Hillary is our Presidential nominee in 2008, because the polls say so

[IndianaGreen]

Those that defend the actions of Schumer and Reid in sabotaging Paul Hackett's campaign for Senator, use internal polling data to justify the actions of the Beltway Democrats.

They prefer that Schumer and Reid chose the nominee rather than the voters in Ohio!

Well, the polls show that the Hillary is the leading contender for the 2008 nomination. Why bother with the primaries?

Hillary is our Presidential nominee, because the polls say so!

[MrBenchley]

1. You really seem to hate actual democracy

P.S.: Hackett quit. Nobody MADE him quit.

[IndianaGreen]

2. Your use of Newspeak is only outdone by the White House

Hackett's campaign was sabotaged when the Washington Democrats coerced and cajoled his donors into stopping the money flow.

[MrBenchley]

4. You can hide from the facts all you want...but Hackett QUIT

And for those who want to throw out mindless and silly epithets like DINO, let's not forget that Hackett was a Republican until very recently.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Shouldn't you be watching Fox News Live now?

Wes Clark was a Republican too!

[MrBenchley]

7. And so you have nothing but cheap slurs to show how "progressive" you are

[IndianaGreen]

9. You only get treated as you treat others n/t

:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

13. LOL! And so you have nothing but cheap slurs.....

[TayTay]

3. I agree with this.

Hackett could have stayed in the race or opted to run for the House seat he ran for last year.

[IndianaGreen]

So you prefer Schumer and Reid over the Ohio voters?

Why don't we ask Schumer and Reid who else they want to run in other states? Fuck the voters! Who needs them when we have such wise sages in Washington to tell us misguided peasants what to do.

[MrBenchley]

8. The Ohio voters wanted Brown, by 20 points...

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/12/12/brown_leads_hackett_in_senate_primary.html

[IndianaGreen]

10. Where was this election?

A poll is not an election!

[MrBenchley]

12. And Hackett QUIT.

[IndianaGreen]

15. and so did Lieberman in 2000!

Isn't Holy Joe one of your heroes?

[MrBenchley]

18. Hackett QUIT

Now go cry about your prima donna to somebody who gives a shit.

[TayTay]

16. Why didn't Mr. Hackett just stay in the race?

If he had the support that you say he had, then he could have run an insurgency campaign and taken the nomination away from Sherrod Brown. Why did he drop and why did he listen to Sens. Schumer & Reid?

[Hippo_Tron]

30. Because Hackett isn't a politician

Hackett could have put up a very impressive challenge against Brown, no doubt, but it would have been incredibly difficult to win the nomination with the amount of money that he had. In the end it would have just been wasted time for him because he isn't interested in fighting with Sherrod Brown or with Harry Reid or with Chuck Schummer. He's interested in fighting with the Republicans who started this war and the democratic party is a logical vehicle with which to do so. If they aren't going to help him then he isn't going to help them, bottom line.

[Totally Committed]

35. Also, I heard there were calls made to his backers,

who were asked to stop funding him, and his $$$ dried up. You can't run without $$$.

TC

[Hippo_Tron]

41. That's basically what I was saying

Running against Brown would have just been a futile attempt to do political pandering and fundraising which would have been even more difficult since Schummer told his backers to stop funding him. Hackett didn't want to spend his time fundraising to take on another democrat, especially one that basically agrees with him on almost everything, he wanted to spend his time telling the people of Ohio the truth about Bush and the Iraq War.

[BigYawn]

47. IG: although I am a centrist democrat, I also like the progressive wing

of our party where I presume you belong. This is a big tent
party. All are welcome.

However, I do not understand your avatar of Karl Marx. Are you
a communist sympathizer?

[MrBenchley]

5. Exactly....

Emanuel was trying to recruit him to run against Schmidt, but he spit the bit and ran back to the barn.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. He gave his word to the dems already running against Schmidt...

