Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

When is a Democrat NOT a Democrat? When She's Hillary Clinton!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 09:59 AM
Original message
When is a Democrat NOT a Democrat? When She's Hillary Clinton!
Edited on Sat Feb-03-07 10:35 AM by babylonsister
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_lila_gar_070202_when_is_a_democrat_n.htm

When is a Democrat NOT a Democrat? When She's Hillary Clinton!

by Lila Garrett


Here's a riddle. When is a Democrat not a Democrat? Answer: When she's Hillary Clinton.

On January 27th 400,000 activists met in Washington to protest the funding of the war in Iraq. About 40 women from Code Pink went to Hillary Clinton's office with signs like IT TAKES AN INVASION TO RAZE A VILLAGE....They draped pink yarn around the office Cutting the ribbon symbolized cutting through the web of lies that lead us to the war. They also had a letter for Hillary to sign pledging to stop the funding. Instead of accepting the letter, acknowledging this passion for peace, congratulating them on their well thought out demonstration, expressing sympathy with their desire to end the war in Iraq, ...which Hillary now claims to share, the chief of staff had them arrested. Six of these magnificent women were thrown in jail where they spent 8 uncomfortable hours.....for what? For having the audacity to oppose the war that Hillary Clinton had spent 4 years defending. Now she says she's against it. When challenged to put up or shut up what's her reaction? She has voters for peace thrown in jail


When is a Democrat not Democrat? When instead of allowing public financing of her campaign she prefers to take the money from special interests. As the New York Times reported on January 23rd:

"The public financing for presidential campaigns, hailed as the best way to rid politics of corrupting influence of money, may have quietly died over the weekend. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton became the first candidate since 1976 to turn down public financing for both the primary and the general election because of the spending limits that come with the federal money. ....declaring she could raise far more than the 150 million the system could provide"

How can Hillary Clinton raise more than 150 million dollars? By encouraging special interests to fund her campaign. Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox news, right wing nightmare of the Media industry, threw her a huge fund raiser in which undisclosed millions were raised. She not only accepted his largess, she did so with pride.

Meanwhile campaign finance reform is at the heart of taking the election process out of the hands of the special interests, like the credit card companies, the insurance industry, big oil, the arms industry and giving it back to the people. It is no exaggeration to say, public funding of elections is the engine from which democracy springs.

Is that a priority of Mrs. Clinton? Apparently not. Now that she's declared a pox on public funding, other candidates are eager to jump on board. Mitt Romney quickly said "me too". John McCain is making noises like he's next. The fact that as co-author of campaign finance reform bill he has an obligation to follow its mandate doesn't break his stride for a minute. And Barack Obama isn't committing himself one way or the other. (We all know what that means.) Like a house of cards, once Hillary pulled out, the only genuine reform in our voting system started to collapse. We, the people, have lost another chance to make our vote count. But that's okay with Hillary. Her special interest donors couldn't be happier.

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. My Dad Thinks She's A Socialist
I don't get it, he's a moderate who almost always votes for the Democratic candidated, but he has this idea in his head that Hillary is a socialist. I guess he hasn't forgiven her for that whole Health Care Reform thing.

Poor Hillary. The Right-Wingers (and apparently even some sensible moderates) think she's an unabashed Liberal. The real true blue Liberals think she's too far to the right.

Not so poor Hillary, she can raise boatloads of money. Nice job Senator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. So she can buy the presidency; I don't think that's a good reason
to vote for someone. But I'm holding off on any decisions about anyone; I have the luxury of time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Hillary is not at the top of my list
but until we have complete public financing of campaigns if you want to win there is no other choice but to raise the money. Kerry lost a lot during the time between his winning the primaries and convention when he was officially nominated as he couldn't raise more money until after the convention. That's when the whole swiftboat thing swooped in and he had to depend on outside groups to defend him. Letting it be known early that she is going to fight is a good thing. I can't criticize her for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Exactly, and Kerry has said that in retrospect it might have
been better to decline federal funds because of those 5 weeks.

