Hillary detractors: Make you case to us here

[spaniard]

Reference this thread first:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2354120&mesg_id=2354120

OK, you guys think DU is fair to her. You think we should all hate her as much as you do, or at least learn to remember our place.

Here's your chance.

Tell us why

1)We should think she's right-wing. Please be prepared to demonstrate why anything she has done is "rightwing."
2)We shouldn't think she's electable. In the process, tell WHO you think is electable and why.
3)We should be uncomfortable with a country run by the Clintons again. It's the economy, stupid!
4)We should ask anything from Hillary in exchange for our support besides appealing to a wide portion of America and not the leftist fringe


We're listening. I'll ask moderates and pro-democracy types to hold their posts for awhile.

[rawtribe]

1. buy a star and use search

this has been done to death.

[Warpy]

4. Thank you!

'Nuff said, indeed!

[spaniard]

9. so has the other thread

[AZBlue]

24. That's so offensive, rude and unfeeling.

Careful...you're starting to sound like a Republican.

I wish all of us on DU were as rich and wonderful as you. I'd personally like to donate to DU. However, since Bush & Co. took over, my income has plummeted and I can't make my bills. So, DU will have to wait a little longer for my star.

[Nutmegger]

34. Thank you

College textbooks went up yet again...:cry:

[AZBlue]

61. Wow!

Pretty soon they are going to equal the rate for tuition!!!!!

[rawtribe]

64. Anyone who supports

a DLC candidate had better be able to afford a star.

I'm sorry if I offended you, please accept a star on me as an apology.



:7

[raysr]

2. We shouldn't be beating up on

our own goddammit!

[Tom Joad]

8. I do not beat up on those who oppose the war... i stand with them.

[shraby]

3. I think she's unelectable because the

right wing has a deep irrational hatred for her. Even the moderate republicans hate her. She would draw votes from few middle of the roaders, and maybe even lose some democratic votes.

[spaniard]

6. you have statistical data to support those conclusions?

[shraby]

14. Don't need statistics to voice an opinion built

by reading what the right is saying.

[AZBlue]

25. Then do you have any links? (n/t)

[PassingFair]

32. PLUS, the dem base is not fond of her. (Understatement)

If she gets the nomination, I will vote for a viable 3rd party candidate. She will lose anyway, and I think the party needs a wake-up call.
Or a bucket of water thrown in its face.

Democrats are supposed to represent the PEOPLE.
Democrats are supposed to be Pro-Union.
Democrats are supposed to be for transparency in government.

[Moderate Donkey]

36. the often invoked yet undefinable "Dem base"

Who ARE they?

You mean when Democrats polled say Hillary is the front runner, the polling outfit didn't ask the "Dem base?"

If she gets the nomination, I will vote for a viable 3rd party candidate. She will lose anyway, and I think the party needs a wake-up call.
Or a bucket of water thrown in its face.

Mr. Nader... Ralphie... is that you?

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. Hillary's record regarding unions:

let me say that I am NOT a Hillary supporter as far as the nomination is concerned. The general election would be a different matter. I have a number of problems with Hillary regarding foreign policy, trade, her excessive friendliness with the world of corporate lobbyist and of course the Iraq war. And I think she is simply too polarizing a figure with strong negative ratings to be a good national candidate. But her union record is simply not that bad:

link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268&type=category&category=Labor&go.x=6&go.y=12

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Postal Workers Union 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004.

2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Clinton voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator Clinton voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Communications Workers of America 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 100 percent in 2003-2004.

[David Dunham]

5. Hillary is electable and could likely beat McCain

Hillary can pull a "Bush" and have other Dems suggest that McCain is unstable and unsure. Plus Hillary with have massive funding.

[BlueManDude]

38. The biggest backers of her candidacy are GOPers

because they know she is incapable of getting more than 40% of the vote.

[Tom Joad]

7. It's the war, stupid. That is the new campaign motto, and Hillary will

lose on that alone. There are other reasons, but it can start there.

[spaniard]

11. who's new campaign slogan?

the 2 percenters?

[Tom Joad]

29. The 60% of the public who oppose the war. Not to mention...

and this is most important really, the 90% of the Iraqi public who want the occupation to end.

The occupation is a war crime, after all.

