Bartcop: "The Hillary Backlash -- Some Dems Can't Wait to Destroy Her"

[AtomicKitten]

The Hillary Backlash
Democrats can't wait to destroy her

Link: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008752

Excerpt: "Rising antiwar sentiment among Dems -- and inevitable saturation coverage of Hillary's war position
-- will make her vulnerable to criticism from Russ Feingold and others in 2008. Just how long will the
Democratic base tolerate not just her war position, but her generally cautious, noncomittal approach as senator?

The general approach of rank-and-file liberal Dems to Hillary has been to grant her a great deal of ideological
maneuvering room in the knowledge that her first political task as senator was to begin affecting her big transformation
from harridan first lady to respectable, nonthreatening legislator. Thus, they've overlooked their discomfort with her
failure to become a kind of liberal trumpet in the Senate a la Ted Kennedy. But liberals have gotten precious little in
return for their tolerance, aside from the pleasure of seeing her defy her enemies and succeed, which isn't much in the
way of payback, and patience among libs is wearing mighty thin."





From Bartcop @ http://www.bartcop.com/

What good would it do for Hillary to come out now?
Will Bush change his mind?
Will the troops come home?
Will Bush apologize and resign?

It seems pointless for anyone to worry, in 2005, what Russ Feingold might say about Hillary in 2008.
The writer asks: "How long will the Democratic base tolerate not just her war position,
but her generally cautious, noncomittal approach as senator?"
Uh - how about until Inauguration day, 2009?

Y'know, it's not like the rank-and-file liberal Dems are forced to build a giant pyramid for Der Monkey
in the hot desert sun while Hillary sips Mint Juleps and laughs at them. Hillary's decision to keep a low
profile is excellent strategy because the Bush-owned press can't wait to turn her in Hanoi Hillary.

Each day that goes by, more people agree that the war was a disaster. As anti-war momentum builds
against Bush, it will be harder and harder to portray Hillary's anti-war stance as "wildly radical."
In 2006, will anyone remember that she came out against the war in 2006 instead of 2005?

Clearly, the writer hates Hillary's guts, ("harridan first lady") and having destructive opinions is his right.
It's also the Democrats' right to stab their best chance of winning the White House in the back.

The Clintons are used to that. That's how we lost both Houses, remember?
The Democrats agreed with the GOP that the Clintons had to be stopped, so the public elected Republicans.

We should make two rules:
When you write an "I hate Hillary column," you should have to name a more-electable candidate
and you should be required to declare if you have taken money from the Republican Party.

[rucky]

1. "Best chance of winning the White House?

Where did this come from, and why is it stated as fact (in an article that illustrates Hillary's growing unpopularity amongst the growing antiwar crowd?, and her fragile public image that forces her to keep quiet)???????

Maybe the Dems ARE stabbing her in the back. That's the sign of a weak candidate.
Maybe the press is unfair to her. But having to lay low -to the point of making attempts to stifle opposition to Bush - is also the sign of a weak candidate.

She just may be the most vulnerable Democrat in the Senate right now. Why on earth do people want her to run?

on edit: Russ Feingold, Brian Schweitzer, Barbara Boxer - there's three.

another edit: No, I do not receive money from the GOP. But if I did, I would donate it to the DNC.

[Cha]

31. I so don't understand this

slobbering fascination of hillary by bartcop..he had all the guy senators in pink tutus who voted for the IWR and continued pandering to gwankerbush..but not hillary. she should be in the PINKEST TUTU of all!

[rucky]

79. Bartcop's bias: Pink Tutus are only for "girlie-man" Dems.

gender roles and all.

[Bucky]

95. Bartcop's always been a little wacky. My theory is he's been sniffing glue

or he's been bought off. The open hypocricy of his position on Mrs Clinton, who I really don't find all so intolerable, is so completely off the farm that I gotta wonder if someone hasn't agreed to pay for his chemo in exchange for a little hammer service.

Of course a more realistic assessment is that he's a surly curmudgeon who's just damned tired of losing and is willing to try a hail Mary pass.

[AtomicKitten]

152. Wow.

Just wow.

Speaking of glue-sniffing ....

[donheld]

166. Bart's response.

They really, really hate Hillary on the DU Forums.
Reading the glee in their hate speech makes me think they'd sooner vote for Rush or Bush

They also can't believe my "idiocy" about Hillary being the front-runner.
They want to know "in which alternative universe is that true?"

Gee, I'm so old, I remember when being 30 points ahead of your nearest challenger (43-14 for Kerry)
made you the favorite, but I guess the rules are different on the Democratic Underground Forums

Too bad they're not able to find their way over here - to bartcop.com

[Cell Whitman]

169. Excuse me!! I thought I was at Democratic Underground.

Bucky says about Bartcop: I gotta wonder if someone hasn't agreed to pay for his chemo in exchange for a little hammer service.

So, when did we get our degree in low ass Coulter speak?

No one has pulled your post? Is that what DU is now? Trolls, operatives and people who talk like Coulter about someone like Bartcop when they themselves couldn't carry his jockstrap?

I am no believer in anything like Reagan's 11th "not to speak ill of..."... and one can disagree with BC's opinions but the fact that your post is still up is a sad day for DU.

He use to meet up in the chat room with anyone who had something to say and I am sure he'd oblige most anyone here -- but Bucky, if I were him, I wouldn't allow your sorry ass on the premises.

on edit. I meant to mention that someone had a poll up here at DU a while back asking what everyone's favorite political site was other than DU. Bartcop wasn't listed on the ballot. I did a count at one point and with like 30 write in votes Bartcop was leading the balloting.

I thank Koresh for the belly laughs an insights that man has given me over the years, whether I agree 100% or not.

[AtomicKitten]

171. Yes, the mods leaving that foul comment on the boards was reprehensible.

[formernaderite]

107. Hillary is the weakest candidate in a long time...

but there is a perception that she's owed within the party elite. Fuck them....I want a real candidate, who represents me. Personally I'd love to see Dean run again...don't say never....that's what Hillary's been saying too.

[bluestateguy]

2. We will destroy her candidacy before the Republicans have a chance to

That's what the good Lord invented caucuses and primary elections for. The Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire will trudge through the wintry snow in January of 2008 to finish her off. Expectations will be so high for her that when she loses those two races, she'll be finished.

And let's put things in perspective here. We will end her presidential ambitionns, but if she somehow got the nomination Republicans would spare her no mercy. It would be really ugly.

[Hardrada]

13. We here in Iowa

are awaiting her campaign train with cannon loaded with triple grapeshot hostility and will be only to glad to send that blood-dripping Quisling back butt over belfry to New York where she can spend more time with her constituents!

[wyldwolf]

29. Hillary isn't my first choice, but I'll make a wager with you ...

If she is a candidate for '08, she wins Iowa and New Hampshire.

Bookmark the thread.

[Hardrada]

43. Who's your first choice?

Inform us here in Iowa.

[wyldwolf]

54. Mark Warner

[Hardrada]

64. Sounds good.

We will keep an eye on him.

[LincolnMcGrath]

85. As an Iowan, I'll take that wager.

bookmarked

[JohnLocke]

97. I will take that bet. (nt)

[IA_Seth]

138. I'll take that bet too...

I can tell you she will have a rough go in the Cedar Rapids-Iowa City area, and thats one of our brightest beacons of blue.

Bookmarked!

[Virginia Blogger]

157. Second that

I second that. No way she loses either.

[chicagiana]

100. They would spare NO ONE ...

They would spare NO Democratic nominee. If Jesus Christ won the Democratic nomination they would run whisper campaigns implying that he was a bastard and that he had extra-marital sex with Mary Magdiline.

What concerns me is that:
a) Hillary's positions aren't that far removed from those of Republicans. It's VERY difficult for her to distance herself from whoever the Republican nominee is.
b) Republicans have invested a LOT of money in smearing Hillary. Hillary is already a non-starter in the minds of swing voters.

I think that Democrats have been real suckers when reacting to the Republican dominance of the White House in the 80s. I think the leaned toward the right when they should have been SPRINTING to the left to show the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

I think the Kerry campaign showed the danger of walking the fence. You get knocked about by BOTH sides.

[iconoclastNYC]

177. Spot on my friend.

How many of us know former Democrats who lament there is no different between the parties anymore so why bother being involved or voting? Now they are called Green, and they get about 1-2 percent of the vote. Add to that the people who aren't Greens but just don't donate or vote anymore.

What you are describeing is what Kos called the "Politics of Contrast" and it's what the Republicans have been doing ever since they Goldwater loss.

Democrats will never win until we stop trying to be loved and instead do what it takes to be RESPECTED.

[Andromeda]

170. And you know this because......?

Let us know your secrets for divination. If you are so sure, then I guess I might as well stay home and not bother to vote.

Hillary is not so easy to destroy because so many people have tried it---and lost.

NOTHING Hillary's enemies threw at her diminished her political standing. The more they blasted her the more she climbed in the polls.

It's true that our system of choosing a candidate will determine whether or not Hillary will be successful in the primaries.

That is how it should be.

Maybe we should just wait and see what happens. A lot of people, including myself, haven't decided who they want as a presidential candidate.

[iconoclastNYC]

176. I hope you are right.

But look what happened to Dean. The party elite went into action to stop the "risky" candidate (the one who had the huge groundsweel of grassroot support) and they acted in a coordinated manner with the DLC and thier contacts in the corporate media.

It's was a STOP DEAN project, and it worked.

The party elites wanted Kerry and they made it happen.

[MisterP]

3. well, he's honest about his IQ...

[Tom Joad]

4. Bartcop should declare he is not a warmonger from hell, like Hillary

Sign a statement that he has not taken donations from pro-war donors.

[arewenotdemo]

118. Bartcop's no warmonger, TJ.

I love the dude. I think his unfortunate devotion to Hillary is largely faith-based...kinda like voting for Kerry in 2004. He's wrong, but for the right reasons.

[LibDemAlways]

5. I completely disagree that a Hillary

candidacy is the Dems "best chance" of winning back the WH. She's a lightening rod who'd energize the wingnuts into frenzied opposition and at the same time garner only lukewarm support from the Dem base. If she does run, I think she'll be humiliated early in the primaries and the press will be left having to explain why the "front runner" they've been pushing for years was rejected early-on by Democratic voters.