The McCain/Feingold law has a glaring flaw (among other flaws) in it that favors the party in power. The start of the general election is defined as the end of the party's convention. The party out of power always goes first. The choice is to put it so late, that they don't get the traditional momentum coming out of the convention (because the other convention starts immediately afterward), or like Kerry, they have to stretch their money longer.

Kerry came up with a brilliant solution that was so original it was ridiculed by everyone. The law said that the general election period started when the nominee accepted the nomination. He proposed promising to accept the nomination at a specific date immediately before the Republican convention rather than simply accepting the nomination.

His other choices were (1)to do as he did and spend as little money in August as he could. (Even the train trip he did took money.) (2) to opt out of public financing before Bush did. Kerry, the author of Clean Elections (the real campaign finance reform bill also sponsored with Wellstone), would have taken a huge political hit for this. Bush would have opted out as well claiming he had to follow (a fair statement and the reason why Kerry could follow Dean without being seen as a hypocrite) and every statement Kerry ever said about public financing (and there are many and they are what he believes in) would have been used against him.

I would have preferred that any Democratic candidate would reject public funds because the system is inherently unfair, but would have said in rejecting public financing, that a better solution is that McCain/Feingold needed to be fixed or replaced with a better bill, but this was unlikely to change the rules that would be in effect in 2008 even if that effort were already underway. (No criticism of Hillary here. I suspect that any Democratic nominee will do the same thing.)

The huge amount of money needed to run distorts American politics. Independent of 2008 where Democrats have to do what is necessary for the election to make the playing field as even as they can, a genuine effort at real campaign finance reform aimed at years beyond 2008 should be made. The comments on the influence of big money in the op are real. It is a system that corrupts and tarnishes even the best politicians we have. It also makes the voice of the people harder to hear (Kerry's 1997 comments in re-introducing Clean elections are incredibly prescient here)

This might be a good time for Senator Kerry, who is not running, to reintroduce "Clean Elections" in honor of his former co-sponsor, Paul Wellstone, while giving cover to any Democratic nominee (including Hillary) by saying that he would do the same in opting out - as the only way to get a fair playing field under the current laws. (this assumes that 2006 comments that it might have helped mean this is his position.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Here is Kerry Clean Elections floor speech that I referred to
(though I think the Democrat who wins the nomination will do what Hillary already announced.)