[Moderate Donkey]

37. Are the "90% in Iraq" casting votes in 2008 for the US President?

And you know your 60% figure (the latest polling is 52%) is a bit subjective. We can both quote percentages - like the majority believing that the Iraq war contributed to the long-term security of the United States - 54% - and 60% believe the US should NOT set a deadline for withdrawal.

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. The Iraq polls nobody wants to talk about

link:

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m17469&date=05-nov-2005_03:09_ECT

"Some polls have asked Iraqis specifically about the presence of U.S. troops, and guess what: they want us to leave. A February poll by the U.S. military, cited by the Brookings Institution, found that 71 percent of Iraqis "oppose the presence of Coalition Forces in Iraq." This poll was taken only in urban areas, but others have found much the same sentiment. According to a January 2005 poll by Abu Dhabi TV/Zogby International, 82 percent of Sunni Arabs and 69 percent of Shiite Arabs favor the withdrawal of U.S. troops either immediately or after an elected government is in place."

and this one is a from the British Ministry of Defense

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/23/ixportaltop.html

"Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces."

[bowens43]

10. As Mark Twain once said:

"Only presidents, editors and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we'."


You imply that those who oppose Hillary are not pro-democracy?? Pretty arrogant of you.


Rather then make demands , try spending a little time here reading the posts.

[spaniard]

12. hey, Einstein - preach to Ken Burch in the other thread.

If you want your words to be credible.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

13. You've got it backwards

It is the job of a candidate (or ur-candidate or proto-candidate or pseudo-candidate or stealth candidate, or whatever) to convince the electorate to elect him/her. That duty extends to the candidate's supporters.

On a second level, you assume facts not in evidence. Maybe you've been listening to a little too much Rush Limbaugh and Ed Schultz. Opposing Hillary doesn't make one a member of the "leftist fringe."

Thirdly, for me, and only me, Hillary's inability to recognize what a horror she helped create in Iraq is a problem. Her position that we can "win" in Iraq is either naive, ignorant or Machiavellian in the extreme. I want none of those traits in a President. I also find it troubling that she was more than happy to attend the Goldman Sachs ground-breaking in NYC where the government gave away millions in corporate welfare, but couldn't be bothered to stand with the Transit Workers Union when they desperately needed her support. I stand with workers. Any candidate who won't is not entitled to my support.

Fourth, I am troubled by the fact that the Wrong-wing is apparently all set to pick a nominee for us. They want Hillary as the Democratic nominee like a hog wants a waller. An entire Repiglican industry is already in place to destroy her. What they did to John Kerry will look like child's play by comparison.

In closing, I will say that should my party, by some great failing, by some abject determination to lose again, nominate her for President in 2008, I will vote for her. I will grieve as I do so, knowing from the moment she is nominated that we are screwed.

I hope that answers at least some of your questions. I realize that I didn't completely abide by your frame, but then again, you don't get to do the framing.

On Edit: Welcome to DU! Many happy returns

[high density]

15. If you're talking about Hillary as Prez: No red states turned blue

Overall I have few problems with her as a senator (I'm not a constituent, anyway), but as a presidential candidate I don't see her turning any red states blue. If I recall the outcome of the 2004 election, this would mean that we'd have yet another Republican president in 2009. I think too often she appears to be pandering and that does annoy me, but 100% of politicians do it.

[dapper]

16. My 2 cents

She's popular here in NY (atleast in my neck of the woods) and I could find myself voting for her, of course that would depend on who is running against her. I do believe that people do paint a bad picture of her. There are things I don't trust about her (nothing I can say specifically) but I trust her more than I trust anyone in the Repug party.

Dap

[Greyhound]

47. Do you know any of the former IBM employees that were sold off

so that Tata could bring in their Indian replacements? If so, how did they feel about having to train their own replacements?
http://www.outsourcecongress.org/USA/tata/HillaryTCS.html

[dapper]

62. Let's roll back on that outsourcing.....

My company outsourced to IBM - I got my walking papers
IBM then outsourced to India because they were not making enough money off my previous company.

This happened at the worst friggin "employment" time.

What a nightmare!

Dap

[mandyky]

17. One term Senators don't get elected President

She has never held another office. I would prefer if she wanted to run for Prez she do another term in the Senate and then maybe Gov. of NY.

Hillary is low on my list of favorites for 2008, but I am not a detractor per say.