[bush_is_wacko]

41. I say bookmark the above thread. Most likely scenario in my mind n/t

[BigYawn]

57. The wingnuts are incapable of hurting Hillary...

They are a fringe minority even in the GOP. Majority of voters in
both parties are centrists, and Hillary is the best candidate
running to soak up their votes. Bill Clinton did it by a centrist
agenda and he is the reason Hillary has a winning chance.

[LibDemAlways]

68. I can't foresee any scenario under which

Hillary could cobble together an electoral victory. Those "centrists" who voted for the chimp because they didn't like Kerry or Gore, are not going to vote for a woman, especially one with as much baggage as Hillary.

[still_one]

6. So the MSM have already choosen are candidates for us

clinton and mccain, well maybe THE PEOPLE WANT SOME OTHER CHOICES

why on earth would we trust ANYTHING THE MSM SAYS OR REPORTS, after they took us through the last 14 years

[IndianaGreen]

18. Clinton and McCain are the candidates of the American ruling class

Mouthpieces of the American class, such as the NY Times, are sounding alarm bells about the global reaction to Bush's raw imperialism abroad and his open display of dictatorial tendencies at home. The ruling class does not want the anger at Bush and his policies to turn into a direct challenge to their hold on power, so they will push for candidates that represent two sides of the same coin, e.g, Hillary v. McCain, Hillary v. Condi, etc.

We are the fools for believing that we had a say so in who runs this country! The Hillary personality cult, not unlike the one Argentina experienced with Evita Peron, masks a political agenda whose sole purpose is to protect corporate interests at the expense of the people. Who can forget Kerry's support for the Venezuelan elites during the 2004 campaign? This was not an accident, or even brought about by the Heinz's family desire to protect their property in Venezuela, but it was the expression of the ruling class intentions to pursue the same policies in Latin America that Bush has pursued. While the GOP trumpets their imperialism against terrorism, all the establishment Democrats have to offer is imperialism with Vaseline!

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

20. The reality are the factories and jobs lost due to Clinton's NAFTA

The DLC pukes support the same neolib globalization policies that Bush favors. Your only disagreement with Bush is on tactics, not on goals.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Obviously you don't care about the displaced workers!

They are not members of the investor class anyway!

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Why don't you ask them? I am not a member!

I can play the same game you play: Why do you and Dick Morris want Hillary to be the Democratic nominee?

I am happy you are stuck on your anti-Green gear, the more you look at the Greens, the bigger the surprise when you find out what is going on among progressives.

Keep looking at the Greens, and Nader while you are at it. Don't take your eyes off them. Don't turn your head and look around. Ignore any noises you hear coming from your left flank, just keep looking at the Greens. Okay?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

36. how many of you are meeting at the local Starbucks now?

[wyldwolf]

34. ok, now, the title to your post was funny.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chicagiana]

101. This is what makes Feingold such a great candidate ...

You can look back at all the nonsense of the past 20 years and see that Feingold was against ALL OF IT!!! The man has consistently been RIGHT!!!!

In my opinion, globalization is the SINGLE biggest threat to the United States. The globalization process is systematically shrinking America's middle class and with it their political clout. Once the US loses it's manufacturing base, it will be all over for Democracy. We will be horribly in debt to China and be in a situation where Americans would have to compete against Chinese workers who are virtually enslaved and have no right to affect improvements in their working conditions.

I'm humble enough to admit that I was WRONG about NAFTA. CLINTON was wrong about NAFTA (though Clinton still won't admit to this 100%). I was wrong about the Iraq War. Feingold was RIGHT about the Patriot Act. Feingold was RIGHT ALL ALONG!!! His positions are clear and unambiguous. He is EXACTLY the type of candidate we need on 2008.

As for Barack Obama ... He is becoming the type of wishy-washy DLC Democrat that I believe is dragging the party down like a boat anchor.

[IndianaGreen]

109. Obama is becoming a clone of Harold Ford

who in turn is nothing but a mouthpiece for DLC appeasement policies.

Russ is for US!

Russ Feingold voted against PATRIOT and the Iraq war. Russ Feingold opposed the extension of PATRIOT provisions that came for review, particularly the one about the government getting access to library records. Russ Feingold has a plan on the table to get all US troops out of Iraq in a year.

Russ Feingold has not called for military action to topple the governments of Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, etc.

Russ Feingold has not sided with the elites of Latin America and elsewhere.

[chicagiana]

115. Russ is for US!

Russ is for US!

I really like that slogan!

[IndianaGreen]

117. I do too! I think the campaign should use it (assuming he runs)

and assuming that Bush doesn't declare he is running again, the Constitution be damned!

[wyldwolf]

33. Viva le Revolution! or... LA Revolution??

I say we call up the Socialist Progressive Liberation Front and, with pitchforks in hand, bring about the glorious progressive revolution!

[bread_and_roses]

45. I'm with you, IndianaG. A kinder, gentler Imperialism/Corporatism

is offered as a sop, and we are supposed to gratefully lick our scraps hungrily off the floor.

Like nearly everyone else, I put aside my reservations to work daily, hours a day March-Nov to support the eventual Dem nominee in '04. When it was Kerry (not my first choice) I put my faith in his younger self, and in the probablility that once in office Progressives could bring pressure to bear on his Administration. Most urgently on the Iraq war, but certainly on the domestic economic front as well.

Even if Hillary had spoken up in the last few months, which she could certainly have done without fear, it would have ameliorated my contempt for her. Given her utter disregard for the lives of the US economic conscripts now serving in Iraq and for the lives of the Iraqi people I do not see how any person of conscience can support her.

Economic policies can be reversed. Laws can be repealed. But arms and legs and eyes and brains can't be put back oonce gone, and dead is dead.

[OzarkDem]

38. If that were the case

they wouldn't be tearing down Hillary just yet.

Agree, Dems are entitled to make their own choices, but it seems strange the MSM is busy trying to get Dems to tear down Hillary this early in the game. I don't interpret that as their choice, in fact it seems the opposite - they want to get rid of her.

Bottom line, we have to make our own choices, without destroying our party and the ultimate choice for candidate, in the process.

[chicagiana]

102. I disagree ...

The MSM has been pushing Hillary in 2008 for some time. They were busy with conspiracy theories about the Clintons undermining Kerry's campaign on 2004 so they would not have to face an incumbent.

Rove has had his monkeys busy planting all this speculation. Rove WANTS Hillary in 2008 as he's feigning that he doesn't. Just like Rove WANTED KERRY in 2008 when he feigned that he was afraid of Kerry. The man he was REALLY afraid of was HOWARD DEAN!!!

Hillary's "safe, rare and legal" line on abortion is so ridiculous that it will be ridiculed non-stop on TV. It makes no sense. If you think there is something WRONG with abortion than you should make it illegal. And if you think their is something WRONG with flag burning, than you should ban it, not just make some weasle law against burning SOMEONE ELSE's FLAG.

Hillary is wishy, washy and waffly. And Republicans will tear her a fourth whole.

The Democratic candidate whoever he/she is will be excoriated by the right wing spin machine. But if you are going to be pilloried, make it something you are proud of. Make it something that you can stand up and say, "Yes I did it, and I would do it again.". So take a strong liberal stand because you'll be attacked regardless of WHAT you say. So make it good.

[AtomicKitten]

153. The MSM has one vote each like everyone else.

They aren't pushing Hillary, Hillary is kicking ass in all the polling, polling the registers individual votes.

Your speculation is just plain ridiculous. Crystal ball, tea leaves, Ouija board?

[AZBlue]

174. So it has to be one extreme or the other?

Everyone's running around having abortions or no one's having them at all? We're burning flags left and right or never? That makes no sense.

"Safe, rare and legal" makes a lot of sense. I am not pro-abortion. I am very very pro-choice. But I think it should be used only when necessary, not as a means of birth control. It is over-used and abused. I'm not just referring to lower-income women, as many do who make this argument. They do over-use it but that's sometimes because we've left them no alternative. But this is a problem among women of all socio-economic levels. I know women who use it as bc - one has a doctorate degree and a six-figure income. It's too common. I'd like to see some changes - more bc available for lower income women and doctors who encourage counseling for those who are obviously using it as birth control but have the means to use other methods (it's not easy on a woman's body - it does become a health matter).

But, I will fight with everything I have to keep it legal. Because that is the only way to stop women from dying as a result of back-alley abortions. And, because a woman has a right to choose what to do with her own body and her life.

I think "safe, rare, and legal" pretty much sums that up. Not ridiculous.

[bpilgrim]

7. yawn

who's 'more electable' is inside the beltway, elitist BS and what has gotten us to this wretched point in our history in the first place.

what will she gain by speaking out against this criminal regime now?

RESPECT and possibly a shot at the presidency other than that she is part of the 'third-way' problem that must be moderated.

peace

[sandnsea]

8. Dems are stabbing Hillary in the back???

From where I sit, she's got complete control of the media and is doing everything she can to stab any Dem with a plan to get out of Iraq in the back.

[newswolf56]

9. What good is "electable" if all it gets us is a pro-choice Republican?

Particularly since our economy is now so savagely fascist fully 40 percent of the population lives in genuine poverty -- poverty as defined not by government propaganda but by real-world inability to make ends meet.

[Walt Starr]

11. Calling Hillary Clinton "electable" is like calling Dubya "moderate" n/t

[OneTwentyoNine]

90. You got it..RW religious,wackjob Brownback from Kansas could beat Hillary

Sorry Hill,we don't need to try the "grand experiment",it won't work..at least not in 08

[Walt Starr]

10. Hillary Clinton as the nominee in 2008 means a certain GOP Admin in

2009.

She is as unelectable as it gets.

Mark Warner is a far more electable candidate.

I do not take a red cent from the Repugnant party.

[Erika]

12. She is unelectable

The right wing have histrionic hate messages against her. PIAPS? They are one classless group of s.o.b.s.

[BigYawn]

58. The same rumor existed in 1992 that a governor from a small and

backward state such as Arkansas was unelectable. History
proves otherwise. Bill Clinton is the MOST SUCCESSFUL democrat
since Roosevelt and he was as centrist as they get.

[Walt Starr]

99. Hillary Clinton is not her husband

She doesn't have anywhere near th3 charisma he has.

And that lack of charisma combined with both a denunciation of the liberal base of the Democratic PArty and an outright loathing from the right wing of the GOP will spell certain doom for any Hillary candidacy.