From Thomas:
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak before you today about a critical challenge before this Senate--the challenge of reforming the way in which elections are conducted in the United States; the challenge of ending the ``moneyocracy'' that has turned our elections into auctions where public office is sold to the highest bidder. I want to implore the Congress to take meaningful steps this year to ban soft money, strengthen the Federal Election Commission, provide candidates the opportunity to pay for their campaigns with clean money, end the growing trend of dangerous sham issue ads, and meet the ultimate goal of restoring the rights of average Americans to have a stake in their democracy. Today I am proud to join with my colleague from Minnesota, PAUL WELLSTONE, to introduce the ``Clean Money'' bill which I believe will help all of us entrusted to shape public policy to arrive at a point where we can truly say we are rebuilding Americans' faith in our democracy.
For the last 10 years, I have stood before you to push for comprehensive campaign reform. We have made nips and tucks at the edges of the system, but we have always found excuses to hold us back from making the system work. It's long past time that we act--in a comprehensive way--to curtail the way in which soft money and the big special interest dollars are crowding ordinary citizens out of this political system.
Today the political system is being corrupted because there is too much unregulated, misused money circulating in an environment where candidates will do anything to get elected and where, too often, the special interests set the tone of debate more than the political leaders or the American people. Just consider the facts for a moment. The rising cost of seeking political office is outrageous. In 1996, House and Senate candidates spent more than $765 million, a 76% increase since 1990 and a six fold increase since 1976. Since 1976, the average cost for a winning Senate race went from $600,000 to $3.3 million, and in the arms race for campaign dollars in 1996 many of us were forced to spend significantly more than that. In constant dollars, we have seen an increase of over 100 percent in the money spent for Senatorial races from 1980 to 1994. Today Senators often spend more time on the phone ``dialing for dollars'' than on the Senate floor. The average Senator must raise $12,000 a week for six years to pay for his or her re-election campaign.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The use of soft money has exploded. In 1988, Democrats and Republicans raised a combined $45 million in soft money. In 1992 that number doubled to reach $90 million and in 1995-96 that number tripled to $262 million. This trend continues in this cycle. What's the impact of all that soft money? It means that the special interests are being heard. They're the ones with the influence. But ordinary citizens can't compete. Fewer than one third of one percent of eligible voters donated more than $250 in the electoral cycle of 1996. They're on the sidelines in what is becoming a coin-operated political system.
The American people want us to act today to forge a better system. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 77% of the public believes that campaign finance reform is needed ``because there is too much money being spent on political campaigns, which leads to excessive influence by special interests and wealthy individuals at the expense of average people.'' Last spring a New York Times found that an astonishing 91% of the public favor a fundamental transformation of this system.
Cynics say that the American people don't care about campaign finance. It's not true. Citizens just don't believe we'll have the courage to act--they're fed up with our defense of the status quo. They're disturbed by our fear of moving away from this status quo which is destroying our democracy. Soft money, political experts tell us, is good for incumbents, good for those of us within the system already. Well, nothing can be good for any elected official that hurts our democracy, that drives citizens out of the process, and which keeps politicians glued to the phone raising money when they ought to be doing the people's business. Let's put aside the status quo, and let's act today to restore our democracy, to make it once more all that the founders promised it could be.
Let us pass the Clean Mo ney Bill to restore faith in our government in this age when it has been so badly eroded.
Let us recognize that the faith in government and in our political process which leads Americans to go to town hall meetings, or to attend local caucuses, or even to vote--that faith which makes political expression worthwhile for ordinary working Americans--is being threatened by a political system that appears to reward the special interests that can play the game and the politicians who can game the system.
Each time we have debated campaign finance reform in this Senate, too many of our colleagues have safeguarded the status quo under the guise of protecting the political speech of the Fortune 500. But today we must pass campaign finance reform to protect the political voice of the 250 million ordinary, working Americans without a fortune. It is their dwindling faith in our political system that must be restored.

Twenty five years ago, I sat before the Foreign Relations Committee, a young veteran having returned from Vietnam. Behind me sat hundreds of veterans committed to ending the war the Vietnam War. Even then we questioned whether ordinary Americans, battle scarred veterans, could have a voice in a political system where the costs of campaigns, the price of elected office seemed prohibitive. Young men who had put their life on the front lines for their country were worried that the wall of special interests between the people and their government might have been too thick even then for our voices to be heard in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.
But we had a reserve of faith left, some belief in the promise and the influence of political expression for all Americans. That sliver of faith saved lives. Ordinary citizens stopped a war that had taken 59,000 American lives.
GPO's PDF
Every time in the history of this republic when we have faced a moral challenge, there has been enough faith in our democracy to stir the passions of ordinary Americans to act--to write to their Members of Congress; to come to Washington and speak with us one on one; to walk door to door on behalf of issues and candidates; and to vote on election day for people they believe will fight for them in Washington.
It's the activism of citizens in our democracy that has made the American experiment a success. Ordinary citizens--at the most critical moments in our history--were filled with a sense of efficacy. They believed they had influence in their government.
Today those same citizens are turning away from our political system. They believe the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook. The senior citizen living on a social security check knows her influence is inconsequential compared to the interest group that can saturate a media market with a million dollars in ads that play fast and loose with the facts. The mother struggling to find decent health care for her children knows her influence is trivial compared to the special interests on K Street that can deliver contributions to incumbent politicians struggling to stay in office.
But I would remind you that whenever our country faces a challenge, it is not the special interests, but rather the average citizen, who holds the responsibility to protect our nation. The next time our nation faces a crisis and the people's voice needs to be heard to turn the tide of history, will the average American believe enough in the process to give words to the feelings beyond the beltway, the currents of public opinion that run beneath the surface of our political dialogue?
In times of real challenge for our country in the years to come, will the young people speak up once again? Not if we continue to hand over control of our political system to the special interests who can infuse the system with soft money and with phony television ads that make a mockery of the issues.
The children of the generation that fought to lower the voting age to 18 are abandoning the voting booth themselves. Polls reveal they believe it is more likely that they'll be abducted by aliens than it is that their vote will make a real difference. For America's young people the MTV Voter Participation Challenge ``Choose or Lose'' has become a cynical joke. In their minds, the choice has already been lost--lost to the special interests. That is a loss this Senate should take very seriously. That is tremendous damage done to our democracy, damage we have a responsibility in this Senate to repair. Mr. President, with this legislation we are introducing today, we can begin that effort--we can repair and revitalize our political process, and we can guarantee ``clean el ections'' fu nded by ``clean mo ney,'' elections wh ere our citizens are the ones who make the difference