Other points in the op -

Evidence of RW - she was a Goldwater Girl in College, plus I hate the pandering.

As for electability and high polling numbers now, Joe Lieberman had high numbers prior to 2003. I am not anti-Clinton, although many in this country still are so I see that as a negative.

I have no idea about any candidates yet, it is way too early. I like Russ Feingold, but he too is a Senator. Mark Warner looks promising because he is a Southern Governor. I also think Bill Richardson will run, again, another Governor from a southwestern state.

I think the Democratic Party has more than Hillary to offer in 2008. Maybe even Switzer (Gov Montana) would run.

Right now, I am more interested in our ability to win back the House and/or Senate.

[AZBlue]

26. People who've NEVER been senator get elected President.

So I don't get this argument.

[mandyky]

35. Not recently

Eisenhower was a general, not sure if he'd been in any govt, before that.

It has been since Kennedy a Senator got elected.

[AZBlue]

60. Ooooh....I see what you're saying.

Sorry - I thought you meant she'd have to be a Senator a lot longer before anyone would consider her a good Pres candidate. Gotcha!

Seems to me that being a Governor is one of the best jobs to "qualify" someone for Pres - aside from international relations, they deal with a lot of the same issues, just on a smaller scale.

[enough already]

41. Senators don't get elected PERIOD

Nominating her is just suicide for this party.

[Crunchy Frog]

18. So, if I don't support Hillary Clinton for the nomination

it means that I'm not a "pro-democracy" type. Pretty sweeping statement of yours there.

I find her too right wing for my tastes. Her unequivocal support for the invasion of Iraq is really kind of a deal breaker for me. I'm sorry that I feel strongly about that, but I just do. I also find her to be excessively corporatist for my tastes.

I do happen to think that she's unelectable. Like it or not, she has been demonized by the right to the extent that large numbers of people reflexively regard her practically as the anti-Christ. There is nobody else who can mobilize the Republican base the way that she can. On the other hand, she does not do much to excite the Democratic base. Of course, the real test will come when she's actually up for election, and we will only know for sure that she is unelectable if she actually fails to get elected after getting the nomination. That's why I'm not prepared to make an absolute statement about her unelectability, but simply to give my own opinion based on my own impressions.

Under the current circumstances of Republican control of the media and the voting machines, I'm not certain that any Democrat at all is "electable", but there are quite a number who I think are more electable than she is. Ones who don't have her baggage. Ones who haven't been painted as the anti-Christ. Ones who don't automatically elicit a knee jerk reaction of absolute hatred from a sizeable portion of the American populace. Again, that's just my opinion. I may very well be wrong.

It would be great having a country run by the Clintons again. I just don't really see it happening.

I'm not asking anything at all from Hillary, but then again, I'm not offering her my support either. I do ask things of those I choose to support though; at a very minimum, a likelyhood that they could actually get elected and/or positions on issues of importance to myself that are reasonably close to my own. I don't believe that she does appeal to a wide portion of America, so that is a moot point as far as I'm concerned. Generally though, in order for me to support someone, he or she needs to appeal to me rather than to a hypothetical "wide portion of America".

I'm happy for you that you've found someone that you can support. I hope you can live with the fact that I don't share your sentiments. This is a diverse board and people on here need to develop a degree of tolerance for diverse opionions.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[HR_Pufnstuf]

21. Yea, let's keep the power consolidated to two families.

Yeah, that's a democracy!

1980 VP Bush
1984 VP Bush
1988 PRES Bush
1992 PRES Clinton
1996 PRES Clinton
2000 PRES Bush
2004 PRES Bush
2008 PRES Clinton
2012 PRES Clinton
2016 PRES Jeb Bush
2020 PRES Jeb Bush
2024 PRES Chelsea Clinton
2028 PRES Chelsea Clinton
2032 PRES Billy Bush
2036 PRES Billy Bush



Who do we pick in 2040?

[SONUVABUSH]

23. Forget it!

Forget about Hillary unless you want to lose in 2008.

[AZBlue]

27. Welcome to DU!

Thanks for taking on such a difficult subject!

[gulfcoastliberal]

28. I'm about to hit the hay but a couple of quick examples:

Anti-Worker/Union - Supports globalization, voted for CAFTA. Did not stand with the striking transit employees.

Pro-monopoly - favored the repeal of Glass-Steagall enabling mega mergers of banks and investment firms.