She is UNELECTABLE!

[BlueManDude]

185. She has a 40 % ceiling in national general election

this is why her cadidacy is being pushed so heartily by gopers. i like hillary - as a us senator.

[rpannier]

14. Okay let me try

More electable candidates:

1. Warner (former Gov of VA)
2. John Edwards ( former Sen NC)
3. Paul Hackett (Running for the Senate in Ohio)
4. Russ Feingold (Sen Wisconsin)
That's just four I've come up. I'm sure given time I could name more.

As to how we lost both Houses...I have no idea where you got the "Clinton's must be stopped" conspiracy. You might want to look closer at the 94 elections. We got thumped because we turned control of the Party over to the DLC (who were Clinton supporters) and the Republicans ran on their "Contract with America" theme -- which was quite effective.
To blame the Dems for the problems in the first two years of the Clinton Presidency is both silly and devoid of real facts. Clinton pushed for Gays in the military...That was a giant PR disaster. His health care initiative blew up in his face. Again PR disaster. These were issues that many Democrats in the House and Senate supported. The massive PR failure on the part of the Administration aided the Republicans in '94.

As for Hillary, she may or may not be the choice in '08. She may or may not be the best choice. She may not even be around in '08. I think she will get re-elected to the Senate from New York. I will not donate money to her cause for this reason: She doesn't need my money -- she has plenty. My money will be better served elsewhere. But in the end...I will worry about '06 first, then '08.

As to your "should declare if you have taken money from the Republican Party" That's just weird and non-sensical.

[AtomicKitten]

15. There is an entire universe out there that doesn't agree

with the animosity exhibited toward HRC here.

[IndianaGreen]

21. Must be an alternate universe you speak of

because it sure ain't the universe we live in, at least those of us that do have to work on thankless jobs while praying no one in our family gets sick and has to go to the hospital.

Now, if you are speaking of the universe of the investor class, that's another matter!

[NoFederales]

16. Bucket of cold water, here; Voting Rights & 2006 or it all is naught. A

proper time to think about 2008 exists, but there are immediate needs and concerns all around.

NoFederales

[AtomicKitten]

80. you are absolutely correct.

No point voting until the EVM "thing" is fixed.

[MrBenchley]

17. Thanks for sharing.....

What strikes me as I read these jeremiads about Hillary on DU and in blogs is how much it resembles what the far left used to say about Bobby Kennedy circa 1967.

[wyldwolf]

37. ...and Truman and JFK and Bill Clinton

[SaveElmer]

86. Yep...

This is how the intolerant left makes itself irrelevent. Like the wacko right, they simply cannot believe anyone would legitimately disagree with their position. Since they do not believe anyone expressing disagreement can be honestly holding an illegitimate opinion in their eyes, they resort to attacking the individual.

So rather than trying to persuade the person expressing the disagreement with rational argument, they simply force that person into a more hardened position against them. This has caused a polarization of the country, and unfortunately it seems to be happening in the party as well.

[AZBlue]

143. So true. What happened to cooperation between the parties?

Don't we have two parties so that we can bring different sides to an issue and then come up with a consensus or compromise? When did trying to work with others become such a bad thing? I am SO SICK of people attacking a Dem because they might have a centrist view on something - that kind of thinking is idiotic and self-defeating.

In my mind, those who say you have to be a Dem who won't work with or talk to or meet with a Rep are just as bad as the nuts we have in the administration now who won't work with anyone outside their own little clique. It's the EXACT same thing and equally as harmful for this country and this party. And, it gets us absolutely nowhere.

[NYCGirl]

26. Isn't it terrible? And I'm just sick at heart about the way we treated our

presumptive nominee in the 2004 election.

If we hadn't been so mean and rotten, we would no doubt have a President Joe Lieberman right now. He would've trounced Bush!
:evilgrin:

[wyldwolf]

28. I always agree with Bartcop, but I want to take his rules one step further

We should make two rules:
When you write an "I hate Hillary column," you should have to name a more-electable candidate

You should also have to explain WHY he/she is more electable and how he/she will appeal to more people.

and you should be required to declare if you have taken money from the Republican Party.

As well as left organizations like MoveOn.




Your message

[John Q. Citizen]

52. Or if you have taken money from the DLC. That way we could

know if you're bought and paid for by one of the hydra of the corporatist/fascist axis.

[SaveElmer]

124. By law the DLC cannot donate money to candidates...

They are a non-profit organization

[Clark2008]

71. The more electable one is in your avatar.

A liberal perceived as a moderate who could flip some red states while not losing any blue states.


How's that?

[rhett o rick]

30. The question is why should we put all are hopes on Sen Clinton? nm

[Cha]

32. Because we're

idiots? :silly:

[BigYawn]

59. Because Hillary has far more name recognition than Clark, warner, Feingold

and any other johny come lately, COMBINED. Lets be real,
American voters do not spend much time understanding
platform details.

[rhett o rick]

81. So you suggest that we give in to the gullible voters?

Choose Sen Clinton because of name recognition? Let's get really real! Democracy is being destroyed and Democrats like Clinton have done little to stop the destruction. The gullible voters are going to do what they are going to do. Are only hope to save democracy in this Country is to stop supporting the corporate owned candidates and stand behind those willing to stand up and speak out for freedom and democracy regardless of their "name recognition". Zell Miller has name recognition, would you support him?

[BigYawn]

112. I prefer to have Hillary in the White House over any of the repugs,

and she has the most name recognition amongst voters. She
may not be my first choice, but I want to win back the WH.

And no, I would not support Zell. Hillary has never appeared
at a GOP convention or fund raiser like Zell did. Not in the
same ball park. Hillary is a thru and true democrat.

[chicagiana]

103. So Does Satan ...

Satan has more name recognition and we're not running him either.

I'm not saying that Hillary is Satan. I'm saying that she has a bad reputation (largely unearned). This will make drawing swing voters difficult.

At the same time she is running rapidly to the right while waffling left. She will NOT energize the Democratic base.

At best, she would make a good VP candidate for her value to draw female votes among swing voters.

[BigYawn]

113. What exactly is Hillary's "bad" reputation? Please explain!

Are you confusing Bill's picadillo's with Hillary? I have not
heard of any scandal in which Hillary was involved and was
found guilty. There is no blue dress associated with Hillary.

[chicagiana]

114. Hillary is vilified and hated ...

I live in a red state and she is pretty much synonymous to a she-devil. This comes even from moderate minded people.

This reputation is UNEARNED. She never did ANYTHING to deserve it. But I do know that a lot of women do look down on Hillary for coming to Bill's defense. Pretty much the ONLY thing she deserves some ire for was those missing law firm records (which never should have been subpoenaed in the first place).

Regarding her associations to Bill. Well, they're all there. And whether or not Hillary had anything to do with Monica, Hillary's candidacy will bring back all the old memories. Like it or not Bill and Hillary are joined at the hip.

Now add that in with her late leaning to the right and you have a candidate that can neither draw swing voters (besides maybe some moderate feminists) nor energize the Democratic base (which she is rapidly alienating).

Beyond this, if you here so many LIBERALS and a LIBERAL board complaining about Hillary, that should be a clue to you that there is a problem with her candidacy for President.

Finally, I'd like to re-iterate my problem with Hillary and Wal-Mart. Hillary was Sam Walton's "go to" girl in his quest to destroy every main street USA as possible. She was actively involved in their ultimate scheme to offshore so many American jobs overseas (while Wal-Mart was advertising "Made in the USA"). She was active in representing a company with repugnant employee relations. She was a Democrat who represented America's #1 union buster.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

159. That's the point, BigYawn-- name recog is worth squat when the

primaries and the general election season actually kick in. The major candidates get enough media coverage that people become familiar with the names well before it's time for votes to be cast, and so the decision is made on the basis of issue stands instead. As has been mentioned time and time again, Lieberman had the best name recognition and ruled the polls before the Dem primaries, but he flopped early because of his Iraq War stands, which very much resemble those of Hillary, FWIW. Conversely, Bill Clinton prior to 1992 was not very well-known, and he was nowhere near the most-recognized Dem candidate-- others like Richard Gephardt were much more familiar names, but it was Bill and Al who won the election for us in 1992. Likewise, it was Kerry who won the primary in 2004 and drew a good deal of support from Independents, despite obviously having a lot less name recognition than George W. Bush before the general election!

Besides, much of HRC's name recognition is not exactly positive. Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay both have a good deal of name recognition, but not in the sort of way that's helpful to their party! Don't put so much stock in how well-known a name may be-- other factors are far more crucial.

[rhett o rick]

39. Divide and conquer. That's what those that are trying to neutralize

the Democratic Party are trying to do. Whether or not you like Sen Clinton you should agree she is divisive. Now is the time for the Party to decide who will be our candidate in 2008. Elect-ability is not the issue. Support of Democratic values and principles is the issue. Does Clinton support these values? Voting in support of the war, the biggest mistake in our lifetime, does not indicate she supports Democratic values. We need to find a candidate that isn't afraid to fight the Bushcorp. So far she hasn't done much.

[BigYawn]

66. If Iraq remains democratic thru primary season 2008, Hillary has a lock

on the nomination. OTOH if Iraq turns into anarchy, or becaomes
mullahcracy in early 2008, Hillary can forget it.

[rhett o rick]

82. You are classifying Iraq as a democracy? Iraq is in the middle of

civil war.

[BigYawn]

110. I have to disagree...by strict dictionery definition, if a government

comes into power by an election where all adults are eligible
to vote, it makes it a democracy. Undeniably lot more democracy
than was under Saddam and more so than in Iran, Egypt, Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, UA Emirates, Syria and others in
the region, none of whom have constructed any voting booths.

To be sure the remnents of Saddam regime are putting up a lot
of roadside bombs but have no military power to start a war
with the current regime. A civil war such as we had in this
country had two armies duking it out. Unless Iran or Syria get
involved in overt military support of the Saddamists or Jihadists,
civil war can not begin in Iraq. That can ofcourse happen, and
then we could witness a full blown civil war.

My point is that if such a civil war does not take place, Hillary
can claim that she was right on Iraq all along, aand the voters
will buy into that. OTOH if the current government falls, Hillary
can kiss her chances good bye in 2008.