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. good post
HRC is doing the smart thing by avoiding the trap that Kerry got caught in, and doing it early enough so that it won't be a campaign issue.

I've always thought that JK made a big mistake by listening to his advisers on accepting the nomination... in retrospect, having to go dark during that time probably hurt his campaign more than anything else. OTOH, he knew the media was eager to nail him on it, so who knows how it would have turned out?

I particularly think your last paragraph is a good idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
27. Thanks
Much as I agree with the need for campaign finance reform, I think she is doing the right thing.

Kerry was in an extraordinarily tough spot. The reaction when Kerry floated the idea of delaying the acceptance to get a fairer playing field the reaction was that it was a Clintonian type of "it depends on what it means to accept the nomination" and comments that it was be sneaky and possibly illegal or cheating. No one pointed out the obvious - that it was a very poor provision in the law. Like you say the media would have nailed him on it.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. Of course she can raise money. War profiteers have boatloads of money.
It's bushonomics!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Say_What Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
23. She's as RepukeLite as one can get... and her remarks to the AIPAC
Edited on Sat Feb-03-07 07:47 PM by Say_What
about Iran confirm that. She's high on the AIPAC contribution list--10k behind the other shill for the Repukes, Leiberman. Politicians are such scum.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porkrind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
25. If only she WAS a socialist
she would be closer to getting my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
3. What a pile of shit - on top of shit (the article).
The limits on public funds are too low - way too low. They need to be revised.

Just because she is a female is she supposed to play like a "lady" instead of a warrior? Take the small amount of money and compete with the boys who have an unlimited war chest? That would be so lady like and make her a loser - is that the point? Make her a loser and unable to compete. Sexist crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I for one won't be voting for her just because she's a woman.
I've asked this repeatedly on DU; has she ever accepted responsibility for her IWR vote? If she has, I'd love a link to read it. She glosses over that like it never happened. And I did hear what she said, RE: 09 yesterday, but imo 09 is way too late to stop this war.
As for public funding, I too wish the current system was different. How refreshing it would be if anyone could run, not just people with enough money; that certainly limits the playing field.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. She did. Now she's just as "anti-war" as Edwards.
If you think either needs your vote as a reward, knock yourself out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. Do you have a link to her admission, because I surely haven't
read it anywhere. And there's really no need to get snippy about it. If you're offended by the article, you shouldn't have read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. Not snippy. Just noting these two are identical on war. I heard her on the news
so I have no link. me, not rewarding opportunism and bad judgment with my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Huh?
The limits on public funds aren't too low. The cost of campaigns is too high - by paying off the corporate media through exorbitant ads, substantive political discourse is not enhanced one whit, in fact it is undermined.

Where did the article say she should "play like a lady"? I didn't see that. If "the boys" also are pressured into accepting public funding, then they have the same limits she does.

We need real campaign finance reform. I have seen nothing, nada, zilch from Clinton that suggest she would support it, much less lead on it, like Kerry and Wellstone did in the 90's with their Clean Elections Act (which was steamrolled by McCain-Feingold. Gee, thanks, Russ.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Do you think this part is "sexist"? Or is it merely TRUE?
How can Hillary Clinton raise more than 150 million dollars? By encouraging special interests to fund her campaign. Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox news, right wing nightmare of the Media industry, threw her a huge fund raiser in which undisclosed millions were raised. She not only accepted his largess, she did so with pride.