Citigroup is her biggest money back - Robert Rubin from the Clinton White House is a major exec there, further example of the incestuous revolving door of admin officials going from public service to private sector to lobby those in power.

Just google Hillary Clinton and Citigroup for a long list of egregious things.

Pro-war vote, slammed Murtha, alienating the base via bills such as making flag burning illegal. I've never burned a flag nor do i want to, but I do consider it to be freedom of speech. And making video games a central plank of her legislation when there is so much more important things going on makes me think she is a cynical person using wedge issues to divert attention from the REAL ISSUES that are tearing us apart.

Finally, the country has name-recognition fatigue, not to mention the pathological hatred that would galvanize the repukes against her for her prez. run.

Now I gotta get to sleep so I can't answer more of your question, but think about it. :hi:

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[clarknyc]

31. Hillary is my senator.

I want her to stay there. Is that a bad thing?

[IChing]

33. I want her to stay there too and work for NYers

And quit sending me her surveys and letters here in Kal i fornia.

2006 is the camel that will break my back for me,
the swearing in of a president in 2009 is too far away,
considering the escalating exponential damage this
republican junta is doing to this nation.

I have my own senator I care about and that is Barbara Boxer
who I get and send news letters and e-mails.
Hillary is not my type of democrat I want for president
but like I said 2006 it will make or break this nation.

[IdaBriggs]

39. I don't support dynasties. She was first lady....

and I don't want her to be President. I don't believe "immediate" family members of sitting Presidents should be allowed to run for office because it takes the focus off of their actual qualifications (see Bush Jr = none), and turns everything into a "name recognition" stunt. It concentrates power into too few hands. Period. These arguments trump all others for me, and I will *NOT* a bid by her for President.

And do not ask me if I would vote for her over another Bush because you will be making my point for me.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. We can do much, much better than Hillary

In 2008, we will need someone whom the Democratic activists, the ones who do all the door-knocking and phone-banking and money-forking-over, can be really excited about.

Hillary "fills me with inertia" as that great line from the original 1967 Bedazzled says.

By the way, all these "how about Hillary?" threads, sometimes two or three per day, coupled with the begging letters I get from her here in Minne-friggin'-sota, make me wonder if she has operatives on the Internet, trying to plant the idea in people's heads, or, alternatively, if Republicans are coming on and playing B'rer Rabbit with us.

[bvar22]

44. The Hillary camp followers ....

...and other Corporate Supremacists sure work hard.
I wonder how much it pays?



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

In EVERY case, "Barriers to Trade" and "Restrictions on Corporations" were created to protect something valuable!

[Douglas Carpenter]

57. well yes

I think it is more important in the long run to work on Congressional and other races.

[Armstead]

45. She is locked into the Corporate Conservative Mold

Hillary has the same problem as other "centrist" Democrats.

They are afraid or unwilling to challenge the right-wing view of economics that has dominated the political scene for the last 35 years. Instead of supporting any real reform, they are in bed with the Elite Status Quo instead of the majority of middle class and poor Americans.

They refuse to bvlow the whistle on the CON job that CONservatives have perpetuated on the American people. Hillarycrats are kinder and gentler than the GOP, but that is a smokescreen to the real problem which is real simple: POWER AND WEALTH IN THE US HAVE BECOME TOO CONCENTRATED. THE RICH ARE GETTING RICHER AT THE EXPENSE OF THE MAJORITY.

When and if Hillary starts to challenge that corporate status quo she might be a decent candidate. But so far, she is in the pocket of the same elites that control the GOP.

[bvar22]

46. *

:patriot:

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans,
family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."--- Senator Paul Wellstone

[Douglas Carpenter]

48. that is true...but

Who of any candidate who has any chance at all of being elected president in 2008 is going to challenge neo-liberal economic theory?

I don't simply don't foresee any potential Democratic nominee challenging corporate power. However if we can look at their records and proposals see that they are measurably better than the Republicans that still cashes out to feeding a lot of hungry mouths and averting a lot of suffering.

Perhaps this sounds like "lesser evil-ism". Maybe it is. But it also is saving hundreds of thousands--perhaps millions of lives.

