrMickeysMom]

65. I'll paraphrase something I said long ago about HRC….

Had she come out against the Iraq war, and campaigned on issues to take us past that bridge to the 21st century (as she was capable to do), she would have had me in a skinny second and won over Obama in a landslide.

I would have led that charge because I learned that Obama was so much more conservative, right from that University of Chicago School of Milton Freidman Economics and Wall Street ass-kissing "Americans".

That was not to be found, and it's a damned shame. How then, could I vote for her since then? I couldn't now. I couldn't in 2008.

[davidpdx]

70. I tend to agree with you

I think had she done that and ran a campaign instead of a rollercoaster in 2008 less people would have gotten behind Obama. Certainly in a parallel universe it would have been interesting to see her and Grandpa McCain run against each other with all the other national and world events the same.

For me personally I decided early on to back Obama.

[Octafish]

74. Jackson Stephens, BCCI and Walton Mart

Other than that, her actions as Secretary of State benefited the ruling elites over the People, most every time.

http://firedoglake.com/2011/06/03/hillary-clinton-hosts-iraq-opportunities-party-for-war-profiteers/

Why do you ask, minivan2?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

76. Who posts on political blogs?

People who spend more time paying attention to politics than most people.

Who pays more attention to politics than most?

Two sorts of folks - strongly partisan folks and people who have reasons to want to change the status quo.

HRC is fine for the strongly partisan types. They did the polling, she most handily beats anyone on team red.

But HRC, while 'better than' the Republican option, still represents the 'status quo' on a lot of issues to those interested in changing the status quo. Been in politics her whole life, hawkish interventionist, supports policies that continue to provide crumbs to the poor while money flows like water up to the wealthy. Worked to help her husband on pro-corporate, anti-labour trade policies that helped destroy the middle class, continued to work on such while part of the state department.

So for the 'anti-status quo' crowd, there's more a difference of degree than kind separating her from some Republicans.

If you get a theocrat candidate put up on the right, though, expect even the asq crowd to vote for her.

[woo me with science]

80. 3. Propagandists.

Lots of those around.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

82. Ok, them too. And trolls, who just want crowds to troll, and don't really care about

the politics per se, other than maybe they generally dislike people on the left.

[Feral Child]

78. I don't trust her.

I think at heart she's an Eisenhower Republican.

That said, if she is the nominated candidate I will vote for her. An Ike Republican is far superior to the Dominionist psychopaths that comprise the bulk of the GOP these days.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

86. Actually, you bring up a point I'd forgotten.

While there are questions as to how deeply enmeshed she is with them, she has referred to Dominionist 'Family' leader David Coe as a spiritual mentor, and attended a number of their prayer meetings, and not 'just' the annual National Prayer Breakfasts. I hope she isn't a Dominionist, but I find it quite troubling that she found enough in common with them to hang out with them, and haven't heard her ever denounce them or refute her association with them.

[pampango]

83. Chasing Hillary: What The Republicans Refuse To Learn From Wile E. Coyote

As their fear swells in advance of Hillary Clinton’s anticipated presidential campaign, the feverish smears of the Republican right increasingly resemble the desperate gambits of a certain Wile E. Coyote. The latest episode in their cartoonish crusade appeared in the Washington Free Beacon, which headlined “The Hillary Letters” the other day with an ominous subhead: “Hillary Clinton, Saul Alinsky correspondence revealed.”

Not only did Clinton become acquainted as a young woman with the legendary community organizer – a fact mentioned in Living History, her own memoir – but she apparently wrote at least two letters to him in the summer of 1971. At the time, she was working as a legal intern for a well-known left-wing law firm in Berkeley – another item noted in Living History, which was published 11 years ago.

In the most telling passage from the letters Clinton sent to Alinsky during that turbulent summer more than 40 years ago, she writes: “The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead—if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration.” (She doesn’t sound much like a Communist either.)

But like the hapless Looney Tunes varmint brandishing his Acme dynamite sticks, the right-wing pamphleteers are so furious in their fruitless pursuit of Clinton that they will seize any and every bomb to throw at her, no matter how many times they blow themselves up instead. Those angry, soot-covered boobs never seem to understand why their attacks leave her completely unscathed — and often even stronger than before.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/chasing-hillary-republicans-refuse-learn-wile-e-coyote/

[BlindTiresias]

87. She is an unprincipled egotist.

And not even one with good policy positions. I refuse to vote for her no matter how furiously right wing dems shame or browbeat me.

[Romulox]

88. Even if her policies weren't awful, nepotism and cronyism are destroying this country. nt

[rock]

89. I don't believe that's true

But they are very vocal, like the repiggies, raving and ranting. They usually have unsupported claims against her and personal attacks. OK, so I'm a Hillary fan. Welcome aboard.

[HuckleB]

92. She would be a great president.

DU wants perfectionism instead of democracy.

I'd love to be king, too! But that's not going to happen, nor should it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

96. Because she's too buddy-buddy with the Wall Street pirates and the warmongers

We can do better than that, but my experiences tell me that the Establishment will not let anyone through the nomination process who is not either a corporatist hawk (Hillary) or willing to be persuaded by the corporatist hawks (Obama).

If it's not Hillary, it will be someone who is similarly hawkish and ready to give goodies to the corporate sector, different from the Republicans only in being more advanced on behavioral issues and willing to throw the public a few crumbs (e.g. not privatizing Social Security).

The Democrats are mostly better on sexual and racial politics, but neither party represents the economic interests of ordinary people.

[hifiguy]

102. Apart from her being ever-so-cozy with Goldman Sachs

and other Wall $treet thieving oligarchs, belligerently hawkish and willing to pal around with war criminals like Kissinger, there's nothing wrong with her whatsoever.

[Louisiana1976]

103. She's to the right of Obama who, as Democrats go, is pretty right-wing. Also, she supported a

coup in Honduras that caused everything in that country to go to hell. Conditions there are so bad that kids have been fleeing that country. However, if Hillary runs in the general election I have to vote for her because I'm sure any Republican would be worse.

[VanillaRhapsody]

110. BULLFUCKINGSHIT!

Hillary Clinton
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm




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

[Polly Hennessey]

104. Hillary

I like her and will vote for her.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

105. Me too!

[DawgHouse]

106. Me too nt

[customerserviceguy]

107. Because the lesser of two evils

still leaves you with evil. Hard to 'like' any kind of evil, even though you are forced to choose it.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

108. I'm Ready for Hillary. I know others here are too.

It is true that some here would rather vote for the former Republican, or a candidate who isn't even a regstered Democrat, but they might come around by 11/2016

[Beacool]

111. Because they live in a parallel world where Bernie Sanders could be a viable candidate.

DU, not much different from the Right's Tea Party bunch. The opposite side of the same mirror.