[hollowdweller]

40. Hillary should run, but only after a long and distinguished senate career.

[BigYawn]

67. Hillary has already had 8 years of shared presidency, do you

recall Bill saying "you get two for price of 1"?

[NativeTexan]

42. One thing that has been PROVEN is..........

.....DESTROYING A CLINTON IS A VERY DIFFICULT JOB!!!
GOD BLESS 'EM!!

[chicagiana]

104. Most of the Clinton wars was BS ...

But there is the matter of the drug runner that Bill pardoned and the deal with the Mena airport. Do I believe Bill Clinton was running Cocaine??? No. Bill Clinton was in no positition to do this. The CIA WAS!!!

At the same time, something went on to get an investigation on the matter killed. And it might have to do with a mutual embarrasment for Bush Sr AND Bill Clinton.

In any case, I don't want to have to defend this. We are done with Clinton. We are done with having to support a Democrat who supports free trade. I don't want to defend Hillary's "stand by your man" demeanor or deal with any more mentions of those files that went missing for a time. I don't want to have to defend her law dirty law partners.

You know what I also don't want. I DO NOT want the woman who helped put a Wal-Mart in every county in the nation. How can I RAIL against Wal-Mart and yet support Hillary?

Hillary isn't the worst politician in the world. But you know what. I think we can do better. I think the Democrats can do better. I think America could do better.

[RazzleDazzle]

44. Whose opinion is this

It's not clear to me from your post:

It's also the Democrats' right to stab their best chance of winning the White House in the back.




Because anyone who says Hillary is our best chance of winning in 2008 is either (a) seriously deluded, as I've known the denizens of certain sites to be or (b) working for the Republicans. Aside from Hillary's staff, they're really the only ones who want Hillary to run, and that's because they KNOW she's defeatable, big time.

[AtomicKitten]

46. I posted my links and it's also in the title n/t

[AtomicKitten]

47. My intent in my OP

I wanted to call out those that seek to do the Republicans' dirty work within the Democratic party. There is no reason why we can't have civilized debate with rational discussion of the pros and cons of a candidate. And until we do, I will oppose those that come to these debates armed with caustic rhetoric and over-the-top accusations.

To dismiss Hillary's commanding presence in the field is blind ignorance. And regardless of one's personal regard for her, she deserves respect. There is no reason why we cannot treat a person with a different ideology with respect and decency, particularly within one's own party. And until that happens, and I have no expectations that it will, those vehemently opposed to Hillary will be exposed for the negative extremists that they are. People are put off by that tact and in that regard it is really self-defeating, and I resent it's destructive influence within the party.

It is up to us to elevate the discourse of politics.

[RazzleDazzle]

93. Well, honey, you just go right ahead and elevate away

You're failing miserably so far IMO, but hey, if you think you're doing a good thing, by all means go right ahead.

Here's a tip for ya: you can't make peace by hitting people over the head and telling them how wrong they are, and how destructive THEY are. You're just further polarizing people, which is usually referred to on the internet as trolling. What you say you advocate requires bringing people together rather than pushing them apart. Win/win -- ever heard that term? You're exemplifying its opposite. But then you knew that, right?

To dismiss Hillary's commanding presence in the field is blind ignorance.

Oh, please. Who's doing the Republicans' work for them? You are, my dear. You are. They want nothing more than for her to run so they can smear her from here to Kingdom Come.

And regardless of one's personal regard for her, she deserves respect.

Uh, no. In fact, she has actually gone out of her way to actively deserve my DISrespect. She's worked just as hard at that as she worked at getting elected and being a junior senator. I will not respect elected "leaders" who sell us out, who vote for war, who are ready to negotiate women's reproductive healthcare rights away, who are complicit with the devil himself, who abandon the base, who promote anything remoatley connected to the DLC, etc., etc., etc

Thank you for reminding me of how much I truly despise her, negative extremist that I am.

[AtomicKitten]

133. honey? dear?-- I don't believe we've met.

One cannot, although many of you try, dismiss the commanding lead Hillary has in the hypothetical race. It's something people need to come to terms with. That support is from the majority of Democrats. Not from me, although I find it amusing that you suspect I secretly want her to run. Ha! (The paranoia from the fringe left is amusing.) You are overestimating the percentage of "we" when it comes to your rabid hatred for Hillary and others. It seems more here at DU because for reasons not clear to me they allow such dysfunctional repartee. But it is by no means mainstream, as illustrated in the polling.

And as far as I can tell, it is YOU and people LIKE YOU that are doing the dirty work for the Republicans, trashing the front-runner, hell, now trashing Warner, and I can hardly wait to see which other Dems that might run that you hate. It is YOU that is doing their dirty work and will probably continue to do so throughout the primary and general election, because chances are damn good you will not approve of the nominee.

Instead of either getting on board like Michael Moore did, I predict that you will not channel your seething hatred and disgust into elevating a third party candidate but will continue to eviscerate the Democratic nominee in spite of the fact that the majority of Democrats will choose that candidate, democratically, with the notion that the majority wins. You clearly do not subscribe to the concept of democracy in that regard, but rather wish to impose your opinion, an opinion that garnered less than 3% in the last presidential election not even qualifying for matching federal funds, on the rest of the party.

That is why you are po'd. The statistics are fact, and that really pisses you off. You clearly think that being rude and condescending augments your side of this debate, but that is the last resort for people that don't have a viable point to make.

Flame away; it only proves my point.

Ps: For the record, I want Al Gore to run.

[AZBlue]

145. Why are you doing exactly what you're accusing AK of?

Who wasn't living up to your accusations anyway?

you can't make peace by hitting people over the head and telling them how wrong they are, and how destructive THEY are. You're just further polarizing people Exactly. So....was this supposed to be an example of what not to do???

Win/win -- ever heard that term? You're exemplifying its opposite Yes, you are exemplifying its opposite. Again...thanks for that example?

who are complicit with the devil himself That's just the most laughable post I've seen on DU in a while. Thanks for the chuckle.

[AZBlue]

144. Well said! I love this so much I want to print and post it in my office.

And thank you for the original post too.

[AtomicKitten]

151. No, thank you. It's getting hot under the flames. n/t

[tomreedtoon]

121. I believe Bartcop said that, and he's right.

Let's be honest. There are a lot of Democrats who stabbed Bill Clinton in the back. They fell in line behind the Republicans in destroying his Presidency and paving the way for Bush. They didn't do it for "sexual morality" reasons. A lot of them did it because they thought Clinton was "too right wing."

The Republicans are able to manipulate the Democratic far left, because the lefties are unwilling to compromise - and they don't believe the Republicans can manipulate them. Well, they have and they are continuing to do so.

And, looking at the way the Democrats have destroyed or marginalized their more forceful candidates over the last few elections, the Republicans are going to have even more fun in 2006 and 2008. Who needs Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller when the out-and-out socialists can do the Republicans' work for them?

In Bart's defense, he just wants the peace and prosperity that Clinton brought. The left wing of the Democratic party only wants a moral victory - and a Republican government.

[CTyankee]

48. Uh oh spaghettios

These Hillary threads are out there, folks. Every time I see one coming I think how we are in deep doo doo again. Not that we shouldn't have differing opinions on HRC, just the drama queenness of the thing!

[IndyOp]

49. Rarely do I respond so directly: Bullshit !

I will not go along with anyone's attempt to restrict what I do an don't say about *any* candidate.

I detest Clinton's stands on Flag Burning Amendment and Iraq War - she isn't projecting strength, she's playing to base human nature.

Finally - we did *NOT* loose the house and senate because of not having a Republican-Enough Candidate - we lost because they STOLE THE ELECTION!

P.S. You did not state whether you worked for the Republicans in your post.

[stillrockin]

50. uhm,

I kinda feel stabbed in the back myself, watching HRC pander to whomever, sponsoring a flag burning initiative while failing to take a firm stand on Iraq. We hunger for leadership, not just a warm body in the WH. I'm sick of her and all the other chicken Dems. When I say that I am not trying to destroy our party, I am trying to f*in' save it, imbue it with new energy. There are others who are electable such as Feingold, Clark, Warner, etc.

[hippywife]

51. Hillary's made her own bed

let her lie in it. I gladly tore up another big envelope from her campaign again last week. They can't seem to get the message even when you tell them directly there is no way in hell you would support her for dog catcher.

[longship]

53. Let's make this clear.

No candidate from either party who takes a pro-Iraq War stance has a prayer of a chance to get elected president.

[AtomicKitten]

55. I'm sorry to say you will be proved wrong in that assessment.

UNLESS someone like Al Gore runs, someone who wasn't in the mix when this mess came down. Otherwise, chances are greater that a "yes" vote on the Iraq Resolution will outweigh a "no" vote. That's just the way it is in the bigger scheme of things.

You guys and can continue to stomp your feet and make oaths to annihilate what you perceive to be a "pro-war" candidate, but you should already know that your voice constitutes a very small percentage of the vote and consistently ignores the majority voice within the Democratic party. That unyielding stance will only serve to marginalize your voice rather than enhance it.

Now you can start the name-calling and flaming because that apparently is the M.O. you employ to deal with what you perceive to be the opposition rather than the REAL opposition. We've seen it in the last three campaigns and it is clear that has not and will not change.

[longship]

65. And let's get this straight also.

Hillary *is* pro-war. If she runs for office, she will be a pro-war candidate from a state which is the most liberal in the nation. That will go over really well.

Unless and until Sen. Clinton changes her position on the Iraq war, she may retain her Senate seat, but she won't be gaining any other office.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[longship]

73. My ilk?

Just what is my ilk?

The only information I have concerning Sen. Clinton's position on the Iraq War comes out of her own damnable mouth. She has made it patently clear what that position is. Sen. Clinton has repeated expressed the position that more troops are needed in Iraq. Not even ChimpCo has taken that position.

I agree with Sen. Clinton on almost all her voting in the Senate well. But I cannot and will not support any candidate who has a position on Iraq so counter to both my wishes and those of the vast majority of the citizens of this country.

Now, if Senator Clinton wishes to change that situation all she has to do is to announce that she was wrong on Iraq and that she now thinks that the US should get out. Then, I would reconsider my position on her. Until then, I couldn't even support her in the general election.

[AtomicKitten]

74. A Hillary-Hater.

Perhaps the best way to get out of Iraq is to finish it. Did that ever occur to you? Instead of the killing going on endlessly, month after month, just finish it and get the hell out.