_____________________


“Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.
_________________________________


2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Peace Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Peace Action 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.
______________________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
__________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95
percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 15 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 17 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Education Association 25 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 13 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 7 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 92 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 56 percent in 2003-2004

____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.”

[Armstead]

49. It's time to reject lesser evilism

This is IMO, but taking on a clearly liberal message and progressive positions as a basic platform is a way to enhance electability for Democrats.

People know they are being screwed. But they do not see enough coming from either party that really addresses those core problems, or actually protects their own interests. So they have either given up and become fatalistic and cynical, or they succumb to the phony pseudo-populism of the right wing.

A Democrat who proudly espouses policies of people like Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, Bernie Sanders and others who espouse clear Liberalism and/or Progressive Populism could win. All it takes is political skill and the courage to make that break from the Elite Status Quo.

[Douglas Carpenter]

51. I agree that can happen

But it does not appear likely that it will happen in 2008. And I certainly would not support Hillary in the primaries. So what do we do if we end up a with business as usual candidate? Allow a full fledged Republican to win? Even a DLC Democrat would make the difference of countless lives and hungry mouths and give us time to work for the long term agenda of economic democracy for America and self-determination for the world.

Please allow me to end with a 1996 quote from Noam Chomsky on why he was voting for the reelection of President Clinton and not for Ralph Nader.

from: Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky page 337

"I mean, I'll vote for Clinton, holding my nose--but the reason has nothing at all to do with big policy issues; there I can't see too much difference. What it has to do with are things like who's going to get to appoint the judiciary happens to have a big effect on people's lives....
They may be small policy differences when you look at the big picture--but remember, there's a huge amount of power out there, and small policy differences implementing a huge amount of power can make a big difference in people's lives....Okay, that makes a lot of difference for people whose kids are hungry in downtown Boston"

Of course that was in 1996. Since the first administration of Bush jr. it is clear that Dr. Chomsky considers the current Republican Party with its fundamentalist base and its influence on domestic policy and neoconservative influence on foreign policy to represent a significant departure from what had been bi-partisan consensus into a whole new and much more dangerous direction thus increasing the differences between the two parties.

[Armstead]

58. When it raches that final point, yes...but that's still a ways off

I would support Hillary over any Republican at the home stretch.

But I don;t believe at this point we have to surrennder. It is still possible for liberals and progressives to either: A)Push Hillary to become a REAL libral/progressive alternative instead of just another Democratic corporate conservative clone candidate and/or B)Find and encourage one or more viable primary candidates who will actually run on the platform of people like Wellstoe and Bernie.

In other words, we should not already have to give up and accept just another "lesser of evils" choice in 08. Times have changed, and IMO they are more condusive to a REAL contest betwee left and right.

[bvar22]

50. Not true!

"But it also is saving hundreds of thousands--perhaps millions of lives."

Not true.
Supporting this political strategy might benefit a handful of people in the immediate future, but it absolutely condemns the Working Class to an inevitable future of Indentured Servitude. This battle for the Working Class must be fought NOW!
Supporting a strategy that allows the Democratic Party to slide ever RightWard (because its better than Republicans) simply guarantees the descent into Fascism.

[Douglas Carpenter]

52. so which candidate do you support?

Believe me I would like to elect a genuine progressive too.

[bvar22]

54. You can find them at:

http://www.pdamerica.org/

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. they're great...I agree

are any of them running for President in 2008?

[bvar22]

56. Lets work on 2006.

2008 is still too far off to declare for any particular candidate.

I prefer to keep my options open.

[Douglas Carpenter]

53. super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name

Borrowed from:
LynnTheDem

______________________

a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman


Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml


The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

[rman]

67. Dare we say "progressive", or even the s-word...

"socialistic" - in that the super majority supports such socialist concepts as "universal" tax-funded basic health care, environmental protection, limits on corporate power, etc etc. Which doesn't necessarily mean people are "socialist" in the strict traditional sense of the word.

The Dems in the party know this (they read the polls, even the ones that don't get widely publicized), we know this (or many of us do), we know our representatives know this - but it looks as though they don't know that we know. Or at least they act like they don't know.

[MadHound]

59. Number one reason, the war

Also happens to be number 2-10. Sorry, but the majority of people in this country want us out of Iraq ASAP. Yet even after it has been proven time and again that the war is illegal, immoral, and a huge mistake, Hillary is still supporting it, and will continue to do so.