That he wouldn't enter the race. BTW If the DCCC had paid any attention to Hackett the first time he was running then we wouldn't even be having this discussion because Congressman Hackett would be kicking off his re-election campaign.

[Le Taz Hot]

11. and because that's the way the

beltway boys want it. Apparently the Democratic party will have to destroy itself first before we'll ever have REAL opposition in this country. 'Course, by that time it will be too late.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Sherrod Brown has impeccable progressive credentials, BUT...

that's not the issue here! The issue is that the Beltway Boys, as you called them, did not trust the Democrats in Ohio to make the choice between Brown and Hackett in the primary.

The underlying message is that the "Beltway Boys" think that those of us that live between the coasts are a bunch of ignorant peasants that cannot be trusted to pick the nominee for the Senate, or for President!

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Exactly

Just like in the presidential primaries... Dean wasn't really more liberal than Kerry but the party insiders liked Kerry and hated Dean.

[bush_is_wacko]

17. Well she won't get my vote. I'll vote for a third party candidate before

vote for her!

She may however get the vote of the baby boomer's 60+. I notice they seem to like her and with her health care agenda they NEED her right now. They are all getting a little upset over the latest changes to medicare and medicaid.

[MrBenchley]

19. Always nice to see the DINOs come out to pimp for third parties....

[IndianaGreen]

20. Looks like they are doing the same thing to save Lieberman!

Establishment Dems trying to protect Lieberman from a primary challenger:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2458941#2459069

[MrBenchley]

23. In other words, they actually want to vote for their own candidate

and not a Johnny-come-lately like Lamont nobody's ever heard of.

Oh, the humanity! (snicker). Imagine, actual Democrats in Connecticut wanting to support an actual Democrat instead of whathisnamewhocares.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Ned Lamont is a long time Democratic activist and Clinton fund raiser

Of course, don't let facts get in the way of one of your anti-progressive diatribes.

http://nedlamont.com/

[MrBenchley]

Dupe

[MrBenchley]

28. Geeze, weren't you ranting that Clinton was homophobic?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2458619#2458686

Guess either your zeal to push this obscure bobo Lamont puts you in bed with bigots, or else that charge was of a piece with all your other posts: i.e., worthless.

[IndianaGreen]

49. Must be nice to be hetero and not to worry about the effects of DOMA

It is the sexual version of being among the economic elites, don't you think?

[MrBenchley]

54. You mean like Neddy Lamont?

[Hippo_Tron]

38. This one is a bit more understandable...

The general trend of the establishment is that they want to protect their incumbents. It's funny though, because DeLay et al over on the GOP side do seem to enjoy pushing out their moderates using primary challengers.

That being said, I'm told that Lamont is a millionaire and thus can largely self finance. In that case, he can (AND DEFINATELY SHOULD) tell the establishment that he doesn't need their money or their support and that they can go fuck themselves.

[Totally Committed]

21. Well, Indiana Green....

if she or any other DLC sweetheart is the candidate, I am outta here, and you can take that to the bank.

Not a moment of my time and not a dime will she or any DLC-er get. Nada. And, I will stay home on election day for the first time in my life. And before all you who think that would ensure a Republican win... let me say this: If it comes down to a DLC candidate or a Republicand candidate in the White House, no matter who wins, a Republican will have won. Why even bother to go to the polls? There are better things I can do with my time and energy than cast my vote for yet another compromise to my dignity? Nuh-uh. Ain't gonna happen.

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

24. Several of the names in your sig line are not DLC

Some who are "DLC," OTOH, supported the filibuster. Perhaps you need a more effective way of determining which Democrats consistently support liberal values and which ones betray us. "DLC" is an artibrary label that says nothing about one's issue positions, and it means that you are willing to let three little letters do your thinking for you. Do your own research and find out who is worthy that way.

[Totally Committed]

33. I never claimed they were all DLC....

The DLC S U C K S. But if they laid down on the Alito filibuster, DLC or not, they S U C K, too.