You call her "pro-war" and that term does not apply. Maybe she's trying to end it to bring our troops home once and for all.

It is her job to strategize, to think of ideas. If that truly is the one issue you part company with her on, then I suggest you make an effort to not be so obsequious in your analysis before slamming the door in her face. You have painted her with a broad brush that is both unfair and untrue.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

77. back at ya!

Just as I predicted at the beginning of this discussion with you. Didn't take you long to resort to mindless insults and name-calling.

Well done.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chicagiana]

105. Finish it ???

What does that mean.

Finishing means that you have a stable political situation on the ground. This is the President's position.

I think what Democrats have to point out that is that there WAS an opportunity to affect a positive change. But GW Bush squandered it away. He didn't put enough troops in. He didn't take reconstruction seriously. He fucked up and it's too late.

At this point the presence of American troops is more incendiary. It almost causes as much problems as it solves. And honestly, these people hate each other. They have scores to settle and American troops shouldn't die for the sake of saving Iraqis from one another.

Bush fucked it up. Now all that's left to settle is the number of American body bags and severed body parts left to count.

[arewenotdemo]

119. "Finish it"?

I'd hate to visualize all that would entail....

[AtomicKitten]

122. It would look like rebuilding the infrastructure we destroyed.

Providing the electricity and clean water we promised. Forcing the greedy contractors to hire the Iraqis instead of bringing in cheap labor.

That's what "finishing it" would like like. Unfortunately enough troops would be required to complete/start these projects; didn't have to be that way.

It is reprehensible to destroy a country for no reason other than greed and imperialism, on US taxpayers' dime to boot, and then just leave. It probably is too late to fulfill the promises we made once we have annihilated this country. In which case, pulling out is the only option.

[juajen]

87. Ah, come on!

Then she would be attacked as a flip-flopper. She will get my vote, regardless. I owe the Clintons for the eight years they gave this country. I would love having them back in office. Talk about the good ole days! How short our memories are. Before I'm attacked, no, I do not like NAFTA. I also had disagreements with Clinton on other matters, which I will not enumerate.

No President ever elected pleases all the people, all the time. We have two crown jewels in the Democratic party. They need polishing, not tarnishing.

Long live Hill and Bill. May we be blessed with another eight years.

[AZBlue]

147. Please explain how Hillary is "pro-war"

Because she doesn't support pulling out tomorrow? Maybe she realizes that would cause an even bigger mess for the Iraqis. We caused this hell for them, we have a responsibility to clean it up. Bush can't and won't do it, but that doesn't mean another politician can't.

Because she voted to give Bush the authority for this war? So did 372 others in Congress, after they viewed doctored intelligence, so explain why she's the "pro-war" one?

Please...explain.

[AtomicKitten]

154. they can't because it's empty, self-serving rhetoric.

[MisterP]

83. except the 60+% of Americans who oppose IraqNam

and isn't "Backstabber" a name-call?

[MODemocrat]

56. Right on Bartcop, it's time we quit eating our own

It's not our job to do the republicans, dirty work for them, but that's exactly what the Hillary Hating democrats will wind up doing for them. No more Bushshites for me. I know a disaster when I see it, and it is not Hillary.

[Bucky]

96. Since when has the Great Pink Tutuer not favored eating our own?

Bart goes hammer and tongs against any Democrat who votes strategically (except when it's Sen. Clinton) or views the war differently than he does (except when it's Sen. Clinton), so I hardly think an intraparty debate about who our best candidates are is a waste of breath.

[MODemocrat]

116. I don't think of Bartcop as being a tutueer; he knows one when he sees it

I'm not trying to quiet any dissent; but sometimes it does seem that we democrats are about as tough on our own as we are the real rebel-rousing, war-mongering right wingers, and they sure don't need any help from us to be the jackasses they have become. It scares me to death to think of getting Condi as president so it's not my plan to help that happen. :dem:

[BigYawn]

60. The single most important reason why Hillary will win: BILL CLINTON,

THE most successful and popular democrat since Roosevelt.
If she was married to someone else, she could'nt win. But
with Bill pulling the strings, every one else will be
running for VP.

[chicagiana]

106. Bill couldn't help Al ...

Bill couldn't help Al Gore. Bill couldn't even swing his home state of Arkansas for either Gore OR Kerry. What makes you think he can help Hillary????

[BigYawn]

111. If you recall, Al basically ignored Bill during the campaign, never

asking Bill to appear at rallies. Monica was a fresh memory then.
It is not now. Bill has regained a lot of stature and popularity
by his involvment in the Tsunami relief, Katrina relief and by
travelling to many countries where he receives a hero's welcome.

Monica is just a long faded memory in voter's minds.

[Uncle Joe]

142. I always thought Bill basically ignored Al first,

when at the start of the 2000 campaign: the Democratic Convention specifically, Bill felt that it was more important to take what seemed like a ten minute walk down a hallway, all for his own glory, instead of using that precious MSM air time to promote Al from the lectern.

[Virginia Blogger]

155. Yea...

Yea but it was really Al Gore that distanced himself. Too bad. I know Al Gore really won the election in 2000, but I personally think he may have one another state or two if he had campaigned with President Clinton.

[Virginia Blogger]

156. sorry

Sorry looks like I just re wrote what you said - I didnt see your post. You are totally right.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

61. Dems stabbed Bill in the back?

:rofl:
Horseshit

[jonnyblitz]

62. no friggen shit eh?

:crazy: unbelievable.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

63. 61 years without a Democrat in the White House.

And counting...

[AtomicKitten]

75. Um, you're doing it now.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

89. Why, yes I am.

:patriot:

[radio4progressives]

69. I guess I don't get the obsession over Hillary as Prez

I think the very bottom line issue to me is not even about "positions" or where she is on this issue, or that.

But why in the hell would Democrats be pushing for another Clinton white house administration, following a SECOND Bush Reign of Terror?

Is this the product of the best and the brightest imaginations and vision this party has to offer for Democrats and our country?

Can't ANYONE here SEE the terrible fallout most assuredly to follow if HRC wins? 8 Years of absolute hell from the Media and the Repukes?

Given that the hatred for her is just as about equal to the hatred for Bush, by citizens in this country, top it off with the Media who already hates her too.

Add it all up, and that's a whole lot of HATRED folks.

And then, after 8 more years of even more division than what we as a country are suffering through even now, we're going to have a Jeb Bush or maybe it will be Laura Bush running for the next 8 years after HRC's administration.

Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton - Bush - Blinton - and so on...

Is this REALLY want you folks want for America and the Democratic Party?????

[AtomicKitten]

72. The obsession expressed is keeping her OUT of the White House.

And more predictions.

You don't need to argue against her here. You probably won't find many DU'ers who would vote for her in the primary. However, and as I've tried to get people to come to terms with, the majority of Democrats want Hillary to run. In every poll taken, she is consistently way ahead of the next contender. That is something no one seems to want to acknowledge.

Instead they choose to slam those of us who say we will support her if she is chosen democratically by the majority of Democrats in the primary. Just as we see on the right, we find those unwilling to accept the majority consensus and are intent on imposing their will on others through vile insults and name-calling.

That's what's really going on here. So much for democracy.

I don't support Hillary but I respect her. I support the democratic process and it WILL prevail regardless of the gnashing of teeth here.

[kynn]

84. Dump Hillary, the sooner the better

What is Hillary Clinton thinking? The idea that, through some clever repackaging, she can win over those who, for more than a decade now, have viewed her with deep suspicion (if not downright hatred) only confirms her reputation for deviousness in their eyes. The strategy is so blatantly stupid that it makes one question her much-vaunted intelligence. She doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell to become President, not because she's a woman, not because she's married to a former president, but because she rubs most of the country the wrong way. She has succeeded in thoroughly alienating not only the social and fiscal conservatives but also the huge and growing antiwar movement in the US (which includes a lot more people than the hard left). If the Democrats nominate her for 2008 they will be showing to the country a disastrous masochistic streak, a total lack of interest in winning, and will set themselves for a beating that will make the Mondale/Ferraro debacle of 1984 look not so bad.

[arewenotdemo]

120. WELL STATED!

[AtomicKitten]

123. she consistently polls at twice the next contender as Dem nominee

Some people simply don't realize they are in the minority in their opinion.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

158. That's called name recognition

Those polls so early before the primaries are essentially useless b/c people don't know the names of other people on the primary ticket. As soon as other candidates enter the fold and raise money, get media attention, the name recognition advantage vanishes. Remember that Joseph Lieberman utterly dominated the polls of potential Democratic nominees for the 2004 election in the years before primary season (with even less name recognition) and had an enormous war chest, yet he utterly flamed out before he even got started when the competition actually got going. We can't use such polls at this early stage-- they're dangerously misleading when name recognition is the only significant factor differentiating the field.

[AtomicKitten]

162. Of course they know her - for chrissake she was First Lady for 8 years.

[Virginia Blogger]

129. I

I disagree. I do not think it would be disastrous. To tell you the truth - she would give me something to fight for. She would modivate me to go out and work for Democrats. Bush made me work for Democrats last time because I wanted him gone. My vote was not a vote for John Kerry - it was an anti-Bush vote.

[AtomicKitten]

132. mine too, I'm sorry to say.

[AZBlue]

148. Ditto.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

88. If Hillary were nominated by the Dems, we'll see a major 3rd party

It's unavoidable AtomicKitten. The anger right now is almost palpable. Hillary is not just wishy-washy on Iraq (as Biden has been)-- she's become one of the worst and most unapologetic of the pro-war hawks, advocating not only continuing the war on Iraq but expanding it with more troops there, setting up permanent bases on Iraqi territory (basically an indication for another 9/11 attack on US soil), *and* invading Syria to extend the war there.

How can any true Dem support Hillary considering these war stands? I'm sorry, but the argument that *at least she's with us on domestic issues*, just doesn't wash. There is nothing more important for a chief executive of the US than the issue of war or peace-- nothing else so directly affects the lives of so many millions of people, both in the US and abroad, and imperils the future so much. You cannot be a true Democrat while whoremongering for war, period. Furthermore, the budgetary demands for an expanding war have a way of eating into the budgetary allocations for worthy domestic causes as well.

Hillary Clinton has made a clear choice on the war issue, to throw in her lot squarely with the neocons and with the War Party. If Hillary were nominated in in 2008 by the Dems, that means that both major parties would have major warmongers heading their tickets-- Hillary for the Dems, and somebody like George Allen or John McCain (who's as much a warmonger as anybody) for the GOP. This despite the fact of the obvious disaster of the Iraq War, and the increasing aversion among Americans to more US involvement in foreign wars. The rage is already building and, if both parties nominate a neocon-allied warmonger, there will be tangible rage among the public, enough to actually make a third party candidate (with an antiwar platform) very much viable.

[SaveElmer]

91. This is wrong on so many levels...

That it would take too long to respond to each point...

Besides the complete misrepresentation of her position on Iraq...and you can bookmark this post for later reference..

If Hillary gets the nomination....not only will there be no viable third party contender, Hillary will win the White House.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

146. People like you, SaveElmer, are a big reason why so many

of us Dems have been turned off to Hillary and are now looking so intently at other candidates for the Dem ticket. Quit your arrogant, flatulent patronizing and look at her stands. I would respect you if you accepted Hillary's very obviously hawkish stands on the war, yet tried to argue for her on other bases. But this sort of condescending dissembling on your part is feckless and wastes the time of everyone with a dollop of intelligence. I won't waste precious hard drive space by bookmarking your smarmy, arrogant little post here-- if you actually wanted to do something for Hillary Clinton, you would actually argue specific points in her favor, not talk down and condescend to those who express concerns about her stands and resentment at her war cheerleading. The anger that you hear from so many of us about Hillary here is the anger that is borne of betrayal, and smarmy dismissive small-minded supporters like yourself only reinforce our bitterness and opposition. In 2000, I and a number of Dem and even independent friends were strong supporters of Hillary in New York and saw her as one of the most articulate, savvy voices in the nation's legislature to both win elections and champion fundamental Democratic values that had been suppressed for so long. Instead, she's turned into one of the worst of the war hawks, a proponent of more outsourcing and a corporate shill on other issues as well. We're hardly unreasonable or "non-mainstream" Democrats, either-- all of us that I know of voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, and all of us would vote for a Dem like Clark, Warner, Schweitzer, Boxer or Gore in 2008 as well.

The positions on Iraq that we find so objectionable, SaveElmer? It's not the IWR alone-- many Dems supported that and we can place that in context, even if we are disappointed that Hillary did not use her enviable position in 2002 (i.e, *not running in 2004* and with the capacity to take a stand based on the long-term) to demand more evidence on the WMD question and more examination of the wisdom of such an offensive invasion of a country that had not attacked us to begin with.

What's so infuriating is how she's expanded on the IWR vote to push for expanding the war in Iraq and the Middle East in general. As you damn well know SaveElmer, she has publicly called for expanding the Iraq War effort and sending an even bigger force there, rather than winding down from this quagmire that has killed and horrifically maimed more good people than any of us can care to recall. She called for an expansion of 80,000 troops and yes, the initial spin was that the extra soldiers would be there to "respond to threats wherever danger lies," but considering "where danger currently lies" for an active US military force it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to figure out where the lion's share of those troops would be going. In case your Panglossian rose-colored glasses have also been affecting your memory, here are some links to remind you:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=41233
http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx071505
http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051203/OPINION/512030304/1005/ARCHIVE

As for long-term plans in Iraq? Back in 2/05 on the "Face the Nation" program, she argued vigorously against plans for an Iraq withdrawal, indicating that we should stay in there a long, long time and noted that in Korea, we've been there for 50 years-- so why not Iraq? This means "permanent bases" SaveElmer-- bases established in a foreign country for long-term occupation. This is precisely what we should not be doing in Iraq and in the Middle East in general, yet it's precisely what Hillary (and almost all the Rethugs, for that matter) plan on doing. A link to remind you (and a reminder of her ridiculous new stand on a flag-burning amendment, of all things, to top it off): http://space4peace.blogspot.com/2005_12_04_space4peace_archive.html

As for Hillary's Syria obsession, maybe you've conveniently forgotten that AP article from March 2005, when Hillary went on a rant about how Syria 'was aggressively supporting terrorism in the "dangerous neighborhood" of the Middle East.' (Here's the article-- http://www.tkb.org/NewsStory.jsp?storyID=57867 ) As you well know SaveElmer, any nation that gets labeled as a "terrorist state" (especially one "aggressively supporting terrorism") has been hit with politico-speak for "You're next in the crosshairs." This makes Syria fair game to be invaded (or used as a scapegoat in case there's another terrorist attack or US soil, whether or not they were actually involved). This despite the fact that evidence for Syria's "aggressive support for terrorism" is sorely lacking-- as with Iraq, Hillary is trumpeting the "terrorist state" moniker rather than calling for calm and sensibly evaluating the context of the situation. Syria has been helping us interrogate al-Qaeda suspects for Pete's sake (you know, "pressure tactics" and all that), and being a secular Baathist country that fears al-Qaeda's ferocious Islamist warriors as much as we do, they're not exactly disposed to support terrorist organizations. HRC commits the same error that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith and the other idiots in the neocon bunch have been doing since late 2001, and continue to do to the unimaginable detriment of our country-- distracting ourselves from the real threat, the truly dangerous enemy of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and al-Qaeda, while diverting our resources to countries (like Iraq and Syria) that have never posed a threat, inadvertently turning them into fundamentalist terrorist havens while butchering hundreds of thousands of people in the process.

Q.E.D. SaveElmer. BTW, you need to take a Dale Carnegie course or something in persuasion tactics, because if your objective was to win support for Hillary, you've failed miserably. This in fact has been a chronic problem, and it's one of the reasons that so many Dems have been turning against Hillary so intensively-- far too many Hillary "supporters" like you SaveElmer, rather than arguing the merits of your candidate, seem stuck in the mindset that a Hillary nomination by the Dems in 2008 is a foregone conclusion, and so the rest of us had better just shut up and not get out of line. Just a couple years ago, quite a few of us were politely raising concerns and doubts about Hillary's stands, but instead of having these fairly addressed, too often we were told to basically take our doubts and stuff 'em where the sun don't shine-- it's Hillary on the Dem ticket for 2008, so we'd better get used to it. Needless to say, this has not exactly won over our support or respect. For whatever reason, this seems to be a common blunder among far too many HRC boosters. For a moment there, it looked as though something had changed since AtomicKitten had given such a smart, nuanced response with a genuine focus on Hillary's stands and an attempt to sensibly discuss and defend them. But for every AtomicKitten, there are 20 arrogant, insufferable, dismissive, condescending, offensive HRC supporters like you, SaveElmer, and if you're disappointed at how much other Dems have become angry at Hillary, in large part you have only yourself to blame.

[IndianaGreen]

92. The crisis in the Democratic Party will come this year, not in 2008

The Democratic Party establishment, the movers and shakers of money, will have to decide this year whether the Democrats will side with the American republic or surrender to a king. I will cite Chris Floyd's article:

Clowntime is Over: The Last Stand of the American Republic

Wednesday, 28 December 2005

So now, at last, the crisis is upon us. Now the cards are finally on the table, laid out so starkly that even the Big Media sycophants and Beltway bootlickers can no longer ignore them. Now the choice for the American Establishment is clear, and inescapable: do you hold for the Republic, or for autocracy?

There is no third way here, no other option, no wiggle room, no ambiguity. The much-belated exposure of George W. Bush's warrantless spy program has forced the Bush-Cheney Regime to openly declare what they have long implied -- and enacted -- in secret: that the president is above the law, a military autocrat with unlimited powers, beyond the restraint or supervision of any other institution or branch of government. Outed as rank deceivers, perverters of the law and rapists of the Constitution, the Bush gang has decided that their best defense -- their only defense, really -- is a belligerent offense. "Yeah, we broke the law," they now say; "so what? We'll break it again whenever we want to, because law don't stick to our Big Boss Man. What are you going to do about it, chump?"

<snip>

But not even Nixon was as foul as this crew. When he was caught, he folded; some faint spark of republican conscience restrained him from pushing the crisis to the end. He was a vain, stupid, greedy, grasping, dirty man with blood on his hands, but in the end, he did not identify himself with the government as a whole. He did not say, "l'etat, c'est moi," he had no messianic belief that the life of the nation was somehow bound up with his personal fate, or that he and his clique and his cronies had a God-given right to rule. They just wanted power and loot -- as much of it as they could get -- and they pushed and pushed until the Establishment pushed back.

It has long been evident, however, that Bush and Cheney do believe their clique should by all rights rule the country -- and that anyone who opposes their unrestrained dominion is automatically "anti-American," an enemy of the state. For them, there is no "loyal opposition," or even political opponents in any traditional understanding of the term; there are only enemies to be destroyed, and herd-like masses to be manipulated. They believe that their dominion is more important than democracy, which they despise as a brake and hindrance to the arbitrary leadership of an all-wise elite -- i.e., them. They are the state; a police state.

http://chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=369&Itemid=1

The next question is: will the Democrats stand for the republic or will they fold to the emperor's wishes as the Roman Senate did?

The question that follows that is an ugly one, but is one that is going to be on the table whether we like it or not:

Should we engage in resistance to tyranny, or should we leave this country as millions before us have done throughout history when they left their native countries to avoid persecution or death?

[AtomicKitten]

94. Thank you for your civilized differing point of view.

You are the ONLY one here DU that can state an opposing point of view on this subject without trying to stomp on the source. Thanks.

First of all, the argument "she's with us on domestic issues" didn't come from me. In fact, I have never argued on her behalf. What I have done or have tried to do is dispel the wild accusations and idiotic predictions. That stuff is nonsense. All I have ever stated is that I will stand with whomever my fellow Democrats choose in the primary.

If a third party is inevitable, so be it. I would prefer that people work within the party rather than trying to destroy the Democratic party from within or throw trash at it from the sidelines.

If people hate Hillary and her equivalents (in their eyes) so much that they are willing to risk another term with Republicans in power, that's on them. A huge mistake and a short-sighted, not very well thought-out decision IMO, but theirs to make nonetheless.

Apparently they really do think there is no difference between Clinton's 8 years and Bush's 5. Wow.

[paulk]

98. there are things not to like about Hillary

but calling her a "neocon-allied warmonger" is bordering on the absurd.

we'll see a third party effort only from those who believe that sort of hyperbole.

and I doubt it will be "major".

[Robbins]

108. Hillary

The question we as Democrats have to ask Is do we want Hilary as the nominee. First off for 2006 do
we want to listen to those like Hilary who Didn't give Bush a fight or do we want to Listen to
Governor Dean,Senator Reid,and others who fought Bush In 2005. I for one am sick of the Chris Matthews and pundits who whore for Bush,and will be whoring for Mccain to say who our nominee Is
going to be. Let real Democrats decide not them. What has Hilary done to deserve to be leader of our
party? Let's elevate someone who Is fighting for us,and not just run Bill Clinton's Wife. Yes some will say she Is more Liberal than he Is. But,I don't buy that argument. Winning In New York doesn't mean you can win In the Mid West. On Iraq she continues to support Bush. Kerry doesn't support Bush on Iraq like she does. Hell even Joe Biden says he made a mistake giving Bush the authority to wage war In Iraq. On Electabilty they call her the most Electable well she loses to Mccain or Guilliani In every poll. If Hilary Is the nominee against Mccain she will have trouble In
keeping Minnesota,Wisconsin,Michigan,and Pennsylvania In the Democratic column so the augment she can win all the Kerry states possibly take Iowa or New Mexico back I don't buy It. And besides Iraq the big Issues for me(apart from the Civil rights) are repealing the Bush Tax Cuts,and restoring Medicaid to those being cut. I don't see Hillary fighting for us against the corporations.
And from the minute other Democrats start running she will be In their targets. Kerry,Warner,edwards,
Biden,Bayh,Feingold,Clark can move to start running shortly after the election while she will have to wait because she likely doesn't want to just win reelection to then announce her campaign for President. Now I am for Feingold Inless Gore runs but let's have Democrats debate things,and decide for themselves. I will vote for the eventual nominee but I hope It's not her.

[AtomicKitten]

125. Your question will be answered in the primary.

"The question we as Democrats have to ask Is do we want Hilary as the nominee."

And the Democratic nominee will be selected by the majority of voters. It's called democracy.

If she wins, in the general voters can either:
1) Vote with the Democratic party.
2) Vote Republican.
3) Vote third party if there is a candidate.
4) Stay home.

Your choice.

But, for once, and I think most people here would agree, if you (generic) are dead-set against supporting the Democratic Party nominee if it is Hillary or Warner or whoever you might find unpalatable, rather than expending energy trashing that candidate, work for a third party candidate.

It is the purposeful, spiteful sabotage of the Democratic candidate that sickens my stomach. Michael Moore saw the light in that regard.

[Robbins]

126. Democrats

I don't want her as the nominee however if she wins the primarys I will vote for her In the general
election. She would be better than any republicans even though I don't like her support of Bush on
Iraq,or her pro corporate stance.

[AtomicKitten]

127. I agree completely. n/t

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

130. Sorry, but it's already happening

You grossly fail to appreciate the depth of anger about the Iraq War and the capitulation of so many prominent Dems to it if you cast this aside. War vs. peace is *the* central issue for our country and nothing else affects so many people here and abroad, and you imperil the future of our party if you ignore it.

With Hillary, it's not just that she voted for the IWR in 2002-- many other Dems did that, such as Kerry among others, and we can more or less forgive that to an extent considering the political exigencies of the time (though Kerry *was* running in 2004, while Hillary wasn't so compelled). What really infuriates us, paulk, is that Hillary has been continuing in the hawkish direction in ways that even out-hawk many of the Rethugs-- supporting the idea of permanent bases in Iraq, urging an expansion of the military campaign in the country, *and* even supporting these ridiculous plans the Administration has to extent the fighting into Syria. (Thankfully, she has not yet signed for the War-on-Iran brigade.) This is the stand of the ultra-hawk wing of the DLC which Biden and Lieberman have also espoused.

Sorry, but this is utterly unacceptable in a Democratic candidate. Many if not most of us were outright supporters of Hillary in 2000, spending our precious time and money to help get her elected. But we did not expect this level of turnabout on the war issue, and we will not accept it. Of course we can and will compromise on a variety of issue, but WTF does it mean to be a Democrat if you're *not* in favor of keeping the US out of senseless, idiotic resource wars? Sorry, when it comes to war and peace, "compromise" is tantamount to abject capitulation.

[AtomicKitten]

134. And you can cast a vote, one vote, like everybody else.

"Sorry, but this is utterly unacceptable in a Democratic candidate."

You can express your opinion in the primary. The question is what will you do after the primary if the candidate is not to your liking.

[paulk]

135. the anger I see out here in the real world concerning Iraq

is directed at GW Bush, not Hillary Clinton.

If the anti-war left continues with it's campaign of painting Hillary Clinton as some kind of Bush-lite warmonger, they will only succeed in further marginalizing themselves. I'm sorry - I reject this depiction of Clinton completely. The idea that a Clinton presidency would somehow continue the imperialist designs of Bush and Co. is nonsense, IMO.

That said - don't take my defence of Ms. Clinton as an indication of my support for her. I will not be working toward her selection as the Democratic nominee. I will, however, support her if she wins the nomination.

[jonnyblitz]

136. some people don't care as long as they can point to some

poll that claims she leads. positions on issues are beside the point. if the poll says she is ahead, just shut the fuck up and support her. you are wasting your time with your sensible post, it will fall on deaf ears. those of us(I am a military vet) that think like you are a small percentage of fringe wacko lefty freaks who believe outside of the mainstream, the poll results prove that. she wins in that poll. the normal, mainstream people have spoken. that is all the matters. stay the course , support the troops. Hillary 2008 (:sarcasm:)

[AtomicKitten]

140. Your exaggeration is self-serving.

But I hope it makes you feel better, superior, gets you off, or whatever you were going for.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

161. Exactly, this is what I find so infuriating

For the most part (and this is in party fundraisers and community Dem meetings as much as on the blogs), when we raise very legitimate objections to Hillary's stands, we don't hear calm, persuasive arguments about her stands on the issues and how these are better vis-a-vis other Democrats. Rather, the attitude seems to be, "Hillary's the frontrunner, she's presumptive, so the rest of you, just shut up, shut up and fall into line, we don't want to have a serious discussion about the issues, you're backstabbers blah blah blah..." When you point out the uselessness of the polls at this early stage (little more than name recognition indicators), and if you dare to suggest that another Dem candidate has more sensible (and winning) stands, too often you're treated to yet another harangue about how you're ruining Dem unity, turning your back on the party, eating our own, hurting the cause, and so on.

There are a lot of us (myself included) who were not only Hillary supporters ourselves at the get-go, but were still prone to return to supporting her if our early objections-- about her very worrisome hawkish stands and support for expanding the Iraq War-- had been even moderately addressed. Instead, with a couple exceptions, we were not met with reasoned arguments, but with outright hostility, juvenile name-calling, accusations that we were not "true Democrats" (even though practically all us had voted for and supported Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and Dem Congressional and state candidates since 1988 at least, and support other viable Dem candidates for 2008), and often some weak reference to a useless name-recognition poll, along with a haughty and thoroughly condescending tone that was worse even than the dreck that Powerliners like to adopt. War and peace is about life and death, the very heart of our country's national policy, yet our concerns on this issue have largely been dismissed and we ourselves the target of ridiculous epithets for actually caring about our country's fundamental policy.

[AtomicKitten]

163. As if the opposition to Hillary is civilized -- hey, we wish.

You are accusing people of doing EXACTLY what the Hate Hillary crowd is doing and you don't even see it.

If you had followed the thread, you would realize that 99% of people here won't vote for her in the primary, including me. Now why do you suppose that is? It's because of the very concerns you have raised.

However, there are some that parrot the same GOP talking points we could get from Sean Hannity and his knucklehead crowd. There is no discussing Hillary with those people.

The whole supposition is what if she wins the Democratic primary, then what are you going to do? That's where people part company. That's the crux of this discussion. And people have the choice to stand behind the nominee as chosen by the majority of Dems in the primary, or not. If not, it would be greatly appreciated if, for a change, those people would go support a third party candidate or, if they choose, stay home.

But once the candidate has been chosen, it would be nice, again for a change, if we did not have to fight both the Republicans as well as those to the further left. Because whether or not they will acknowledge it, ANY Democrat is a hell of a lot better than a Republican.

That's it. Period.

The persecution you are perceiving is all in your mind, at least at DU and certainly from me. I respect ALL opinions if they are not laced with condescending, snotty overtones! If you calm down a bit, you'd realize your opinion is very much like many here. The difference being that we are willing to say that if Hillary is chosen, our doubts notwithstanding and noting most will not vote for her in the primary, we will stand with her in the general election. In the meantime, we'll break a sweat trying to get a better candidate on the ballot.

Ps: It isn't just name recognition. Hillary was First Lady for 8 years.

Peace. Sincerely.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

131. Another detail to add

is that it's not as though we Dems are stuck with a painful but unavoidable choice here (i.e. between a war hawk and at least 4 more years of Rethug administration). There *are* other Dem candidates out there who are both capable of winning on a national level, and yet not so entrenched with the pro-war neocon crowd as Hillary, Biden and Lieberman. Wesley Clark is one. Mark Warner appears to be another, unless he embraces the hawk-and-a-half philosophy of the DLC that he's resisted so far. *There are Dem candidates out there* who can unify the Democratic Party and maximize our turnout, resist the siren song of the war hawks, and prevail strongly in a general election. We would be fools to thumb our noses at them, and blindly support a "frontrunner" without really thoroughly looking into what this person would represent.

[ieoeja]

128. Ironic coming from Bartcop.

I stopped reading Bartcop in 2004 because of his continued attacks on Democrats. I could live with his unceasing "pink tu-tus", but when he got to parroting rightwing talking points against both Dean and Kerry, I decided to conduct a statistical review of his site for two weeks. In that two week period there was one day in which there was the exact same number of anti-Bush/Republican articles as anti-Kerry/Democratic articles. On each of the other days, anti-Kerry/Democratic articles outnumbered the anti-Bush/Republican articles.

Worse yet, the amount of space on the site taken up by his personal commentary during that two week period ran about 3 to 1 against Democrats.

I don't think Bartcop is Republican. But I have visited the area where he lives and the propaganda is defeaning. He doesn't fall for all of it, but he falls for a good deal of it because it is so overwhelming.

[AZBlue]

150. I stopped reading BC a long time ago too.

I would even go so far as to say that he may be a Repubican.

[McLuhan]

173. Surely you jest!

That statement: "I would even go so far to say that he may be a Republican" is not logical. Of what benefit would the five years or more of his cartoons of Bush,Cheney, and Delay help his Republican Party? He just wants his Party to nominate a winning candidate. However, I don't believe Hillary is the answer.

[LittleClarkie]

137. I thought that Bartcop had an issue with pink tutus,

No?

[AtomicKitten]

139. No, Bart regularly bitchslaps Dems that are squishy.

And I respect that. But he wants to win in 2008 and does not subscribe to Dems trashing Dems (and that does not mean heated discussion but rather GOP talking points).

[LittleClarkie]

141. That's contradictory

he don't approve of it, but he engages in it. Yikes. That pink tutu graphic was more than "heated discussion."

[AtomicKitten]

149. Well, I guess it depends on how you see it.

I've actually discussed this with him. He's as hard on squishy Dems as anything I've seen here when applicable. Not a blind generic rage, but when they do something specific that he feels warrants the pink tu-tu.

However, and this is the crux of his position, when rubber meets the road, he is vehemently opposed to the over-the-top criticism of Hillary, as is prevalent here at DU, using bogus GOP talking points. He has no problem discussing truthful issues, but feels, as I do, that gratuitous bashing is counterproductive, particularly in an election.

Other than what I have stated, I would suggest you email him and take it up with him if you have further questions with his positions. I really cannot speak for him other than what I've covered in my personal discussions with him.

[AZBlue]

178. Hmmm....I may have to give him another looksie....

(unlike others on this board) I can be open-minded and admit when I was wrong. I haven't read BC in a while and, honestly, didn't read him for very long either. When I first started reading there were a couple of times consecutively when I was bothered by what he said, so I stopped reading. But, I certainly admire his position here and, based upon what others have said, definitely think he deserves another read!

[sirjohn]

160. Hillary - good or evil?

You decide.

[sargon9]

164. Bartcop is always right

All hail the mighty Bartcop.

[demnan]

165. We'll never win

We have too many people who hate us from within. :cry:

[leesa]

167. Why? Will telling the truth destroy her? Will being honest about Iraq

destroy her? It's all most people are asking of her...honesty and integrity...will these things destroy her?

[AtomicKitten]

168. What makes you think she's not being honest?

Did it ever occur to you that merely holding a different opinion than you does not inherently make her dishonest or lack integrity? Where do you come up with that assessment? Is it just because you don't like/approve of her positions?

I think you are being terribly unfair.

Christ, dislike her for her positions on face value, but rein in the subjective commentary that you are declaring as fact.

[bearfan454]

172. The media is trying to pick our candidate for us again.

Hillary won't win.

[AtomicKitten]

182. no, voters will pick her in the primary

and you cannot predict the outcome, sorry.

[iconoclastNYC]

175. It's not just the prevarication

it's that she automatically gets front runner status because she had to good luck to marry a future president.

dynasties are wrong.

and republicans are dieing to run against her. even if she wins they'll grow thier party be leaps and bounds.

and her husands was an OK president for the country but a HORRIBLE leader of our party. I don't want Hillary undoing all of Dean's good work.

There are a hundred reasons not to want her to win the nomination.

I'll actively work against her campaign.

[AZBlue]

179. Will you actively work against her if she'd the Dem candidate?

You stated you'd work against her campaign - I wasn't sure if that was in the primaries or as the party's candidate?

[iconoclastNYC]

180. It depends

If the party elites and the corporate media issue a political death warrant to whomever the grass roots front runner is in 2008 like they did to Dean I might just be done with the DNC for good.


edit: fixed a typo

[AZBlue]

183. I truly appreciate your frustration but

I'd rather see an effort to change what's wrong than supporting, even by omission of a vote, the Republicans. It sometimes comes down to a lesser of two evils and as much as that just plain SUCKS, it still has to be dealt with. Kerry was not my first choice in 04 - I supported and campaigned for Clark to be honest, but once Kerry was the candidate I fought tooth and nail for him. It wasn't just because he wasn't Bush, but that was part of it. And I would have fought just as hard if that had been the only reason. I'm not saying that the party's management doesn't need to be changed - it does!! But, I'm afraid of what Bush & Co. will do with his 3 years left - if it's 7 or 11 years....this country's doomed.

[AtomicKitten]

181. in your opinion, that's why she has front-runner status.

Did it occur to you that people have followed her career and admire her?

You completely disregard other peoples' opinion. And if that opinion is the majority, will you continue to denigrate it? If so, you do not believe in the democratic process where majority wins.

Hey, I feel for you. I really do. Her hard right turn has put me off in a big way. I honestly believe most here at DU will not vote for her in the primary, including me. My OP was intended to get people to think about the "what if."

And as Sean Connery said to Kevin Costner on the bridge in "The Untouchables," what are you prepared to do?

[enough already]

184. Where did he/she "denigrate" anyone else's opinion?

Icon stated his/her opinion. If that opinion is not a reflexive ass-kissing of Hillary, is that now "denigrating" others?

[AtomicKitten]

186. allow me to elucidate (I thought I had)

"it's that she automatically gets front runner status because she had to good luck to marry a future president"

Attributing the opinion of others to superfluous characteristics, marginalizing their opinion by describing it as trite and ignorant.

And the rest is the usual Ouija board analysis of the future.

[iconoclastNYC]

193. Oh please.

No democrat in the world waltzes into a state (they've never even lived in) and gets to run on the ticket as Senator. UNLESS your hubby is an ex-president, then anybody else who might have wanted to run for that seat is shunted aside, so you can have the spotlight.

I'd love to leave in this dream world where Hillary has really earned the right to be a senator or a presidential nominee based on her experience, and not because her husband is a former president.

She's the ultimate insider, and she has a name, and therefore the oceans part and she gets to be the front runner.

Reminds me of someone named George W Bush.

She's the front runner not because of anything brave or interesting she's done in the Senate. She's the front runner because her last name is Clinton and because the media think it'd be an interesting contest, and the Republicans and the corporatists know that she'll motivate their base to get out and vote.

If you think that this is denigrating your opinion then you must not be that confidant in what you believe.

[AtomicKitten]

194. She's not Mary Bono, you know.

That's what you are comparing her to and there is a HUGE difference.

Hillary is a well-educated, accomplished woman, with all kinds of political experience.

I would suggest you are refusing to acknowledge that, so I won't waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.

It is convenient to be so damn sure about something especially when you are purposefully blind to the facts you just don't want to acknowledge.

Again, Hillary is no Mary Bono.

[iconoclastNYC]

196. First of all.

I don't know the first thing about Mary Bono, but you really are going off on a tangent aren't you?

What are these facts that I'm blind too? Has she ever held elective office (before running for Senator after being first lady?) What are the facts that I need to know?

I don't think you are wasting your time so much as you are making yourself look like a foolish Hillary fanatic.

[AtomicKitten]

197. You don't know Mary Bono and you don't know Hillary Clinton

Which is why don't understand the analogy.

Your opinion is fueled by your emotions and not based on fact. And although it, again, is convenient for you to disregard that which you don't understand with over-the-top superlatives (fanatic) meant to stifle a point of view you can't be bothered with because it might cause you to think, reassess, and back off your black and white view of the world, I am content knowing that many people here understand their anger with Hillary, the same anger they feel toward any one of the knuckleheads that voted yes on the Iraq Resolution. And they also realize that most of us including me, as I've stated unequivocally before, will not vote for Hillary in the primary.

Your (hysterical) blind response to the status quo prevents you from asking yourself the simple question, what will you do if the majority of Democrats (again, probably nobody at DU including me) give Hillary the nod in the primary. That was always the issue, dude. And you took it and twisted and had your hissy fit and used strong language to avoid really answering a simple question. And now don't you feel superior in your make-believe argument.

[SteppingRazor]

189. Momentary Movie Geek Tangent:

Actually, Sean Connery said that to Kevin Costner in the church, not on the bridge :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

190. why I oughta ...

you're right, thanks for fine-tuning my cinematic acumen. :)

[iconoclastNYC]

195. What I'm doing about Hillary

I'm talking about her less-than-stellar record as a senator from one of the bluest states in the nation.

I'm drawing comparisons between how she talks about the war and how loser Kerry did during his failed campaign.

I'm contrasting her prevarications with the bravery and plainspokeness of people such as Murtha, Dean and Feingold.

I'm sending people press clips about Feingold's record, and opinion pieces that dispute this corporate media made myth that Hillary has the nomination locked up.

I'm doing all this for my party and for my country.

[Strawman]

187. I won't "trash" her but I sure as hell won't vote for her in the primaries

I shouldn't have to compromise in the primary. If she is that much more "electable," she doesn't need my vote then. If she's the nominee, she'll get my vote in Nov. 2008.

[AtomicKitten]

188. that's the general idea

nobody is trying to sell her candidacy, but we may be looking at her name on the ballot in the general election and I wanted people to consider that possibility beforehand.

[Strawman]

191. All I object to is the idea...

that everyone should just accept the idea that Hillary is the nominee and get behind it right now because she's already won the media primary.

People can make the electability argument for Hillary or others. I bought it in 2004 with Kerry, but I refuse to do so this time. It's going to be an issues based vote for me in the primary. I've come to think that when liberals buy into the electability thing, it leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy where liberals never get elected and progress never happens and the party keeps moving to the right. It's like we're supposed to think that we're going to get a liberal into the White House via Trojan Horse. Our candidates just have to say these things to seem more conservative to get elected. Once they win, they'll be different. I just don't buy it.

Come time for the general election, if she's the candidate, of course I'll vote for someone I agree with 70-80% of the time over someone I probably agree with less than 10% of the time.

[AtomicKitten]

192. not accept, just digest the possibility

A good friend of mine had to bitchslap me into submission when it came to Kerry because I too found it unpalatable to even consider voting for anyone who voted for the war. And that probably would surprise some here who think I'm trying to sell Hillary's candidacy. I've just really been there myself.

In the interim, I'm praying someone will step up that I can genuinely support (Al Gore, are you listening?), and I will pull out the stops pressing that person's candidacy in the primary. And I hope, although I'm not hopeful, that there can be an honest discussion here at DU about the primary candidates.

And your analogy about the Trojan horse is probably more valid than you imagine. Whatever it takes IMO.