Thus, we will see a situation much like we did in '68, with two pro-war candidates running. And once again the Dems will lose because too many of their supporters are anti-war, and will either sit out '08, or vote third party.

Having a war pig run in a time when the majority of people are against the war is political suicide.

[election_2004]

63. How the Republicans would benefit from a Hillary presidency

Any victory Hillary squeaks out of the Electoral College will be accompanied by heavy Democratic losses in the red states. This will virtually guarantee that Republicans solidify their control of BOTH houses of Congress (reversing any gains potentially made by the Democrats in 2006).

With Hillary Clinton as the sole face of the Democratic Party, the GOP will get to whip up frenzy and paranoia against her during her presidential administration, setting the stage for sweeping GOP victories in 2010 and 2012 by piggybacking off of the anti-Hillary hysteria.

Her presidency would be the perfect distraction away from national discussion of the real issues.

[Ken Burch]

65. Well, clearly the Hillarosceptics have stated their case well here.

And most of the pro-Hillary posters have once again come off sounding like arrogant jerks.

[Douglas Carpenter]

70. ya, I'm beginning to wonder about their motives

I have tried very hard to argue from a progressive perspective why I think working in the Democratic Party is the realistic strategy to advance the progressive/populist agenda. But, no matter how conciliatory progressives try to be, we only get name-calling and attempts to marginalize popular opinion and grassroots organizing in return.

Since this is a distinctly progressive forum and the vast-majority of posters here are progressive, what is it they have in mind?

________________________________

Borrowed from:
LynnTheDem
a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman
Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml
The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

___________________________________

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. I see your point. but I have to counter-balance that with the realization

that with a Republican elected to the White House in 2008 we will almost certainly end up with a completely ultra-right dominated supreme court and court system that may take a generation to correct, not to mention countless other appointments to numerous high positions of power.

Now I certainly would not support her in the primaries. And I don't actually think she would be the strongest candidate available. But if it does happen--the general election is a completely different matter.

And a review of her record (as I mentioned above) will show that a Hillary presidency will mean significantly fewer hungry mouths and perhaps even bomb-incinerated bodies. If we have a Republican, what will happen to them?

Unfortunatley, I think it is highly unlikely that 2008 will see the election of a true progressive that will challenge the notion of corporate-dominance and global hegemony and along with it world hunger and poverty. To see that we will have to do a lot more work and wait a bit longer for another bright November day in hopefully the not too distant future.

[Jemmons]

66. Hillary will have propose a contract with potential voters

1)Because she is. And the contract she can make with the american people is one of more of what Bill Clinton did, which was and is right wing policy in action. Left wing policy does not sell tickets in the US.

2) The primary's will give you the first answer to whether she is electable or not. Apart from that I suspect that she is vulnerable to sexist prejudge. Not a good thing, but perhaps a fact.

3)As much as I admire the talent of Carville a presidency does not come down to managing the economy. Hillary would not make me un-comfy, but I have yet to se her emulate Bill Clinton's political skills. But please educate me.

4)Hillary will have propose a contract with potential voters that will make them want to go vote for her. Just like any other candidate.

[enough already]

69. I don't see anybody saying you can't support her

But many of us find it highly offensive that the so-called "mainstream" in this party have ordained her as the next candidate. I'll have nothing to do with her or anyone else in this party that supports the war in the primary or general. Feel free to knock your socks off and go down in flames with her.

[LWolf]

71. Do I have to have a "case"

to say that I'm not interested in Hillary? To be honest, I don't really give a shit whether or not you or anyone else thinks she's the greatest thing since sliced bread or the downfall of the party. I know I've never suggested that anyone should hate her. I don't need to make a case for my POV unless I am working to persuade you to change yours.

Is that why you asked the question? Because you have an honest desire for more information before forming your own POV? Or because you already have one and you are looking to change others'? Or looking for a fight? As a matter of fact, who the hell is "We?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket, or are you claiming to speak for other DUers?

For the record:

I don't give a flying fuck if you hate her or love her. I don't think your "place" is any different than any other human. I don't think anyone should be whining over whether or not DU is "fair" to her. What's "fair," in politics, is allowing everyone to form and act on their own POV.

My POV is not based on the 4 talking points you've given. I'm not supporting Hillary, regardless of how you argue them. Have at it.

[geiger]

72. Read Susan Estrich's new book: The Case for Hillary Clinton

or get a life