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

37. Um, read verrrrry slowly over what I said to you again

I said, some who are "DLC" voted FOR the filbuster.

That means they supported it.

Get it? Supporting filibuster = a GOOD thing.

One of them - who, by the way, is FAR from a centrist - LED the filibuster. John Kerry. He stood up against Alito when NO ONE ELSE WOULD. Not Reid. Not Feingold. KERRY led the filibuster.

You need to evaluate candidates yourself instead of letting a list do your thinking for you.

[lojasmo]

53. Leading a doomed fillibuster....not brave, but politically expedient

Perhaps he'll be "electable" next time around.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. I completely agree with you on this

While I don't support the DLC and frankly think that Al From is GOP sympathizing slime, I think that it's totally unfair to lump all of its members together and throw a DINO label on them. If you look at the way that John Kerry votes compared to the way that Ben Nelson votes, there is absolutely no comparison, but they are both DLC.

On the other hand, Joe Biden is not a member of the DLC yet people somehow like to place that label on him because they assume that all people who agree with the other side on some key issues are DLC.

Personally I like the old fashioned way of looking at each individual candidate and also looking at their record as a whole and not just one or two votes or positions. That's how you really tell whether they are someone that you want to support or not.

[hippiechick]

22. um, no.

:puke: Another reason the grassroots really needs to get our shit together and not allow the election season to be pre-determined AGAIN.

[cyberpj]

26. Dems need an intelligent MILITARY MAN. Wes Clark for President.

[IndianaGreen]

29. Clark was a Republican!

That's the same meme that is being used against Hackett by those that support the actions of Mssers Schumer and Reid.

[Totally Committed]

34. Wes Clark was never a Republican...

Can we please put that lie to bed, once and for all? He declined to state a Party preference, as over 70% of the people who vote in Arkansas do.

He was never a registered Republican. Period.

TC

[BigYawn]

48. There are news video's of Clark raising $$ for republicans...

Are you then going to say they are fake?

Having said that, I do not doubt that Clark is now
a democrat. Just as a matter of principle I do not
trust switch hitters.

[IndianaGreen]

50. Clark is a Democrat, just like Hackett

The anti-Hackett crowd is the one that brought up the Republican meme.

[snowbear]

66. Clark was PAID to attend R & D events to speak ... SPEAK.. not raise $$

And if you knew anything about him "Big YAWN" you'd know that the ReTHUG's tried to run with a clip of him talking at a Republican event even though there were also countless clips of him doing the SAME THING at Democratic events!!

Why didn't the Rethugs run with the clips of him talking at Democratic events?

Because.. it wouldn't have fooled people like Big Yawn and Indiana Green!!

Wes Clark was a 4-Star General and NATO Commander. He was (and still is) in big demand to speak at all sorts of functions.

In the military, he was a registered Independent and never got involved in partisan poltics.

If they would have shown the tapes of him also speaking on behalf of Democratic based groups, none of you would still be making these ludicrous claims.

I have to say.. I'm not overly familiar with Big Yawn, but Indiana Green.. wow.. YOU!?!?!?

[politicasista]

27. It's too early for 2008. Worry about 2006 n/t

[wyldwolf]

39. no, she's the frontrunner because the polls say so, not the nominee

[wyldwolf]

40. why do you care? You're a green.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. That's the kind of attitude that will keeps the greens out of the party

The Greens care because they do realize that the democratic party can the be the vehicle for the most immediate change to this country. A Green Party candidate may have a chance at some point in time but not in 2008. The Green recognize this and if we nominate a candidate that appeals to them somewhat, then we will get their votes, because like everyone else, they are also interested in immediate change as well as long term change.

[wyldwolf]

43. Good.

We don't need greens in the party nor does the party need green candidates. But that's just my opinion.

It is also my opinion that people like IndianaGreen, who spend a great deal of time detratcting from and tearing down Democrats (notice, big "D"), should maybe either put more effort into their own party or be a little more civil so that Democrats (notice, big "D") actually want them in their fold.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Sorry, I was typing too fast to worry about caps

Look, here's what I know. I know that during midterm election years, the GOP makes an all out attempt to get the right wing of the country (the religious right) out to vote for GOP candidates because getting the base out is everything. I know that in recent midterm election years our base either seems to stay home or vote for third party candidates.

Frankly I would love to get anyone, green or democrat, who is unhappy with the party in power to come out and vote for democrats this Novemeber in order to get the Republican thugs out of power.

[IndianaGreen]

46. I am not a member of the bourgeois Green Party

anymore than you are part "wolf"!

[wyldwolf]

51. "bourgeois?"

ok...

[MrBenchley]

57. By the way, wyldwolf, I hope you're enjoying the irony

For months now we've been lectured by our "progressive purists" that "we" (snort, guffaw) must have a purge of the Democratic party to rid it of all that is not progressively pure.

And here we have PDA-approved Sherrod Brown beating the pants off Paul "Deport 'em all" Hackett, whose position on gun control and immigration is virtually indistinguishable from right wing turds like Tom Tancredo.

Hackett quits in a bust of Nixonian self-pity, blaming other Democrats for his failures.

And the "progressive purists" IMAGINE they've got the very purge they've been demanding and froth with rage over it.

It's enough to make one want to join the bourgeois green party (snicker)....

[wyldwolf]

59. Yes, I am.

You nailed it.

[MrBenchley]

60. It's also funny to hear some of the same folks wailing

that for some mysterious reason the Democrats they've spent all this time attacking don't care about their "input."

[wyldwolf]

61. I think David Sirota said it best...

(And I often disagree with Sirota because he is one of the biggest Democrat bashers around)

My guess is he saw his poor fundraising numbers, saw that he was going to get crushed in the primary, wanted the race handed to him, didn't feel like doing the hard, unglamorous work that candidates have to do in the modern era to be competitive, and got out.

That pretty much sums up the large percentage of the progressive-purist movement.

[MrBenchley]

62. Sirota nailed it there

and I agree with you overall on him....

By the way, did you think Hackett's departure statement sound a bit like "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore?" It sure carried echoes for me.

[wyldwolf]

63. yes it did

And something else that didn't escape me either during Hackett's House run - - - he was the type of Democrat the progressive-purists label "Dino" on a daily basis.

[MrBenchley]

64. Hilariously, the anti-DLC crowd are now screaming

that Sherrod Brown is too liberal to suit their tastes....

[LincolnMcGrath]

67. Bull

[SONUVABUSH]

45. Let's Lose Again!

A Hillary nomination is another sure loss!!

[Jacobin]

52. The dem 'leadership' is so far in over its head...

they are fucking clueless nitwits.

the only reason Hillary is first is because the 30 in the middle who haven't decided anything want Bill back and think Hillary would be Bill.

Hillary will be so savaged by election day that she won't be able to see straight.

This IDIOTS we have in control of our party....:puke:

[slide to the left]

55. My step grandmother

worked in the Clinton admin. A year and a half ago we all went to the Clinton Library when it opened and she had a Hillary 2008 pin. This was 2004.

[leesa]

56. Because the Corporate GOP/DLC and corporate media say so.

[LibDemAlways]

58. This far out before the 04 election, the polls showed

Lieberman as front runner - and the media touted him that way. Look what happened when Dems finally had a say. The "Joementum" was all bogus. Granted, Hillary has money and will have Bill's significant backing if she runs, but I don't get a lot of good vibes about support for her where it counts - among the rank and file. How she'd cobble together an electoral victory remains a mystery.

[laugle]

65. There's still plenty of time before the 2008 election...

but I say "GO HILLARY AND BILL" besides I miss DIRTY WHITTLE BILLY!!

Hillary can KICK ASS and she's qualified unlike the moron we have now!!