What more does a progressive Democratic primary voter need to know about her?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
20. Yep, she is a female. Like Condi Rice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalEsto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
5. She's a Corpocrat. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EndElectoral Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Exactly...she's as far away from being a socialist as you can imagine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfan454 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
9. Hillary is an eliteist.
She is for the very rich. She's a Democrat that votes with the pukes, just like Holy Joe Liebermann. Oh that's right, he's an independent now but he still votes with the pukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
12. are "CodePink " even Democrats? That should be the question.
Or maybe the question should be - "When is a Democrat not a far leftwing howler monkey whackjob?" When she's Hillary Clinton!


I seem to remember them protesting at the Democratic Convention in 2004. Why should she give them the time of day?

HRC has a 95% lifetime ADA rating. That means she votes the Democratic Party position 95% of the time. Doesn't that make her a Democrat?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. CODEPINK
CODEPINK is a women-initiated grassroots peace and social justice movement working to end the war in Iraq, stop new wars, and redirect our resources into healthcare, education and other life-affirming activities. CODEPINK rejects the Bush administration's fear-based politics that justify violence, and instead calls for policies based on compassion, kindness and a commitment to international law. With an emphasis on joy and humor, CODEPINK women and men seek to activate, amplify and inspire a community of peacemakers through creative campaigns and a commitment to non-violence.

They're an anti-war group, something Senator Clinton hasn't been until very recently. Has she even owned up to her IWR vote yet? I'd like to see her do that, at the very least though I've asked repeatedly for a link which has never been provided. And way to go in disparaging a whole group of peacemakers to defend her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. yeah, the way to stop the war is to protest the Democratic
National Convention...

Maybe if CODEPINK spent it's time going after the Republican's responsible for this mess I would have some respect for them.

And I doubt HRC could ever "own up" for anything to the extent required by ideological axe grinders like yourself...


PS - my disparaging of a "whole group of peacemakers" has nothing to do with defending Clinton. They got that from me all on their own.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #18
28. Considering just how many..
Democrats voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, and how many are now talking about Iran and salivating, I'd say that anti-war groups going after Democrats is the right thing to do. It's ad to say, they are just as responsible for this mess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. ok - if that the case - if you are going to hang the yoke
of responsibility around the Democrats neck...

why should they even listen to you?

That is what this discussion is about. Why should the Democrats listen to people who blame them for this war?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #16
33. Did I just stumble into GD by accident?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emillereid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. Well I know that CODEPINK sponsored a lot of phone banks to get out
the vote last fall for the Democratic party as did Moveon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. The issue is the war, a war of aggression with bipartisan fingerprints
All of them responsible for this war will be held accountable, from the PNAC neocons and their PPI lapdogs, to the Israel Lobby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #12
31. Sure, Peace activists like Code Pink are "far leftwing howler monkey whackjobs" -
according to RW-ers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. no, you don't need to be a right winger
to see the far left as detrimental to the cause of liberalism.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
15. Oh fuck..another reason
to cringe everytime I see that big fake's name.

IT TAKES AN INVASION TO RAZE A VILLAGE."

Leave it to Code Pink to hit the nail on the pretender's head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
21. The better answer is "when he's Joe Lieberman."
Hillary's a Democrat, she's just a crappy, corporate-stooge style center-right Democrat. I'll vote for her if she wins the nom--but I'll be holding my nose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 05:25 AM
Response to Original message
30. hell, guys, we are all going to do what it takes for the Democratic nominee
whoever that may be. I have my doubts about Hillary. At one point, I would have walked through the fire for her. Now, I dont know. But I will walk through the fire for the '08 Democratic nominee.

If it's not a close vote, opt out as your conscience sees fit. If it's close, all hands on deck. It will be time to close ranks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorbal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
32. Now the right is comparing her to Hugo Chavez
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0207/0207clintonchavez.htm

I tell yah, by attributing the best policies to socialism, destroying the US economy, selling the country to China, and setting the worst example of capitalism gone amuck as possible, the Republicans have done more to promote socialism around the world than any other one entity.

They have even helped re-defined socialism in the public consciouness enough that I have even considered becoming a card carrying member. (I haven't ordered one yet, but boy am I close)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC